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 B48 land at North Farm, south of the River Thet, Snetterton B38 MIN 201 B48land at Swangey Farm, north of North Road, Snetterton B43 Broadland sites B48 MIN 55 land at Keepers Cottage, Attlebridge B48 MIN 202 land south of Reepham Road, Attlebridge B53 MIN 48 land at Swannington Bottom Plantation, Felthorpe B58 MIN 37 land at Mayton Wood, Coltishall Road, Buxton B63 MIN 64 land at Grange Farm, Buxton Road, Horstead B68 MIN 65 land north of Stanninghall Quarry B73 MIN 96 land at Grange Farm (between Spixworth Road and Coltishall Lane), Spixworth B78 Great Yarmouth sites B83 MIN 203 land north of Welcome Pit, Burgh Castle B83 MIN 38 land at Waveney Forest, Fritton B88 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk sites B94 MIN 6 land off East Winch Road, Mill Drove, Middleton B94 MIN 45 land north of Coxford Abbey Quarry, East Rudham B98 MIN 204 land north of Lodge Road, Feltwell B103 MIN 19 & MIN 205 land north of the River Nar, Pentney B108 MIN 74 land at Turf Field, Watlington Road, Tottenhill B113 MIN 76 land at West Field, Watlington Road, Tottenhill B118 MIN 77 land at Runns Wood, Tottenhill B123 MIN 206 land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhiill B128 MIN 32 land west of Lime Kiln Road, West Dereham B133

Page Silica Sand B138 MIN 40 land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch B138 SIL01 land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey B144 AOS E land to the north of Shouldham B149 AOS F land to the north of Stow Bardolph B155 AOS I land to the east of South Runcton B160 AOS J land to the east of Tottenhill B165 SIL02 land at Shouldham and Marham B170 North Norfolk sites B177 MIN 69 land north of Holt Road, Aylmerton B177 MIN 71 land west of Norwich Road, Holt B183 MIN 115 land at Lord Anson’s Wood, near North Walsham B188 MIN 207 land at Pinkney Field, Briston B193 MIN 208 land south of Holt Road, East Beckham B198 South Norfolk sites B203 MIN 209 land adjacent to the A143, Earsham (Extension Area 1) B203 MIN 210 land adjacent to the A143, Earsham (Extension Area 2) B208 MIN 211 land west of Bath Hills Road, Earsham (Extension Area 3) B211 MIN 25 land at Manor Farm (between Loddon Road and Thorpe Road), Haddiscoe B218 MIN 92 land east of Ferry Lane, Heckingham B223 MIN 212 land south of Mundham Road, Mundham B228 MIN 79 land north of Hickling Lane, Swardeston B233 MIN 80 land south of Mangreen Hall Farm, Swardeston 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 21 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Beetley is 260m away mitigated to acceptable and Old Beetley is levels within 250m of 380m away. However, the source; the greatest land at the north-west impacts will be within and south-west corners 100m, if uncontrolled. is not proposed to be Noise and dust extracted. Therefore assessments, and the nearest residential mitigation measures to property is 96m from appropriately control the extraction area and any amenity impacts, there are 18 sensitive must form part of any receptors within 250m planning application for of the proposed mineral extraction. 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

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 - 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 deposits 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 3.47km 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.

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

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 generally well screened scheme should ensure from views from no unacceptable surrounding roads and impacts property, although views of the site would

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 21 sensitive appropriate mitigation receptors within 250m measures to ensure no of the site boundary. unacceptable impacts However, land at the could be conditioned. north-west and south- west corners is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore the nearest residential property is 96m from the extraction area and there are 18 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed 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). 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. 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

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and future flooding from rivers. No areas of The site is at low risk of No effect post at new and existing the site are at risk of being affected by extraction / restoration. development surface water flooding. flooding from either 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.

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 deposits 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). However, therefore no effect on there are no water resources is groundwater Source expected. Protection Zones within the proposed site.

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.

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 deposits 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 partly within groundwater Source Protection Zone 3. The rest of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ. 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. 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.

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 39 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 9 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 deposits 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 39 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 9 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.

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 deposits 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 If the site is worked No effect on water and soil quality in (undifferentiated) 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. 2.

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 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.

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 six sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Woodrising is 627m 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.

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 deposits 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 six 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 aquifer

B30

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and soil quality in (undifferentiated) and If the site is worked No effect on water Norfolk partially over a above the water table, resources is expected Secondary A aquifer with normal mitigation post extraction. (superficial deposits). measures, no adverse The site is also located effects on water over a principal aquifer resources are (bedrock). However, expected. there are no groundwater Source Protection Zones within the proposed site. The site is proposed to The site is Grade 3 be restored back to agricultural land and Potential for BMV agriculture. Therefore, could potentially be agricultural land to be as long as the topsoil Grade 3a which is affected by mineral was stored correctly classified within the extraction within the and then replaced, Best and Most Versatile site. 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 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 raw materials for the construction industry

B31

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 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.

B32

MIN 35 – land at Heath Road, 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 42m 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. considered that noise However, the southern and dust can be part of the site is not mitigated to acceptable proposed to be levels within 250m of extracted. Therefore the source; the greatest the nearest residential impacts will be within property is 42m from 100m, if uncontrolled. the extraction area and Noise and dust there are 28 sensitive assessments, and receptors within 250m mitigation measures to of the proposed appropriately control extraction area. The any amenity impacts, settlement of Eccles is must form part of any 269m away. planning application for The effect on visual mineral 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

B33

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 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 deposits 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. 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.

B34

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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. 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 The site is bounded to change; however, an

B35

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction the countryside and any other designated the north by a large appropriate mitigation landscape landscape feature. 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 42m 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. unacceptable impacts However, the southern could be conditioned. part of the site is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore the nearest residential property is 42m from the extraction area and there are 28 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area. 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.

B36

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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; 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.

B37

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 500m 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

B38

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 deposits 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

B39

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 sites 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

B40

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 500m 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.

B41

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.

B42

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 119m 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 North End mitigated to acceptable is 831m from the site. 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.

B43

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 deposits 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

B44

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

B45

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 119m 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 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 a 1 in 30 year rainfall considered to be a event. ‘water compatible’ land

B46

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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.

B47

Broadland sites

MIN 55 – land at Keepers Cottage, Attlebridge

Proposal: Extraction of 525,000 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

B48

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 deposits 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.

B49

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.

B50

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

B51

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.

B52

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.

B53

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 deposits 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.

B54

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 No impacts to the woodland site is extraction site would be ancient woodland are Mileplain Plantation, worked dry (above the expected post which is a PAWS and is water table), therefore extraction. adjacent to the site there would be no boundary. adverse effects on the hydrology of the PAWS. There is the potential for impacts from dust deposition although with normal mitigation measures no The site consists of the adverse effects on the No adverse impacts to Sheringham Cliffs PAWS are expected. geodiversity are formation - sand and expected post gravel, overlying There is the potential restoration. It would be Wroxham Crag. There for this site to contain useful for restoration to is significant potential examples of provide opportunities for vertebrate fossils geodiversity priority for further geological within the Wroxham features. research of suitable Crag. exposures. 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 is a partially Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or extracted mineral site result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated and a woodland change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. plantation. The site is appropriate mitigation landscape screened from views in strategy and restoration all directions by scheme should ensure woodland. no unacceptable impacts.

B55

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

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 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

B56

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 Sites. 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.

B57

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 198m 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. The and dust can be settlement of Felthorpe mitigated to acceptable is 198m 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.

B58

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 deposits 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.

B59

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 although extraction. boundary. with normal mitigation measures no adverse Alderford Common effects on these SSSIs SSSI is 1.82km from are expected. If the the site boundary. site is worked above the water table, with normal mitigation measures, no adverse effects on SSSIs 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 although extraction. adjacent to the site with normal mitigation boundary. measures no adverse effect on this CWS is expected. If the site is worked above the water table, with normal mitigation measures, no adverse effect on the CWS is 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 chalk formations in the west and Wroxham Crag in the east. There is significant potential for vertebrate fossils

B60

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 198m 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. 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

B61

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction (bedrock). However, effects on water there are no resources are expected groundwater Source 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 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; 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.

