Preferred Options consultation document

Please find below the response to the Waste and Mineral Local Plan Consultation from Gressenhall Parish Council:

1. You have kindly drawn our attention to the consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
2. This response is on behalf of Gressenhall Parish Council whose interest is in MIN12; MIN13; MIN51 and MIN08.
3. We note that MIN12 is put forward by Middleton Aggregates as an extension to their existing operation which will take mineral back to their long established plant site due north of Gressenhall Village. We note that this has estimated minerals of well in excess of 1million tonnes and that this allocation will enable the Middleton Aggregates pit to continue to be served well beyond the plan period to 2036. As such we do not have an objection with this allocation.
4. MIN13 and MIN51 have been put forward by a different mineral operator on the basis that the new operator would need to establish its own plant on site.
5. Given that Middleton Aggregates are operating a pit immediately next door and mindful also of the existence of a second independent mineral operator namely McLeod Aggregates who are based approximately 2 miles away on the western side at Bittering, we see no case whatsoever for the introduction of a third operator in this location.
6. By definition there is plenty of competition in existence already with two operators able to service the local market and we see no case for that situation changing. Accordingly we object to the application of MIN13 and MIN51 within the Local Plan.
7. With regard to MIN13 and MIN51, we note the National Planning Practice Guidance which considers the circumstances under which it is appropriate for planning authorities to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than new sites.
This guidance goes on to identify the need for the mineral in the specific representation; the economic considerations; the positive and negative environmental impact; and accumulative impact of proposals in an area.
8. We consider that the NPP guidance as set out above therefore fully supports our contention that you should support MIN12 but reject MIN13 and MIN51.
9. Immediately due south of MIN13 and MIN51 is an allocation referred to as MIN08 which we understand has been put in by the landowner. This site does include land owned by the Gressenhall Poors Charity and the extent of the Charity's ownership is shown on the enclosed plan being towards the northern end of MIN08.
10. Gressenhall Poors Charity has made no representation to the Minerals Local Plan and no doubt the Trustees of that Charity will write and confirm this point to you.
11. Notwithstanding that point, we object strongly to the allocation of MIN08 in principle since it is wholly premature and far too close to the village of Gressenhall to be appropriate.
12. We question whether there is sufficient mineral within the field to justify extraction but in any event it is most certainly premature but it is also inappropriate mindful of its location.

Please find below the response to the Waste and Mineral Local Plan Consultation from Gressenhall Parish Council:

1. You have kindly drawn our attention to the consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
2. This response is on behalf of Gressenhall Parish Council whose interest is in MIN12; MIN13; MIN51 and MIN08.
3. We note that MIN12 is put forward by Middleton Aggregates as an extension to their existing operation which will take mineral back to their long established plant site due north of Gressenhall Village. We note that this has estimated minerals of well in excess of 1million tonnes and that this allocation will enable the Middleton Aggregates pit to continue to be served well beyond the plan period to 2036. As such we do not have an objection with this allocation.
4. MIN13 and MIN51 have been put forward by a different mineral operator on the basis that the new operator would need to establish its own plant on site.
5. Given that Middleton Aggregates are operating a pit immediately next door and mindful also of the existence of a second independent mineral operator namely McLeod Aggregates who are based approximately 2 miles away on the western side at Bittering, we see no case whatsoever for the introduction of a third operator in this location.
6. By definition there is plenty of competition in existence already with two operators able to service the local market and we see no case for that situation changing. Accordingly we object to the application of MIN13 and MIN51 within the Local Plan.
7. With regard to MIN13 and MIN51, we note the National Planning Practice Guidance which considers the circumstances under which it is appropriate for planning authorities to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than new sites.
This guidance goes on to identify the need for the mineral in the specific representation; the economic considerations; the positive and negative environmental impact; and accumulative impact of proposals in an area.
8. We consider that the NPP guidance as set out above therefore fully supports our contention that you should support MIN12 but reject MIN13 and MIN51.
9. Immediately due south of MIN13 and MIN51 is an allocation referred to as MIN08 which we understand has been put in by the landowner. This site does include land owned by the Gressenhall Poors Charity and the extent of the Charity's ownership is shown on the enclosed plan being towards the northern end of MIN08.
10. Gressenhall Poors Charity has made no representation to the Minerals Local Plan and no doubt the Trustees of that Charity will write and confirm this point to you.
11. Notwithstanding that point, we object strongly to the allocation of MIN08 in principle since it is wholly premature and far too close to the village of Gressenhall to be appropriate.
12. We question whether there is sufficient mineral within the field to justify extraction but in any event it is most certainly premature but it is also inappropriate mindful of its location.

Please find below the response to the Waste and Mineral Local Plan Consultation from Gressenhall Parish Council:

1. You have kindly drawn our attention to the consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
2. This response is on behalf of Gressenhall Parish Council whose interest is in MIN12; MIN13; MIN51 and MIN08.
3. We note that MIN12 is put forward by Middleton Aggregates as an extension to their existing operation which will take mineral back to their long established plant site due north of Gressenhall Village. We note that this has estimated minerals of well in excess of 1million tonnes and that this allocation will enable the Middleton Aggregates pit to continue to be served well beyond the plan period to 2036. As such we do not have an objection with this allocation.
4. MIN13 and MIN51 have been put forward by a different mineral operator on the basis that the new operator would need to establish its own plant on site.
5. Given that Middleton Aggregates are operating a pit immediately next door and mindful also of the existence of a second independent mineral operator namely McLeod Aggregates who are based approximately 2 miles away on the western side at Bittering, we see no case whatsoever for the introduction of a third operator in this location.
6. By definition there is plenty of competition in existence already with two operators able to service the local market and we see no case for that situation changing. Accordingly we object to the application of MIN13 and MIN51 within the Local Plan.
7. With regard to MIN13 and MIN51, we note the National Planning Practice Guidance which considers the circumstances under which it is appropriate for planning authorities to focus on extensions to existing sites rather than new sites.
This guidance goes on to identify the need for the mineral in the specific representation; the economic considerations; the positive and negative environmental impact; and accumulative impact of proposals in an area.
8. We consider that the NPP guidance as set out above therefore fully supports our contention that you should support MIN12 but reject MIN13 and MIN51.
9. Immediately due south of MIN13 and MIN51 is an allocation referred to as MIN08 which we understand has been put in by the landowner. This site does include land owned by the Gressenhall Poors Charity and the extent of the Charity's ownership is shown on the enclosed plan being towards the northern end of MIN08.
10. Gressenhall Poors Charity has made no representation to the Minerals Local Plan and no doubt the Trustees of that Charity will write and confirm this point to you.
11. Notwithstanding that point, we object strongly to the allocation of MIN08 in principle since it is wholly premature and far too close to the village of Gressenhall to be appropriate.
12. We question whether there is sufficient mineral within the field to justify extraction but in any event it is most certainly premature but it is also inappropriate mindful of its location.