APPENDIX B – Appraisal Tables of Proposed Mineral Extraction Sites and Areas of Search

APPENDIX B – Appraisal tables of proposed mineral extraction sites and areas of search Page Breckland sites B3 MIN 12 land north of Chapel Lane, Beetley B3 MIN 51 & MIN 13 land west of Bilney Road, Beetley B8 MIN 08 land north of Stoney Lane, Beetley B13 MIN 23 land north of Back Lane, Beeston B18 MIN 200 land west of Cuckoo Lane, Carbrooke B23 MIN 116 land at Woodrising Road, Cranworth B28 MIN 35 land at Heath Road, Quidenham B33 MIN 102 land at North Farm, south of the River Thet, Snetterton B39 MIN 201 land at Swangey Farm, north of North Road, Snetterton B44 Broadland sites B49 MIN 55 land at Keepers Cottage, Attlebridge B49 MIN 202 land south of Reepham Road, Attlebridge B54 MIN 48 land at Swannington Bottom Plantation, Felthorpe B59 MIN 37 land at Mayton Wood, Coltishall Road, Buxton B65 MIN 64 land at Grange Farm, Buxton Road, Horstead B71 MIN 65 land north of Stanninghall Quarry B77 MIN 96 land at Grange Farm (between Spixworth Road and Coltishall Lane), Spixworth B83 MIN 213 land at Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless B88 Great Yarmouth sites B93 MIN 203 land north of Welcome Pit, Burgh Castle B93 MIN 38 land at Waveney Forest, Fritton B98 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk sites B105 MIN 6 land off East Winch Road, Mill Drove, Middleton B105 MIN 45 land north of Coxford Abbey Quarry, East Rudham B109 MIN 204 land north of Lodge Road, Feltwell B114 MIN 19 & MIN 205 land north of the River Nar, Pentney B119 MIN 74 land at Turf Field, Watlington Road, Tottenhill B125 MIN 77 land at Runns Wood, Tottenhill B130 MIN 206 land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhiill B135 MIN 32 land west of Lime Kiln Road, West Dereham B141

Page Silica Sand B146 MIN 40 land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch B146 SIL01 land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey B152 AOS E land to the north of Shouldham B157 AOS F land to the north of Stow Bardolph B164 AOS I land to the east of South Runcton B169 AOS J land to the east of Tottenhill B174 SIL02 land at Shouldham and Marham B179 North Norfolk sites B186 MIN 69 land north of Holt Road, Aylmerton B186 MIN 71 land west of Norwich Road, Holt B192 MIN 115 land at Lord Anson’s Wood, near North Walsham B198 MIN 207 land at Pinkney Field, Briston B203 MIN 208 land south of Holt Road, East Beckham B208 South Norfolk sites B213 MIN 209 land adjacent to the A143, Earsham (Extension Area 1) B213 MIN 210 land adjacent to the A143, Earsham (Extension Area 2) B218 MIN 211 land west of Bath Hills Road, Earsham (Extension Area 3) B223 MIN 25 land at Manor Farm (between Loddon Road and Thorpe Road), Haddiscoe B229 MIN 92 land east of Ferry Lane, Heckingham B234 MIN 212 land south of Mundham Road, Mundham B239

Breckland sites MIN 12 - land north of Chapel Lane, Beetley Proposal: Extraction of 1,175,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 16.38 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 3.7km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Dereham, and 12km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from Fakenham, which requires energy and climate change post change by reducing are the nearest towns. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Dereham is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 11m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 22 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary (six considered that noise of these are within and dust can be 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary). The levels within 250m of settlement of Beetley is the source; the greatest 260m away and Old impacts will be within Beetley is 380m away. 100m, if uncontrolled. However, land at the Noise and dust north-west and south- assessments, and west corners is not mitigation measures to proposed to be appropriately control extracted. Therefore, any amenity impacts, the nearest residential must form part of any property is 95m from planning application for the extraction area and mineral extraction. there are 18 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (2 of them are within 100m). The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8.

The only Scheduled No effects expected No effect post Monument within 2km during extraction extraction. of the site is 1.57km away and is the ‘Moated site 280m south east of Spong Bridge’.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Conservation Areas or during extraction extraction. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential There are no Historic that unknown No effect post Environment records archaeology exists on extraction. within the site the site and an boundary. The site is in assessment of the a wider landscape with significance of a significant number of archaeological remains finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods and the planning application site is immediately stage, in order to north of the remains of protect and mitigate the a Roman road. impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 3.47km from 0 0 and enhance the River Wensum SAC Due to distance, no No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s and is outside the impacts on SPAs, SACs, or Ramsar sites biodiversity and Impact Risk Zone for SACs or Ramsar sites are expected. geodiversity the River Wensum are expected. SSSI.

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

Beetley and Hoe The proposed No impacts to SSSIs Meadows SSSI is extraction site would be are expected post 1.16km from the site worked dry (above the extraction. boundary. water table) and is Dillington Carr, located up-gradient of Gressenhall SSSI is these SSSIs. Therefore 1.44km from the site there would be no boundary adverse impacts to SSSIs.

The nearest CWS is No adverse impacts on No impacts to County CWS 1027 ‘Gressenhall the CWS are expected Wildlife sites are Green Marshes’ which due to the distance expected post is 730m from the site from the site and extraction. boundary. because the site would be worked dry.

The nearest ancient No adverse impacts on No impacts to ancient woodland site is Great the ancient woodland woodland sites are Wood which is a PAWS are expected due to the expected post and ASNW; it is 1.28km distance from the site extraction. from the site boundary. and because the site would be worked dry. The site consists of the No adverse impacts to Briton’s Lane sand and There is the potential geodiversity are gravel member, for this site to contain expected post overlying chalk examples of extraction. It would be formations. The geodiversity priority useful for restoration to Briton’s Lane sands features. provide opportunities and gravels are known for further geological to contain priority research of suitable features such as exposures. palaesols and erratics in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored at a lower No effect during The proposed for the restoration level and returned to extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of arable agriculture. would provide some minerals sites Restoration would biodiversity gains. include wide field margins, new hedgerows and some woodland. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or open arable land with result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated few landscape features change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. apart from boundary appropriate mitigation landscape hedgerow. The site is strategy and restoration

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction generally well screened scheme should ensure from views from no unacceptable surrounding roads and impacts property, although views of the site would be seen from Field Lane. However, this would be relatively easy to screen. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk The nearest residential dwellings would not be on restoration. property is 11m from significant; however it the site boundary. is considered that There are 22 sensitive appropriate mitigation receptors within 250m measures to ensure no of the site boundary unacceptable impacts and 6 of these are could be conditioned. within 100m of the site boundary. However, land at the north-west and south-west corners is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 95m from the extraction area and there are 18 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (two of these are within 100m). SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0 and enhance water a secondary A aquifer The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer water table) and post extraction. (bedrock). The site is therefore no effect on within groundwater water resources is Source Protection Zone expected. 3. The site is proposed to The site is grade 3 Potential for BMV be restored back to agricultural land and agricultural land to be agriculture. Therefore, could potentially be affected by mineral as long as the topsoil grade 3a which is extraction within the was stored correctly classified within the site. and then replaced, Best and Most Versatile there would be no likely agricultural land. adverse effect on BMV agricultural land.

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA11: To promote The site is 3.4km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Dereham and 12km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from Fakenham. These nearest settlement extraction are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. No areas of being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing the site are at risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding. rivers, the sea or surface water. Sand and gravel extraction is considered to be a ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape and amenity due to the proximity of residential dwellings and listed buildings; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA3 text and SA9 text amended to include the number of sensitive receptors within 100m of the site boundary, and SA9 score changed to ‘- -’.

MIN 51 & MIN 13 – land west of Bilney Road, Beetley

Proposal: Extraction of 1,120,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 27.14 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 4.5km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Dereham and 11km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from Fakenham, which requires energy and climate change post change by reducing are the nearest towns. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Dereham is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 20 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential - 0 noise, vibration and property is 171m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are three expected to cause sensitive receptors vibration. It is within 250m of the site considered that noise boundary. The and dust can be settlement of East mitigated to acceptable Bilney is 470m away. levels within 250m of The effect on visual the source; the greatest intrusion is assessed impacts will be within under objective SA8. 100m, if uncontrolled. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain 0 0 and enhance the The nearest Listed A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Building is 680m away would be required to should ensure the townscape and and is the Grade II support any future historic value of assets historic Almshouses. There are planning application. is appropriately environment 16 Listed Buildings The heritage statement preserved. Mineral within 2km of the site. should identify potential extraction will result in impacts to heritage landscape change; assets and suggest however, an appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration scheme should ensure no unacceptable The only Scheduled No effects expected impacts on the setting Monument within 2km during extraction. of heritage assets. is the ‘Deserted Medieval Village’ which No effect post is 1.11km away. extraction. No effects expected Brisley Conservation during extraction No effect post Area is 1.74km from the extraction. site. No effects expected There are no during extraction. No effect post Registered Historic extraction. Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential that unknown Historic Environment archaeology exists on No effect post records of cropmarks, the site and an extraction. including a ring ditch, assessment of the exist within the site significance of boundary. The site is in archaeological remains a wider landscape with will be required at the a significant number of planning application finds and features from stage, in order to multiple periods. protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 4.54km from 0 0 and enhance the River Wensum SAC Due to distance, no No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s and is outside the impacts on SPAs, SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and Impact Risk Zone for SACs or Ramsar sites are expected. geodiversity the River Wensum are expected. SSSI.

Beetley and Hoe The proposed No impacts to SSSIs Meadows SSSI is extraction site would be are expected post 2.34km from the site worked dry (above the extraction. boundary. water table) and is Dillington Carr, located up-gradient of Gressenhall SSSI is these SSSIs. Therefore 2.17km from the site there would be no boundary.

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction adverse impacts to these SSSIs. Horse Wood Mileham No impacts to SSSIs SSSI is 2.84km from The proposed are expected post the site boundary. extraction site would be extraction. worked dry and therefore there would be no adverse impact to Horse Wood SSSI. CWS 2137 ‘Beck Farm No impacts to County Meadows’ is 520m from No adverse impacts on Wildlife Sites are the site boundary and the CWS are expected expected post CWS 2068 ‘Rawhall due to the distance extraction. Wood’ is 540m from the from the site and site boundary. because the site would be worked dry. The nearest ancient No impacts to ancient woodland site is No adverse impacts on woodland sites are Rawhall Wood which is the ancient woodland expected post a PAWS & ASNW; it is are expected due to the extraction. 0.57km from the site distance from the site boundary. and because the site would be worked dry. The site consists of the No adverse impacts to Briton’s Lane sand and There is the potential geodiversity are gravel member, for the site to contain expected post Lowestoft formation – examples of restoration. It would be diamicton, overlying geodiversity priority useful for restoration to chalk formations. The features. provide opportunities Briton’s Lane sands for further geological and gravels are known research of suitable to contain priority exposures. features such as palaesols and erratics in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored at a lower No effect during The proposed for the restoration level and returned to extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of arable agricultural. would provide some minerals sites Lagoons to be retained biodiversity gains. as ponds with planting to create wet woodland habitat. Hedgerow interspersed with oaks to be planted along the northern boundary (alongside Rawhall Lane). SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a

B10

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction quality and Core River Valley or The site comprises Mineral extraction will distinctiveness of any other designated open arable land with result in landscape the countryside and landscape feature. few landscape features change; however, an landscape apart from mature appropriate mitigation hedgerow oaks. Views strategy and restoration of the site can be seen scheme should ensure from Bilney Lane, and no unacceptable with a longer view from impacts. Stoney Lane and Rawhall Lane. The site is fairly flat and would be relatively easy to screen from the views from surrounding roads. SA9: To contribute There are no Public - 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk The nearest residential dwellings would not be on restoration. property is 171m from significant; however it the site boundary. is considered that There are three appropriate mitigation sensitive receptors measures to ensure no within 250m of the site unacceptable impacts boundary. could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0 and enhance water a secondary A aquifer The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer water table) and post extraction. (bedrock). The site is therefore no effect on within groundwater water resources is Source Protection Zone expected. 3.

B11

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA12: To reduce The site has a low 0 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a medium flooding from either development probability of surface rivers or the sea. The water flooding with a site is at medium risk of few locations of surface being affected by water pooling in 1 in 30 flooding from surface and 1 in 100 year water. Sand and rainfall events. In a 1 in gravel extraction is 1000 year rainfall event considered to be a there is a surface water ‘water compatible’ land flow path across the use which is suitable in south-western corner of all flood zones. the site. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations. There are potential negative effects on air quality, landscape, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? NO

B12

MIN 08 –land north of Stoney Lane, Beetley

Proposal: Extraction of 731,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 15.3 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 4.2km from + 0 and mitigate the Dereham and 11.5km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from Fakenham, which requires energy and climate change post change by reducing are the nearest towns. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Dereham is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 40 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is 417m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. The extraction is not restoration settlement of expected to cause Gressenhall is 530m vibration. It is away. considered that noise The effect on visual and dust can be intrusion is assessed mitigated to acceptable under objective SA8. levels within 250m of the source. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is 830m away A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the and is the Grade II would be required to should ensure the townscape and Methodist Chapel and support any future historic value of assets

B13

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction historic adjoining two dwellings. planning application. is appropriately environment There are 15 Listed The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Buildings within 2km of should identify potential extraction will result in the site. impacts to heritage landscape change; assets and suggest however, an appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration scheme should ensure no unacceptable The only Scheduled impacts on the setting Monument within 2km of heritage assets. of the site is 1.37km No effects expected away and is the during extraction. No effect post ‘Deserted Medieval extraction village’.

There are no No effects expected Conservation Areas or during extraction. No effect post Registered Historic extraction. Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential Historic Environment that unknown No effect post records of cropmarks archaeology exists on extraction. and isolated finds, the site and an including a ring ditch assessment of the exist within the site significance of boundary. The site is in archaeological remains a wider landscape with will be required at the a significant number of planning application finds and features from stage, in order to multiple periods. protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 4.64km from 0 0 and enhance the River Wensum SAC Due to distance, no No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s and is outside the impacts on SPAs, SACs, or Ramsar sites biodiversity and Impact Risk Zone for SACs or Ramsar sites are expected. geodiversity the River Wensum are expected. SSSI.

Beetley and Hoe The proposed No impacts to SSSIs Meadows SSSI is extraction site would be are expected post 2.12km from the site worked dry (above the extraction. boundary. water table) and is Dillington Carr, located up-gradient of Gressenhall SSSI is these SSSIs. Therefore 1.88km from the site there would be no boundary. adverse impacts to SSSIs.

The nearest CWS is No adverse impacts on No impacts to County CWS 2068 ‘Rawhall the CWS are expected Wildlife Sites are

B14

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Wood’ which is 850m due to the distance expected post from the site boundary. from the site and extraction. because the site would be worked dry.

The nearest ancient No adverse impacts on woodland site is the ancient woodland No impacts to ancient Rawhall Wood, which is are expected due to the woodland sites are a PAWS & ASNW; it is distance from the site expected post 0.85km from the site and because the site extraction. boundary. would be worked dry.

The site consists of the There is the potential Briton’s Lane sand and for the site to contain No adverse impacts to gravel member, examples of geodiversity are Lowestoft formation – geodiversity priority expected post diamicton. The Briton’s features. restoration. It would be Lane sands and gravels useful for restoration to are known to contain provide opportunities priority features such as for further geological palaesols and erratics research of suitable in other locations, and exposures. therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote The majority of the site 0 + innovative solutions is proposed to be No effect during The proposed for the restoration restored to agriculture. extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of A proportion of the site would provide some minerals sites will be restored to biodiversity gains. woodland and associated grassland habitat. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or open arable land. result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated Views of the site can change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. be seen from Bilney appropriate mitigation landscape Lane and Stoney Lane. strategy and restoration The site is remote from scheme should ensure property and is fairly no unacceptable flat and would be impacts. relatively easy to screen from the views from the surrounding roads. SA9: To contribute There are no Public 0 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or There is unlikely to be New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. a significant impact on are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential health or amenity from provided within the site in Norfolk property is 417m from mineral extraction on restoration. the site boundary. within the site.

B15

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA10: To protect The site is partially 0/- 0 and enhance water located over a The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary A aquifer worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk and a secondary water table). Therefore post extraction. (undifferentiated) no effect on water aquifer (superficial resources is expected deposits) and a during extraction. principal aquifer (bedrock). The site is within groundwater Source Protection Zone 3.

The site is Grade 3 agricultural land and could potentially be The site is proposed to Grade 3a which is Potential for BMV be restored back to classified within the agricultural land to be agriculture. Therefore, Best and Most Versatile affected by mineral as long as the topsoil agricultural land. extraction within the was stored correctly site. and then replaced, there would be no likely adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 4.2km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Dereham and 11.5km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from Fakenham. These nearest settlement extraction are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low 0 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a medium flooding from either development probability of surface rivers or the sea. The water flooding with an site is at medium risk of area of surface water being affected by pooling in a 1 in 30 year flooding from surface rainfall event. In a 1 in water. Sand and 100 year rainfall event gravel extraction is a surface water flow considered to be a path develops between ‘water compatible’ land the area of ponding and use which is suitable in the south-eastern all flood zones. corner of the site. In a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event the flow path further develops to run north west to south east across the site.

B16

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations. There are potential negative effects on air quality, the landscape and agricultural land; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? NO

B17

MIN 23 – land north of Back Lane, Beeston

Proposal: Extraction of 500,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 15 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 7.4km from + 0 and mitigate the Dereham and 10.2km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from Swaffham, which requires energy and climate change post change by reducing are the nearest towns. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be climate change CO2 emissions from road transportation to the nearest towns, but Dereham is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 15 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential - 0 noise, vibration and property is 132m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 42 sensitive expected to cause. It is receptors within 250m considered that noise of the site boundary. and dust can be The settlement of mitigated to acceptable Beeston is 132m away. levels within 250m of However, the most the source; the greatest southern part of the site impacts will be within is not proposed to be 100m, if uncontrolled. extracted. Therefore, Noise and dust the nearest residential assessments, and property is 198m from mitigation measures to the extraction area and appropriately control there are 12 sensitive any amenity impacts, receptors within 250m must form part of any of the proposed planning application for extraction area. mineral extraction. The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is

B18

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain -- -- and enhance the The nearest Listed A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Building is the Grade II would be required to should ensure the townscape and ‘Moat House/Old support any future historic value of assets historic Rectory’ which is 170m planning application. is appropriately environment away. There are 20 The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Listed Buildings within should identify potential extraction will result in 2km of the site. 15 of impacts to heritage landscape change; these are within the assets and suggest however, an Litcham Conservation appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Area which is 1.24km which may include scheme should ensure from the site. identification of areas no unacceptable where mineral impacts on the setting There are two extraction would be of heritage assets. Scheduled Monuments inappropriate. within 2km of the site. They are ‘Devil’s Dyke’ No effects expected No effect post 1.96km from the site during extraction. extraction. and ‘Disc Barrow on Litcham Common’ 1.11km from the site. No effects expected No effect post There are no during extraction extraction. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential No effect post Historic Environment that unknown extraction. records of isolated multi archaeology exists on period finds exist close the site and an to the site boundary. assessment of the The site is in a wider significance of landscape with a archaeological remains significant number of will be required at the finds and features from planning application multiple periods. stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect 0 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity River Nar SSSI is No adverse impacts on No impacts to SSSIs 1.10km from the site the River Nar SSSI are are expected post boundary. expected because the extraction. site would be worked dry (above the water table).

B19

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Horse Wood Mileham No adverse impacts on SSSI is 2.63km from Horse Wood Mileham the site boundary. SSSI or Honey Pot Honey Pot Wood, Wood, Wendling SSSI Wendling SSSI is are expected because 2.87km from the site the site would be boundary. worked dry (above the water table) and is in a different hydrological catchment to these SSSIs.

The nearest CWS is No adverse impacts on No impacts to County CWS 964 ‘Warren the CWS are expected Wildlife Sites are Woods’ which is 750m due to the distance expected post from the site boundary. from the site and extraction because the site would be worked dry. The nearest ancient woodland site is Old No adverse impacts on No impacts to ancient Covert wood which is a ancient woodland are woodland are expected PAWS; it is 2.14km expected due to the post extraction. from the site boundary. distance from the site and because the site would be worked dry. The site consists of the Lowestoft formation – This site is unlikely to No adverse impacts to diamicton, overlying contain examples of geodiversity are chalk formations. geodiversity priority expected post features. restoration. SA7: To promote No details on proposed 0 ? innovative solutions restoration of the site No effect during No details of a for the restoration have been provided. extraction phase proposed restoration and after use of The preferred scheme have been minerals sites restoration scheme provided. would be to agriculture at a lower level with wide field margins, hedgerow reinforcement and tree planting. SA8: To protect The site is not located -- - and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is sloping Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or arable land with a fall result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated towards the village of change which, due to the countryside and landscape feature. Beeston to the south. the sloping nature of landscape Workings would be the site, would be visually intrusive to the visible from a variety of community of Beeston, viewpoints; however, and due to the sloping an appropriate nature of the site, hard mitigation strategy and to screen. They would restoration scheme

B20

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction also affect the quiet would minimise the enjoyment of the impact. surrounding countryside. SA9: To contribute There are no Public - 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk The nearest residential dwellings would not be on restoration. property is 132m from significant; however it the site boundary. is considered that There are 42 sensitive appropriate mitigation receptors within 250m measures to ensure no of the site boundary. unacceptable impacts However, the most could be conditioned. southern part of the site is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 198m from the extraction area and there are 12 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0 and enhance water a secondary The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in (undifferentiated) worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk aquifer (superficial water table). Therefore post extraction. deposits) and a no effect on water principal aquifer resources is expected (bedrock). However, during extraction. there are no groundwater Source Protection Zones within the proposed site.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV If the site was restored agricultural land and agricultural land to be back to agriculture and could potentially be affected by mineral the topsoil was stored Grade 3a which is extraction within the correctly and then classified within the site. replaced, there would Best and Most Versatile be no likely adverse agricultural land. effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 7.4km from + 0 sustainable use of Dereham and 10.2km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from Swaffham. These nearest settlement extraction are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan.

B21

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding, rivers, the sea or with one location of surface water. surface water pooling in Sand and gravel a 1 in 100 year rainfall extraction is considered event at the southern to be a ‘water corner of the site. compatible’ land use There is a surface which is suitable in all water flow path flood zones. crossing the southern corner of the site in a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth. There are potential negative effects on air quality, the historic environment, landscape, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that the landscape impacts could not be appropriately mitigated. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the number of sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary have been updated in SA3 and SA9, but there is no change to the SA scores.

B22

MIN 200 – land west of Cuckoo Lane, Carbrooke

Proposal: Extraction of 300,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 7.94 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 0.8km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Watton and 10.1km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from both Attleborough requires energy and climate change post change by reducing and Dereham, which therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to are the nearest towns. There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Watton is less than 1km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential - 0 noise, vibration and property is 144m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary, this extraction is not restoration is the only sensitive expected to cause receptor within 250m of vibration. It is the site. The settlement considered that noise of Carbrooke is 321m and dust can be away. mitigated to acceptable The effect on visual levels within 250m of intrusion is assessed the source; the greatest under objective SA8. impacts will be within 100m, if uncontrolled. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Buildings are the Grade

B23

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the II Mill House and A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and ‘Windmill’ which are would be required to should ensure the historic 150m away. There are support any future historic value of assets environment 27 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Carbrooke should identify potential extraction will result in Conservation Area is impacts to heritage landscape change; 670m from the site, assets and suggest however, an within which many of appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration the Listed Buildings are scheme should ensure contained. no unacceptable impacts on the setting The only Scheduled of heritage assets. Monument within 2km No effects expected of the site is the ‘Site of during extraction Commandry of St John No effect post of Jerusalem’ which is extraction. 700m away.

There are no No effects expected Registered Historic during extraction No effect post Parks and Gardens extraction. within 2km of the site. There is the potential There are no Historic that unknown Environment records archaeology exists on No effect post within the site the site and an extraction. boundary. The site is in assessment of the a wider landscape with significance of a significant number of archaeological remains finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods. planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 4.47m from 0 0 and enhance Thompson Water, Carr Due to distance, no No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s and Common SSSI impacts on SPAs, SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and which is part of the SACs or Ramsar sites are expected. geodiversity Norfolk Valley Fens are expected. SAC and is outside the Impact Risk Zone for the SSSI.

Scoulton Mere SSSI is If the site is worked No impacts on the 2.72km from the site above the water table, SSSIs are expected boundary. with normal mitigation post extraction Wayland Wood, Watton measures, no adverse SSSI is 2.78km from effects on these SSSIs the site boundary. is expected.

B24

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction The nearest CWS site is CWS 2091 ‘Watton No adverse impacts on Airfield (Army training the CWS is expected No impacts on CWS area) which is 610m due to the distance woodland are expected from the site boundary. from the site. post extraction.

The nearest ancient woodland sites are: No adverse impacts on Shepherds Fell PAWS ancient woodland sites No impacts on ancient which is 2.34 km from are expected due to the woodland are expected the site boundary, distance from the site. post extraction. Hazel Hurn PAWS and If the site is worked ASNW which is 2.47 km above the water table, from the site boundary. with normal mitigation measures, no adverse effects on these ancient woodlands is expected. The site consists of the No adverse impacts to Lowestoft formation – This site is unlikely to geodiversity are diamicton, overlying contain geodiversity expected post chalk formations. priority features. restoration. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to nature No effect during The proposed for the restoration conservation with open extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of grassland. would provide some minerals sites biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is a flat arable Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or field, with an existing result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated permitted mineral change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. extraction site to the appropriate mitigation landscape south, and on the strategy and restoration opposite of Mill Lane. scheme should ensure There would be views no unacceptable from the adjacent Mill impacts. Lane and Cuckoo Lane through gaps in the hedgerows; a screening scheme would need to address this issue together with longer views from the direction of Carbrooke. SA9: To contribute There are no Public - 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities impact on the nearby provided within the site in Norfolk The nearest residential dwelling would not be on restoration. property is 144m from significant; however it the site boundary, this is considered that is the only sensitive appropriate mitigation

B25

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction receptor within 250m of measures to ensure no the site. unacceptable impacts could be conditioned.

SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- - and enhance water a Secondary aquifer The site is expected to No effect on water and soil quality in (undifferentiated) be worked dry, above resources is expected Norfolk (superficial deposits) the water table. With post extraction. and a principal aquifer normal mitigation (bedrock). The site is measures, no adverse within groundwater effects on water Source Protection Zone resources are 2. expected.

The site is Grade 3 If BMV land is agricultural land and Potential for BMV identified, any could potentially be agricultural land to be restoration that does Grade 3a which is affected by mineral not incorporate classified within the extraction within the agriculture would result Best and Most Versatile site. in adverse impacts agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 0.8km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Watton and 10.1km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from both Attleborough nearest settlement extraction and Dereham. These allocated for significant are the nearest growth. settlements allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding rivers, the sea or with two locations of surface water. Sand surface water pooling in and gravel extraction is a 1 in 30 year rainfall considered to be a event and a third ‘water compatible’ land location in a 1 in 1000 use which is suitable in year rainfall event. all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing

B26

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA10 updated to clarify that the site is expected to be worked dry (above the water table), but no change to the scoring.

B27

MIN 116- land at Woodrising Road, Cranworth

Proposal: Extraction of 950,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 15.75 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 5.8km from + 0 and mitigate the Watton, 7.2km from Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate Dereham and 8.8km requires energy and climate change post change by reducing from Attleborough, therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to which are the nearest There would also be Restoration would climate change towns. CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, which are less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 18 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 61m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are seven expected to cause sensitive receptors vibration. It is within 250m of the site considered that noise boundary (one of these and dust can be is within 100m of the mitigated to acceptable site boundary). The levels within 250m of settlement of the source; the greatest Woodrising is 627m impacts will be within away. 100m, if uncontrolled. The effect on visual Noise and dust intrusion is assessed assessments, and under objective SA8. mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B28

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Building is the Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the ‘Hurdle-maker’s would be required to should ensure the townscape and Cottage’ which is 60m support any future historic value of assets historic away. There are 23 planning application. is appropriately environment Listed Buildings within The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 2km of the site. should identify potential extraction will result in impacts to heritage landscape change; and The nearest Scheduled assets and suggest it is uncertain if harm to Monument is appropriate mitigation, these could be ‘Woodrising Hall which may include successfully mitigated moated site’ which is identification of areas by restoration on the 780m away. There are where mineral setting of heritage four Scheduled extraction would be assets. Monuments within 2km inappropriate. of the site.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Conservation Areas or during extraction extraction. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are no Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records that unknown extraction. within the site archaeology exists on boundary. The site is in the site and an a wider landscape with assessment of the a significant number of significance of finds and features from archaeological remains multiple periods. will be required at the planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect 0 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity Potter’s Carr, The site would be No impacts on the Cranworth SSSI is worked dry (above the SSSIs are expected 1.16km from the site water table). Therefore post extraction boundary. no effects on these Scoulton Mere SSSI is SSSIs are expected. 1.84km from the site boundary.

The nearest CWS is The site would be No impacts on the CWS 2063 ‘Wood worked dry (above the CWS are expected post Rising Water Meadows’ water table). Therefore, extraction

B29

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction which is 520m from the no impacts on the CWS site boundary. are expected.

The nearest ancient The site would be No impacts on the woodland site is a worked dry (above the ancient woodland are PAWS (unnamed) water table). Therefore expected post within Cranworth no effects are expected extraction parish; it is 1.52km from on the ancient the site boundary. woodland site.

The site consists of the This site is unlikely to No adverse impacts to Lowestoft formation – contain geodiversity geodiversity are diamicton, Alluvium – priority features. expected post clay, silt, sand and restoration. gravel, overlying chalk formations. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to arable No effect during The proposed for the restoration agriculture and extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of woodland. would provide some minerals sites biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located - - and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is a large Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or arable field. It has a result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated ‘domed plateau’ and change which due to the countryside and landscape feature. slopes downward to the the sloping nature of landscape north, east and south. the site would be visible The proposed from a variety of development would be viewpoints; however, visually detrimental an appropriate from a number of mitigation strategy and viewpoints. Southburgh restoration scheme Church to the north- would minimise the east also has a long- impact. range view over the site. Screen bunding would be visually intrusive. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right -- 0 to improved health of Way adjacent to the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of northern boundary of to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities the site (Cranworth impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk BR6). PRoW and the nearby on restoration. dwellings would not be The nearest residential significant; however, it property is 61m from is considered that the site boundary. appropriate mitigation There are seven measures to ensure no sensitive receptors unacceptable impacts within 250m of the site could be conditioned. boundary (one is within 100m of the site boundary).

B30

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0 and enhance water a Secondary aquifer If the site is worked No effect on water and soil quality in (undifferentiated) and above the water table, resources is expected Norfolk partially over a with normal mitigation post extraction. Secondary A aquifer measures, no adverse (superficial deposits). effects on water The site is also located resources are over a principal aquifer expected. (bedrock). However, there are no groundwater Source Protection Zones within the proposed site. The site is proposed to be restored back to The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV agriculture. Therefore, agricultural land and agricultural land to be as long as the topsoil could potentially be affected by mineral was stored correctly Grade 3a which is extraction within the and then replaced, classified within the site. there would be no likely Best and Most Versatile adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 5.8km from + 0 sustainable use of Watton, 7.2km from Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources Dereham and 8.8km nearest settlement extraction from Attleborough. allocated for significant These are the nearest growth. settlements allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low risk of flooding from either development flooding from surface rivers, the sea or water, with areas of surface water. Sand surface water pooling in and gravel extraction is a 1 in 1000 year rainfall considered to be a event. ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing

B31

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on air quality, the historic environment, landscape, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that not all of these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA9 score for the extraction phase amended to ‘--‘ due to a residential property being located within 100m of the site boundary.

B32

MIN 35 – land at Heath Road, Eccles, Quidenham

Proposal: Extraction of 500,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 7.5 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 4.6km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Attleborough and Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate 12.9km from Watton requires energy and climate change post change by reducing which are the nearest therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to towns. There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Attleborough is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 32 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 24m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 31 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary (12 considered that noise are residential and dust can be properties and 19 are mitigated to acceptable industrial units). Six of levels within 250m of the residential the source; the greatest properties are within impacts will be within 100m of the site 100m, if uncontrolled. boundary. However, the Noise and dust southern part of the site assessments, and is not proposed to be mitigation measures to extracted. Therefore, appropriately control the nearest residential any amenity impacts, property is 155m from must form part of any the extraction area and planning application for there are 10 residential mineral extraction. properties within 250m of the proposed extraction area (the industrial units would remain at the same distances). The settlement of Eccles is 269m away.

B33

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Building is the Grade II* A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Church of St Mary would be required to should ensure the townscape and which is 470m away. support any future historic value of assets historic There are 13 Listed planning application. is appropriately environment Buildings within 2km of The heritage statement preserved. Mineral the site. 5 of these are should identify potential extraction will result in within the Quidenham impacts to heritage landscape change; Conservation Area assets and suggest however, an which is 1.69km away. appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration scheme should ensure There nearest Due to its location no unacceptable Scheduled Monument adjacent to an impacts on the setting is ‘Gallows Hill industrial estate, of heritage assets. Tumulus’ which is 150m railway line and former away. There are two mineral working, no No effect post Scheduled monuments effects are expected extraction. within 2km of the site. during extraction.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction extraction. Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records of that unknown extraction. isolated multi-period archaeology exists on finds and features the site and an including a bronze age assessment of the barrow, within the site significance of boundary, and a archaeological remains possible Roman road will be required at the adjacent to the planning application boundary. The site is in stage, in order to a wider landscape with protect and mitigate the a very significant impact of mineral number of finds and extraction in this site. features from multiple periods.

