Preferred Options consultation document

NORFOLK MINERALS & WASTE LOCAL PLAN REVIEW PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF JG STEWARD TRUST
SITE MIN 79

I am writing to you on behalf of the J G Steward Trust, owners of the land at Dunston which was previously allocated as MIN79 in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan initial consultation document June to August 2018. This allocation has been removed from the latest Preferred Options document, and I am writing to make the case that this should be reinstated for the following reasons: -
1. History
Within the previous Mineral Local Plan it was stated that MIN79 would be worked with MIN80 to the north, with the transportation of the mineral to the processing plant owned by another landowner and operated by Tarmac. However, Tarmac have not been able to reach agreement with that owner for the processing of mineral on their land, and on this basis the land was deallocated.
There is however an alternative independent access route to the A 140 and the ability to process the mineral on site. I attach a plan showing the area of MIN79 in yellow. The haulage route is shown in orange. The processing plant area is shown in pink, and the main mineral extraction area is shown edged in red.

2. Mineral Reserve
A geological report was carried out in 2003 by Lafarge (now Tarmac) showing the main area of mineral reserve within the area edged red on the attached plan. The mineral reserve extends to 1.76 million tonnes of gravel. In addition, this will create a void of approximately 600,000 cubic metres which will be infilled with inert material.

3. Landscape
The site is not located in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Core River Valley or any other designated landscape feature.
The site is currently in agricultural use and classified as Grade 3 under the Agricultural Land Classification Scheme.
In 2001 advanced tree planting was carried out to screen the proposed mineral operation from neighbouring properties.

4. Historic Element
This has been carefully assessed in the past and described in detail in the previous Mineral & Waste Local Plan initial consultation in 2018. It is accepted that a planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a Heritage Statement to identify heritage assets and their settings, assess the potential for impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures if required.

5. Archaeology
This has been carefully assessed in the past and described in detail in the previous Mineral & Waste Local Plan initial consultation in 2018.
It is accepted that the archaeology assessments may initially be desk- based but may need to be followed up with field surveys and trial- trenching.

6. Restoration
The site is proposed to be restored mainly to agriculture. Preferred restoration would include wide field margins and enhanced deciduous woodland belts. Due to the expected depth of extraction, it is recognised that restoration to arable is likely to require the use of imported inert material to provide a suitable profile.

7. Conclusion
This is a valuable mineral resource and the reason that MIN79 was deallocated from the previous plan was because it was no longer possible to transport the mineral for processing on the neighbouring property, however there is a feasible alternative to process and transport mineral directly east to the A140, as shown on the plan, and for this reason we believe this should be included in the Mineral Plan.