Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation

Please note: To read the document online please click on one of the links in the table of contents below.When printing this document, the contents list, council banner, login details and the footer will not be printed.

Dial-up users please note that although the documents have been split into chapters to facilitate a faster download, some chapters are still quite large and may take some time to download.

Previous Chapter || Next Chapter

7. The Mineral Allocation Sites

7.1 Since the 2008 Issues and Options consultation occurred a number of changes have been made to certain sites which were proposed. A summary of all changes is shown below.

These changes include:

The withdrawal of proposed sites from the process.
Sites for which planning permission has now been granted so that these are not now part of the allocations process.
Additional sites have been proposed.
Amendments that have been made to the boundaries of some sites.

Sites withdrawn following the 2008 Issues and Options consultation

The following sites were withdrawn either during or after the 2008 Issues and Options consultation:

Breckland

MIN 3 - Carbrooke

MIN 22 - Hoe - (because planning permission was granted in August 2008)

MIN 98 - Hockham and Wretham

MIN 99 - Harling

MIN 103 - Billingford and Bintree

MIN 106 - Billingford

King's Lynn and West Norfolk

MIN 20 - Pentney - due to planning permission being granted for the site.

MIN 27 - Middleton

MIN 33 - West Dereham

MIN 36 - Snettisham

Additional mineral sites proposed since the 2008 Issues and Options consultation

Breckland

MIN 109 - Shropham

MIN 116 - Cranworth

King's Lynn and West Norfolk

MIN 113 - Bawsey

MIN 114 - Crimplesham

North Norfolk

MIN 115 - Westwick, Worstead, North Walsham and Swanton Abbott.

Full details of the site locations, proposal and assessment can be found in the individual site details.

Amendments to proposed mineral sites since the 2008 Issues and Options consultation

The boundaries of the following sites have been amended either during or after the 2008 Issues and Options consultation, by the person or organisation that proposed the site:

Breckland

MIN 23 - Beeston with Bittering

MIN 49 - Bridgham

MIN 97 - Billingford and Bintree

MIN 107 - Shropham

MIN 110 - Shropham

King's Lynn and West Norfolk

MIN 32 - West Dereham - the boundary of the proposed site has been amended to reduce the proposed site area, due to planning permission being granted for the majority of the site.

MIN 39 - Leziate

MIN 42 - Grimston, Bawsey and Leziate.

MIN 93 - Pentney

South Norfolk

MIN 7 - Earsham

MIN 53 - Swainsthorpe.

Full details of the site boundary amendments can be found on the maps accompanying the individual site assessments.

List of all proposed minerals sites by Parish

Parish	Site Reference		Page No.
Breckland
Attleborough	MIN 111	Not Acceptable	46
Beeston with Bittering	MIN 23	Potentially Acceptable	49
	MIN 61	Potentially Acceptable	53
	MIN 68	Potentially Acceptable	57
	MIN 100	Not Acceptable	61
Beetley	MIN 8	Acceptable	65
	MIN 9	Not Acceptable	67
	MIN 10	Not Acceptable	69
	MIN 11	Not Acceptable	71
	MIN 12	Not Acceptable	74
	MIN 13	Acceptable	76
	MIN 14	Not Acceptable	78
	MIN 51	Potentially Acceptable	81
	MIN 63	Not Acceptable	84
	MIN 72	Not Acceptable	86
	MIN 89	Not Acceptable	88
Billingford and Bintree	MIN 97	Not Acceptable	90
Bridgham	MIN 49	Not Acceptable	94
Cranworth	MIN 116	Not Acceptable	96
Great Ellingham	MIN 15	Not Acceptable	99
Hoe	MIN 28	Potentially Acceptable	102
Litcham, MIleham & Tittleshall	MIN 50	Potentially Acceptable	105
Litcham, Tittleshall & Wellingham	MIN 60	Not Acceptable	108
Longham	MIN 66	Not Acceptable	111
	MIN 67	Acceptable	113
North Elmham	MIN 21	Not Acceptable	116
Quidenham	MIN 35	Not Acceptable	118
Shropham	MIN 107	Acceptable	120
	MIN 108	Potentially Acceptable	124
	MIN 109	Acceptable	128
	MIN 110	Potentially Acceptable	131
Snetterton	MIN 102	Not Acceptable	135
Broadland
Attlebridge	MIN 55	Acceptable	137
Ø Buxton with Lammas	MIN 37	Not Acceptable	140
Felthorpe	MIN 48	Acceptable	142
Horstead with Stanninghall	MIN 64	Acceptable	144
	MIN 65	Not Acceptable	146
Spixworth	MIN 96	Potentially Acceptable	148
Great Yarmouth
Fritton	MIN 38	Not Acceptable	151
Kings Lynn and West Norfolk
Bawsey	MIN 42	Not Acceptable		156
Bawsey, Grimston and Leziate	MIN 113	Not Acceptable		159
Brancaster	MIN 1	Not Acceptable		161
Castle Rising, Grimston and Leziate	MIN 41	Not Acceptable		163
	MIN 94	Not Acceptable		166
Crimplesham	MIN 114	Not Acceptable		169
East Winch	MIN 5	Not Acceptable		171
	MIN 17	Not Acceptable		174
	MIN 18	Not Acceptable		177
	MIN 40	Acceptable		179
	MIN 58	Not Acceptable		182
East Winch and Pentney	MIN 93	Not Acceptable		184
East Winch, Middleton and Wormegay	MIN 31	Potentially Acceptable		186
Leziate	MIN 39	Potentially Acceptable		189
Methwold	MIN 34	Acceptable		192
Middleton	MIN 6	Acceptable		194
	MIN 29	Not Acceptable		197
	MIN 30	Not Acceptable		200
	MIN 59	Acceptable		202
Pentney	MIN 19	Acceptable		205
Runcton Holme	MIN 95	Potentially Acceptable		207
Stoke Ferry	MIN 57	Not Acceptable		209
Syderstone	MIN 45	Potentially Acceptable		211
Tottenhill	MIN 74	Not Acceptable		214
	MIN 76	Not Acceptable		216
	MIN 77	Not Acceptable		218
	MIN 101	Not Acceptable		220
Watlington	MIN 75	Not Acceptable		222
West Dereham	MIN 32	Not Acceptable		225
North Norfolk
Aylmerton	MIN 69	Acceptable		228
East Beckham	MIN 84	Not Acceptable		231
Edgefield & Hempstead	MIN 43	Potentially Acceptable		233
Edgefield & Stody	MIN 44	Acceptable		235
Holt	MIN 16	Acceptable		237
	MIN 71	Acceptable		239
	MIN 82	Acceptable		241
Kettlestone	MIN 52	Not Acceptable		243
North Walsham, Worstead, Westwick and Swanton Abbott	MIN 115	Potentially Acceptable		245
South Norfolk
Caistor St. Edmund	MIN 24	Not Acceptable		248
Deopham	MIN 2	Potentially Acceptable		252
Ø Ditchingham	MIN 78	Not Acceptable		254
Earsham	MIN 7	Acceptable		256
Easton	MIN 85	Acceptable		259
	MIN 86	Acceptable		263
	MIN 87	Acceptable		267
Haddiscoe	MIN 25	Not Acceptable		271
Heckingham	MIN 92	Not Acceptable		273
Heckingham & Norton Subcourse	MIN 83	Acceptable		276
	MIN 91	Acceptable		279
Long Stratton & Morningthorpe	MIN 56	Not Acceptable		282
Marlingford and Colton	MIN 54	Acceptable		284
Norton Subcourse	MIN 90	Acceptable		286
Stoke Holy Cross	MIN 81	Acceptable		289
Stoke Holy Cross, Swainsthorpe & Swardeston	MIN 79	Potentially Acceptable		291
Swainsthorpe	MIN 53	Not Acceptable		293
Swardeston	MIN 80	Acceptable		296
Tharston & Hapton	MIN 112	Not Acceptable		298
Wreningham	MIN 4	Not Acceptable		301
Wymondham	MIN 62	Not Acceptable		303
	MIN 70	Not Acceptable		305

Legend: Overview Map of Mineral Sites
	Mineral Site
	Acceptable
	Potentially Acceptable
	Not Acceptable
	County Boundary
	District Boundary
	Inset

Map Legend: Mineral Allocation Sites
	Potential mineral site
	Mineral site with existing planning permission(s)
	Suggested buffering necessary for the site to be acceptable (above and beyond normal boundary screening/planting)
	Area within site not considered suitable for allocation (but it could potentially be used for screening or bunding)
	Ramsar site [A SSSI considered to be of International importance as waterfowl habitat designated under the Ramsar International Convention on Wetlands (1971).]
	SAC (Special Area of Conservation) [A SSSI considered to be of European importance designated under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora.]
	SPA (Special Protection Area) [A SSSI considered to be of European importance designated under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds.]
	NNR (National Nature Reserve) [Sites designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981by Natural England. These represent some of the most important natural and semi-natural ecosystems in Great Britain, and are managed to protect the conservation value of the habitats that occur on these sites.]
	SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) [Sites that are notified and protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on account of their flora, fauna, geological and/or physiographical features of National importance.]
	Ancient Woodland [Sites which have been continuously wooded since 1600 A.D.]
	CWS (County Wildlife Site) [The best wildlife habitats in the county outside Statutory Sites.]
	Core River Valleys [These are River Valleys defined within the Core Strategy (Preferred Options) in Figure 14. Protection of these valleys would help to preserve the unique and rich quality of Norfolk's landscape and natural heritage.]
	Broads Authority Area [The Broads was established as having equivalent status to a national park under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act in 1988.]
	SPZ 1 (Source Protection Zone) [This is a zone of protection surrounding boreholes used for drinking water, Zone 1 is defined as the area in which pollution could travel to the borehole within 50 days.]
	AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) [Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 for the purposes of preserving and enhancing their natural beauty considered to be of National importance.]
	Likely extent of Bawsey Kilns Site of Archaeological Significance (see MIN 42)
	Conservation Area [These areas are designated by the local authority under the Civic Amenities Act 1967. They are areas of special architectural or historic interest whose character or appearance is worth protecting or enhancing.]
	Historic Parks and Gardens [Landscapes which were designed to provide a setting for the English Country House.]
	Scheduled Ancient Monuments [An ancient structure, above or below ground, of national importance which is included on the Schedule as defined by Part I of the ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.]
	Flood Zone 2 [Areas with an annual probability of flooding of 1.0% - 0.1% from rivers, and 0.5% - 0.1% from the sea.]
	Flood Zone 3 [Areas with an annual probability of flooding of 1.0% or greater from rivers, and 0.5% or greater from the sea.]
	Leziate Railhead
	NNDR (Norwich Northern Distributor Road - Proposed)
	Trunk Roads
	Designated Lorry Roads (based on Principal Routes, Main Distributor Routes and HGV Access Routes)
	Public Right of Way
	Internal indicative site access route (haul road or conveyor)
	External indicative site access route
	County boundary
	Leziate Rail Line

7.2 BRECKLAND MINERAL ALLOCATION SITES

The following parishes in Breckland have minerals allocation sites or areas of search proposed in them:

Parish	Site Reference		Page No.
Attleborough	MIN 111	Not Acceptable	46
Beeston with Bittering	MIN 23	Potentially Acceptable	49
	MIN 61	Potentially Acceptable	53
	MIN 68	Potentially Acceptable	57
	MIN 100	Not Acceptable	61
Beetley	MIN 8	Acceptable	65
	MIN 9	Not Acceptable	67
	MIN 10	Not Acceptable	69
	MIN 11	Not Acceptable	71
	MIN 12	Not Acceptable	74
	MIN 13	Acceptable	76
	MIN 14	Not Acceptable	78
	MIN 51	Potentially Acceptable	81
	MIN 63	Not Acceptable	84
	MIN 72	Not Acceptable	86
	MIN 89	Not Acceptable	88
Billingford and Bintree	MIN 97	Not Acceptable	90
Bridgham	MIN 49	Not Acceptable	94
Cranworth	MIN 116	Not Acceptable	96
Great Ellingham	MIN 15	Not Acceptable	99
Hoe	MIN 28	Potentially Acceptable	102
Litcham, MIleham & Tittleshall	MIN 50	Potentially Acceptable	105
Litcham, Tittleshall & Wellingham	MIN 60	Not Acceptable	108
Longham	MIN 66	Not Acceptable	111
Longham	MIN 67	Acceptable	113
North Elmham	MIN 21	Not Acceptable	116
Quidenham	MIN 35	Not Acceptable	118
Shropham	MIN 107	Acceptable	120
	MIN 108	Potentially Acceptable	124
	MIN 109	Acceptable	128
	MIN 110	Potentially Acceptable	131
Snetterton	MIN 102	Not Acceptable	135

Site Ref No.	MIN 111	Parish	ATTLEBOROUGH
Location of site	Land at Swangey Fen, near Shropham	Submitted by	Ennstone Johnston Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserves	270,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	11.2
Background Information: - There is currently no mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission lies close to the western boundary of the site. In the submission it is proposed that the site is worked as an extension to the workings to the west and the deposit would be worked as a single phase in an east to west direction and 'would probably be worked wet with no dewatering'
Landscape: - This site is in an attractive valley location, adjacent to Swangey Fen SSSI, which is part of the Norfolk Valley Fen SAC. The land, north and south to the site, rises and becomes rolling arable farmland. The same is true of the south, but there is no visual link as the valley is well wooded. There is a mineral working to the west, which has created a series of flooded gravel pits. Although the impact on individual viewpoints would be limited, the character of the valley floor meadow would be adversely affected by mineral excavation. Bunding would be inappropriate to the valley landform. Mineral extraction here would be against the long-standing policy to protect river valleys
Ecology: - The excavation of the site could affect the drainage of the designated Swangey Fen SSSI, and there is potential that BAP and protected species will be affected. It could also have an adverse affect on the BAP habitat and associated species of the site itself, as well as affect drainage of the adjoining SSSI which would need to be investigated through an Appropriate Assessment
Highways: - The surrounding highways are narrow in width and suffer from poor alignment. Access needs to be provided via the C823 Swangey Lane only, and improvements will be required to this road
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Adjacent to Norfolk Valley Fen SAC. In Flood Zone 3. Flood Risk Assessment would be required to appropriately investigate level of risk Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Swangey Fen SSSI, a composite site of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, both alone and in combination with other site allocations listed above. Each allocation (MIN 111, MIN 102, MIN 107, MIN 108 & MIN 110) would need to clearly demonstrate no adverse impacts on the European site Highways Agency - Site is in a cluster around A11 between Norwich and Thetford. Site MIN 111 has the first point of contact with the A11 trunk road at the junction with Hargham Road and would generate an estimated 120 daily HGV movements Breckland District Council: - The site is in close proximity to Attleborough and the A11 corridor of development and could therefore be an important source of material for the large amounts of development occurring in the area. The site is in a Core River Valley. Object unless the scheme is excavated in a way that does not have a negative impact on the amenity of the Core River Valley. Development of the site may affect drainage of the SAC and therefore have a negative impact on protected species Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Development could involve working into nationally-important glacial and interglacial deposits in Thet valley, particularly buried terrace remains of Ipswichian age. It would be useful to retain some open faces during working and restoration for scientific study, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase for when features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for significant adverse impacts on Swangey fen SSSI and on BAP habitats
Public/parish council concerns: - The two main concerns raised were the proximity of the site to Swangey Fan SSSI (with consequent damage to wildlife) and that additional traffic would be accommodated on an unsuitable local road network.
Conclusion: - The site is inappropriate on landscape grounds, and there may also be an adverse impact on Swangey Fen SSSI,so is not proposed to be allocated

Site Ref No.	MIN 23	Parish	BEESTON WITH BITTERING
Location of site	Land to the North of Beeston	Submitted by	Bidwells on behalf of RG Carter Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserves	320,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	15.3
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site
Landscape: - Whilst a number of mineral workings are/have been operated adjoining this site, workings would be visually intrusive to the community of Beeston, and due to the sloping nature of the site, would be very difficult to screen. Although a boundary amendment was submitted by the landowner's agents, removing the western 'field' from the proposal, the reduction in size of the site is insufficient to address the landscape impacts. While there might be a lower landscape impact in terms of views from Watery Lane, the site still comes close to the edge of Beeston village and would be the working would still be too visually intrusive from Back Lane. It is not considered that the proposed reduction in the size of the site is sufficient, although low-level restoration to woodland and grassland would be acceptable in landscape terms, A further reduction in site area (shown on the map) would be acceptable, however. Further public access in this area (e.g. footpaths) is also very desirable
Ecology: - No significant ecology issues; restoration to any semi-natural habitat, including heathland, woodland and/or acid grassland, would be an improvement
Highways: - The Highway Authority has recently won an appeal to prevent further access to Watery Lane, so access from this site would need to be to either Litcham Road or Mileham Road. The site boundary has been amended slightly and the access points altered, with access onto Back Lane removed and a new access onto Mileham Road added (actually, re-using an old access road). This substituted access is proposed to provide a route along Mileham Road, then Litcham Road to its junction with Reed Lane, which is an HGV Access Route. It is expected that localised carriageway widening could overcome any highway concern over the suitability of this road for HGV movements. Notwithstanding the proposed amendments to this site, it is poorly located in relation to suitable routes in the Strategic Highway Network and local routes to a suitable road (as proposed) would require significant upgrading to meet the necessary standard
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Above a major aquifer Highways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A47 near to East Dereham. Although none of the sites require direct access to the trunk road network, there are two locations on the A47 where the majority of minerals traffic would seek access to the trunk road via at-grade junctions: at Wendling and Beeston Road. These junctions currently appear to operate within capacity and have recently been subject to safety-related improvements. Sites MIN23, MIN61, MIN68 and MIN100 could materially increase the number of HGVs through the Beeston Road at-grade priority junction which may be considered undesirable on this section of single-carriageway trunk road. It is recommended that the impact of each of these sites should be assessed prior to possible identification as a preferred location, and also if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are revealed Breckland District Council: - The site directly abuts the village of Beeston. Object because of proximity to the built up area of Beeston and the subsequent impact on amenity, views and landscape Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration of the site should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were unacceptable noise and dust production, and already excessive levels of traffic and HGVs on local roads
Conclusion: - Amendments have reduced the site area to 15 hectares. Further removal of the southern area of the site, with working permitted only north of a line formed by the new access route and the acceptable area of MIN 68 (see site plan), would make the site acceptable in landscape terms. it is recognised, however that the remaining site area may not be viable. The currently proposed site area is therefore unacceptable due to landscape impacts

Site Ref No.	MIN 61	Parish	BEESTON WITH BITTERING
Location of site	Punch Farm, Beeston with Bittering	Submitted by	Simon Westaway Assoc. on behalf of East Anglian Stone Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction, concrete batching plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserves
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of Search	Size of site (ha)	5.8
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. However, there is a current (September 2009) planning application for a new access road from the adjoining operational sand and gravel site (to the west) to Litcham Road
Landscape: - No outstanding landscape issues that could not be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option in landscape terms. The site could be worked with low landscape impact and restoration to any semi-natural environment (e.g. woodland or grassland) would be an improvement on the current arable field. Subject to any access constraints requiring the removal of screen vegetation along Litcham Road, this site could be worked with relatively low landscape impact
Ecology: - No significant ecology issues; restoration to any semi-natural habitat, including heathland, woodland and/or acid grassland, would be an improvement
Highways: The Highway Authority has recently won an appeal to prevent further access to Watery Lane, so access from this site would need to be direct to Litcham Road or indirectly via Mileham Road. HGVs would travel along Litcham Road to its junction with Reed Lane, which is an HGV Access Route. It is expected that localised carriageway widening on Litcham Road could overcome any highway concern over the suitability of this road for HGV movements The current proposed highways access via Watery Lane is unacceptable, but there is a current planning application for a new access directly to Litcham Road (from the current working quarry). Access via this new route or alternatively via MIN 23's suggested access route (directly to Mileham Road) would likely be acceptable. Notwithstanding this, the site is poorly located in relation to suitable routes in the Strategic Highway Network. Local routes to a Main Distributor Road or Principal Road may require improvements to make them acceptable
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A47 near to East Dereham. Although none of the sites require direct access to the trunk road network, there are two locations on the A47 where the majority of minerals traffic would seek access to the trunk road via at-grade junctions: at Wendling and Beeston Road. These junctions currently appear to operate within capacity and have recently been subject to safety-related improvements. Sites MIN23, MIN61, MIN68 and MIN100 could materially increase the number of HGVs through the Beeston Road at-grade priority junction which may be considered undesirable on this section of single-carriageway trunk road. It is recommended that the impact of each of these sites should be assessed prior to possible identification as a preferred location, and also if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are revealed Breckland District Council: - The site is reasonably close to the towns of Dereham and Swaffham, and therefore would be a source of materials for the planned development of these towns; Excavation of the site would form an extension to existing workings. The site is distant from Beeston and Litcham in comparison to the other proposed sites in this area. The seclusion of the site, within a more contained part of the Plateau should not have a significant impact on landscape or views Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration of the site should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were unacceptable noise and dust production, already excessive levels of traffic and HGVs on local roads
Conclusion: - The site is adjacent to restored, current and proposed minerals sites, so although it is an Area of Search, there is a high probability of a viable deposit. If a viable deposit can be proved and highways concerns can be addressed this site has the potential to be an acceptable site