B34

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance Swangey Fen SSSI is The proposed No adverse impacts to Norfolk’s 2.63km from the site extraction site would be Swangey Fen SSSI are biodiversity and boundary and is part of worked dry (above the expected post geodiversity the Norfolk Valley Fens water table) and is extraction. SAC. The site is within located up-gradient of the Impact Risk Zone Swangey Fen SSSI. for this SSSI. There would be no adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC.

Kenninghall and The proposed No impacts to SSSIs Banham Fens with extraction site would be are expected post Quidenham SSSI is worked dry (above the extraction. 2.70km from the site water table) and is in a boundary. different hydrological East Harling Common catchment to these SSSI is 2.13km from SSSIs. Therefore there the site boundary. would be no adverse impacts to SSSIs.

CWS 620 ‘Eccles Wood The site would be No impacts to CWSs (north)’ is adjacent to worked dry (above the are expected post the site boundary. CWS water table), therefore extraction. 621 ‘Eccles Wood there would be no (middle)’ and CWS 622 hydrological impacts on ‘Eccles Wood (south) the CWSs. Due to the are both 120m from the proximity of the CWS to site boundary. the proposed site there is the potential for impacts from dust deposition; although with normal mitigation measures no adverse effects on these CWSs is expected.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts to ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Croxton Sand and for the site to contain geodiversity are gravel member, examples of expected post overlying chalk geodiversity priority restoration. It would be formations. There is features. useful for restoration to the potential for provide opportunities vertebrate fossils for further geological because the site is research of suitable close to prolific find exposures. spot.

B35

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a low- No effect during The proposed for the restoration level for arable extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of agriculture with would provide some minerals sites conservation grassland biodiversity gains. and woodland planting on the southern boundary. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is a field of Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or rough meadow grass. result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated The site is bounded to change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. the north by a large appropriate mitigation landscape bund that screens a strategy and restoration restored landfill and scheme should ensure mineral extraction void. no unacceptable To the west is an area impacts. of deciduous woodland. Arable countryside is to the south and west. There are several bungalows to the south and south-east of the site. The site would need to be appropriately screened from local residents and from users of Heath Lane. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities impact on the nearby provided within the site in Norfolk The nearest residential dwellings would not be on restoration. property is 24m from significant; however it the site boundary. is considered that There are 31 sensitive appropriate mitigation receptors within 250m measures to ensure no of the site boundary (12 unacceptable impacts are residential could be conditioned. properties and 19 are industrial units). However, the southern part of the site is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 155m from the extraction area and there are 10 residential properties within 250m of the proposed

B36

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction extraction area (the industrial units would remain at the same distances). SA10: To protect The site is located over 0 0 and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer The proposed No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) extraction site would be resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer worked dry (above the post extraction. (bedrock). However, water table) and there are no therefore no effect on groundwater Source water resources is Protection Zones within expected. the proposed site.

The site is Grade 4 No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV agricultural land. agricultural soils. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The site is 4.6km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Attleborough and Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources 12.9km from Watton. nearest settlement extraction These are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. No areas being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing of the site are at risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding. rivers, the sea or surface water. Sand and gravel extraction is considered to be a ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on air quality, the historic environment, ecology, landscape, and amenity; it is considered these impacts could be appropriately mitigated except for the local landscape impacts because screening and bunding could be intrusive

B37

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction in its own right. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA3 and SA9 amended regarding the distance of residential properties from the proposed site boundary and the extraction area. The scoring for the extraction phase of SA9 has been changed to ‘- -‘ due to the distance of residential properties from the site, but no change to the scoring for SA3.

B38

MIN 102 – land at North Farm, south of the River Thet, Snetterton

Proposal: Extraction of 980,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 58.21 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 3km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Attleborough and 9.3km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from Watton, which are requires energy and climate change post change by reducing the nearest towns. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be climate change CO2 emissions from road transportation to the nearest towns, but Attleborough is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards in HGV movements. of HGV movements However, an estimate due to mineral of the number of HGV transport would not be movements has not significant compared to been provided. overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is 455m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. The extraction is not restoration settlement of Shropham expected to cause is 690m away. vibration. It is The effect on visual considered that noise intrusion is assessed and dust can be under objective SA8. mitigated to acceptable levels within 250m of the source. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is the Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the North Farmhouse which would be required to should ensure the townscape and is 550m away. There support any future historic value of assets

B39

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction historic are 19 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral should identify potential extraction will result in The only Scheduled impacts to heritage landscape change; Monument within 2km assets and suggest however, an of the site is the appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration ‘Wayside Cross at the which may include scheme should ensure north end of Whitecross identification of areas no unacceptable Drift’ which is 550m where mineral impacts on the setting away. extraction would be of heritage assets. inappropriate. There are no Conservation Areas or No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

Historic Environment There is the potential records of cropmarks that unknown No effect post and isolated multi archaeology exists on extraction period finds, including a the site and an round barrow exist assessment of the within the site significance of boundary. The site is in archaeological remains a wider landscape with will be required at the a very significant planning application number of finds and stage, in order to features from multiple protect and mitigate the periods. impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect -- ? and enhance Swangey Fen SSSI is There is the potential As there are no details Norfolk’s adjacent to the site for impacts from dust of a working or biodiversity and boundary and is part of deposition, although restoration scheme geodiversity the Norfolk Valley Fens with normal mitigation impacts on the SSSI SAC. measures, adverse and SAC post effects may be extraction are avoided. The potential uncertain. exists for impacts on the hydrology of the SSSI from dewatering. As there are no details of a working scheme impacts on the SSSI and SAC are uncertain.

There is the potential CWS 804 ‘North of Red for impacts from dust Impacts on the CWSs Bridge’ is adjacent to deposition, although post extraction are the site boundary. with normal mitigation uncertain. CWS 639 ‘Fen measures, adverse effects may be

B40

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Plantation’ is 150m avoided. The potential from the site boundary. exists for impacts on CWS 645 ‘Old Gravel the hydrology of the Works’ is 40m from the CWSs from dewatering. site boundary. CWS 809 ‘Shropham Fen’ is 100m from the site boundary. The potential exists for The nearest ancient impacts on the No impacts on the woodland site is a hydrology of the ancient woodland are ASNW (unnamed) ancient woodland from expected post within Shropham dewatering. Due to the extraction parish; it is 1.48km from distance of the ancient the site boundary. woodland from the proposed extraction site there would be no other impacts from The site consists of the extraction. No adverse impacts to Croxton sand and geodiversity are gravel member, There is the potential expected post Lowestoft formation – for the site to contain restoration. It would be diamicton, overlying examples of useful for restoration to chalk formations. geodiversity priority provide opportunities There is the potential features. for further geological for vertebrate fossils research of suitable because the site is exposures. close to a prolific find spot. SA7: To promote No details on proposed 0 ? innovative solutions restoration of the site No effect during No details of a for the restoration have been provided. extraction phase proposed restoration and after use of The preferred scheme have been minerals sites restoration scheme provided. would be agriculture with wide field margins and enhanced woodland planting. SA8: To protect Parts of the site are -- - and enhance the within a Core River It is likely that mineral Mineral extraction will quality and Valley. The site is not extraction within the result in landscape distinctiveness of located within the areas covered by the change which due to the countryside and AONB or any other Core River Valley the sloping nature of landscape designated landscape designation would be the site would be visible feature. unacceptable due to from a variety of landscape impacts. viewpoints; however, Any working scheme an appropriate should avoid removal mitigation strategy and of the woodland areas restoration scheme within the site for the would minimise the same reason. impact. Extraction on the

B41

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction sloping valley of the River Thet is likely to have wider landscape impacts which would be difficult to effectively mitigate through screening. SA9: To contribute There are no Public 0 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or There is unlikely to be New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. a significant impact on are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential health or amenity from provided within the site in Norfolk property is 455m from mineral extraction on restoration. the site boundary. within the site. SA10: To protect The site is located -/0 0 and enhance water partially over a If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary A aquifer as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk and partially over a the potential for post extraction. Secondary adverse impacts exists, (undifferentiated) although appropriate aquifer (superficial assessment and deposits). The site is mitigation measures also located over a could ensure that no principal aquifer unacceptable impacts (bedrock). The western occur. part of the site is within groundwater Source Protection Zones 2 and 3. The rest of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ.

The site is Grade 4 No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV agricultural land. agricultural soils. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The site is 3km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Attleborough and 9.3km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from Watton. These are nearest settlement extraction the nearest settlements allocated for significant allocated for significant growth. growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The majority (97%) of 0 0 the risk of current the site has a low The majority of the site No effect post and future flooding probability of flooding is at low risk of being extraction / restoration. at new and existing from rivers. The affected by flooding development northern boundary of from either rivers, the the site with the River sea or surface water. Thet has a medium and Sand and gravel high risk of flooding extraction is considered from rivers. The site to be a ‘water has a low risk of compatible’ land use surface water flooding which is suitable in all with a few locations of flood zones.

B42

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction surface water pooling in a 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year rainfall event. In a 1 in 1000 year event a surface water flow path develops between the north of the site and the River Thet. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on air quality, landscape, hydrology and biodiversity. It is considered that the effects on biodiversity could be difficult to mitigate. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA3 and SA9 have been updated to include a revised distance of the nearest residential property to the proposed site, but no changes to scoring.

B43

MIN 201 – land at Swangey Farm, north of North Road, Snetterton

Proposal: Extraction of 590,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 38.19 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 2.6km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Attleborough and Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate 10.2km from Watton, requires energy and climate change post change by reducing which are the nearest therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to towns. There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Attleborough is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 70 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 82m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are six sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and three of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of North End the source; the greatest is 831m from the site. impacts will be within The effect on visual 100m, if uncontrolled. intrusion is assessed Noise and dust under objective SA8. assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B44

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Building and Scheduled A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Monument is the would be required to should ensure the townscape and ‘Wayside Cross at the support any future historic value of assets historic north end of Whitecross planning application. is appropriately environment Drift’ which is 20m from The heritage statement preserved. Mineral the site boundary. should identify potential extraction will result in There are 15 Listed impacts to heritage landscape change; Buildings within 2km of assets and suggest however, an the site. appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration There are 3 Scheduled which may include scheme should ensure Monuments within 2km identification of areas no unacceptable of the site. where mineral impacts on the setting extraction would be of heritage assets. There are no inappropriate. Conservation Areas or No effect post Registered Historic No effects expected extraction Parks and Gardens during extraction within 2km of the site. There is the potential Historic Environment that unknown No effect post records of isolated archaeology exists on extraction multi-period finds and the site and an features exist within the assessment of the site boundary, including significance of a barrow. The site is in archaeological remains a wider landscape with will be required at the a very significant planning application number of finds and stage, in order to features from multiple protect and mitigate the periods. impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect -- ? and enhance Swangey Fen SSSI is There is the potential As there are no details Norfolk’s adjacent to the site for impacts from dust of a working or biodiversity and boundary and is part of deposition, although restoration scheme geodiversity the Norfolk Valley Fens with normal mitigation impacts on the SSSIs SAC. measures, adverse and SAC post effects may be extraction are avoided. The potential uncertain. exists for impacts on the hydrology of the SSSI and SAC from dewatering.

Old Buckenham Fen The potential exists for SSSI is 2.95km from impacts on the the site boundary. hydrology of the SSSI from dewatering.

The nearest CWS is There is the potential CWS 639 ‘Fen for impacts from dust

B45

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Plantation’ which is deposition, although Impacts on the CWS 150m from the site with normal mitigation post extraction are boundary. measures, adverse uncertain. effects may be avoided. The potential exists for impacts on the hydrology of the CWSs from dewatering.

The nearest ancient The potential exists for woodland site is an impacts on the ASNW (unnamed) in hydrology of the No impacts to ancient Shropham parish which ancient woodland from woodland are expected is 2.45 km from the site dewatering. Due to the post restoration. boundary. distance of the ancient woodland from the proposed extraction site there would be no other impacts from extraction. The site consists of the Croxton sand and There is the potential No adverse impacts to gravel member, for the site to contain geodiversity are overlying chalk examples of expected post formations. There is geodiversity priority restoration. It would be the potential for features. useful for restoration to vertebrate fossils provide opportunities because the site is for further geological close to a prolific find research of suitable spot. exposures. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to No effect during The proposed for the restoration agriculture with some extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of restoration to nature would provide some minerals sites conservation. biodiversity gains.

SA8: To protect The site is not located - - and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is currently an Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or agricultural field. The result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated site slopes downwards change which due to the countryside and landscape feature. to the north-east the sloping nature of landscape towards Swangey Fen, parts of the site would with the south-western be visible from a variety corner being on a of viewpoints; however, relatively flat plateau. an appropriate The surrounding mitigation strategy and landscape is restoration scheme predominantly rolling would minimise the arable farmland. The impact. Thet Valley to the north is well wooded. There is the potential that

B46

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction parts of the site could be effectively screened. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk The nearest residential dwellings would not be on restoration. property is 82m from significant; however it the site boundary. is considered that There are six sensitive appropriate mitigation receptors within 250m measures to ensure no of the site boundary unacceptable impacts and three of these are could be conditioned. within 100m of the site boundary. SA10: To protect The site is located over -/- 0 and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer the potential for post extraction. (bedrock). However, adverse impacts exists, there are no although appropriate Groundwater Source assessment and Protection Zones within mitigation measures the proposed site. could ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur.

The northern part of the Potential for BMV The site is proposed to site is Grade 4 agricultural land to be be restored back to agricultural land. The affected by mineral agriculture. Therefore, southern part of the site extraction within the as long as the topsoil is Grade 3 agricultural site. was stored correctly land and could and then replaced, potentially be Grade 3a there would be no likely which is classified adverse effect on BMV within the Best and agricultural land. Most Versatile agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 2.6km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Attleborough and Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources 10.2km from Watton. nearest settlement extraction These are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low probability of flooding from either development surface water flooding, rivers, the sea or with one location of surface water. Sand surface water pooling in and gravel extraction is

B47

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction a 1 in 30 year rainfall considered to be a event. ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on air quality, the historic environment, landscape, biodiversity, hydrology, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that the effects on the historic environment could not be appropriately mitigated and that it would be difficult to effectively mitigate the effects on biodiversity. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA3 and SA9 updated with revised distances to the nearest residential properties and properties within 100m. The scores for the extraction phase of SA3 and SA9 have been amended to ‘- -‘ due to the location of residential properties within 100m of the proposed site boundary.

B48

Broadland sites

MIN 55 – land at Keepers Cottage, Attlebridge

Proposal: Extraction of 527,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 1.93 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 1.8 km from ++ 0 and mitigate the the Norwich urban area, Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate but it is outside the requires energy and climate change post change by reducing Norwich Policy Area. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but the Norwich urban area is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards in HGV movements. of HGV movements However, an estimate due to mineral of the number of HGV transport would not be movements has not significant compared to been provided. overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is within the Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion site boundary, this is extraction is not restoration the only sensitive expected to cause receptor within 250m of vibration. It is the site boundary and considered that noise would need to be and dust can be removed if mineral mitigated to acceptable extraction were to take levels within 250m of place. The settlement the source. Noise and of Attlebridge is 1.3km dust assessments, and away. mitigation measures to The effect on visual appropriately control intrusion is assessed any amenity impacts, under objective SA8. must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is the Grade II

B49

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the ‘Barn 50m NW of Low No effects expected No affect post townscape and Farmhouse’ which is during extraction. extraction. historic 1.1km away. There are environment 11 Listed Buildings within 2km of the site.

The only Scheduled Monument within 2km No effects expected No effect post of the site is the ‘Round during extraction extraction barrow north of Sandy Lane’ which is 1.54km away.

There are no Conservation Areas or No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction. extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are no Historic Environment records There is the potential No effect post within the site that unknown extraction boundary. A number of archaeology exists on nearby areas have the site and an been investigated assessment of the previously and no significance of archaeological archaeological remains evidence identified. will be required at the However, There have planning application been isolated multi- stage, in order to period finds and there protect and mitigate the is a deserted medieval impact of mineral settlement location in extraction in this site. proximity to the site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The River Wensum The proposed No adverse effects to Norfolk’s SAC is 0.67km from the extraction site would be the River Wensum are biodiversity and site boundary and the worked dry (above the expected post geodiversity site is within the Impact water table). Therefore extraction. Risk Zone for the River there would be no Wensum SSSI. adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC.

Alderford Common The proposed No impacts to SSSIs SSSI is 2.16km from extraction site would be are expected post the site boundary. worked dry (above the extraction. Swannington Upgate water table) and is in a Common SSSI is different hydrological 1.69km from the site catchment to these boundary. SSSIs. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to SSSIs.

B50

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

CWS 1344 ‘Triumph There is the potential No impacts to CWSs and Foxburrow for impacts from dust are expected post Plantations’ is adjacent deposition although extraction. to the site boundary. with normal mitigation CWS 1343 ‘Attlebridge measures no adverse Hills’ is 140m from the effects on these CWSs site boundary. is expected.

The nearest ancient No adverse impacts on No impacts are woodland site is ancient woodland are expected to ancient Mileplain Plantation expected due to the woodland sites post which is a PAWS; it is distance from the site extraction. 0.28km from the site and because the site boundary. would be worked dry.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Sheringham Cliffs for the site to contain geodiversity are formation - sand and examples of expected post gravel, overlying chalk geodiversity priority restoration. It would be formations. features. useful for restoration to provide opportunities for further geological research of suitable exposures. SA7: To promote No details on proposed 0 ? innovative solutions restoration of the site No effect during No details of a for the restoration have been provided. extraction phase proposed restoration and after use of The preferred scheme have been minerals sites restoration would be to provided. heathland. SA8: To protect The site is not located 0 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises a Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or domestic dwelling and result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated its curtilage. The site change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. lies within an area of appropriate mitigation landscape former mineral strategy and restoration workings which have scheme should ensure now been restored by no unacceptable landfill. The site is well impacts. screened from public view points and is surrounded by shrubs and a few large trees. The site is remote from other properties. SA9: To contribute There are no Public - 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities There is a PRoW close impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk to the southern PRoW and the nearby on restoration.

B51

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction boundary of the site dwellings would not be (Attlebridge RB3 and significant; however it RB4). is considered that appropriate mitigation The nearest residential measures to ensure no property is within the unacceptable impacts site boundary, this is could be conditioned. the only sensitive receptor within 250m of the site boundary. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer The proposed No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) extraction site would be resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer worked dry (above the post extraction. (bedrock). However, water table) and there are no therefore no effect on groundwater Source water resources is Protection Zones within expected. the proposed site.

Part of the site is Potential for BMV If BMV land is classified as non- agricultural land to be identified, any agricultural land. Part affected by mineral restoration that does of the site is Grade 3 extraction within the not incorporate agricultural land and site. agriculture would result could potentially be in adverse impacts. Grade 3a which is The proposed depth of classified within the extraction would make Best and Most Versatile any restoration to agricultural land. agriculture difficult. SA11: To promote The site is 1.8 km from ++ 0 sustainable use of the Norwich urban area, Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources which is allocated for nearest settlement extraction significant growth in the allocated for significant adopted Local Plan. growth. SA12: To reduce The site has a low 0 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development The site has a medium rivers or the sea. The probability of surface site is at medium risk of water flooding, with being affected by areas of surface water flooding from surface pooling on the site in a water. 1 in 30 year rainfall Sand and gravel event and a 1 in 100 extraction is considered year rainfall event. In a to be a ‘water 1 in 1000 year rainfall compatible’ land use event there are larger which is suitable in all areas of surface water flood zones. pooling and a surface water flow path within

B52

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction the site which covers approximately 25% of the site area. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations. There are potential negative effects on air quality and agricultural land. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? NO

B53

MIN 202 – land south of Reepham Road, Attlebridge

Proposal: Extraction of 545,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 17.36 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 1.7km from ++ 0 and mitigate the the Norwich urban area, Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate but it is outside the requires energy and climate change post change by reducing Norwich Policy Area. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but the Norwich urban area is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 76 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential - 0 noise, vibration and property is 126m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are five sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Update is 1km away mitigated to acceptable and Attlebridge is levels within 250m of 1.3km away. the source; the greatest The effect on visual impacts will be within intrusion is assessed 100m, if uncontrolled. under objective SA8. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B54

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Buildings are the Grade No effects expected to A mitigation strategy character of the II* Church of St Andrew during extraction. should ensure the townscape and and Grade II Church historic value of assets historic Farmhouse, which are is appropriately environment 1.45km away. There preserved. Mineral are 9 Listed Buildings extraction will result in within 2km of the site. landscape change; A Heritage Statement however, an The only Scheduled would be required to appropriate restoration Monument within 2km support any future scheme should ensure of the site is ‘Round planning application. no unacceptable Barrow North of Sandy The heritage statement impacts on the setting Lane’ which is 810m should identify potential of heritage assets. away. impacts to heritage assets and suggest There are no appropriate mitigation Conservation Areas or Registered Historic No effects expected No effect post Parks and Gardens during extraction extraction. within 2km of the site.

There are no Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records that unknown extraction within the site archaeology exists on boundary. A number of the site and an nearby areas have assessment of the been investigated significance of previously and no archaeological remains archaeological will be required at the evidence identified. planning application However, There have stage, in order to been isolated multi- protect and mitigate the period finds and there impact of mineral is a deserted medieval extraction in this site. settlement location in proximity to the site. SA6: To protect -- - and enhance The site is 1.15km from The proposed No adverse effects to Norfolk’s the River Wensum SAC extraction site would be the River Wensum are biodiversity and and is within the Impact worked dry (above the expected post geodiversity Risk Zone for the River water table). There extraction. Wensum SSSI. would be no adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC.

Swannington Update The proposed No impacts to SSSIs Common SSSI is extraction site would be are expected post 0.96km from the site worked dry (above the extraction. boundary. water table) and is located up-gradient of these SSSIs.

B55

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Alderford Common Therefore there would SSSI is 1.73km from be no adverse impacts the site boundary. to SSSIs.

CWS 1344 ‘Triumph If the extraction If the extraction and Foxburrow includes parts of CWS includes parts of CWS Plantations’ is partially 1344 then there will be 1344 then there will be within the site. CWS physical loss. There is permanent loss 2176 ‘Marriott’s Way’ is the potential for 50m from the site impacts from dust boundary. deposition, although with normal mitigation measures no adverse effects on these CWSs from dust are expected.

The nearest ancient The proposed If the extraction woodland site is extraction site would be includes parts of the Mileplain Plantation, worked dry (above the PAWS then there could which is a PAWS and is water table), therefore be a permanent loss of adjacent to the site there would be no ancient woodland soils. boundary and in some adverse effects on the If the extraction area places within the site hydrology of the excludes the PAWS boundary. PAWS. There is the then no adverse potential for impacts impacts to ancient from dust deposition. woodland are expected The working area of the post extraction. site must be set back from the boundary of the PAWS by at least 15 metres otherwise there could be a permanent loss of ancient woodland soils.

B56

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction quality and Core River Valley or The site is a partially Mineral extraction will distinctiveness of any other designated extracted mineral site result in landscape the countryside and landscape feature. and a woodland change; however, an landscape plantation. The site is appropriate mitigation screened from views in strategy and restoration all directions by scheme should ensure woodland. no unacceptable impacts.

SA9: To contribute There are no Public - 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site, to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities although the Marriott’s impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk Way is crossed by the Marriott’s Way and the on restoration. access road. nearby dwellings would not be significant; The nearest residential however it is property is 126m from considered that the site boundary. appropriate mitigation There are five sensitive measures to ensure no receptors within 250m unacceptable impacts of the site boundary. could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0 0 and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer water table) and post extraction. (bedrock). However, therefore no effect on there are no water resources is groundwater Source expected. Protection Zones within

the proposed site.

No impacts on BMV The site is classified as No impacts on BMV agricultural soils. non-agricultural land. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The site is 1.7km from ++ 0 sustainable use of the Norwich urban area, Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources which is allocated for nearest settlement extraction significant growth in the allocated for significant adopted Local Plan. growth. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development The site has a low rivers, the sea or probability of surface surface water. Sand water flooding, with and gravel extraction is small areas of surface considered to be a water pooling in a 1 in ‘water compatible’ land 1000 year rainfall use which is suitable in event. all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites

B57

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction employment tend to be low, if this No effect post opportunities and site was worked it could restoration promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on air quality, biodiversity, the historic environment, landscape and amenity. It is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated, except for the effect on County Wildlife Site which is within the proposed extraction area. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the assessment text for SA6 on ecology has been amended regarding impacts on ancient woodland because there is a PAWS site partially within the site boundary, the extraction phase assessment has been amended to ‘- -‘

B58

MIN 48 – land at Swannington Bottom Plantation, Felthorpe Proposal: Extraction of 1,900,000 tonnes of sand Size of site: 51.62 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 2.3km from ++ 0 and mitigate the the Norwich urban area, Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate but it is outside the requires energy and climate change post change by reducing Norwich Policy Area. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but the Norwich urban area is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards in HGV movements. of HGV movements However, an estimated due to mineral of the number of HGV transport would not be movements has not significant compared to been provided. overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 50m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are ten sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and one of these is and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Felthorpe the source; the greatest is 198m away. impacts will be within The effect on visual 100m, if uncontrolled. intrusion is assessed Noise and dust under objective SA8. assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B59

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Building is the Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Felthorpe Hall which is would be required to should ensure the townscape and 760m away. There are support any future historic value of assets historic 7 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral should identify potential extraction will result in There is a Scheduled impacts to heritage landscape change; Monument within the assets and suggest however, an site, which is the appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration ‘Round barrow north of which may include scheme should ensure Sandy Lane’. It is the identification of areas no unacceptable only Scheduled where mineral impacts on the setting Monument within 2km extraction would be of heritage assets. of the site. inappropriate.

There are no No effects expected Conservation Areas or during extraction No effect post Registered Historic extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is the potential Environment records of that unknown No effect post a feature comprising a archaeology exists on extraction bronze age barrow, the site and an within the site assessment of the boundary. The site is in significance of a wider landscape with archaeological remains a significant number of will be required at the finds and features from planning application multiple periods. stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is 2.22km from Due to the elevated No impacts to the SAC Norfolk’s the River Wensum SAC position of the site, if are expected post biodiversity and and is within the Impact the proposed extraction extraction. geodiversity Risk Zone for the River site is worked dry Wensum SSSI. (above the water table) then no adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC are expected.

The site is 3.46km from No adverse impacts on No impacts to the SSSI Buxton Heath SSSI the SSSI are expected are expected post which is part of the due to the distance extraction. Norfolk Valley Fens from the site. SAC. It is outside the Impact Risk Zone for this SSSI.

B60

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

Swannington Upgate There is the potential No impacts to the SSSI Common SSSI is for impacts from dust are expected post adjacent to the site deposition and extraction. boundary. changes to hydrogeology from mineral extraction. The site would need to be worked dry (above the water table). In the absence of detailed hydrogeological information and mitigation measures, impacts, impacts on the adjacent SSSI are uncertain.

Alderford Common If the site is worked dry No impacts to the SSSI SSSI is 1.82km from (above the water table) are expected post the site boundary. then no adverse effects extraction. on Alderford Common SSSI are expected.

CWS 1348 ‘Land There is the potential No impacts to the CWS adjoining Swannington for impacts from dust are expected post Bottom Plantation’ is deposition and extraction. adjacent to the site changes to boundary. hydrogeology. If the site is worked dry (above the water table) then no adverse effects on CWS are expected.

The nearest ancient If the site is worked No impacts to the woodland site is above the water table, ancient woodland are Mileplain Plantation with normal mitigation expected post which is a PAWS and is measures, no adverse extraction. 0.75km from the site effects on this ancient boundary. woodland site are expected.

The site consists of The site contains No adverse impacts to Head deposits - clay, examples of geodiversity are silt and gravel, which geodiversity priority expected post are priority features due features. restoration. It would be to their method of useful for restoration to formation; Sheringham provide opportunities Cliffs formation-sand for further geological and gravel, and Britons research of suitable Lane sand and gravel exposures. member, overlying

B61

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction chalk formations in the west and Wroxham Crag in the east. There is significant potential for vertebrate fossils within the Wroxham Crag. The Britons Lane sands and gravels are known to contain priority features such as palaesols and erratics in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a No effect during The proposed for the restoration heathland habitat. extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of would provide some minerals sites biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is a coniferous Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or plantation with a result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated broadleaf edge and change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. some regenerating appropriate mitigation landscape broadleaf understorey. strategy and restoration The eastern edge of scheme should ensure the site is visible from no unacceptable Felthorpe Road and the impacts. southern edge from a public right of way. Intermittent views of the northern edge of the plantation can be seen from Mill Lane. If the working retained a woodland screen it would have a relatively low impact in landscape terms. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right -- 0 to improved health of Way along the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of southern boundary of to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities the site (Felthorpe impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk RB7). PRoW and the nearby on restoration. dwellings would not be The nearest residential significant; however, it property is 50m from is considered that the site boundary. appropriate mitigation There are ten sensitive measures to ensure no receptors within 250m unacceptable impacts of the site boundary could be conditioned. and one of these is

B62

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction within 100m of the site boundary. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0 0 and enhance water both Secondary A and If the site is worked No effect on water and soil quality in B aquifers (superficial above the water table, resources is expected Norfolk deposits) and a with normal mitigation post extraction. principal aquifer measures, no adverse (bedrock). However, effects on water there are no resources are expected groundwater Source Protection Zones within the proposed site. No impacts on BMV agricultural soils. The site is classified as No impacts on BMV non-agricultural land. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The site is 2.3km from ++ 0 sustainable use of the Norwich urban area, Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources which is allocated for nearest settlement extraction significant growth in the allocated for significant adopted Local Plan. growth. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development The site has a low rivers, the sea or probability of surface surface water. Sand water flooding, with one and gravel extraction is location of surface considered to be a water pooling in a 1 in ‘water compatible’ land 1000 year rainfall use which is suitable in event. all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on air quality, biodiversity, landscape and amenity and it is uncertain whether the effects on biodiversity could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

B63

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES, the comments for SA3 and SA9 have been amended regarding the distance of residential dwellings from the site boundary and the assessment scores have changed to ‘- -‘ for both SA3 and SA9. For SA6 the assessment text for Swannington Upgate Common SSSI has been amended to state that impacts are uncertain, but the assessment score has not changed.

B64

MIN 37 – land at Mayton Wood, Coltishall Road, Buxton

Proposal: Extraction of 1,450,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 23.5 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 6.2km from + 0 and mitigate the Aylsham and 8.9km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from North Walsham, requires energy and climate change post change by reducing which are the nearest therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to towns. The site is There would also be Restoration would not climate change 7.2km from the Norwich CO2 emissions from include woodland as a urban area and it is road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. outside the Norwich the nearest towns, but Policy Area. Norwich is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 15m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 20 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and five of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. levels within 250m of The settlement of the source; the greatest Buxton is 1.1km away. impacts will be within However, the proposed 100m, if uncontrolled. extraction area is set Noise and dust back from Coltishall assessments, and Road and the nearest mitigation measures to residential property is appropriately control 96m from the extraction any amenity impacts, area. There are 13 must form part of any sensitive receptors planning application for within 250m of the mineral extraction. proposed extraction area (two of these are within 100m of the extraction area). The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 + accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected There is the potential jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction for enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access to be provided

B65

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction reduce social and reduce social within the site on exclusion exclusion. The effect restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain 0 0 and enhance the The nearest Listed A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Building is the Grade II would be required to should ensure, the townscape and Mayton Hall which is support any future historic value of, assets historic 870m away. There are planning application. is appropriately environment 35 Listed Buildings The heritage statement preserved. Mineral within 2km of the site. should identify potential extraction will result in impacts to heritage landscape change; There are 3 Scheduled assets and suggest however, an Monuments within 2km appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration of the site. Mayton scheme should ensure Bridge is 0.92km away, No effects expected no unacceptable Great Hautbois old during extraction. impacts on the setting Church is 1.63km away of heritage assets. and the ‘Roman camp and Settlement site West of Horstead’ is 1.71km away.

RAF Coltishall No effects expected No effect post Conservation Area is during extraction. restoration. 1.67km from the site.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential There are no Historic that unknown No effect post Environment records archaeology exists on extraction. within the site the site and an boundary. The site is in assessment of the a wider landscape with significance of a significant number of archaeological remains finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods. planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 4.23km from - 0 and enhance Crostwick Marsh SSSI, Due to distance, no No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s which is part of the impacts on SPAs, SACs, or Ramsar sites biodiversity and Broads SAC, Broadland SACs or Ramsar sites are expected. geodiversity SPA and Ramsar site. are expected. It is outside the Impact Risk Zone for this SSSI.

B66

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

There are no SSSIs Due to distance, no No impacts on SSSIs within 4km of the site impacts on SSSIs are are expected. boundary and the site is expected. not within the Impact Risk Zone for any SSSI.

The nearest CWS is There is the potential No impacts to the CWS CWS 1411 ‘Disused for impacts from dust is expected post Gravel Pit’ which is 90m deposition although extraction. from the site boundary. with normal mitigation measures no adverse effect on this CWS is expected. The site would be worked dry (above the water table), therefore no adverse effects on the CWS are expected.

