Preferred Options consultation document
Search representations
Results for Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk search
New searchComment
Preferred Options consultation document
MIN 77 - land at Runns Wood, south of Whin Common Road, Tottenhill
Representation ID: 99014
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
Summary
We note that the site is unsuitable for allocation due to the loss of a significant area of mature mixed deciduous woodland.
M77.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the amenity and health of local residents.
There is only one sensitive receptor within 250m of the site boundary, which is located 79m away. The settlement of Watlington is 368m away and Tottenhill is 414m away. We would require any planning application for mineral extraction at this site to include noise, dust, and air quality assessments, along with mitigation measures to minimise harmful emissions to air and address appropriately any human health or amenity impacts.
The control and mitigation of dust at this site should be discussed between the operator and the LA Environmental Health Department before an application is submitted. Matters that may need to be explored are:
* the existing dust climate at the locality;
* the need for, and scope of, a dust assessment study to be conducted by the operator prior to a detailed design.
* the potential for different site activities to emit dust and their relationship to residential properties and other sensitive uses;
* how the layout of the site could minimise impacts; and the proposed methods of mitigation and control of dust generating activities such as buffer zones.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
Boundary dust measurement may need to be conducted, due to the close proximity of residential properties to the proposed site, to ensure there are no breaches of national air quality objectives.
Without appropriate mitigation of air pollution from the site, human health could be impacted, thus making the site allocation unsuitable.
We welcome the comment in M77.3 that the Tottenhill sites would be worked sequentially to mitigate any cumulative impacts.
M77.2 Highway Access
The site would access the existing plant site via conveyor using the existing quarry access along Watlington Road for about 150 metres before reaching the roundabout for the A10/A134 (a designated lorry route). The site is not within an AQMA. As a proposed extension to an existing site, the number of vehicle movements is expected to remain the same but continue for a longer period. The estimated number of HGV movements is 40 per day.
Therefore a transport assessment should be undertaken which includes the extended traffic flow along Watlington Road and takes into account air quality implications for local residents as part of a planning application.
M77.14 Flood Risk
The site has a low risk of surface water flooding. There is a surface water flow path along the southern boundary of the site in a 1 in 30 year rainfall event which increases in size in a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 year rainfall event. As this is likely to be a proxy for fluvial flooding from the adjacent ordinary water course and the site is within the East of Ouse, Polver and Nar Internal Drainage Board area, their comments should be sought at any planning application stage.
M77.15 Hydrogeology
We have no concerns regarding groundwater contamination.
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
MIN 206 - land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill
Representation ID: 99015
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
M206.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential dwelling is 82m from the site boundary. There are 14 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary and 2 of these are within 100m of the site boundary. The settlement of Tottenhill is 82m away. Therefore, we would require any planning application for mineral extraction at this site to include noise, dust, and air quality assessments, plus mitigation measures to minimise harmful emissions to air and address appropriately any human health or amenity impacts. These should also take into account cumulative impacts from Min 77 and 74 where necessary.
The control and mitigation of dust at this site should be discussed between the operator and the LA Environmental Health Department before an application is submitted. Matters that may need to be explored are:
* the existing dust climate at the locality;
* the need for, and scope of, a dust assessment study to be conducted by the operator prior to a detailed design.
* the potential for different site activities to emit dust and their relationship to residential properties and other sensitive uses;
* how the layout of the site could minimise impacts; and the proposed methods of mitigation and control of dust generating activities such as buffer zones.
It must be ensured that in the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
Boundary dust measurement may need to be conducted, due to the close proximity of residential properties to the proposed site, to ensure there are no breaches of national air quality objectives.
Without appropriate mitigation of air pollution from the site, human health could be impacted, thus making the site allocation unsuitable.
We welcome the comment that the Tottenhill sites would be worked sequentially to reduce the impact of cumulative emissions.
M206.2 Highway Access
The site is adjacent to the existing plant site which would be accessed via conveyor. From the plant site the site would use the existing plant access, along Watlington Road for about 150 metres before reaching the roundabout for the A10/A134 (designated lorry route). The site is not within an AQMA. As a proposed extension to an existing site, the number of vehicle movements is expected to remain the same but continue for a longer period. The estimated number of HGV movements is 40 per day.
Therefore a transport assessment should be undertaken which includes the extended traffic flow along Watlington Road and takes into account air quality implications for local residents as part of a planning application. This should also take into account cumulative impacts from Min 77 and 74 where necessary.
M206.15 Flood Risk
The site has a low probability of surface water flooding, with one small location of surface water pooling in a 1 in 30-year rainfall event and a 1 in 100-year rainfall event. In a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event there are additional small areas of surface water pooling, so this should be considered within a surface water drainage scheme.