Site Ref No.	MIN 68	Parish	BEESTON WITH BITTERING
Location of site	Land at Watery Lane, Beeston, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Tarmac Limited
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserves	300,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	4.5
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site
Landscape: - The site lies within an area of relatively tranquil landscape as defined on the CPRE map for Norfolk and a dark landscape as defined by the county map. Whilst a number of mineral workings have been operated adjoining this site, There are concerns about the impact of working mineral on the southern part of this land. The site is adjacent to MIN 23, and on a slope, with long views over open countryside. Workings would be visually intrusive to the community of Beeston, and due to the sloping nature of the site, hard to screen. They would also affect the quiet enjoyment of the surrounding countryside. The site is unsuitable in landscape terms, although a further reduction in the site area might make it acceptable (see site plan)
Ecology: - The site is close to Litcham Common SSSI and three County Wildlife Sites, but is unlikely to have a negative impact on the ecology of these sites. There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application and this site would be supported as a preferred option
Highways: - The Highway Authority has recently won an appeal to prevent further access to Watery Lane, so access from this site would need to be directly to either Litcham Road or Mileham Road. Both these routes would need to cross third-party land. It is expected that localised carriageway widening on Litcham Road through to the junction with Reed Lane could overcome any highway concern over the suitability of this road for HGV movements. Notwithstanding the proposed amendments to this site, it is poorly located in relation to suitable routes in the Strategic Highway Network and local routes to a suitable road (as proposed) would require significant upgrading to meet the necessary standard
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Site is above a major aquifer Highways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A47 near to East Dereham. Although none of the sites require direct access to the trunk road network, there are two locations on the A47 where the majority of minerals traffic would seek access to the trunk road via at-grade junctions: at Wendling and Beeston Road. These junctions currently appear to operate within capacity and have recently been subject to safety-related improvements. Sites MIN23, MIN61, MIN68 and MIN100 could materially increase the number of HGVs through the Beeston Road at-grade priority junction which may be considered undesirable on this section of single-carriageway trunk road. It is recommended that the impact of each of these sites should be assessed prior to possible identification as a preferred location, and also if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are revealed Breckland District Council: - The southern half of the site is very close to the village of Beeston and development of the site could be visually intrusive and there could be issues with noise and light pollution. Object because of the proximity to the built up area of Beeston and the subsequent impact on amenity, views and landscape Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration of the site should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were unacceptable noise and dust production, already excessive levels of traffic and HGVs on local roads
Conclusion: Removing the southernmost 'square' of the site (see site plan) would be likely to make the site acceptable in landscape terms; but direct access to Litcham Road or Mileham Road would also be needed to mitigate highway concerns. The site is therefore potentially acceptable only on condition of a reduced site area

Site Ref No.	MIN 100	Parish	BEESTON WITH BITTERING
Location of site	Point Farm, Litcham Road, Beeston	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	430,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	22.9
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. Sites with planning permission for the extraction of sand and gravel lie to the east and north-east. In the submission it is stated that the owners of the site have received confirmation from Tarmac Ltd expressing interest in working the site as an extension to the Bittering pit
Landscape: - The site is on open arable land very close to the existing Bittering Quarry; it is visible from Litcham Road and Mileham Road and two open properties. This is an open site and its sloping nature means that it would be difficult to screen. Working this site would have a detrimental impact on the wider countryside. Not suitable in landscape terms
Ecology: - No outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option in ecology terms. With regards to restoration, a habitat that will fit in with the surrounding habitats such as arable fields with wide margins, hedgerows or possibly a block of new woodland planting is preferred and creates the potential for an increase in biodiversity at the site with a wider range of habitats
Highways: - Could be potentially a preferred option in transport terms with additional information or modification. Appropriate highways access to the north-east could probably be secured, with a routing agreement to ensure that traffic travels east to Reed Lane. There is a need to clarify visibility specification for the access. May need to undertake localised widening to the carriageway
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clusted around the A47 near to East Dereham. Although none of the sites require direct access to the Trunk Road Network, a broad indication of the junction of the A47 where mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant impact - assuming the most direct route (in accordance with NCC road hierarchy plan) is taken to access the TRN follows; Site MIN 100 has the first point of contact with the A47 Trunk road at the junction with Beeston Road and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. A broad overview of the potential worst-case cumulative daily traffic impacts at trunk roads junctions (if all mineral sites were to go ahead) is as follows, and sets out the maximum daily traffic which would occur under this situation; A47 trunk road junction with the Beeston Road - affected by sites MIN 61, 68, 23 and 100 - is an at grade priority junction. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 480 HGV's and one personal injury accident per year over a 5 year period. There are two locations on the A47 where the majority of minerals traffic would seek accessw to the trunk road via at-grade junctions; at Wendling and Beeston Road. These junctions currently appear to operate within capacity and have recently been subject to safety-related improvements. Sites MIN 23 61, 68 and 100 could materially increase the number of HGV's through the Beeston Road at-grade priority junction which may be considered undesirable on this section of single-carriageway trunk road. It is recommended that the impact of each of these sites should be assessed prior to possible identification as a preferred location, and also if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site is close to existing workings north of Longham. The site is fairly remote from nearby settlements, and there are no significant landscape constraints. However, evidence presented by Norfolk County Council states that it could be difficult to screen any workings from views from surrounding roads. Two properties overlook the site
Public/parish Council comments: - The local highways network is unsuitable for large numbers of HGVs, and there would also be unacceptable impacts on the local landscape and wildlife. Dust, noise, and light pollution would also impact adversely on local residents
Conclusion: - The landscape impacts are so significant that this site is not allocated

Site Ref No.	MIN 8	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Land off Stoney Lane, Beetley, East Dereham, PE32 1SW	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserves	731,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	15.4
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for mineral extraction lies about 600m north of the site. Planning permission has been granted for mineral extraction 700m north east of the site. The submission proposes that restoration will be to agriculture but will incorporate new hedgerows and large blocks of deciduous woodland. Small ponds and areas of permanent wet grassland will also be formed
Landscape: - The site is remote from property and could be screened fairly easily, with few landscape impacts. Provided the phasing issue could be overcome, there are few landscape issues, which could be overcome through a well-presented application
Ecology: - Restoration to arable with wider field margins, new hedgerows and possibly some woodland would be appropriate and lead to ecology gains. There are no ecology issues that could not be addressed by a planning application
Highways: - Subject to transporting material via a ground conveyor through sites MIN 14 and MIN 9 (neither of which are proposed to be allocated) and MIN 13 to the current processing site at East Bilney Quarry and then utilising the existing highways access to Fakenham Road, there are no serious highways concerns. However, highway improvements will be needed to the B1146 Fakenham Road before any further sites at Bilney/Beetley are developed. There could also be cumulative impacts arising from development of surrounding sites, in particular the impact upon traffic flows through Dereham
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 8 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 89, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 11, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The extension proposed could provide an important source of material for planned development in Dereham Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were unacceptable impacts on the local landscape, ecological damage, extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: This site is acceptable provided that the ground conveyor route can be secured, appropriate phasing agreed and highways improvements made.

Site Ref No.	MIN 9	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Land off Fakenham Road, Beetley, East Dereham	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserves	367,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	6.9
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for mineral extraction lies close to the north-east of the site. Planning permission has been granted for mineral extraction 400m north-east of the site
Landscape: - Working this site would have an adverse impact on a number of isolated properties which would be difficult to mitigate. In addition it may be more difficult to achieve a satisfactory low level restoration on this irregularly shaped and narrow site
Ecology: - A low-level restoration scheme to arable, taking in ponds, field margins and hedgerows, would lead to significant ecological improvements.There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed in a planning application
Highways: - Subject to transporting material via a ground conveyor to the current processing site at East Bilney Quarry and then utilising the existing highways access to Fakenham Road, there are no serious highways concerns. However, highway improvements will be needed to the B1146 Fakenham Road before any further sites at Bilney/Beetley are developed. There could also be cumulative impacts arising from development of surrounding sites, in particular the impact upon traffic flows through Dereham
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 9 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 89, MIN 10, MIN 11, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site is also in close proximity to homes and the travellers' site around Hungry Hill and therefore there could be issues with noise, dust and light pollution. Do not object - provided that effective screening measures are introduced to minimise the impact of the proposed workings on adjacent residential units Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were unacceptable impacts on the local landscape, ecological damage, extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney has suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: -; Given that there are more appropriate sites proposed to be allocated at Beetley/Bilney (MINs 8, 13 and 51), therefore it is not proposed to allocate MIN 9

Site Ref No.	MIN 10	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Land off Fakenham Road, Beetley, East Dereham	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserves	891,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	8.2
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction lies about 500m north west of the site. Planning permission has been granted for mineral extraction north of the site. In the submission it is proposed that restoration will be to agriculture but will incorporate new hedgerows and large blocks of deciduous woodland
Landscape: - Could be potentially a preferred option in landscape terms with additional information or modification. To be acceptable in landscape terms would require a well designed scheme of working. Working of this site would appear intrusive to residents of Fakenham Road; although bunding/advanced planting would satisfactorily screen ground-level views, views from the upper storeys of these houses would be difficult to screen satisfactorily
Ecology: - A low-level restoration scheme to arable, taking in ponds, field margins and hedgerows, would lead to significant ecological improvements. There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application
Highways: - Subject to transporting material via a ground conveyor to the current processing site at East Bilney Quarry and then utilising the existing highways access to Fakenham Road, there are no serious highways concerns. However, highway improvements will be needed to the B1146 Fakenham Road before any further sites at Bilney/Beetley are developed. There could also be cumulative impacts arising from development of surrounding sites, in particular the impact upon traffic flows through Dereham
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 10 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 89, MIN 11, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site is also in close proximity to homes and the travellers' site around Hungry Hill and therefore there could be issues with noise, dust and light pollution. Do not object - provided that effective screening methods are introduced to minimise the impact of the proposed workings on adjacent residential units Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were unacceptable impacts on the local landscape, ecological damage, extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney has suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: - Given that there are more appropriate sites proposed to be allocated at Beetley/Bilney (MINs 8, 13 and 51), it is not proposed to allocate MIN 10

Site Ref No.	MIN 11	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Land between School Road and Chapel Lane, Beetley, East Dereham	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserves	934,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	19.8
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction lies about 750m north-west of the site. Planning permission has been granted for mineral extraction north of the site. In the submission it is proposed that restoration will be to agriculture but will incorporate new hedgerows and large blocks of deciduous woodland
Landscape: - No outstanding landscape issues that could not be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option in landscape terms. There are few landscape constraints in respect of designing an acceptable mitigation and restoration scheme on this land. This site is generally well-screened from surrounding roads and properties, but there would be some views from Field Lane. Attention would still, however, need to be given to phasing to prevent an over-concentration of workings within the Beetley area
Ecology: - A low-level restoration scheme to arable, taking in ponds, field margins and hedgerows, would lead to significant ecological improvements. There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option
Highways: - Subject to transporting material via a ground conveyor to the current processing site at East Bilney Quarry and then utilising the existing highways access to Fakenham Road, there are no serious highways concerns. However, highway improvements will be needed to the B1146 Fakenham Road before any further sites at Bilney/Beetley are developed. There could also be cumulative impacts arising from development of surrounding sites, in particular the impact upon traffic flows through Dereham
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 11 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 89, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period English Heritage: - The development of the site may have a detrimental impact on the setting of the grade I listed St Mary's Church in Old Beetley to the east. Further work is needed to assess the possible impacts Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - For this site to be allocated, effective phasing and restoration would be needed to minimise these cumulative impacts. However, from evidence presented this does not seem to be the developer's intentions, due to the planned use of conveyors between sites. This site could have an impact on the views of properties along Fakenham Road. Object, unless appropriate phasing and restoration is linked to the allocation Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: - Given that there are more appropriate sites proposed to be allocated at Beetley/Bilney (MINs 8, 13 and 51), it is not proposed to allocate MIN 11.

Site Ref No.	MIN 12	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Land between Field Lane and Chapel Lane, Beetley	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserves	1,175,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	16.4
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction lies about 750m north-west of the site. Planning permission has been granted for mineral extraction north of the site. In the submission it is proposed that restoration will be to agriculture but will incorporate new hedgerows and large blocks of deciduous woodland
Landscape: - Could be potentially a preferred option in landscape terms with additional information or modification. The site is generally well-screened from surrounding roads and properties but further screening to protect views from the north would need careful thought. Designing an acceptable mitigation and restoration scheme on this land would need to take account of potential views from the north in addition to views off Field Lane. Attention would also need to be given to phasing to prevent an over-concentration of workings within the Beetley area; The site is a long way from the processing plant at East Bilney Quarry - the propsed conveyor route would need to cross several roads
Ecology: - Restoration to arable, with wide field margins, new hedgerows and maybe some woodland, would be appropriate. There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application
Highways: - Subject to transporting material via a ground conveyor to the current processing site at East Bilney Quarry and then utilising the existing highways access to Fakenham Road, there are no serious highways concerns. However, highway improvements will be needed to the B1146 Fakenham Road before any further sites at Bilney/Beetley are developed. There could also be cumulative impacts arising from development of surrounding sites, in particular the impact upon traffic flows through Dereham
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 11 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 89, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site is very close to the built up areas of Beetley and within a Groundwater Protection Zone; pollution from the extraction of minerals at the site could have adverse effects on drinking water quality Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: - Given that there are more appropriate sites proposed to be allocated at Beetley/Bilney (MINs 8, 13 and 51), it is not proposed to allocate MIN 12

Site Ref No.	MIN 13	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Land South of Rawhall Lane, Beetley, East Dereham	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	494,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	13.1
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for mineral extraction lies immediately north of the site.
Landscape: - The site is flat and should be easy to screen satisfactorily, although the hedgerow oaks are an important landscape feature and must remain. There are no outstanding landscape issues that could not be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option, provided the phasing issue could be resolved and the hedgerow oaks protected through a suitable working scheme.
Ecology: - Restoration to arable, with wide field margins, new hedgerows and maybe some woodland, would be appropriate. There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed in a planning application
Highways: - This site directly adjoins East Bilney Quarry (separated by Rawhall Lane);. subject to transporting material via a ground conveyor to the current processing site at East Bilney Quarry and then utilising the existing highways access to Fakenham Road, there are no serious highways concerns. However, highway improvements will be needed to the B1146 Fakenham Road before any further sites at Bilney/Beetley are developed. There could also be cumulative impacts arising from development of surrounding sites, in particular the impact upon traffic flows through Dereham
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 11 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 89, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The excavation of this site would form an extension of the existing workings. The site does not have any major landscape constraints; however, increased HGV traffic could impact on traffic lows through Dereham. The development of adjacent sites could lead to a cumulative impact on highways and landscape Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were, extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: - This site is acceptable providing that the highway improvements are made, phasing with other sites is agreed, a suitable conveyor route to the existing quarry is established, there is protection of the hedgerow oaks and an appropriate restoration scheme is agreed.

Site Ref No.	MIN 14	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Land to the North of Stoney Lane, Beetley, East Dereham	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	1,440,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	19.4
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for mineral extraction is 300m north-west of the site. Permission has been granted for mineral extraction for land 400m north-east of the site
Landscape: - Could be potentially a preferred option in landscape terms with additional information or modification. This site has some landscape constraints, particularly in respect of views from isolated property. Working of this site would appear intrusive to some residents of Fakenham Road, Bilney Road and Stoney Lane; although bunding/advanced planting would satisfactorily screen roadside views, views from the upper storeys of these houses would be difficult to screen satisfactorily. This could probably be mitigated adequately, however, by a small reduction in the site boundary
Ecology: - Restoration to arable, with wide field margins, new hedgerows and maybe some woodland, would be appropriate. There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed in a planning application
Highways: - Subject to transporting material via a ground conveyor to the current processing site at East Bilney Quarry and then utilising the existing highways access to Fakenham Road, there are no serious highways concerns. However, highway improvements will be needed to the B1146 Fakenham Road before any further sites at Bilney/Beetley are developed. There could also be cumulative impacts arising from development of surrounding sites, in particular the impact upon traffic flows through Dereham
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 14 has the first point of contact with the A47 Trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 11, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 89, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - It is likely that development of this site would mean development of adjacent sites MIN9 and MIN 13. Together these proposals would cause a significant cumulative impact on the landscape of the area Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: - Given that there are more appropriate sites proposed to be allocated at Beetley/Bilney (MINs 8, 13 and 51), it is not proposed to allocate MIN 14.

Site Ref No.	MIN 51	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Land West of Bilney Road, Beetley, East Dereham	Submitted by	Simon Westaway Assoc. on behalf of East Anglian Stone Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	1,300,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	14.1
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for mineral extraction lies 300m to the north of the site
Landscape: - The site lies within a tranquil area of countryside as defined on the CPRE map and an area of dark landscape as shown on the county map. This site is remote from property and is fairly flat and would be relatively easy to screen from the views from the surrounding roads. The site contains some good internal landscape features, the woodland and rough grassland in the centre of the site are rare in this part of Norfolk and, which would need to be protected through a suitable working plan. Access requirements may lead to improvements on the adjacent network of country lanes which could themselves have an adverse landscape impact. Could be potentially a preferred option with additional information or modification. This site has constraints in relation to phasing and the retention of internal landscape features and details of method of working and access. However, these could be overcome through a suitable method of working
Ecology: - Restoration to arable should seek to link up the woodland and rough grassland with wider field margins, new hedgerows and new woodland (as appropriate). There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option in ecology terms
Highways: - Significant highways improvements would be needed to Bilney Road (just MIN 51) and the Bilney Road/Rawhall Lane/Fakenham Road junction (necessary for MIN 51, MIN 8 and MIN 13). Confirmation from East Anglian Stone that Bilney Road improvements would be deliverable is needed (this may involve third-party land if passing bays/road widening is necessary). Being in separate ownership, this site cannot use the existing processing plant at East Bilney Quarry. There are likely cumulative impact issues arising from development of surrounding sites, in particular impact upon traffic flows through Dereham town
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 14 has the first point of contact with the A47 Trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 11, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 89, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The proposed allocation, together with MIN13 would form an extension to East Bilney Quarry. The development of this site is unlikely to take place without the development of MIN13 as the proposed method of transport for the mineral will be by ground conveyors to the East Bilney Quarry (this is not true, due to the different ownerships of the quarries) Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: -; This site is acceptable subject to necessary highways improvements and retention of the important landscape features on this site. This site would logically replace the existing East Anglian Stone site in East Bilney

Site Ref No.	MIN 63	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Beck Farm, East Bilney, East Dereham, NR20 4HL	Submitted by	Mr R Richmond
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	750,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	7.3
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction (East Bilney Quarry) adjoins the southern boundary of the site
Landscape: - MIN 63 is immediately north of the current East Bilney Quarry and is located on the southern bank of the River Blackwater. In spite of the local disturbance of mineral and landfill activity the area is defined as relatively tranquil by the CPRE and is an area of dark landscape on the county map. This site is visible and lies very close to East Bilney village. The sloping nature of the site would mean it would be difficult to design an adequate scheme of working to reduce the landscape impacts of mineral extraction. In landscape terms working this site would have a high impact on East Bilney and the wider countryside
Ecology: - Although the site is not far from the River Wensum SAC, Didlington Carr SSSI and several County Wildlife Sites, it would probably not have any adverse ecological impacts. Restoration to arable, with wide field margins, new hedgerows and maybe some woodland, would be appropriate. This site could potentially be acceptable with additional information or modification
Highways: - A new access onto the B1146 Fakenham Road is unlikely to be acceptable to the Highway Authority at this point. Access to the public highway needs to be derived through East Bilney quarry to the south. Material would be transported to East Bilney Quarry via conveyor
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Object on ecological grounds due to potential impact on the River Blackwater Highways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 63 has the first point of contact with the A47 Trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Assuming the most direct route is taken, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 72, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 11, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 89. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were unacceptable impacts on the local landscape, ecological damage, extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: - The site is considered unacceptable on landscape grounds

Site Ref No.	MIN 72	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	High House Farm, Gressenhall, Dereham	Submitted by	Mr N McLeod
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	500, 000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	22.5
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site.
Landscape: - No outstanding landscape issues that could not be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option; This site has relatively few constraints in landscape terms. Site is gently sloping arable land with views from Stoney Lane, Bilney Road and the Nar Valley Way but screening would be relatively straightforward. Site is remote from Gressenhall and an appropriate scheme of working should be achievable. Subject to gradients, suitable land use etc, a satisfactory restoration should be achievable
Ecology: - Restoration back to arable with some wide field margins and blocks of woodland would be beneficial ecologically
Highways: - Because the site is not being proposed by Middleton Aggregates, it cannot use the existing processing plant at East Bilney Quarry, so material would have to be removed by road. Access via Gressenhall or Stoney Lane would be unacceptable; the only acceptable route would be to the north along Bilney Road, and then east to Fakenham Road (B1147). Significant highways improvements to Bilney Road and the Bilney Road/Rawhall Lane/Fakenham Road junction would be needed for this site to be acceptable
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 72 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Assuming the most direct route is taken, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 11, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 89. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site is close to Gressenhall and therefore could be light, dust and noise pollution issues which would affect the local population. Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated. Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path.
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were unacceptable impacts on the local landscape, ecological damage, extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: - Given that there are more appropriate sites proposed to be allocated at Beetley/Bilney (MINs 8, 13 and 51), it is not proposed to allocate MIN 72

Site Ref No.	MIN 89	Parish	BEETLEY
Location of site	Beck Farm, East Bilney, East Dereham, NR20 4HL	Submitted by	Mr R Richmond
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching plant, asphalt plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	1,300,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	4.0
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction lies about 200m west of the site. Planning permission has been granted for sand and gravel extraction in respect of land about 400m east of the site
Landscape: -. The site slopes gently down to the River Blackwater but is well-screened and working should not cause any amenity or landscape concerns. The site is bounded by a restored landfill to the south and is about 200m east of East Bilney Quarry. A conveyor belt connecting an existing quarry site to East Bilney Quarry passes along the southern boundary of the site. It may be suitable for mineral extraction if this can be linked to the permitted conveyor and processing. It is not considered suitable for aggregate processing or concrete batching due to the potential impact on local tranquillity and these uses are unacceptable in landscape terms.
Ecology: - Appropriate planning controls should avoid any adverse ecological impacts and restoration involving a mosaic of grassland and woodland would be ecologically beneficial.
Highways: - Although use of the conveyor would be acceptable, highways access to the site from Folly Lane (for maintenance, bringing in plant etc) is not suitable. No detailed site assessment has been undertaken, but the access roads are all single width carriageways with a lack of passing provision. The access routes suffer from poor junction alignment and there are forward and junction visibility issues on route
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Object to the following allocation on ecological grounds; impact on River Blackwater Highways Agency - The site is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Site MIN 89 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road at the junction with the B1135 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Using the most direct route, mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant daily traffic cumulative impact (worst-case) at this junction which is affected by sites MIN28, MIN 63, MIN 8, MIN 9, MIN 10, MIN 11, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 14, MIN 15, MIN 51, and MIN 72. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The development of this site is unlikely to take place without the development of MIN 13 and MIN51 as the proposed method of transport for the mineral will be by ground conveyors to the East Bilney quarry. There could be cumulative landscape and highway impacts if all proposed allocations in this area were to be excavated Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for cumulative adverse impacts on river valley CWS sites, which would need to be investigated The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were extra noise and dust, and particularly the negative impacts of further HGV movements. In addition, some complained that Beetley and East Bilney have suffered already for many years from mineral extraction and should be given a "rest" from further activities. Conveyor transport to East Bilney Quarry would also lead to a delay in restoration of this site
Conclusion: - Given the highways concerns MIN 89 is not as suitable as MINS 13, 51 and 8 and in order to avoid an over-concentration of sites in Beetley/Bilney, the site is not to be allocated