The nearest ancient No adverse impacts on No impacts to ancient woodland site is Clamp the ancient woodland woodland sites are Wood which is a PAWS are expected due to the expected post and ASNW; it is 2.25km distance from the site extraction. from the site boundary. and because the site would be worked dry.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Happisburgh glacigenic for the site to contain geodiversity are formation-sand and examples of expected post gravel, overlying geodiversity priority restoration. It would be Wroxham Crag-sand features. useful for restoration to and gravel. There is provide opportunities significant potential for for further geological vertebrate fossils within research of suitable the Wroxham Crag. exposures. SA7: To promote The site would be 0 + innovative solutions restored to a mix of No effect during The proposed for the restoration agricultural land, extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of grassland, and some would provide some minerals sites woodland. There may biodiversity and also be some enhanced amenity gains. public access to the site following restoration. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or gently undulating result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated arable land. The site is change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. immediately opposite appropriate mitigation landscape five isolated properties strategy and restoration which lie along Buxton scheme should ensure Road. The site would no unacceptable

B67

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction be difficult to screen impacts and if this from upstairs views includes woodland from these properties, planting has the without a suitable potential to reduce the standoff area landscape impact of the incorporating advanced adjacent restored planting. Screening landfill site. should take the form of tree belts with hedgerows closest to the boundaries of the site using native species. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right -- + to improved health of Way crossing the site Care would be needed If improved public and amenity of (Frettenham FP2). to ensure that the access formed part of local communities impact on users of the the restoration of the in Norfolk The nearest residential PRoW and the nearby site this could property is 15m from dwellings would not be contribute to improved the site boundary. significant. However, it health and amenity of There are 20 sensitive is considered that local communities. receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary measures to ensure no and five of these are unacceptable impacts within 100m of the site could be conditioned, boundary. However, the such as temporary proposed extraction PRoW diversions. area is set back from Coltishall Road and the nearest residential property is 96m from the extraction area. There are 13 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (two of these are within 100m of the proposed extraction area). SA10: To protect The site is partially 0/- 0 and enhance water located over a The proposed No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary B aquifer extraction site would be resources is expected Norfolk (superficial deposits) worked dry (above the post extraction. and a principal aquifer water table) and (bedrock). The therefore no effect on southern part of the site water resources is is within groundwater expected. Source Protection Zone 3. The northern part of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ.

B68

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV The site is proposed to agricultural land and agricultural land to be be restored back to could potentially be affected by mineral agriculture. Therefore, Grade 3a which is extraction within the as long as the topsoil classified within the site. was stored correctly Best and Most Versatile and then replaced, agricultural land. there would be no likely adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 6.2km from + 0 sustainable use of Aylsham, 8.9km from Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources North Walsham and nearest settlement extraction 7.2km from the Norwich allocated for significant urban area. These are growth. the nearest settlements allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development The site has a low risk rivers, the sea or of surface water surface water. flooding, with a two Sand and gravel locations of surface extraction is considered water pooling in a 1 in to be a ‘water 30 rainfall event. In a 1 compatible’ land use in 1000 year rainfall which is suitable in all event there is a surface flood zones. water flow path across the widest part of the site west-east. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on biodiversity, landscape, amenity and agricultural land; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity and landscape on restoration. Sand and

B69

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes. SA4 has been amended to state that there is the potential for improved public access post extraction and the score has been amended to ‘+’ for the post extraction phase. The text for SA3 and SA9 has been updated regarding the distance of residential dwellings from the site and the assessment score during the extraction phase for SA9 has been amended to a ‘--’. The text for SA5 has been amended to include reference to Mayton Bridge Scheduled Monument, however, this does not change the assessment score for SA5.

B70

MIN 64 – land at Grange Farm, Buxton Road, Horstead

Proposal: Extraction of 650,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 16.76 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 7.9km from + 0 and mitigate the Aylsham and 9.3km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from North Walsham, requires energy and climate change post change by reducing which are the nearest therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to towns. The site is There would also be Restoration would climate change 6.9km from the Norwich CO2 emissions from include woodland as a urban area and it is road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. outside the Norwich the nearest towns, but Policy Area. Norwich is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 61m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are five sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and four of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Horstead the source; the greatest is 453m away. impacts will be within However, a reduced 100m, if uncontrolled. extraction area has Noise and dust been proposed which assessments, and means that the nearest mitigation measures to residential property is appropriately control 182m from the any amenity impacts, extraction area, must form part of any although there are still planning application for five residential mineral extraction. properties within 250m of the extraction area.

The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be and reduce social

B71

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction reduce social exclusion. The effect provided within the site exclusion on employment is on restoration. assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed - 0 and enhance the Buildings is the Grade A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the II* Church of St would be required to should ensure the townscape and Theobald (which is also support any future historic value of assets historic a Scheduled planning application. is appropriately environment Monument) and is The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 580m away. There are should identify potential extraction will result in 46 Listed Buildings impacts to heritage landscape change; within 2km of the site. assets and suggest however, an 22 of these are within appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration Coltishall and Horstead scheme should ensure Conservation Area no unacceptable which is 850m from the impacts on the setting site. No effects expected of heritage assets. RAF Coltishall during extraction. Conservation Area is 1.29km from the site. No effects expected No effect post The nearest Scheduled during extraction. extraction Monument is the ‘Roman camp and settlement site west of Horstead’ which is 460m away. There are 3 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the site. No effects expected No effect post There are no during extraction extraction Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential No effect post There are Historic that unknown extraction Environment records of archaeology exists on isolated multi period the site and an finds and features assessment of the including a probable significance of bronze age barrow, archaeological remains within the site will be required at the boundary. The site is planning application close to the boundary stage, in order to of the historic parkland protect and mitigate the associated with impact of mineral Horstead Hall and is in extraction in this site. a wider landscape with a significant number of

B72

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction finds and features from multiple periods. SA6: To protect The site is 3.39km from 0 0 and enhance Croswick Marsh SSSI, Due to distance, no No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s which is part of The impacts on SPAs, SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and Broads SAC, Broadland SACs or Ramsar sites are expected. geodiversity SPA and Ramsar site. It are expected. is outside the Impact Risk Zone for this SSSI.

There are no SSSIs Due to distance, no No impacts on SSSIs within 3km of the site impacts on SSSIs are are expected. boundary and the site is expected. not within the Impact Risk Zone for any SSSI.

CWS 1409 ‘Land adj. No adverse impacts on No impacts to CWSs All Saint’s Church’ is the CWSs are are expected post 270m from the site expected due to the extraction. boundary. CWS 1411 distance from the site. ‘Disused Gravel Pit’ is 400m from the site boundary.

The nearest ancient The proposed No impacts to the woodland site is Clamp extraction site would be ancient woodland are Wood which is an worked dry (above the expected post ASNW and PAWS; it is water table). No extraction. 1.6km from the site adverse impacts on the boundary. ancient woodland site is expected due to the distance from the site.

The site consists of This site contains No adverse impacts to Head deposits - clay, examples of geodiversity are silt and gravel, which geodiversity priority expected post are priority features due features. restoration. It would be to their method of useful for restoration to formation; Happisburgh provide opportunities glacigenic formation - for further geological sand and gravel, research of suitable overlying Wroxham exposures. Crag - sand and gravel. There is significant potential for vertebrate fossils within the Wroxham Crag. SA7: To promote The proposed 0 + innovative solutions restoration scheme is to No effect during The proposed for the restoration agriculture, with wide extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of field margins, hedgerow would provide some minerals sites formation and tree biodiversity gains.

B73

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction planting, including the retention of woodland planting in the north- eastern part of the site. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is a large flat Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or arable field. It adjoins result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated an area of mineral change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. working and lies within appropriate mitigation landscape a wider area of arable strategy and restoration farmland. A scheme of scheme should ensure working has been no unacceptable proposed which shows impacts provided that field boundary hedgerow hedgerows and trees, reinforcement and tree as well as woodland planting are included. planting in the north- eastern corner to mitigate landscape and amenity impacts. Planting must also reinforce and enhance existing hedgerows to mitigate views of soil storage bunds. Removal of existing field boundary hedgerows and trees would have a high landscape impact and must be avoided. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of the site. There is a to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities PRoW (Horstead with impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk Stanninghall BR3) PRoW and the nearby on restoration. close to the eastern dwellings would not be boundary of the site. significant. However, it is considered that The nearest residential appropriate mitigation property is 61m from measures to ensure no the site boundary. unacceptable impacts There are five sensitive could be conditioned. receptors within 250m of the site boundary and four of these are within 100m of the site boundary. However, a reduced extraction area has been proposed which means that the nearest residential

B74

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction property is 182m from the extraction area, although there are still five residential properties within 250m of the extraction area. SA10: To protect The site is partially 0/- 0 and enhance water located over a If the site is worked No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary A aquifer above the water table, resources is expected Norfolk (superficial deposits) with normal mitigation post extraction. and a principal aquifer measures, no adverse (bedrock). The site is effects on water within groundwater resources are Source Protection Zone expected. 3.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV The site is proposed to agricultural land and agricultural land to be be restored back to could potentially be affected by mineral agriculture. Therefore, Grade 3a which is extraction within the as long as the topsoil classified within the site. was stored correctly Best and Most Versatile and then replaced, agricultural land. there would be no likely adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 7.9km from + 0 sustainable use of Aylsham, 9.3km from Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources North Walsham and nearest settlement extraction 6.9km from the Norwich allocated for significant urban area. These are growth. the nearest settlements allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development The site has a low risk rivers, the sea or of surface water surface water. Sand flooding, with one and gravel extraction is location of surface considered to be a water pooling in a 1 in ‘water compatible’ land 30 year rainfall event use which is suitable in and which extends in all flood zones. both the 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 year rainfall event. There are two additional locations in a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event.

B75

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on landscape, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could be positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA3 text amended to update information on the distance of dwellings from the site boundary and the proposed extraction area boundary, but no change to the score. SA9 text amended to update information on distance of dwellings from the site boundary and the proposed extraction area boundary; the extraction phase score changed to ‘--' due to proximity of dwellings. The text for the extraction phase has been amended for SA8, to reflect the proposed screening scheme, but the score has not changed.

B76

MIN 65 – land north of Stanninghall Quarry

Proposal: Extraction of 4,500,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 53.12 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 9.1km from + 0 and mitigate the Aylsham, which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest town. The site requires energy and climate change post change by reducing is 5.5km from the therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to Norwich urban area There would also be Restoration would climate change and it is outside the CO2 emissions from include woodland as a Norwich Policy Area. road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Norwich is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. The site is a Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National proposed extension to movements. However, restoration Air Quality an existing site, but the the increased number Standards number of HGV of HGV movements movements is expected due to mineral to increase from an transport would not be existing 75 per day to significant compared to approximately 122 HGV overall HGV transport. movements per day and continue for a longer period. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 13m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 13 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and four of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Horstead the source; the greatest is 239m away. impacts will be within The effect on visual 100m, if uncontrolled. intrusion is assessed Noise and dust under objective SA8. assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is

B77

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Building is Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Horstead Lodge which would be required to should ensure, the townscape and is 310m away. There support any future historic value of assets historic are 50 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 24 of these are within should identify potential extraction will result in Coltishall and Horstead impacts to heritage landscape change; Conservation Area assets and suggest however, an which is 380m from the appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration site. which may include scheme should ensure identification of areas no unacceptable The nearest Scheduled where mineral impacts on the setting Monument is the extraction would be of heritage assets. ‘Roman camp and inappropriate. settlement site west of Horstead, which is 140m away. There are 2 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the site. No effects expected No effect post There are no during extraction extraction Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential No effect post There are Historic that unknown extraction. Environment records of archaeology exists on multi-period features in the site and an the northern part of the assessment of the site including a significance of probable WW2 military archaeological remains site and a WW2 Royal will be required at the Observers Corp post. planning application The site is in a wider stage, in order to landscape with a protect and mitigate the significant number of impact of mineral finds and features from extraction in this site. multiple periods. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is 1.4km from The proposed No impacts on the Norfolk’s Crostwick Marsh SSSI, extraction site is in a SSSI, SPA, SAC, or biodiversity and which is part of The different hydrological Ramsar site are geodiversity Broads SAC, Broadland catchment to the SSSI expected post SPA and Ramsar site. and would not affect extraction. the hydrology of the SSSI. In addition, due to the distance from the site no adverse effects

B78

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction are expected on the SSSI, SPA, SAC or Ramsar site.

The nearest County Due to distance, no No impacts on CWS Wildlife Site is CWS impacts on CWS are are expected. 1409 ‘Land adj. All expected. Saint’s Church’ which is 900m from the site boundary.

The nearest ancient As the site would be No impacts to the woodland sites are: worked dry (above the ancient woodland sites Clamp Wood, which is water table); with are expected post an ASNW and PAWS normal mitigation extraction. and is 0.27km from the measures; no adverse site, and Stanninghall effects on these Wood which is a PAWS ancient woodland sites and is 0.89km from the are expected. site boundary. No adverse impacts to This site consists of the There is the potential geodiversity are Britons Lane sand and for this site to contain expected post gravel member, examples of restoration. It would be Happisburgh glacigenic geodiversity priority useful for restoration to formation - sand and features. provide opportunities gravel, overlying for further geological Wroxham Crag research of suitable formation - sand and exposures. gravel on the west of the site, Wroxham Crag Formation at the surface in the east of the site. There is significant potential for vertebrate fossils within the Wroxham Crag. The Britons Lane sands and gravels are known to contain priority features such as palaesols and erratics in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a No effect during The proposed for the restoration combination of arable extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of agriculture, grassland would provide some minerals sites and woodland. biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or open arable plateau result in landscape

B79

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction distinctiveness of any other designated farmland divided by change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. hedgerows with some appropriate mitigation landscape boundary trees. strategy and restoration Glimpses of the land scheme should ensure can be seen from no unacceptable Frettenham Road to impacts. the west through gaps in boundary hedges. Views could also be seen from two properties which lie to the west and east respectively. The site is fairly level and it should be possible to design a scheme of working, incorporating screening, which would have an acceptable impact on the wider landscape. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of the site. There is a to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities PRoW (Frettenham impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk BR4) close to the PRoW and the nearby on restoration. western site boundary dwellings would not be at one point. significant. However, it is considered that The nearest residential appropriate mitigation property is 13m from measures to ensure no the site boundary. unacceptable impacts There are 13 sensitive could be conditioned. receptors within 250m of the site boundary and four of these are within 100m of the site boundary. SA10: To protect The site is partially 0/- 0 and enhance water located over a As the site would be No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary B aquifer worked above the resources is expected Norfolk and a Secondary A watertable no adverse post extraction. aquifer (superficial impacts on hydrology deposits) and a are expected, although principal aquifer a Hydrological Risk (bedrock). The majority Assessment would be of the site is within required to confirm this. groundwater Source Protection Zone 3. The most northern part of the site is within groundwater SPZ2. A

B80

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction southern part of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ. The site is proposed to The site is classified as The site contains BMV be restored back to a mixture of grades 2, land, however if a agriculture. Therefore, 3a and 3b agricultural suitable soil storage as long as the topsoil land. Grades 2 and 3a strategy was adopted was stored correctly are within the Best and no adverse impacts and then replaced, Most Versatile from the extraction there would be no likely phase are expected. adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 9.1km from + 0 sustainable use of Aylsham and 5.5km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from the Norwich urban nearest settlement extraction area. These are the allocated for significant nearest settlements growth. allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at a low risk No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the of flooding from either extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. rivers, the sea or development The site has a low surface water. Sand probability of surface and gravel extraction is water flooding, with a considered to be a few locations of surface ‘water compatible’ land water pooling in a 1 in use which is suitable in 1000 year rainfall all flood zones. event. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, agricultural land, geodiversity, amenity and air quality, however; it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

B81

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the text and extraction phase assessment for SA2 has been amended due to the proposed increase in HGV movements, the score is now ‘-‘. The text for SA3 and SA9 has been amended to refer to the number of residential dwellings within 100m of the site boundary and the score for the extraction phase of SA9 has been amended to ‘--' due to the proximity of dwellings, but the score for SA3 has not changed.

B82

MIN 96 – land at Grange Farm (between Spixworth Road and Coltishall Lane), Spixworth

Proposal: Extraction of 1,600,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 39.03 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 2km from the ++ 0 and mitigate the Norwich urban area Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate and is within the requires energy and climate change post change by reducing Norwich Policy Area. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be climate change CO2 emissions from road transportation to the nearest towns, but Norwich is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 21m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are five sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and two of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Horsham the source; the greatest St Faith is 352m away. impacts will be within The effect on visual 100m, if uncontrolled. intrusion is assessed Noise and dust under objective SA8. assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B83

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Buildings are Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Meadow Farmhouse would be required to should ensure the townscape and (210m away), Grade II support any future historic value of assets historic Barn at Grange Farm planning application. is appropriately environment (240m away), Grade II The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Grange Farmhouse should identify potential extraction will result in (260m away) and impacts to heritage landscape change; Grade I Church of St assets and suggest however, an Peter (300m away). appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration which may include scheme should ensure There are 29 Listed identification of areas no unacceptable Buildings within 2km of where mineral impacts on the setting the site. 11 of these extraction would be of heritage assets. are within Horsham St inappropriate. Faiths Conservation Area, which is 650m from the site.

The only Scheduled No effects expected No effects post Monument within 2km during extraction. extraction. of the site is ‘St Faith Priory’, which is 1.08km away. There are no No effects expected No effects post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records of that unknown extraction multi period finds within archaeology exists on the site boundary, and the site and an a possible medieval assessment of the trackway crossing the significance of site. The site is close to archaeological remains the boundary of the will be required at the historic parkland planning application associated with stage, in order to Spixworth Hall, and is in protect and mitigate the a wider landscape with impact of mineral a very significant extraction in this site. number of finds and features from multiple periods. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is 2.22km from The proposed No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s Crostwick Marsh SSSI, extraction site is SACs, Ramsar sites or biodiversity and which is part of The located up-gradient of SSSIs are expected geodiversity Broads SAC, Broadland the SSSI and would not post extraction. SPA and Ramsar site. affect the hydrology. In addition, due to the

B84

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction distance from the site, there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI, SAC, SPA or Ramsar site.

CWS 2205 ‘Spixworth There is the potential No impacts on the Bridge Meadows’ is for impacts from dust CWSs are expected 90m from the site deposition, although post extraction boundary. CWS 1396 with normal mitigation ‘Spixworth Meadows’ is measures no adverse 480m from the site effects on these CWSs boundary. are expected. As the site is expected to be worked dry (above the water table) no adverse effects on the CWSs are expected.

The nearest ancient As the site is expected No impacts on the woodland site is The to be worked dry ancient woodland site Wilderness, which is a (above the water table) are expected post PAWS and is 1.47km and due to the extraction from the site boundary. distance, no adverse effects on the PAWS are expected.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Sheringham Cliffs for this site to contain geodiversity are formation - sand and examples of expected post gravel, and geodiversity priority restoration. It would be Happisburgh glacigenic features. useful for restoration to formation - sand and provide opportunities gravel. for further geological research of suitable exposures. SA7: To promote No details on proposed 0 ? innovative solutions restoration of the site No effect during No details of a for the restoration have been provided. extraction phase proposed restoration and after use of The preferred scheme have been minerals sites restoration would be to provided. agriculture with wide field margins, hedgerow formation and some woodland planting. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or gently undulating result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated arable land above the change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. valley of Crostwick appropriate mitigation landscape Beck. There are a few strategy and restoration residential dwellings scheme should ensure

B85

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction close to the site no unacceptable boundary. The site is a impacts. large area, and 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. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk property is 21m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are five sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary measures to ensure no and two of these are unacceptable impacts within 100m of the site could be conditioned. boundary. SA10: To protect The site is not located 0/- 0/- and enhance water over any superficial The site is expected to No effect on water and soil quality in deposit aquifers. The be worked dry (above resources is expected Norfolk site is located over a the water table), post extraction. principal aquifer therefore adverse (bedrock). There are impacts to hydrology no groundwater Source are not expected. Protection Zones within the proposed site.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV If BMV land is agricultural land and agricultural land to be identified, any could potentially be affected by mineral restoration that does Grade 3a which is extraction within the not incorporate classified within the site. agriculture would result Best and Most Versatile in adverse impacts agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 2km from the ++ 0 sustainable use of Norwich urban area Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources and is within the nearest settlement extraction Norwich Policy Area. allocated for significant This is the nearest growth. settlement allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. district council SFRA. flooding from either

B86

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction at new and existing The site has a low rivers, the sea or development probability of surface surface water. Sand water flooding, with two and gravel extraction is very small locations of considered to be a surface water pooling in ‘water compatible’ land a 1 in 1000 year rainfall use which is suitable in event. all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, agricultural land, biodiversity, geodiversity and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA3 and SA9 have been updated to include the number of residential properties within 100m of the site and the extraction phase score for SA9 has been amended to ‘--’

B87

MIN 213 - land at Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless

Proposal: Extraction of 1,000,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 34.8 ha SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 5.2km from + 0 and mitigate the Aylsham which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest town. The site requires energy and climate change post change by is 6.4km from the therefore emits CO2. extraction. reducing Norwich urban area There would also be Restoration proposal contributions to and is just outside the CO2 emissions from do not include climate change Norwich Policy Area. road transportation to woodland as a the nearest towns. carbon ‘sink’. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effects post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an the increased number Standards increase of 76 HGV of HGV movements due movements per day. to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 18m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 18 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and 11 of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. However, a levels within 250m of smaller extraction area the source; the greatest has been submitted by impacts will be within the proposer of the site, 100m if uncontrolled. and there are 13 Noise and dust sensitive receptors assessments, and within 250m of the mitigation measures to extraction area and appropriately control none within 100m. The and amenity impacts, settlement of must form part of any Hevingham is 580m planning application for away and Stratton mineral extraction. Strawless is 210m away. The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites - 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and access would be reduce social facilities and reduce provided within the exclusion social exclusion. The site on restoration. effect on employment

B88

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain -- 0 and enhance the The nearest Listed A Heritage Statement Mineral extraction character of the building is 79m away would be required to will result in townscape and and is the Grade II support any future landscape change; historic Lodge to Stratton planning application. however, an environment Strawless Hall. There The heritage statement appropriate are 23 Listed Buildings should identify potential restoration scheme within 2km of the site impacts to heritage should ensure no boundary. assets and suggest unacceptable appropriate mitigation. impacts on the setting of heritage assets.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Scheduled Monuments during extraction extraction within 2km of the site boundary

There are no No effects expected No effect post Conservation Areas of during extraction extraction. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records of that unknown extraction. earthworks within the archaeology exists on site boundary. The site the site and an of a possible Roman assessment of the furnace and metal significance of working site are to the archaeological deposits south and east of the will be required at the site. The site of a planning application moated medieval stage, in order to Bishop’s Palace is protect and mitigate the recorded to the north of impact of mineral the site. extraction in this site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is 2.6 km from Buxton Heath SSSI is No impacts to SPAs, Norfolk’s Buxton Heath SSSI, within a different SACs or Ramsar biodiversity and which is part of the hydrological catchment sites are expected geodiversity Norfolk Valley Fens to the proposed site. post extraction. SAC and is within the Therefore, due to Impact Risk Zone for distance there would be No impacts to SSSIs the Norfolk Valley Fens no likely significant are expected post SAC. effects on SPAs, SACs, extraction. Ramsar sites or SSSIs.

The nearest County No impacts to Wildlife Site is CWS County Wildlife are

B89

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 2204 ‘Hevingham Park’ There is a high expected post which is adjacent to the watertable in this extraction. site boundary. CWS location. The site ‘Brickkiln Grove is would be worked wet, 118m from the site, with no dewatering. A CWS 2114 ‘Horsford tree buffer of approx. Woods’ is 380m from 60m would be left the site, CWS 1412 ‘Ivy between the extraction Farm Meadow’ is area and the ancient 455mn from the site woodland and CWS. and CWS 1401 An assessment of ‘Waterloo Plantation’ is potential impacts, 767m from the site. including hydrogeology, together with The nearest ancient appropriate mitigation, No impacts to woodland site is an would be required as ancient woodland unnamed PAWS which part of any planning sites are expected is immediately north of application. post extraction. the site and forms part of Hevingham Park CWS. Hevingham Park PAWS is 150m from the site boundary. No adverse impacts The site consists of There is the potential to geodiversity are glacio-fluvial deposits for this site to contain expected post of sand and gravel examples of restoration. It would overlying Wroxham geodiversity priority be useful for Crag. There is features. restoration to significant potential for provide opportunities vertebrate fossils within for further geological the Wroxham Crag. research of suitable exposures. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative be restored to a holiday No effect during The inclusion of solutions for the lodge development extraction phase heathland within the restoration and (with existing planning restoration could after use of permission), have biodiversity minerals sites surrounded by gains. heathland and retained woodland around the site boundaries. SA8: To protect The site is not located 0 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is currently a Mineral extraction quality and Core River Valley or conifer plantation. The will result in distinctiveness of any other designated proposal leaves a landscape change; the countryside landscape feature. buffer/screening area of however, an and landscape approximately 60m appropriate around the site mitigation strategy boundary which could and restoration screen the site. Views scheme should into the site may be ensure no

B90

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction possible from Shorthorn unacceptable Road, although the impacts. proposed entrance, although it would be possible to reduce this with a curved access road. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within Care would be needed It is unlikely that and amenity of the site. There is one to ensure that the enhanced public local communities PRoW on the opposite impact on the nearby access would be in Norfolk site of the A140 to the dwellings would not be provided within the site. significant; however, it site on restoration. is considered that The nearest residential appropriate mitigation property is 18m from measure to ensure no the site boundary. unacceptable impacts There are 18 sensitive could be conditioned. receptors within 250m of the site boundary and 11 of these are within 100m of the site boundary. However, a smaller extraction area has been submitted by the proposer of the site, and there are 13 sensitive receptors within 250m of the extraction area and none within 100m. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/0 0 and enhance water a secondary aquifer There is a high water No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) table in this location. resources is Norfolk and a principal aquifer The site is proposed to expected post (bedrock). However, be worked wet with no extraction. there are no dewatering. Therefore, groundwater Source mitigation measures Protection Zones within should ensure that no the proposed site. unacceptable impacts occur.

The site is classified as No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV non-agricultural land. agricultural soils. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The site is 5.2km from + 0 sustainable use of Aylsham. This is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low 0 0 the risk of current probability of flooding

B91

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and future flooding from rivers. The site The site is at low risk of No effect post at new and existing has a low probability of being affected by extraction / development surface water flooding flooding from either restoration. with a few locations of rivers or the sea. The surface water pooling, site is at low risk of in a 1 in 30-year rainfall being affected by event. The number of flooding from surface locations of surface water. Sand and gravel water pooling increase extraction is considered in a 1 in 100-year to be a ‘water rainfall event and again compatible’ land use in a 1 in 1000-year which is suitable in all rainfall event. There is flood zones. also a surface water flow path in the south- eastern corner of the site in a 1 in 1000-year rainfall event. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at mineral sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration. opportunities and site was worked it promote economic could offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry. Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations. There are potential negative effects on amenity, biodiversity, air quality and the historic environment; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. The site is at low risk of flooding and is expected to have a neutral effect on water quality, soil quality, and landscape. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES. This is a new site submitted in response to the Initial Consultation in 2016 and therefore it was not previously included in the SA.

B92

Great Yarmouth sites

MIN 203 – land north of Welcome Pit, Burgh Castle

Proposal: Extraction of 280,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 4.38 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 3.3km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Great Yarmouth and Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate 3.9km from Gorleston- requires energy and climate change post change by reducing on-Sea, which are the therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to nearest towns. There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Great Yarmouth and Gorleston-on-Sea are less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential - 0 noise, vibration and property is 237m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are four sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. A considered that noise caravan holiday park is and dust can be adjacent to the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Burgh the source; the greatest Castle is 870m away impacts will be within and Belton is 950m 100m, if uncontrolled. away. Noise and dust The effect on visual assessments, and intrusion is assessed mitigation measures to under objective SA8. appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is

B93

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is Grade II Old A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Hall Farmhouse which would be required to should ensure the townscape and is 880m away. There support any future historic value of assets historic are 19 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral should identify potential extraction will result in The nearest Scheduled impacts to heritage landscape change; Monument is ‘Burgh assets and suggest however, an Castle Roman fort, appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration vicus, pre-conquest scheme should ensure monastery, Norman no unacceptable motte and Bailey castle’ impacts on the setting which is 650m away. No effects expected of heritage assets. There are 2 Scheduled during extraction. Monuments within 2km of the site.

Halvergate Marshes No effect post Conservation Area is No effects expected extraction. 1.13km from the site during extraction and Haddiscoe Conservation Area is 1.01km from the site. There are no No effect post Registered Historic extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

The Historic The site has been No effect post Environment Record subject to an extraction contains records of archaeological isolated multi-period investigation and no finds within the site; further archaeological however the majority of investigations would be the site is identified as required at the site. an area with no archaeological finds or features. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is 1km from The proposed No impacts on Breydon Norfolk’s Breydon Water SSSI, extraction site is in a Water SSSI, SPA and biodiversity and which is part of the different hydrological Ramsar are expected geodiversity Breydon Water SPA catchment to the SSSI post extraction. and Ramsar site. and would not affect the hydrology of the SSSI. In addition, due to the distance from the site no adverse effects are expected to the

B94

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SSSI, SPA and Ramsar.

The site is 3.63km from The proposed No impacts on the The Broads SAC, extraction site is in a SAC, SPA and Ramsar Broadland SPA and different hydrological are expected post Ramsar site catchment to the SAC, extraction. SPA and Ramsar site and would not affect their hydrology. In addition, due to the distance from the site, no adverse effects are expected to the SAC, SPA or Ramsar site.

Halvergate Marshes The proposed No impacts on the SSSI SSSI is 1.72km from extraction site is in a are expected post the site boundary. different hydrological extraction. catchment to the SSSI and would not affect its hydrology. Therefore there would be no adverse effects on the SSSI.

The nearest CWS is No adverse impacts on No impacts to CWSs CWS 2184 ‘Bremar the CWS is expected are expected post Pony Stud’ which is due to the distance extraction. 570m from the site from the site. boundary.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Happisburgh Glacigenic for this site to contain geodiversity are formation, Lowestoft examples of expected post Formation diamicton, geodiversity priority restoration. It would be overlying Crag Group- features. useful for restoration to sand and gravel. There provide opportunities is significant potential for further geological for vertebrate fossils research of suitable within the Crag Group. exposures. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to open No effect during The proposed for the restoration water fringed with extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of reedbeds and gently would provide some minerals sites sloping margins sown biodiversity gains. with species-rich grassland.

B95

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA8: To protect The site is not located 0 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a Rectangular in shape, Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or the site runs parallel to result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated the northern boundary change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. of the existing quarry appropriate mitigation landscape and adjoins a Holiday strategy and restoration Park to the east. The scheme should ensure site is currently no unacceptable bounded by a bund to impacts. the northern edge, with hedgerow and trees to the eastern boundary The proposed extension to the existing mineral working is unlikely to have any discernible impact on the surrounding landscape. SA9: To contribute There are no Public - 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk property is 237m from dwellings and the on restoration. the site boundary. caravan park would not There are four sensitive be significant. receptors within 250m However, it is of the site boundary. A considered that caravan holiday park is appropriate mitigation adjacent to the site measures to ensure no boundary. unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is located over -/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer the potential for post extraction. (bedrock). However, adverse impacts exists, there are no although appropriate groundwater Source assessment and Protection Zones within mitigation measures the proposed site. could ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV The site is not agricultural land and agricultural land to be proposed to be restored could potentially be affected by mineral to agriculture, therefore Grade 3a which is extraction within the there could be a classified within the site. permanent loss of BMV Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. agricultural land.

B96

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA11: To promote The site is 3.3km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Great Yarmouth and Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources 3.9km from Gorleston- nearest settlement extraction on-Sea. These are the allocated for significant nearest settlements growth. allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ + the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of The proposed and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by restoration would at new and existing borough council SFRA. flooding from either involve the creation of development The site has a low risk rivers, the sea or open water bodies of surface water surface water. Sand which could provide flooding with one area and gravel extraction is some flood storage of surface water pooling considered to be a capacity. in a 1 in 100 year ‘water compatible’ land rainfall event. use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on water resources, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that the impact on agricultural land could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the text for SA3 and SA9 has been updated with the distances of the nearest residential properties from the site, but no change has been made to the assessment scores. The assessment text for SA5 has been updated regarding archaeological assessment at the extraction phase, but no change has been made to the assessment score.

B97

MIN 38 – land at Waveney Forest, Fritton

Proposal: Extraction of 1,870,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 96.35 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 6.5km from + 0 and mitigate the Gorleston-on-Sea and Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate 6.9km from Great requires energy and climate change post change by reducing Yarmouth, which are therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to the nearest towns. There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Great Yarmouth and Gorleston-on-Sea are less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 50 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 13m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 78 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and 30 of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Fritton is the source; the greatest 26m away and St impacts will be within Olaves is 368m away. 100m, if uncontrolled. However, the land Noise and dust adjacent to New Road assessments, and is not proposed to be mitigation measures to extracted. Therefore, appropriately control the nearest residential any amenity impacts, property is 112m from must form part of any the extraction area and planning application for there are 34 sensitive mineral extraction. receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (only one of these is within 100m of the extraction area). The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8.