B62

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 18 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Buxton is 1.1km away. mitigated to acceptable However, the proposed levels within 250m of extraction area is set the source; the greatest back from Coltishall impacts will be within Road and the nearest 100m, if uncontrolled. residential property is Noise and dust 96m from the extraction assessments, and area. There are 12 mitigation measures to sensitive receptors appropriately control within 250m of the any amenity impacts, proposed extraction must form part of any area. planning application for The effect on visual mineral 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.

B63

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 Mayton Hall which is would be required to should ensure, the townscape and 870m away. There are support any future historic value of, assets historic 35 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 are 2 Scheduled impacts to heritage landscape change; Monuments within 2km assets and suggest however, an of the site. Great appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration Hautbois old Church is scheme should ensure 1.63km away and the No effects expected no unacceptable ‘Roman camp and during extraction. impacts on the setting Settlement site West of of heritage assets. 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 deposits 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.

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.

B64

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 ASWN; 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 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.

B65

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 18 sensitive is considered that local communities. receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary. measures to ensure no However, the proposed unacceptable impacts extraction area is set could be conditioned, back from Coltishall such as temporary Road and the nearest PRoW diversions. residential property is 96m from the extraction area. There are 12 sensitive receptors within 250m 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. 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. 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

B66

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

B67

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 four sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Horstead is 453m 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. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed - 0 and enhance the Buildings is the Grade

B68

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the II* Church of St A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and Theobald (which is also would be required to should ensure the historic a Scheduled support any future historic value of assets environment Monument) and is planning application. is appropriately 580m away. There are The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 46 Listed Buildings should identify potential extraction will result in within 2km of the site. impacts to heritage landscape change; 22 of these are within assets and suggest however, an Coltishall and Horstead appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration Conservation Area scheme should ensure which is 850m from the no unacceptable site. impacts on the setting RAF Coltishall No effects expected of heritage assets. Conservation Area is during extraction. 1.29km from the site.

The nearest Scheduled No effects expected No effect post Monument is the during extraction. extraction ‘Roman camp and settlement site west of Horstead’ which is 460m away. There are 3 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of 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 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 probable assessment of the bronze age barrow, significance of within the site archaeological deposits boundary. The site is will be required at the close to the boundary planning application of the historic parkland stage, in order to associated with protect and mitigate the Horstead Hall and is in impact of mineral a wider landscape with extraction in this site. a significant number of 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.

B69

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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. planting. 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

B70

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction farmland. Whilst it scheme should ensure should be possible to no unacceptable design a scheme of impacts provided that working to reduce the hedgerow landscape impact of reinforcement and tree working this land, the planting are included. removal of field boundary hedgerows and trees would have a high landscape impact and should 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 four sensitive could be conditioned. receptors within 250m of the site boundary. 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. Potential for BMV agricultural land to be The site is Grade 3 affected by mineral The site is proposed to agricultural land and extraction within the be restored back to could potentially be site. agriculture. Therefore, Grade 3a which is as long as the topsoil classified within the 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

B71

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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. 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.

B72

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 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 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 The settlement of and dust can be Horstead is 239m 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. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed -- - and enhance the Building is Grade II

B73

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the Horstead Lodge which A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and is 310m away. There would be required to should ensure, the historic are 50 Listed Buildings support any future historic value of assets environment within 2km of the site. planning application. is appropriately 24 of these are within The heritage statement preserved. Mineral Coltishall and Horstead should identify potential extraction will result in Conservation Area impacts to heritage landscape change; which is 380m from the assets and suggest however, an 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 ‘Roman camp and extraction would be of heritage assets. settlement site west of inappropriate. Horstead, which is 140m away. There are 2 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of 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 are Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records of that unknown extraction. multi-period features in archaeology exists on the northern part of the the site and an site including a assessment of the probable WW2 military significance of site and a WW2 Royal archaeological deposits Observers Corp post. will be required at the The site is in a wider planning application landscape with a stage, in order to significant number of protect and mitigate the finds and features from impact of mineral multiple periods. extraction in this site. 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 are expected on the SSSI, SPA, SAC or Ramsar site.

B74

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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, wildlife would provide some minerals sites enhanced grassland biodiversity gains. and 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 plateau result in landscape 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

B75

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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. 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 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,

B76

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 agricultural land. phase are expected. adverse effect on BMV 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 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.

B77

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 The settlement of and dust can be Horsham St Faith is mitigated to acceptable 352m 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.

B78

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 deposits 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

B79

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

B80

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 unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. 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.

B81

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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.

B82

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 146m 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. 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

B83

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. No effect post The Historic There is the potential extraction Environment Record that unknown contains records of archaeology exists on isolated multi-period the site and it would be finds within the site; prudent to adopt a however the majority of watching brief for the site is identified as archaeological finds an area with no within the site. 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

B84

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.

B85

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 146m from dwellings and the on restoration. the site boundary. caravan park would not There are five 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.

B86

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.

B87

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 26m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 77 sensitive expected to cause receptor within 250m of vibration. It is the site boundary. The considered that noise settlement of Fritton is and dust can be 26m away and St mitigated to acceptable Olaves is 368m away. levels within 250m of However, the land the source; the greatest adjacent to New Road impacts will be within is not proposed to be 100m, if uncontrolled. extracted. Therefore Noise and dust the nearest residential assessments, and property is 120m from mitigation measures to the extraction area and appropriately control there are 31 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.

B88

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 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 most military archaeology part of any mineral of which are linked to a exists on the site and extraction is likely to WW2 military site. that the significance of constitute significant Neither of the local archaeological deposits harm. listed features (remains is likely to be such that of a WW2 firing range, in-situ preservation and a former railway would be required, bridge) are within the which would be proposed extraction incompatible with 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. not affect the hydrology of Breydon Water. In addition, due to the distance from the site, there would be no

B89

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction adverse effects on the SPA and Ramsar site.

The site is 2.69km from The proposed No impacts on the The Broads SAC, extraction site is in a SAC, SPA or Ramsar Broadland SPA and different hydrological site are expected post Ramsar site. catchment and would extraction. not affect the hydrology 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.

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

CWS 1427 ‘Waveney There is the potential No impacts to CWSs Forest’ is partially within for impacts from dust are expected post the site but outside the deposition although extraction. proposed extraction with normal mitigation area. CWS 1426 measures no adverse ‘Fritton Warren South’ effects on these CWSs is adjacent to the site are expected. The boundary and a potential exists for proposed extraction impacts on the area. hydrology of the CWSs 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.

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 B90

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 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 boundary of the site impact on users of the

B91

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction local communities (Old Parish of PRoW and the nearby provided within the site in Norfolk Herringfleet FP1). dwellings would not be on restoration. 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 26m from the site boundary. There are 77 sensitive receptor within 250m of the site boundary. However, the land adjacent to New Road is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore the nearest residential property is 120m from the extraction area and there are 31 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed 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). However, although appropriate there are no assessment and groundwater Source mitigation measures Protection Zones within could ensure that no the proposed site. unacceptable impacts occur. The majority of the site is classified as non- Potential for BMV If BMV land is agricultural land. The agricultural land to be identified, any western part of the site affected by mineral restoration that does is Grade 3 agricultural extraction within the not incorporate land and could site. agriculture would result potentially be Grade 3a in adverse impacts which is classified 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

B92

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post 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 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.

B93

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 only sensitive - 0 noise, vibration and receptor within 250m of Carstone extraction is No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary is not expected to cause restoration 155m away. The vibration. It is settlement of considered that noise Blackborough End is and dust can be 481m 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.

B94

There are no Conservation Areas or No effect during No effect post Registered Historic extraction extraction Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. There is the potential There are Historic that unknown No effect post Environment records of archaeology exists on extraction isolated multi period the site and an finds, within the site assessment of the boundary. The site is in significance of a wider landscape with archaeological deposits 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 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.

B95

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

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 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 mothballed 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 only sensitive significant. However, it receptor within 250m of is considered that the site boundary is appropriate mitigation 155m away. measures to ensure no unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is partially -/0 0 and enhance water located over a principal If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in aquifer (bedrock) and as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk partially over a the potential for post extraction.

B96

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Secondary adverse impacts exists, (undifferentiated) although appropriate aquifer (superficial assessment and deposits). However, mitigation measures there are no could ensure that no groundwater Source unacceptable impacts Protection Zones within occur. 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 4.8km 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.

B97

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 273m 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

B98

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 deposits 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.

B99

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

B100

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 273m 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

B101

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.

