Preferred Options consultation document

Search representations

Results for South Norfolk District Council search

New search New search

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

MIN 212 - land south of Mundham Road, Mundham

Representation ID: 99050

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

MIN 212 at Mundham - The relationship between the site and the processing plant seems to be quite poor, although it is acknowledged that the number of movements are relatively small and this is an existing route. The proposal includes increased bunding to screen the minerals workings, but doesn't indicate if that would be acceptable in terms of the landscape character type within which the site is located.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

MIN 25 - land at Manor Farm (between Loddon Road and Thorpe Road), Haddiscoe

Representation ID: 99051

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

MIN25 at Haddiscoe - the site is very close to the nearest dwelling and the village generally, it would seem to be quite a significant site in terms of volume of material to be extracted, number of lorry movements etc. (we note there is a balance to be struck between length of extraction time and daily vehicle movements, to address concerns raised by the previous refusal of permission). Is there any scope to reduce the extent of the site, moving the boundary away from nearby dwellings and/or phasing the extraction as part of any mitigation? This, along with the impact on the Grade I Listed church and the visual impact of the proposed bunding, was a concern that South Norfolk Council raised in respect of the previous application on this site. In addition, the landscape assessment refers to mature screen planting, it would be useful if retention of this was picked up in the Initial Conclusion.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Policy WP16: Design of waste management facilities

Representation ID: 99052

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

WP16 - This seems to overlap with MW2 and MW3; therefore, would this policy be better placed in the General Policies part of the Plan, and used to cover waste and minerals proposals?

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

1. Introduction

Representation ID: 99053

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

Thank you for your recent consultation on the above document. Having reviewed the consultation documents, we are pleased to note that the previous comments made by South Norfolk Council in relation to Policies WP7 and WP15 have been incorporated into the updated document. However, we also note that the other amendments suggested in our response to the Initial Public Consultation (dated 13 August 2018) have not been included within the latest version of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. We therefore wish to reiterate these comments and have again attached them to this consultation response for your ease of reference.

In addition to the above general comment, our Environmental Health colleagues have expressed their support for the submission of noise and dust assessments and mitigation measures to deal with the amenity impacts of planning applications for mineral extractions.

This is due to the proximity of existing residential properties to proposed mineral extraction sites within South Norfolk and the potential for these properties to be affected, particularly by noise and dust.

In a number of places policies are worded as aspirations, rather than requirements, consideration should be given to moving such wording to the supporting text, or strengthening the wording in the policy itself.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria

Representation ID: 99054

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

Several policies concerning particular development types refer back to 'General' Policy MW2; whilst the reason for this is understood, there are a number of other general policies (e.g. MW3 and MW4) that might be equally applicable across a range of development types, but may get overlooked when development specific policies just refer back to MW2. As the policies in the plan should be read as a whole, is it necessary to have the references back to the general Development Management policies?

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Policy WP3: Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities

Representation ID: 99055

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

WP3 - in the list of potentially suitable land uses, 'within or adjacent to agriculture and forestry buildings' would appear to open up a wide range of sites to possible consideration, although it is understood that sites would need to meet the requirements of the general policies too. Permitted Development also opens up the scope for new build agricultural buildings, with relatively little input from the local planning authority. Consequently, could clause d) be caveated 'appropriately located' and 'in established use'?

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Policy WP2: Spatial strategy for waste management facilities

Representation ID: 99056

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

WP2 - it is not entirely clear what the first part of this policy is seeking to achieve; if it is seeking sustainable locations within easy reach of centres of population (particularly those that the proposed facilities are serving), the text may need to be expanded to better reflect this.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Policy MW6: Agricultural soils

Representation ID: 99057

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

MW6 - would be more effective if it set out a hierarchy that sought development on the lowest grade of agricultural land first.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Policy WP4: Recycling or transfer of inert construction, demolition and excavation waste

Representation ID: 99058

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

WP4, WP5, WP7 etc. - a number of policies refer back to WP3 stating that proposals 'may be acceptable on land within the identified uses in', the Policy could be more effective as 'will not be acceptable outside of land identified in'.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Policy WP5: Waste transfer stations, materials recycling facilities, ELV facilities and WEEE recovery facilities

Representation ID: 99059

Received: 23/10/2019

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

WP4, WP5, WP7 etc. - a number of policies refer back to WP3 stating that proposals 'may be acceptable on land within the identified uses in', the Policy could be more effective as 'will not be acceptable outside of land identified in'.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.