B98

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Building is the Grade II* A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Drainage Pump which would be required to should ensure the townscape and is 260m away. There support any future historic value of assets historic are 20 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral The nearest Scheduled should identify potential extraction will result in Monument is St Olave’s impacts to heritage landscape change; Priory, which is 390m assets and suggest however, an away. There are 2 appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Scheduled Monuments which may include scheme should ensure within 2km of the site. identification of areas no unacceptable where mineral impacts on the setting Halvergate Marshes extraction would be of heritage assets. Conservation Area is inappropriate. adjacent to the site boundary and No effect expected No effect post Haddiscoe during extraction extraction Conservation Area is 330m from the site.

There are no Registered Historic No effects expected No effect post Parks and Gardens during extraction extraction within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is a significant The removal of the Environment records of likelihood that unknown military archaeology as features in the site, military archaeology part of any mineral most of which are exists on the site and extraction is likely to linked to a WW2 that the significance of constitute significant military site. Neither of archaeological remains harm. the local listed features is likely to be such that (remains of a WW2 in-situ preservation firing range, and a would be required, former railway bridge) which would be are within the proposed incompatible with extraction areas. mineral extraction. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is 2.17km from The proposed No impacts on the SPA Norfolk’s Breydon Water SPA extraction site is in a or Ramsar site are biodiversity and and Ramsar site. different hydrological expected post geodiversity catchment and would extraction.

B99

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction not affect the hydrology of Breydon Water. In addition, due to the distance from the site, there would be no adverse effects on the SPA and Ramsar site.

The proposed The site is 2.69km from extraction site is in a No impacts on the The Broads SAC, different hydrological SAC, SPA or Ramsar Broadland SPA and catchment and would site are expected post Ramsar site. not affect the hydrology extraction. of these sites. In addition, due to the distance to the site, there would be no adverse effects on the SAC, SPA and Ramsar site.

The proposed Halvergate Marshes extraction site in in a No impacts on the SSSI SSSIs is 2.22km from different hydrological are expected post the site boundary. catchment to the SSSI. extraction. In addition, due to distance, there would be no adverse effects on the SSSI.

There is the potential CWS 1427 ‘Waveney for impacts from dust No impacts to CWSs Forest’ is partially within deposition although are expected post the site but outside the with normal mitigation extraction. proposed extraction measures no adverse area. CWS 1426 effects on these CWSs ‘Fritton Warren South’ are expected. The is adjacent to the site potential exists for boundary and a impacts on the proposed extraction hydrology of the CWSs area. from dewatering, this would need to be assessed and mitigation measures identified as part of any future planning application.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

B100

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Happisburgh Glacigenic for this site to contain geodiversity are formation, Corton examples of expected post Woods sand and gravel geodiversity priority restoration. It would be member, overlying Crag features. useful for restoration to Group - sand and provide opportunities gravel. There is for further geological significant potential for research of suitable vertebrate fossils within exposures. the Crag Group. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a mixture No effect during The proposed for the restoration of commercial forestry, extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of acid grassland, area of would provide some minerals sites broadleaf woodland, biodiversity gains. and wetland habitats with wet grassland margins. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB or a The majority of the site Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley. comprises woodland, result in landscape distinctiveness of 43 hectares of the site split between a larger change; however, an the countryside and are within the Broads area of conifer appropriate mitigation landscape Authority Executive plantation, with strategy and restoration Area. However, this remnant areas of scheme should ensure area does not form part heath, on the higher no unacceptable of the Broads Character land and broadleaf impacts. Area, in The Broads woodland on the valley Authority Landscape floor. Expansive views Sensitivity Study. The of the afforested site is adjacent to the margins of the site can Halvergate Marshes be seen across the Conservation Area. marshes from the railway, the A149 and from the public rights of way along the Rivers Waveney and Yare and the New Cut. Views of the edge of the conifer plantation can also be seen from the edge of Fritton and New Road. The higher areas of the site within the coniferous plantations, generally the land to the south and east, would be screened by the retention of a screen of significant blocks of coniferous woodland with

B101

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction additional woodland planting. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right -- 0 to improved health of Way adjacent to part Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of of the western to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities boundary of the site impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk (Old Parish of PRoW and the nearby on restoration. Herringfleet FP1). dwellings would not be There is a PRoW significant. However, it adjacent to the northern is considered that boundary and the north appropriate mitigation eastern boundary of the measures to ensure no site (Fritton and St unacceptable impacts Olaves BR4 and Fritton could be conditioned. and St Olaves FP4a).

The nearest residential property is 13m from the site boundary. There are 78 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary and 30 of these are within 100m of the site boundary. However, the land adjacent to New Road is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 112m from the extraction area and there are 34 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (only one of these is within 100m of the extraction area). SA10: To protect -/- 0/- and enhance water The site is located over The site is proposed to No effect on water and soil quality in a Secondary A aquifer be extracted without resources is expected Norfolk (superficial deposits) dewatering and would post extraction. and a principal aquifer be worked wet when (bedrock). However, the water table is there are no reached. Therefore, groundwater Source appropriate Protection Zones within assessment and the proposed site. mitigation measures could ensure that no The majority of the site unacceptable impacts is classified as non- occur.

B102

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction agricultural land. The If BMV land is western part of the site Potential for BMV identified, any is Grade 3 agricultural agricultural land to be restoration that does land and could affected by mineral not incorporate potentially be Grade 3a extraction within the agriculture would result which is classified site. in adverse impacts within the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 6.5km from + 0 sustainable use of Gorleston-on-Sea and Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources 6.9km from Great nearest settlement extraction Yarmouth, which are allocated for significant the nearest settlements growth. allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The majority (96%) of ++ 0 the risk of current the site is in Flood Zone The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding 1 (lowest risk) for being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing flooding from rivers. flooding from either development The western boundary rivers, the sea or of the site is within surface water. Sand Flood Zone 2 (medium and gravel extraction is risk) and Flood Zone 3 considered to be a (high risk) for flooding ‘water compatible’ land from rivers, however use which is suitable in this part of the site is all flood zones. not within the proposed mineral extraction area. The site has a low risk of surface water flooding with three locations of surface water pooling in a 1 in 30 year rainfall event. There are additional areas of surface water pooling at a 1 in 100 and a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing

B103

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on air quality, the historic environment, landscape, hydrology, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that not all the effects on the historic environment could not be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA3 and SA9 have been updated regarding the distance of residential properties from the site boundary and extraction area. The extraction phase assessment scores for both SA3 and SA9 have been changed to ‘--‘ due to the proximity of residential properties to the site boundary.

B104

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk sites

MIN 6 – land off East Winch Road, Mill Drove, Middleton Proposal: Extraction of 1,416,000 tonnes of carstone Size of site: 10.25 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 4.8km from ++ 0 and mitigate the King’s Lynn, which is Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate the nearest town. requires energy and climate change post change by reducing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but King’s Lynn is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is 480m from Carstone extraction is No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. The not expected to cause restoration settlement of vibration. It is Blackborough End is considered that noise 481m away. and dust can be The effect on visual mitigated to acceptable intrusion is assessed levels within 250m of under objective SA8. the source. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the ‘Mitre Farm Cottage would be required to should ensure the townscape and and attached Oak support any future historic value of assets

B105

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction historic Cottage’, which are planning application. is appropriately environment 910m away. There are The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 20 Listed Buildings should identify potential extraction will result in within 2km of the site. impacts to heritage landscape change; assets and suggest however, an appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration The nearest Scheduled scheme should ensure Monument is the no unacceptable Remains of impacts on the setting Blackborough End No effected expected of heritage assets. Priory, which is 1.01km during extraction. away. There are four No effect post Scheduled Monuments extraction within 2km of the site.

There are no No effect during No effect post Conservation Areas or extraction extraction Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential that unknown No effect post There are Historic archaeology exists on extraction Environment records of the site and an isolated multi period assessment of the finds, within the site significance of boundary. The site is in archaeological remains a wider landscape with will be required at the a significant number of planning application finds and features from stage, in order to multiple periods. protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect 0 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity East Winch Common Due to the distance No impacts on the SSSI is 2.23km from from the proposed SSSIs are expected the site boundary. mineral extraction site, post extraction River Nar SSSI is no adverse impacts are 1.57km from the site expected to the SSSI. boundary.

The nearest CWS is No adverse impacts on No impacts to the CWS CWS 434 ‘Disused Pit the CWS are expected are expected post which is 860m from the due to the distance extraction. site. from the site.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

B106

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

The site consists of The site is unlikely to No adverse impacts to Lowestoft Formation- contain geodiversity geodiversity are diamicton, overlying priority features. expected post Carstone formation- restoration. sandstone and Gault Formation mudstone. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a No effect during The proposed for the restoration heathland habitat. extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of would provide some minerals sites biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located 0 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is located on Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or plateau land above the result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated River Nar and is a fairly change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. flat agricultural field appropriate mitigation landscape with a tree belt along its strategy and restoration northern edge and scheme should ensure some hedgerow trees no unacceptable along its southern impacts. edge, and any workings would be screened from public view. The site is in an area with mineral workings to the east and west and a landfill site to the south. Farmland lies north of East Winch Road. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right - 0 to improved health of Way adjacent to the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of western boundary of to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities the site (Middleton impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk RB4). PRoW and the nearby on restoration. dwelling would not be The nearest residential significant. However, it property is 480m from is considered that the site boundary. appropriate mitigation measures to ensure no unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is partially 0/0 0 and enhance water located over a principal The extraction site No effect on water and soil quality in aquifer (bedrock) and would be worked dry resources is expected Norfolk partially over a (above the water table) post extraction. Secondary and therefore no effect (undifferentiated) on water resources is aquifer (superficial expected. A deposits). However, Hydrogeological Risk there are no Assessment would be

B107

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction groundwater Source required at the planning Protection Zones within application stage to the proposed site. ensure that extraction only takes place above the water table.

The site is Grade 4 No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV agricultural land. agricultural soils. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The site is 4.8km from ++ 0 sustainable use of King’s Lynn. This is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding rivers, the sea or with three locations of surface water. Sand surface water pooling in and gravel extraction is a 1 in 30 and 1 in 100 considered to be a year rainfall event. ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing a raw material for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, water resources and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Carstone extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for the construction industry. Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES, the comments for SA3 and SA9 have been updated to update the distance to the nearest residential dwelling. The assessment score for SA9 has not changed. The assessment score for SA3 has changed to ‘0’. The assessment text for SA10 has been changed to state that the site would be worked dry (above the water table) and the extraction phase score changed to 0/0.

B108

MIN 45 – land north of Coxford Abbey Quarry (south of Fakenham Road), East Rudham

Proposal: Extraction of 700,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 22.7 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 8.4km from + + and mitigate the Fakenham which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest town. requires energy and climate change post change by reducing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest town, but Fakenham is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is 822m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. The extraction is not restoration settlement of expected to cause Syderstone is 848m vibration. It is away. considered that noise The effect on visual and dust can be intrusion is assessed mitigated to acceptable under objective SA8. levels within 250m of the source. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Thurnby House, which would be required to should ensure, the townscape and is 940m away. There support any future historic value of, assets

B109

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction historic are 6 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral should identify potential extraction will result in The nearest Scheduled impacts to heritage landscape change; Monument is the assets and suggest however, an ‘Saucer Barrow at appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration Coxford Heath’ which is scheme should ensure 820m away. There are no unacceptable 3 Scheduled impacts on the setting Monuments within 2km of heritage assets. of the site boundary.

Tattersett Conservation No effect post Area is 1.34km from the No effects expected extraction site. There are no during extraction Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are no Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records that unknown extraction. within the site archaeology exists on boundary. There have the site and an been isolated multi- assessment of the period finds in the wider significance of landscape. archaeological remains will be required at the planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 3.14km from -- -- and enhance the River Wensum SAC Due to distance, no No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s and is outside the impacts on SPAs, SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and Impact Risk Zone for SACs, or Ramsar sites are expected. geodiversity the River Wensum are expected. SSSI.

Syderstone Common There is the potential No impacts on the SSSI SSSI is 0.15km from for impacts from dust are expected post the site boundary. deposition although extraction with normal mitigation measures no adverse effects on the SSSI are expected. As the site would be worked above the water table, no adverse hydrological impact on the SSSI is expected.

B110

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction The nearest CWS is No adverse impacts on No impacts to County CWS 589 ‘Coxford the CWS are expected Wildlife Sites are Meadows’ which is due to the distance expected post 500m from the site. from the site and extraction. because the site would be worked dry.

The site is on an Extraction on the Storage of the ancient ancient woodland site, ancient woodland woodland soils and Coxford Wood, which is would constitute a reapplication has been a PAWS. permanent loss of an proposed. However, irreplaceable habitat. guidance indicates this is considered a last resort and is unlikely to be completely successful so is likely to result in some permanent loss of habitat

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Britons Lane Sand and for this site to contain geodiversity are Gravel member, examples of expected post overlying chalk geodiversity priority restoration. It would be formations. The Britons features. useful for restoration to Lane sands and gravels provide opportunities are known to contain for further geological priority features such as research of suitable palaesols and erratics exposures. in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 -- innovative solutions be restored to a No effect during It is not considered that for the restoration parkland with trees and extraction phase the proposed and after use of include reapplication of restoration would minerals sites the soils from the provide a biodiversity existing PAWS. gain in comparison to the existing PAWS SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site consists of an Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or arable field in the north- result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated west, whilst the rest of change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. the site is primarily appropriate mitigation landscape coniferous woodland. strategy and restoration The western boundary scheme should ensure of the site is adjacent to no unacceptable Bagthorpe Road and impacts. would require screening. The northern and eastern boundaries are set

B111

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction back from the B1454 and are screened by a treebelt. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right - 0 to improved health of Way adjacent to the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of southern boundary of to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities the site (East Rudham impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk RB11). There is a PRoW would not be on restoration. PRoW adjacent to part significant. However, it of the site boundary is considered that with the Fakenham appropriate mitigation Road (Syderstone measures to ensure no RB9). unacceptable impacts The nearest residential could be conditioned. property is 822m from the site boundary. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0/- and enhance water a principal aquifer The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in (bedrock) and a worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk secondary A aquifer water table) and post extraction. (superficial deposits). therefore no effect on A small part of the site water resources is is within groundwater expected. Source Protection Zone 2.

The site is partly Potential for BMV If BMV land is classified as non- agricultural land to be identified, any agricultural land and affected by mineral restoration that does partly Grade 3 extraction within the not incorporate agricultural land. The site. agriculture would result Grade 3 land could in adverse impacts as a potentially be Grade 3a result of the permanent which is classified loss of BMV agricultural within the Best and land. Most Versatile agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 8.4km from + 0 sustainable use of Fakenham. This is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low probability of flooding from either development surface water flooding rivers, the sea or with a minor surface surface water. Sand water flow path along and gravel extraction is the southern boundary considered to be a ‘water compatible’ land

B112

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction of the site in a 1 in 1000 use which is suitable in year rainfall event. all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on biodiversity, landscape, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that the effects on the ancient woodland could not be appropriately mitigated. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the text for SA3 and SA9 has been updated to update information on the nearest residential property to the proposed site boundary, but the assessment scores have not changed.

B113

MIN 204 – land north of Lodge Road, Feltwell

Proposal: Extraction of 720,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 13.86 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 13.8km from 0 0 and mitigate the Thetford, which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest town. requires energy and climate change post change by reducing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 21m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are five sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and two of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Feltwell is the source; the greatest 1.3km away. impacts will be within The effect on visual 100m, if uncontrolled. intrusion is assessed Noise and dust under objective SA8. assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain There is one Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building within 2km of A Heritage Statement No effects are expected character of the the boundary; Grade II would be required to post extraction. townscape and support any future

B114

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction historic Denton Lodge which is planning application. environment 640m away. The heritage statement The nearest Scheduled should identify potential Monument is the Bowl impacts to heritage No effects are expected Barrow in Lynnroad assets and suggest post extraction Covert, which is 1.59km appropriate mitigation, away. There are 2 which may include Scheduled Monuments identification of areas within 2km of the site where mineral boundary. extraction would be inappropriate.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Conservation Areas or during extraction extraction Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

The site is located It is highly likely that No effect post within a Historic unknown archaeology extraction. Environment feature for exists on the site and Methwold Rabbit an assessment of the Warren. There are no significance of HE records indicating archaeological remains finds. The site is in a will be required at the wider landscape with a planning application significant number of stage, in order to finds and features from protect and mitigate the the multiple periods but impact of mineral especially the Neolithic extraction in this site. and Bronze Ages. SA6: To protect -- - and enhance Breckland Forest SSSI, There is the potential There is a proposal for Norfolk’s part of the Breckland for impacts from dust a conservation led biodiversity and SPA, is adjacent to the deposition, noise and restoration to provide geodiversity site boundary. disturbance to suitable habitat for protected species, and designated species, Breckland Farmland it is uncertain if however there are no SSSI is 0.90km from mitigation measures details of the scheme the site boundary. The would be effective to so effectiveness is site is within the avoid unacceptable uncertain. Protection Zone for adverse effects to the Stone Curlews SSSI.

Weeting Heath SSSI, If the site is worked part of the Breckland above the water table, SAC, is 2.03km from with normal mitigation No impacts on the the site boundary. measures, no adverse SSSIs are expected effects on these SSSIs post extraction are expected due to their distance from the site.

B115

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

There are no County No impacts on County Wildlife Sites within No impacts on County Wildlife Sites are 1km of the site. Wildlife Sites are expected. expected. There are no ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within No impacts on ancient woodland are 3km of the site. woodland are expected. expected. The site consists of the No adverse impacts to Croxton sand and geodiversity are gravel member, Ingham There is the potential expected post sand and gravel for this site to contain restoration. It would be formation in NW of site, examples of useful for restoration to overlying Chalk geodiversity priority provide opportunities Formations. There is a features. for further geological significant potential that research of suitable glacial and peri-glacial exposures. geodiversity priority features may exist within the Croxton sands and gravels. The Ingham sands and gravels may also contain geodiversity priority features due to the method of formation. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to grass No effect during The proposed for the restoration heathland with some extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of areas of bare ground would provide some minerals sites and short vegetation in biodiversity gains. each to create habitat for stone curlew, nightjar and woodlark. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site consists of Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or three separate parcels result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated of land which are change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. surrounded by mainly appropriate mitigation landscape coniferous woodland strategy and restoration except for the southern scheme should ensure boundaries of the land no unacceptable along Lodge Road, impacts which are bordered by hedgerows. Therefore all parcels of land are screened from views from the north, east and west, by existing trees. However, there

B116

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction are views into the site from Lodge Road and additional screen planting and bunding will be required to ensure that site is also sufficiently screened from the south. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk property is 21m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are five sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary measures to ensure no and two of these are unacceptable impacts within 100m of the site could be conditioned. boundary. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0 0 and enhance water a principal aquifer The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in (bedrock) and partially worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk located over a water table) and with post extraction. secondary A aquifer normal mitigation (superficial deposits). measures, no adverse Part of the site is within effects on water groundwater Source resources are Protection Zone 2. The expected. rest of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ.

The majority of the site No impacts on BMV is classified as non- No impacts on BMV agricultural soils. agricultural land. Part agricultural soils. of the site is Grade 4 agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 13.8km from 0 0 sustainable use of Thetford. This is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low + 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding rivers, the sea or with two locations of surface water. Sand surface water pooling in and gravel extraction is a 1 in 30 year rainfall considered to be a

B117

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction event and a five ‘water compatible’ land locations of surface use which is suitable in water pooling in a 1 in all flood zones. 100 year rainfall event. In a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event approximately 40% of the western field is covered by surface water pooling. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on biodiversity, landscape, and amenity. It is considered that not all these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES, the comments for SA9 and SA3 have been changed regarding the number of residential dwellings within 100m of the site and the assessment score for SA6 has changed to ‘- -‘. The assessment score for SA3 has not changed. The assessment text for SA5 has changed to state that it is highly likely that unknown archaeology exists at the site, but the assessment score has not changed. The comments and assessment text for SA6 have been amended regarding the uncertain impacts on the Breckland SPA and noting that the site is within the Protection Zone for Stone Curlews. The assessment score for SA6 has not changed.

B118

MIN 19 & MIN 205 – land north of the River Nar, Pentney

Proposal: Extraction of 850,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 14.95 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 7.9km from + 0 and mitigate the King’s Lynn, 11km from Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate Downham Market and requires energy and climate change post change by reducing 12.1km from Swaffham therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to which are the nearest There would also be Restoration would not climate change towns. CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but King’s Lynn is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is 570m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site. The settlement extraction is not restoration of Blackborough End is expected to cause 2.7km away. vibration. It is The effect on visual considered that noise intrusion is assessed and dust can be under objective SA8. mitigated to acceptable levels within 250m of the source; the greatest impacts will be within 100m, if uncontrolled. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 + accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected There is potential for jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access to be provided reduce social and reduce social within the site on exclusion exclusion. The effect restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is the Grade I

B119

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the ‘Remains of A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and Augustinian Priory’ would be required to should ensure the historic which is 690m away. support any future historic value of assets environment There are four Listed planning application. is appropriately Buildings within 2km of The heritage statement preserved. Mineral the site. should identify potential extraction will result in The nearest Scheduled impacts to heritage landscape change; Monument is the assets and suggest however, an Remains of Pentney appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration Priory at Abbey Farm scheme should ensure which is 460m away. no unacceptable There are 2 Scheduled impacts on the setting Monuments within 2km of heritage assets. of the site.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Conservation Areas or during extraction. extraction. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential No effect post There are no Historic that unknown extraction Environment records archaeology exists on within the site the site and an boundary. The site is in assessment of the a wider landscape with significance of a significant number of archaeological remains finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods. planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity River Nar SSSI is The potential exists for No impacts on the adjacent to the site impacts from mineral SSSIs are expected boundary. extraction at this site, if post extraction uncontrolled. An assessment of potential impacts, including from dust deposition and hydrogeology, together with appropriate mitigation would be required as part of any planning application.

B120

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction East Winch Common No adverse impacts on No impacts on the SSSI is 2.85km from the SSSI is expected SSSIs are expected the site boundary. due to the distance post extraction from the site.

CWS 429 ‘South West There is the potential No impacts to CWSs Bilney Warren’ is 190m for impacts from dust are expected post from the site. CWS 431 deposition although extraction. ‘Valetta Meadow’ is with normal mitigation 520m from the site. measures no adverse effects on these CWSs is expected. If dewatering is proposed, potential impacts to hydrogeology would need to be assessed and a suitable mitigation strategy put in place.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

The site consists of There is the potential No adverse impacts to peat, overlaying Leziate for this site to contain geodiversity are Member – sand. It is examples of expected post highly likely that geodiversity priority restoration complex sequences of features. valley fill sediments containing fossil material and evidence of sea level changes are present. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 - innovative solutions be restored to several No effect during There are already a for the restoration areas of open water extraction phase number of areas of and after use of with reed fringes, wet open water and minerals sites grassland and wet reedbeds in adjacent woodland. former mineral workings. SA8: To protect The site is located -- - and enhance the within a Core River Part of MIN 19 is Mineral extraction will quality and Valley. The site is not currently used for result in landscape distinctiveness of located within the mineral processing and change. Due to the the countryside and AONB or any other storage and is required location of the site landscape designated landscape to be restored mainly to within a Core River feature. woodland (part by the Valley and the existing end of 2019 and part approved restoration by the end of 2024). scheme for site MIN 19, MIN 205 is arable the proposed revised

B121

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction agricultural fields. The restoration scheme for land is adjacent to the MIN 19 and MIN 205 River Nar to the south together would not and woodland to the result in enhancement north. There is of the landscape farmland to the east sufficient to justify and mineral workings mineral extraction. to the west. The site is not easily accessible from public viewpoints apart from the public footpath which runs alongside the River Nar. SA9: To contribute There is a PROW - 0 to improved health (Pentney FP20) Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities southern boundary of impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk the site. PRoW would not be on restoration. But The nearest residential significant. However, it there is potential for property is 570m from is considered that enhanced public the site. The settlement appropriate mitigation access to be provided of Blackborough End is measures to ensure no within the site on 2.7km away. unacceptable impacts restoration. could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is not located -/- 0/- and enhance water over any superficial If dewatering is No effect on water and soil quality in deposit aquifers. The proposed there is the resources is expected Norfolk site is located over a potential for post extraction. principal aquifer hydrogeological (bedrock). However, impacts and a risk there are no assessment and groundwater Source suitable mitigation Protection Zones within strategy would be the proposed site. required as part of any future planning application.

The northern part of the Potential for BMV The site is not site is classified as non- agricultural land to be proposed to be restored agricultural land. The affected by mineral to agriculture, therefore majority of the site is extraction within the there could be a Grade 3 agricultural site. permanent loss of BMV land and could agricultural land. potentially be Grade 3a which is classified within the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 7.9km from + 0 sustainable use of King’s Lynn, 11km from Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources Downham Market and nearest settlement extraction

B122

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 12.1km from Swaffham. allocated for significant These are the nearest growth. settlements allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a medium - + the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at medium The proposed and future flooding from rivers within the risk of being affected restoration would at new and existing borough council SFRA. by flooding from rivers involve the creation of development 96% of the site is within and at low risk of being open water bodies Flood Zone 2 and 4% affected by flooding which could provide of the site is in Flood from surface water. some flood storage Zone 3 in the borough Sand and gravel capacity. council SFRA. The site extraction is considered has a low probability of to be a ‘water surface water flooding, compatible’ land use with a few small which is suitable in all locations of surface flood zones. water pooling in a 1 in 100 year rainfall event. In a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event there are additional small areas of surface water pooling. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry. Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations. There are potential negative effects on landscape, agricultural land, water resources, flood risk and amenity. It is considered that not all these effects could be appropriately mitigated. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES. The comments for SA3 have been amended to include a revised distance to the nearest residential dwelling, but no change to the assessment score. The post extraction assessment for SA4 has been changed to refer to the potential for enhanced public access on restoration and the assessment score changed to ‘+’. The assessment text for both the extraction and post extraction phases in SA5 has been updated as it is no longer considered that there would be impacts to a listed building and scheduled monument and the assessment scores have been changed to ‘0’ for both

B123 phases. The comments for SA6 have been amended to include further detail on geodiversity, but no change to the assessment score. The description of the proposed restoration in SA7 has been changed, but no change to the assessment score. The assessment text for SA8 has been changed to correct the existing site uses, approved restoration scheme, proposed restoration scheme and views of the site, but no change to the assessment scores. The comments for SA9 have been amended to include a revised distance to the nearest residential dwelling; the assessment text has been amended to refer to the potential for enhanced public access on restoration, but no change to the assessment score. The conclusion has been changed to remove the previous reference to negative effects on the historic environment.

B124

MIN 74 – land at Turf Field, Watlington Road, Tottenhill

Proposal: Extraction of 160,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 3.21 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 5.8km from + 0 and mitigate the King’s Lynn and 8.1km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from Downham Market requires energy and climate change post change by reducing which are the nearest therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to towns. There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but King’s Lynn is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 77m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are four sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and two of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. Tottenhill levels within 250m of Row is 77m away. the source; the greatest The effect on visual impacts will be within intrusion is assessed 100m, if uncontrolled. under objective SA8. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Building is Grade II ‘The

B125

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the Grange’ which is 980m A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and away. There are 9 would be required to should ensure the historic Listed Buildings within support any future historic value of assets environment 2km of the site. planning application. is appropriately The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Tottenhill Row should identify potential extraction will result in Conservation Area is impacts to heritage landscape change. It is adjacent to the site. assets and suggest considered unlikely that appropriate mitigation. mitigation measures The only Scheduled However, it is would effectively Monument within 2km considered unlikely that address impacts on the of the site is the mitigation measures setting of the ‘Moated site of would effectively Conservation Area. Wormegay Priory’ address impacts on the which is 1.51km away. setting of the Conservation Area. There are no Registered Historic No effects expected No effect post Parks and Gardens during extraction extraction within 2km of the site.

There are Historic Environment records of There is the potential No effect post isolated multi-period that unknown extraction. finds, within the site archaeology exists on boundary. The site is the site and an set in a wider assessment of the landscape with a very significance of significant number of archaeological remains finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods planning application associated with Fen stage, in order to edge settlement. protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity Setchey SSSI is The proposed No impacts on SSSIs 0.54km from the site extraction site is within are expected post boundary. the hydrological extraction. catchment for Setchey SSSI but it does not drain towards the SSSI. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI. River Nar SSSI is No impacts on SSSIs 1.10km from the site The proposed are expected post boundary. extraction site is in a extraction.

B126

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction different hydrological catchment to the River Nar SSSI and therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI.

The nearest CWS is There is the potential No impacts to CWSs CWS 387 ‘Tottenhill for impacts from dust are expected post Row Common’ which is deposition although extraction. 30m away. with normal mitigation measures no adverse effects on this CWS are expected. The potential exists for impacts on hydrology, therefore a risk assessment and a suitable mitigation strategy would be required to support any future planning application.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

This site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Tottenhill gravel for this site to contain geodiversity are member-gravel, examples of expected post overlying Kimmeridge geodiversity priority restoration. It would be Clay formation- features. useful for restoration to mudstone. There is a provide opportunities significant potential that for further geological geodiversity priority research of suitable features may exist exposures. within the Tottenhill gravels due to the method of formation. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 - innovative solutions be restored to an No effect during The proposed for the restoration agricultural afteruse at extraction phase restoration will not and after use of original ground levels. result in any landscape minerals sites or biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located -- 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is an arable Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or field. The site is in an result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated elevated position on change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. The the fen edge, sloping appropriate mitigation landscape site is adjacent to towards Setchey to the strategy and restoration north. Open views of scheme should ensure

B127

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Tottenhill Row the site would be seen no unacceptable Conservation Area. from the Nar Valley impacts. Way to the south and the sloping nature of the site would make these views hard to screen and any screening or bunding would be intrusive in its own right. The site is adjacent to Tottenhill Row Conservation Area, which includes a number of residential properties, and it is again considered that it would be difficult to screen any working from this direction and that any screening or bunding would be intrusive in its own right. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk property is 77m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are four sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary measures to ensure no and two of these are unacceptable impacts within 100m of the site could be conditioned. boundary. SA10: To protect -/- -/0 and enhance water The site is located over If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in a Secondary A aquifer as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk (superficial deposit). the potential for post restoration. The site is not located adverse impacts exists, over any bedrock although appropriate aquifers. There are no assessment and groundwater Source mitigation measures Protection Zones within could ensure that no the proposed site. unacceptable impacts occur. The site is proposed to The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV be restored back to agricultural land and agricultural land to be agriculture. Therefore, could potentially be affected by mineral as long as the topsoil Grade 3a which is extraction within the was stored correctly classified within the site. and then replaced,

B128

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Best and Most Versatile there would be no likely agricultural land. adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 5.8km from + 0 sustainable use of King’s Lynn and 8.1km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from Downham Market. nearest settlement extraction These are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. No areas being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing of the site are at risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding. river, the sea or surface water. Sand and gravel extraction is considered to be a ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, water resources, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that the effects on landscape and the historic environment could not be appropriately mitigated. There could be positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the text for SA3 and SA9 has been updated to include the number of residential dwellings within 100m of the proposed site boundary. The assessment score for SA3 has not changed. The assessment score for SA9 has changed to ‘- -‘ due to the proximity of residential dwellings.

B129

MIN 77 – land at Runs Wood, south of Whin Common Road, Tottenhill

Proposal: Extraction of 630,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 8.83 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 6.8km from + 0 and mitigate the King’s Lynn and 6.9km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from Downham Market requires energy and climate change post change by reducing which are the nearest therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to towns. There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include some woodland road transportation to as a carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but King’s Lynn is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise There is only one -- 0 noise, vibration and sensitive receptor within Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion 250m of the site extraction is not restoration boundary, which is expected to cause located 79m away. The vibration. It is settlement of considered that noise Watlington is 368m and dust can be away and Tottenhill is mitigated to acceptable 414m away. levels within 250m of The effect on visual the source; the greatest intrusion is assessed impacts will be within under objective SA8. 100m, if uncontrolled. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed - - and enhance the Building is Grade I

B130

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the Church of St Peter and A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and St Paul, which is 810m would be required to should ensure, the historic away. There are 8 support any future historic value of assets environment Listed Buildings within planning application. is appropriately 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral should identify potential extraction will result in Tottenhill Row impacts to heritage landscape change; Conservation Area is assets and suggest however, an 410m from the site. appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration scheme should ensure There are no No effects expected no unacceptable Scheduled Monuments during extraction impacts on the setting within 2km of the site. of heritage assets.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction. extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records that unknown extraction. that features exist archaeology exists on within the site the site and an boundary. There are assessment of the no HE records significance of indicating finds. The archaeological remains site is set in a wider will be required at the landscape with a very planning application significant number of stage, in order to finds and features from protect and mitigate the multiple periods impact of mineral associated with Fen extraction in this site. edge settlement. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity Setchey SSSI is The proposed No impacts on SSSIs 1.59km from the site extraction site is within are expected post boundary. the hydrological extraction. catchment for Setchey SSSI but it does not drain towards the SSSI. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI.

River Nar SSSI is The proposed No impacts on SSSIs 2.21km from the site extraction site is in a are expected post boundary. different hydrological extraction. catchment to the River

B131

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Nar SSSI and therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI.