M206.16 Hydrogeology
We have no concerns regarding groundwater contamination.
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
MIN 32 - land west of Lime Kiln Road, West Dereham
Representation ID: 99016
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
Summary
We note the site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation because of the impacts on the landscape.
M32.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential property is 30m from the site boundary. There are 6 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary and four of these are within 100m of the site boundary. However, I note extraction is not proposed to the southern part of the site. Therefore the nearest residential property is 60m from the extraction area and there are 6 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area and two 100m. The settlement of West Dereham is 750m away. Therefore a planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include noise, dust, and air quality assessments, plus mitigation measures to minimise harmful emissions to air and address appropriately any human health or amenity impacts.
The control and mitigation of dust at this site should be discussed between the operator and the LA Environmental Health Department before an application is submitted. Matters that may need to be explored are:
* the existing dust climate at the locality;
* the need for, and scope of, a dust assessment study to be conducted by the operator prior to a detailed design.
* the potential for different site activities to emit dust and their relationship to residential properties and other sensitive uses;
* how the layout of the site could minimise impacts; and the proposed methods of mitigation and control of dust generating activities such as buffer zones.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
Boundary dust measurement may need to be conducted, due to the close proximity of residential properties to the proposed site, to ensure there are no breaches of national air quality objectives.
Without appropriate mitigation of air pollution from the site, human health could be impacted, thus making the site allocation unsuitable.
Additionally, the cumulative impacts of this site, WS6, and other nearby existing and potential extraction sites must be considered within any assessment.
M32.2 Highway Access
The site would use the existing quarry access onto Main Road, Crimplesham and then join the A134 Lynn Road (designated lorry route) at the existing junction. The site is not within an AQMA. As a proposed extension to an existing site, the number of vehicle movements is expected to remain the same but continue for a longer period. The estimated number of HGV movements is 32 per day.
Therefore a transport assessment should be undertaken which includes the extended traffic flow along Main Road and takes into account air quality implications for local residents as part of a planning application. Additionally the cumulative effects of traffic movements associated with WS6 should be taken into account.
M32.13 Flood Risk
The site has a low probability of surface water flooding, with a surface water flow path just encroaching the south of the site in a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event, so we have no concerns
M32.14 Hydrogeology
We have no concerns regarding groundwater contamination
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
MIN 40 - land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch
Representation ID: 99017
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
M40.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
There is a residential property within the site. The next nearest residential property is 23m from the site boundary. There are 88 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary and 25 of these are within 100m of the site boundary. The settlement of East Winch is 23m away. However, I have noted that the part of the site nearest to East Winch is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 84m from the extraction area and there are 54 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (three of these are within 100m of the extraction area).
A planning application for mineral extraction at this site must include noise, vibration, dust and air quality assessments, plus mitigation measures to minimise harmful emissions to air and address appropriately any human health or amenity impacts. Additionally the cumulative impacts of nearby allocations MIN06 and WS5 need to be included.
The control and mitigation of dust at this site should be discussed between the operator and the LA Environmental Health Department before an application is submitted. Matters that may need to be explored are:
* the existing dust climate at the locality;
* the need for, and scope of, a dust assessment study to be conducted by the operator prior to a detailed design.
* the potential for different site activities to emit dust and their relationship to residential properties and other sensitive uses;
* how the layout of the site could minimise impacts; and the proposed methods of mitigation and control of dust generating activities such as buffer zones.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
Boundary dust measurement may need to be conducted, due to the close proximity of residential properties to the proposed site, to ensure there are no breaches of national air quality objectives.
Without appropriate mitigation of air pollution from the site, human health could be impacted, thus making the site allocation unsuitable.
Additionally we welcome the requirement within Policy MIN 40 that a scheme of phased working should be submitted prior to development to aid in the mitigation of cumulative emissions.
M40.2 Highway Access
It is proposed that the site will be accessed via the established internal haul route through the existing adjacent extraction area. Mineral would be taken from the site to the processing plant at Leziate using the internal haul route. The majority of processed mineral will leave the processing plant through the onsite railhead. The road transport of mineral would leave the processing plant via the existing access onto Station Road. The site is not within an AQMA.
There is a potential for air quality impacts on residential amenity including air pollution emission from transportation and cumulative effects from Min 06 and WS5. These will need to be assessed within any planning application, given there may be an increase in vehicle movements, and mitigation methods identified, if appropriate.