B102

MIN 204 – land north of Lodge Road, Feltwell

Proposal: Extraction of 580,000 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 six sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Feltwell is 1.3km 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 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

B103

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 There is the potential No effect post within a Historic that unknown extraction. Environment feature for archaeology exists on Methwold Rabbit the site and an Warren. There are no assessment of the HE records indicating significance of finds. The site is in a archaeological deposits wider landscape with a will be required at the significant number of planning application finds and features from stage, in order to the multiple periods but protect and mitigate the especially the Neolithic impact of mineral and Bronze Ages. extraction in this site. 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 and restoration to provide geodiversity site boundary. disturbance, and it is suitable habitat for uncertain if mitigation designated species, measures would be however there are no effective to avoid details of the scheme unacceptable adverse so effectiveness is effects for the parcel of uncertain. land closest to the Breckland Forest SSSI. Impacts on the SSSI are uncertain.

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

B104

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Breckland Farmland their distance from the SSSI is 0.90km from site. the site boundary.

There are no County No impacts on County No impacts on County Wildlife Sites within Wildlife Sites are Wildlife Sites are 1km of the site. expected. 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.

The site consists of the No adverse impacts to Croxton sand and There is the potential geodiversity are gravel member, Ingham for this site to contain expected post sand and gravel examples of restoration. It would be formation in NW of site, geodiversity priority useful for restoration to overlying Chalk features. provide opportunities Formations. There is a 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

B105

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction from the north, east and west, by existing trees. However, there 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 six sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary. measures to ensure no unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0 0 and enhance water a principal aquifer If the site is worked No effect on water and soil quality in (bedrock) and partially above the water table, resources is expected Norfolk located over a with normal mitigation post extraction. secondary A aquifer measures, no adverse (superficial deposits). effects on water Part of the site is within resources are groundwater Source expected. Protection Zone 2. The rest of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ.

The majority of the site No impacts on BMV No impacts on BMV is classified as non- agricultural soils. agricultural soils. agricultural land. Part 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

B106

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction surface water pooling in and gravel extraction is a 1 in 30 year rainfall considered to be a 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.

B107

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 654m 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 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

B108

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the ‘Remains of The potential exists for Mineral extraction will townscape and Augustinian Priory’ mineral extraction to result in landscape historic which is 690m away. substantially harm the change; and this is environment There are 4 Listed setting of Grade I listed likely to result in less Buildings within 2km of buildings and than substantial harm the site. Scheduled Monuments. to the setting of The nearest Scheduled A Heritage Statement designated heritage Monument is the would be required to assets, an appropriate Remains of Pentney support any future restoration scheme Priory at Abbey Farm planning application. should ensure no which is 460m away. unacceptable impacts. There are 2 Scheduled Monuments within 2km 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 deposits 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.

B109

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 The site is unlikely to No adverse impacts to peat, overlaying Leziate contain geodiversity geodiversity are Member – sand. priority features. expected post restoration SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 - innovative solutions be restored to reedbeds No effect during There are already a for the restoration with open water, either extraction phase number of areas of and after use of as one body of water or open water and minerals sites several smaller pools. reedbeds in adjacent former mineral workings. SA8: To protect The site is located -- - and enhance the within a Core River MIN 19 currently Mineral extraction will quality and Valley. The site is not contains an asphalt result in landscape distinctiveness of located within the plant and related change which due to the countryside and AONB or any other storage with a time the open nature of the landscape designated landscape limited permission. surrounding landscape feature. MIN 205 is currently and would be visible grazing marsh. The from a variety of land is adjacent to the viewpoints; the River Nar to the south proposed restoration and woodland to the would significantly alter north. There is the landscape setting of farmland to the east other features. and mineral workings to the west. The asphalt plant will be

B110

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction removed from the site early in the Plan Period. Therefore, the removal of the plant would not be a landscape gain which could be associated with the proposed mineral extraction on MIN 19. 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. The nearest residential significant. However, it property is 654m from is considered that the site. The settlement appropriate mitigation of Blackborough End is measures to ensure no 2.7km away. unacceptable impacts 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 12.1km from Swaffham. allocated for significant These are the nearest growth. settlements allocated

B111

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 the historic environment, 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.

B112

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 Tottenhill Row is 77m 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 Building is Grade II ‘The

B113

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 deposits 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.

B114

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

B115

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 unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. 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, there would be no likely

B116

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 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.

B117

MIN 76 – land at West Field, Watlington Road, Tottenhill

Proposal: Extraction of 285,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 6.67 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 6.3km from + 0 and mitigate the King’s Lynn and 7.3km 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 woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. the nearest towns, but King’s Lynn and Downham Market 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 82m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 11 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise Tottenhill Row is 153m and dust can be away and Watlington is mitigated to acceptable 456m 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.

B118

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 Peter and would be required to should ensure, the townscape and St Paul which is 710m support any future historic value of, assets historic away. There are 8 planning application. is appropriately environment Listed Buildings within The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 2km of the site. should identify potential extraction will result in Tottenhill Row impacts to heritage landscape change; Conservation Area is assets and suggest however, an 40m from the site appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration boundary. which may include scheme should ensure identification of areas no unacceptable where mineral impacts on the setting extraction would be of heritage assets. inappropriate.

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

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

A recent field There is the potential No effect post evaluation has shown that unknown extraction. that there are no finds archaeology exists on or features of the site and it would be archaeological prudent to adopt a importance within the watching brief for site. The site is archaeological finds adjacent to the within the site. boundary of the historic parkland associated with Watlington Hall, and is in a wider landscape with a very significant number of finds and features from multiple periods associated with Fen 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 1.08km from the site extraction site is within are expected post boundary. the hydrological extraction. catchment for Setchey

B119

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 1.68km 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 is There is the potential No impacts to CWSs CWS 378 ‘Runs Wood for impacts from dust are expected post Meadow, which is 240m deposition although extraction. from the site. with normal mitigation measures no adverse effects on this CWS is 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.

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 a mixture No effect during The proposed for the restoration of agriculture, extraction phase restoration scheme reedbeds, a pond and

B120

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and after use of native woodland edge would provide some minerals sites habitats. biodiversity gains. 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 arable field bounded by result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated woodland to the west change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. The and a belt of trees and appropriate mitigation landscape site is adjacent to shrubs along strategy and restoration Tottenhill Row Watlington Road to the scheme should ensure Conservation Area. east. Mostly obscured, no unacceptable intermittent views can impacts. be seen from the hedge lined road between Tottenhill Row Common and the eastern boundary of West Field. The hamlet of Tottenhill Row lies approximately 150m to the north of the site, although views of the site from the houses are largely screened by trees. Common land surrounds the hamlet and quiet enjoyment of this area of the countryside could be affected by noise from working the site, if uncontrolled. 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 82m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary and significant; however it there are 11 sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary. 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

B121

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction unacceptable impacts The site is proposed to occur. be restored back to The site is Grade 3 include agriculture. agricultural land and Potential for BMV Therefore, as long as could potentially be agricultural land to be the topsoil was stored Grade 3a which is affected by mineral correctly and then classified within the extraction within the replaced, adverse Best and Most Versatile site. effects on BMV agricultural land. agricultural land would be minimised, dependent on the proportion of BMV land lost. SA11: To promote The site is 6.3km from + 0 sustainable use of King’s Lynn and 7.3km Due to distance to No effect post minerals resources from Downham Market. nearest settlements 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 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 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.

B122

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

B123

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 deposits 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

B124

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

B125

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

B126

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.

B127

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

Proposal: Extraction of 245,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 6.77 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 7.4km 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 only residential - 0 noise, vibration and dwelling within 250m of Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary is extraction is not restoration 243m away. The expected to cause settlement of Tottenhill vibration. It is is 243m 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; 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 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

B128

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 1.19km 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 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 1.75km away. during extraction. impacts on the setting of heritage assets. Tottenhill Row No effects expected Conservation Area is during extraction No effect post 290m 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 deposits 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 1.14km 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.

B129

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction River Nar SSSI is The proposed No impacts to SSSIs 1.7km 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. 290m from the site. from the site. CWS 385 ‘Tottenhill Village Green’ is 360m from the site. CWS 384 ‘West of Tottenhill’ is 480m 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. It is scheme should ensure bounded to the east no unacceptable and west by woodland impacts. belts, with a flooded

B130

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction former mineral working also to the west. The Lynn Road is approximately 125m to the east. The site is well screened from public viewpoints. 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 only residential health or amenity from provided within the site in Norfolk dwelling within 250m of mineral extraction on restoration. the site boundary is within the site. 243m away. 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 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 6.4km from + 0 sustainable use of King’s Lynn and 7.4km 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 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

B131

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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, 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.