The nearest CWS are: If the site is worked No impacts to CWSs CWS 378 ‘Runs Wood above the water table, are expected post Meadow’ which is 260m with normal mitigation extraction. away. CWS 381 measures, no adverse ‘Thieves’ Bridge effects on the CWSs Meadow’ which is 280m are expected. away. CWS 387 ‘Tottenhill Row Common’ which is 450m away.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

This site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Tottenhill gravel for this site to contain geodiversity are member - gravel; examples of expected post overlying Kimmeridge geodiversity priority restoration. It would be Clay formation - features. useful for restoration to mudstone. There is a provide opportunities significant potential that for further geological geodiversity priority research of suitable features may exist exposures. within the Tottenhill gravels due to the method of formation. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 0 innovative solutions be restored to nature No effect during The proposed for the restoration conservation afteruse extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of comprising a mixture of may help to replace the minerals sites ponds, wet woodland, biodiversity from the wet grassland etc. loss of the existing woodland. SA8: To protect The site is not located -- - and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is a mixed Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or woodland that is result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated predominately change and the the countryside and landscape feature. broadleaf species. The removal of the landscape woodland site is visible woodland would from Whin Common constitute a significant Road to the north. long term impact. Runs Wood constitutes a significant area of woodland within the local landscape, and constitutes an

B132

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction important landscape feature. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities There is only one impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk sensitive receptor within dwellings would not be on restoration. 250m of the site significant; however it boundary, which is is considered that located 79m away. appropriate mitigation measures to ensure no unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is located over -/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposit). as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk The site is not located the potential for post extraction. over any bedrock adverse impacts exists, aquifers. There are no although appropriate groundwater Source assessment and Protection Zones within mitigation measures the proposed site. could ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV The site is proposed to agricultural land and agricultural land to be be restored to nature could potentially be affected by mineral conservation instead of Grade 3a which is extraction within the agriculture, therefore classified within the site. there could be a Best and Most Versatile permanent loss of BMV agricultural land. agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 6.8km from + 0 sustainable use of King’s Lynn and 6.9km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from Downham Market. nearest settlement extraction These are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding. rivers, the sea or There is a surface surface water. water flow path along Sand and gravel the southern boundary extraction is considered of the site in a 1 in 30 to be a ‘water year rainfall event compatible’ land use which increases in size which is suitable in all in a 1 in 100 and 1 in flood zones. 1000 year rainfall

B133

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction event. This is likely to be a proxy for fluvial flooding from the adjacent ordinary watercourse. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, water resources, agricultural land, landscape, geodiversity and amenity. It is considered that the landscape effects of the loss of the woodland could not be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the extraction phase score for SA9 has changed to ‘--' due to the proximity of the nearest residential dwelling.

B134

MIN 206 – land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill

Proposal: Extraction of 780,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 14.7 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 6.4km from + 0 and mitigate the King’s Lynn and 7.2km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from Downham Market requires energy and climate change post change by reducing which are the nearest therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to towns. There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but King’s Lynn is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and dwelling is 82m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 14 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and 2 of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Tottenhill the source; the greatest is 82m away. impacts will be within The effect on visual 100m, if uncontrolled. intrusion is assessed Noise and dust under objective SA8. assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed - - and enhance the Building is the Grade I

B135

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the Church of St Peter and A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and St Paul which is 1.17km would be required to should ensure the historic away. There are 9 support any future historic value of assets environment Listed Buildings within planning application. is appropriately 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral should identify potential extraction will result in The only Scheduled impacts to heritage landscape change; Monument within 2km assets and suggest however, an of the site is the appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration ‘Moated site of scheme should ensure Wormegay Priory’ No effects expected no unacceptable which is 1.73km away. during extraction. impacts on the setting of heritage assets. Tottenhill Row No effects expected Conservation Area is during extraction No effect post 260m from the site. extraction

There are no No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction. extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records that unknown extraction. that features exist archaeology exists on within the site the site and an boundary. There are assessment of the no HE records significance of indicating finds. The archaeological remains site is set in a wider will be required at the landscape with a very planning application significant number of stage, in order to finds and features from protect and mitigate the multiple periods impact of mineral associated with Fen extraction in this site. edge settlement. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity Setchey SSSI is The proposed No impacts to SSSIs 1.07km from the site extraction site is within are expected post boundary. the hydrological extraction. catchment for Setchey SSSI but it does not drain towards the SSSI. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI.

B136

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction River Nar SSSI is The proposed No impacts to SSSIs 1.64km from the site extraction site is in a are expected post boundary. different hydrological extraction. catchment to the River Nar SSSI and therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI.

The nearest CWS are: No adverse impacts on No impacts to CWSs CWS 387 ‘Tottenhill the CWS are expected are expected post Row Common’ which is due to the distance extraction. 273m from the site. from the site. CWS 385 ‘Tottenhill Village Green’ is 190m from the site. CWS 384 ‘West of Tottenhill’ is 282m away.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Tottenhill gravel for this site to contain geodiversity are member-gravel, examples of expected post overlying Kimmeridge geodiversity priority restoration. It would be Clay formation- features. useful for restoration to mudstone. There is a provide opportunities significant potential that for further geological geodiversity priority research of suitable features may exist exposures. within the Tottenhill gravels due to the method of formation. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 - innovative solutions be restored to an No effect during The proposed for the restoration agricultural afteruse at extraction phase restoration scheme will and after use of original ground levels. not result in any minerals sites landscape or biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located 0 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is an Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or agricultural field result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated immediately to the change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. south of the existing appropriate mitigation landscape active mineral strategy and restoration processing plant. The scheme should ensure northern part of the site no unacceptable is bounded to the east impacts. and west by woodland

B137

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction belts, with a flooded former mineral working also to the west. The Lynn Road is approximately 125m to the east of the northern part of the site, with the southern part of the site projecting eastwards up to the A10. The southern boundary of the site borders Whin Common Road. The site is generally well screened from public viewpoints except the south eastern corner where a field entrance provides a view northwards. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk dwelling is 82m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are 14 sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary measures to ensure no and 2 of these are unacceptable impacts within 100m of the site could be conditioned. boundary. SA10: To protect The site is located over -/- 0 and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposit). as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk The site is not located the potential for post extraction. over any bedrock adverse impacts exists, aquifers. There are no although appropriate groundwater Source assessment and Protection Zones within mitigation measures the proposed site. could ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur.

B138

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 6.4km from + 0 sustainable use of King’s Lynn and 7.2km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from Downham Market. nearest settlement extraction These are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low probability of flooding from either development surface water flooding rivers, the sea or with one small location surface water. Sand of surface water pooling and gravel extraction is in a 1 in 30-year rainfall considered to be a event and a 1 in 100- ‘water compatible’ land year event. In a 1 in use which is suitable in 1000-year rainfall event all flood zones. there are additional small areas of surface water pooling. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, geodiversity, amenity, agricultural land, and water resources; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the size of the site has been increased by the site proposer since the Initial Consultation and the SA has been amended to reflect this change, as follows: For SA1 and SA11 the distance to Downham Market has been amended, but this does not affect the scores. For SA3 and SA9 the distances to residential properties have been amended to reflect the new site boundary and the scores for the extraction phase have been changed to ‘- -‘ for both SA objectives. For SA8 the extraction phase text has changed, but not the score. For SA12 the text has been changed to include

B139 some surface water pooling, but this has not changed the score. For SA5 the distances to heritage assets have been changed, but this has not changed the score. For SA6 the distances from the site to SSSIs and CWSs have been changed, but this has not changed the score. For SA12 the text has been changed to include some surface water pooling, but this has not changed the score.

B140

MIN 32 – land west of Lime Kiln Road, West Dereham

Proposal: Extraction of 560,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 9.08 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 4.4km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Downham Market, Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate 15.2km from King’s requires energy and climate change post change by reducing Lynn and 15.6km from therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to Swaffham, which are There would also be Restoration would climate change the nearest towns. CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Downham Market is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 30m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 6 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and four of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. However, levels within 250m of the southern part of the the source; the greatest site is not proposed to impacts will be within be extracted. 100m, if uncontrolled. Therefore, the nearest Noise and dust residential property is assessments, and 60m from the extraction mitigation measures to area and there are 6 appropriately control sensitive receptors any amenity impacts, within 250m of the must form part of any proposed extraction planning application for area (two of these are mineral extraction. within 100m of the extraction area). The settlement of West Dereham is 750m away. The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public

B141

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Building is the Grade I A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Church of St Andrew would be required to should ensure the townscape and which is 720m away. support any future historic value of assets historic There are 26 Listed planning application. is appropriately environment Buildings within 2km of The heritage statement preserved. Mineral the site (11 of these are should identify potential extraction will result in headstones at the impacts to heritage landscape change; Church of St Andrew). assets and suggest however, an A further 8 Listed appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Buildings are in which may include scheme should ensure Wereham Conservation identification of areas no unacceptable Area which is 1.36km where mineral impacts on the setting from the site. extraction would be of heritage assets. inappropriate. There is one Scheduled Monument within 2km of the site, the ‘remains of monastic grange with moated site at Grange Farm’, which is 180m away.

Stradsett Hall, a No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Park and Garden is 1.99km from the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records that unknown extraction. that features exist archaeology exists on within the site the site and an boundary, and of finds assessment of the within the site significance of boundary. The site is archaeological remains immediately adjacent to will be required at the the remains of a planning application significant Saxon stage, in order to building, and is in a protect and mitigate the wider landscape with a impact of mineral significant number of extraction in this site. finds and features from multiple periods. SA6: To protect 0 0 and enhance Norfolk’s

B142

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction biodiversity and The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, geodiversity 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected.

There are no SSSIs Due to distance, no No impacts on SSSIs within 3km of the site impacts on SSSIs are are expected. boundary and the site is expected. not within the Impact Risk Zone for any SSSIs.

The nearest CWS is There is the potential No impacts to CWSs CWS 327 ‘Lime Pit’ for impacts from dust are expected post which is 60m away. deposition although extraction. with normal mitigation measures no adverse effects on these CWSs is expected. If the site is worked above the water table, with normal mitigation measures, no adverse effects on the CWSs are expected.

The nearest ancient No adverse impacts on No adverse impacts on woodland site is ancient woodland are ancient woodland are Kippers Wood which is expected due to the expected post a PAWS; it is 2.38km distance from the extraction. from the site boundary. proposed site.

The site consists of the This site is unlikely to No adverse impacts to Lowestoft Formation - contain geodiversity geodiversity are diamicton, overlying priority features. expected post West Melbury Marly restoration. Chalk Formation – chalk. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to No effect during The proposed for the restoration agriculture with extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of additional native would provide some minerals sites woodland planting biodiversity gains. (0.7ha) and species- rich hedgerow. SA8: To protect The site is not located -- - and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or open arable land. The result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated site is located on the change which due to the countryside and landscape feature. ‘fen edge’ and slopes the sloping nature of landscape relatively steeply the site would be visible towards the south west, from a variety of and due to the open viewpoints.

B143

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction nature of the surrounding landscape is visible from West Dereham, and a significant number of other viewpoints including the A134, Brick Kiln Lane, and Bath Road. Screening the site from the viewpoints would itself be intrusive. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk The nearest residential dwellings would not be on restoration. property is 30m from significant; however it the site boundary. is considered that There are 6 sensitive appropriate mitigation receptors within 250m measures to ensure no of the site boundary unacceptable impacts and four of these are could be conditioned. within 100m of the site boundary. However, the southern part of the site is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 60m from the extraction area and there are 6 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (two of these are within 100m of the extraction area). SA10: To protect The site is partially 0/- 0 and enhance water located over a The site is expected to No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary aquifer be worked above the resources is expected Norfolk (undifferentiated) water table and post extraction. (superficial deposits) therefore no adverse and over a principal effects on water aquifer (bedrock). resources are However, there are no expected. groundwater Source Protection Zones within the proposed site.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV The site is proposed to agricultural land and agricultural land to be be restored back to

B144

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction could potentially be affected by mineral agriculture. Therefore, Grade 3a which is extraction within the as long as the topsoil classified within the site. was stored correctly Best and Most Versatile and then replaced, agricultural land. there would be no likely adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 4.4km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Downham Market, Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources 15.2km from King’s nearest settlement extraction Lynn and 15.6km from allocated for significant Swaffham. These are growth. the nearest settlements allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low probability of flooding from either development surface water flooding, rivers, the sea or with a surface water surface water. Sand flow path just and gravel extraction is encroaching the south considered to be a of the site in a 1 in 1000 ‘water compatible’ land year rainfall event. use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that the landscape effects could not be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, for SA3 and SA9 information on the number of residential properties within 100m of the site boundary and extraction area have been updated, and the SA9 extraction phase score changed to ‘- -‘.

B145

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk - Silica Sand Sites and Areas of Search

MIN 40 – land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch

Proposal: Extraction of 3,000,000 tonnes of silica sand Size of site: 32.77ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is ++ 0 and mitigate the approximately 1.8km Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate from the Leziate required energy and climate change post change by reducing processing plant. The therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to mineral would be There would also be Restoration would climate change transported by an CO2 emissions from include woodland as a internal haul route to road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the processing plant. the processing plant, but it is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements to extraction phase, so the processing plant is would be unlikely to expected to remain the affect air quality due to same but continue for a vehicle emissions. longer period. SA3: To minimise There is a residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property within the site; Silica sand extraction is No effect post visual intrusion the next nearest not expected to cause restoration residential property is vibration. It is 23m from the site considered that noise boundary. There are and dust can be 88 sensitive receptors mitigated to acceptable within 250m of the site levels within 250m of boundary and 25 of the source; the greatest these are within 100m impacts will be within of the site boundary). 100m, if uncontrolled. The settlement of East Noise and dust Winch is 23m away. assessments, and However, part of the mitigation measures to site nearest to East appropriately control Winch is not proposed any amenity impacts, to be extracted. must form part of any Therefore, the nearest planning application for residential property is mineral extraction. 84m from the extraction area and there are 54 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (three of these are within 100m of the extraction area). The effect on visual

B146

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Building is the Grade II* A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Church of All Saints, would be required to should ensure the townscape and which is 50m away. support any future historic value of assets historic The Grade II Hall planning application. is appropriately environment Farmhouse (formally The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Church Farmhouse) is should identify potential extraction will result in 250m away. There are impacts to heritage landscape change; 10 Listed Buildings assets and suggest however, an within 2km of the site. appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration which may include scheme should ensure The nearest Scheduled identification of areas no unacceptable Monument is the where mineral impacts on the setting ‘Moated site of extraction would be of heritage assets. Crancourt Manor’ which inappropriate. is 790m away. There are 2 Scheduled No effects expected No effect post Monuments within 2km during the extraction extraction of the site. phase.

There are no No effects during the No effect post Conservation Areas or extraction phase. extraction. Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records of that unknown extraction. isolated multi period archaeology exists on finds and features the site and an within the site assessment of the boundary. The site is in significance of a wider landscape with archaeological remains a significant number of will be required at the finds and features from planning application multiple periods, stage, in order to including an adjacent protect and mitigate the site, with an Iron Age impact of mineral settlement. extraction in this site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance

B147

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Norfolk’s East Walton and The proposed No adverse impacts on biodiversity and Adcock’s Common extraction site is up- the SSSI and SAC are geodiversity SSSI, which is part of gradient of the SSSI expected post the Norfolk Valley Fens and SAC. Due to extraction. SAC, is 3.79km from distance there would the site boundary. be no adverse impacts It is outside the Impact to the SSSI and SAC. Risk Zone for this SSSI. The proposed No impacts on SSSIs East Winch Common extraction site is are expected post SSSI is 0.74km from located up-gradient of extraction. the site boundary. these SSSIs. Due to River Nar SSSI is distance there would 2.89km from the site be no impacts from boundary. dust deposition. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSIs.

The nearest CWS is The proposed No impacts on the CWS 226 ‘East Winch extraction site is County Wildlife Site are Common’ which is located up-gradient of expected post 740m away. the SSSI. Due to the extraction. distance from the CWS there would be no impacts from dust deposition. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the CWS. There are no ancient woodland sites within No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient 3km of the site. woodland are woodland are expected. expected. The site consists of Leziate member-sand There is the potential No adverse impacts to and Carstone for this site to contain geodiversity are Formation-sandstone. examples of expected post geodiversity priority restoration. It would be features. useful for restoration to provide opportunities for further geological research of suitable exposures. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a lake No effect during The proposed for the restoration area with grassland, extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of woodland and scrub, would provide some minerals sites and an agricultural field biodiversity gains. with hedgerow reinforcement.

B148

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or open arable gently result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated undulating landscape. change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. The eastern boundary appropriate mitigation landscape of the site is adjacent to strategy and restoration the village of East scheme should ensure Winch, and the A47 no unacceptable runs along the southern impacts. boundary of the site. There are filtered views over the site from the A47 and from the Public Right of Way along the western boundary. There are more open views of the site from the PRoW which crosses the site and from the properties on the eastern edge of East Winch. It is considered that views of the site from the A47 could be sufficiently screened by bunding. The extraction area of the site will need to be set back from the properties in East Winch village and from properties in the south- west corner of the site. A suitable screening scheme will also be required to mitigate the views of the site from these properties. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right -- 0 to improved health of Way along the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of western boundary of to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities the site (East Winch impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk BR1). There is also a PRoW and the nearby on restoration. PRoW running across dwellings would not be the site (East Winch significant. However, it FP2). is considered that There is a residential appropriate mitigation property within the site, measures to ensure no the next nearest unacceptable impacts residential property is could be conditioned, 23m from the site such as temporary boundary. There are diversion of the PRoW

B149

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 88 sensitive receptors and not extracting the within 250m of the site land closest to East boundary and 25 of Winch. these are within 100m of the site boundary. However, part of the site nearest to East Winch is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 84m from the extraction area and there are 54 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area (three of these are within 100m of the extraction area). SA10: To protect The site is located over -/0 0/0 and enhance water a principal aquifer If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (bedrock) and partially as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk over a Secondary the potential for post extraction. (undifferentiated) adverse impacts exists, aquifer (superficial although appropriate deposits). However, assessment and there are no mitigation measures groundwater Source could ensure that no Protection Zones within unacceptable impacts the proposed site. occur.

The site is Grade 4 No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV agricultural land. agricultural soils. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The site is ++ 0 sustainable use of approximately 1.8km Due to proximity to No effect post minerals resources from the Leziate processing plant. extraction processing plant site. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low probability of flooding from either development surface water flooding, rivers, the sea or with one small location surface water. Silica of surface water pooling sand extraction is in a 1 in 1000 year considered to be a rainfall event. ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals No effect post employment extraction sites tend to restoration opportunities and be low, if silica sand is

B150

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction promote economic extracted from this site growth it will supply the existing processing plant at Leziate and therefore offer continuing local employment opportunities. The processed silica sand is then a raw material for glass manufacture elsewhere in the UK, for both bottles and flat window glass providing downstream economic benefits. Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to the existing processing plant at Leziate and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, amenity, water resources, geodiversity and landscape. It is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. Silica sand extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for glass manufacture.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the text describing the proposed restoration under SA7 has been amended but this does not change the score. For SA3 and SA9 the number of residential properties within 250m and 100m of the site boundary and extraction area have been amended and the extraction phase assessment scores changed to ‘- -‘ for both SA3 and SA9.

B151

SIL01 – land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey Proposal: Extraction of 1,200,000 tonnes of silica sand Site area: 21 hectares SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to and The site is ++ 0 mitigate the effects approximately 700 Mineral extraction No contributions to of climate change by metres from the required energy and climate change post reducing Leziate processing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to plant. The proposer of However, there would Restoration is unlikely climate change the site has indicated not be CO2 emissions to include a woodland that the mineral would from road as a carbon ‘sink’. be transferred by transportation to the conveyor to the processing plant. processing plant. SA2: To improve air The site is not within 0 0 quality in line with an AQMA. Mineral There should not be No effect post the National Air extracted at the site any adverse air quality restoration Quality Standards should not lead to impacts because the increased road mineral will not need to transport due to its be transported by road. proximity to the processing plant. SA3: To minimise The nearest 0 0 noise, vibration and residential property is Silica sand extraction is No effect post visual intrusion approximately 280m not expected to cause restoration from the site vibration. It is boundary. Leziate is considered that noise approximately 600m and dust can be from the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. levels within 250m of The effect on visual the source. Noise and intrusion is assessed dust assessments, and under objective SA8. mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction 0 0 accessibility to jobs, sites are unlikely to No effects expected It is unlikely that services and facilities provide improved during extraction enhanced public and reduce social accessibility to access would be exclusion services and facilities provided within the site and reduce social on restoration. exclusion. The effect on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest listed - - and enhance the building is ‘the font A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the against south façade would be required to should ensure, the townscape and of Whitehouse support any future historic value of, assets historic environment Farmhouse’ which is planning application. is appropriately

B152

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 302m away. There are The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 13 listed buildings should identify potential extraction will result in within 2km of the site. impacts to heritage landscape change; assets and suggest however, an The nearest appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Scheduled Monument which may include scheme should ensure to the site is 1.24km identification of areas no unacceptable away and is the where mineral impacts on the setting ‘Moated site in Crow’s extraction would be of heritage assets. Wood’. There are 3 inappropriate. Scheduled Monuments within No effects during the No effects post 2km of the site. extraction phase. extraction.

There are no No effects during the No effects post Conservation Areas or extraction phase. extraction. Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic An assessment of the No effects post Environment records significance of extraction. of a series of crop archaeological remains marks related to will be required at the undated ditches and planning application banks, together with a stage, in order to possible Bronze Age protect and mitigate the barrow within the site impact of mineral boundary. extraction in this site. SA6: To protect and Roydon Common - 0 enhance Norfolk’s SAC and Ramsar site The majority of the site No adverse impacts on biodiversity and is 2.8km from the site is outside the the SSSIs are expected geodiversity boundary. hydrological catchment post extraction. for Roydon Common Leziate, Sugar and and for Leziate, Sugar Derby Fen SSSI is and Derby Fens and 2.54km from the site. down gradient of these sites. In addition, Bawsey Lakes are located in between the site and the SSSIs. Therefore no adverse impacts are expected on the SSSIs.

County Wildlife Site Mineral extraction on If the site is restored to 416 ‘70 & 100 the site would nature conservation, plantations’ is partially adversely affect CWS there could be a located within the site. 416. Adjacent CWS418 biodiversity CWS 418 Haverlesse could also be adversely enhancement, even if Manor Plantation is affected due to the existing CWS 416 is

B153

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction located adjacent to proximity. Mitigation adversely affected the site. measures will therefore during mineral CWS 422 The Holt is be required. extraction. Restoration 260m from the site. could also benefit the adjacent CWS if additional conservation habitat is created.

The closest ancient No adverse impacts on No adverse impacts on woodland site is ancient woodland sites ancient woodland are Reffley Wood, a are expected due to expected post PAWS, which is distance from the site. restoration. 2.14km from the site boundary.

The site has There is the potential There would be a overburden, made up for sites within this area preference for of Head deposits to contain other restoration to provide which are priority examples of opportunities for features due to their geodiversity priority geological research of method of formation, features. suitable exposures. partially overlaying However, this may not Leziate Member-sand. always be possible. SA7: To promote No details on 0 ? innovative solutions proposed restoration No effect during No details of a for the restoration of the site have been extraction phase proposed restoration and after use of provided. The scheme have been minerals sites preferred restoration provided. for this site would be lowland heathland and acid grassland which would provide a net biodiversity gain. SA8: To protect and The site is not within 0 0 enhance the quality the AONB, a Core Some of the site has Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness River Valley, or other been partially worked result in landscape of the countryside designated landscape for minerals in the past. change; however, an and landscape feature. The site The rest of the site appropriate restoration includes some areas mostly consists of scheme should ensure which have been regenerated woodland no unacceptable partially worked for with some heathland impacts. silica sand in the past. and some land is in Waterbodies, agricultural use. It is woodland, heathland considered that an and farmland all form effective mitigation landscape features strategy could be within the site. designed to minimise unacceptable adverse impacts to countryside and landscape. SA9: To contribute to There are no Public - 0 improved health and Rights of Way within

B154

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction amenity of local the site. There is a Care would be needed It is unlikely that there communities in PRoW close to the to ensure that the would be new public Norfolk northern boundary of impact on users of the footpaths provided the site (Bawsey RB8) PRoW would not be within the site on and Bawsey RB9 significant. However, it restoration. starts near the north is considered that eastern corner. appropriate mitigation The nearest measures to ensure no residential property is unacceptable impacts approximately 280m could be conditioned. from the site boundary. SA10: To protect The site is located 0/0 0/0 and enhance water over a principal A Hydrological Risk Subject to the findings and soil quality in aquifer (bedrock) and Assessment will be of a Hydrological Risk Norfolk partially over a required as part of any Assessment, no effect secondary planning application on water resources is (undifferentiated) within this site to expected post aquifer; but it mainly ensure no extraction. overlays an unacceptable impacts unproductive on water resources secondary aquifer. from dewatering There are no operations Groundwater Source undertaken to enable Protection Zones mineral extraction, within the proposed site.

The site is classified No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV as non-agricultural agricultural soils. agricultural soils. land. SA11: To promote The site is ++ 0 sustainable use of approximately 700 Due to proximity to No effect post minerals resources metres from the processing plant. extraction Leziate processing plant site. SA12: To reduce the The site has a low ++ + risk of current and probability of flooding The site is at generally There is potential for future flooding at from rivers within the low risk of being restoration to involve new and existing borough council affected by flooding the creation of water development SFRA. None of the from either rivers, the bodies to provide flood site has a high sea or surface water. storage capacity. probability (greater Silica sand extraction is than 1 in 30) of being considered to be a affected by surface ‘water compatible’ land water flooding; 0.71% use which is suitable in of the site has a all flood zones. medium probability (between 1 in 30 and 1 in 100) of surface water flooding and 3.71% of the area has

B155

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction a low probability (between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000) of surface water flooding. SA13: To encourage Although employment + 0 employment levels at minerals No effect post opportunities and extraction sites tend to restoration promote economic be low, if silica sand is growth extracted from this site it will supply the existing processing plant at Leziate and therefore offer continuing local employment opportunities. The processed silica sand is then a raw material for glass manufacture elsewhere in the UK, for both bottles and flat window glass providing downstream economic benefits. Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to the existing processing plant at Leziate and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment and biodiversity. It is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There would be adverse impacts on the County Wildlife Site located within the site. Silica sand extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for glass manufacture.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the comment and assessment for SA7 has been amended because a restoration scheme for the site has not been provided, therefore the assessment score for the restoration phase has been amended to ‘?’. The assessment text for SA8 has been amended to include a description of the current landuse of the site, but no change to the assessment score. The comments and assessment text for SA5 have been amended to include the requirement for a Heritage Statement and an archaeological assessment to be provided at the planning application stage. More detail on archaeology has also been included, but no change to the assessment score. The conclusion has been amended to no longer refer to the restoration of the site because a restoration scheme has not currently been provided.

B156

AOS E – land to the north of Shouldham

Proposal: Area of search for silica sand extraction Size of Area of Search: 815 hectares SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to and The AoS is - + mitigate the effects approximately 15km Mineral extraction No contributions to of climate change by from the Leziate requires energy and climate change post reducing processing plant. It is therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to likely that any There would also be There is the potential climate change extraction site would CO2 emissions from that restoration could transfer mineral to the road transportation to include woodland as a processing plant by the processing plant. carbon ‘sink’. road. SA2: To improve air The site is not within - 0 quality in line with an AQMA. Due to increased road No effect post the National Air Mineral extracted from transport of silica sand. restoration Quality Standards within the AoS could lead to increased road transport to the processing plant. This would have a negative effect on air quality due to vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest 0 0 noise, vibration and residential property is Silica sand extraction is No effect post visual intrusion approximately 250m not expected to cause restoration from the area of vibration. It is search boundary. considered that noise There are 28 sensitive and dust can be receptors located mitigated to acceptable 250m from the AoS levels within 250m of boundary. The the source. Noise and settlements of dust assessments, and Wormegay and mitigation measures to Shouldham are 250m appropriately control from the AoS any amenity impacts, boundary. must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. This is a large area of search and the visual intrusion of a mineral extraction site would depend on where it is located within the AoS. It may be possible to locate a site further away from all residential properties and ensure that it is appropriately screened

B157

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction to mitigate visual intrusion. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction 0 ? accessibility to jobs, sites are unlikely to No effects expected As this is an area of services and facilities provide improved during extraction search, it is unknown and reduce social accessibility to whether enhanced exclusion services and facilities public access would be and reduce social provided on restoration. exclusion. The effect on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The following listed - - and enhance the buildings are This is a large AOS The northern parts of character of the approximately 250m and the impact of a the AOS nearest to townscape and from the AoS: Church mineral extraction site Wormegay and the historic environment of St Michael, Church on the historic north eastern part of St Botolph, Castle environment would nearest to Pentney Road Bridge, Castle depend on where it is Priory should not be Meadow and located within the AoS. extracted because Wormegay Village The northern parts of extraction in these Cross. There are 30 the AOS nearest to locations would have a Listed Buildings within Wormegay and the relatively severe impact 2km of the AoS north eastern part on the setting of Boundary. 8 of these nearest to Pentney heritage assets at are contained within Priory should not be Wormegay and Shouldham extracted because Pentney Priory. Conservation Area, mineral extraction For the remainder of which is 760m away would have a relatively AOS E a mitigation and 4 of these are in severe impact on the strategy should ensure Shouldham Thorpe setting of heritage the historic value of Conservation Area assets at Wormegay assets is appropriately which is 1.2km away. and Pentney Priory. preserved. Mineral extraction will result in The following three A Heritage Statement landscape change; Scheduled would be required to however, an Monuments are support any future appropriate restoration approximately 250m planning application. scheme should ensure from the AoS: Motte The HS should identify no unacceptable and bailey castle in potential impacts to impacts on the setting Wormegay Village. heritage assets and of heritage assets. Shouldham Priory with suggest appropriate associated water mitigation, which may management features include identification of and Wormegay village areas where mineral cross. There are nine extraction would be Scheduled inappropriate. Monuments within 2km of the boundary There is the potential of the AoS. that unknown archaeology exists within the AOS and an

B158

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction There are no assessment of the registered Historic significance of Parks and Gardens archaeological remains within 2km of the AoS will be required at the boundary. planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction. SA6: To protect and The nearest - 0 enhance Norfolk’s internationally No impacts on the No impacts on the biodiversity and designated site to the Breckland SPA are Breckland SPA are geodiversity AoS boundary is expected. expected. Breckland SPA at 6.3km.

Setchey SSSI is Part of the AoS is No impacts on Setchey 2.48km from the AoS within the hydrological SSSI are expected post boundary. catchment of Setchey extraction. SSSI, but the AoS does not drain towards Setchey SSSI. Therefore no likely adverse impacts on Setchey SSSI.

The River Nar SSSI is However, due to the No impacts on the 250 metres from the land within AOS E River Nar SSSI are AOS boundary. being artificially drained expected post to multiple outlets, extraction. none of the land in the AoS drains to the River Nar. Therefore no likely adverse impacts on the River Nar SSSI.

CWS 425 Mow Fen is This is a large AoS, No impacts on County within the area of therefore the effect on Wildlife Sites are search. CWS 424 the CWS from mineral expected post Westbrigg’s Woods extraction would restoration. and CWS 373 depend on the location Adjacent Adams of the mineral plantation are extraction within the adjacent to the area of AOS. It would be search. possible to locate extraction away from the CWSs.

The nearest ancient The AoS is within the No impacts on ancient woodland site is Bowl hydrological catchment woodland are expected Wood which is an for Bowl Wood. There post extraction. ASNW; it is 1.34 km is therefore the

B159

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction from the area of potential for search boundary. hydrological impacts. Mitigation measures may be required. Due to distance no other impacts are expected.