Site Ref No.	MIN 97	Parish	BILLINGFORD and BINTREE
Location of site	Bintree Woods, Bintree	Submitted by	Wardell Armstrong LLP on behalf of the Forestry Commission
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching plant, asphalt plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	2,840,600 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	66.7
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. A revised (reduced) site area, incorporating a buffer zone, and suggested highways access to the A1067 has been submitted by the Forestry Commission; however, this has been received very late in the analysis period, and it has not been possible for officers to explore the consequences of these changes fully so far. The internal comments (landscape, ecology and highways) have been updated following receipt of this information, but external comments have not
Landscape: - The site lies within an area of relative tranquillity as defined by the CPRE and a dark landscape on the county map and it lies close to the River Wensum. The site is largely remote from properties and could be screened effectively. The site comprises a large area of conifer plantation and it would be feasible to design a working scheme to minimise visual intrusion of a mineral working although the noise would affect the tranquillity of the site. In addition the site is remote from principal roads and any access arrangements could have an impact on the wider landscape. However, the broadleaf edge to the west of the woodland will now not be worked. The amenity of the users of the bridleway should be protected and suitable access arrangements would be required
Ecology: - Although restoration to heathland and/or woodland would be beneficial in landscape and ecological terms, significant ecological value in the existing wood would be lost during the operational phase. The reduction in site area does mitigate the negative impacts to some extent, however, but there is still some concern about potential impacts on the River Wensum SAC/SSSI, , and an Appropriate Assessment would need to be undertaken to investigate this more thoroughly
Highways: - A new haul route direct to the A1067 will be required, with improvement works to existing public highways in the vicinity of the A1067 maybe also required. The proposed access route (see plan) is not particularly direct and further investigations as to the condition and acceptability of these roads to accommodate HGVs will be necessary. A road running north and then passing along an (improved) track would probably have fewer landscape impacts, but it is recognised that this would involve substantial use of third-party land
External Consultees Comments (note: these comments relate to the original, larger site area) Environment Agency: - We wish to object to the site on ecological grounds due to its proximity to the River Wensum SSSI/SAC English Heritage: - The development of this site for minerals and/or waste purposes may have a detrimental impact on the setting of a number of designated historic features on the western side of the river valley within North Elmham, especially given the topography. Important features include the Grade I listed St Mary's Church and North Elmham Chapel (the latter is also a scheduled monument), the Grade II registered historic park & garden of Elmham Park and numerous other historic/listed buildings. Further assessment is needed to establish the possible impact Natural England:- Potential adverse hydrological impacts on the River Wensum SSSI and SAC. Also potential impacts from run-off and silt entering the river Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - Development of adjacent sites could cause a significant cumulative impact on landscape, ecology and transport Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for significant adverse impacts on the River Wensum SAC, adjacent CWS and BAP habitats from inclusion of the western section of the site. There is concern that nightjars and woodlarks in the woodland will be affected. Any restoration should be to a BAP habitat The Ramblers' Association: - We strongly object to this site being felled and mineral extraction taking place. If it is seriously considered that this area is to be worked for minerals, the Ramblers Association would like to be involved in discussions on the necessity, method of working and restoration.
Public concerns: - Many concerns raised, including amenity impacts on local residents (noise, dust, light pollution etc), the impact of HGVs on unsuitable local roads, and particularly the recreational impacts caused by the loss of paths in the woodland
Conclusion: - Despite the reduction in the site area, the site remains unacceptable due to the potential ecological impacts, and the uncertainty as to the acceptability of the proposed access route to the A1067 (both in highways and landscape terms). However, no detailed planning assessment has been made in the light of the revisions to the site; further information is required from the Forestry Commission and the County Council is also mindful that external consultees have not had the opportunity to comment on the revised site until now. The site will therefore be re-consulted in 2010.along with the other 'new' and 'changed' sites

Site Ref No.	MIN 49	Parish	BRIDGHAM
Location of site	Manor Farm, Bridgham,	Submitted by	Paul Rackham Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	3,400,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	53.6
Background Information: - No current minerals or waste planning permission at the site
Landscape: - The site lies within the valley of the River Thet and is mostly improved grazing land. There are views across the site from higher land on either side, including a number of dwellings. The low-lying nature of this river valley site means that any development would be visible from the higher ground on the valley sides. It is currently an attractive valley floor landscape. Any mineral extraction would be likely to be detrimental to this landscape character and, likewise, any bunding would not be appropriate within this landscape.
Ecology: - Extraction could adversely impact on floodplain grazing marsh. The site is near Breckland SPA and CWS 776, 773 and 774 has potential to affect drainage of the CWSs and a number of other BAP species and habitats. Consequently, the proposed allocation is not suitable in ecological terms
Highways: - In highways terms, safe access to the A148 would be required, with a route to the A11 avoiding East Harling. This site could be potentially a preferred option in transport terms with additional information or modification. There is a need to clarify access arrangements and it may require junction improvements
Archaeology: - The boundary of the proposed site includes the buildings of Manor Farm. These buildings are listed and therefore if the intention is to demolish Manor Farm, the site would be unacceptable
External Consultees CommentsNatural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Middle Harling Fen SSSI Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - We object owing to the potential for significant adverse impacts on County Wildlife Site and BAP floodplain grassland habitats and on Middle Harling Fen SSSI English Heritage: - We have significant concerns about the potential impact of the proposed minerals development on a number of listed buildings and an adjoining conservation area in East Harling. There are four Grade II listed buildings within the western edge of the site and it is not clear how these buildings would be integrated with any minerals development. We would oppose their demolition unless a sound argument can be made based on guidance given in PPG15. The setting of the Grade II listed Black Flint Farmhouse and the Grade I listed St Peter's Church in East Harling could also be detrimentally affected by minerals development, and the approach to the conservation area, as well as its setting, could be compromised. There are also an issue relating to land restoration after minerals extraction ends; given the existing watercourse, the land could end up flooded, harming the historic landscape and the setting of the above features Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest Breckland District Council: - The residents of Bridgham and East Harling would be disturbed by noise, dust and light pollution, and their human rights could be compromised by the activities, impacting on their right to "quiet enjoyment of their property"
Public/parish council concerns: - A number of concerns raised, including the impact of more HGVs on unsuitable local roads, amenity impacts on local residents (noise, dust, light pollution etc), damage to local landscapes and wildlife, particularly local woodlands
Conclusion: The site is considered unacceptable on landscape and ecology grounds

Site Ref No.	MIN 116	Parish	CRANWORTH
Location of site	Woodrising, Near South Burgh, Hingham	Submitted by	R C Richardson & Sons (Arable)
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (hoggin)	Estimated Reserve	1,400,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	20.7
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. This is a new site being consulted on publicly for the first time
Landscape: - The site is a large arable field with the appearance of a 'domed plateau', and it sits within an attractive area of gently rolling countryside. There are blocks of woodland surrounding the site and several footpaths cross the site. Although some distant views of the site would probably not be badly affected, the residents of several properties close by, and the users of footpaths, would be impacted by working. The only part of the site where extraction might be possible without creating an unacceptable visual intrusion would be the small section to the north of the footpath, but this would probably be too small an area to be viable
Ecology: - Working could affect Woodrising watermeadows; a hydrological survey would be required. A line of mature oaks to the north of the site would need to be retained. Restoration to woodland or arable field with mixed native hedgerows and wide field margins would be preferred. Likely to be an acceptable site
Highways: - The surrounding local highway network is currently inadequate: Woodrising Road would require widening and a right turn lane would be required at its junction with the B1108 to be made acceptable
No external consultees or public comments - this is the first time this site has been consulted on publicly.
Conclusion: - It is not proposed to allocate this site. There is no requirement for the County Council to have a hoggin landbank - hoggin is aggregate of insufficient quality to 'count' as sand and gravel aggregate. The site would require significant highways improvements, and although there could be ecological gains on restoration, the site would generate unacceptable impacts on the local landscape and the amenity of nearby residents.

Site Ref No.	MIN 15	Parish	GREAT ELLINGHAM
Location of site	Land at Rookery Farm, Watton Road, Great Ellingham	Submitted by	Mr T N Ewin
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of Search	Size of site (ha)	16.8
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site.
Landscape: - The site comprises two fields separated by Mill Lane. There are a number of short- and long-distance views over the site, but bunding or a tree belt could screen the site effectively. The fact that the site is just about at the plateau of the slope means that bunding might work well in screening views from the south without making a huge impact on the view. There is already some low bunding in the form of a bank. The impact might be slightly greater at Nelson's Loke, where there is no roadside hedge at present. Bunding would be less appropriate on the western boundary. The landform falls away slightly to the west, but then rises again so that the buildings on the edge of Rockland are at about the same height. A tree belt would be a better form of screening here. There are Veteran oaks and a public path that crosses the site which are valuable and would need to be retained The impact on the access roads would not be too bad if it involved the Watton Road, but the smaller roads could not be enlarged without adversely affecting the landscape character.
Ecology: - There are no significant ecology issues (apart from some veteran oaks): restoration to arable with wide field margins or maybe woodland would be best. These ecology issues could be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option; restoration to woodland would be desirable
Highways: - The surrounding highway network is poor; substantial works would be required to the public highway (soft road) running through the site. Mill Lane would need to be converted from a 'soft' road to a full metalled highway, maybe widened and also drained - very substantial improvements. A haul route and routing agreement to the A11 would be needed
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Site is within Source Protection Zone 3. Highways Agency - Although none of the sites require direct access to the trunk road network, the following junctions are where mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant impact - assuming that the most direct route (in accordance with NCC road hierarchy plan) is taken to/from the trunk road: Site MIN 15 is in a cluster around the A11 between Norwich and Thetford. Its first point of contact with the A11 trunk road is at the junction with the B1077 (Attleborough - a full grade-separated junction). Under this situation mineral extraction would result in an estimated maximum daily increase of 120 daily HGV movements and less than one personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period. Site MIN 15 is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Its first point of contact with the A47 trunk road is at the junction with the B1135 (a full grade separated junction) with an estimated 400 daily HGV movements. This junction is also affected by sites MIN28, MIN89, MIN63, MIN8, MIN9, MIN10, MIN11, MIN12, MIN13, MIN14, MIN51 and MIN72. Assuming that all mineral sites were to go ahead, the potential worst-case cumulative daily traffic impacts consist of an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and ton to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period. There are two grade-separated junctions where cumulatively, sites may have an impact: A47/B1135 and A47/A1065. Cumulatively, the most significant impact would be experienced at the A47/B1135 grade-separated junction. Of all 13 sites identified which may have an impact upon the A47/B1135 junction, the following sites may have the most significant impact upon this junction: MIN12, MIN14, MIN15, MIN51. It is recommended that the impact of each of these sites is assessed prior to possible identification as a preferred location, and also if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site is close to Great Ellingham and Attleborough and could provide materials for the development that these settlements will see over the LDF period to 2026. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish council concerns: - The main concerns raised were the impacts of HGV traffic, damage to ecology and landscape, and the negative impact on local walkers and horse-riders
Conclusion: - . The site is unacceptable on highways grounds

Site Ref No.	MIN 28	Parish	HOE
Location of site	Land at Manor Farm, Hoe	Submitted by	Brown and Co on behalf of Mrs A Borrett
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of Search	Size of site (ha)	40.1
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at the site.
Landscape: - The site lies within an area of relatively tranquil landscape as defined by the CPRE and an area of dark landscape on the county map. The site is remote from a village settlement and although a few isolated properties lie along Hall Road these are well screened from the site. It is consider feasible to design a scheme of working for this land which would have low impact on the wider landscape. No outstanding landscape issues that could not be addressed with an application and would be supported as a preferred option in landscape terms
Ecology: - The River Wensum SAC and other SSSIs and CWSs are close by and an Appropriate Assessment would be needed to demonstrate that there would not be an adverse ecological impacts on the SAC, but it is not expected that there would be any adverse impacts. Low-level restoration, perhaps to mixed arable and deciduous woodland (expanding the existing woodland to the north) would be preferred. Could be potentially a preferred option in ecology terms with additional information or modification. Will need to include reasons i.e. supporting detail or mitigation work
Highways: - The B1110 suffers from poor alignment and visibility at this point and is likely to require significant improvements. There are also junction difficulties with B1146/ B1110. The proposer would need to demonstrate that safe access could be achieved
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - Site MIN 28 is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Its first point of contact with the A47 trunk road is at the junction with the B1135 (a full grade-separated junction) with an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. This junction is also affected by sites MIN15, MIN89, MIN63, MIN8, MIN9, MIN10, MIN11, MIN12, MIN13, MIN14, MIN51 and MIN72. Assuming that all mineral sites were to go ahead, the potential worst-case cumulative daily traffic impacts consist of an estimated maximum daily increase of 2680 HGVs and ton to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Beetley and Hoe SSSI Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site lies on the B1110 road to Dereham and is approximately 1.5km from the edge of Dereham. Future minerals development at this location could provide an important source of material for development in Dereham over the plan period. Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological network. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish council concerns: - The impact of HGVs on narrow local roads, noise, dust, and serious impacts on local landscape and ecology (particularly Beetley and Hoe SSSI) were the main issues raised
Conclusion: - It is not proposed to allocate this site, mainly due to the highways constraints, but also because as an Area of Search there is no evidence showing viable deposits of sand and gravel

Site Ref No.	MIN 50	Parish	MILEHAM and TittleshaLL and Litcham
Location of site	Land surrounding Grenstein Farm, Mileham	Submitted by	Savills (L&P) Ltd on behalf of Mr R Ellis
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	224.5
Background Information: - No mineral or waste planning permission on the site
Landscape: - This Area of Search is attractive, undulating farmland, with the Nar valley SSSI running through the north-east corner of the site. The site is well-screened to the south and west, but has more open views to the east.; its sloping nature means that it would be difficult to screen. Working the entire site would have a detrimental impact on the wider countryside. However, there may be some potential to work land in the north-western part of the site without unacceptable landscape impacts. The Litcham Road frontage parts of the site are unacceptable on landscape grounds
Ecology: - Much of the site, particularly the Nar valley, is too attractive and ecologically valuable to consider, but the north-western part of the site may have some potential (see site plan). There are unlikely to be impacts on ecology in the north-west section of the site unless working is very deep, but restoration to arable with hedgerows, acid grassland and woodland would be beneficial, with public access a bonus. There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed in a planning application
Highways: - Direct access from the site to the B1145 Litcham Road would be needed, and contributions to a new roundabout scheme at the A1065/B1145 would probably be necessary. However, as, a dedicated haul road would be needed, which could itself be unacceptable on landscape grounds. There is a need to clarify visibility specification for the access and agree a condition requiring a suitable routing agreement. May need to undertake localised widening to the carriageway
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - River Nar SSSI runs through the site - an appropriate buffer zone will be required between the development and the SSSI. Proposals will have to ensure that the SSSI suffers no detrimental effects as a result of the minerals workings Highways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clusted around the A47 near to East Dereham. Although none of the sites require direct access to the Trunk Road Network, a broad indication of the junction of the A47 where mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant impact - assuming the most direct route (in accordance with NCC road hierarchy plan) is taken to access the TRN follows; Site MIN 100 has the first point of contact with the A47 Trunk road at the junction with Beeston Road and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. A broad overview of the potential worst-case cumulative daily traffic impacts at trunk roads junctions (if all mineral sites were to go ahead) is as follows, and sets out the maximum daily traffic which would occur under this situation; A47 trunk road junction with the Beeston Road - affected by sites MIN 61, 68, 23 and 100 - is an at grade priority junction. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 480 HGV's and one personal injury accident per year over a 5 year period. There are two locations on the A47 where the majority of minerals traffic would seek access to the trunk road via at-grade junctions; at Wendling and Beeston Road. These junctions currently appear to operate within capacity and have recently been subject to safety-related improvements. Sites MIN 23 61, 68 and 100 could materially increase the number of HGV's through the Beeston Road at-grade priority junction which may be considered undesirable on this section of single-carriageway trunk road. It is recommended that the impact of each of these sites should be assessed prior to possible identification as a preferred location, and also if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously English Heritage: - Land surrounding Grenstein Farm, Mileham. This is a very large proposed site allocation, with the potential to have a significant harmful impact on the historic landscape, including numerous unscheduled archaeological remains. In terms of designated historic features, the site is likely to impact on the setting of a number of listed buildings, including the Grade I listed All Saints Church and Grade I listed Priory Farmhouse in Litcham, and the Grade I listed Church of St Mary in Tittleshall Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on the River Nar SSSI. Also potential impacts from run-off and silt entering the river Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site is also within a Core River Valley. The sites landscape character is classified as settled tributary farmland and some of the important features of this landscape could be lost if exploration leads to excavation. Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Objection based on the potential for significant adverse impacts on the SSSI and BAP habitats. Restoration should be to calcareous grassland in conformity with the Norfolk ecological network. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - Impact on River Nar SSSI and footpaths was a major concern, as was the inappropriate nature of the local highways network. There were also concerns about ecological and landscape damage and noise and dust production
Conclusion: There is no evidence showing viable deposits of sand and gravel on the site. Should geological evidence be made available, and satisfactory access and landscape impact also be demonstrated for the north-west part of the site, this part of the site may become acceptable, however the site will not be allocated based on the current proposal

Site Ref No.	MIN 60	Parish	TITTLESHALL and Wellingham and Litcham
Location of site	Tittleshall, Wellingham and Litcham	Submitted by	Savills (L&P) Ltd on behalf of the Lexham Estate
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of Search	Size of site (ha)	169.7
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at the site.
Landscape: - Whilst the site is arable land of fairly 'ordinary' quality the boundary mature oaks are a notable landscape feature. The site is remote from property, and could be screened satisfactorily from local roads. However, the linear nature of the site may make a workable restoration plan difficult to develop. The western part of the site (west of Wellingham Road) should be omitted from the acceptable 'search area'
Ecology: - The site would be acceptable with appropriate restoration. The ecology of nearby SSSI and CWSs unlikely to be affected unless working of site very deep. It is noted that the central part of the site is currently being managed for heathland restoration and a restoration plan including heathland, acid grassland and woodland would be desirable, leading to significant ecological gains, with some public access also desirable
Highways: - The local highways network is poor; the C325 could not cater for any increase in traffic, especially HGVs, and there is no realistic expectation that necessary improvements could be made.
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - This site is located at the head of the River Nar.- We have significant concerns regarding this site due to the potential issues with the changing landform and removal of part of the geological source of the River Nar. Subsequent landfill unlikely to be permitted at this location. In addition, Natural England should be consulted on this proposal; Highways Agency - A broad overview of the potential worst-case cumulative daily traffic impacts at trunk roads junctions (if all mineral sites were to go ahead) is as follows, and sets out the maximum daily traffic which would occur under this situation: A47 trunk road junction with the A1065 - affected by sites MIN50 and MIN60 - is a full grade-separated junction. These sites would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 240 HGVs and less than one personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period. Natural England: - The surrounding landscape appears to contain a number of scheduled and unscheduled archaeological remains, requiring further assessment to ascertain the impact of the proposed site allocation. Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered. Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network.
Public/parish Council comments: - Concerns focussed on ecology - particularly the possible loss of oaks - the inadequacy of local highways, noise and dust production, damage to the landscape, and pollution
Conclusion: - The site is unacceptable due to highway concerns regarding HGV traffic on the C325

Site Ref No.	MIN 66	Parish	LONGHAM
Location of site	Land adjacent to Longham Hall, Dereham	Submitted by	Tarmac Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	27.3
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. Active pits with planning permission for mineral extraction lie to the north and north-east. A planning application for sand and gravel extraction has been submitted in respect of land immediately to the north of the site
Landscape: -MIN 66 is on sloping ground, and could be viewed from a number of roads and properties in Longham village, Wendling Road and Honeypot Lane. The site would be difficult to screen and bunds would appear an alien feature in the local landscape. Working on this area of open landscape has the potential to impact adversely on a number of properties and users of the surrounding road network. It is therefore not considered suitable for allocation as an area of search in landscape terms
Ecology: - The site is not near any designated sites and a survey for protected species or Biodiversity Action Species is not needed given that the site is a massive intensively arable field at present. Low-level restoration to mixed arable and woodland would be a big ecological improvement
Highways: - A new access to C229 Reeds Lane would be needed (with acceptable visibility splay) and improvements to junction. Improvement to C222 Litcham Road/C229 junction also needed. Need to clarify the exact point of access and provide visibility splays conforming to adopted standards. Will require off-site improvements - overlay to the carriageway
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A47 near to East Dereham. Although Site MIN 28 is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Its first point of contact with the A47 trunk road is at the Wendling junction (a grade priority junction) with an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. This junction is also affected by sites MIN 66 & MIN 67. Assuming that all mineral sites were to go ahead, the potential worst-case cumulative daily traffic impact would consist of a maximum daily increase of 520 HGVs and less than one personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period. There are two locations on the A47 where the majority of minerals traffic would seek access to the trunk road via at-grade junctions: at Wendling and Beeston Road. These junctions currently appear to operate within capacity and have recently been subject to safety-related improvements. Sites MIN66 and MIN67 could materially increase the number of HGVs through the Wendling at-grade priority junction which may be considered undesirable on this section of single-carriageway trunk road. It is recommended that the impact of each of these sites should be assessed prior to possible identification as a preferred location, and also if more than one of the sites is proposed simulataneously English Heritage: - There is significant concern regarding the impact of these proposed mineral sites on the setting of the Grad II* listed St Andrew's Church and Grade II Longham Hall Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The landscape impacts of this activity on land would be unacceptable, and there could be cumulative landscape and highways impacts and maybe also on the setting of St Andrew's Church
Public/parish Council comments: - The impacts of HGVs on unsuitable local highways, excessive dust and noise production, and unacceptable loss of valued local landscapes and ecology were the main issues raised. The impact on local businesses (particularly tourism-related) is also a concern
Conclusion: - The site is unacceptable on landscape grounds

