DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 B1 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 B2 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. B3 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 - 0 and enhance the The nearest Listed A Heritage Statement Mineral extraction will character of the building is 460m away would be required to result in landscape townscape and and is the Grade I support any future change; however, an historic Church of St Mary planning application. appropriate restoration environment Magdalen. There are The heritage statement scheme should ensure 14 Listed Buildings should identify potential no unacceptable within 2km of the site. impacts to heritage impacts on the setting assets and suggest of heritage assets. appropriate mitigation. 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. B4 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 B5 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forest Heath District Council
    Forest Heath District Council Single Issue Review Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy Document Habitats Regulations Assessment, (HRA), Screening Stage July 2012 Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the process to date 1.2 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment 1.3 Outline of Habitats Regulations Assessment process 1.4 Introduction to the HRA screening process 2. European sites potentially affected by the Single Issue Review 3. Baseline conditions affecting European sites 4. Is it necessary to proceed to the next HRA stage? Which aspects of the document require further assessment? 4.1 Screening of the Single Issue Review 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview of the process to date: In order to ensure that the Single Issue Review is compliant with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Forest Heath District Council has embarked upon an assessment of the ‘Reviews’ implications for European wildlife sites, i.e. a Habitats Regulations Assessment of the plan. This report sets out the first stage of the HRA process for the Single Issue Review, the Screening Stage. To establish if the ‘Review’ is likely to have a significant adverse effect on any European sites it is necessary to consider evidence contained in the original HRA of the Forest Heath Core Strategy DPD that was produced in March 2009. For a number of policies within the Core Strategy, including the original Policy CS7, it was considered either that significant effects would be likely, or that a precautionary approach would need to be taken as it could not be determined that those particular plan policies would not be likely to have a significant effect upon any European Site.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan
    Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan Regulation 18 HRA Report May 2021 Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan Regulation 18 HRA Report LC- 654 Document Control Box Client South Norfolk Council Habitats Regulations Assessment Report Title Regulation 18 – HRA Report Status FINAL Filename LC-654_South Norfolk_Regulation 18_HRA Report_8_140521SC.docx Date May 2021 Author SC Reviewed ND Approved ND Photo: Female broad bodied chaser by Shutterstock Regulation 18 – HRA Report May 2021 LC-654_South Norfolk_Regulation 18_HRA Report_8_140521SC.docx Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this report ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 The South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan ................................................................... 3 2.1 Greater Norwich Local Plan .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan ................................................................................ 3 2.3 Village Clusters ..........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Character Assessment Documents 2
    Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Farm Landscape Character Assessment Documents 2. Breckland District Part 1 of 5 Applicant: Norfolk Vanguard Limited Document Reference: ExA; ISH; 10.D3.1E 2.1 Deadline 3 Date: February 2019 Photo: Kentish Flats Offshore Wind Farm May 2007 Breckland District Landscape Character Assessment Final Report for Breckland District Council by Land Use Consultants LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT OF BRECKLAND DISTRICT Final Report Prepared for Breckland Council by Land Use Consultants May 2007 43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD Tel: 020 7383 5784 Fax: 020 7383 4798 [email protected] CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1 PART 1: OVERVIEW 1. Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 The landscape of Breckland...................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the report................................................................................................................................ 1 Structure of the report ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Method Statement.............................................................................. 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Data collation
    [Show full text]
  • Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm Appendix 22.14 Norfolk Vanguard Onshore Ecology Consultation Responses
    Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm Appendix 22.14 Norfolk Vanguard Onshore Ecology Consultation Responses Preliminary Environmental Information Report Volume 3 Author: Royal HaskoningDHV Applicant: Norfolk Boreas Limited Document Reference: PB5640-005-2214 Date: October 2018 Photo: Ormonde Offshore Wind Farm Date Issue Remarks / Reason for Issue Author Checked Approved No. 20/07/18 01D First draft for Norfolk Boreas Limited review GC CD DT 20/09/18 01F Final for PEIR submission GC CD AD/JL Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 2 Consultation responses Norfolk Vanguard ............................................................... 1 3 References ........................................................................................................... 27 Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page ii Tables Table 2.1 Norfolk Vanguard Consultation Responses 2 Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page iii Glossary of Acronyms CoCP Code of Construction Practice DCO Development Consent Order EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement ETG Expert Topic Group HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current HVDC High Voltage Direct Current PEIR Preliminary Environmental Information Report SoS Secretary of State Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page iv This page is intentionally blank. Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page v 1 Introduction 1. Consultation is a key driver of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, and throughout the lifecycle of the project, from the initial stages through to consent and post-consent. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • David Tyldesley and Associates Planning, Landscape and Environmental Consultants
    DAVID TYLDESLEY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNING, LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document Durwyn Liley, Rachel Hoskin, John Underhill-Day & David Tyldesley 1 DRAFT Date: 7th November 2008 Version: Draft Recommended Citation: Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Underhill-Day, J. & Tyldesley, D. (2008). Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document. Footprint Ecology, Wareham, Dorset. Report for Breckland District Council. 2 Summary This document records the results of a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of Breckland District Council’s Core Strategy. The Breckland District lies in an area of considerable importance for nature conservation with a number of European Sites located within and just outside the District. The range of sites, habitats and designations is complex. Taking an area of search of 20km around the District boundary as an initial screening for relevant protected sites the assessment identified five different SPAs, ten different SACs and eight different Ramsar sites. Following on from this initial screening the assessment identifies the following potential adverse effects which are addressed within the appropriate assessment: • Reduction in the density of Breckland SPA Annex I bird species (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark) near to new housing. • Increased levels of recreational activity resulting in increased disturbance to Breckland SPA Annex I bird species (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark). • Increased levels of people on and around the heaths, resulting in an increase in urban effects such as increased fire risk, fly-tipping, trampling. • Increased levels of recreation to the Norfolk Coast (including the Wash), potentially resulting in disturbance to interest features and other recreational impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Improvement Plan Norfolk Valley Fens
    Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS) Planning for the Future Site Improvement Plan Norfolk Valley Fens Site Improvement Plans (SIPs) have been developed for each Natura 2000 site in England as part of the Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 sites (IPENS). Natura 2000 sites is the combined term for sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protected Areas (SPA). This work has been financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community. The plan provides a high level overview of the issues (both current and predicted) affecting the condition of the Natura 2000 features on the site(s) and outlines the priority measures required to improve the condition of the features. It does not cover issues where remedial actions are already in place or ongoing management activities which are required for maintenance. The SIP consists of three parts: a Summary table, which sets out the priority Issues and Measures; a detailed Actions table, which sets out who needs to do what, when and how much it is estimated to cost; and a set of tables containing contextual information and links. Once this current programme ends, it is anticipated that Natural England and others, working with landowners and managers, will all play a role in delivering the priority measures to improve the condition of the features on these sites. The SIPs are based on Natural England's current evidence and knowledge. The SIPs are not legal documents, they are live documents that will be updated to reflect changes in our evidence/knowledge and as actions get underway.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild in the City ’ 21 May – 5 June
    Wild in the City ’ 21 May – 5 June Celebrating our 90th anniversary we’ve brought our spectacular nature reserves to Norwich! Discover 10 nature reserves around the city, beautifully photographed by artist Richard Osbourne and accompanied by sounds of nature by Richard Fair. Find the last one above the doors to The Forum where Norfolk Wildlife Trust has a huge range of activities, art and wildlife experts for families and adults alike. Photo competition Eastern Daily Press is running a photo competition this summer with a special section for Norfolk Wildlife Trust all about Norfolk’s nature. Launched in May, there are categories for children and adults, with four sections in total. Pictures will be shortlisted in September. All shortlisted pictures will be printed in the EDP and there will be an exhibition and awards night with prizes in October. For more details and how to enter visit: http://nwtru.st/photocomp Find our nature reserves in these shop windows: Cotswold Outdoor HSBC Bank Dipples Museum of Norwich The Forum Dawn in early spring at Theatre Street, London Street, Swan Lane, Bridewell Alley, Millennium Plain, “ Holme Dunes is of skylark NR2 1RG NR2 1LG NR2 1JA NR2 1AQ NR2 1TF song and the whetstone NWT RANWORTH BROAD NWT HICKLING BROAD NWT FOXLEY WOOD NWT WAYLAND WOOD NWT HOLME DUNES call of grey partridge; the shrieking oystercatcher and the three-note redshank on Jessops White Stuff Jarrold The Book Hive LUSH the saltmarsh; inland the Davey Place, London Street, Bedford Street, London Street, Gentleman’s Walk, warm chomp of cattle in the NR2 1PQ NR2 1LD NR2 1DA NR2 1HL NR2 1NA grass, and the whinny still of northbound wigeon.