M40.15 Flood Risk
The site has a low probability of flooding from surface water, with one small location of surface water pooling in a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event. We therefore have no concerns
M40.16 Hydrogeology
We have no concerns regarding groundwater contamination
M40.17 Water Framework Directive
I note that the potential exists for silt ingress to the Mintlyn Stream from material transported by HGV on the haul route, unless conditions are required. Due to the continued use of the existing haul route, the conditions regarding dust in relation to the haul route should be replicated in any future planning permission for MIN 40 to mitigate against watercourse contamination
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
SIL01 - land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey
Representation ID: 99018
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
S1.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential property is approximately 280 metres from the site boundary. Whilst adverse dust impacts from sand extraction sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities, we would ask for any planning application for mineral extraction at this site to include noise and dust assessments, to identify whether mitigation measures are required.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
Highway Access
The site is approximately 700 metres from the Leziate processing plant and the proposer of the site has indicated that it is intended that mineral will be transferred by conveyor to the processing plant. The proposed route of the conveyor should consider the proximity of residential receptors in order to plan the route least likely to impact on residents and, if necessary, include appropriate mitigation measures to limit disamenity and health impacts from dust, noise and vibrations.
Additionally, we welcome the requirement listed within SIL01 that a transport assessment will be submitted prior to development; this should take into account air quality impacts.
S1.13 Flood Risk
4% of SIL01 is at low risk of flooding from surface water and less than 1% is at medium risk of flooding from surface water. We would expect any planning application to include the submission of a surface water drainage scheme.
S1.14 Hydrogeology
Site SIL01 is located over a principal aquifer and partially over a secondary B aquifer; but it mainly overlays an unproductive secondary aquifer. There are no Groundwater Source Protection Zones within the proposed site. If extraction below the water table and/or dewatering is proposed we would expect a hydrogeological risk assessment to be carried out to identify potential risks and appropriate mitigation
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
AOS E - land to the north of Shouldham
Representation ID: 99019
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The area of search covers 815 hectares within the parishes of Wormegay, Shouldham, Marham and Shouldham Thorpe. The nearest residential property is approximately 250 metres from the AOS boundary. The settlements of Shouldham and Wormegay are 250 metres from the boundary of the AOS. A planning application for mineral extraction within AOS E would need to include noise and dust assessments along with mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts from noise and dust.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
E.1 & E.2 Highway Access
The route from the AOS to the Leziate processing plant would be expected to be north along A134 and A10 and A149, before turning east onto the B1145. From the B1145 the preferred access to the Leziate processing plant would be an off-road route turning right off the B1145 before Bawsey and utilising the existing track and/or conveyor route through the existing mineral workings at Mintlyn to access Station Road and the processing plant south of Brow of the Hill. Utilising an off-road haul route would avoid lorries accessing the processing plant via Brow of the Hill, Fair Green or Middleton and would therefore mitigate amenity impacts, so this is something we would welcome, assuming there would be no negative impact on residents from the off-road route.
To establish this, a transport assessment should be conducted which includes air quality impacts including dust from haulage. Additionally the cumulative air quality impacts of AOS F, AOS I and AOS J along the A10, A149, A134 and B1145 need to be established.
E.15 Flood Risk
7% of AOS E is at low risk of flooding from surface water and 2% is at medium or high risk of flooding from surface water. The AOS is within the 'East of Ouse, Polver and Nar' Internal Drainage Board Area who would provide comment on the surface water drainage scheme we would expect to be submitted with a planning application.
E.16 Hydrogeology
If extraction below the water table and/or dewatering is proposed, we would expect a Hydrogeological Risk Assessment identifying potential risks and appropriate mitigation to be submitted with any planning application.
E.17 Water Framework Directive
The northern part of the AOS drains to the River Nar so a future planning application will need to assess the potential for impacts on the River Nar, including from silt ingress and modification, and propose appropriate mitigation to prevent unacceptable adverse impacts.
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
AOS F - land to the north of Stow Bardolph
Representation ID: 99020
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
F.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential property is approximately 250 metres from the AOS boundary. There are 16 sensitive receptors located 250m from the AOS boundary. The settlements of Stow Bardolph and South Runcton are 250 metres from the AOS boundary. Therefore we would expect a planning application for mineral extraction within AOS F to include noise and dust assessments, including mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
F.2 Highway Access
The area of search is located on the A10, and the route would end up at the B1145. From the B1145 the preferred access to the Leziate processing plant would be an off-road route turning right off the B1145 before Bawsey and utilising the existing track and/or conveyor route through the existing mineral workings at Mintlyn to access Station Road and the processing plant south of Brow of the Hill. Utilising an off-road haul route would avoid lorries accessing the processing plant via Brow of the Hill, Fair Green or Middleton and would therefore mitigate amenity impacts, so this is something we would welcome, assuming there would be no negative impact on residents from the off-road route.