Withdrawn

Site Ref No.	MIN 67 - SITE WITHDRAWN - planning permission was issued on 26/11/09	Parish	LONGHAM
Location of site	Land known as Spreadoak adjacent to Bittering Quarry, Reed Lane, East Dereham	Submitted by	Tarmac Limited
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	1,500,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	46.7
Background Information: - A resolution to grant a planning application for 1,500,000 tonnes of mineral extraction at the site (as allocated) was passed on 14 March 2008, but the Section 106 legal agreement has not yet been signed. In the instance that the planning application is successful the site would be withdrawn from the allocations document. In the site submission it is proposed that the site is worked as an extension to the existing working to the north and vehicles would use the existing site access. The restoration of the site would be to agriculture at a lower level with tree and hedgerow planting on the fringes of the site
Landscape: - The site could be worked with a relatively low landscape impact although the continued use of the plant on its existing site could result in continuing impacts to the residents and users of Bittering Lane. Landscape features within the site would be lost although ultimately replaced by different but significant features through the restoration scheme
Ecology: - The site could potentially be a preferred option in ecology terms with additional information or modification. Further information will need to be provided with regards to supporting detail or mitigation work
Highways: - Could be potentially a preferred option in transport terms with additional information or modification. Will need to include reasons i.e. supporting detail or mitigation work. Need to clarify the exact point of access and provide visibility splays conforming to adopted standards. Will require off-site improvements - overlay to the carriageway
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - Site MIN 66 is in a cluster around the A47 near to East Dereham. Its first point of contact with the A47 trunk road is at the Wendling junction (a grade priority junction) with an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. This junction is affected by both sites MIN 66 & MIN 67. Assuming that all mineral sites were to go ahead, the potential worst-case cumulative daily traffic impact would consist of a maximum daily increase of 520 HGVs and less than one personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period. There are two locations on the A47 where the majority of minerals traffic would seek access to the trunk road via at-grade junctions: at Wendling and Beeston Road. These junctions currently appear to operate within capacity and have recently been subject to safety-related improvements. Sites MIN66 and MIN67 could materially increase the number of HGVs through the Wendling at grade-priority junction which may be considered undesirable on this section of single-carriageway trunk road. It is recommended that the impact of each of these sites should be assessed prior to possible identification as a preferred location, and also if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously English Heritage: - We have significant concerns regarding the impact of theses proposed minerals sites on the setting of the Grade II* St Andrew's Church and Grade II Longham Hall Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Breckland District Council: - The site is currently subject to a planning application. We have previously submitted comments on this application and these comments are still applicable. In summary we are not opposed to the principle of minerals development, but we advised a number of amendments including requesting that workings were further back from existing dwellings and improved landscaping and screening were introduced to limit visual impact
Public/parish Council comments: - The impacts of HGVs on unsuitable local highways, excessive dust and noise production, and unacceptable loss of valued local landscapes and ecology were the main issues raised. The impact on local businesses (particularly tourism) is also of concern
Conclusion: - Given that Planning (Regulatory) Committee have resolved to grant planning permission on the site (subject to concluding the Section 106 agreement), the site is provisionally allocated, but it is expected to "fall out" once the S106 has been agreed and the full planning permission issued

Site Ref No.	MIN 21	Parish	NORTH ELMHAM
Location of site	Land at Foxburrow Farm, Beetley Quarry, North Elmham, Dereham	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Simon Thompson Esq.
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	800,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	12.1
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction lies to the south of the site
Landscape: - The site lies within a tranquil area of countryside as defined on the CPRE map and an area of dark landscape as shown on the county map. The site is located on a sloping valley 'shoulder' in the River Whitewater, south of Beetley Common. Although the site is well-screened, and restoration should be feasible, working would impact adversely on the Whitewater valley and the quiet enjoyment of Beetley Common. This is a sensitive site within the river valley and would require the retention of a plant site on the valley floor. Working on this land would impact on the Whitewater valley and it is not therefore suitable in landscape terms
Ecology: - Near County Wildlife Site 1036, Beetley Common. Site could be potentially a preferred option in ecology terms with additional information or modification but it will need to include reasons i.e. supporting detail or mitigation work. Restoration back to arable with wide field margins and hedgerows would increase the ecological interest of the site
Highways: - The site has a number of potential highways difficulties, which would be very difficult to overcome. The current track to the B1145 having a very poor junction layout, and the B1110/B1145 being an unsatisfactory junction. A direct haul road to the B1110 (Back Lane) with an appropriate junction might be achievable, but the B1110 alignment is also not ideal. There is therefore a need to clarify access and visibility proposals because visibility splays at the existing access are not adequate - and rectifying matters may impact on mature oaks
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - We wish to object on ecological grounds (impact on River Whitewater) Natural England: - Potential adverse impacts from run-off and silt entering the River Wensum SSI & SAC via the River Whitewater tributary English Heritage: - Land at Foxburrow Farm/Hill, North Elmham. There is a Grade II* listed church (St Margaret's) to the east and a scheduled moated site to the south. The setting of both features is likely to be affected by the proposed site given their position on the opposite side of a river valley Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - There are likely to be nationally-important glacial and interglacial deposits on the site, particularly Ipswichian terraces. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered Breckland District Council: - The area is too near to the village for noise and dust in the prevailing wind Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network.
Public/parish Council comments: - Impact on the landscape of the Whitewater valley, Beetley Common, highways, dust, noise, ecology, archaeology etc
Conclusion: - The site is unacceptable due to landscape, highways and ecology impacts

Site Ref No.	MIN 35	Parish	QUIDENHAM
Location of site	Sawmill Field, Heath Road, Quidenham / Snetterton	Submitted by	Frimstone Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	650,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	5.4
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. A former landfill site lies adjacent to the north west boundary of the site. The site has also been submitted as a waste allocation (WAS 53). Previous permission for a borrow pit on the site has now expired
Landscape: - The existing landscape detractors mean that this site cannot be considered a tranquil, unspoilt area of countryside. However, the use of the site as an area for waste disposal would make the situation for those people who do live nearby appreciably worse. The main visual intrusion would be from the first floor views of the houses along the road to the south. Although the existing bunding already screens out long-range views for them, more bunding at the southern edge of the site would have an adverse effect on their views over the field and the woodland to the west
Ecology: -. Restoration to heathland/woodland/arable would probably be satisfactory
Highways: - Although some visibility improvements to access the C827 would be needed, there are no other highways difficulties; there are no particular concerns about non-A11 highways impacts.
External Consultees CommentsHighways Agency - The A11 trunk road junction with Heath Road (Quidenham) is a full grade-separated junction. Along with other nearby sites, would lead to an estimated maximum daily increase of 120 HGVs and one to two personal injury accidents per year over a 5 year period Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site is likely to reveal Pleistocene glacial till and outwash deposits of the Anglian Lowestoft Formation, and is adjacent to the former Snetterton Heath Pit, which has a history of research. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case other features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered. Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network
Public/parish Council comments: - Unacceptable impacts on landscape, ecology, the amenity of local residents, the local highways network and the creeping industrialisation of the local area were the main concerns raised
Conclusion: - The landscape impacts (principally on nearby residents) mean that the site is unacceptable

Site Ref No.	MIN 107	Parish	SHROPHAM
Location of site	Land to the north of Spong Lane, Shropham	Submitted by	Ennstone Johnston Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	210,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	11.0
Current planning status: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. The site lies immediately west of an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction. Following geological investigations, the site area (now a specific allocation, rather than Area of Search) has been reduced by the proposer, with much of the north-eastern part and part of the westernmost field removed (see plan)
Landscape: - The remaining two fields have few landscape issues associated with them, so long as there is a bund on the western boundary. The field closest to Meadow Cottages, which is not so suitable in visual terms, has been deleted by the proposer. The revised site area removes most of the eastern field, the northern part of the central field and the westernmost part of the western field (see site plan). Most of the site is well-screened and it slopes away from Shropham, but some views of the site are likely from cottages to the south. In landscape terms, working the remaining central and eastern fields (but not the remaining part of the western field) would be acceptable
Ecology: - The site could potentially be a preferred option in ecology terms with additional information or modification. Restoration of the site in the form of cereal field margins, lowland mixed deciduous woodland and mixed native hedgerow, would lead to ecological gains and provide an opportunity to increase the biodiversity of the site. However, an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the potential impacts of MIN 107 and surrounding sites will need to be prepared to demonstrate that there would not be unacceptable adverse impacts on Swangey Fen SSSI
Highways: - The surrounding highways are narrow in width and suffer from poor alignment. Access to the processing plant on the current Shropham Quarry to the east will be via Spong Lane, and egress from process plant needs to be provided via the C823 Swangey Lane only, with improvements required to this road
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site lies over a major aquifer and is in Source Protection Zone 3 Highways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A11 between Norwich and Thetford. Although none of the sites require direct access to the trunk road network, the following A11 junctions are where mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant impact - assuming that the most direct route (in accordance with NCC road hierarchy plan) is taken to/from the trunk road. Site MIN 107 has the first point of contact with the A11 trunk road at the junction with Hargham Road and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Cumulatively, sites MIN111, MIN107, MIN108, MIN 110 and MIN102 may have an impact on the A11/Hargham Road grade-separated junction. Although this junction does not currently have a poor safety record or capacity issue of note, cumulatively the impact of the above sites may be detrimental in terms of safety and/or capacity. It is recommended that assessment should be carried out if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Swangey Fen SSSI, a composite site of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, both alone and in combination with other site allocations listed above. Each allocation (MIN 111, MIN 102, MIN 107, MIN 108 & MIN 110) would need to clearly demonstrate no adverse impacts on the European site English Heritage: - There are a number of listed buildings in Shropham, including the Grade I listed St Peter's Church, which could be affected by any of these site allocations. The cumulative impact of all three sites would exacerbate the impact Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site could contain nationally important glacial and interglacial deposits, particularly buried terrace sedimentary archives. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered. Working this site would allow further study to link with previous geological investigations at Shropham Pit Breckland District Council: - The site lies immediately west of existing workings. The proposal could lead to an extension of the existing workings which could supply material for future developments in Attleborough and the A11 corridor Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns raised were excessive noise and dust production, the impact on local wildlife, landscape and ramblers/cyclists, and the long-term (and possibly continuing) nature of minerals extraction in the area
Conclusion: - This site is acceptable providing that appropriate phasing, bunding, restoration and highway improvements are agreed, and that the results of an Appropriate Assessment are satisfactory.

Site Ref No.	MIN 108	Parish	SHROPHAM
Location of site	Land to the North of Hargham Road, Shropham	Submitted by	Ennstone Johnston Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	38.0
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. The site lies west of an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction. In the submission it is suggested that access could be gained from the north via Spong Lane 'which also affords access for the mineral to be processed at the existing Shropham Quarry processing plant'. The site would be 'restored to agricultural land via the importation of inert materials'. In addition efforts would be made to extend the habitats within Shropham Fen in accordance with local biodiversity objectives
Landscape: - The northern part of the site is better in landscape terms than the southern part. If the southern third of the site were left as a buffer zone, it might be possible to extract gravel from the northern section without having too detrimental a visual impact. The site may therefore potentially be appropriate for allocation. Existing vegetation screens the site from the north and east; a buffer zone of bunding and/or planting would help screen properties to the south and west. The northern part of the site is therefore more suitable to be worked than the southern part
Ecology: - Shropham Fen, an area of wet woodland, lies to the east. The site could potentially be a preferred option in ecology terms with additional information or modification. Will need to include reasons i.e. supporting detail or mitigation work. An Appropriate Assessment would be necessary to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on Swangey Fen SSSI, which is part of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, but restoration to arable with some woodland would lead to ecology gains
Highways: - The surrounding highways are narrow in width and suffer from poor alignment. Access to the processing plant on the current Shropham Quarry to the east will be via Spong Lane, and egress from needs to be provided via the C823 Swangey Lane only, with improvements required to this road
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site is over a major aquifer and in Source Protection Zone 3 Highways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A11 between Norwich and Thetford. Although none of the sites require direct access to the trunk road network, the following A11 junctions are where mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant impact - assuming that the most direct route (in accordance with NCC road hierarchy plan) is taken to/from the trunk road. Site MIN 107 has the first point of contact with the A11 trunk road at the junction with Hargham Road and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. Cumulatively, sites MIN111, MIN107, MIN108, MIN 110 and MIN102 may have an impact on the A11/Hargham Road grade-separated junction. Although this junction does not currently have a poor safety record or capacity issue of note, cumulatively the impact of the above sites may be detrimental in terms of safety and/or capacity. It is recommended that assessment should be carried out if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Swangey Fen SSSI, composite site of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, both alone and in combination with other site allocations listed above. Each allocation (MIN 111, MIN 102, MIN 107, MIN 108 & MIN 110) would need to clearly demonstrate no adverse impacts on the European site Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site could contain nationally important glacial and interglacial deposits, particularly buried terrace sedimentary archives. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered. Working this site would allow further study to link with previous geological investigations at Shropham Pit Breckland District Council: - The site is quite close to the village of Shropham and activities associated with the search for minerals could lead to noise problems for local residents. Possible future extraction could lead to further noise problems for local residents Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential impacts on river valley CWS
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns raised were excessive noise and dust production, the impact on local wildlife, landscape and ramblers/cyclists, and the long-term (and possibly continuing) nature of minerals extraction in the area
Conclusion: - There is currently insufficient certainty to allocate the site as an Area of Search. It may be acceptable subject to a satisfactory Appropriate Assessment result. Due to its proximity to existing mineral extraction sites it is likely that there are viable deposits of mineral in this site, notwithstanding that it is an Area of Search. Any working would need to be phased with the existing quarry. There may be some potential to extract mineral on the northern part of the site

Site Ref No.	MIN 109	Parish	SHROPHAM
Location of site	Land to the south of Honeypots Quarry, Shropham	Submitted by	Ennstone Johnston Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	680,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	33.2
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. The site lies south of an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction (Honeypots Quarry) and would be worked as an extension to this site. This is a new site being consulted on publicly for the first time
Landscape: - The site comprises four fields on a sloping site, near to woodland. A road runs along the southern boundary of the site and a footpath crosses the site. There are some long-range views to Shropham village to the south. Most of the landscape impacts are either already acceptable, or could be made so fairly easily, but the necessary screening to Shropham residents would be via a newly-planted tree belt, which would take some years to reach a sufficient size. Existing vegetation and landform generally screen the site fairly effectively, but some advanced planting of trees would be necessary on the southern boundary of MIN 109. It is therefore suggested that the central and south-western fields should not form an early phase of working on this site. The eastern and north-western fields could be bunded fairly easily, but the south-western part would not be so easy to screen
Ecology: - No significant ecology impacts are likely during working - the site is an agricultural use, although there are some richer habitats adjacent to the site. The site is in the grassland-heathland-woodland enhancement zone, and adjacent to the wetland habitat enhancement zone, so the inclusion of wet woodland might be appropriate as part of a restoration plan. Restoration to arable (using inert fill) but incorporating some BAP habitats such as wet woodland would be preferred
Highways: - Access to the processing plant on the current Shropham Quarry to the east will be via Spong Lane, and egress from needs to be provided via the C823 Swangey Lane only, with improvements required to this road
No external or public comments as this is the first time the site has been consulted on publicly
Conclusion: - Depending on the results of external consultation, this site is acceptable subject to appropriate phasing and bunding and planting, and a restoration scheme being agreed

Site Ref No.	MIN 110	Parish	SHROPHAM
Location of site	Land to the south of Spong Lane, Shropham	Submitted by	Ennstone Johnston Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	33.5
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. The site lies west of an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction. Following borehole investigations, the south-western part of the site has been removed from consideration by the proposers
Landscape: - The site is set in rolling arable farmland fairly close to Shropham. Some buildings (industrial and residential) have views of site and whilst bunding might protect residents to the west, it could itself appear an alien and unattractive feature in the landscape. The main impacts are likely to be on the views from the various properties overlooking the western boundary of the site. While bunding might be possible to screen the views from the road from this direction, it would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the residents. The views from the properties on Hargham Road to the south would also be detrimentally affected. The two eastern fields have lower landscape impact that the remaining western field, although even here a suitable distance and bunding to Hargham Road would be needed
Ecology: - Although there are no significant ecology issues on the site itself, it could potentially have an adverse impact on Swangey Fen SSSI, which is part of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC; an Appropriate Assessment would therefore be needed. There would be no outstanding ecological issues that could not be resolved through surveying the site and submitting an agreed restoration plan
Highways: - The surrounding highways are narrow in width and suffer from poor alignment. Access to the processing plant on the current Shropham Quarry to the east would be via Spong Lane, and egress from needs to be provided via the C823 Swangey Lane only, with improvements required to this road
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Site is on a major aquifer Highways Agency - The key issue for the Highways Agency is the potential impact of additional traffic, predominantly HGVs, at the point of access to the trunk road network. Cumulatively, sites MIN111, MIN107, MIN108, MIN 110 and MIN102 may have an impact on the A11/Hargham Road grade-separated junction. Although this junction does not currently have a poor safety record or capacity issue of note, cumulatively the impact of the above sites may be detrimental in terms of safety and/or capacity. It is recommended that assessment should be carried out if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Swangey Fen SSSI, a composite site of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, both alone and in combination with other site allocations listed above. Each allocation (MIN 111, MIN 102, MIN 107, MIN 108 & MIN 110) would need to clearly demonstrate no adverse impacts on the European site Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site could contain nationally important glacial and interglacial deposits, particularly buried terrace sedimentary archives. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered. Working this site would allow further study to link with previous geological investigations at Shropham Pit English Heritage: - There are a number of listed buildings in Shropham, including the Grade I listed St Peter's Church, which could be affected by any of these site allocations. The cumulative impact of all three sites would exacerbate the impact Breckland District Council: - The site is very close to the village of Shropham and activities associated with the search for minerals and the potential future extraction of minerals at the site would have a detrimental impact for the village. Therefore, other sites would be more favourable as they will have less of an effect on the village
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns raised were excessive noise and dust production, the impact on local wildlife, landscape and ramblers/cyclists, and the long-term (and possibly continuing) nature of minerals extraction in the area
Public/parish Council comments: - No comments
Conclusion: - This site is potentially acceptable if additional reserves are required from Areas of Search, given that some borehole investigation has taken place on the site, there is a high expectation that the remaining site area has viable deposits, even though it is still proposed as an Area of Search. Therefore there may be some potential to extract mineral on some part of the two eastern fields (with appropriate bunding and restoration), as long as there would not be an unacceptable cumulative local impact

Site Ref No.	MIN 102	Parish	SNETTERTON
Location of site	Land at North Farm, South of the River Thet, Shropham	Submitted by	Ennstone Johnston Limited
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	1,500,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	58.2
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. An active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel lies close to the northern boundary of the site. In the submission it is proposed that the proposal could form an extension to the active pit to the north. It is stated that the site would be restored to agricultural land but that 'efforts would also be made to extend the habitats within Shropham Fen if in accordance with local biodiversity objectives'
Landscape: - This site is adjacent to the River Thet and there are several blocks of woodland on or adjacent to the site. The area around North Farm - which trains and houses horses - to the south has a 'parkland' feel and would be most affected by the site; there would be few other landscape impacts. A reduced site area and improved landscaping/bunding would be needed to reduce the impact on North Farm to an acceptable level. The other parts of the site could potentially be screened through bunding and planting
Ecology: - This site could potentially have an impact on Swangey Fen SAC; an Appropriate Assessment would be needed. The woodland blocks on the site would need to be retained; any proposal to remove them would need to be supported by the results of an EIA. Restoration to arable with wide field margins, hedgerows and woodland would be beneficial ecologically. It could be potentially a preferred option with additional information or modification. Will need to include reasons i.e. supporting detail or mitigation work
Highways: - The surrounding highways are narrow in width and suffer from poor alignment. Access needs to be provided to Shropham Quarry via a conveyor, with egress to the C823 Swangey Lane only. However, the restoration of the site through inert material could only be delivered directly by road, and the local access roads are not acceptable
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Groundwater: Major Aquifer. Source Protection Zones 2 & 3. Highways Agency - The key issue for the Highways Agency is the potential impact of additional traffic, predominantly HGVs, at the point of access to the trunk road network. Cumulatively, sites MIN111, MIN107, MIN108, MIN 110 and MIN102 may have an impact on the A11/Hargham Road grade-separated junction. Although this junction does not currently have a poor safety record or capacity issue of note, cumulatively the impact of the above sites may be detrimental in terms of safety and/or capacity. It is recommended that assessment should be carried out if more than one of the sites is proposed simultaneously Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site could contain nationally important glacial and interglacial deposits, particularly buried terrace sedimentary archives. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered. Working this site would allow further study to link with previous geological investigations at Shropham Pit Breckland District Council: - The site is in close proximity to Attleborough and the A11 corridor of development and could therefore be an important source of material for the large amounts of development occurring in the area Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential impacts on Swangey Fen SSSI and CWS
Public/parish council comments: - No comments received
Conclusion: This site is unacceptable on highway grounds due to an unsuitable road (North End Road) which would need to be used by HGV in the restoration phase

7.3 BROADLAND MINERAL SITE ASSESSMENTS

The following parishes in Broadland have mineral allocation sites or areas of search proposed in them:

Parish	Site Reference		Page No.
Attlebridge	MIN 55	Acceptable	138
Buxton with Lammas	MIN 37	Not Acceptable	140
Felthorpe	MIN 48	Acceptable	142
Horstead with Stanninghall	MIN 64	Acceptable	144
Horstead with Stanninghall	MIN 65	Not Acceptable	146
Spixworth & Horsham St Faith & Newton St Faith	MIN 96	Potentially Acceptable	148

