Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Comment

Representation ID: 99346

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

We recommend the addition of species-rich grassland to the habitats listed in section h. on the restoration goals.

Comment

Representation ID: 99347

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Due to the proximity to East Winch Common SSSI, also a Norfolk Wildlife Trust reserve, we strongly support the requirement for a hydrological assessment accompanying any application on this site. We also recommend that the proposed restoration in section k is revised to incorporate as much heathland habitat similar to East Winch Common as possible, to increase the landscape connectivity and resilience of the SSSI.

Object

Representation ID: 99348

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

During the previous consultation we highlighted that part of the proposed allocation overlaps with a woodland CWS. We strongly recommend that impacts to the CWS are avoided by excluding it from the allocation and buffering it and other CWS from indirect dust impacts.
We also note that the land use of the proposed allocation is classed as non-agricultural land, however we understand that this is likely to be incorrect as the southern part of the site has been in regular use as grazed grassland for at least twenty years, with the potential to support features of ecological significance.

Full text: During the previous consultation phase we highlighted that part of the proposed allocation overlaps with CWS 416 ‘70 & 100 Plantations’ and recommended that these areas are safeguarded. The supporting text correctly identifies potential adverse impacts to this CWS and the adjacent CWS 418 Haverlesse Manor Plantation, but makes no attempt to safeguard these. The most appropriate way to ensure that impacts to the CWS are avoided is to exclude it from the minerals allocation, therefore we strongly recommend that CWS 416 is completely excluded from the proposed allocation. In addition, in order to safeguard from any indirect impacts to CWS from impacts such as dust, any allocation would need to include a non-worked buffer between it and both CWS.
We support the recommendations in the policy text for noise, dust, air quality and hydrology assessments which will help inform ecological assessments of potential impacts on nearby wildlife sites. We recommend that any restoration plan ensures that the existing ecological connectivity between the adjacent wildlife sites is maintained through progressive working and that restoration post-extraction complements the adjoining habitats.
We also note in the supporting text that the land use of the proposed allocation is classed as non-agricultural land, however we understand that this is likely to be incorrect as the southern part of the site has been in regular use as grazed grassland for at least twenty years. This area is likely to be of ecological significance, with anecdotal records of several protected species present as well as a number of mature oak trees on the southern boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 99349

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

The site policy needs an additional requirement for any application to include a hydrogeology assessment in order to ensure that impacts on the nearby Devil’s End Meadow CWS, which includes wet woodland Priority Habitat around the Landspring Beck, as recommended in section M25.15 of the supporting text for the policy.