B132

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

Proposal: Extraction of 600,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 9.71 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 receptor within 250m of vibration. It is the site boundary. considered that noise However, the southern and dust can be part of the site is not mitigated to acceptable proposed to be levels within 250m of extracted. Therefore the source; the greatest the nearest residential impacts will be within property is 60m from 100m, if uncontrolled. the extraction area and Noise and dust there are 6 sensitive assessments, and receptors within 250m mitigation measures to of the proposed appropriately control extraction area. The any amenity impacts, settlement of West must form part of any Dereham is 750m planning application for away. 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

B133

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 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. No effects expected Stradsett Hall, a during extraction No effect post Registered Historic extraction Park and Garden is 1.99km from the site. There is the potential There are Historic that unknown No effect post Environment records archaeology exists on extraction. that features exist the site and an within the site assessment of the boundary, and of finds significance of within the site archaeological deposits boundary. The site is will be required at the immediately adjacent to planning application the remains of a stage, in order to significant Saxon protect and mitigate the building, and is in a impact of mineral wider landscape with a extraction in this site. significant number of finds and features from multiple periods. 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 There are no SSSIs No impacts on SSSIs within 3km of the site are expected.

B134

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. No impacts to CWSs are expected post The nearest CWS is There is the potential extraction. CWS 327 ‘Lime Pit’ for impacts from dust which is 60m away. deposition although 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. nature of the surrounding landscape is visible from West Dereham, and a significant number of other viewpoints

B135

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

B136

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction Swaffham. These are allocated for significant the 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. 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.

B137

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 83 sensitive receptors mitigated to acceptable within 250m of the site levels within 250m of boundary. The the source; the greatest settlement of East impacts will be within Winch is 23m away. 100m, if uncontrolled. However, part of the Noise and dust site nearest to East assessments, and Winch is not proposed mitigation measures to to be extracted. appropriately control Therefore the nearest any amenity impacts, residential property is must form part of any 110m from the planning application for extraction area and mineral extraction. there are 49 sensitive receptors within 250m 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

B138

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction jobs, services and improved accessibility No effects expected It is unlikely that facilities and to services and facilities during extraction enhanced public reduce social and reduce social access would be exclusion exclusion. The effect provided within the site on employment is on restoration. 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 deposits 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 East Walton and The proposed No adverse impacts on Norfolk’s Adcock’s Common extraction site is up- the SSSI and SAC are biodiversity and SSSI, which is part of gradient of the SSSI expected post geodiversity the Norfolk Valley Fens and SAC. Due to extraction. distance there would

B139

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

The proposed No impacts on the The nearest CWS is extraction site is County Wildlife Site are CWS 226 ‘East Winch located up-gradient of expected post Common’ which is the SSSI. Due to the extraction. 740m away. 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 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 Leziate member-sand for this site to contain geodiversity are and Carstone examples of expected post Formation-sandstone. 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 No effect during The proposed for the restoration agriculture with extraction phase restoration scheme and after use of hedgerow would provide some minerals sites reinforcement and biodiversity gains. wetland (including a lake area), woodland/ scrub. 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 landscape feature. The eastern boundary appropriate mitigation

B140

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction the countryside and of the site is adjacent to strategy and restoration landscape the village of East scheme should ensure Winch, and the A4 runs no unacceptable 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. 83 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. However, part of the site nearest to East Winch is not

B141

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction proposed to be extracted. Therefore the nearest residential property is 110m from the extraction area and there are 49 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed 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 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

B142

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 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.

B143

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 future application A mitigation strategy character of the against south façade should provide should ensure, the townscape and of Whitehouse appropriate historic value of, assets historic environment Farmhouse’ which is archaeological is appropriately

B144

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 306m away. There are evaluation, which may preserved. Mineral 13 listed buildings provide an opportunity extraction will result in within 2km of the site. to investigate heritage landscape change; assets that would not however, an The nearest otherwise take place. A appropriate restoration Scheduled Monument Heritage Statement scheme should ensure to the site is 1.27km should also be no unacceptable away and is the included, together, with impacts on the setting ‘Moated site in Crow’s appropriate mitigation. of heritage assets. Wood’. There are 3 It is considered that Scheduled mitigation measures Monuments within are likely to result in 2km of the site. extraction being able to take place with no There are no unacceptable adverse Conservation Areas or impacts. Historic Parks and No effects post Gardens within 2km of No effects during the extraction. the site. extraction phase.

The site contains An assessment of the No effects post assets of significance of extraction. archaeological archaeological deposits interest. 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 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

B145

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 over distance from the site. restoration. 2.1km 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 The preferred 0 + innovative solutions restoration for this site No effect during There would be a for the restoration would be lowland extraction phase positive effect for and after use of heathland and acid biodiversity if this site is minerals sites grassland which restored to lowland would provide a net heathland and dry acid biodiversity gain. grassland. SA8: To protect and The site is not within 0 0 enhance the quality the AONB, a Core It is considered that an Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness River Valley, or other effective mitigation result in landscape of the countryside designated landscape strategy could be change; however, an and landscape feature. The site designed to minimise appropriate restoration includes some areas unacceptable adverse scheme should ensure which have been impacts to countryside no unacceptable partially worked for and landscape. impacts. silica sand in the past. Waterbodies, woodland, heathland and farmland all form landscape features within the site. SA9: To contribute to There are no Public - 0 improved health and Rights of Way within Care would be needed It is unlikely that there amenity of local the site. There is a to ensure that the would be new public communities in PRoW close to the impact on users of the footpaths provided Norfolk northern boundary of PRoW would not be within the site on the site (Bawsey RB8) significant. However, it restoration. and Bawsey RB9 is considered that starts near the north appropriate mitigation eastern corner. measures to ensure no

B146

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction The nearest unacceptable impacts residential property is could be conditioned. approximately 280m 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. from either rivers, the bodies to provide flood Surface water flooding sea or surface water. storage capacity. extents occur within Silica sand extraction is SIL 01, none of the considered to be a site has a high ‘water compatible’ land probability (greater use which is suitable in than 1 in 30) of being all flood zones. affected by surface water flooding; 0.71% of the area has a medium probability (between 1 in 30 and 1 in 100) of surface water flooding and 3.71% of the area has a low probability (between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000) of surface water flooding.

B147

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 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, but potential positive effects on restoration. Silica sand extraction has positive economic impacts as it provides a raw material for glass manufacture.

B148

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 would 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

B149

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 A mitigation strategy character of the approximately 250 and the impact of a should ensure the townscape and metres from the AoS: mineral extraction site historic value of assets historic environment Church of St Michael, on the historic is appropriately Church of St Botolph environment would preserved. Mineral and Castle Road depend on where it is extraction will result in Bridge. There are 30 located within the AoS. landscape change; Listed Buildings within It may be possible to however, an 2km of the AoS locate a site away from appropriate restoration Boundary. 8 of these the listed buildings and scheme should ensure are contained within Scheduled Monuments no unacceptable Shouldham and ensure that it is impacts on the setting Conservation Area, appropriately screened of heritage assets. which is 760m away to mitigate impacts on and 4 of these are in the historic Shouldham Thorpe environment. Conservation Area A Heritage Statement which is 1.2km away. should also be included, together, with The following two appropriate mitigation. Scheduled Mitigation measures Monuments are are likely to result in approximately 250 extraction being able to metres from the AoS: take place with no Motte and bailey unacceptable adverse castle in Wormegay impacts. Future Village. Shouldham applications should Priory with associated provide appropriate water management archaeological features. There are evaluation. Mitigation nine Scheduled strategies may provide Monuments within an opportunity to 2km of the boundary investigate heritage of the AoS. assets that would not otherwise take place. There are no registered Historic Parks and Gardens

B150

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction within 2km of the AoS boundary. 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 1.33 km is therefore the from the area of potential for search boundary. hydrological impacts. Mitigation measures may be required. Due to distance no other impacts are expected.