    [Show full text]
  • Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society
    20 NOV 2Q02 I FXCHA^O'-"> 1 Norfolk Bird Report - 2001 Editor: Giles Dunmore Editorial 95 Review of the Year 98 Wetland Bird Surveys for Breydon and The Wash 1 05 Norfolk Bird Atlas 1 07 Systematic List 1 09 Introductions, Escapes, Ferals and Hybrids 248 Earliest and Latest Dates of Summer Migrants 253 Latest and Earliest Dates of Winter Migrants 254 Non-accepted and non-submitted records 255 Contributors 256 Ringing Report 258 Hunstanton Cliffs: a Forgotten Migration Hotspot 268 1 Yellow-legged Gulls in Norfolk: 1 96 -200 1 273 Marmora’s Warbler on Scolt Head - a first for Norfolk 28 Pallas’s Grasshopper Warbler at Blakeney Point - the second for Norfolk 283 Blyth’s Pipit at Happisburgh in September 1 999 - the second for Norfolk 285 Norfolk Mammal Report - 2001 Editor: Ian Keymer Editorial 287 Bats at Paston Great Barn 288 Memories of an ex-editor 298 Harvest Mice: more common than suspected? 299 Are we under-recording the Norfolk mink population? 301 National Key Sites for Water Voles in Norfolk 304 A Guide to identification of Shrews and Rodents 309 Published by NORFOLK AND NORWICH NATURALISTS’ SOCIETY Castle Museum, Norwich, NRl 3JU (Transactions Volume 35 part 2 October 2002) Please note that the page numbering in this report follows on from part 1 of the Transactions pub- lished in July 2002 ISSN 0375 7226 www.nnns.org.uk Keepsake back numbers are available from David & Iris Pauli, 8 Lindford Drive, Eaton, Norwich NR4 6LT Front cover photograph: Tree Sparrow (Richard Brooks) Back cover photograph: Grey Seal (Graeme Cresswell) NORFOLK BIRD REPORT - 2001 Editorial x On behalf of the Society 1 am pleased to present the annual report on the Birds of Norfolk.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eastern Counties, — ——
    ^^^^^ gh Guides : ——- h^ ==h* - c\J : :ct> r ^c\i ==^JQO - T— ""> h»- [~^co '-_ 7 —^^— :n UOUNTIES /t\u* ton ^¥/ua( vY "IP Grantham ' TaUdngh oihv Mort.ml l y'iii.oco..^i>s ^u , ! v , ^i,,:;;^ , i / v '"'''.v/,,. ;r~ nsiimV *\ ?. ' kXOton /lEICESTERY Monftw /{, r fontf* k ^> h'i .;-"" A0% .-O Krlmarsh\ Blisw.wfli.i2 'oad&J Eelmdon. "VTolvei J''u/<}, upthill r9tc Ami? LoAviibo- 'Widfc *Baldock effbhurn f J Marti}*?' Ihxatingfard eitfktoii 7 " gifzzarcL t^r ' t>un.sti ^OXFORD '/'> Ainershain. finest WytHtrnd^iL Bickuuuis>^ Watliagtnti >^Hi^TV^cHnb£ ^M Shxplake- jfe-wrffa^eR E A PI Nla ^ | J. Bartholomew", E3ix k 4t> fcs J«<00®»»®00 o ocoo iO>l>Ot>l>N0500 o o t-o •0000500^000 OOO o ft ,'rH0D»O0006Q0CMlO>LO H00«3 . o CD Ocp CO COO O O OOCOO ^•OOOOOOOOO o o o o Q 5 m taWOWOOOCO>OiO •io»oo>o CO rHrHrHrHi-HrHrHrHrH . rH rH rH rH ^•COOOOOOOOO _CO O O 3 ojlOrHOrHrHrHGOOO :* :'i>ho 3 rHrH<MrHrHt-lr-l<M<M . • rH rH <M O ft . ocococococoococo CO CO CO CO 3 • t» d- t~ i>- rH (MH^HHHIMiMN • <M <M rH <M •oooomooojohoiooo ^5 rH oJcO<NO<M^<MCOOOOOOCO<MO rHrHCQrHr-1 rHrHrH<MrH(MrHrH<M IrHOCOOOOOCOCOCO 00 O CO 'oo r3 :C5000^ocooooocooo o o Q 525 : oq : : : :§? : : : : : O a OQ r-4 : o • : : :^3 : : : : * a a o 3 O : : : : : : : : : : « : a ^ ft .ft .o • n • o3 • o •J25 o9 S • 0) cS . CO . :oq • :,3 : B :ra : flo -»j cS rQ 2 s.d tJD ? B fcr - 00 O ?+3 J* ^b-3 a p 5 3 8.5 g^ - » * +•+* * * H—H— -r-+-»-+-f-+* * +-+ * * -f--r- Tast.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document 2012
    Adopted Site Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document 1 Introduction 2 1.1 What is the Site Specifics Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document? 2 1.2 Relationship to Core Strategy 3 1.3 Relationship to Sustainability Appraisal 3 1.4 Relationship to Habitats Regulations 4 1.5 Site Assessment 4 1.6 Key to Maps 6 2 Site Allocations 7 2.1 Dereham 7 2.2 Swaffham 21 2.3 Watton 28 2.4 Harling 37 2.5 Narborough 38 2.6 Shipdham 41 2.7 Swanton Morley 44 4 Gypsy and Traveller Sites 48 Settlement Boundaries 4 Settlement Boundaries 49 5 Monitoring and Implementation Framework 51 6 Appendix A Sustainability Appraisal Framework 62 7 Appendix B Glossary 67 8 Appendix C Saved Policies to be Replaced 77 Adopted Site Specific Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document 1 Introduction 1.1 What is the Site Specifics Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document? 