The Head deposits of There is the potential There would be a the AoS overburden for sites within this area preference for are geodiversity to contain other restoration to provide priority features due to examples of opportunities for further their method of geodiversity priorities. geological research of formation. The AoS suitable exposures. contains geodiversity However, this may not priority features in the always be possible. form of paleo- environmental deposits, and Setchey SSSI, north of the site, is designated for its geological features. SA7: To promote Restoration should 0 ? innovative solutions reflect the existing No effect during As this is an area of for the restoration landscape of extraction phase search it is unknown and after use of agricultural land, what the restoration of minerals sites woodland and fen, mineral extraction with increased areas within this area would of those habitats be. There is the created next to the potential for biodiversity existing wooded and benefits if the preferred fen areas. There restoration takes place. should be no net loss of woodland or Fen habitat, and additional habitat should be sought. SA8: To protect and The north-western - - enhance the quality boundary of the area The AOS includes Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness of search is adjacent areas of arable result in landscape of the countryside to the Core River agriculture and change; however, an and landscape Valley for the River woodland, including appropriate restoration Nar. The area of plantations. It is scheme should be able search is not within considered that an to ensure no the AONB or any effective mitigation unacceptable impacts other designated strategy could be in parts of the Area of landscape feature. designed to minimise Search. unacceptable adverse A restoration impacts to countryside combination of and landscape. woodland and wetland would be suitable for restoration, however this will depend on the

B160

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction location within the AoS as landscape character differs across the area. SA9: To contribute to There are a number of 0 ? improved health and Public Rights of Way This is a large area of Depending on where a amenity of local within the AoS. There search and the mineral extraction site communities in are a large number of potential effect of is located within the Norfolk residential properties mineral extraction on wider AoS, there is the within 300m of the health or amenity potential for new public AoS boundary (mainly would depend on footpaths to be within the settlements where an extraction provided on restoration. of Shouldham and site is location within However, as this is an Wormegay). the AoS. It may be area of search it is possible to locate a site unknown what the away from the restoration of mineral footpaths and all extraction within this residential properties. area would be. SA10: To protect The AoS is located - 0/- and enhance water over a principal A Hydrological Risk Subject to the findings and soil quality in aquifer (bedrock) and Assessment will be of a Hydrological Risk Norfolk partially over required as part of any Assessment, no effect secondary B and planning application on water resources is secondary within this AoS to expected post undifferentiated ensure no extraction. aquifers (superficial unacceptable impacts deposits); however on water resources there are no from dewatering Groundwater Source operations undertaken Protection Zones to enable mineral within the area of extraction. search Due to the depth of The area of search is Potential for BMV silica sand extraction, a mixture of forestry agricultural land to be the land is unlikely to and agriculture. The affected by mineral be restored to agricultural land is extraction within the agriculture. Therefore grades 4 and 3. This AoS. there could be a land could potentially permanent loss of be Grade 3a which is Grade 3a agricultural classified within the land post extraction, Best and Most depending on the Versatile agricultural location of silica sand land. extraction. SA11: To promote The Area of Search is - 0 sustainable use of approximately 15km Due to distance from No effect post minerals resources from the Leziate processing plant. extraction processing plant. SA12: To reduce the Approximately 52% of - + risk of current and AOS E has a medium 48% of AOS E has a There is potential for future flooding at to high probability of low risk of being restoration to involve new and existing flooding from rivers affected by flooding the creation of water development from either rivers or the

B161

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction within the borough sea. Less than 1.5% of bodies to provide flood council SFRA. the area has a medium storage capacity. Within AOS E, 0.5% to high risk of being of the area has a high affected by surface probability (greater water flooding. Silica than 1 in 30) of sand extraction is surface water considered to be a flooding; 1.5% of the ‘water compatible’ land area has a medium use which is suitable in probability (between 1 all flood zones. Silica in 30 and 1 in 100) of sand extraction would surface water flooding be a temporary non- and 6.9% of the area residential use, which has a low probability exposes relatively few (between 1 in 100 and people to risk as only a 1 in 1,000) of surface small number of water flooding. employees are required. Residual risk can be addressed through the use of a site evacuation plan. SA13: To encourage Although employment + 0 employment levels at minerals No effect post opportunities and extraction sites tend to restoration promote economic be low, if silica sand is growth extracted from within this AoS it will supply the existing processing plant at Leziate and therefore offer continuing local employment opportunities. The processed silica sand is then a raw material for glass manufacture elsewhere in the UK, for both bottles and flat window glass, providing downstream economic benefits. Conclusion This is a large area of search. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment and landscape. Therefore, the northern parts of the AOS nearest to Wormegay and the north eastern part nearest to Pentney Priory should not be extracted because extraction in these locations would have a relatively severe impact on the setting of heritage assets at Wormegay and Pentney Priory. These areas of land are therefore proposed to be removed from the area of search. It is considered that effects on landscape could be appropriately mitigated. There are potentially negative effects on a County Wildlife Site located within AOS E, depending on where mineral extraction is located. These effects would need to be mitigated. There are negative effects due to the distance from

B162

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction the existing processing plant at Leziate, compared to some of the other areas of search. The AoS scored negatively for flood risk because over half of AOS E is at medium to high risk of flooding from either rivers, the sea or surface water. There is the potential for a permanent loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, depending on where mineral extraction is located within AOS E. Silica sand extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for glass manufacture.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the assessment text for SA8 has been amended to include the current landuses within the area, but the assessment score has not changed. The comments and assessment text for SA5 have been amended to update the information on nearby listed buildings and scheduled monuments, include the requirements for a heritage statement and archaeological assessment to be submitted at the planning application stage, and to include information on the need to remove the northern parts of AOS E from the area of search due to impacts on the setting of heritage assets at Wormegay and Pentney Priory. The assessment scores have not changed. The conclusion has been amended to include information about the proposed removal of northern parts of AOS E from the area of search due to impacts on the setting of heritage assets.

B163

AOS F – land to the north of Stow Bardolph

Proposal: Area of Search for silica sand extraction Size of Area of Search: 61 hectares SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to and The AoS is - + mitigate the effects approximately 17km Mineral extraction No contributions to of climate change by from the Leziate requires energy and climate change post reducing processing plant. It is therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to likely that any There would also be There is the potential climate change extraction site would CO2 emissions from that restoration could transfer mineral to the road transportation to include woodland as a processing site by the processing plant. carbon ‘sink’. road. SA2: To improve air The AoS is not within - 0 quality in line with an AQMA. Mineral Due to increased road No effect post the National Air extracted from within transport of silica sand. restoration Quality Standards the AoS could lead to increased road transport to the processing plant. This would have a negative effect on air quality due to vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest 0 0 noise, vibration and residential property is Silica sand extraction is No effect post visual intrusion approximately 250m not expected to cause restoration from the area of vibration. It is search boundary. considered that noise There are 16 sensitive and dust can be receptors located mitigated to acceptable 250m from the AoS levels within 250m of boundary. Stow the source. Noise and Bardolph and South dust assessments, and Runcton are both mitigation measures to 250m from the AoS appropriately control boundary. any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. Any future planning application within the AoS will need to ensure that proposed extraction is appropriately screened to mitigate visual intrusion. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction 0 ? accessibility to jobs, sites are unlikely to No effects expected As this is an area of services and facilities provide improved during extraction search, it is unknown and reduce social accessibility to whether enhanced exclusion services and facilities

B164

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and reduce social public access would be exclusion. The effect provided on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed - - and enhance the Building is Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the North Lodge to Stow would be required to should ensure the townscape and Hall, which is 245m support any future historic value of assets historic environment away. There are 20 planning application. is appropriately listed buildings within The HS should identify preserved. Mineral 2km of the AoS potential impacts to extraction will result in boundary. 2 of these heritage assets and landscape change; are within suggest appropriate however, an Wimbotsham mitigation, which may appropriate restoration Conservation Area include identification of scheme should ensure which is 650m from areas where mineral no unacceptable the AoS boundary and extraction would be impacts on the setting 4 are within inappropriate. of heritage assets. Shouldham Thorpe There is the potential Conservation Area that unknown which is 1.63km from archaeology exists the AoS boundary. within the AOS and an assessment of the Stradsett Hall, a significance of Registered Historic archaeological remains Park and Garden is will be required at the 1.95km from the AoS planning application boundary. stage, in order to protect and mitigate the There are no impact of mineral Scheduled extraction. Monuments within It is considered that 2km of the boundary. mitigation measures The AoS is adjacent are likely to result in to the unregistered extraction being able to remnants of Stow Hall take place with no and the wider setting unacceptable adverse of Wallington Hall. impacts. SA6: To protect and The nearest - 0 enhance Norfolk’s internationally No impacts on the No impacts on the biodiversity and designated site is the Ouse Washes are Ouse Washes are geodiversity Ouse Washes SAC expected. expected. which is over 6.2km from the AoS boundary.

Setchey SSSI is Due to distance, no Due to distance, no 4.7km from the AoS impacts on SSSIs are impacts on SSSIs are boundary. expected. expected.

B165

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction CWS 361 ‘north east There is the potential No adverse impacts are of Wallington Hall’ is for adverse expected on these 280m from the AoS, hydrological impacts on CWS post restoration. CWS 365 ‘Broad CWS 361 and Meadow Plantation’ is mitigation measures adjacent to the AoS will be required to and CWS 357 ensure no adverse ‘Chiswick’s Wood’ is impacts on the CWSs 830m from the AoS. in proximity to the AoS.

Three ancient AOS F is within the No adverse impacts are replanted woodlands hydrological catchment expected on ancient are between 500m to for these ancient woodland sites post 1km from the area of woodlands, however, restoration. search boundary. the AoS drains away from the ancient woodland sites and therefore adverse hydrological impacts are unlikely. Due to the distance of the AoS from the ancient woodland sites other adverse impacts are also unlikely. The AoS has There would be a overburden made up There is the potential preference for of Till deposits for sites within this area restoration to provide partially overlying the to contain other opportunities for further Lower Cretaceous examples of geological research of Leziate Beds. geodiversity priority suitable exposures. features under more However, this may not recent deposits. always be possible. SA7: To promote The preferred 0 ? innovative solutions restoration for ecology No effect during As this is an area of for the restoration would be a extraction phase search it is unknown and after use of combination of what the restoration of minerals sites agricultural land with mineral extraction mixed species within this area would hedgerows, wide field be. There is the margins, ponds and potential for biodiversity mixed deciduous benefits if the preferred woodland. There restoration takes place. should be no net loss The AoS is adjacent to of woodland and the remnants of Stow areas of planting Hall parkland and the should adjoin existing wider setting of areas to extend the Wallington Hall and size. restoration would also need to be in keeping with these areas.

B166

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA8: To protect and The site is not located - - enhance the quality within the AONB, a The AOS consists of Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness Core River Valley or arable agricultural result in landscape of the countryside any other designated fields and woodland change; however, an and landscape landscape feature. blocks. It is considered appropriate restoration Adjacent to the area that an effective scheme should ensure of search are mitigation strategy no unacceptable undesignated could be designed to impacts. remnants of parkland minimise unacceptable There are examples of which make a adverse impacts to woodland blocks, significant landscape countryside and wet woodland and feature. landscape. waterbodies in the zone of influence of the area of search, which should all be possible on restoration. SA9: To contribute to There are no Public 0 0 improved health and Rights of Way within There is unlikely to be It is unlikely that there amenity of local the AoS. There are a significant impact on would be new public communities in some residential health or amenity from footpaths provided Norfolk properties 250 metres mineral extraction within the AoS on from the AoS within the AoS. restoration. boundary. SA10: To protect The AoS is located - 0/- and enhance water over a principal A Hydrological Risk Subject to the findings and soil quality in aquifer (bedrock) and Assessment will be of a Hydrological Risk Norfolk partially over a required as part of any Assessment, no effect secondary planning application on water resources is undifferentiated within this AoS to expected post aquifer (superficial ensure no extraction. deposit); however unacceptable impacts there are no on water resources Groundwater Source from dewatering Protection Zones in operations undertaken the AoS. to enable mineral Due to the likely depth extraction. of silica sand The area of search is extraction, the land is a mixture of forestry Potential for BMV unlikely to be restored and agricultural uses agricultural land to be to agriculture. with the agricultural affected by mineral Therefore there could land in grades 4 and extraction within the be a permanent loss of 3. This land could AoS. Grade 3a agricultural potentially be Grade land post extraction, 3a which is classified depending on the within BMV location of silica sand agricultural land. extraction. SA11: To promote The Area of Search is - 0 sustainable use of approximately 17km Due to distance from No effect post minerals resources from the Leziate processing plant. extraction processing plant.

B167

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA12: To reduce the AoS F has a low + + risk of current and probability of flooding AOS F has a low risk of There is potential for future flooding at from rivers within the being affected by restoration to involve new and existing borough council flooding from either the creation of water development SFRA. Within AOS F, rivers or the sea. Less bodies to provide flood 0.3% of the area has than 1% of the area storage capacity. a high probability has a medium to high (greater than 1 in 30) risk of being affected of surface water by surface water flooding; 0.5% of the flooding. Silica sand area has a medium extraction is considered probability (between 1 to be a ‘water in 30 and 1 in 100), compatible’ land use and 3.7% of the area which is suitable in all has a low probability flood zones. (between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000) of surface water flooding. SA13: To encourage Although employment + 0 employment levels at minerals No effect post opportunities and extraction sites tend to restoration promote economic be low, if silica sand is growth extracted from within this AoS it will supply the existing processing plant at Leziate and therefore offer continuing local employment opportunities. The processed silica sand is then a raw material for glass manufacture elsewhere in the UK, providing downstream economic benefits. Conclusion There are potentially negative effects on the historic environment, landscape and biodiversity. It is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There are negative effects due to the distance from the existing processing plant at Leziate, compared to some of the other areas of search. The site has a low risk of being affected by flooding. There is the potential for a permanent loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, depending on where mineral extraction is located within the area of search. Silica sand extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for glass manufacture. Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the existing landuse has been included in the assessment text for SA8, and the requirement for a Heritage Statement and archaeological assessment to be submitted at the planning application stage has been included in the extraction phase assessment text for SA5. No changes have been made to the SA assessment scores.

B168

AOS I – land to the east of South Runcton

Proposal: Area of Search for silica sand extraction Size of Area of Search: 47 hectares SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to and The AoS is - + mitigate the effects approximately 16km Mineral extraction No contributions to of climate change by from the Leziate requires energy and climate change post reducing processing plant. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to It is likely that any There would also be There is the potential climate change extraction site would CO2 emissions from that restoration could transfer mineral to the road transportation to include woodland as a processing plant by the processing plant. carbon ‘sink’. road. SA2: To improve air The AoS is not within - 0 quality in line with an AQMA. Due to increased road No effect post the National Air Mineral extracted from transport of silica sand. restoration Quality Standards within the AoS could lead to increased road transport to the processing plant. This would have a negative effect on air quality due to vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest 0 0 noise, vibration and residential property is Silica sand extraction is No effect post visual intrusion approximately 250m not expected to cause restoration from the area of vibration. It is search boundary. considered that noise There are seven and dust can be sensitive receptors mitigated to acceptable located 250m from the levels within 250m of AoS boundary. the source. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. Any future planning application within the AOS will need to ensure that proposed extraction is appropriately screened to mitigate visual intrusion. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction 0 ? accessibility to jobs, sites are unlikely to No effects expected As this is an area of services and facilities provide improved during extraction search, it is unknown and reduce social accessibility to whether enhanced exclusion services and facilities

B169

SA5: To maintain The closest Listed 0 - and enhance the Building is the Grade A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the II* Church of St would be required to should ensure that, the townscape and Andrew which is 726m support any future historic value of the historic environment away. There are 14 planning application. assets is appropriately Listed Buildings within The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 2km of the AoS should identify potential extraction will result in boundary. impacts to heritage landscape change; 4 of these are within assets and suggest however, an Shouldham Thorpe appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Conservation Area which may include scheme should ensure which is 1.27km from identification of areas no unacceptable the boundary of the where mineral impacts on the setting AoS. extraction would be of heritage assets. inappropriate. There are no Registered Historic There is the potential Parks and Gardens or that unknown Scheduled archaeology exists Monuments within within the AOS and an 2km of the AoS assessment of the boundary. significance of archaeological remains The AoS has the will be required at the potential to contain planning application archaeological assets stage, in order to but is unstudied. protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction. It is considered that mitigation measures are likely to result in extraction being able to take place with no unacceptable adverse impacts. SA6: To protect and The nearest 0 0 enhance Norfolk’s internationally No impacts on the No impacts on the biodiversity and designated site is the Ouse Washes are Ouse Washes are geodiversity Ouse Washes SAC expected. expected. which is over 9km from the AoS boundary Due to distance, no The AoS is over 3km impacts on SSSIs are No impacts on SSSIs from both the River expected. are expected.

B170

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Nar and Setchey SSSIs.

The closest County Due to distance, no No impacts on CWS Wildlife Site is CWS impacts on CWS are are expected. 366 ‘St Andrews expected. Churchyard’ which is 600m from the AoS boundary.

The nearest ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland site is a woodland are woodland are PAWS which is 1.4km expected. expected. from the AoS boundary. There would be a The AoS has There is the potential preference for overburden made up for sites within this area restoration to provide of Till deposits to contain examples of opportunities for further partially overlying the geodiversity priority geological research of Lower Cretaceous features. suitable exposures. Leziate Beds. However, this may not always be possible. SA7: To promote The preferred 0 ? innovative solutions restoration for this site No effect during As this is an area of for the restoration would be restoration extraction phase search it is unknown and after use of for agriculture with what the restoration of minerals sites additional areas of mineral extraction mixed deciduous within this area would woodland and be. There is the hedgerows which potential for biodiversity would provide a net benefits if the preferred biodiversity gain. restoration takes place. SA8: To protect and The area of search is 0 0 enhance the quality not located within the The AOS consists of Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness AONB, a Core River arable agricultural result in landscape of the countryside Valley or any other fields and woodland change; however, an and landscape designated landscape blocks. It is considered appropriate restoration feature. that an effective scheme should ensure mitigation strategy no unacceptable could be designed to impacts. minimise unacceptable Waterbodies, blocks of adverse impacts to woodland, and countryside and farmland all form landscape. landscape features within the Area of Search. SA9: To contribute to There are no Public 0 0 improved health and Rights of Way within There is unlikely to be It is unlikely that there amenity of local the AoS. The nearest a significant impact on would be new public communities in residential property is health or amenity from footpaths provided Norfolk 250m from the AoS

B171

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction boundary. There are mineral extraction within the AoS on seven sensitive within the AoS. restoration. receptors located 250m from the AoS boundary. SA10: To protect The AoS is located - 0/- and enhance water over a principal A Hydrological Risk Subject to the findings and soil quality in aquifer (bedrock) and Assessment will be of a Hydrological Risk Norfolk partially over required as part of any Assessment, no effect secondary planning application on water resources is undifferentiated within this AoS to expected post aquifers (superficial ensure no extraction. deposits). However, unacceptable impacts there are no on water resources Groundwater Source from dewatering Protection Zones in operations undertaken the AoS. to enable mineral extraction.

The AoS is Grade 3 Potential for BMV Due to the likely depth agricultural land and agricultural land to be of silica sand could potentially be affected by mineral extraction, the land is Grade 3a which is extraction within the unlikely to be restored classified within the AoS. to agriculture. Best and Most Therefore there could Versatile agricultural be a permanent loss of land. Grade 3a agricultural land post extraction. SA11: To promote The Area of Search is - 0 sustainable use of approximately 16km Due to distance from No effect post minerals resources from the Leziate processing plant. extraction processing plant. SA12: To reduce the AOS I has a low ++ + risk of current and probability of flooding AOS I has a low risk of There is potential for future flooding at from rivers within the being affected by restoration to involve new and existing borough council flooding from either the creation of water development SFRA. Within AOS I, rivers or the sea. Just bodies to provide flood 2.8% of the area has over 4% of the area storage capacity. a high probability of has a medium to high surface water flooding risk of being affected (greater than 1 in 30); by surface water 4.1% of the area has flooding. Silica sand a medium probability extraction is considered (between 1 in 30 and to be a ‘water 1 in 100) of surface compatible’ land use water flooding, and which is suitable in all 7.9% of the area has flood zones. a low probability (between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000) of surface water flooding.

B172

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA13: To encourage Although employment + 0 employment levels at minerals No effect post opportunities and extraction sites tend to restoration promote economic be low, if silica sand is growth extracted from within this AoS it will supply the existing processing plant at Leziate and therefore offer continuing local employment opportunities. The processed silica sand is then a raw material for glass manufacture elsewhere in the UK, for both bottles and flat window glass, providing downstream economic benefits. Conclusion There are potential negative effects on the historic environment. It is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. Adverse impacts are not expected on biodiversity. There are negative effects due to the distance from the existing processing plant at Leziate, compared to some of the other areas of search. There is the potential for a permanent loss of Grade 3a agricultural land, depending on where mineral extraction is located within the area of search. The area is at generally low risk of being affected by flooding from either rivers, the sea or surface water. Silica sand extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for glass manufacture.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the score for SA5 has been changed to ‘0’ due to the distance of the nearest heritage asset to the AOS and the requirement for a Heritage Statement and archaeological assessment to be submitted at the planning application stage has been included in the extraction phase assessment text for SA5. The existing landuse has been included in the assessment text for SA8 but the SA assessment score has not changed.

B173

AOS J – land to the east of Tottenhill

Proposal: Area of Search for silica sand extraction Size of Area of Search: 23 hectares SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to and The AoS is - + mitigate the effects approximately 15km Mineral extraction No contributions to of climate change by from the Leziate requires energy and climate change post reducing processing plant. It is therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to likely that any There would also be There is the potential climate change extraction site would CO2 emissions from that restoration could transfer mineral to the road transportation to include woodland as a processing plant by the processing plant. carbon ‘sink’. road. SA2: To improve air The AoS is not within - 0 quality in line with an AQMA. Mineral Due to increased road No effect post the National Air extracted from within transport of silica sand. restoration Quality Standards the AoS could lead to increased road transport to the processing plant. This would have a negative effect on air quality due to vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest 0 0 noise, vibration and residential property is Silica sand extraction is No effect post visual intrusion approximately 250m not expected to cause restoration from the AoS vibration. It is boundary. There are considered that noise five sensitive and dust can be receptors located mitigated to acceptable 250m from the AoS levels within 250m of boundary. The the source. Noise and settlement of dust assessments, and Tottenhill is 328m mitigation measures to away. appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. Any future planning application within the AoS will need to ensure that proposed extraction is appropriately screened to mitigate visual intrusion. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction 0 ? accessibility to jobs, sites are unlikely to No effects expected As this is an area of services and facilities provide improved during extraction search, it is unknown and reduce social accessibility to whether enhanced exclusion services and facilities

B174

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and reduce social public access would be exclusion. The effect provided on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The closest Listed - - and enhance the Building is the Grade I A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Church of St Botolph, would be required to should ensure that, the townscape and which is 325m from support any future historic value of, the historic environment the AoS boundary. planning application. assets is appropriately There are 5 Listed The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Buildings within 2km should identify potential extraction will result in of the AoS boundary. impacts to heritage landscape change; assets and suggest however, an The nearest appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Scheduled Monument which may include scheme should ensure is the Motte and identification of areas no unacceptable Bailey Castle in where mineral impacts on the setting Wormegay Village, extraction would be of heritage assets. which is 1.25km away. inappropriate. There are three There is the potential Scheduled that unknown Monuments within archaeology exists 2km of the AoS within the AOS and an boundary. assessment of the Tottenhill Row significance of Conservation Area is archaeological remains 1.7km from the AoS will be required at the boundary. planning application stage, in order to There are no protect and mitigate the Registered Historic impact of mineral Parks and Gardens extraction. within 2km of the AoS It is considered that boundary. mitigation measures are likely to result in There are extraction being able to archaeological assets take place with no within the Area of unacceptable adverse Search. impacts. SA6: To protect and 0 0 enhance Norfolk’s The nearest No impacts on the No impacts on the biodiversity and internationally Ouse Washes are Ouse Washes are geodiversity designated site is the expected. expected. Ouse Washes SAC which is 10.8km from the AoS boundary.

The River Nar SSSI is Due to the land being No impacts on SSSIs 2.35km from the AoS artificially drained to post extraction. boundary. Setchey multiple outlets, the AoS does not drain to

B175

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SSSI is 2km from the the River Nar or AoS boundary. Setchey SSSI and therefore no adverse impacts are expected.

If mineral extraction in No impacts on CWS CWS 385 ‘Tottenhill this AoS were to go are expected post Village Green’ is below the water table restoration. 250m from the AoS then there could be and CWS 424 impacts on the ponds ‘Westbrigg’s Wood’ is in CWS 385 and 270m from the AoS. mitigation measures CWS 384 ‘West of would be required. Tottenhill’ is 430m from the AoS. No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient The nearest ancient woodland are woodland are woodland site is a expected. expected. PAWS and is 2.96km from the AoS boundary. There is the potential There would be a The AoS has for sites within this AoS preference for overburden made up to contain examples of restoration to provide of Head and Till geodiversity priority opportunities for further deposits partially features. geological research of overlying the Lower suitable exposures. Cretaceous Leziate However, this may not Beds (Sandringham always be possible. Sands). The Head deposits are geodiversity priority features due to their method of formation. SA7: To promote The preferred 0 ? innovative solutions restoration for this site No effect during As this is an area of for the restoration would be restoration extraction phase search it is unknown and after use of for agriculture with what the restoration of minerals sites additional areas of mineral extraction mixed deciduous within this area would woodland and be. There is the hedgerows which potential for biodiversity would provide a net benefits if the preferred biodiversity gain. restoration takes place. SA8: To protect and The area of search is 0 0 enhance the quality not located within the The AOS consists of Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness AONB, a Core River arable agricultural result in landscape of the countryside Valley or any other fields and a woodland change; however, an and landscape designated landscape block. It is considered appropriate restoration feature. that an effective scheme should ensure mitigation strategy no unacceptable could be designed to impacts.

B176

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction minimise unacceptable Waterbodies from adverse impacts to previous mineral countryside and workings, blocks of landscape. woodland, and farmland all form landscape features within the Area of Search. SA9: To contribute to There are no Public 0 0 improved health and Rights of Way within There is unlikely to be It is unlikely that there amenity of local the AoS. The nearest a significant impact on would be new public communities in residential property is health or amenity from footpaths provided Norfolk 250m from the AoS mineral extraction within the AoS on boundary. There are within the AoS. restoration. five sensitive receptors located 250m from the AoS boundary. SA10: To protect The AoS is located 0 0 and enhance water over a principal A Hydrological Risk Subject to the findings and soil quality in aquifer (bedrock) and Assessment will be of a Hydrological Risk Norfolk partially over required as part of any Assessment, no effect secondary planning application on water resources is undifferentiated within this AoS to expected post aquifers (superficial ensure no extraction. deposits). However, unacceptable impacts there are no on water resources Groundwater Source from dewatering Protection Zones in operations undertaken the AoS. to enable mineral extraction.

The AoS is Grade 4 No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV agricultural land. agricultural soils. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The Area of Search is - 0 sustainable use of approximately 15km Due to distance from No effect post minerals resources from the Leziate processing plant. extraction processing plant. SA12: To reduce the AOS J has a low ++ + risk of current and probability of flooding AOS J has a low risk of There is potential for future flooding at from rivers within the being affected by restoration to involve new and existing borough council flooding from either the creation of water development SFRA. Within AOS J, rivers or the sea. Less bodies to provide flood 1.5% of the area has than 4% of the site has storage capacity. a high probability a medium to high risk (greater than 1 in 30) of being affected by of surface water surface water flooding. flooding; 3.6% of the Silica sand extraction is area has a medium considered to be a probability (between 1 ‘water compatible’ land in 30 and 1 in 100) of use which is suitable in surface water all flood zones.

B177

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction flooding, and 9.2% of the area has a low probability (between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000) of surface water flooding. SA13: To encourage Although employment + 0 employment levels at minerals No effect post opportunities and extraction sites tend to restoration promote economic be low, if silica sand is growth extracted from within this AoS it will supply the existing processing plant at Leziate and therefore offer continuing local employment opportunities. The processed silica sand is then a raw material for glass manufacture elsewhere in the UK, for both bottles and flat window glass, providing downstream economic benefits. Conclusion There are potential negative effects on the historic environment. It is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There are negative effects due to the distance from the existing processing plant at Leziate, compared to some of the other areas of search. The site is at generally low risk of being affected by flooding from either rivers, the sea or surface water. Silica sand extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for glass manufacture.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, Tottenhill Row Conservation Area has been included in the list of heritage assets within 2km of the AOS boundary and the requirement for a Heritage Statement and archaeological assessment to be submitted at the planning application stage has been included in the extraction phase assessment text for SA5. The existing landuse has been included in the assessment text for SA8. Additional information on geodiversity has been added to the comments for SA6. The SA assessment scores for SA5, SA6 and SA8 have not changed.

B178

SIL 02 – land at Shouldham and Marham

Proposal: Extraction of 16 million tonnes of silica sand Size of site: 390.36ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 6km from the + 0 and mitigate the existing processing Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate plant site at Leziate. It requires energy and climate change post change by reducing is proposed that the therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to sand extracted will be Transporting mineral to climate change transported to the the processing plant via processing plant by pipeline would require pipeline. energy, but CO2 emissions are likely to be less than road transportation. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. Mineral There should not be No effect post with the National extracted at the site any adverse air quality restoration Air Quality should not lead to impacts because the Standards increased road mineral is not proposed transport as it is to be transported by proposed to be road. conveyed by pipeline to the existing processing plant. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is 81m from Silica sand extraction is No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. not expected to cause restoration There are 10 sensitive vibration. It is receptors within 250m considered that noise of the site boundary. and dust can be The settlement of mitigated to acceptable Marham is 430m away. levels within 250m of However, the land the source; the greatest nearest to Marham is impacts will be within not proposed to be 100m, if uncontrolled. extracted. Therefore Noise and dust the nearest residential assessments, and property is 280m from mitigation measures to the extraction area and appropriately control there are no sensitive any amenity impacts, receptors within 250m must form part of any of the proposed planning application for extraction area. mineral extraction. The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration.

B179

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Building is the Grade I The eastern part of the The eastern part of the character of the Remains of Augustinian site should not be site should not be townscape and Priory which is 310m worked because worked because historic away. There are 22 extraction would have a extraction in these environment Listed Buildings within relatively severe impact locations would have a 2km of the site on the setting of relatively severe impact boundary. 8 of these Pentney Priory. on the setting of are within the Pentney Priory. For the Shouldham A Heritage Statement remainder of the site, a Conservation Area would be required to mitigation strategy which is 1.14km away. support any future should ensure the planning application. historic value of assets The nearest Scheduled The heritage statement is appropriately Monument is the should identify potential preserved. Mineral Remains of Pentney impacts to heritage extraction will result in Priory at Abbey Farm assets and suggest landscape change; which is 30m away. appropriate mitigation, however, an There are 6 Scheduled which may include appropriate restoration Monuments within 2km identification of areas scheme should ensure of the site boundary. where mineral no unacceptable extraction would be impacts on the setting inappropriate. of heritage assets.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site boundary.

There are significant There is the potential No effect post Historic Environment that unknown extraction. records of prehistoric to archaeology exists on Late Neolithic finds; the site and an with isolated finds from assessment of the later periods, within the significance of site boundary, and a archaeological remains possible Iron Age will be required at the settlement. The site is planning application in a wider landscape stage, in order to with a significant protect and mitigate the number of finds and impact of mineral features from the extraction in this site. multiple periods. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance Breckland Forest SSSI, No adverse impacts on No impacts on the SSSI Norfolk’s which is part of the the SSSI are expected are expected post biodiversity and Breckland SPA, is due to the distance extraction geodiversity from the site.

B180

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 4.74km from the site boundary. No adverse impacts on No impacts on the SSSI the SSSI is expected if are expected post East Walton and the site is worked extraction Adcock’s Common without dewatering, SSSI, which is part of due to the distance the Norfolk Valley Fens from the site. SAC is 4.28km from the site boundary. The potential exists for No impacts on the SSSI impacts from mineral are expected post River Nar SSSI is extraction at this site, if extraction adjacent to the site uncontrolled. An boundary. assessment of potential impacts, including from dust deposition and hydrogeology, together with appropriate mitigation would be required as part of any planning application.

There is the potential No impacts to CWSs for impacts from dust are expected post CWS 528 ‘North of deposition although extraction. Marham’ is 230m from with normal mitigation the site boundary. measures no adverse CWS 488 ‘Osier Bed effects on these CWSs Plantation’ is 230m is expected. If the site from the site boundary. is worked without CWS 545 ‘The Carr’ is dewatering, with 180m from the site normal mitigation boundary. CWS 530 measures, no adverse ‘Marham Fen’ is 80m effects on the CWSs from the site boundary. are expected.

If the site is worked No impacts to the without dewatering, ancient woodland sites The nearest ancient with normal mitigation are expected post woodland site is Bowl measures, no adverse extraction. Wood, which is a effects on this ancient PAWS and ASNW; it is woodland site are 1.26km from the site expected. boundary. No adverse impacts to The site contains geodiversity are The site consists of geodiversity priority expected post Peat, river terrace features. restoration. It would be deposits - sand and useful for restoration to gravel, which are provide opportunities geodiversity priority for further geological features, overlying research of suitable Leziate member-sand, exposures

B181

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and Carstone Formation - sandstone. SA7: To promote No details on proposed 0 ? innovative solutions restoration of the site No effect during No details of a for the restoration have been provided. extraction phase proposed restoration and after use of scheme have been minerals sites provided. SA8: To protect The site is not located -- - and enhance the within the AONB. The Due to the open nature Mineral extraction will quality and northern part of the site of the landscape, there result in landscape distinctiveness of is within a Core River would be views of the change which due to the countryside and Valley, although the site from some the open nature of the landscape proposed extraction properties in Marham, surrounding landscape area is not within a however due to the and would be visible Core River Valley. buffer areas and the from a variety of potential they offer for viewpoints; even bunding, it should be following restoration the possible for an landscape setting of appropriate screening other features would be scheme to be significantly altered. developed. There are isolated properties along the southern boundary, which would also have views of the site if screening is not put in place. On the opposite side of the River Nar is the Scheduled Monument (Pentney Priory Gatehouse); due to the open nature of the landscape mineral extraction within the eastern part of the site would have a relatively severe impact on the setting of Pentney Priory, even with mitigation measures and is not suitable for mineral extraction. Views of the western part of the site could be appropriately screened by bunding and screen planting but care will need to be taken to ensure that screening is not intrusive in its own right.