Site No.	MIN 55	Parish	ATTLEBRIDGE
Location of site	Keepers Cottage, Attlebridge, Norwich, NR9 5TQ	Submitted by	Mrs D Mattioli
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand & gravel); aggregate processing.	Estimated Reserves	525,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	1.9
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at the site. An active pit lies to the north east of the proposed allocation site. A closed landfill site lies immediately south west and south east of the site. An active landfill with planning permission lies over 400m to the south east. The site has also been submitted as a potential waste site (WAS 24)
Landscape: - The site lies within the larger Central North Norfolk national character area. Locally it is within a wider area of coniferous woodland plantations on former heathland interspersed with areas of arable farmland. An access which followed the existing track to the property would have an adverse landscape impact on the Wensum Valley but assuming the existing access to the landfill could be used this site could be worked with a relatively low landscape impact. The site comprises the curtilage of a house that lies on the edge of Attlebridge landfill site. It is remote from other properties and the site could be worked and restored as a landfill extension, with subsequent restoration to heathland, which would link well with the surrounding area and the current restoration plan for Attlebridge landfill. The proposed site could potentially be a preferred option with additional information or modification
Ecology: - Although the site is close to the River Wensum SAC, unless dewatering is planned, there is no objection on ecological grounds. Site is in close proximity to (CWS 1344) Triumph & Foxburrow Plantations. (CWS 1343 Attlebridge Hills) and within 500 metres of the River Wensum SSSI and SAC. Restoration to landfill, and then to heathland, would be beneficial ecologically and would link in well with surrounding area
Highways: - The site falls between two public highways. To the south lies the A1067 Fakenham Road which is recorded as a principle route in the hierarchy. To the north lies the C261 Reepham Road which is recorded as a HGV access route; therefore no significant highways concerns; so long as the access to the current landfill site is used (via King William's Drive to Reepham Road)
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site is within 500m of a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Because of the sensitivity of the adjacent SSSI/SAC concerned, we would object to the site, unless the following development condition is appended to any planning consent: There will be no dewatering of mineral aggregates Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Broadland District Council: - It is stated in the document that the site is 'not within or in close proximity to any national nature conservation or landscape designations'. However, the River Wensum, approximately half a kilometre south of the site, is not only an SSSI, but also an internationally designated area of nature conservation importance (SAC). The site itself also falls in a County Wildlife Site as indicated in Broadland District Local Plan. These factors will need to be taken into account; The River Wensum provides water supply for Norwich and surrounding areas, the potential for affecting the water supply needs to be assessed. The Ramblers' Association : - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish Council comments: - The main issues raised include an increase in HGV traffic and ensuring that Reepham Road is used for HGV access rather than Drayton Road
Conclusion: - This site is acceptable as an allocation with no landscape, ecological or highway concerns which could not be suitably dealt by agreement

Site Ref No.	MIN 37	Parish	BUXTON WITH LAMMAS
Location of site	Land at Mayton Wood, Buxton with Lammas	Submitted by	Frimstone Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	2,000,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	23.7
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at the site. A closed landfill site adjoins most of the eastern boundary of the site and an active pit with planning permission for mineral extraction adjoins the north-east boundary of the site. It is proposed that the site is worked as a continuation of the currently permitted area adjoining the north east boundary would therefore utilise the same access. Restoration would be to a lower level using inert material to restore the deeper areas and the after use would be to extend the woodland and grassland scheme on the existing site
Landscape: - This site has landscape constraints in respect of views from the PROW, surrounding roads and properties. It may also be difficult to achieve a suitable restoration scheme on the land. This site lies immediately west of a closed and partially landfill site and an active sand and gravel quarry. There would be a significant landscape impact on five properties on Buxton Road (views from the upstairs rooms) and low-level restoration would be incongruous next to the raised form of the landfill. Whilst it is accepted that it may be possible to reduce the impact of any working on the site, the overall impact is unacceptable
Ecology: - No outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application. Restoration to acid grassland and/or heathland would add ecological interest to the site
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues that could not be addressed with an application. However, a financial contribution towards improvement works along the B1354 and a routing agreement may be required
External Consultees Comments Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site is adjacent to the former Mayton Wood Quarry with its history of research, and may extraction may reveal local Pleistocene extensive geological resources including the Wroxham and Happisburgh Formations. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Broadland District Council: - The assessment also has not taken account of the impact on nearby dwellings The Ramblers Association; - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concern expressed was the cumulative impact of traffic on the B1354
Conclusion: - The site is considered unacceptable on landscape grounds

Site Ref No.	MIN 48	Parish	FELTHORPE
Location of site	Swannington Bottom Plantation, Felthorpe	Submitted by	Jon Cheetham Contracting
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	1,900,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of Site (ha)	51.6
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at or near the site.
Landscape: - The site is relatively tranquil as defined by the CPRE and lies within an area of dark landscape on the county map. The site is remote from settlement, the nearest properties being approximately 300 m to the north on Mill Lane. The site is effectively Swannington Bottom, a coniferous plantation. If a well designed working with a woodland screen is retained, the site would have a relatively low landscape impact. In landscape terms this site has relatively few constraints
Ecology: - Could be protected species on Upgate Common SSSI, the site is adjacent to Upgate Common SSSI, and some protected species could be affected by the loss of woodland, restoration to a mosaic of habitats (heathland, fen and woodland) similar to Upgate Common could lead to area of very high conservation value (i.e. possibly an extension to the SSSI). An appropriate buffer zone to Upgate Common SSSI must be left
Highways: - Link to A140 Aylsham Road would necessitate additional HGV traffic passing through the village centre of Felthorpe; the use of this route for this proposal is therefore unacceptable. Access from the westernmost point of the site along the existing track (which would need to be improved), then turning left to pass through Gilham's Heath Plantation, before a further left turn to Reepham Road (a Designated Lorry Route) would be acceptable. Highways issues would be satisfactory so long as access was (via an existing track) to Reepham Road and a routing agreement could be put in place
Archaeology: - Objection due to the potential impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) round barrow on the site; the barrow, which lies on the southern boundary, will need to be preserved, with a suitable buffer zone
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site is within 500m of Upgate Common Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Because of the sensitivity of the adjacent SSSI/SPA concerned, we would object to the site, unless there would be no dewatering of mineral aggregates English Heritage: - This site contains a scheduled round barrow along the southern boundary which should be preserved in-situ with an adequate buffer zone around the feature Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Upgate Common SSSI as site adjoins SSSI and lies within floodplain Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Broadland District Council: - The SSSI immediately west of the site is also registered common land. The development of the site will potentially affect the public enjoyment of the land Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential adverse impacts on SSSI and CWS hydrology, if the western section of the site was included. Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network The Ramblers' Association : - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish Council comments: - The loss of trees, impact on the SAM burial mound, unsuitable local roads for HGV traffic, impact on the Upgate Common and noise and dust production were all mentioned as concerns
Conclusion: - This site is acceptable subject to agreement on a suitable buffer zone to protect the round barrow and a highways routing agreement.

Site Ref No.	MIN 64	Parish	HORSTEAD WITH STANNINGHALL
Location of site	Horstead Quarry Extension, Grange Farm, Horstead	Submitted by	D K Symes Assoc. on behalf of Longwater Gravel Co. Ltd.
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	350,000 tonnes (area A) 650,000 tonnes (Areas B&C)
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	24.1
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at the site. An active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction immediately adjoins the western and northern boundaries of the site. It is proposed that the site is worked as a continuation of the currently permitted area to the north
Landscape: - This is a large area of arable land and divides into three area; area (a), a large flat arable field to the east, area (b), a smaller triangular flat arable field to the west separated from area a by a hedge with mature hedgerow trees and area (c) a detached small more undulating set a side field to the north of the existing quarry access road. The site lies in an area of relatively tranquil landscape as defined by the CPRE and in an area of dark landscape on the county map. Areas (a) and (b) are remote from property although (b) is more visible in the local landscape. Whilst it should be possible to design a scheme of working to reduce the landscape impact of working this land, removal of the hedgerow trees and between the fields would have a high landscape impact. Area (c) is smaller and more undulating although again it may be possible to design an acceptable scheme of working for this site. In terms of the areas proposed area (a) has low constraints in landscape terms; area (b) is a smaller parcel, is more open to public views and may be harder to restore retaining the hedgerow to the east; and area (c) is a detached, smaller area of intrinsically attractive countryside closer to property and would have an unacceptable landscape impact
Ecology: - Restoration to arable with wide margins, hedgerows and some woodland would be beneficial ecologically
Highways: - A routing agreement is necessary and it would also be necessary to restrict the annual volume of extraction per year. Financial contributions to needed to improving the B1354 between Waterloo Road and Horstead will also be needed
External Consultees Comments Broadland District Council: - The site is located very close to the Broads area, thus the possible impact on the river valley landscape and water quality need to be assessed Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered
Public comments: - The main concerns expressed relate to noise, dust, and particularly the cumulative highways impact of sites in the local area
Conclusion: - Areas A & B are suitable for allocation, subject to appropriate highways financial contributions and a routing agreement. However, area C could not be worked without adverse impact on landscape and dwellings

Site Ref No.	MIN 65	Parish	HORSTEAD WITH STANNINGHALL
Location of site	Land on Trafford Estate, Stanninghall Road, Frettenham, Near Horstead	Submitted by	Tarmac Limited
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	4,500,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	53.3
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at the site. The land immediately to the south of the site has an extant planning permission for sand and gravel extraction. It is proposed that the site is worked as a continuation of the currently permitted area to the south and would therefore utilise the same access
Landscape: - The site lies in an area of relatively tranquil landscape as defined by the CPRE and in an area of dark landscape on the county map. The site is fairly level and it should be possible to design a scheme of working which would have an acceptable impact on the wider landscape. In landscape terms this site has relatively few constraints
Ecology: - No outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed in an application and restoration to woodland and acid grassland would lead to ecological gains over current arable use
Highways: - The existing quarry access must be used and visibility splays must be satisfactory
External Consultees Comments English Heritage: - There is a large scheduled Roman camp and settlement site 130 metres to the north of the proposed minerals site and a Grade II* listed church to the west (St Swithin). The setting of the church could be detrimentally affected by the proposed site allocation and further assessment is required Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Broadland District Council: - Coltishall conservation area is not indicated on the key map. Any potential impact should be taken into consideration
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns expressed relate to noise, dust, and particularly the cumulative highways impact of sites in the local area
Conclusion: - Although the potential impacts on the Roman camp and St Swithin's church are noted, it is felt that they could be mitigated by sensitive landscaping and buffer zones. There are few other concerns. However, with a 15-year timescale on the current (permitted) minerals site to the south (which is not yet operational), MIN 65 would probably not be worked in the Plan period, so should not be allocated; but the appropriateness of this site should be revisited in the first review of the minerals site allocations DPD

Site Ref No.	MIN 96	Parish	SPIXWORTH and HORSHAM ST FAITH and NEWTON ST FAITH
Location of site	Land at Grange Farm, Spixworth	Submitted by	Mr M Falcon on behalf of D M Cook and Partners
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	1,000,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	67.3
Background Information: - Part of the site has planning permission for aggregates processing and is linked to an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction located less than 300m to the south. It is suggested that the allocation 'would be the natural extension' to the existing operations to the south
Landscape: - The site lies within an area of moderate tranquillity as defined on the CPRE map and is identified as a dark landscape on the county plan. The site lies approximately 0.5km from the edge of Spixworth and 0.6km from the edge of Horsham St Faiths. Working the eastern part of the site may also affect the setting of Spixworth church and the complex of properties around Grange Farm. Two semi detached cottages also lie close to the southern boundary of the site. The site is a large area, it may be possible to work parts of the site, with suitable screening without an unacceptable impact on either the wider landscape or views from property. Could be potentially a preferred option with additional information or modification. The proposed site covers a large area and the area east of the current access road, in particular contains some sensitive landscape features and is important to the setting of the setting of St Peter's Church; and could not be developed without unacceptable impacts on this or Grange Farm. However, the area west of the access road has fewer impacts and could be allocated to phase in with existing site. A reduced site area, with suitable working, restoration and access schemes, could be acceptable
Ecology: - No outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application and restoration to meadow or parkland would be beneficial, along with improved public access
Highways: - Although the current access route to the A140 passes north through Frettenham along a Designated Lorry Road, this route is not ideal, and an alternative would be preferable. The planned route of the Norwich Northern Distributor Road passes just to the south of the site, with a roundabout junction. It is suggested that the site should only be worked if the material could be removed off-site via the NDR
Archaeology: - This site contains the remains of a Second World War training area, along with possible First World War and Auxiliary military features. Potential applicants will be required to submit the results of a programme of archaeological evaluation with any planning application
External Consultees Comments English Heritage: - The proposed site is likely to have a significant impact on the setting of a number of listed buildings at Grange Farm, Spixworth Hall and the village of Horsham St Faith. This includes the Grade I listed St Peter's Church east of Grange Farm, which is immediately opposite the site. The possible impacts need further assessment Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Broadland District Council: - There are concerns over the accessibility of the site and the potential noise generated by the traffic for nearby villagers
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns are the cumulative highways impacts of a number of potential minerals sites in the local area, and the impact on local amenity
Conclusion: - The site may be acceptable, subject to the NDR being granted planning permission, and on a revised site area

7.4 GREAT YARMOUTH MINERAL SITE ASSESSMENTS

The area of the proposed mineral extraction site at Fritton has been amended, following the 2008 Issues and Options consultation, to remove the area of a residential property.

Parish	Site Reference		Page No.
Fritton	MIN 38	Not Acceptable	151

Site Ref No.	MIN 38	Parish	FRITTON
Location of site	Waveney Forest, Fritton	Submitted by	Martin Robeson Planning Practice on behalf of Newcombe Estates Company Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	2,520,751 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	132.4
Background Information: - No current minerals or waste planning permission at the site
Landscape: - The site lies within a relatively tranquil area of countryside as defined on the CPRE Norfolk map and a dark landscape as defined on the county map. Earlier discussions with the proposers of the site have suggested a screen of trees would be retained around the site to protect long distance views. The major impact is likely to be on the users of the site for quiet enjoyment of the countryside. In addition the proposed access route (marked on the plan) could generate adverse amenity impacts on nearby local residents. Much of this site lies within a nationally designated landscape (Broads Authority) and is therefore subject to considerable landscape constraint. Under existing policy applications development should only be permitted exceptionally in these areas. Although information is supplied to show that the proposal could ultimately lead to some landscape enhancement in terms of restored landuse, this proposal also has potential for harm. For a more favourable consideration as an after-use led application leading to landscape enhancement, further information would needed to be provided on means of access, restoration levels, phasing etc. An additional report has been provided which talks about limiting extraction to the 'upland areas' of the proposed site but omitting the 'C' site and incorporating extensive recreation within the proposal. Another representation removes Forest Lodge from the application area. Whilst these comments and submissions are helpful, it is not considered that sufficient information has been supplied in respect of phasing or extraction boundaries to revise the assessment above
Ecology: - The site is 2km from Breydon Water SAC. Due to removal of woodland and loss of habitats/gain in new habitats, an EIA and full ecology survey would be required to assess impact on adjoining marshland and River Waveney. Fauna known to be present in the site area include various woodland birds, amphibians, reptiles (especially adders) and mammals, and so particularly careful attention would need to be paid in an assessment of the impacts on, especially, European protected species such as adders. Restoration to wet woodland and heathland would be ecologically beneficial, particularly if no deciduous woodland is worked (as proposed by the Brett Aggregates)
Highways: - A dedicated right-turn lane to A143 from the haul road would be needed, and as long as appropriate access can be designed to avoid any impact on the local highway network, the highways impacts should be acceptable
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - We wish to object to this allocation due to ecological impacts on the River Waveney Natural England: - Potential adverse impacts on Vertigo angustior, as this site contains the only Norfolk population for this rare mollusc which is a European protected species. This is found on the transition between the floodplain and the rising ground to the east. Potential for mineral extraction only on the drier eastern part of the site, outside the floodplain, and for restoration to heathland. Unlikely to have an impact on Halvergate Marshes SSSI or Breydon Water SSSI/SAC Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - The forest areas of this site are part of the heathland core area within the Norfolk Ecological Network. The site should only be taken forward on condition that this part is restored to heathland and associated habitats. Floodplain areas should only be taken forward if they are restored to wetland habitats Broads Authority: - Ecological value should be taken into consideration. Irreplaceable habitats should be protected; need to consider whether opportunities to enhance ecology could be provided; Part of this proposed allocation lies within the boundaries of the Broads Authority Executive area which has the equivalent status of a national park. The Local Character Area within which this area lies is characterised through a range of geology and soils from silty clay on the grazing marshes bounded by a ribbon of peat and then on the rising ground forming the valley sides extensive areas of sands. This gives quite a diversity of habitats. Most of the site is remnant heathland which is a rare commodity within the BA boundary. The wide reed ponds are one of the significant characteristics on this Local Character Area. The proposals would have a significant impact on the fabric of the landscape and that of visual amenity. From the notes it is implied that a significant belt of vegetation would be retained to screen the longer distance views into the site. However, much of the forest timber is reaching maturity therefore appropriate management would be essential. Any proposal to remove aggregate by river would cause significant visual impacts on the Broads landscape (note: this is not planned) English Heritage: - The site may also have a detrimental impact on the setting of a number of listed buildings to the south in St Olaves, including the Grade I listed St Olaves Priory, which is also scheduled, and the Grade II* listed drainage pump. To the south-east, there are the Grade II* listed church and hall, whilst there are a number of Grade II listed drainage mills along the River Waveney to the west, part of the Broads' historic landscape. We therefore have significant reservations about the allocation of this site in terms of the negative historic environment impact Highways Agency - Although it is a site of significant reserve, the A143 also connects the site to routes to the south (such as the A146) meaning it is unlikely that all HGV movements would be north to Great Yarmouth (to the A12). Therefore, Site 38 is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the A12/A143 junction. Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - This site could reveal nationally important remains for early and middle Pleistocene early human settlements in NW Europe, perhaps linking to finds at Norton Subcourse and Pakefield (in Suffolk). Preservation of a section of former Holocene cliff-line on the site would be desirable and a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered would be vital should this site be worked. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - A wide range of concerns have been raised, including unacceptable impacts on local amenity caused by noise, dust and HGVs, impacts on highway safety, loss of valuable woodland recreation habitat, and damage to local wildlife and archaeological remains
Conclusion: - MIN 38 is a site with many constraints but also some advantages. The site would, if allocated, be the closest sand and gravel quarry to Great Yarmouth, and with direct access to the A143 via a dedicated right-turn junction, there would not be any specific highways safety concerns. Also weighing in favour of allocation is the fact that the conifer woodland on the eastern part of the site is reaching the end of its life, and will therefore need to be harvested irrespective of whether mineral working takes place. The site could also be subject of a very good restoration scheme, offering significant ecological gains if wet woodland and lowland heathland (priority BAP habitats) were both included. Continued public access to the site during extraction has been promised by the proposer, along with even greater public access on restoration. The site could probably be worked with relatively little landscape and amenity impact if an existing tree belt was retained. Finally, there could be the opportunity to reveal potentially valuable and rare archaeological remains and geomorphological structures. However, there are considerable disadvantages. Part of the extraction area would appear to be within the Broads Authority area (which has the status of a National Park), and there is thus a policy presumption against minerals working there. Secondly there could be an impact on various European protected species, including a rare mollusc Vertigo angustior, adders and other reptiles. Thirdly there would be loss of woodland habitats and potential disturbance to wildlife during the operation phase, although it is recognised that an appropriate restoration would deliver long-term ecological benefits. Fourthly, there would be some loss of publicly accessible trails during the operational stages (although there would still be trails available). Fifthly, the suggested access route to the A143 passes close by to dwellings (on both sides), and even if the landscape impacts of this access route could be made acceptable (through planting and screening), there is a likelihood of elevated levels of noise and dust affecting local residents. Finally the recently discovered WWII 'holes in the ground' could also be impacted on. In summary, it is felt that the negative impacts of the site outweigh the positives, with the amenity impacts of the internal access road to the A143 in particular appearing to be very difficult to mitigate to a satisfactory level, and the potential for harm to a number of European protected species also significant

7.5 KING'S LYNN AND WEST NORFOLK MINERAL SITE ASSESSMENTS

The following parishes in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk have mineral allocation sites or areas of search proposed in them:

Parish	Site Reference		Page No.
Bawsey, Grimston & Leziate	MIN 42	Not Acceptable	156
Bawsey	MIN 113	Not Acceptable	159
Brancaster	MIN 1	Not Acceptable	161
Castle Rising, Grimston & Leziate	MIN 41	Not Acceptable	163
Castle Rising, Grimston & Leziate	MIN 94	Not Acceptable	166
Crimplesham	MIN 114	Not Acceptable	169
East Winch	MIN 5	Not Acceptable	171
	MIN 17	Not Acceptable	174
	MIN 18	Not Acceptable	177
	MIN 40	Acceptable	179
	MIN 58	Not Acceptable	182
East Winch & Pentney	MIN 93	Not Acceptable	184
East Winch & Middleton & Wormegay	MIN 31	Potentially Acceptable	186
Leziate	MIN 39	Potentially Acceptable	189
Methwold	MIN 34	Acceptable	192
Middleton	MIN 6	Acceptable	194
	MIN 29	Not Acceptable	197
	MIN 30	Not Acceptable	200
	MIN 59	Acceptable	202
Pentney	MIN 19	Acceptable	204
Runcton Holme	MIN 95	Potentially Acceptable	207
Stoke Ferry	MIN 57	Not Acceptable	209
Syderstone	MIN 45	Potentially Acceptable	211
Tottenhill	MIN 74	Not Acceptable	214
	MIN 76	Not Acceptable	216
	MIN 77	Not Acceptable	218
	MIN 101	Not Acceptable	220
Watlington	MIN 75	Not Acceptable	222
West Dereham	MIN 32	Not Acceptable	225