Additionally a transport assessment including air quality impacts should be submitted as part of a future planning application for this site. Furthermore the cumulative air quality impacts of AOS E, AOS I and AOS J along the A10, A149, A134 and B1145 need to be established.
F.12 Flood Risk
4% of AOS F is at low risk of flooding from surface water and less than 1% is at medium or high risk of flooding from surface water. There is a surface water flow path east-west across the southern land parcel of AOS F in a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event. We would welcome the submission of a surface water drainage scheme with any planning application
F.13 Hydrogeology
If extraction below the water table and/or dewatering is proposed, a hydrogeological risk assessment (identifying potential risks and appropriate mitigation) should be submitted with any planning application.
F.14 Water Framework Directive
Mineral extracted from AOS F likely to be transported by road to the existing processing plant at Leziate, will have to cross the Polver Drain on the A10 at Setchey. Appropriate mitigation should be put in place to ensure that no unacceptable impacts to the drain or the river occur, including from silt ingress and fugitive dust emissions. A dust assessment would also be required at the planning application stage.
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
AOS I - land to the east of South Runcton
Representation ID: 99021
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
I.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential property is approximately 250 metres from the AOS boundary and there are seven sensitive receptors located 250m from the AOS boundary. A planning application would need to include noise and dust assessments and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
I.2 / 1.3 Highway Access
Sand extracted would be taken to the processing plant at Leziate, access to which would be an off-road route turning right off the B1145 before Bawsey and utilising the existing track and/or conveyor route through the existing mineral workings at Mintlyn to access Station Road and the processing plant south of Brow of the Hill. Utilising an off-road haul route would avoid lorries accessing the processing plant via Brow of the Hill, Fair Green or Middleton and would therefore mitigate amenity impacts, so this is something we would welcome, assuming there would be no negative impact on residents from the off-road route. This should be determined through a transport assessment including air quality impacts.
Furthermore the cumulative air quality impacts of AOS E, AOS F, and AOS J along the A10, A149, A134 and B1145 need to be established.
I.12 Flood Risk
8% of AOS I is at low risk of flooding from surface water, 4% is at medium risk and 3% is at high risk of flooding from surface water. There is a surface water flow path across the south-western part of the AOS. We would welcome the submission of a surface water drainage scheme with any planning application.
I.13 Hydrogeology
Proposed extraction below the water table and/or dewatering should be accompanied by a hydrogeological risk assessment to identify potential risks and appropriate mitigation.
I.14 Water Framework Directive
Mineral extracted from AOS F likely to be transported by road to the existing processing plant at Leziate, will have to cross the Polver Drain on the A10 at Setchey. Appropriate mitigation should be put in place to ensure that no unacceptable impacts to the drain or the river occur, including from silt ingress and fugitive dust emissions. A dust assessment would also be required at the planning application stage.
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
AOS J - land to the east of Tottenhill
Representation ID: 99022
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
J.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential property is approximately 250 metres from the AOS boundary and the settlement of Tottenhill is less than 300 metres from the boundary of the AOS. We would welcome the submission of noise and dust assessments, including mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts, with any planning application.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
J.2/J.3 Highway Access
Access from AOS J could be via the southern track onto the A134. A dedicated access could also be created to the A134, or the A10 to the west. Such routes to the main roads should consider the proximity of residential receptors and provide appropriate mitigation from noise and dust. Sand extracted would be taken to the processing plant at Leziate, access to which would be an off-road route turning right off the B1145 before Bawsey and utilising the existing track and/or conveyor route through the existing mineral workings at Mintlyn to access Station Road and the processing plant south of Brow of the Hill. Utilising an off-road haul route would avoid lorries accessing the processing plant via Brow of the Hill, Fair Green or Middleton and would therefore mitigate amenity impacts, so this is something we would welcome, assuming there would be no negative impact on residents from the off-road route.
Additionally we welcome the requirements listed within Policy MP13 that a transport assessment is submitted along with a comprehensive phased working scheme to mitigate cumulative emissions from the extraction of AOS E, AOS F, AOS I, and AOS J.
J.13 Flood Risk
9% of AOS J is at low risk of flooding from surface water, 4% is at medium risk and 1% is at high risk of flooding from surface water. There is an area of surface water pooling in a 1 in 30-year rainfall event, which increase in size in a 1 in 100-year rainfall event and a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event. There is also a surface water flow path through the AOS in a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event. We would welcome the submission of a surface water drainage scheme with any planning application
J.14 Hydrogeology
Proposed extraction below the water table and/or dewatering should be accompanied by a hydrogeological risk assessment to identify potential risks and appropriate mitigation
J.15 Water Framework Directive
Mineral extracted from AOS F likely to be transported by road to the existing processing plant at Leziate, will have to cross the Polver Drain on the A10 at Setchey. Appropriate mitigation should be put in place to ensure that no unacceptable impacts to the drain or the river occur, including from silt ingress and fugitive dust emissions. A dust assessment would also be required at the planning application stage.