B182

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right -- - to improved health of Way adjacent to the Care would be needed No details on proposed and amenity of northern boundary of to ensure that the restoration of the site local communities the site (Marham FP8 impact on users of the have been provided. in Norfolk and Wormegay RB7). PRoWs would not be However, any There is also a PRoW significant. However, it restoration that did not running through the site is considered that reinstate any PRoW or (north to south) appropriate mitigation provide a (Marham FP9). measures to ensure no compensatory route unacceptable impacts would result in a The nearest residential could be conditioned, recreation impact. property is 81m from such as temporary the site boundary. diversion of the PRoW There are 10 sensitive running through the receptors within 250m site. of the site boundary. However, the land nearest to Marham is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore the nearest residential property is 280m from the extraction area and there are no sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area. SA10: To protect The site is located over -/- 0/- and enhance water a principal aquifer The mineral operator No adverse effects are and soil quality in (bedrock) and partially has proposed that the expected on water Norfolk over a Secondary A site would be worked resources post aquifer (superficial by suction dredging. If extraction deposits). dewatering was not The eastern part of the required this may site is within minimise impacts on groundwater Source water resources. A Protection Zone 1. The Hydrological Risk rest of the site is not Assessment would be within a groundwater required to confirm this. SPZ.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV The site is unlikely to agricultural land and agricultural land to be be restored to could potentially be affected by mineral agriculture, therefore a Grade 3a which is extraction within the permanent loss of BMV classified within the site. agricultural land could Best and Most Versatile occur. agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 6km from the 0 0 sustainable use of processing plant at The construction of a No effect post minerals resources Leziate. The proposer pipeline would be a extraction of the site has significant undertaking

B183

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction suggested that mineral and has the potential could be moved by for impacts itself during pipeline to the construction. However processing plant. movement of mineral by pipeline would significantly reduce impacts from HGV traffic. SA12: To reduce The majority (52%) of -- 0 the risk of current the area is within Flood The site is at high risk No effect post and future flooding Zone 3 (high risk) and of being affected by extraction / restoration at new and existing 42% of the area is flooding from rivers, because no details of a development within Flood Zone 2 and at low risk of being restoration scheme (medium risk) for flooded from surface have been provided. flooding from rivers, water. Screening However, there is within the borough bunds around an potential for restoration council’s SFRA. The extraction site could to involve the creation area has a low risk of potentially affect the of water bodies to surface water flooding movement of water in provide flood storage with a few locations of flood events, unless capacity. surface water pooling, care is taken in their mainly in the south of design. Silica sand the site, in a 1 in 30 extraction is considered year rainfall event. to be a ‘water There are additional compatible’ land use locations of surface which is suitable in all water pooling in a 1 in flood zones. 100 year rainfall event. The number of locations of surface water pooling increase significantly in a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event and there are a number of surface water flow paths in the southern part of the proposed area. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it promote economic would supply the growth existing processing plant at Leziate and therefore offer continuing local employment opportunities. The processed silica sand is then a raw material for glass manufacture

B184

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction elsewhere in the UK, for both bottles and flat window glass, providing downstream economic benefits. Conclusion The site is a large area within which it is considered that specific proposals for smaller sites could come forward. This would enable parts of the site where constraints are highest to be left unworked. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, flood risk, water resources, agricultural land, landscape, and geodiversity. It is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated within the western part of the site. However, due to the relatively severe impacts on the setting of Pentney Priory, the eastern part of the site is considered unsuitable for mineral extraction. There would be adverse impacts on the PRoW located within the site. Silica sand extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for glass manufacture.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES, The assessment text for SA5 and SA8 has been amended to state that the eastern part of the site is unsuitable for mineral extraction due to the relatively sever impacts on the setting of Pentney Priory, but the assessment scores have not changed. The assessment score for SA9 has been changed to ‘- -' due to the location of a PROW within the site. The conclusion has been amended to state that the eastern part of the site is unsuitable for mineral extraction due to the relatively severe impacts on the setting of Pentney Priory.

B185

North Norfolk sites

MIN 69 – land north of Holt Road, Aylmerton

Proposal: Extraction of 2,000,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 16.86 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 3.5km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Cromer and 7.9km from Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate Holt, which are the requires energy and climate change post change by reducing nearest towns. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Cromer is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 85m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are eight expected to cause sensitive receptors vibration. It is within 250m of the site considered that noise boundary. The and dust can be settlement of Beeston mitigated to acceptable Regis is 624m away. levels within 250m of There are 8 sensitive the source; the greatest receptors within 250m impacts will be within of the site boundary 100m, if uncontrolled. and three of these are Noise and dust within 100m of the site assessments, and boundary. However, a mitigation measures to reduced extraction area appropriately control is proposed, and the any amenity impacts, nearest residential must form part of any property is 182m from planning application for the extraction area. mineral extraction. There are 7 sensitive receptors within 250m of the extraction area. The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected No effect post jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction restoration

B186

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction facilities and to services and facilities reduce social and reduce social exclusion exclusion. The effect on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Abbey Farmhouse, would be required to should ensure the townscape and which is 1.37km away support any future historic value of assets historic and the Grade II* planning application. is appropriately environment Church of St John the The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Baptist which is 1.32km should identify potential extraction will result in away. There are 9 impacts to heritage landscape change; Listed Buildings within assets and suggest however, an 2km of the site. appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration scheme should ensure no unacceptable impacts on the setting of heritage assets.

The only Scheduled No effects expected No effect post Monument within 2km during extraction due to extraction. of the site is Beeston distance. Regis Priory, which is 1.18km away.

There are four Conservation Areas No effects expected No effect post within 2km of the site, during extraction extraction. they are Sheringham (1.85km away), West Runton (1.02km away), Beeston Regis (1.17km away) and Upper Sheringham (1.69km away).

Felbrigg Hall, a No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction. extraction. Park is 1.76km from the site. There is the potential No effect post There are no Historic that unknown extraction. Environment records archaeology exists on within the site the site and an boundary. The site is in assessment of the a wider landscape with significance of a number of finds and archaeological remains features, most as a will be required at the result of medieval iron planning application working activity, and stage, in order to

B187

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction WW2 defences protect and mitigate the immediately to the impact of mineral north. extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 0.65km from - 0 and enhance Sheringham and The proposed No adverse impacts to Norfolk’s Beeston Regis extraction site would be this SSSI and SAC are biodiversity and Commons SSSI which worked dry (above the expected post geodiversity is part of the Norfolk water table) and is extraction. Valley Fens SAC. located in a different hydrological catchment to this SSSI. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI and SAC.

Briton’s Lane Gravel Pit There is the potential Restoration should SSSI is adjacent to the for Briton’s Lane Gravel provide opportunities site boundary. Pit SSSI to be for further geological impacted adversely by research of suitable insensitive extraction exposures. where the existing and proposed sites join along the site boundaries. No impacts to SSSIs Beeston Cliffs SSSI is There would be no are expected post 1.81km from the site adverse impacts to the extraction. boundary. other geological SSSIs Weybourne Cliffs SSSI during extraction. is 2.86km from the site boundary. Felbrigg Woods SSSI is The proposed 1.43km from the site extraction site would be boundary. worked dry (above the water table). Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to Felbrigg Woods SSSI.

The nearest CWS is No adverse impacts on No impacts to County CWS 1147 ‘Roman the CWS are expected Wildlife Sites are Camp and Beeston due to the distance expected post Regis Heath’ which is from the site and extraction. 230m from the site because the site would boundary. be worked dry.

The nearest ancient No adverse impacts on No impacts to ancient woodland site is Great the ancient woodland woodland sites are Wood, a PAWS and are expected due to the expected post ASNW which is 1.71km distance from the site extraction. from the site boundary. and because the site would be worked dry.

B188

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

The site consists of the The site contains No adverse impacts to Briton’s Lane sand and geodiversity priority geodiversity are gravel member, features. expected post overlying Wroxham restoration. Crag Formation-sand Restoration should and gravel. The Briton’s provide opportunities Lane sands and gravels for further geological are known to contain research of suitable priority features such as exposures. palaesols and erratics in the adjacent existing quarry, and therefore they may occur on this site. The existing quarry is also the type- site for the Briton’s Lane Formation. SA7: To promote The site would be a 0 + innovative solutions steeply sided valley No effect during The proposed for the restoration restored to dry acid extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of heathland with some would provide some minerals sites woodland / scrub biodiversity, amenity natural regeneration on and geodiversity gains. the upper slopes with re-established public rights of way. SA8: To protect The site is located -- - and enhance the within the Norfolk Coast The site is a gently Mineral extraction will quality and AONB. sloping arable field on result in landscape distinctiveness of the south side of the change due to the the countryside and Cromer Ridge, and is depth of the deposit landscape adjacent to an active and the sloping nature mineral extraction site. of the site and would be The site is bounded by visible from the woodland except for a PRoWs, although it relatively small section would be screened of the eastern from most other boundary. The viewpoints. southern boundary is along the A148, although views are screened by woodland. It is considered that development of this site would provide an opportunity to improve the working and restoration scheme for the adjacent site. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right -- + to improved health of Way adjacent to the

B189

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and amenity of western boundary of Care would be needed Improvements to public local communities the site (Beeston Regis to ensure that the access are proposed as in Norfolk BR10). There is a impact on users of the part of the restoration of PRoW running through PRoW and the nearby the site. the site (north to south) dwellings would not be (Aylmerton FP2). significant. The PRoW There is a PRoW within that runs through the the site (Aylmerton site would need to be FP1). There is a PRoW subject to temporary crossing the NE corner diversion. It is of the site (Aylmerton considered that FP3). appropriate mitigation measures to ensure no The nearest residential unacceptable impacts property is 85m from could be conditioned. the site boundary. There are eight sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary and three of these are within 100m of the site boundary. However, a reduced extraction area is proposed, and the nearest residential property is 182m from the extraction area. There are 7 sensitive receptors within 250m of the extraction area. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer water table) and post extraction. (bedrock). Part of the therefore no effect on site is within water resources is groundwater Source expected. Protection Zone 2. The rest of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ.

The northern part of the site is classified as non- Potential for BMV The site would not be agricultural land. The agricultural land to be restored to agriculture, southern part of the site affected by mineral therefore there could be is Grade 3 agricultural extraction within the a permanent loss of land and could site. BMV agricultural land. potentially be Grade 3a which is classified within the Best and

B190

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Most Versatile agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 3.5km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Cromer and 7.9km from Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources Holt, which are the nearest settlement extraction nearest settlements allocated for significant allocated for significant growth. growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding rivers, the sea or with one location of surface water. surface water pooling in Sand and gravel a 1 in 30 year rainfall extraction is considered event, and two to be a ‘water locations of surface compatible’ land use water pooling in a 1 in which is suitable in all 100 year rainfall event. flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the landscape, geodiversity, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES, the comments for SA3 and SA9 have been amended to include the distance of residential dwellings 250m and 100m from the boundary and from the proposed extraction area. The assessment score for SA3 has not changed. The assessment score for SA9 has changed to ‘- -‘ fpr the extraction phase due to PRoW crossing the site and the proximity of residential dwellings. The comments on SA5 have been amended to update the number of Listed Buildings within 2km of the site, but the assessment score has not changed. The assessment text for SA6 has been amended to state that there is the potential for impacts on Britons Lane Gravel Pit SSSI at the site boundary and to change the assessment score to ‘-‘ for the extraction phase.

B191

MIN 71 – land west of Norwich Road, Holt

Proposal: Extraction of 1,100,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 22.63 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 0.1km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Holt, which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest towns. requires energy and climate change post change by reducing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration may climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Holt is less than 1km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. The site would Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National be worked after the not proposed to restoration Air Quality completion of an increase during the Standards existing adjacent site, extraction phase, so therefore the number of would be unlikely to vehicle movements is affect air quality due to expected to remain the vehicle emissions. same but continue for a longer period. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 11m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 82 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and 17 of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. Most of levels within 250m of these properties are in the source; the greatest the settlement of Holt, impacts will be within which is 26m away. 100m, if uncontrolled. The effect on visual Noise and dust intrusion is assessed assessments, and under objective SA8. mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B192

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Building is Bacon’s A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the House, which is 610m would be required to should ensure, the townscape and away. There are 142 support any future historic value of, assets historic Listed Buildings within planning application. is appropriately environment 2km of the site. Over The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 100 of these are within should identify potential extraction will result in the Holt Conservation impacts to heritage landscape change; Area, which is 460m assets and suggest however, an from the site. appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration The site is within the which may include scheme should ensure Glaven Valley identification of areas no unacceptable Conservation Area. where mineral impacts on the setting extraction would be of heritage assets. Letheringsett inappropriate. Conservation Area is 1.18km from the site. Hunworth Conservation No effect expected No effect post Area is 1.93km from the during extraction extraction. site.

The only Scheduled Monument within 2km No effect expected of the site is the during extraction. No effect post ‘Habitation site on extraction. Edgefield Heath’ which is 900m away.

There are no No effects expected Registered Historic during extraction No effect post Parks and Gardens extraction within 2km of the site.

There are no Historic There is the potential Environment records that unknown No effect post within the site archaeology exists on extraction boundary. The site is in the site and an a wider landscape with assessment of the a number of finds and significance of features, including a archaeological remains WW1 and WW2 military will be required at the training site on Holt planning application Lowes to the east. stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect -- 0 and enhance The site is 0.62 km from Holt Lowes SSSI is a No impacts to the SSSI Norfolk’s Holt Lowes SSSI, which groundwater are expected post biodiversity and is part of the Norfolk dependent wetland. In extraction. geodiversity Valley Fens SAC. order for no adverse impacts on the SSSI,

B193

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction the site must be worked dry (above the water table). In the absence of detailed CWS 2281 ‘Holt hydrogeological Country Park’ is 270m information and from the site boundary. mitigation measures, CWS 2006 ‘Spout impacts, impacts on the Common’ is 460m from SSSI and SAC are the site boundary. uncertain. CWS 2121 ‘Common Hills Plantation’ is 220m If the site is worked No impacts to CWSs from the site boundary. above the water table, are expected post CWS 1093 ‘Disused with normal mitigation extraction. railway’ is 500m from measures, no adverse the site boundary. effects on the CWSs CWS 1098 ‘Edgefield are expected. Heath’ is 250m from the site boundary.

The nearest ancient There is the potential No impacts on the woodland sites are for impacts from dust ancient woodland sites Common Hill Wood, deposition although are expected post which is a PAWS and is with normal mitigation extraction 0.22km from the sites measures no adverse boundary, and Pereers effects on these Wood, a PAWS which ancient woodland sites is 0.88km from the site is expected. If the site boundary. is worked above the water table, with normal mitigation measures, no adverse effects on the ancient woodland sites is expected.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Briton’s Lane sand and for this site to contain geodiversity are gravel member, geodiversity priority expected post overlying Chalk features. restoration. It would be formations. The useful for restoration to Briton’s Lane sands provide opportunities and gravels are known for further geological to contain priority research of suitable features such as exposures palaesols and erratics in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote No details on proposed 0 ? innovative solutions restoration of the site No effect during No details of a for the restoration have been provided, extraction phase proposed restoration

B194

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and after use of but it is assumed that scheme have been minerals sites the site will mainly be provided. restored to agriculture. The preferred restoration for the site would include deciduous woodland and acid grassland. SA8: To protect The site is located -- - and enhance the within the Glaven Valley The site is a single Mineral extraction will quality and Conservation Area. It is large arable field. result in landscape distinctiveness of not within the AONB or There is an active change which due to the countryside and a Core River Valley. mineral working to the the open nature of the landscape south of the site. To surrounding landscape the north are the would be visible from a outskirts of Holt, across variety of viewpoints. the B1149. There are However, an clear views of the appropriate mitigation northern part of the site strategy and restoration from the Hunworth scheme should ensure Road and the land to no unacceptable the west is visible in an impacts. open view from Thornage. There are a group of residential properties adjacent to the north-west boundary of the site and the site would require screening, in the form of advance planting of boundary hedges and woodland, and a standoff area from these properties and the adjacent PROW for the site to be acceptable. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right -- 0 to improved health of Way adjacent to the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of northern boundary of to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities the site (Holt RB22). impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk The nearest residential PRoW and the nearby on restoration. property is 11m from dwellings would not be the site boundary. significant. However, it There are 82 sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary measures to ensure no and 17 of these are unacceptable impacts within 100m of the site could be conditioned. boundary.

B195

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is worked No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) above the water table, resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer with normal mitigation post extraction. (bedrock). The majority measures, no adverse of the site is within effects on water groundwater Source resources are Protection Zone 3. expected. A Hydrogeological Risk Assessment would be required at the planning application stage.

Potential for BMV If the site is not The site is Grade 3 agricultural land to be restored to agriculture, agricultural land and affected by mineral there could be a could potentially be extraction within the permanent loss of BMV Grade 3a which is site. agricultural land. classified within the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 0.1km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Holt. These is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low probability of flooding from either development surface water flooding, rivers, the sea or with two small locations surface water. of surface water pooling Sand and gravel in a 1 in 100 year extraction is considered rainfall event which to be a ‘water expand in a 1 in 1000 compatible’ land use year rainfall event. which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry

B196

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity, water resources and amenity; it is considered that not all of these effects could be appropriately mitigated. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES. The comments for SA3 have been amended to include the number of properties within 100m of the site boundary, but the assessment score has not changed. The comments for SA6 have been amended to include Holt Country Park CWS and the assessment text has been changed to state that the impacts on Holt Lowes SSSI are uncertain at the extraction phase; the assessment score has changed to ‘- -‘ for the extraction phase. The assessment text for SA8 has been amended to refer to the need for the site boundary to be set back from the adjacent PROW but the assessment score has not changed. The comments for SA9 have been amended to include the number of properties within 100m of the site boundary, and the assessment score has changed to ‘- - ‘ for the extraction phase. The conclusion has been changed to state that not all of the potential negative effects could be appropriately mitigated.

B197

MIN 115 – land at Lord Anson’s Wood, near North Walsham

Proposal: Extraction of 1,100,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 16.88 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 1.1km from ++ 0 and mitigate the North Walsham and Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate 5.9km from Aylsham, requires energy and climate change post change by reducing which are the nearest therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to towns. There would also be Restoration could climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but North Walsham is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 8 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is 352m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. The extraction is not restoration settlement of North expected to cause Walsham is 926m vibration. It is away. considered that noise The effect on visual and dust can be intrusion is assessed mitigated to acceptable under objective SA8. levels within 250m of the source. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 - and enhance the Building is the Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Thatched cottage which would be required to should ensure the townscape and is 810m away. There support any future historic value of assets

B198

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction historic are 11 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral should identify potential extraction will result in The nearest Scheduled impacts to heritage landscape change; Monument is ‘Cross assets and suggest however, an 300m NW of Tollbar appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration Cottages’, which is scheme should ensure 850m from the site. No effects expected no unacceptable There are three during extraction impacts on the setting Scheduled Monuments of heritage assets. within 2km of the site.

North Walsham No effect expected No effect post Conservation Area is during extraction. extraction 1.97km from the site.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

The site contains a HE There is the potential No effect post record for a WW2 that unknown extraction aircraft crash site; no archaeology exists on other HE records are the site and an noted. The site is in a assessment of the wider landscape with a significance of number of finds and archaeological remains features with medieval will be required at the iron working activity, planning application and a battlefield site stage, in order to immediately to the east. protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity Bryant’s Heath, The proposed No impacts to SSSIs Felmingham SSSI is extraction site would be are expected post 0.7km from the site worked dry (above the extraction. boundary. water table). Therefore Westwick Lakes SSSI there would be no is 0.45km from the site adverse impacts to boundary. SSSIs.

CWS 1170 ‘Lord There is the potential No impacts to CWSs Anson’s Wood’ is for impacts from dust are expected post adjacent to the site deposition although extraction. boundary. CWS 1171 with normal mitigation ‘North Walsham Wood’ measures no adverse

B199

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction is 330m from the site effects on these CWSs boundary and CWS is expected. If the site 1172 ‘Weaver’s Way’ is is worked above the 450m from the site water table, with boundary. normal mitigation measures, no adverse effects on the CWSs are expected.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland are woodland are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

This site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Briton’s Lane sand and for this site to contain geodiversity are gravel member, examples of expected post overlying Wroxham geodiversity priority restoration. It would be Crag Formation-sand features. useful for restoration to and gravel. The provide opportunities Briton’s Lane sands for further geological and gravels are known research of suitable to contain priority exposures features such as palaesols and erratics in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote No details on proposed 0 ? innovative solutions restoration of the site No effect during No details of a for the restoration have been provided. extraction phase proposed restoration and after use of The preferred scheme have been minerals sites restoration for the site provided. would be a mix of deciduous woodland and heathland with public access. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is an area of Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or largely coniferous result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated woodland, although change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. there is some scrubby appropriate mitigation landscape regrowth. Surrounding strategy and restoration the site is an area of scheme should ensure predominately no unacceptable broadleaved woodland, impacts. and the site is within a wider Parkland setting. The retention of woodland buffer zones would form a key requirement for this site to be satisfactory in

B200

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction landscape terms and visual impact terms. SA9: To contribute There are no Public 0 ? to improved health Rights of Way within or There is unlikely to be Whilst no details on and amenity of adjacent to the site. a significant impact on proposed restoration of local communities There is a PROW close health or amenity from the site have been in Norfolk to the northern mineral extraction provided, the boundary of the site within the site. restoration scheme for (north Walsham FP9). the site should include The nearest residential public access which property is 352m from could contribute to the site boundary. improved health and amenity of local communities. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0 0 and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) worked dry (above the resources post Norfolk and a principal aquifer water table) and extraction. (bedrock). However, therefore no effect on there are no water resources is groundwater Source expected. Protection Zones within the proposed site.

The site is classified as No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV non-agricultural land. agricultural soils. agricultural soils. SA11: To promote The site is 1.1km from ++ 0 sustainable use of North Walsham and Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources 5.9km from Aylsham. nearest settlement extraction These are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low probability of flooding from either development surface water flooding river, the sea or surface with one very small water. Sand and location of surface gravel extraction is water pooling in a 1 in considered to be a 1000 year rainfall ‘water compatible’ land event. use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals

B201

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, geodiversity, landscape and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the SA assessment score and text for SA9 have been amended to include the preference for public access to be included in a restoration scheme for the site.

B202

MIN 207 – land at Pinkney Field, Briston

Proposal: Extraction of 400,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 12.5 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 3.7km from ++ 0 and mitigate the Holt, which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest town. requires energy and climate change post change by reducing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Holt is less than 5km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential 0 0 noise, vibration and property is 280m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. The extraction is not restoration settlement of Hunworth expected to cause is 692m away. vibration. It is The effect on visual considered that noise intrusion is assessed and dust can be under objective SA8. mitigated to acceptable levels within 250m of the source. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Building is the Grade II* A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the ‘Remains of the church would be required to should ensure the townscape and of St Peter and St Paul’ support any future historic value of assets which is 750m away. planning application. is appropriately

B203

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction historic There are 36 Listed The heritage statement preserved. Mineral environment Buildings within 2km of should identify potential extraction will result in the site. 13 of these are impacts to heritage landscape change; within the Hunworth assets and suggest however, an Conservation Area, appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration which is 0.73km from which may include scheme should ensure the site. identification of areas no unacceptable where mineral impacts on the setting The site is within the extraction would be of heritage assets. Glaven Valley inappropriate. Conservation Area. The site is 1.59km from Edgefield Conservation Area.

There are 2 Scheduled No effects expected No effect post Monuments within 2km during extraction extraction. of the site. The nearest Scheduled Monument is ‘Castle Hill medieval ringwork, Hunworth’, which is 0.88km away.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are no Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records that unknown extraction within the site archaeology exists on boundary. The site the site and an immediately to the west assessment of the has been investigated significance of and no finds or features archaeological remains were identified. There will be required at the are isolated multi-period planning application finds in the wider stage, in order to landscape. protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 2.57km from 0 0 and enhance Holt Lowes SSSI which The proposed No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s is part of the Norfolk extraction site would be SACs, Ramsar sites or biodiversity and Valley Fens SAC. worked dry (above the SSSIs are expected. geodiversity water table) and is located up-gradient of the SSSI. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts to the SSSI or SAC.

B204

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction There are no County Due to distance, no No impacts to County Wildlife Site within 1km impacts on County Wildlife Sites are of the site boundary. Wildlife Sites are expected post expected. extraction.

The nearest ancient No adverse impacts on No impacts to ancient woodland site is Lowes the ancient woodland woodland sites are Farm Wood, a PAWS, are expected due to the expected post which is 1.27km from distance from the site extraction. the site boundary. and because the site would be worked dry.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Briton’s Lane sand and for this site to contain geodiversity are gravel member, examples of expected post Lowestoft Formation - geodiversity priority restoration. It would be diamicton, overlying features. useful for restoration to Chalk Formations. The provide opportunities Briton’s Lane sands for further geological and gravels are known research of suitable to contain priority exposures. features such as palaesols and erratics in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote The majority of the site 0 + innovative solutions is proposed to be No effect during Restoration to an for the restoration restored to an extraction phase agricultural reservoir and after use of agricultural reservoir, would be beneficial minerals sites with the unworked area because it would of the site restored to reduce the need for agricultural grassland. water abstraction for irrigation. The unworked area of land would be restored to agricultural grassland. The banks of the reservoir will be restored to acid grassland which would provide some biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is within the -- - and enhance the Glaven Valley The western boundary Mineral extraction will quality and Conservation Area. The of the site is adjacent to result in landscape distinctiveness of site is not located within the existing mineral change; however, an the countryside and the AONB or a Core extraction site, which is appropriate mitigation landscape River Valley. being restored to an strategy and restoration agricultural reservoir. scheme should ensure Woodland borders part no unacceptable of the northern impacts.

B205

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction boundary and screens the site from Hunworth. The eastern and southern boundaries border agricultural fields; however the rolling nature of the landscape, together with isolated woodland copses and hedgerows aid with screening from the Hunworth Road and the Edgefield Road, such that there are few very limited views of the site. SA9: To contribute There are no Public 0 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or There is unlikely to be New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. a significant impact on are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential health or amenity from provided within the site in Norfolk property is 280m from mineral extraction on restoration. the site boundary. within the site. SA10: To protect The site is partially 0/- 0/- and enhance water located over a The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary A aquifer worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk and partially over a water table) and post extraction. Secondary therefore no effect on (undifferentiated) water resources is aquifer (superficial expected. deposits). The site is

also located over a

principal aquifer

(bedrock). However,

there are no

groundwater SPZs

within the proposed

site. The site is proposed to

be restored to an Potential for BMV The site is Grade 3 agricultural reservoir agricultural land to be agricultural land and with the unworked part affected by mineral could potentially be of the site restored to extraction within the Grade 3a which is agricultural grassland. site. classified within the Therefore, there could

Best and Most Versatile be a permanent loss of agricultural land. BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 3.7km from ++ 0 sustainable use of Holt. This is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plan.

B206

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. No areas being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing of the site are at risk of flooding from either development surface water flooding. rivers, the sea or surface water. Sand and gravel extraction is considered to be a ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, amenity and agricultural land; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity or agriculture on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, the comments and assessment for SA7 and SA10 have been updated to reflect the current proposed restoration, but there are no changes to the SA assessment scores.

B207

MIN 208 – land south of Holt Road, East Beckham

Proposal: Extraction of 1,320,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 16.56 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 5.5km from + 0 and mitigate the Cromer and 5.9km from Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate Holt, which are the requires energy and climate change post change by reducing nearest towns. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Cromer and Holt are less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential - 0 noise, vibration and property is 197m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are three expected to cause sensitive receptors vibration. It is within 250m of the site considered that noise boundary. The and dust can be settlement of East mitigated to acceptable Beckham is 560m levels within 250m of away. the source; the greatest The effect on visual impacts will be within intrusion is assessed 100m, if uncontrolled. under objective SA8. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed - - and enhance the Building is Grade II Hall

B208

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the Farmhouse which is A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and 270m away. There are would be required to should ensure the historic 14 Listed buildings support any future historic value of assets environment within 2km of the site. planning application. is appropriately 9 of these are within the The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Upper Sheringham should identify potential extraction will result in Conservation Area impacts to heritage landscape change; which is 250m from the assets and suggest however, an site. appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration which may include scheme should ensure identification of areas no unacceptable The only Scheduled where mineral impacts on the setting Monument within 2km extraction would be of heritage assets. of the site is the ‘Oval inappropriate. barrow and bowl barrow known as Howe’s Hill’ No effects expected No effect post which is 1.6km away. during extraction. extraction.

Sheringham Hall, a No effects expected No effect post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Park is 1.02km from the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records of that unknown extraction prehistoric flint finds archaeology exists on and a medieval hollow the site and an way within the site assessment of the boundary. The site is in significance of a wider landscape with archaeological remains a significant number of will be required at the finds and features from planning application multiple periods. stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is 1.45km from The proposed No adverse effects on Norfolk’s Sheringham and extraction site would be this SSSI and SAC are biodiversity and Beeston Regis worked dry (above the expected post geodiversity Commons SSSI, which water table) and is extraction. is part of the Norfolk located in a different Valley Fens SAC. hydrological catchment to the SSSI and SAC. Therefore there would be no adverse impacts on the SSSI and SAC.

Weybourne Cliffs SSSI There would be no No effects are expected is 2.64km from the site. adverse effects on this post extraction. geological SSSI during extraction.

B209

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

CWS 1146 ‘Pretty Due to the distance No adverse effects on Corner and the Plains’ from the County County Wildlife Sites is 400m from the site Wildlife Sites there are expected post boundary. CWS 2077 would be no impacts extraction. ‘Sheringham Old Wood’ from dust deposition. is 480m from the site The proposed boundary and CWS extraction site would be 1145 ‘Gibbet and worked dry and Marlpit Plantations’ is therefore the CWSs 270m from the site would not be adversely boundary. affected.

The nearest ancient No adverse impacts on No effects on ancient woodland site is a the ancient woodland woodland sites are PAWS and ASNW are expected due to the expected post (unnamed) in Upper distance from the site extraction. Sheringham, which is and because the site is 1.05km from the site would be worked dry. boundary.

The site consists of The site contains No adverse impacts to Head deposits-clay, silt, examples of geodiversity are sand & gravel which are geodiversity priority expected post priority features due to features. restoration. It would be their method of useful for restoration to formation, Briton’s Lane provide opportunities sand and gravel for further geological member, overlying research of suitable Wroxham Crag exposures. Formation-sand and gravel. The Briton’s Lane sands and gravels are known to contain priority features such as palaesols and erratics in other locations, and therefore they may occur on this site. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a mosaic No effect during The proposed for the restoration of native woodland, extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of scrub, acid grasslands would provide some minerals sites and exposed faces. biodiversity and geodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located - - and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is currently an Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or agricultural field, and result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated part of the field change which due to the countryside and landscape feature. It is contains a solar farm. the sloping nature of landscape approximately 210m The site is a south- the site would be visible western extension to from a variety of

B210

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction from the boundary of an active mineral viewpoints; however, the AONB. working. It is a an appropriate southerly sloping site mitigation strategy and adjacent to a solar farm restoration scheme to the west. The site is would minimise the well screened from impact. public roads, although a long view can be seen from the A149 to the north and from Sheringham Road and The Street, West Beckham to the west. The Public Right of Way on the southern boundary of the site has some views. The site is generally well screened but this will require reinforcement to mitigate any landscape impacts. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right - 0 to improved health of Way adjacent to the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of southern boundary of to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities the site (East Beckham impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk FP2). PRoW and the nearby on restoration. The nearest residential dwellings would not be property is 197m from significant. However, it the site boundary. is considered that There are three appropriate mitigation sensitive receptors measures to ensure no within 250m of the site unacceptable impacts boundary. could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is partially 0/- 0/- and enhance water located over a The site would be No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary A aquifer worked dry (above the resources is expected Norfolk and partially over a water table) and post extraction. Secondary therefore no effect on (undifferentiated) water resources is aquifer (superficial expected. deposits). The site is also located over a principal aquifer (bedrock). The site is within groundwater Source Protection Zone 2.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV The site is proposed to agricultural land and agricultural land to be be restored to nature could potentially be affected by mineral conservation instead of

B211

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Grade 3a which is extraction within the agriculture, therefore classified within the site. there could be a Best and Most Versatile permanent loss of BMV agricultural land. agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 5.5km from + 0 sustainable use of Cromer and 5.9km from Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources Holt. These are the nearest settlement extraction nearest settlements allocated for significant allocated for significant growth. growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers. The site being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing has a low probability of flooding from either development surface water flooding, rivers, the sea or with two areas of surface water. surface water pooling in Sand and gravel a 1 in 1000 year rainfall extraction is considered event. to be a ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry. Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, geodiversity, landscape, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? NO

B212

South Norfolk sites

MIN 209 – land adjacent to the A143, Earsham (Extension Area 1)

Proposal: Extraction of 435,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 7.74 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 8.2km from + 0 and mitigate the Harleston, which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest town in Norfolk. requires energy and climate change post change by reducing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Harleston is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 33m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 108 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise Most of these are in the and dust can be settlement of Earsham, mitigated to acceptable which is 33m away. levels within 250m of However, the land the source; the greatest nearest to Earsham is impacts will be within not proposed to be 100m, if uncontrolled. extracted, therefore the Noise and dust nearest residential assessments, and property is 97m from mitigation measures to the extraction area and appropriately control there are 63 sensitive any amenity impacts, receptors within 250m must form part of any of the extraction area (2 planning application for of these are within mineral extraction. 100m of the proposed extraction area). The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be

B213

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Building is Grade II 38 A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the and 39 Hall Road which would be required to should ensure, the townscape and is 76m away. There support any future historic value of assets historic are 206 Listed planning application. is appropriately environment Buildings within 2km of The heritage statement preserved. Mineral the site. 173 of these should identify potential extraction will result in are within the Bungay impacts to heritage landscape change; Conservation Area, assets and suggest however, an which is 1.41km from appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration the site. which may include scheme should ensure identification of areas no unacceptable where mineral impacts on the setting The nearest Scheduled extraction would be of heritage assets. Monument is Bungay inappropriate. Castle which is 1.51km away. There are 3 No effects expected No effect post Scheduled Monuments during extraction. extraction. within 2km of the site. No effects expected There are no during extraction No effect post Registered Historic extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential that unknown A Historic Environment archaeology exists on No effect post record of features the site and an extraction related to historic assessment of the roadways occurs within significance of the site boundary. The archaeological remains site is in a wider will be required at the landscape with a planning application significant number of stage, in order to finds and features from protect and mitigate the multiple periods, impact of mineral including Roman extraction in this site. features. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity Abbey Wood, Flixton There would be no No impacts on SSSIs SSSI is 2.56km from adverse impacts to the are expected post the site boundary. SSSI due to distance extraction. and because the proposed extraction

B214

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction site is located in a different hydrological catchment to the SSSI.