Site Ref No.	MIN 42	Parish	BAWSEY and Grimston and Leziate
Location of site	Land at Church Farm and Pott Row Woods, Ashwicken, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Mineral Services Ltd/Sibelco Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (silica sand)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	113.7
Background Information: - No current minerals or waste planning permission at the site. An amended boundary for the site has been drawn since the previous consultation stage to remove a large area of the site due to a landowner objection (principally the south-eastern part of the site)
Landscape: - This is a large area with some constraints. The revised site boundaries removes an area of arable land on the corner of the B1145 and Leziate Drove and a larger area of arable land with woodland to the north-east of Chilver House. An area of agricultural land to the north of the B1145 and south east of Chilver House is included. If the northern and eastern areas - which are more sensitive in landscape terms - were omitted, however, the area north of Chilver House would be acceptable in landscape terms
Ecology: - This is a very good opportunity to create a large area of heathland-type habitat, and connect SSSIs and CWSs. The loss of Pottrow Woods would be more than compensated ecologically by the creation of lowland heath, wet heath, and the formation of an ecological network. The boundary of the application site has been amended to exclude the area around Flash Car and Hapton Fen Covert. It would be prudent to however includes these wooded habitats in surveys because these habitats would be potentially isolated by the proposals
Highways: - Further investigation of the local highway network required to ensure that a safe access can be formed away from other existing junctions. The removal of the south-eastern area has the effect of making the vast majority of the site appear remote from the highway network, so the proposed means of access is unclear. The junction of C56 Leziate Drove with B1146 may need improvements
Archaeology: - Object on grounds of national importance. The site affects a scheduled burial mound, and also the site of the Bawsey tile kilns, which although not scheduled is still a site of international importance
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Part of the site is in Flood Zone 3. A Flood Risk Assessment would be required to appropriately investigate level of risk Highways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A47 near Kings Lynn. There is one grade-separated junction, the A47/A10 Hardwick Interchange where sites may have an impact. Although at this stage the quantum of HGVs that would use this junction is unknown (the sites identified as possibly having an impact are 'Areas of Search'), the safety record of the A47/A10 junction and the size of the sites indicate s that the following sites have the potential to exacerbate safety and capacity issues at this junction: MIN 41, MIN 42, MIN 94. It is recommended that assessments should be carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously Natural England: - There is lowland wet grassland, currently in stewardship, within part of the site allocation area. Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Roydon Common SSSI which is a composite site of Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog SAC, and a Ramsar site. The area of search affects the water catchment for this site. May be potential disturbance impacts on birds from noise and lighting. Any application would need to demonstrate clearly, through sound scientific evidence, that there would be no adverse impacts on the European site. We consider that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the internationally important interest features of the site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects; an Appropriate Assessment is necessary English Heritage: - We have significant concerns regarding the harmful impact this site allocation would have on scheduled monuments and other archaeology. A scheduled bowl barrow is situated within the site boundary, which should be preserved in-situ with an adequate buffer zone. This buffer zone should link through to Leziate Heath to the west to avoid the barrow becoming an island surrounded by a quarry. Access to the proposed site from the designated lorry road is likely to have an impact on the setting of the barrow, regardless of any buffer, and this will need to be carefully considered. The setting of the scheduled remains of a medieval church will also be affected by the proposed site and will also need an adequate buffer zone. The known and presumed existence of other archaeological remains, including the tile kilns of "international importance" will need further assessment work to establish what is there and to consider the significance and long-term treatment Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site includes low-lying ground in the Gaywood River valley and is likely to contain Holocene and Pleistocene glacial, interglacial and periglacial features, and maybe also Palaeolithic archaeology. Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - There is some concern about the impacts this very large site could generate, particularly noise, dust, PM10s and light pollution, on residents. These concerns would need to be shown to be addressed adequately through Environmental Impact Assessment and a SEMP (Site Emissions Management Plan) Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - potential adverse impacts on Roydon SAC and RAMSAR site and on Leziate, Sugar and Derby Fen SSSI and on BAP habitats at Grimston Warren The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - Concerns raised include impacts on landscape, ecology, cumulative impact on RAMSAR site, the health risks of working silica sands, water pollution and the impacts of HGVs on unsuitable roads
Conclusion: - The revised site area leaves a small parcel of land in the south-east corner, and a larger area in the north and west. The remaining south-east section is small, and includes the scheduled barrow; after including a suitable buffer zone, there would not appear to be a workable area remaining. The larger area is constrained by the presence of Pottrow Woods, and the presence of the River Gaywood through the middle of the site. It is also not clear where highways access to the site would be secured. Finally, the presence of Bawsey Tile Kilns, in the area south of the River Gaywood, is a further constraint on development. In summary, there are too many disadvantages to working this site for silica sands, particularly when there are other, more acceptable sites in Norfolk

Site Ref No.	MIN 113	Parish	BAWSEY
Location of site	Leziate Heath, Land North of B1145	Submitted by	Cruso & Wilkin Surveyors on behalf of Owen Cunnington
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (silica sand)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	17.8
Background Information: - No current minerals or waste planning permission at the site. This is a new site, being consulted on publicly for the first time
Landscape: - The site is a mix of flat grassland and former arable on very light soils. It is bounded by woodland to the north and the King's Lynn road to the south. Views from nearby houses are screened by existing woodland. Working on the site would be intrusive to local viewpoints unless they could be screened in a sensitive manner. Nearby properties may also experience disturbance and the necessary bunds and planting could detract from the open character of the site
Ecology: - The site is fairly close to Roydon Common SAC and Leziate Fen is about 600m away from the site. Restoration, including woodland, heathland and dry acid grassland, which could help link up Leziate Country Park to Roydon Common, would be beneficial ecologically
Highways: - Access to the B1145 Gayton Road would need to be located carefully due to the proximity of other junctions along this stretch of the B1145 and the presence of dips in the road; a dedicated right-turn lane should be provided. Further work to confirm the achievability of this improvements works would be necessary from the proposer
No external consultee or public comments - this is the first time this site has been consulted on publicly
Conclusion: - This site is considered unacceptable due to landscape impacts. Furthermore, the site is not supported by a minerals company, and there is no evidence of satisfactory deposits and there are more appropriate silica sand sites elsewhere

Site Ref No.	MIN 1	Parish	BRANCASTER
Location of site	Thieves' Hole, Burnham Deepdale	Submitted by	Mr A Borthwick
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	28.3
Background Information: - No current minerals or waste planning permission on this site
Landscape: - Sites should only be allocated exceptionally within the AONB where they are either in the national interest or form part of a wider scheme to enhance the landscape. A proposal on this scheme would have the potential to impact adversely on the quiet enjoyment of the countryside and cause the loss of a small woodland feature and is therefore unacceptable
Ecology: - Restoration to either arable with field margins & hedgerows or heathland habitat to complement Barrow Common would be ecologically beneficial
Highways: - The local highway network is inadequate and routing would cause HGVs to either use the A149 coast road, which is very narrow in places, or access the B1155 in Burnham Market. Neither route is acceptable
External Consultees Comments Natural England: - There would be unacceptable visual impact on the landscape within the AONB as it lies on top of a ridge Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Although not a site of national significance, it would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered Norfolk Coast Partnership: - The site is a particularly sensitive location within the AONB and the development would be inappropriate Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - There is potential for restoration in line with Norfolk Ecological Network, such as calcareous grassland King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - Residential property lies within 25m. 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. Such a study could be part of a formal Environmental Impact Assessment. The potential for different site activities to emit dust and their relationship to residential properties and other sensitive uses; and How the layout of the site could minimise impacts; and the proposed methods of mitigation and control of dust generating activities. Due to the very close proximity of residential properties there is some doubt as to the feasibility of the site. In particular, can PM10s be adequately controlled so as to prevent a breach of National Air Quality Standards? Lighting and noise would also need to be controlled.
Public/parish Council comments: - No comments received
Conclusion: - The site is considerd to be unacceptable due to the landscape & highways impacts

Site Ref No.	MIN 41	Parish	CASTLE RISING and GRIMSTON and ROYDON
Location of site	Land at Hall Farm, Roydon, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Sibelco
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (silica sand)	Estimated Reserve	1,090,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	146.9
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site
Landscape: - The proposed area of search lies in an area of attractive rural landscape, close to the AONB and is overlooked from surrounding roads and footpaths. In landscape terms it is not considered suitable
Ecology: - Restoration to heathland/woodland, along with MIN 42 and MIN 94, could help create very large area of heathland with very big ecological gains. The north-eastern boundary should be re-aligned to protect Gorse Moor CWS
Highways: - There is a need for a right-turn lane onto the A148, unless the site can be accessed via Hall Lane. In that case the junction of Hall Lane with the A148 would need to be upgraded
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site is within a groundwater vulnerability zone Highways Agency - Minerals traffic may seek direct access to the A47 trunk road at the crossroads at Common Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues or number of personal injury accidents, MIN 41 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site in the local area is proposed simultaneously Natural England: - Potential loss of part of Grimston Warren Pit SSSI which could result in some of the geological interest, for which the site is notified, being destroyed. Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Roydon Common SSSI which is a composite site of Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog SAC, and a Ramsar site. Any application would need to demonstrate clearly, through sound scientific evidence, that there would be no adverse impacts on the European site. We consider that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the internationally important interest features of the site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, and would require an Appropriate Assessment Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Object due to impact on Roydon Common SSSI/SAC, and CWS site. English Heritage: The site could impact negatively on setting of Grade II* church nearby, on two scheduled burial mounds on Roydon Common and could also have impacts on long views from Castle Rising Castle Norfolk Coast Partnership: - Whilst it is recognised that wider landscape impacts on the Norfolk Coast AONB would be limited by the woodland to the north, this still represents a major development right on the boundary of the AONB that would inevitably have severe local landscape impacts, in addition to other potential environmental and human impacts Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site includes part of the Grimston Warren Pit geological SSSI which is designated for its exposures in the Dersingham and Sandringham Formations; it would need to be protected. However, there may also be potential to expand the SSSI through working this site King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - Two properties lie within the site and the village of Roydon is close by. The site and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - A number of concerns raised, including amenity impacts on local residents (noise, dust, light pollution etc), the impacts of HGVs on unsuitable roads, destruction of landscape, damage to local wildlife, and the health concerns of breathing in silica sand
Conclusion: - Given that more acceptable sites with fewer impacts have been proposed for the extraction of silica sand there is no need to allocate MIN 41. There is no evidence that the winning of silica sand poses a health risk either around or within quarries. The processing of certain forms of silica (e.g. milling) can pose risks, but this processing takes place in enclosed buildings, with appropriate protection measures for workers

Site Ref No.	MIN 94	Parish	CASTLE RISING and ROYDON and GRIMSTON
Location of site	Land at Warren Farm and Spot Farm, Sandy Lane, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Mineral Services Ltd/Sibelco Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (silica sand)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	113.6
Background Information: - No current minerals or waste planning permission on this site. The site lies adjacent to a former quarry with planning permission for carstone extraction
Landscape: - The site lies within an area of moderate tranquillity as defined by the CPRE and is shown as a dark landscape on the county map. Most of the site is remote from settlement apart from the scattered properties around Spot and Warren Farms. However, the landscape impacts, particularly on the northern part of the site, could be significant, as could the impacts on Warren Farm. In landscape terms parts of this site (the north and central areas) would be difficult to screen from public viewpoints, but restoration could lead to some landscape improvements
Ecology: - This is an excellent opportunity for an excellent restoration to heathland, connecting Roydon Common SAC, Grimston Warren SSSI and several CWSs, greatly increasing the ecological interest on the site
Highways: - There are no highways concerns, subject to a 'left in, left out' access/egress, onto the suitable local highway network (Designated Lorry Routes)
Archaeology: - Object on grounds of archaeological importance because the submitted plan shows a listed building - Warren Farm - that would be demolished
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site is within a Groundwater Vulnerability Zone Highways Agency - Site MIN 94 has the first point of contact with the A47 Trunk Road Network at the junction with the A10 and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. There is one grade-separated junction, the A47/A10 Hardwick Interchange where sites may have an impact. Although at this stage the quantum of HGVs that would use this junction is unknown (the sites identified as possibly having an impact are 'Areas of Search'), the safety record of the A47/A10 junction and the size of the sites indicates that the following sites have the potential to exacerbate safety and capacity issues at this junction: MIN 41, MIN 42, MIN 94. It is recommended that assessments should be carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously Natural England: - Potential loss of part of Grimston Warren Pit geological SSSI which could result in some of the site, being destroyed. Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Roydon Common SSSI which is a composite site of Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog SAC, and a Ramsar site. The area of search affects the water catchment for this site. May be potential disturbance impacts on birds from noise and lighting. Any application would need to demonstrate clearly, through sound scientific evidence, that there would be no adverse impacts on the European site. We consider that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the internationally important interest features of the site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, an Appropriate Assessment is necessary English Heritage: - We would oppose the demolition of Warren Farm unless a sound argument can be made in line with guidance given in PPG15 and would require that its setting is not compromised by the development of the rest of the site. The building should avoid becoming an island surrounded by a quarry. The setting of a scheduled church (also Grade I listed) and settlement is also likely to be affected by the proposed site, given its prominent siting and current open and tranquil surroundings. Further work is required to assess the impact on this historic location. The known and presumed existence of other archaeological remains will need further assessment work to establish what is there and to consider their significance and long-term treatment Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site includes part of the Grimston Warren Pit geological SSSI which is designated for its exposures in the Dersingham and Sandringham Formations. There may be potential to extend Grimston Warren SSSI on restoration Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Concerns that there would be visual impacts on Roydon Common, Grimston Warren and the Grimston Road The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - Many concerns raised, including landscape impacts, destruction of wildlife and impact on Roydon Common SAC, HGV impacts on unsuitable roads, noise, dust and the health impacts of breathing in silica sand dust
Conclusion: - It is not proposed to allocate this site, as there are sufficient silica sand reserves on more acceptable sites although it is acknowledged that the site will be automatically 'safeguarded' as a silica sand location. There is no evidence that the winning of silica sand poses a health risk either around or within quarries. The processing of certain forms of silica (e.g. milling) can pose risks, but this processing takes place in enclosed buildings, with appropriate protection measures for workers

Site Ref No.	MIN 114	Parish	CRIMPLESHAM
Location of site	Manor Farm, Main Road, Crimplesham	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (clay)	Estimated Reserve	696,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	7.3
Background Information: - No current minerals or waste planning permission on this site but Crimplesham Quarry is nearby. There is no need for the County Council to maintain a clay landbank in the county - it is believed that the currently permitted sites meet the demand comfortably. This is a new site, being consulted on publicly for the first time
Landscape: - The site comprises open farmland, sloping to the south and west, with access via an existing track. The site would be remote from property, but the access road would be visible from properties clustered around Manor Farm. Because of the open, sloping nature of the site, it would be difficult to screen the site itself or movements on the access track
Ecology: - There would appear to be little ecological interest on the site currently, and so a restoration strategy incorporating any improved biodiversity would be welcomed
Highways: - Subject to access from existing Crimplesham Quarry onto the C543 Main Road via site MIN32, the site appears to be able to be accessed satisfactorily. The site is well located in relation to the route hierarchy
No external consultee or public comments - this is the first time this site has been consulted on publicly
Conclusion: - The site is considered to be unacceptable due to the landscape impacts, and there is also no requirement for any new clay sites in the county

Site Ref No.	MIN 5	Parish	EAST WINCH
Location of site	Land off East Winch Road, East Winch, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (carstone)	Estimated Reserve	698,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	5.7
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. The site lies immediately to the east of an active quarry with planning permission for carstone extraction and inert landfill. The site is also submitted as a waste allocation (WAS 89). It is proposed that the site is worked as an extension of an existing quarry and that following reinstatement 'slightly above original levels', the after use of the site 'will be specifically aimed at improving biodiversity'
Landscape: - It is considered that the site could be worked for mineral although there are uncertainties in respect of a restoration which relies on imported material. Whilst a low level restoration could be acceptable, it could also look incongruous in the plateau landscape unless wide gently sloping margins are left. The work would also need to be phased with the other operations in the area to prevent an over-concentration of workings. Provided the two conditions above were dealt with satisfactorily within any application, the site would be suitable for extraction in landscape terms
Ecology: - This site viewed as an ecological 'opportunity' on restoration, with many CWSs in surrounding area which could be linked into
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues that could not be addressed through an application. However, the construction of East Winch Road needs to be improved and contributions to these improvements would need to be made, and the improvements made, before any new East Winch site could commence
External Consultees Comments National Grid: - The site is crossed by National Grid's high pressure gas transmission pipelines. Local authorities have a statutory duty to consider applications for development in the vicinity of high pressure (above 7 bar) pipelines and to advise the developer on whether the development should be allowed on safety grounds on rules provided by HSE. Should these be taken forward as minerals sites, the operators should be made aware of the above issues Highways Agency - Several of the proposed mineral extraction sites put forward are clustered around the A47 near to King's Lynn. MIN 5 has the first point of contact with the A47 trunk road network at the junction with East Winch Road and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the priority junction at East Winch Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues or number of personal injury accidents, MIN 5 could increase the number of slow-moving HGVs. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously. The above analysis suggests that if all, or some of the sites in the area are developed, there may be significant capacity and safety concerns at the East Winch priority junction with the A47 Natural England: - The development is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the Blackborough End SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) either alone or in combination with other sites. With regard to the River Nar SSSI, there is already an adverse impact due to run-off and silt from existing mineral workings and haul routes entering the river. There is potential for this adverse impact to increase as a result of this site allocation Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - Noise, light, air quality, lighting and nuisance are of significant concern to the Borough Council and should be addressed in the submission of a Site Emission Management Plan should the site be allocated
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns raised are the impact on local landscapes, damage to wildlife, the volumes of HGV traffic on unsuitable local roads, production of noise and dust and the health impacts of silica sand particles (note: MIN 5 is not proposed as a silica sand quarry)
Conclusion: - Given that MIN 6 is considered to be a more acceptable site and that reserves at this site would allow the county's target for carstone to be reached; it is not proposed to allocate MIN 5, which would require highways improvements/A47 junction capacity issues to be addressed.

Site Ref No.	MIN 17	Parish	EAST WINCH
Location of site	Land at Lower Farm, East Winch, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	210,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	2.0
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. The site lies immediately to the east of a former sand and gravel pit and south and east of a large area of permitted existing mineral and waste operations at Blackborough End. Restoration to a small water area is proposed, involving the formation of margins 'to encourage a heathland lake habitat with shoreline sand cliffs, Scots pine, heathland scrub and grassland and sandy/gravely shoreline areas'
Landscape: - This site is a relatively small area close to property (although the owners of the property have proposed the site). The deposit is deep, which could make a suitable restoration more difficult to achieve. Users of the adjacent footpaths would be adversely affected. The site therefore has constraints in landscape terms but could be suitable as a short-term after-use led proposal
Ecology: - No ecology issues that could not be addressed through an application; restoration to fishing lakes would be acceptable
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues that could not be addressed through an application. However, the construction of East Winch Road needs to be improved and contributions to these improvements would need to be made, and the improvements made, before any new East Winch site could commence
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A47 near to King's Lynn. A broad indication of the junctions of the A47 where mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant impact (assuming the most direct route is taken to access the Trunk Road Network in accordance with Norfolk County Council's route hierarchy) is given below. Site MIN 17 has the first point of contact with the A47 Trunk Road Network at the junction with East Winch Road and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. On the A47, minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the priority junction on East Winch Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues or number of personal injury accidents, MIN 17 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junctions. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously. The above analysis suggests that if all, or some of the sites identified above are developed, there may be significant capacity and safety concerns at the East Winch priority junction with the A47 Natural England: - It is unlikely that the development would have any adverse impact on the Blackborough End SSSI either alone or in combination with other sites. With regard to the River Nar SSSI, there is already an adverse impact due to run-off and silt entering the river from existing mineral workings and haul routes. There is a potential for this adverse impact to increase as a result of this site allocation King's Lynn and West Norfolk District Council: - Noise, air quality, and lighting nuisance are of significant concern to the Borough Council and should be addressed in the submission of a Site Emission Management Plan Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns raised are the impact on local landscapes, damage to wildlife, the volumes of HGV traffic on unsuitable local roads, the production of noise and dust and light pollution
Conclusion: - The site is considered unacceptable on landscape grounds Although it might be possible to overcome these concerns, there is likely to be sufficient sand and gravel resources in other, more acceptable sites in Norfolk

Withdrawn

Site Ref No.	MIN 18 - SITE WITHDRAWN	Parish	EAST WINCH
Location of site	Land between former carstone pit and trout stream, near West Bilney Hall, East Winch, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	1,090,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	13.2
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. It is proposed that the site is restored to a small water area involving the formation of margins in such a way 'to encourage a heathland lake habitat with shoreline sand cliffs, small stands and belts of Scots pine, heathland scrub and grassland and sandy/gravely shoreline areas. The site has previously been refused planning permission on appeal
Landscape: - The site close to former carstone quarry and in area of High Landscape Quality (King's Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan). The site may be difficult to screen from surrounding isolated properties and rights-of-way and is therefore unacceptable
Ecology: - Restoration of the site would be very beneficial for ecology, particularly if heathland restoration was planned
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues that could not be addressed through an application. However, the construction of East Winch Road needs to be improved and contributions to these improvements would need to be made, and the improvements made, before any new East Winch site could commence
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - Several of the sites put forward are clustered around the A47 near to King's Lynn. A broad indication of the junctions of the A47 where mineral extraction is likely to have the most significant impact (assuming the most direct route is taken to access the Trunk Road Network in accordance with Norfolk County Council's route hierarchy) is given below. Site MIN 17 has the first point of contact with the A47 Trunk Road Network at the junction with East Winch Road and an estimated 120 daily HGV movements. On the A47, minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the priority junction on East Winch Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues or number of personal injury accidents, MIN 17 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junctions. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously. The above analysis suggests that if all, or some of the sites identified above are developed, there may be significant capacity and safety concerns at the East Winch priority junction with the A47 Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on East Winch Common SSSI either alone or in combination (MIN 18 & MIN 58) Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - The site could adversely impact local residents by way of noise, dust and air quality. In addition, continued quarrying in the area could impact adversely on the local landscape and ecology Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for impacts on water quality of the East Winch Common SSSI and CWS 410 from use of an adjoining road as a haul route. Potential impacts on the hydrology of East Winch Common SSSI and CWS 410. Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns raised are the impact on local landscapes, damage to wildlife, the volumes of HGV traffic on unsuitable local roads, the production of noise, dust and light pollution and adverse impacts on tourism and country walking
Conclusion: - Although ecology and highways impacts may be satisfactory, particularly if a high-quality restoration was planned; this site is considered to be unacceptable due to the landscape impacts. In the light of the previous appeal refusal, it would be inappropriate to allocate this site