B151

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 It is considered that an Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness of search is adjacent effective mitigation result in landscape of the countryside to the Core River strategy could be change; however, an and landscape Valley for the River designed to minimise appropriate restoration Nar. The area of unacceptable adverse scheme should be able search is not within impacts to countryside to ensure no the AONB or any and landscape. unacceptable impacts other designated in parts of the Area of landscape feature. Search. A restoration combination of woodland and wetland would be suitable for restoration, however this will depend on the 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 are a large number of potential effect of is located within the

B152

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction communities in residential properties mineral extraction on wider AoS, there is the Norfolk 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 within the borough from either rivers or the bodies to provide flood council SFRA. sea. Less than 1.5% of storage capacity. Within AOS E, 0.5% the area has a medium of the area has a high to high risk of being probability (greater affected by surface than 1 in 30) of water flooding. Silica surface water sand extraction is flooding; 1.5% of the considered to be a

B153

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction area has a medium ‘water compatible’ land probability (between 1 use which is suitable in in 30 and 1 in 100) of all flood zones. Silica surface water flooding sand extraction would and 6.9% of the area be a temporary non- has a low probability residential use, which (between 1 in 100 and exposes relatively few 1 in 1,000) of surface people to risk as only a water flooding. small number of 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. It is considered that these effects 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 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.

B154

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 would 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

B155

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 future application A mitigation strategy character of the North Lodge to Stow should provide should ensure the townscape and Hall, which is 250m appropriate historic value of assets historic environment away. There are 19 archaeological is appropriately listed buildings within evaluation, which may preserved. Mineral 2km of the AoS provide an opportunity extraction will result in boundary. 2 of these to investigate heritage landscape change; are within assets that would not however, an Wimbotsham otherwise take place. A appropriate restoration Conservation Area Heritage Statement scheme should ensure which is 650m from should also be no unacceptable the AoS boundary and included, together, with impacts on the setting 4 are within appropriate mitigation. of heritage assets. Shouldham Thorpe It is considered that Conservation Area mitigation measures which is 1.63km from are likely to result in the AoS boundary. extraction being able to take place with no Stradsett Hall, a unacceptable adverse Registered Historic impacts. Park and Garden is 1.95km from the AoS boundary.

There are no Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the boundary. The AoS is adjacent to the unregistered remnants of Stow Hall and the wider setting of Wallington Hall. 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.

B156

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 293m 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 500 to for these ancient woodland sites post 1,000 metres from the woodlands, however, restoration. area of search the AoS drains away boundary. 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. 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 other opportunities for further partially overlying the examples of geological research of Lower Cretaceous geodiversity priority suitable exposures. Leziate Beds. 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.

B157

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 It is considered that an Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness Core River Valley or effective mitigation result in landscape of the countryside any other designated strategy could be change; however, an and landscape landscape feature. designed to minimise appropriate restoration Adjacent to the area unacceptable adverse scheme should ensure of search are impacts to countryside no unacceptable undesignated and landscape. impacts. remnants of parkland There are examples of which make a woodland blocks, significant landscape wet woodland and feature. 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 extraction. Due to the likely depth The area of search is Potential for BMV of silica sand a mixture of forestry agricultural land to be extraction, the land is and agricultural uses affected by mineral unlikely to be restored with the agricultural extraction within the to agriculture. land in grades 4 and AoS. Therefore there could 3. This land could be a permanent loss of potentially be Grade Grade 3a agricultural 3a which is classified land post extraction, within the Best and depending on the Most Versatile 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.

B158

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) of compatible’ land use surface water which is suitable in all flooding, and 3.7% of flood zones. 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 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.

B159

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 would 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

B160

SA5: To maintain The closest Listed - - and enhance the Building is the Grade A future application A mitigation strategy character of the II* Church of St should provide should ensure that, the townscape and Andrew which is 726 appropriate historic value of the historic environment metres away. There archaeological assets is appropriately are 12 Listed evaluation, which may preserved. Mineral Buildings within 2km provide an opportunity extraction will result in of the AoS boundary. to investigate heritage landscape change; 4 of these are within assets that would not however, an Shouldham Thorpe otherwise take place. A appropriate restoration Conservation Area Heritage Statement scheme should ensure which is 1.27kkm from should also be no unacceptable the boundary of the included, together, with impacts on the setting AoS. appropriate mitigation. of heritage assets. It is considered that There are no mitigation measures Registered Historic are likely to result in Parks and Gardens or extraction being able to Scheduled take place with no Monuments within unacceptable adverse 2km of the AoS impacts. boundary.

The site has the potential to contain archaeological assets, but is unstudied. 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

The AoS is over 3km Due to distance, no No impacts on SSSIs from both the River impacts on SSSIs are are expected. Nar and Setchey expected. 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.

B161

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

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 It is considered that an Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness AONB, a Core River effective mitigation result in landscape of the countryside Valley or any other strategy could be change; however, an and landscape designated landscape designed to minimise appropriate restoration feature. unacceptable adverse scheme should ensure impacts to countryside no unacceptable and landscape. impacts. Waterbodies, blocks of 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. seven sensitive 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

B162

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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. 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

B163

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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.

B164

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 would 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

B165

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 future application A mitigation strategy character of the Church of St Botolph, should provide should ensure that, the townscape and which is 325m from appropriate historic value of, the historic environment the AoS boundary. archaeological assets is appropriately There are 5 Listed evaluation, which may preserved. Mineral Buildings within 2km provide an opportunity extraction will result in of the AoS boundary. to investigate heritage landscape change; assets that would not however, an The nearest otherwise take place. A appropriate restoration Scheduled Monument Heritage Statement scheme should ensure is the Motte and should also be no unacceptable Bailey Castle in included, together, with impacts on the setting Wormegay Village, appropriate mitigation. of heritage assets. which is 1.25km away. It is considered that There are three mitigation measures Scheduled are likely to result in Monuments within extraction being able to 2km of the AoS take place with no boundary. unacceptable adverse There are no impacts. Conservation Areas or Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the AoS boundary. There are archaeological assets within the Area of Search. 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 SSSI is 2km from the AoS does not drain to AoS boundary. the River Nar or Setchey SSSI and therefore no adverse impacts are expected.

B166

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction CWS 385 ‘Tottenhill If mineral extraction in No impacts on CWS Village Green’ is this AoS were to go are expected post 250m from the AoS below the water table restoration. and CWS 424 then there could be ‘Westbrigg’s Wood’ is impacts on the ponds 380m from the AoS. in CWS 385 and CWS 384 ‘West of mitigation measures Tottenhill’ is 430m would be required. from the AoS.

The nearest ancient No impacts on ancient No impacts on ancient woodland site is a woodland are woodland are PAWS and is 2.96km expected. expected. from the AoS boundary.

The Head deposits of There is the potential There would be a the AoS overburden for sites within this AoS preference for are geodiversity to contain examples of restoration to provide priority features due to geodiversity priority opportunities for further their method of features. geological research of formation. suitable exposures. 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 It is considered that an Mineral extraction will and distinctiveness AONB, a Core River effective mitigation result in landscape of the countryside Valley or any other strategy could be change; however, an and landscape designated landscape designed to minimise appropriate restoration feature. unacceptable adverse scheme should ensure impacts to countryside no unacceptable and landscape. impacts. Waterbodies from previous mineral workings, blocks of 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

B167

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction amenity of local the AoS. The nearest There is unlikely to be It is unlikely that there communities in residential property is a significant impact on would be new public Norfolk 250m from the AoS health or amenity from footpaths provided boundary. There are mineral extraction within the AoS on five sensitive within the AoS. restoration. 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. 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 be low, if silica sand is

B168

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction promote economic extracted from within growth 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.

B169

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.

B170

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 A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Remains of Augustinian would be required to should ensure the townscape and Priory which is 310m support any future historic value of assets historic away. There are 22 planning application. is appropriately environment Listed Buildings within The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 2km of the site should identify potential extraction will result in boundary. 8 of these impacts to heritage landscape change; are within the assets and suggest however, an Shouldham appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Conservation Area which may include scheme should ensure which is 1.14km away. identification of areas no unacceptable where mineral impacts. The nearest Scheduled extraction would be Monument is the inappropriate. Remains of Pentney Priory at Abbey Farm which is 30m away. There are 6 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the site boundary.

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 deposits 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 4.74km from the site from the site. boundary.

B171

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction East Walton and No adverse impacts on No impacts on the SSSI Adcock’s Common the SSSI is expected if are expected post SSSI, which is part of the site is worked extraction the Norfolk Valley Fens without dewatering, SAC is 4.28km from the due to the distance site boundary. from the site.