The nearest CWS is Due to the distance No impacts to CWSs CWS 125 ‘Holy Grove’ from the site no are expected post which is 730m from the adverse impacts are extraction. site boundary. expected on the CWS. No impacts to the The nearest ancient Due to the distance ancient woodland site is woodland site is Holy from the site, no expected post Grove, a ASNW which adverse impacts are extraction. is 0.80km from the site expected on the boundary. ancient woodland. No adverse impacts to geodiversity are The site consists of The site contains expected post Lowestoft Formation- examples of restoration. It would be river terrace deposits geodiversity priority useful for restoration to (sand and gravel); features. provide opportunities which are geodiversity for further geological priority features; research of suitable overlying the Crag exposures. group. There is significant potential for vertebrate fossils within the Crag Group. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to wet No effect during The proposed for the restoration grassland with extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of landscaping, ponds/ would provide some minerals sites scrape and geological biodiversity and exposure, all to a geodiversity gains. nature conservation afteruse. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is an arable Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or field to the south of result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated residential properties, change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. currently bounded by a appropriate mitigation landscape low post and rail fence strategy and restoration and intermittent trees to scheme should ensure the south east along no unacceptable the A143. The impacts northern boundary is open to Hall Road and enclosed with vegetation and trees along the boundary of residential properties. The impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider

B215

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction landscape would predominantly be the decreased long distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting to screen the mineral working from view. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk property is 33m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are 108 sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary. measures to ensure no Most of these are in the unacceptable impacts settlement of Earsham, could be conditioned. which is 33m away. However, the land nearest to Earsham is not proposed to be extracted, therefore the nearest residential property is 97m from the extraction area and there are 63 sensitive receptors within 250m of the extraction area (2 of these are within 100m of the proposed extraction area). SA10: To protect The site is located over -/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer the potential for post extraction. (bedrock). However, adverse impacts exists, there are no although appropriate groundwater Source assessment and Protection Zones within mitigation measures the proposed site. could ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur.

B216

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Best and Most Versatile permanent loss of BMV agricultural land. agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 8.2km from + 0 sustainable use of Harleston. This is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plans in Norfolk. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development The site has a low risk rivers, the sea or of surface water surface water. flooding with one Sand and gravel location of surface extraction is considered water pooling in a 1 in to be a ‘water 30, 1 in 100 and 1 in compatible’ land use 1000 year rainfall which is suitable in all event. flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, geodiversity, water resources, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes. Whilst the proposed extraction area has remained the same, the site boundary has been extended to include the land that would be used for bunding and screen planting. Therefore, the text for the following SA objectives has been updated to take into account the difference that the site boundary change would make to the distance from the site to various planning constraints: SA3 (distance to residential dwellings and Earsham), SA5 (distance to listed buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas), SA6 (distance to SSSI, CWS and ancient woodland), and SA9 (distance to residential dwellings and Earsham). These changes have resulted in a ‘—’ score for SA3 and SA9 during the extraction phase, but there are no other changes to the SA assessment scores.

B217

MIN 210 – land adjacent to the A143, Earsham (Extension Area 2)

Proposal: Extraction of 750,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 12.69 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 7.4km from + 0 and mitigate the Harleston, which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest town in Norfolk. requires energy and climate change post change by reducing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Harleston is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 16m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 3 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and 2 of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Earsham the source; the greatest is 254m away. impacts will be within However, land at the 100m, if uncontrolled. south-west corner, the Noise and dust north-east corner and assessments, and land close to Park Farm mitigation measures to cottages is not appropriately control proposed to be any amenity impacts, extracted. Therefore, must form part of any the nearest residential planning application for property is 90m from mineral extraction. the extraction area and there are three sensitive receptors within 250m of the extraction area (2 of these are within 100m). The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8.

B218

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Building is the Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the River Farmhouse which would be required to should ensure the townscape and is 220m away. There support any future historic value of assets historic are 64 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 25 of them are within should identify potential extraction will result in Bungay Conservation impacts to heritage landscape change; Area which is 1.7km assets and suggest however, an from the site. appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration which may include scheme should ensure The nearest Scheduled identification of areas no unacceptable Monument is the where mineral impacts on the setting Moated site of Flixton extraction would be of heritage assets. Priory which is 1.78km inappropriate. away. There are five Scheduled Monuments No effects expected No effect post within 2km of the site. during extraction. restoration.

There are no Registered Historic No effects expected No effect post Parks and Gardens during extraction extraction within 2km of the site.

There are no Historic There is the potential Environment records that unknown No effect post within the site archaeology exists on extraction boundary. The site is in the site and an a wider landscape with assessment of the a significant number of significance of finds and features from archaeological remains multiple periods, will be required at the including a WW1 planning application airfield site, and a WW2 stage, in order to roadside bomb store. protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity

B219

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Abbey Wood, Flixton There would be no No impacts on SSSIs SSSI is 1.90km from adverse impacts to the are expected. the site boundary. SSSI due to distance and because the proposed extraction site is located in a different hydrological catchment to the SSSI.

The nearest CWS is Due to the distance No impacts on CWS CWS 125 ‘Holy Grove’ from the site no are expected. which is 910m from the adverse impacts on the site boundary. CWS are expected.

The nearest ancient Due to the distance No impacts on ancient woodland site is Holy from the site, no woodland sites are Grove, a ASNW which adverse impacts on the expected post is 0.96km from the site ancient woodland are extraction. boundary. expected.

The site consists of The site contains No adverse impacts to Lowestoft Formation- examples of geodiversity are river terrace deposits geodiversity priority expected post (sand and gravel); features. restoration. It would be which are geodiversity useful for restoration to priority features; provide opportunities overlying the Crag for further geological group. There is research of suitable significant potential for exposures. vertebrate fossils within the Crag Group. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to wet No effect during The proposed for the restoration grassland with extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of landscaping, ponds/ would provide some minerals sites scrape and geological biodiversity and exposure, all to a geodiversity gains. nature conservation afteruse. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is a long Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or narrow field bounded result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated by a road on each side. change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. Along the A143 the site appropriate mitigation landscape is raised slightly from strategy and restoration the road level to the scheme should ensure south. The impact of no unacceptable the proposed mineral impacts. working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long

B220

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting to screen the mineral working from view. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk property is 16m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are 3 sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary measures to ensure no and 2 of these are unacceptable impacts within 100m of the site could be conditioned. boundary. The settlement of Earsham is 254m away. However, land at the south-west corner, the north-east corner and land close to Park Farm cottages is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 90m from the extraction area and there are three sensitive receptors within 250m of the extraction area (2 of these are within 100). SA10: To protect The site is located over -/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer the potential for post extraction. (bedrock). However, adverse impacts exists, there are no although appropriate groundwater Source assessment and Protection Zones within mitigation measures the proposed site. could ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur. The site is Grade 3 The site is proposed to agricultural land and Potential for BMV be restored to nature could potentially be agricultural land to be conservation instead of Grade 3a which is affected by mineral agriculture, therefore classified within the there could be a

B221

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Best and Most Versatile extraction within the permanent loss of BMV agricultural land. site. agricultural land.

SA11: To promote The site is 7.4 km from + 0 sustainable use of Harleston. This is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plans in Norfolk. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development No areas of the site are rivers, the sea or at risk of surface water surface water. flooding. Sand and gravel extraction is considered to be a ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, geodiversity, water resources, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry. Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes. Whilst the proposed extraction area has remained the same, the site boundary has been extended to include the land that would be used for bunding and screen planting. Therefore, the text for the following SA objectives has been updated to take into account the difference that the site boundary change would make to the distance from the site to various planning constraints: SA3 (distance to residential dwellings and Earsham), SA5 (distance to listed buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas), SA6 (distance to SSSI, CWS and ancient woodland), and SA9 (distance to residential dwellings and Earsham). These changes have resulted in a ‘--’ score for SA3 and SA9 during the extraction phase, but there are no other changes to the SA assessment scores.

B222

MIN 211 – land west of Bath Hills Road, Earsham (Extension Area 3)

Proposal: Extraction of 485,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 9.54 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 8.5km from + 0 and mitigate the Harleston, which is the Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate nearest town in Norfolk. requires energy and climate change post change by reducing therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Harleston is less than 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is adjacent to Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 25 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and 5 of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. The levels within 250m of settlement of Earsham the source; the greatest is 215m away. impacts will be within However, land at the 100m, if uncontrolled. south-eastern corner of Noise and dust the site is not proposed assessments, and to be extracted. mitigation measures to Therefore, the nearest appropriately control residential property is any amenity impacts, 43m from the extraction must form part of any area and there are 7 planning application for sensitive receptors mineral extraction. within 250m of the extraction area (5 of these are within 100m of the extraction area). The effect on visual intrusion is assessed under objective SA8. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be

B223

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- -- and enhance the Buildings are Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Rookery Farmhouse would be required to should ensure the townscape and which is 170m away support any future historic value of assets historic and Grade II 38 & 39 planning application. is appropriately environment Hall Road, which is The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 10m away. There are should identify potential extraction will result in 194 Listed Buildings impacts to heritage landscape change; within 2km of the site. assets and suggest however, an 161 of these are within appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Bungay Conservation which may include scheme should ensure Area which is 1.38km identification of areas no unacceptable from the site. where mineral impacts on the setting extraction would be of heritage assets. The nearest Scheduled inappropriate. Monument is Bungay Castle which is 1.62km No effect expected No effects post away. There are 3 during extraction. extraction. Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the site. No effects expected No effects post There are no during extraction extraction Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential No effects post A Historic Environment that unknown extraction record of the remains of archaeology exists on a ring ditch is shown the site and an within the site assessment of the boundary. The site is in significance of a wider landscape with archaeological remains a significant number of will be required at the finds and features from planning application multiple periods, stage, in order to including a Bronze Age protect and mitigate the cemetery and a WW2 impact of mineral bomb store adjacent to extraction in this site. the site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is more than No impacts on SPAs, No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s 5km from any SPA, SACs or Ramsar sites SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and SAC or Ramsar site. are expected. are expected. geodiversity Sexton Wood SSSI is Due to distance, no No impacts on SSSIs 2.22km from the site impacts on SSSIs are are expected. boundary, however, the expected.

B224

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction site is not within the Impact Risk Zone for any SSSIs.

CWS 125 ‘Holy Grove’ The potential exists for is 130m from the site hydrological impacts on No impacts to CWSs boundary. CWS 134 the CWS and ancient are expected post ‘Great Wood & America woodland sites from extraction. Wood’ is 255m from the mineral extraction at site boundary and CWS this site, if dewatering 2102 ‘Rich’s Hill’ is is used. An 430m from the site assessment of potential boundary. hydrological impacts, together with The nearest ancient appropriate mitigation woodland sites are: would be required as No impacts to the Holy Grove, a ASNW part of any planning ancient woodland sites which is 0.23km from application. are expected post the site boundary; extraction. Great Wood, a ASNW and PAWS which is 0.34km from the site boundary and America Wood, a ASNW which is 0.34km from the site boundary. No adverse impacts to geodiversity are The site consists of The site contains expected post Lowestoft Formation- examples of restoration. It would be river terrace deposits geodiversity priority useful for restoration to (sand and gravel); features. provide opportunities which are geodiversity for further geological priority features; research of suitable overlying the Crag exposures. group. There is significant potential for vertebrate fossils within the Crag Group. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to wet No effect during The proposed for the restoration grassland with extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of landscaping, ponds/ would provide some minerals sites scrape and geological biodiversity and exposure, all to a geodiversity gains. nature conservation afteruse. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is irregular in Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley of shape with dense result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated woodland bounding the change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. The western boundary, low appropriate mitigation landscape site is adjacent to the lying vegetation to the strategy and restoration

B225

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction boundary of the Broads south and open scheme should ensure Authority Executive roadside to the east. no unacceptable Area. To the north the land impacts slopes down, resulting in the northern section of the site not being visible from Hall Road. The impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to bunding and advanced planting to screen the mineral working from view. SA9: To contribute There are no Public -- 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk property is adjacent to dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are 25 sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary measures to ensure no and 5 of these are unacceptable impacts within 100m of the site could be conditioned. boundary. However, land at the south- eastern corner of the site is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore, the nearest residential property is 43m from the extraction area and there are 7 sensitive receptors within 250m of the extraction area (5 of these are within 100m of the extraction area). SA10: To protect -/- 0/- and enhance water The site is located over If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in a Secondary A aquifer as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk (superficial deposits) the potential for post extraction. and a principal aquifer adverse impacts exists, (bedrock). There are although appropriate no groundwater Source assessment and

B226

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Protection Zones within mitigation measures the proposed site. could ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur. The site is Grade 3 The site is proposed to agricultural land and Potential for BMV be restored to nature could potentially be agricultural land to be conservation instead of Grade 3a which is affected by mineral agriculture, therefore classified within the extraction within the there could be a Best and Most Versatile site. permanent loss of BMV agricultural land. agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 8.5km from + 0 sustainable use of Harleston. This is the Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources nearest settlement nearest settlement extraction allocated for significant allocated for significant growth in the adopted growth. Local Plans in Norfolk. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development No areas of the site are rivers, the sea or at risk of surface water surface water. Sand flooding. and gravel extraction is considered to be a ‘water compatible’ land use which is suitable in all flood zones. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations and is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity, water resources, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

B227 used for bunding and screen planting. Therefore, the text for the following SA objectives has been updated to take into account the difference that the site boundary change would make to the distance from the site to various planning constraints: SA3 (distance to residential dwellings and Earsham), SA5 (distance to listed buildings, Scheduled Monuments and Conservation Areas), SA6 (distance to SSSI, CWS and ancient woodland), and SA9 (distance to residential dwellings and Earsham). These changes have resulted in a ‘--’ score for SA3 and SA9 during the extraction phase, but there are no other changes to the SA assessment scores.

B228

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

Proposal: Extraction of 1,300,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 21.95 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 11km from 0 0 and mitigate the Great Yarmouth and Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate 10.5km from Gorleston- requires energy and climate change post change by reducing on-Sea, which are the therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to nearest towns. There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns. Great Yarmouth and Gorleston are just over 10km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an - 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Due to increased HGV No effect post with the National new extraction site, it movements. However, restoration Air Quality may lead to an increase the increased number Standards of 80 HGV movements of HGV movements per day. due to mineral transport would not be significant compared to overall HGV transport. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 19m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 53 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary considered that noise and 15 of these are and dust can be within 100m of the site mitigated to acceptable boundary. Most of levels within 250m of these properties are the source; the greatest within the settlement of impacts will be within Haddiscoe, which is 100m, if uncontrolled. 55m away. Noise and dust The effect on visual assessments, and intrusion is assessed mitigation measures to under objective SA8. appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B229

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain There are three Listed -- -- and enhance the Building within 250m of A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the the site; they are Grade would be required to should ensure the townscape and II White House Farm support any future historic value of assets historic (70m away), Grade I planning application. is appropriately environment Church of St Mary The heritage statement preserved. Mineral (110m away), Grade II should identify potential extraction will result in Monument to William impacts to heritage landscape change; Salter set in the assets and suggest however, an churchyard wall (130m appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration away). There are 13 scheme should ensure Listed Buildings within no unacceptable 2km of the site. impacts on the setting of heritage assets.

There are no No effects expected No effect post Scheduled Monuments, during extraction. extraction Conservation Areas or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

There are Historic There is the potential No effects post Environment records of that unknown extraction multi-period finds and archaeology exists on features within the site the site and an boundary. The site is in assessment of the a wider landscape with significance of a significant number of archaeological remains finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods. planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 3.84km from - 0 and enhance The Broads SAC and No adverse impacts on No impacts to the SAC, Norfolk’s Broadland SPA and the SAC, SPA, Ramsar SPA, Ramsar or SSSIs biodiversity and Ramsar site and is or SSSIs are expected are expected post geodiversity outside the Impact Risk due to the distance extraction. Zone for Halvergate from the site. Marshes SSSI and Standley and Alder Carrs Aldeby SSSI, which form part of these internationally designated sites.

The site is 4.36 km from No adverse impacts on No impacts to the SPA Breydon Water SPA the SPA and the and Ramsar site are and Ramsar site and is Ramsar site are expected post outside the Impact Risk extraction.

B230

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Zone for Breydon Water expected due to the SSSI. distance from the site.

There are no SSSIs Due to distance, no No impacts on SSSIs within 3km of the site impacts on SSSIs are are expected. boundary and the site is expected. not within the Impact Risk Zone for any SSSIs.

The nearest CWS is There is the potential No impacts to CWSs CWS 2221 ‘Devil’s End for impacts from dust are expected post Meadow’ which is 170m deposition although extraction. from the site boundary. with normal mitigation measures no adverse effects on this CWS are expected. If the site is worked above the water table, with normal mitigation measures, no adverse effects on the CWSs are expected.

The nearest ancient If the site is worked No impacts to the woodland site is Long above the water table, ancient woodland site Row Wood, an ASNW with normal mitigation are expected post which is 1.55km from measures, no adverse extraction. the site boundary. effects on this ancient woodland site are expected.

The site consists of the There is the potential No adverse impacts to Haddiscoe formation - for this site to contain geodiversity are sand and gravel, examples of expected post Corton formation-sand geodiversity priority restoration. It would be (undifferentiated), features. useful for restoration to Lowestoft Formation - provide opportunities diamicton; overlying the for further geological Crag group. There is research of suitable significant potential for exposures. vertebrate fossils within the Crag Group. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a No effect during The proposed for the restoration combination of acid extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of grassland, woodland would provide some minerals sites planting and shallow biodiversity gains. wetland/pond. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises an Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or agricultural field which result in landscape

B231

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction distinctiveness of any other designated slopes gently to the change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. The northeast, towards the appropriate mitigation landscape site is adjacent to a Haddiscoe Marshes. strategy and restoration Core River Valley and There are mature scheme should ensure is adjacent to the screen planting forming no unacceptable boundary of the Broads hedgerows on all sides impacts Authority Executive of the site, except a Area. section of the eastern boundary closest to Manor Farm; which is the landowner’s property. It is considered that the site could be suitable in landscape terms. SA9: To contribute This is a Public Right of -- 0 to improved health Way running across the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of site (from Thorpe Road to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities to Crab Apple Lane) impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk (Haddiscoe BR5). PRoW and the nearby on restoration. The nearest residential dwellings would not be property is 19m from significant. However, it the site boundary. is considered that There are 53 sensitive appropriate mitigation receptors within 250m measures to ensure no of the site boundary unacceptable impacts and 15 of these are could be conditioned, within 100m of the site such as temporary boundary. diversion of the PROW. The operation area of the site would need to be set back around 10m from the nearest residential properties. SA10: To protect The site is located over -/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (superficial deposits) as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk and a principal aquifer the potential for post extraction. (bedrock). However, adverse impacts exists, there are no although appropriate groundwater Source assessment and Protection Zones within mitigation measures the proposed site. could ensure that no unacceptable impacts occur.

B232

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Best and Most Versatile permanent loss of BMV agricultural land. agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 11km from 0 0 sustainable use of Great Yarmouth and Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources 10.5km from Gorleston- nearest settlement extraction on-Sea. These are the allocated for significant nearest settlements growth. allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low + 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development The site has a low risk rivers, the sea or of surface water surface water. Sand flooding with two areas and gravel extraction is of surface water pooling considered to be a in a 1 in 30 and 1 in ‘water compatible’ land 100 year rainfall event. use which is suitable in There are additional all flood zones. areas of surface water pooling in a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer some local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry. Conclusion The site is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on air quality, the historic environment, landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity, water resources, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? YES, the comments for SA3 and SA9 have been amended to include the number of residential properties within 100m of the site boundary. The SA assessment score for SA3 has not changed. the SA assessment score for SA9 has been amended to ‘--’ for the extraction phase due to the proximity of residential properties. The comments for SA6 have been amended for the SSSI Impact Risk Zones but no change to the assessment.

B233

MIN 92 – land east of Ferry Lane, Heckingham

Proposal: Extraction of 570,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 15.18 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 13.6km from 0 0 and mitigate the Gorleston-on-Sea and Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate Great Yarmouth, which requires energy and climate change post change by reducing are the nearest towns. therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to There would also be Restoration would not climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but Great Yarmouth is less than 15km away. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential -- 0 noise, vibration and property is 40m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are seven expected to cause sensitive receptors vibration. It is within 250m of the site considered that noise boundary and five of and dust can be these are within 100m mitigated to acceptable of the site boundary. levels within 250m of The settlement of the source; the greatest Nogdam End is 821m impacts will be within away. 100m, if uncontrolled. The effect on visual Noise and dust intrusion is assessed assessments, and under objective SA8. mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is Grade II*

B234

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the Hardley Hall which is A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and 770m away. There are would be required to should ensure the historic 11 Listed Buildings support any future historic value of assets environment within 2km of the site. planning application. is appropriately The heritage statement preserved. Mineral The only Scheduled should identify potential extraction will result in Monument within 2km impacts to heritage landscape change; of the site is ‘Hardley assets and suggest however, an Cross, immediately appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration south-west of the rivers scheme should ensure Yare and Chet’ 1.69km No effects during no unacceptable away. extraction. impacts on the setting of heritage assets. There are no No effects expected Conservation Areas during extraction No effects post within 2km of the site. extraction

Raveningham Hall, a Registered Historic No effects expected No effects post Park and Garden is during extraction extraction 1.78km from the site. There is the potential No effects post Historic Environment that unknown extraction records exist of a archaeology exists on possible medieval the site and an settlement and multi- assessment of the period finds within the significance of site boundary. The site archaeological remains is in a wider landscape will be required at the with a significant planning application number of finds and stage, in order to features from multiple protect and mitigate the periods, including impact of mineral Saxon, Roman and extraction in this site. medieval settlement locations close to the site. SA6: To protect - 0 and enhance The site is 4.45km from No adverse impacts on No impacts to the SPA Norfolk’s Breydon Water SPA the SPA and the and Ramsar site are biodiversity and and Ramsar site. Ramsar site are expected post geodiversity expected due to the extraction. distance from the site.

The site is 0.58km from The site is expected to No impacts on the SSSI Hardley Flood SSSI, be worked dry (above is expected post which is part of The the water table), extraction Broads SAC, Broadland therefore, no adverse SPA and Ramsar site. hydrological impacts on this SSSI are expected. Due to the distance from the site no

B235

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction adverse effects from dust, noise or lighting are expected.

CWS 2194 ‘Old Hall There is the potential No impacts on the Carr and Marshes’ is for impacts from dust CWS is expected post adjacent to the site deposition although extraction boundary. with normal mitigation measures no adverse effects on these CWSs is expected. The site is expected to be worked dry (above the water table), therefore, no adverse effects on the hydrology of the CWS are expected.

There are no ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland sites within woodland sites are woodland sites are 3km of the site. expected. expected.

The site consists of the The site contains No adverse impacts to Lowestoft Formation - examples of geodiversity are sand and gravel, geodiversity priority expected post Corton Formation features. restoration. It would be (undifferentiated), Crag useful for restoration to Group and Bytham provide opportunities Formation - sand and for further geological gravel (which is a research of suitable priority feature due to exposures. its method of formation) all overlying Crag Group. There is the potential for large vertebrate fossils and other paleo- environmental evidence in deposits laid down by a tributary (River Bytham) of the proto- Thames. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a mosaic No effect during The proposed for the restoration of nature conservation extraction phase. restoration scheme and after use of and agricultural land would provide some minerals sites uses. biodiversity gains. SA8: To protect The site is not located -- - and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is adjacent to Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or the boundary of the result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated Broads Authority change which due to landscape feature. The Executive Area on the sloping nature of

B236

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction the countryside and site is adjacent to the three sides. The site the site would be visible landscape boundary of the Broads comprises an arable from a variety of Authority Executive field which slopes down viewpoints; however, Area. to the west and is an appropriate divided by a line of mitigation strategy and hedgerow oaks. The restoration scheme oaks within the site are would minimise the a notable landscape impact. feature as are the veteran oaks along the western boundary. The mature oaks in the site and proximity to the Broads Authority Executive Area would make it difficult to work this site without unacceptable landscape impacts. SA9: To contribute There are no Public - 0 to improved health Rights of Way within or Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of adjacent to the site. to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities The nearest residential impact on nearby provided within the site in Norfolk property is 40m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are seven is considered that sensitive receptors appropriate mitigation within 250m of the site measures to ensure no boundary and five of unacceptable impacts these are within 100m could be conditioned. of the site boundary. SA10: To protect The site is located 0/- 0/- and enhance water partially over a The site is expected to No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary A aquifer be worked dry (above resources is expected Norfolk (superficial deposits) the water table), post extraction. and a principal aquifer therefore no adverse (bedrock). However, effects on water there are no resources are groundwater Source expected. Protection Zones within the proposed site.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV A proportion of the site agricultural land and agricultural land to be is proposed to be could potentially be affected by mineral restored back to Grade 3a which is extraction within the agriculture. Therefore, classified within the site. as long as the topsoil Best and Most Versatile was stored correctly agricultural land. and then replaced, adverse effects on BMV agricultural land would

B237

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction relate to the proportion lost.

SA11: To promote The site is 13.6km from 0 0 sustainable use of Gorleston-on-Sea and Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources Great Yarmouth. nearest settlement extraction These are the nearest allocated for significant settlements allocated growth. for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce The site has a low ++ 0 the risk of current probability of flooding The site is at low risk of No effect post and future flooding from rivers within the being affected by extraction / restoration. at new and existing district council SFRA. flooding from either development The site has a low rivers, the sea or probability of surface surface water. Sand water flooding, with two and gravel extraction is minor surface water considered to be a flow paths developing ‘water compatible’ land within the site in a 1 in use which is suitable in 1000 year rainfall all flood zones. event. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site is located in an area of low flood risk. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, landscape, biodiversity, geodiversity, agricultural land and amenity. It is considered that the effects on landscape could not be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA3 text and SA9 text amended to update the number of sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary and to include the number sensitive receptors within 100m of the site boundary, but no change to the scoring.

B238

MIN 212 – land south of Mundham Road, Mundham

Proposal: Extraction of 325,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 4.95 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The processing site is ++ 0 and mitigate the 1km from the Norwich Mineral extraction No contributions to effects of climate urban area and within requires energy and climate change post change by reducing the Norwich Policy therefore emits CO2. extraction. contributions to Area. There would also be Restoration would climate change CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but the Norwich urban area is less than 5km from the processing site. SA2: To improve The site is not within an 0 0 air quality in line AQMA. As a proposed Vehicle movements are No effect post with the National extension to an existing not proposed to restoration Air Quality site, the number of increase during the Standards vehicle movements is extraction phase, so expected to remain the would be unlikely to same but continue for a affect air quality due to longer period. vehicle emissions. SA3: To minimise The nearest residential - 0 noise, vibration and property is 147m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 2 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Mundham is 482m mitigated to acceptable away. levels within 250m of The effect on visual the source; the greatest intrusion is assessed impacts will be within under objective SA8. 100m, if uncontrolled. Noise and dust assessments, and mitigation measures to appropriately control any amenity impacts, must form part of any planning application for mineral extraction. SA4: To improve Mineral extraction sites 0 0 accessibility to are unlikely to provide No effects expected It is unlikely that jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction enhanced public facilities and to services and facilities access would be reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B239

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA5: To maintain - - and enhance the The nearest Listed A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Buildings are the Grade would be required to should ensure the townscape and II Mundham House and support any future historic value of assets historic the stables at planning application. is appropriately environment Mundham House, The heritage statement preserved. Mineral which are 470m and should identify potential extraction will result in 440m away. There are impacts to heritage landscape change; 24 Listed Buildings assets and suggest however, an within 2km of the site. appropriate mitigation appropriate restoration scheme should ensure no unacceptable impacts on the setting of heritage assets.

There are no No effects expected No effects post Scheduled Monuments during extraction. extraction. within 2km of the site.

Seething Conservation No effects expected No effects post Area is 1.88km from the during extraction. extraction. site.

There are no No effects expected No effects post Registered Historic during extraction extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site.

A Historic Environment There is the potential No effects post record of the remains of that unknown extraction an undated road is archaeology exists on shown within the site the site and an boundary. The site is in assessment of the a wider landscape with significance of a significant number of archaeological remains finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods, planning application including a Saxon stage, in order to cemetery and a Roman protect and mitigate the settlement adjacent to impact of mineral the site. extraction in this site. SA6: To protect The site is 3.67km from - 0 and enhance Hardley Flood SSSI, Due to distance, no No impacts on SPAs, Norfolk’s which is part of the impacts on SPAs, SACs or Ramsar sites biodiversity and Broads SAC, Broadland SACs or Ramsar sites are expected. geodiversity SPA and Ramsar site are expected. and is outside the Impact Risk Zone for this SSSI.

There are no SSSIs No impacts on SSSIs within 3km of the site are expected.

B240

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction boundary and the site is Due to distance, no not within the Impact impacts on SSSIs are Risk Zone for any expected. SSSIs.

There are no County Due to distance, no No impacts on County Wildlife Sites within impacts on County Wildlife Sites are 1km of the site Wildlife Sites are expected. boundary. expected.

The nearest ancient Due to the distance No impacts on the woodland site is Hales from the site, no ancient woodland site is Hall Wood, an ASNW adverse impacts to the expected post and PAWS, which is ancient woodland site extraction 2.16km from the site are expected from the boundary. proposed mineral extraction.

The site consists of the The site contains No adverse impacts to Corton formation - sand examples of geodiversity are (undifferentiated), Head geodiversity priority expected post deposits - clay, silt, features. restoration. It would be sand & gravel which are useful for restoration to priority features due to provide opportunities their method of for further geological formation, Lowestoft research of suitable Formation - diamicton; exposures. overlying the Crag group. There is significant potential for vertebrate fossils within the Crag Group. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored to a nature No effect during The proposed for the restoration conservation afteruse extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of with species rich acid would provide some minerals sites grassland with scrub biodiversity gains. woodland and a water body fringed with reeds. SA8: To protect The site is not located - - and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises an Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or irregularly shaped area result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated of land within an arable change which due to the countryside and landscape feature. field, with the eastern the sloping nature of landscape boundary formed by a the site would be visible drain and associated from a variety of hedgerow. The viewpoints; however, western boundary is an appropriate formed by the access mitigation strategy and track to the existing restoration scheme quarry site. The site would minimise the slopes down from east impact.

B241

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction to west. The impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long distance views due to bunding to screen the mineral working from view. SA9: To contribute There is a Public Right - 0 to improved health of Way adjacent to the Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of site boundary to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities (Mundham FP6) and impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk PROW Mundham FP7 PRoW and the nearby on restoration. runs through the north- dwellings would not be west corner of the site. significant. PROW The nearest residential Mundham FP7 is property is 147m from proposed to be diverted the site boundary. around the north-west There are 2 sensitive corner of the site. receptors within 250m However, it is of the site boundary. considered that appropriate mitigation measures to ensure no unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is located -/- 0/- and enhance water partially over a If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in Secondary A aquifer as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk and a Secondary the potential for post extraction. (undifferentiated) adverse impacts exists, aquifer (superficial although appropriate deposits) and a assessment and principal aquifer mitigation measures (bedrock). However, could ensure that no there are no unacceptable impacts groundwater Source occur. Protection Zones within the proposed site.

B242

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Area. This is the allocated for significant nearest settlement growth. allocated for significant growth in the adopted Local Plan. SA12: To reduce Approximately 84% of -- + the risk of current the site is in Flood Zone The site is at high risk The proposed and future flooding 1 (lowest risk) for of flooding from rivers restoration includes a at new and existing flooding from rivers. and surface water. waterbody, therefore development The eastern part of the Sand and gravel there is the potential for site is within Flood extraction is considered this to provide some Zone 2 (medium risk) to be a ‘water temporary flood storage and Flood Zone 3 (high compatible’ land use capacity. risk) for flooding from which is suitable in all rivers. The site has a flood zones. high probability of surface water flooding with a surface water flow path running through the eastern part of the site (north- south) in a 1 in 30 year rainfall event. The area of the site included within this flow path increases in 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 year rainfall events to affect up to 10% of the site. SA13: To Although employment + 0 encourage levels at minerals sites No effect post employment tend to be low, if this restoration opportunities and site was worked it could promote economic offer continuing local growth employment opportunities. As with all potential minerals sites, it would contribute to economic growth in Norfolk by providing raw materials for the construction industry Conclusion The site scores well in terms of proximity to growth locations. There are potential negative effects on the historic environment, flood risk, landscape, geodiversity, water resources, agricultural land and amenity; however, it is considered that these effects could be appropriately mitigated. There could positive effects for biodiversity and flood risk on restoration. Sand and gravel extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides raw materials for the construction industry.

Any changes to SA assessment of effects between Initial Consultation stage (2018) and Preferred Options stage (2019)? Yes, SA9 text amended to clarify that PROW Mundham FP7 would be diverted during the extraction phase, but no change to the scoring.

B243