Site Ref No.	MIN 40	Parish	EAST WINCH
Location of site	Land to the East of Grandcourt Farm	Submitted by	Sibelco Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (silica sand)	Estimated Reserve	3,000,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	52.7
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. The site lies immediately to the east of an unworked area of land with planning permission for silica sand extraction. It is proposed that the site forms an extension to the existing pit to the east
Landscape: - The site is adjacent to the current Leziate Quarry, and MIN 40 would form a natural extension. The site borders East Winch to the east and two isolated properties to the west and south. Parts of the area probably could be worked and screened satisfactorily but phasing with permitted sites to the north and west would need to be arranged
Ecology: - The surrounding area is of high wildlife value, so plenty of potential for a good restoration; heathland or arable/heathland/woodland would be preferred
Highways: - Site would need direct access to A47, which would probably be unacceptable to Highways Agency; alternative route through East Winch would be unacceptable. However, should the material be conveyored to the existing Leziate quarry site (for processing and onward transportation), the existing road and rail links at Leziate could be used
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - MIN40 may be of particular concern as it is located adjacent to the A47 and may seek a new direct access to the trunk road; it would have an estimated 400 daily HGV movements Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - The site is located very close to East Winch village and other properties; the residents could be affected by noise, dust and air pollution. This would need to be investigated through a Site Environmental Management Plan Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - Many concerns raised, including landscape impacts, destruction of wildlife, HGV impacts on unsuitable roads, noise, dust and the health impacts of breathing in silica sand
Conclusion: - It is proposed to allocate the site subject to adequate buffer zones being put in place around East Winch (indicative buffer zones are shown on the plan) and, properties at Carrpit Cottage and Grandcourt Farm, satisfactory processes being in place to minimise noise and dust production, the conveyoring of material to the current processing site, and a high-quality restoration involving heathland taking place. There is no evidence that the winning of silica sand poses a health risk either around or within quarries. The processing of certain forms of silica (e.g. milling) can pose risks, but this processing takes place in enclosed buildings, with appropriate protection measures for workers

Site Ref No.	MIN 58	Parish	EAST WINCH
Location of site	West Bilney Pit, East Winch, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Mr W George
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	3,000,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	8.0
Background Information: - This is a worked and restored site, although there is no current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. A previous proposal to extend site was rejected on appeal. The site has also been submitted as a waste allocation (WAS 39)
Landscape: - Re-working of the site would impact on nearby properties and views from the countryside (proposed restoration is to landfill) to an unacceptable degree
Ecology: - Restoration to deciduous woodland would be beneficial ecologically
Highways: - A scheme to improve East Winch Road has been developed, so contributions would be sought and these improvements would need to be paid for and in place before development could happen. Further work might also be necessary on Common Road/A47 junction, depending on the views of the Highways Agency
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the crossroads at Common Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues or number of personal injury accidents, MIN 58 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site in the local area is proposed simultaneously Natural England: - There could be potential adverse hydrological impacts on East Winch Common SSSI either alone or in combination with MIN 18 Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - The site is located close to properties; the residents could be affected by noise, dust and air pollution. This would need to be investigated through a Site Environmental Management Plan, with the cumulative impacts of a number of potential local sites considered Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Concerns regarding continued use of Common Road for HGVs which borders East Winch Common SSSI and CWS. Potential adverse impacts on hydrology of SSSI and CWS 410. Restoration should be in conformity with Norfolk Ecological Network
Public/parish Council comments: - A number of concerns have been raised, including the impact of HGV traffic on unsuitable local roads, noise, air and light pollution, damage to wildlife and local landscapes and amenity impacts on local residents
Conclusion: - Given the previous decision to refuse planning permission on appeal (on landscape grounds), and that there do not appear to be any significant changes to the proposed site, it is considered that the site is unacceptable on landscape grounds

Site Ref No.	MIN 93	Parish	PENTNEY and EAST WINCH
Location of site	Church Farm, Pentney, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Savills on behalf of Mr and Mrs O Cunnington
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	1,000,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	19.0
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site. A former sand and gravel working lies to the west. The site area has been reduced since the previous 2008 Issues & Options consultation, excluding the area around the green burial ground
Landscape: - Half the site is arable, with the eastern area a mix of pony paddock and arable land. There are open views of site from Pentney Road and Heath Road, and from two footpaths. The amended site boundary lessens the impact on local residents and Pentney Church, but it is still too close to houses and would impact adversely on the setting of Pentney Church. A well-designed screening scheme would reduce the impact of the site, however
Ecology: - No outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application. Restoration to arable with field margins, hedgerows and maybe woodland on western edge to increase the habitat value of Hoveringham Wood would be preferred
Highways: - The local highway network unsuitable for HGVs without substantial improvements (which may need third party land and demolition of buildings). Neither potential route to A47 via West Bilney or to C65 Common Road is acceptable
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Restoration to ecological/recreational enhancements preferred. The site is also in Flood Zone 3 Highways Agency - On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the crossroads at Common Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues or number of personal injury accidents, MIN 93 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site in the local area is proposed simultaneously Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Many of these sites are on the Nar SSSI floodplain or floodplains of associated watercourses and adjacent to County Wildlife Sites. We are concerned about impacts on the Nar SSSI and BAP habitats and it is important to show no adverse impacts, particularly as large areas of the floodplain have already become waterbodies as a result of former permissions. However, there is also potential for restoration in line with Norfolk Ecological Network to provide a network of wetland habitats English Heritage: - We have significant concerns and objections with regards to the detrimental impact of mineral extraction on the setting of the immediately adjacent Grade I listed church on the western edge of the village. It would effectively cut the historic church off from the surrounding landscape and cause considerable harm Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - Working could potentially reveal river terrace landforms and Pleistocene terrace sediments of Nar Valley Formation. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - A large number of properties lies within 50-200m from the site and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - A number of concerns raised, including the impact of HGVs on unsuitable local roads, unacceptable amenity impacts on local residents (noise, dust etc), damage to the landscape, air pollution, and destruction of local wildlife
Conclusion: - The site is considered to be unacceptable due to landscape, and highway impacts

Site Ref No.	MIN 31	Parish	MIDDLETON and WORMEGAY and EAST WINCH
Location of site	Priory Farm, Blackborough End, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Bidwells on behalf of Mrs A Carter
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of Search	Size of site (ha)	33.8
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. Permitted mineral operations lie to the north and south of the site and permitted waste operations lie to the north
Landscape: - Site is in the Nar valley - it is crossed by drainage ditches and blocks of carr woodland and surrounded by other past and present minerals workings. It could probably be screened fairly easily. Likely restoration would be to open water, which could lead to an over-concentration of large lakes and there would also be phasing issues with the surrounding sites. Small parts of the site may be workable, however
Ecology: - Restoration to open water would need to be avoided (there is already an over-concentration of large lakes in the locality), so a mixture of wetland/fen/reedbed, grassland/meadow and wet woodland would be ideal. No outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues that could not be addressed through an application. However, the construction of East Winch Road needs to be improved and contributions to these improvements would need to be made, and the improvements made, before any new East Winch site could commence
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the priority junction at East Winch Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues MIN 6 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the sites in the area, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously. The above analysis suggests that if all, or some of the sites identified above are developed, there may be significant capacity and safety concerns at the East Winch priority junction with the A47 Natural England: - There may be potential impacts on the River Nar SSSI from runoff Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Many of these sites are on the Nar SSSI floodplain or floodplains of associated watercourses and adjacent to County Wildlife Sites. We are concerned about impacts on the Nar SSSI and BAP habitats and it is important to show no adverse impacts, particularly as large areas of the floodplain have already become waterbodies as a result of former permissions. However, there is also potential for restoration in line with Norfolk Ecological Network to provide a network of wetland habitats National Grid: - The site is located in the vicinity of National Grid's high pressure gas transmission pipelines, which imposes some constraints Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - This is potentially a valuable site for geological study. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are houses within 95m of the site, and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish Council comments: - The principal concerns raised are the potential impact on Blackborough Priory, damage to wildlife sites and landscapes, and the inappropriate nature of local highways to accommodate HGVs
Conclusion: - Developing this site in its entirety could lead to an unacceptable landscape impact on the setting of Blackborough Priory. However, as a larger Area of Search, there may be some potential on areas further away from the Priory. Contributions to an improvement scheme to East Winch Road would need to be made and the improvements implemented before the site could be worked. Any working would need to be phased with existing workings, and material delivered to the existing processing plant via a haul road. Limited areas of this site may be potentially acceptable, subject to satisfactory geological evidence of viable reserves and appropriate measures to mitigate the landscape, ecology and highway impacts

Site Ref No.	MIN 39	Parish	LEZIATE
Location of site	Land at Wicken East, East Winch Road, Ashwicken, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Sibelco Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (silica sand)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	57.2
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. The site lies immediately to the east of an active pit with planning permission for silica sand extraction
Landscape: - The site lies within area of Important Landscape Quality (KL&WN Local Plan). Some houses on Church Lane could have views from upstairs windows. Restoration to woodland or deep lake could be satisfactory, but the site would need to be phased with other nearby sites
Ecology: - The Rookery woodland could be lost, and mature hedgerows would need to be surveyed first for bats, barn owls and nesting birds. Boundary hedgerows and trees should be retained, with a 10m buffer zone. However, a high quality restoration to woodland could overcome the negatives
Highways: - Highway network in area is poor - neither of two routes (via Gayton Road or through East Winch to the A47) are acceptable because HGVs would need to pass through small villages. However, should the material be conveyored to the existing Leziate quarry site (for processing and onward transportation), the existing road and rail links at Leziate could be used
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Part of the site is within Flood Zone 3 - FRA would be necessary Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - There is potential for restoration in line with the Norfolk Ecological Network and linking to restoration at current workings to the west Highways Agency - The A47 trunk road junction with Gayton Road - affected by site MIN39 is an at-grade priority junction. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues or number of personal injury accidents, site MIN 39 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that an assessment is carried out prior to identification of a preferred location for the above site Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk District Council: - The site is located close to properties; the residents could be affected by noise, dust and air pollution. This would need to be investigated through a Site Environmental Management Plan, with the cumulative impacts of a number of potential local sites considered National Grid: - The site is crossed by overhead power lines; statutory clearance distance would need to be maintained
Public/parish Council comments: - Many concerns raised, including landscape impacts, destruction of wildlife, the impacts of HGVs on unsuitable roads, noise, dust and the health impacts of breathing in silica sand
Conclusion: - It is proposed to allocate this site as an Area of Search, however it will only need to come forward as an active site if there is a need for additional Silica Sand resources during the plan period. MIN 40 is proposed to be allocated for 3,000,000 tonnes of silica sand, and would meet the overall requirement for silica sand. Part of the site may be acceptable as an Area of Search if a haul road/conveyor can connect to existing Leziate quarry site to west, so long as the northern part of the site (including The Rookery woodland) was retained as a buffer zone (see plan). Careful design and operation of the site and restoration to woodland to secure beneficial after-uses and a Dust Action Plan would be particularly important. There is no evidence that the winning of silica sand poses a health risk either around or within quarries. The processing of certain forms of silica (e.g. milling) can pose risks, but this processing takes place in enclosed buildings, with appropriate protection measures for workers

Site Ref No.	MIN 34	Parish	METHWOLD
Location of site	Land at Methwold Warren	Submitted by	Frimstone Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	1,250,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	21.4
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. The site lies north of an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction and immediately north east of an active permitted landfill site. It is proposed that the site would be an extension to the existing mineral working to the south. Restoration would aim to maximise the potential of the site for biodiversity. This site is also a current planning application, which is expected to be considered by Norfolk County Council's Planning Committee in October 2009
Landscape: - The site is on Forestry Commission land and is essentially a conifer plantation, well-screened from the surrounding area
Ecology: - The site is within Breckland SPA and Breckland Forest SSSI and restoration, working with Natural England, to enhance the SSSI, would be acceptable. An Appropriate Assessment is needed to demonstrate no adverse impacts on the SPA
Highways: - The road from existing quarry to B1112 Lodge Road would need upgrading to take additional traffic and eastbound visibility appears to fall below minimum guidance
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site lies within Source Protection Zones 2 and 3 Natural England: - A full AA is needed to demonstrate that the development would not impact adversely on nightjar, woodlark and stone curlew (the reason the site is designated an SPA) Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - We object owing to the potential for significant adverse impacts on the SPA and associated protected species. In our view, biodiversity restoration within the woodland is best achieved through measures other than mineral extraction RSPB: - Objects strongly to the site, due to the serious impacts on the Breckland SPA. If it is to be taken forward, a full AA is needed Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - The site is within 500m of houses, and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan The Ramblers' Association: - We strongly object to this site being felled and mineral extraction taking place. If it is seriously considered that this area is to be worked for minerals, the Ramblers Association would like to be involved in discussions on the necessity, method of working and restoration
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns raised are noise, dust, destruction to wildlife, highways impacts on unsuitable roads, damage to the SSSI/SPA, and loss of valuable dog-walking/recreation habitat
Conclusion: - This site is considered to be acceptable subject to satisfactory Appropriate Assessment findings, an agreed high-quality restoration scheme, a routing agreement to use the existing site access, with no additional vehicle movements, and improvements to the access at Lodge Road, and appropriate phasing. Clearly if the current planning application is approved, this site will be removed from the DPD

Site Ref No.	MIN 6	Parish	MIDDLETON
Location of site	Land off East Winch Road / Mill Drove, Middleton	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (carstone)	Estimated Reserve	1,416,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	10.2
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. The site lies immediately to the north of a large area of permitted mineral and waste operations. The site has also been submitted as a waste allocation (WAS 25). It is proposed that restoration 'will be to a managed heathland type habitat at the lower level'
Landscape: - The site is bounded by a former minerals site (being infilled with inert waste) and Blackborough End landfill and it lies within area of High Landscape Quality (King's Lynn & WN Local Plan). It is well screened by a bank of trees but restoration would need careful planning to ensure hedgerows and trees were retained in an appropriate landform. Work would also need to be phased with nearby operations
Ecology: - There are many CWSs nearby - restoration to heathland would be an opportunity to improve the local ecology network
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues that could not be addressed through an application. However, the construction of East Winch Road needs to be improved and contributions to these improvements would need to be made, and the improvements made, before any new East Winch site could commence
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the priority junction at East Winch Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues MIN 6 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the sites in the area, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously. The above analysis suggests that if all, or some of the sites identified above are developed, there may be significant capacity and safety concerns at the East Winch priority junction with the A47. On account of their size, MIN 6 is most likely to cause concern at this junction Natural England: - With regard to the River Nar SSSI, there is already an adverse impact due to run-off and silt from existing mineral workings and haul routes entering the river. There is potential for this adverse impact to increase as a result of MIN 6 progressing Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - We are concerned about impacts on the Nar SSSI and BAP habitats and it is important to show no adverse impacts, particularly as large areas of the floodplain have already become waterbodies as a result of former permissions. However, there is also potential for restoration in line with Norfolk Ecological Network to provide a network of wetland habitats National Grid: - The site is crossed by overhead power lines; statutory clearance distance would need to be maintained Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - There are extensive Anglian glacial till and glacio-fluvial gravel deposits, including two till facies with high research potential. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase when features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are houses within 400m of the site, and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan
Public comments: - Just one objector, raising concern about the impact on roads, wildlife and amenity (no parish council comments)
Conclusion: This site appears more acceptable than the alternative MIN 5 with few impacts. This would be subject to suitable phasing arrangements with other local sites as only extraction totalling approximately 460,000 tonnesis required during the Plan period., no adverse impact on A47 junction, an appropriate highway improvements and restoration to heathland

Site Ref No.	MIN 29	Parish	MIDDLETON
Location of site	Priory Farm, Blackborough End, King's Lynn, PE32 1SQ	Submitted by	Bidwells on behalf of Mrs A Carter
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of search	Size of site (ha)	7.3
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. Permitted mineral operations lie to the north, east and south of the site. Permitted waste operations lie to the north (Blackborough End landfill)
Landscape: - The site is in the Blackborough End area, which has a large number of minerals and waste sites. MIN 29 forms an attractive part of the Nar valley and would be very hard to screen adequately from the west. Working this site have an unacceptable landscape impact on the attractive Nar valley and it would also lead to unacceptable impacts on the setting of the Grade I listed Blackborough Priory
Ecology: - Relatively few issues, but it is recognised that whilst restoration to wetland lakes would be beneficial ecologically, it would not be in landscape terms
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues that could not be addressed through an application. However, the construction of East Winch Road needs to be improved and contributions to these improvements would need to be made, and the improvements made, before any new East Winch site could commence
Archaeology: - Objection: Blackborough Priory is scheduled, and along with MIN 29 and MIN 31 it could be left as an 'island' divorced from its setting and context, which includes the mediaeval fish ponds
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the priority junction at East Winch Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues MIN 6 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the sites in the area, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously. The above analysis suggests that if all, or some of the sites identified above are developed, there may be significant capacity and safety concerns at the East Winch priority junction with the A47 Natural England: - There may be potential impacts on the River Nar SSSI from runoff Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Many of these sites are on the Nar SSSI floodplain or floodplains of associated watercourses and adjacent to County Wildlife Sites. We are concerned about impacts on the Nar SSSI and BAP habitats and it is important to show no adverse impacts, particularly as large areas of the floodplain have already become waterbodies as a result of former permissions. However, there is also potential for restoration in line with Norfolk Ecological Network to provide a network of wetland habitats English Heritage: - We have significant concerns and objections with regards to the detrimental impact of mineral extraction on the setting of the scheduled remains of Blackborough Priory (which are also separately listed as a Grade II structure). This is an inappropriate location for such activities and would result in the scheduled monument becoming a virtual "island" surrounded by quarries Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are houses within 70m of the site, and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish Council comments: - The principal concerns raised are the potential impact on Blackborough Priory, damage to wildlife sites and landscapes, and the inappropriate nature of local highways to accommodate HGVs
Conclusion: - It is considered that this site would have an unacceptable landscape impacts and will therefore not be allocated

Site Ref No.	MIN 30	Parish	MIDDLETON
Location of site	Priory Farm, Blackborough End, King's Lynn	Submitted by	Bidwells on behalf of Mrs A Carter
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	1,090,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of Search	Size of site (ha)	3.5
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site. Permitted mineral operations lie to the north and south of the site. Permitted waste operations lie to the north (Blackborough End landfill)
Landscape: - Site has landscape constraints due to its valley location, but there is a permitted minerals site to the south-east, so the landscape is slightly degraded. As with sites MIN 29 and part of MIN 31, this site would be likely to have an unacceptable impact on the setting of Blackborough Priory
Ecology: - It would not be ideal to restore the site to open water - there is already a large number of open water bodies in this part of the Nar valley, and it would mean loss of grassland cut for hay. But restoration to reedbed and wet grassland would have some benefits
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues that could not be addressed through an application. However, the construction of East Winch Road needs to be improved and contributions to these improvements would need to be made, and the improvements made, before any new East Winch site could commence
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the priority junction at East Winch Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues MIN 6 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the sites in the area, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously. The above analysis suggests that if all, or some of the sites identified above are developed, there may be significant capacity and safety concerns at the East Winch priority junction with the A47 Natural England: - There may be potential impacts on the River Nar SSSI from runoff Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Many of these sites are on the Nar SSSI floodplain or floodplains of associated watercourses and adjacent to County Wildlife Sites. We are concerned about impacts on the Nar SSSI and BAP habitats and it is important to show no adverse impacts, particularly as large areas of the floodplain have already become waterbodies as a result of former permissions. However, there is also potential for restoration in line with Norfolk Ecological Network to provide a network of wetland habitats National Grid: - The site is located in the vicinity of National Grid's high pressure gas transmission pipelines, which imposes some constraints Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - This is potentially a valuable site for geological study. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are houses within 95m of the site, and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan
Public/parish Council comments: - The principal concerns raised are the potential impact on Blackborough Priory, damage to wildlife sites and landscapes, and the inappropriate nature of local highways to accommodate HGVs
Conclusion: - This site is considered to be unacceptable due to landscape impacts - in particular the danger of the Priory becoming an 'island' divorced from its wider setting, which include mediaeval fish ponds would be too significant

Site Ref No.	MIN 59	Parish	MIDDLETON
Location of site	Off Mill Drove, Blackborough End, Norfolk	Submitted by	Mr W George
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (building sand), aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of Search	Size of site (ha)	7.1
Background Information: - The site comprises a carstone quarry which was worked for many years under an old permission and the restored site is steep sided with a fairly flat quarry floor. A small area in the middle of the site is permitted for building sand extraction. The site has also been submitted as a waste allocation (WAS 41)
Landscape: - Working would take place in the bottom of the quarry, and would therefore not be visually intrusive. A carefully-designed restoration scheme would be needed to ensure the site was acceptable in landscape terms
Ecology: - There are no outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application. A high-quality restoration (including heathland) with an open face for sand martins to nest would be desirable
Highways: - If an existing access onto Mill Drove does not exist then material should be transported via internal haul routes to the highway access point for the existing quarry onto East Winch Road. However, the construction of East Winch Road needs to be improved and contributions to these improvements would need to be made, and the improvements constructed, before any new East Winch site could commence
External Consultees Comments Highways Agency - On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the priority junction at East Winch Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues MIN 59 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the sites in the area, and also if more than one site is proposed simultaneously. The above analysis suggests that if all, or some of the sites identified above are developed, there may be significant capacity and safety concerns at the East Winch priority junction with the A47 Natural England: - There may be potential impacts on the River Nar SSSI from runoff National Grid: - The site is located in the vicinity of National Grid's high pressure gas transmission pipelines, which imposes some constraints Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - . It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are houses within 290m of the site, and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan. Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - Potential for impacts on the Nar SSSI and BAP habitats, and it is important that this is considered. Restoration should be in conformity with the Norfolk Ecological Network
Public/parish Council comments: - The principal concern raised was that as restoration should have already taken place at the site, further working should not be permitted
Conclusion: - This site is considered to be acceptable subject to an agreed restoration scheme, and appropriate phasing. Although it is an Area of Search, given that the site has been worked previously, viable deposits clearly exist there. Supplementary information on the likely quantity of mineral to be extracted is needed from the proposer, so that the phasing implications can be considered fully