River Nar SSSI is The potential exists for No impacts on the SSSI adjacent to the site impacts from mineral are expected post boundary. extraction at this site, if 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.

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

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

B172

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 there is the potential for harm to the significance and setting of this monument from some parts of the site. Therefore, special regard would need to be had to the design, and assessment of any change within this site. 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 bene 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

B173

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction The nearest residential could be conditioned, would result in a property is 81m from such as temporary recreation impact. 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 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

B174

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and future flooding Zone 3 (high risk) and The site is at high risk No effect post at new and existing 42% of the area is of being affected by extraction / restoration development within Flood Zone 2 flooding from rivers, because no details of a (medium risk) for and at low risk of being restoration scheme flooding from rivers, flooded from surface have been provided. within the borough water. Screening However, there is council’s SFRA. The bunds around an potential for restoration area has a low risk of extraction site could to involve the creation surface water flooding potentially affect the of water bodies to with a few locations of movement of water in provide flood storage surface water pooling, flood events, unless capacity. mainly in the south of care is taken in their the site, in a 1 in 30 design. Silica sand year rainfall event. extraction is considered There are additional 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. 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 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 the

B175

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction majority of these effects could be appropriately mitigated, particularly if parts of the site with the highest level of constraints are left unworked. 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.

B176

North Norfolk sites

MIN 69 – land north of Holt Road, Aylmerton

Proposal: Extraction of 2,200,000 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 93m 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 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 No effect post jobs, services and improved accessibility during extraction restoration facilities and to services and facilities reduce social and reduce social exclusion exclusion. The effect on employment is assessed under objective SA13.

B177

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 There are 9 Listed planning application. is appropriately environment Buildings within 2km of The heritage statement preserved. Mineral the site. should identify potential extraction will result in impacts to heritage landscape change; The only Scheduled assets and suggest however, an Monument within 2km appropriate mitigation. appropriate restoration of the site is Beeston scheme should ensure Regis Priory, which is no unacceptable 1.18km away. impacts on the setting of heritage assets. There are four Conservation Areas within 2km of the site, they are Sheringham No effects expected No effect post (1.85km away), West during extraction due to extraction. Runton (1.02km away), distance. Beeston Regis (1.17km away) and Upper Sheringham (1.69km away). No effects expected No effect post Felbrigg Hall, a during extraction extraction Registered Historic 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 deposits features, most as a will be required at the result of medieval iron planning application working activity, and stage, in order to 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 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

B178

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction adverse impacts to the SSSI and SAC. No impacts to SSSIs Briton’s Lane Gravel Pit are expected post SSSI is adjacent to the There would be no extraction. site boundary. adverse impacts to the Beeston Cliffs SSSI is geological SSSIs 1.81km from the site during extraction. boundary. Weybourne Cliffs SSSI The proposed is 2.86km from the site extraction site would be boundary. worked dry (above the Felbrigg Woods SSSI is water table). Therefore 1.43km from the site there would be no boundary. adverse impacts to Felbrigg Woods SSSI. No impacts to County The nearest CWS is Wildlife Sites are CWS 1147 ‘Roman No adverse impacts on expected post Camp and Beeston the CWS are expected extraction. Regis Heath’ which is due to the distance 230m from the site from the site and boundary. because the site would be worked dry. No impacts to ancient The nearest ancient woodland sites are woodland site is Great No adverse impacts on expected post Wood, a PAWS and the ancient woodland extraction. ASNW which is 1.71km are expected due to the from the site boundary. distance from the site and because the site would be worked dry. No adverse impacts to The site consists of the geodiversity are Briton’s Lane sand and The site contains expected post gravel member, geodiversity priority restoration. It would be overlying Wroxham features. useful for restoration to Crag Formation-sand provide opportunities and gravel. The Briton’s for further geological Lane sands and gravels research of suitable are known to contain exposures priority features such as 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.

B179

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 Care would be needed Improvements to public and amenity of western boundary of to ensure that the access are proposed as local communities the site (Beeston Regis impact on users of the part of the restoration of in Norfolk BR10). There is a PRoW and the nearby the site. PRoW running through dwellings would not be the site (north to south) significant. The PRoW (Aylmerton FP2). that runs through the There is a PRoW within site would need to be the site (Aylmerton subject to temporary FP1). There is a PRoW diversion. It is crossing the NE corner considered that of the site (Aylmerton appropriate mitigation FP3). measures to ensure no unacceptable impacts The nearest residential could be conditioned. property is 93m from the site boundary. There are eight sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. 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.

B180

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase 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 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

B181

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 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.

B182

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 Most of these and dust can be properties are in the mitigated to acceptable settlement of Holt, levels within 250m of which is 26m 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.

B183

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 deposits 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 In order for no adverse No impacts to the SSSI Norfolk’s Holt Lowes SSSI, which impacts on the SSSI, is expected post biodiversity and is part of the Norfolk the site must be extraction. geodiversity Valley Fens SAC. worked dry (above the water table), With

B184

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction normal mitigation measures, no adverse effects on the SSSI are expected. CWS 2006 ‘Spout Common’ is 460m from If the site is worked No impacts to CWSs the site boundary. above the water table, are expected post CWS 2121 ‘Common with normal mitigation extraction. Hills Plantation’ is 220m measures, no adverse from the site boundary. effects on the CWSs CWS 1093 ‘Disused are expected. railway’ is 500m from the site boundary. CWS 1098 ‘Edgefield 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 and after use of but it is assumed that scheme have been minerals sites the site will mainly be provided. restored to agriculture.

B185

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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. Advance However, an planting and hedgerow appropriate mitigation reinforcement around strategy and restoration the site would be scheme should ensure required to improve no unacceptable screening potential. impacts. There are clear views of the northern part of the site from the Hunworth Road and the land to the west is visible in an 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 hedge and woodland planting, and a standoff area from these properties 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 unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. SA10: To protect The site is located over 0/- 0/- and enhance water a Secondary A aquifer If the site is worked (superficial deposits) above the water table,

B186

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction and soil quality in and a principal aquifer with normal mitigation No effect on water Norfolk (bedrock). The majority measures, no adverse resources is expected of the site is within effects on water post extraction. groundwater Source resources are Protection Zone 3. expected.

The site is Grade 3 Potential for BMV agricultural land and agricultural land to be If the site is not could potentially be affected by mineral restored to agriculture, 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. 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 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; 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.

B187

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

B188

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 deposits 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

B189

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. 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

B190

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction landscape terms and visual impact terms. 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 There is a PROW close health or amenity from provided within the site in Norfolk to the northern mineral extraction on restoration. boundary of the site within the site. (north Walsham FP9). The nearest residential property is 352m from the site boundary. 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 sites, it would contribute to economic growth in

B191

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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.

B192

MIN 207 – land at Pinkney Field, Briston

Proposal: Extraction of 725,000 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

B193

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 deposits 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.

B194

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 Two alternative 0 + innovative solutions restoration options No effect during Restoration to an for the restoration have been proposed: extraction phase agricultural reservoir and after use of either the site would would be beneficial minerals sites become an agricultural because it would reservoir, or it would be reduce the need for restored to farmland / water abstraction for woodland. irrigation. The alternative restoration scheme to agriculture, if it includes wide field margins, and some woodland 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 strategy and restoration agricultural reservoirs. scheme should ensure Woodland borders part no unacceptable of the northern impacts. boundary and screens the site from Hunworth.

B195

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 may be

restored to agriculture Potential for BMV The site is Grade 3 with woodland, or may agricultural land to be agricultural land and be restored to an affected by mineral could potentially be agricultural reservoir. extraction within the Grade 3a which is Therefore there is the site. classified within the potential for a

Best and Most Versatile permanent loss of BMV agricultural land. 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. 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.

B196

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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.

B197

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 two sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of East and dust can be Beckham is 560m 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. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed - - and enhance the Building is Grade II Hall

B198

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 deposits 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.

B199

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

B200

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 two sensitive appropriate mitigation receptors within 250m measures to ensure no of the site boundary. unacceptable impacts 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

B201

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.

B202

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: 5.58 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. 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 118m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 58 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 118m 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.

