Initial Consultation document
Search representations
Results for Beetley parish council search
New searchComment
Initial Consultation document
Question 40: Proposed site MIN 12
Representation ID: 92142
Received: 13/08/2018
Respondent: Beetley parish council
Agent: Mr B Leigh
The Parish Council agrees with the initial assessment.
This would be another extension to the existing quarry in East Bilney and the conveyor belt, which is currently being extended to the site to the north which has been granted permission, could be extended to this site. This would not increase HGV movements as all would continue to access and egress the existing processing plant. Provided adequate mitigation measures are specified during extraction there would be minimal impact to Beetley.
The Parish Council agrees with the initial assessment.
This would be another extension to the existing quarry in East Bilney and the conveyor belt, which is currently being extended to the site to the north which has been granted permission, could be extended to this site. This would not increase HGV movements as all would continue to access and egress the existing processing plant. Provided adequate mitigation measures are specified during extraction there would be minimal impact to Beetley.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 41: Proposed site MIN 51 & MIN 13
Representation ID: 92143
Received: 13/08/2018
Respondent: Beetley parish council
Agent: Mr B Leigh
At the previous Minerals and Waste Framework both sites were assessed as not suitable. No mention is made of a processing plant on site if sited there would be two plants in close proximity. This would not be acceptable. If no processing pant is to be sited at these sites then gravel extraction will have to be transported. The C225 is not suitable for this and the B1146 is not guaranteed to be used. The Parish Council feels that the cumulative effect of these two sites plus MIN12 would not be acceptable.
The initial conclusion is not agreed with.
At the previous Minerals and Waste Framework both sites were assessed as not suitable. No mention is made of a processing plant on site if sited there would be two plants in close proximity. This would not be acceptable. If no processing pant is to be sited at these sites then gravel extraction will have to be transported. The C225 is not suitable for this and the B1146 is not guaranteed to be used. The Parish Council feels that the cumulative effect of these two sites plus MIN12 would not be acceptable.
The initial conclusion is not agreed with.
Comment
Initial Consultation document
Question 42: Proposed site MIN 08
Representation ID: 92144
Received: 13/08/2018
Respondent: Beetley parish council
Agent: Mr B Leigh
The Parish Council agrees with the initial conclusion that this site is not suitable for allocation for all the same reasons as MIN51 and MIN13.
The Parish Council agrees with the initial conclusion that this site is not suitable for allocation for all the same reasons as MIN51 and MIN13.