Site Ref No.	MIN 19	Parish	PENTNEY
Location of site	Eastern extension to Pentney Quarry, Pentney	Submitted by	Stephen M Daw Ltd on behalf of Middleton Aggregates Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel)	Estimated Reserve	700,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	7.2
Background Information: - No current mineral extraction permission on the site, but there is a current planning permission, for an asphalt plant. In addition, there is a current planning application (on a slightly smaller site area than MIN 19) for sand and gravel extraction; this application is currently being determined (September 2009). The site lies adjacent to an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction. In the submission it is proposed that restoration would be mainly reed beds with either a single body of open water or a number of smaller water areas
Landscape: - The site lies within a moderately tranquil area (defined on the CPRE maps) with the quiet river valley being disturbed to some extent by the existing mineral workings and an area of low light pollution. The workings are most likely to impact on recreational users of the river valley, but as the site is not easily accessible from public viewpoints apart from the public footpath which runs along the side of the River Nar, the overall impact is thought to be low. Restoration to reedbed with some open water bodies would be appropriate given the local landscape character
Ecology: - No outstanding ecology issues that could not be addressed with an application. Restoration to a wetland extension to the fishing lakes would be appropriate
Highways: - The current site access point for Pentney Quarry should be used and the established routing arrangements followed. However, the suitability of this road and particularly the junction with the A47 at East Winch raise some concerns - there may not be sufficient visibility
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site is in Flood Zone 3 Highways Agency - On the A47 minerals traffic may seek direct access to the trunk road at the crossroads at Common Road. Although this junction currently does not experience any significant capacity issues or number of personal injury accidents, MIN 58 could increase the number of slow moving HGVs through this at-grade priority junction. It is recommended that assessments are carried out prior to identification of preferred locations for the above sites, and also if more than one site in the local area is proposed simultaneously Natural England: - These (MIN 19 & MIN 20) both lie adjacent to the River Nar SSSI with potential adverse hydrological impacts and also adverse impacts from run-off and silt entering river Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - The site is in the Nar SSSI floodplain or floodplains of associated watercourses and adjacent to County Wildlife Sites. We are concerned about impacts on the Nar SSSI and BAP habitats and it is important to show no adverse impacts, particularly as large areas of the floodplain have already become waterbodies as a result of former permissions. However, there is also potential for restoration in line with Norfolk Ecological Network to provide a network of wetland habitats English Heritage: - The proposed extension will have some impact on the setting of the scheduled and Grade I listed Pentney Priory to the east, particularly as the fields are separated by open ditches rather screening hedges and there is likely to be noise, dust and other disturbance. Any further extension eastwards is likely to be unacceptable in principle. It is not clear why a designated lorry road extends southwards almost to the Priory, but the intensive use of this road could further worsen the impact on the setting of this historic site Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are houses within 172m of the site, and dust and noise production should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan. The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns raised were amenity impacts on local residents (noise, dust etc), damage to valued local landscapes, the impact of HGVs on unsuitable roads
Conclusion: - Subject to standard planning conditions and controls (e.g. preventing excess run-off into the River Nar), MIN 19 is acceptable on landscape and ecology grounds and the County Council's view is that there would not be an unacceptable impact on the setting of Pentney Priory - the site is thought to be sufficiently distant. So long as there would not be a significant increase in traffic at the Common Lane/A47 junction - an issue that could be dealt with by phasing potential new sites at Pentney and through the details of a planning application - the highways impact is also likely to be satisfactory

Site Ref No.	MIN 95	Parish	RUNCTON HOLME
Location of site	Land at Wallington, Runcton Holme, King's Lynn,	Submitted by	Mr and Mrs J Plaxton
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand & gravel)	Estimated Reserve
Allocation / Area of Search	Area of Search	Size of site (ha)	239.0
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission at this site
Landscape: - The area of historic parkland surrounding Wallington Hall is clearly inappropriate for minerals extraction given its national designation. Brick Kiln Plantation in the south-west corner should also be retained. The site comprises a large area of parkland (1/3) and mix of woodland and arable (2/3) and is fairly well screened from nearby dwellings. If the parkland area is omitted, there could be potential for the other woodland/arable area
Ecology: - The excavation of the whole site would have considerable adverse affects on the connectivity between habitats and species within the area. If a more detailed plan was submitted for a specific area or field not containing BAP habitats or species, there might be potential for an acceptable development. A full ecological survey would be required for any part of the site
Highways: - Subject to the construction of a right-turn lane from the A10 and the creation of a satisfactory access, there would appear to be few highways difficulties with this site
Archaeology: - The site is unsuitable on the grounds that it contains a historic parkland of national importance (Wallington Hall)
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - Partially within Flood Zone 3. A Flood Risk Assessment would be required to appropriately investigate level of risk English Heritage: - We have very significant concerns regarding the impact of this proposed minerals site on a number of listed buildings centred around Wallington Hall. This includes the Grade I listed hall, a building of exceptional historic interest and in the top 8% of important historic buildings nationally. There are also four Grade II listed buildings. We would strongly oppose their demolition; in the case of Grade I or II* listed buildings, paragraph 3.16 of PPG15 states demolition should be wholly exceptional and require the strongest justification. Even if the buildings are to be retained, we would have significant concerns regarding the impact on their setting, and the creation of a buffer zone may be inappropriate and ineffectual. Furthermore, the proposed site may also impact on the setting of two listed churches to the north-west and north-east (Grade I and II* respectively). Based on the above, we therefore recommend that this site allocation is deleted Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - We object to inclusion of those parts of the area of search to the north-east and south-west, which include County Wildlife Sites. There is potential for restoration of other areas in line with Norfolk Ecological Network Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council: - Noise - This is a huge site will have a very noticeable impact in terms of noise. There are numerous receptors some within 100m and the site may affect several villages through haulage increase. A SEMP (Site Emissions Management Plan) should consider these issues; Lighting - A condition would be recommended to protect the receptors from dis-amenity and nuisance due to their proximity. The above should be considered in a SEMP; Odour & Nuisance - Dust from haulage may affect several villages and also passes very close to receptors. This should be considered in a SEMP
Public/parish Council comments: - none received
Conclusion: - Limited areas of the site may be potentially acceptable subject to appropriate buffer zones to mitigate the landscape impacts, geological evidence showing a viable deposit, and a satisfactory internal haul route to the A10 and a dedicated right-turn lane to the A10. Given the sensitivities of the historic parkland, such a haul route would need to be designed and landscaped very carefully to be acceptable.

Site Ref No.	MIN 57	Parish	STOKE FERRY
Location of site	Browns Fen, Oxborough Road, Stoke Ferry	Submitted by	The Landscape Partnership on behalf of John Brown and Sons
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand, topsoil and peat)	Estimated Reserve	120,000 tonnes sand, 50,000 tonnes topsoil, 40,000 tonnes peat
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	10.3
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site but there is an active pit with planning permission for peat and sand extraction about 400m to the north of the site
Landscape: - The site lies within an area of tranquil landscape as defined on the CPRE map and is contained in the landscape, apart from views to two nearby properties (one to the east and one to the west). It is difficult to see how any working could be screened to reduce impact from these houses and even if an appropriate after-use might represent a landscape enhancement, the site would be unacceptable
Ecology: - The site is near Boughton Fen CWS and SSSI. There is an opportunity to create a large area of fen/wetland habitat on restoration could lead to significant ecological gains, but excavation and dewatering of the site would need to be agreed through consultation with Natural England as the working of the site could impact adversely on Boughton Fen SSSI and Syderstone Common SSSI
Highways: - There are concerns about the suitability of Oxborough Road for accessing the site; significant highways improvements would be necessary. A lorry ban would need to be implemented to the east to prevent HGVs from routing through Oxborough
External Consultees Comments Natural England & Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - There are potential adverse hydrological impacts on Boughton Fen CWS and also on Syderstone Common SSSI, which is home to the natterjack toad, a European protected species Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site is in a low-lying area on the edge of the Brecks and may reveal interesting Holocene and late Pleistocene geological resources, including archaeology. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are properties within 50m of the site. Cumulative effect with existing site must be considered. Haulage increase may affect Romer Farm; dust and noise production and light pollution should be controlled through a Site Environmental Management Plan The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that this site has a public path passing very close to it on at least one side; we suggest that additional planting is done to screen the site from the path
Public/parish Council comments: - None received
Conclusion: - There is no requirement for the County Council to maintain a topsoil or peat landbank. The site also has landscape, ecology, and highway impacts and it is therefore considered to be unacceptable

Site Ref No.	MIN 45	Parish	SYDERSTONE
Location of site	Coxford Abbey Quarry, Syderstone, Fakenham	Submitted by	Longwater Gravel Co Ltd
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	4,280,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	90.5
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site but there is an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction south of Coxford Wood and immediately adjoining the central area of the site
Landscape: - The site is very large and whilst some areas are of low constraint and others are not acceptable. The site contains a mix of landscape types: woodland, arable, valley floor, arable/pig and conifer plantation. Parts of the site - particularly within woodland - could be screened very easily but other parts (e.g. on valley sides) of the site would be inappropriate on landscape grounds. Working would need to be phased with the current quarry
Ecology: - The site is near Syderstone Common SSSI and consequently a full ecological survey will be required for previously unworked sites. There is potential to create a number of target habitats from restoration including lowland heathland, dry acid grassland, mixed-species hedgerows and cereal field margins. The site would require a greater proportion of the site to be restored to heathland (a European priority habitat) to mitigate for the large scale loss of woodland/ plantation habitats. There might be more potential in limited parts of Coxford Wood section of the site, particularly if a high-quality restoration was secured, but potential impacts on Syderstone Common SSSI would need very careful assessment, and the loss of any ancient woodland would need to be avoided
Highways: - This site is well-located in relation to the highway network. The existing quarry access to the B1454 should be utilised
Archaeology: - Object on grounds of national importance - site contains a scheduled burial mound
External Consultees Comments Environment Agency: - The site is within 500m of Syderstone Common SSSI. We therefore wish to object to the allocation of ecological grounds unless there would be no dewatering of mineral aggregates Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Syderstone Common SSSI. Potential for heath land restoration Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - There are records of great-crested newts within 500m of the site. Restoration to heathland would not sustainable next to a pig farm because of predators of ground-nesting birds attracted there (rats, crows etc); there should therefore be a buffer zone. Also concern about impact on Syderstone Common SSSI, particularly on natterjack toads Woodland Trust: - The Woodland Trust strongly objects to this site as it will result in the direct loss of ancient woodland identified on the Natural England woodland inventory as of ancient origin English Heritage: - The proposed site would impact on a scheduled burial mound within the boundary. This historic feature should be preserved in-situ, with an adequate and appropriate buffer zone Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are discovered King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are no receptors within 700m of the site. The cumulative effect must be considered as existing site of the same size. There is major development to the north and so creeping background noise and light pollution is important to consider in a SEMP The Ramblers' Association: - We are concerned that the working of this site for minerals will lead to the temporary closure of the paths running through it. Paths such as this act as links in the paths network and could interfere with access to sections of the countryside. Diversion may be a possibility; however we feel that diversions round very large sites would be unreasonable
Public/parish Council comments: - It is generally better to extend the existing site than to open a new site elsewhere, but very important to control dust, noise etc and protect Syderstone Common SSSI
Conclusions: - Parts of this site may be potentially acceptable subject to appropriate agreement to mitigate landscape and ecology impacts following assessment of the site.

Site Ref No.	MIN 74	Parish	TOTTENHILL
Location of site	Turf Field, Watlington, Near King's Lynn	Submitted by	Mr M Falcon
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	250,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	14.5
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site but there is an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction south of the site
Landscape: - A number of properties lie close to the eastern boundary of the site and some of these may have views from upstairs rear windows. In addition views from the north would be difficult to screen due to the sloping nature of the land and working and processing on this land could affect the quiet enjoyment of users of the Nar Valley Way. The site is therefore unacceptable in landscape terms
Ecology: - The site is in a close proximity to Setchy SSSI and County Wildlife Site 387 (Tottenhill Common), and there is potential for mineral extraction to affect the drainage of Setchy SSSI. However, there is potential to increase overall biodiversity to the area with a restoration scheme covering both both arable land and nature conservation
Highways: - No outstanding transport issues provided the existing quarry access can be used via off-highway routes and would be supported as a preferred option in transport terms
External Consultee Comments Natural England: - There are potential adverse hydrological impacts on the Setchey Common SSSI which could affect the peat layers of this geological site, both alone and in combination with other site allocations MIN 74 Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - This complex of sites is all close to former mineral sites and County Wildlife Sites with a variety of BAP habitats present. There should be no adverse impact on the CWSs or BAP habitats. If any of these permissions are taken forward restoration should be co-ordinated and in line with the Norfolk Ecological Network Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site is close to the Tottenhill gravel quarry complex, which has yielded nationally important exposures of extensive category Pleistocene sediments of the Nar Valley Formation. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are dwellings within 23m of the site and the cumulative effect of existing and potential allocations must be considered. Noise, dust, light pollution and air quality (particularly PM10s) are of concern; all would need to be addressed through a Site Environmental Management Plan
Public/parish Council comments: - A number of concerns raised, including the impact on Tottenhill Conservation Area, the long-term nature of quarrying in the area (locals have 'done their share'), highways difficulties, poor restoration of other nearby quarries, impacts on water quality and residential amenity (noise, dust etc) and damage to local landscapes and wildlife
Conclusions: - It is considered that this site is unacceptable due to the landscape (amenity) impacts

Site Ref No.	MIN 76	Parish	TOTTENHILL
Location of site	West Field, Watlington, Near King's Lynn	Submitted by	Mr M Falcon
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	600,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	11.9
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site but there is an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction east of the site. A previous planning application on the site was dismissed on appeal in 2002
Landscape: - This scheme is a large site and the southern part of the site could probably be worked with an acceptable landscape impact, but it may be appropriate to ask the proposer to verify the reserve on the southern part of the site
Ecology: - The site is near CWS 387: Tottenhill Common and Long Wood. There is an opportunity to increase the biodiversity value of the land on restoration to arable land with wide field margins or an extension to the existing woodland
Highways: - The highways impact is only acceptable if the existing quarry access can be used (via conveyor transport) and some other minor improvements may be necessary
External Consultees Comments Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - This complex of sites is all close to former mineral sites and County Wildlife Sites with a variety of BAP habitats present. There should be no adverse impact on the CWSs or BAP habitats. If any of these permissions are taken forward restoration should be co-ordinated and in line with the Norfolk Ecological Network. Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site is close to the Tottenhill gravel quarry complex, which has yielded nationally important exposures of extensive category Pleistocene sediments of the Nar Valley Formation. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - Noise, air quality, and lighting nuisance are of significant concern to the Borough Council and should be addressed in the submission of a Site Emission Management Plan
Public/parish Council comments: - A number of concerns raised, including the impact on Tottenhill Conservation Area, the long-term nature of quarrying in the area (locals have 'done their share'), highways difficulties, poor restoration of other nearby quarries, impacts on water quality and residential amenity (noise, dust etc) and damage to local landscapes and wildlife
Conclusions: - Although there may be some potential on the southern part of the site, in the light of the previous appeal dismissal, the highways constraints and the potential for impact on nearby CWSs and BAP habitats, this site is unacceptable

Site Ref No.	MIN 77	Parish	TOTTENHILL
Location of site	Runns Wood, Watlington, near King's Lynn	Submitted by	Mr M Falcon
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	900,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	10.5
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site but there is an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction immediately east of the site
Landscape: - The site lies in an area of moderate tranquillity as defined on the CPRE map and an area of dark landscape on the county map. It is approximately 300m from the nearest dwellings on the edge of Watlington and the A10 respectively. The main landscape impact of working and processing mineral on this site would be the loss of a valuable local landscape feature which it may not be possible to recreate; the site is therefore unacceptable
Ecology: - The site is Runns Wood and is close to CWS 378 Runns Wood Meadow. If site were to be allocated, mineral extraction would result in the loss of existing lowland mixed deciduous woodland, a habitat important for BAP species. A restoration scheme would not be able to replace the woodland that is has been established for many years. Consequently, this site is not suitable for allocation in ecological terms
Highways: - Highways impact only acceptable if the existing quarry access can be used (via conveyor transport) and some other minor improvements may be necessary
External Consultees Comments Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - This complex of sites is all close to former mineral sites and County Wildlife Sites with a variety of BAP habitats present. There should be no adverse impact on the CWSs or BAP habitats. If any of these permissions are taken forward restoration should be co-ordinated and in line with the Norfolk Ecological Network Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site is close to the Tottenhill gravel quarry complex, which has yielded nationally important exposures of extensive category Pleistocene sediments of the Nar Valley Formation. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - Noise, air quality, and lighting nuisance are of significant concern to the Borough Council and should be addressed in the submission of a Site Emission Management Plan
Public/parish Council comments: - A number of concerns raised, including the long-term nature of quarrying in the area (locals have 'done their share'), highways difficulties, poor restoration of other nearby quarries, impacts on water quality and residential amenity (noise, dust etc) and particularly the destruction of Runs Wood
Conclusions: - Given the landscape, and ecology impacts, this site is unacceptable

Site Ref No.	MIN 101	Parish	TOTTENHILL
Location of site	Watlington, Near King's Lynn	Submitted by	Mr M Falcon
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	500,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	2.7
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site but there is an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction west of the site
Landscape: - The site lies within an area of relatively low tranquillity as defined by the CPRE and within an area of dark landscape on the county map. The site is remote from property and whilst visible from the A134 this view could be screened by a well designed working scheme. This site may be appropriate e if a suitable form of access with a low landscape impact can be devised
Ecology: - The site is near Setchy SSSI (less than 1km to the north-west). The overall biodiversity value could be increased with plans to restore the site to arable fields with wide margins and hedgerows so it reflects surrounding habitats
Highways: - The site is well located in relation to the highway network but it is unlikely that a satisfactory access onto this network will be found due to the proximity of the roundabout. The site could possibly be supported if materials can be transported away from the junction via off-highway haul routes to an alternative access or under the A10 to the existing quarry at Watlington, which is accessed onto the C51 Watlington Road
External Consultees Comments Natural England: - There are potential adverse hydrological impacts on Setchey Common SSSI, which could affect the peat layers of this geological site, both alone and in combination with other site allocations MIN 27, MIN 74, MIN 76 & MIN 75 Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site is close to the Tottenhill gravel quarry complex, which has yielded nationally important exposures of extensive category Pleistocene sediments of the Nar Valley Formation. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - There are no nearby receptors within 440 metres of the site. This is a very small site but the cumulative effect must be considered if other allocation sites close by are also given permission and due to the existing sites close by. A SEMP should consider air quality and light pollution particularly. Norfolk Wildlife Trust: - This complex of sites is all close to former mineral sites and County Wildlife Sites with a variety of BAP habitats present. There should be no adverse impact on the CWSs or BAP habitats. If any of these permissions are taken forward restoration should be co-ordinated and in line with the Norfolk Ecological Network.
Public/parish Council comments: - The main concerns are on highways grounds (the impact of more HGVs), noise and dust production, damage to local landscapes, ecology (particularly the impact on Setchey Common) and the poor track record of operator in restoring previous sites
Conclusions: - It is considered that this site is unacceptable due to highways impacts.

Site Ref No.	MIN 75	Parish	WATLINGTON
Location of site	Home Farm, Watlington, near King's Lynn	Submitted by	Mr M Falcon
Proposed use/s	Mineral extraction (sand and gravel), concrete batching plant, aggregate processing	Estimated Reserve	1,500,000 tonnes
Allocation / Area of Search	Allocation	Size of site (ha)	11.1
Background Information: - No current mineral or waste planning permission on the site but there is an active pit with planning permission for sand and gravel extraction about 1km to the east
Landscape: - The site is reasonably well-screened from the surrounding area by existing vegetation. Low-level restoration could be OK, but new access road may be required, which would itself have a landscape impact
Ecology: - Low-level restoration to wide field margins, hedgerows, and some tree belts would be beneficial ecologically
Highways: - Local roads are unacceptable for HGVs, and passage through Watlington would also be unacceptable. If off-highway haul route could be provided the site might be acceptable, but it is1.5km to existing quarry, and access to the site would still be needed for operatives and machinery
External Consultees Comments Natural England: - Potential adverse hydrological impacts on Setchey Common SSSI, which could affect peat layers of this geological site, both alone and in combination with other site allocations MIN 27, MIN 101, MIN 74, MIN 76 & MIN 75 Norfolk Geodiversity Partnership: - The site is close to the Tottenhill gravel quarry complex, which has yielded nationally important exposures of extensive category Pleistocene sediments of the Nar Valley Formation. It would be useful to retain some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and ideally after restoration, and have a 'watching brief' during the extraction phase King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council: - Noise, light, air quality, lighting and nuisance are of significant concern to the Borough Council (the nearest property is 45m away) and should be addressed in the submission of a Site Emission Management Plan
Public/parish Council comments: - Only one comment was received, questioning the adequacy of both potential access route to the site
Conclusions: - This site is considered unacceptable as a result of the highways impacts

Minerals Site Allocations: Further Issues and Options (Preferred Options) Consultation

7. The Mineral Allocation Sites

Sites withdrawn following the 2008 Issues and Options consultation

Additional mineral sites proposed since the 2008 Issues and Options consultation

Amendments to proposed mineral sites since the 2008 Issues and Options consultation

List of all proposed minerals sites by Parish

Legend: Overview Map of Mineral Sites

Map Legend: Mineral Allocation Sites

7.2 BRECKLAND MINERAL ALLOCATION SITES

Withdrawn

7.3 BROADLAND MINERAL SITE ASSESSMENTS

7.4 GREAT YARMOUTH MINERAL SITE ASSESSMENTS

7.5 KING'S LYNN AND WEST NORFOLK MINERAL SITE ASSESSMENTS

Withdrawn