B203

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 110m away. There support any future historic value of assets historic are 183 Listed planning application. is appropriately environment Buildings within 2km of The heritage statement preserved. Mineral the site. 152 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 1.46km 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 1.66km No effect post away. There are 3 No effects expected extraction. Scheduled Monuments during extraction. 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 that unknown No effect post A Historic Environment archaeology exists on extraction record of features the site and an related to historic assessment of the roadways occurs within significance of the site boundary. The archaeological deposits 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 2.58km from adverse impacts to the are expected post the site boundary. SSSI due to distance extraction. and because the proposed extraction site is located in a different hydrological catchment to the SSSI.

B204

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 750m 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 0.82km 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 landscape would predominantly be the decreased long distance views and

B205

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 118m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are 58 sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary 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 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 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 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 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 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

B206

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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.

B207

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

Proposal: Extraction of 750,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 7.65 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. 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 102m 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 The settlement of and dust can be Earsham is 392m 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.

B208

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 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 44 Listed Buildings planning application. is appropriately environment within 2km of the site. The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 7 of them are within should identify potential extraction will result in Bungay Conservation impacts to heritage landscape change; Area which is 1.84km 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 1.84km inappropriate. away. There are 2 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 Environment records There is the potential No effect post within the site that unknown extraction boundary. The site is in archaeology exists on a wider landscape with the site and an a significant number of assessment of the finds and features from significance of multiple periods, archaeological deposits including a WW1 will be required at the airfield site, and a WW2 planning application roadside bomb store. 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 Abbey Wood, Flixton There would be no No impacts on SSSIs SSSI is 1.96km 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.

B209

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction The nearest CWS is Due to the distance No impacts on CWS CWS 125 ‘Holy Grove’ from the site no are expected. which is 930m 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 distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting to screen the mineral working from view.

B210

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 102m 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 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 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 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 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 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

B211

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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.

B212

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: 4.77 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. 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 43m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There are 7 sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Earsham is 392m 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 Grade II

B213

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction character of the Rookery Farmhouse A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy townscape and which is 230m away would be required to should ensure the historic and Grade II 38 & 39 support any future historic value of assets environment Hall Road, which is planning application. is appropriately 130m away. There are The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 158 Listed Buildings should identify potential extraction will result in within 2km of the site. impacts to heritage landscape change; 129 of these are within assets and suggest however, an Bungay Conservation appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration Area which is 1.44km which may include scheme should ensure from the site. 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 1.70km away. There are 3 No effect expected No effects post Scheduled Monuments during extraction. extraction. within 2km of the 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 a ring ditch is shown 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 deposits finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods, planning application including a Bronze Age stage, in order to cemetery and a WW2 protect and mitigate the bomb store adjacent to impact of mineral the site. 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 Sexton Wood SSSI is Due to distance, no No impacts on SSSIs 2.36km from the site impacts on SSSIs are are expected. boundary, however, the expected. site is not within the Impact Risk Zone for any SSSIs.

CWS 125 ‘Holy Grove’ The potential exists for is 200m from the site hydrological impacts on boundary. CWS 134 the CWS and ancient

B214

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction ‘Great Wood & America woodland sites from No impacts to CWSs Wood’ is 330m from the mineral extraction at are expected post site boundary and CWS this site, if dewatering extraction. 2102 ‘Rich’s Hill’ is is used. An 530m from the site assessment of potential boundary. hydrological impacts, together with The nearest ancient appropriate mitigation woodland sites are: would be required as Holy Grove, a ASNW part of any planning which is 0.33km from application. No impacts to the the site boundary; ancient woodland sites Great Wood, a ASNW are expected post and PAWS which is extraction. 0.44km from the site boundary and America Wood, a ASNW which is 0.73km from the site boundary.

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 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 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.

B215

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 43m from dwellings would not be on restoration. the site boundary. significant; however it There are 7 sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary. measures to ensure no unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. 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 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 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

B216

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction at new and existing No areas of the site are rivers, the sea or development 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.

B217

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 Most of these are within and dust can be the settlement of mitigated to acceptable Haddiscoe, which is levels within 250m of 55m 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.

B218

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 deposits 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 CWSs Norfolk’s Broadland SPA and the SAC and the SPA are expected post biodiversity and Ramsar site and is are expected due to the extraction. geodiversity outside the Impact Risk distance from the site. Zone for Halvergate 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

B219

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

There are no SSSIs Due to distance, no within 3km of the site impacts on SSSIs are No impacts on SSSIs boundary and the expected. are expected. majority of the site is not within the Impact Risk Zone for any SSSIs (a small part of the site is within the North Denes SSSI)

The nearest CWS is There is the potential CWS 2221 ‘Devil’s End for impacts from dust No impacts to CWSs Meadow’ which is 170m deposition although are expected post from the site boundary. with normal mitigation extraction. 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 woodland site is Long above the water table, No impacts to the Row Wood, an ASNW with normal mitigation ancient woodland site which is 1.55km from measures, no adverse are expected post the site boundary. effects on this ancient extraction. woodland site are expected.

The site consists of the There is the potential Haddiscoe formation - for this site to contain No adverse impacts to sand and gravel, examples of geodiversity are Corton formation-sand geodiversity priority expected post (undifferentiated), features. restoration. It would be Lowestoft Formation - useful for restoration to diamicton; overlying the provide opportunities Crag group. 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 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 biodiversity gains.

B220

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction planting and shallow 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 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 could be conditioned, such as temporary diversion of the PROW. 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.

B221

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.

B222

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 six sensitive expected to cause receptors within 250m vibration. It is of the site boundary. considered that noise The settlement of and dust can be Nogdam End is 821m 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. SA5: To maintain The nearest Listed 0 0 and enhance the Building is Grade II*

B223

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 deposits 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

B224

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

B225

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 six sensitive is considered that receptors within 250m appropriate mitigation of the site boundary. measures to ensure no unacceptable impacts could be conditioned. 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 relate to the proportion lost.

B226

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction

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.

B227

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.

B228

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 deposits 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.

B229

There are no County No impacts on County Wildlife Sites within Wildlife Sites are 1km of the site Due to distance, no expected. boundary. impacts on County Wildlife Sites are The nearest ancient expected. No impacts on the woodland site is Hales ancient woodland site is Hall Wood, an ASNW Due to the distance expected post and PAWS, which is from the site, no extraction 2.16km from the site adverse impacts to the boundary. ancient woodland site are expected from the proposed mineral The site consists of the extraction. No adverse impacts to Corton formation - sand geodiversity are (undifferentiated), Head The site contains expected post deposits - clay, silt, examples of restoration. It would be sand & gravel which are geodiversity priority useful for restoration to priority features due to features. 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.

B230

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 are two Public - 0 to improved health Rights of Way adjacent Care would be needed New public footpaths and amenity of to the site: Mundham to ensure that the are unlikely to be local communities FP7 and Mundham FP6 impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk on the west and east PRoW and the nearby on restoration. boundaries. dwellings would not be The nearest residential significant. However, it property is 147m from is considered that the site boundary. appropriate mitigation There are 2 sensitive measures to ensure no receptors within 250m unacceptable impacts of the site boundary. 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.

B231

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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.

B232

MIN 79 – land north of Hickling Lane, Swardeston

Proposal: Extraction of 1,970,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 38.56 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 2.9km from ++ 0 and mitigate the 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 The site is also 8.4km There would also be Restoration would climate change from Wymondham. CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. 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 36m 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 The settlement of and dust can be Swainsthorpe is 544m mitigated to acceptable away. However, the levels within 250m of south-eastern field is the source; the greatest not proposed to be impacts will be within extracted. Therefore 100m, if uncontrolled. the nearest residential Noise and dust property to the assessments, and extraction area is 83m mitigation measures to away and there are 2 appropriately control sensitive receptors any amenity impacts, within 250m of the must form part of any proposed extraction planning application for area. The effect on mineral extraction. 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

B233

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 Gowthorpe Manor would be required to should ensure the townscape and House, which is 390m support any future historic value of assets historic away. There are 57 planning application. is appropriately environment Listed Buildings within The heritage statement preserved. Mineral 2km of the site. 13 of should identify potential extraction will result in these are within a impacts to heritage landscape change; Conservation Area. assets and suggest however, an appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration The nearest Scheduled which may include scheme should ensure Monument is ‘Venta identification of areas no unacceptable Icenorum: Roman town where mineral impacts on the setting and associated extraction would be of heritage assets. prehistoric and inappropriate. medieval remains’, which is 780m away. No effects expected No effects post There are 3 Scheduled during extraction extraction. Monuments within 2km of the site.