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Comment
Preferred Options consultation document
SIL02 - land at Shouldham and Marham
Representation ID: 99023
Received: 30/10/2019
Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
Summary
We note that the site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation due to the size of the extraction site proposed and the proximity to RAF Marham, posing a high risk of unacceptable adverse impacts on aviation safety.
S2.1 Amenity
The site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 which can affect the health and amenity of local residents.
The nearest residential property is 81m from the site boundary. There are 10 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. The settlement of Marham is 430m away. I note the land nearest to Marham is not proposed to be extracted and there is a suggested buffer area around the rest of the site boundary. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 280m from the extraction area and there are no sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area. We would still welcome noise dust and air quality assessments with mitigation measures as appropriate.
The control and mitigation of dust at this site should be discussed between the operator and the LA Environmental Health Department before an application is submitted. Matters that may need to be explored are:
* the existing dust climate at the locality;
* the need for, and scope of, a dust assessment study to be conducted by the operator prior to a detailed design.
* the potential for different site activities to emit dust and their relationship to residential properties and other sensitive uses;
* how the layout of the site could minimise impacts; and the proposed methods of mitigation and control of dust generating activities such as buffer zones.
It must be ensured that the preparation or use of the site will not result in an exceedance of the national air quality objectives, or an AQMA may need to be declared.
Boundary dust measurement may need to be conducted, due to the close proximity of residential properties to the proposed site, to ensure there are no breaches of national air quality objectives.
Without appropriate mitigation of air pollution from the site, human health could be impacted, thus making the site allocation unsuitable.
S2.2 Highway Access
I note the proposer of the site has suggested that mineral could be transported to the processing plant at Leziate by pipeline, although the proposed route of the pipeline has not been provided. The HGV route to the processing plant at Leziate would involve crossing the River Nar requiring measures to mitigate potential silt ingress into the watercourse. I also note it is unlikely that existing highways between the site and the processing plant could be suitably improved, so the construction of an off-highway haul route would probably be necessary. Careful planning of the route and a subsequent transport assessment would be required to avoid any adverse health impact on residents, taking into account air pollution and dust from haulage.
S2.17 Flood Risk
The area has a low risk of surface water flooding with a few locations of surface water pooling, mainly in the south of the site, in a 1 in 30-year rainfall event. There are additional locations of surface water pooling in a 1 in 100-year rainfall event. The number of locations of surface water pooling increase significantly in a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event and there are a number of surface water flow paths in the southern part of the proposed area. We would welcome the submission of a surface water drainage scheme with any planning application, which can also be assessed by the East of Ouse, Polver and Nar IDB as the site lies within their area.
S2.18 Hydrogeology
The site is located over a principal aquifer (bedrock) and partially over a Secondary A aquifer (superficial deposits). The eastern part of the site is within groundwater Source Protection Zone 1, however, I note this has been excluded from the proposed extraction area. The rest of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ. I note the Environment Agency have stated that the site would need to be worked wet without any dewatering and that the proposer of the site has indicated that extraction could be via wet suction dredging. Any planning application would need to include a Hydrogeological Risk Assessment to identify any potential impacts to groundwater along with appropriate mitigation measures
S2.19 / S2.20 / S2.21 / S2.24 Water Framework Directive
The Nar is adjacent to part of the northern boundary of the site. As the site proposers have submitted a smaller extraction zone providing a standoff area between the proposed extraction and the River Nar, there is no potential impact to the Nar. The Fourteen Foot Drain bisects the proposed extraction area, flowing eastwards into the Polver Drain which in turn flows into the Relief Channel. We welcome any future planning application carrying out an assessment of the potential for impacts on these waterbodies, and identifying appropriate mitigation to prevent unacceptable adverse impacts. With the groundwater level in mineral workings in this area being several metres below ground level, we agree that the screening bunds forming part of mineral extraction sites would form a barrier preventing any flow moving down slope until infiltration took place. In the same vein, the proposed standoff area between the extraction area and the embankment would also provide an opportunity for any flows to infiltrate. We welcome the submission of a dust assessment with any planning application.
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.
Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.
Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.
Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.
Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019
Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework
Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.
Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.
Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.
[see attached table for comments on individual sites]