1.1 The Local Development Framework (LDF) for Breckland will replace the existing Local Plan which was adopted in September 1999. It is being prepared under the relevant legislation for development plans in England. The LDF comprises a number of Development Plan Documents (DPDs) that set out policies and proposals for the development and use of land in the district, the first DPDs cover the period to 2026. The adopted Breckland LDF Core Strategy (2009) includes a Spatial vision for the future of Breckland and objectives and targets, which developments must meet to secure that vision. The Site Specifics Policies and Proposals Development Plan Document has been prepared in accordance with this Core Strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019–2020
    Norfolk Wildlife Trust Annual report 2019–2020 Saving Norfolk’s Wildlife for the Future Norfolk Wildlife Trust seeks a My opening words are the most important message: sustainable Living Landscape thank you to our members, staff, volunteers, for wildlife and people donors, investors and grant providers. Where the future of wildlife is With your loyal and generous in the School Holidays. As part of our Greater support, and despite the Anglia partnership we promoted sustainable protected and enhanced through challenges of the current crisis, travel when discovering nature reserves. sympathetic management Norfolk Wildlife Trust will continue to advance wildlife We have also had many notable wildlife conservation in Norfolk and highlights during the year across all Norfolk Where people are connected with, to connect people to nature. habitats, from the return of the purple emperor inspired by, value and care for butterfly to our woodlands, to the creation of a Norfolk’s wildlife and wild species This report covers the year to the end of March substantial wet reedbed at Hickling Broad and 2020, a year that ended as the coronavirus Marshes in conjunction with the Environment crisis set in. Throughout the lockdown period Agency. Many highlights are the result of we know from the many photos and stories partnerships and projects which would not we received and the increased activity of our have been possible without generous support. CONTENTS online community that many people found nature to be a source of solace – often joy – in The Prime Minister had said that the Nature reserves for Page 04 difficult times.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire & Essex Butterfly Conservation
    Butterfly Conservation Regional Action Plan For Anglia (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Suffolk & Norfolk) This action plan was produced in response to the Action for Butterflies project funded by WWF, EN, SNH and CCW This regional project has been supported by Action for Biodiversity Cambridgeshire and Essex Branch Suffolk branch BC Norfolk branch BC Acknowledgements The Cambridgeshire and Essex branch, Norfolk branch and Suffolk branch constitute Butterfly Conservation’s Anglia region. This regional plan has been compiled from individual branch plans which are initially drawn up from 1997-1999. As the majority of the information included in this action plan has been directly lifted from these original plans, credit for this material should go to the authors of these reports. They were John Dawson (Cambridgeshire & Essex Plan, 1997), James Mann and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Plan, 1998), and Jane Harris (Norfolk Plan, 1999). County butterfly updates have largely been provided by Iris Newbery and Dr Val Perrin (Cambridgeshire and Essex), Roland Rogers and Brian Mcllwrath (Norfolk) and Richard Stewart (Suffolk). Some of the moth information included in the plan has been provided by Dr Paul Waring, David Green and Mark Parsons (BC Moth Conservation Officers) with additional county moth data obtained from John Dawson (Cambridgeshire), Brian Goodey and Robin Field (Essex), Barry Dickerson (Huntingdon Moth and Butterfly Group), Michael Hall and Ken Saul (Norfolk Moth Survey) and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Moth Group). Some of the micro-moth information included in the plan was kindly provided by A. M. Emmet. Other individuals targeted with specific requests include Graham Bailey (BC Cambs. & Essex), Ruth Edwards, Dr Chris Gibson (EN), Dr Andrew Pullin (Birmingham University), Estella Roberts (BC, Assistant Conservation Officer, Wareham), Matthew Shardlow (RSPB) and Ken Ulrich (BC Cambs.
    [Show full text]