Stoke Holy Cross No effects expected Conservation Area is during extraction No effects post 1.36km away. extraction Mulbarton Conservation Area is 1.46km away.

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

There are Historic There is the potential Environment records of that unknown No effects post multi-period finds and archaeology exists on extraction features within the site the site and an boundary, including a assessment of the potential location for the significance of Humbleyard Moot site, archaeological deposits and Roman pits. The will be required at the site is in a wider planning application landscape with a very stage, in order to significant number of protect and mitigate the finds and features from impact of mineral multiple periods, extraction in this site. including Roman features. SA6: To protect 0 0 and enhance Norfolk’s

B234

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.

Shotesham Common There would be no No impacts on SSSIs SSSI is 2.4km from the adverse impacts to the are expected. 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 distance, no No impacts on CWS CWS 268 ‘Dunston impacts on CWS are are expected. Common’ which is expected. 780m 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 This site is unlikely to No adverse impacts to Lowestoft Formation - contain geodiversity geodiversity are diamicton, Corton priority features. expected post Formation and restoration. It would be Lowestoft Formation- useful for restoration to sand and gravel provide opportunities (undifferentiated), for further geological overlying chalk research of suitable formations. exposures. SA7: To promote The site is proposed to 0 + innovative solutions be restored mainly to No effect during A restoration scheme for the restoration agriculture. Preferred extraction phase which includes wide and after use of restoration would field margins, and some minerals sites include wide field woodland would margins and enhanced provide some deciduous woodland biodiversity gains. belts. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site comprises four Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or arable fields. There is result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated a tree belt containing a change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. series of ponds through appropriate mitigation landscape the centre of the site strategy and restoration which terminates in a scheme should ensure small copse on the no unacceptable southern boundary of impacts the site. An indicative working scheme has indicated a standoff

B235

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction area to provide the protection to this copse that would be required during extraction. Trees and shrubs along the southern boundary help to screen the site from users of the Public Right of Way which runs along this boundary and properties to the south. A shrub belt to the north helps to screen the site especially from long range views; a partial line of hedging along the western boundary provides some screening for users of the PRoW along this side. Gowthorpe Manor and Barn are well screened from the site by intervening woodland. 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 (Swardeston impact on users of the provided within the site in Norfolk BR12), a PRoW PRoW and the nearby on restoration. adjacent to the western dwellings would not be boundary of the site significant. However, it (Swardeston BR9) and is considered that a PRoW adjacent to the appropriate mitigation southern boundary of measures to ensure no the site (Swainsthorpe unacceptable impacts BOAT6). could be conditioned.

The nearest residential property is 36m from the site boundary. There are 3 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. However, the south- eastern field is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore the nearest residential property to the extraction area is 83m

B236

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction away and there are 2 sensitive receptors within 250m of the proposed extraction area. SA10: To protect The site is located over - 0 and enhance water a Secondary If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (undifferentiated) as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk aquifer (superficial the potential for post extraction. deposits) and a adverse impacts exists, principal aquifer although appropriate (bedrock). The site is assessment and within groundwater mitigation measures Source Protection Zone could ensure that no 2. 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, Best and Most Versatile there would be no likely agricultural land. adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 2.9km from ++ 0 sustainable use of the 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 The site is also 8.4km growth. from Wymondham. These are the nearest settlements allocated 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 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 a being affected by few locations of surface flooding from surface water pooling and a water. Sand and small surface water flow gravel extraction is path in a 1 in 100 year considered to be a rainfall event. The ‘water compatible’ land surface water flow path use which is suitable in in the north of the site all flood zones. increases in size in a 1 in 1000 year rainfall event.

B237

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 the historic environment, landscape, 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.

B238

MIN 80 – land south of Mangreen Hall Farm, Swardeston

Proposal: Extraction of 750,000 tonnes of sand and gravel Size of site: 12.98 ha

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction SA1: To adapt to The site is 2.5km from ++ 0 and mitigate the 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 The site is also 8.6km There would also be Restoration would climate change from Wymondham. CO2 emissions from include woodland as a road transportation to carbon ‘sink’. 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 0 noise, vibration and property is 214m from Sand and gravel No effect post visual intrusion the site boundary. extraction is not restoration There is 1 sensitive expected to cause receptor within 250m of vibration. It is the site boundary. The considered that noise settlement of and dust can be Swardeston is 1.1km mitigated to acceptable away. However, the levels within 250m of northern part of the site, the source. Noise and under the electricity dust assessments, and pylons, is not proposed mitigation measures to to be extracted. appropriately control Therefore the nearest any amenity impacts, residential property is must form part of any 418m from the planning application for extraction area and mineral extraction. there are no sensitive receptors within 250m 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 reduce social and reduce social provided within the site exclusion exclusion. The effect on restoration. on employment is

B239

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 the Grade II A Heritage Statement A mitigation strategy character of the Barn at Hall Farm which would be required to should ensure the townscape and is 200m away. There support any future historic value of assets historic are 46 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 ‘Venta assets and suggest however, an Icenorum: Roman town appropriate mitigation, appropriate restoration and associated which may include scheme should ensure prehistoric and identification of areas no unacceptable medieval remains’ where mineral impacts on the setting which is 720m away. extraction would be of heritage assets. There are 5 Scheduled inappropriate. Monument within 2km of the site.

Stoke Holy Cross No effects expected No effect post Conservation Area is during extraction extraction 1.67km 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 Historic There is the potential No effect post Environment records of that unknown extraction multi-period finds within archaeology exists on the site boundary. The the site and an site is in a wider assessment of the landscape with a very significance of significant number of archaeological deposits finds and features from will be required at the multiple periods, planning application including Roman stage, in order to features. 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 Shotesham Common There would be no No impacts on SSSIs SSSI is 2.8km from the adverse impacts to the are expected. site boundary. SSSI due to distance and because the proposed extraction

B240

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 distance, no No impacts on CWS CWS 268 ‘Dunston impacts on CWS are are expected. Common’ which is expected. 910m 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 This site is unlikely to No adverse impacts to Lowestoft Formation- contain geodiversity geodiversity are diamicton, overlying priority features. expected post chalk formations. restoration. It would be 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 mainly to No effect during A restoration scheme for the restoration agriculture. Preferred extraction phase which includes wide and after use of restoration would field margins, and some minerals sites include wide field woodland would margins and enhanced provide some deciduous woodland biodiversity gains. belts. SA8: To protect The site is not located - 0 and enhance the within the AONB, a The site is a Mineral extraction will quality and Core River Valley or predominantly flat result in landscape distinctiveness of any other designated arable field with a change; however, an the countryside and landscape feature. native shrub belt on its appropriate mitigation landscape boundaries. The only strategy and restoration public view point of the scheme should ensure site would be from no unacceptable parts of the bridleway impacts that runs along the western boundary. The site is acceptable in landscape terms if appropriate screening is provided to the west and north, as proposed. 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 the site (Swardeston impact on users of the

B241

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction local communities BR9) and a PRoW PRoW would not be provided within the site in Norfolk adjacent to the western significant. However, it on restoration. boundary of the site is considered that (Swardeston BR12). appropriate mitigation measures to ensure no The nearest residential unacceptable impacts property is 214m from could be conditioned. the site boundary. There is 1 sensitive receptor within 250m of the site boundary. However, the northern part of the site, under the electricity pylons, is not proposed to be extracted. Therefore the nearest residential property is 418m 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 Secondary If the site is dewatered No effect on water and soil quality in (undifferentiated) as part of the extraction resources is expected Norfolk aquifer (superficial the potential for post extraction. deposits) and a adverse impacts exists, principal aquifer although appropriate (bedrock). The site is assessment and within groundwater mitigation measures Source Protection Zone could ensure that no 2. 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, Best and Most Versatile there would be no likely agricultural land. adverse effect on BMV agricultural land. SA11: To promote The site is 2.5km from ++ 0 sustainable use of the 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 The site is also 8.6km growth. from Wymondham. These are the nearest settlements allocated

B242

SA Objective Comments Assessment of Assessment Extraction Phase Post Extraction 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 area and gravel extraction is of surface water pooling considered to be a in a 1 in 30 year and 1 ‘water compatible’ land in 100 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, 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.

B243