DOCSLIB.ORG

Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Preliminary Environmental Information Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Preliminary Environmental Information Report Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Hornsea Project Three Offshore Wind Farm Preliminary Environmental Information Report: Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation (Part 1) Date: July 2017 Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation Preliminary Environmental Information Report July 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment Preliminary Environmental Information Report Liability Volume 3 Chapter 3: Ecology and Nature Conservation This report has been prepared by RPS, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of their contracts with DONG Energy Power (UK) Ltd. Report Number: P6.3.3 Version: Final Date: July 2017 This report is also downloadable from the Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm website at: www.dongenergy.co.uk/hornseaproject3 DONG Energy Power (UK) Ltd. 5 Howick Place, Prepared by: RPS London, SW1P 1WG Checked by: Jennifer Brack, Sergio Zappulo and Kieran Bell. © DONG Energy Power (UK) Ltd, 2017. All rights reserved Accepted by: Sophie Banham Front cover picture: Kite surfer near one of DONG Energy's UK offshore wind farms © DONG Energy Hornsea Approved by: Stuart Livesey Project Three (UK) Ltd., 2016. ii Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation Preliminary Environmental Information Report July 2017 Table of Contents Table 3.13: Matrix used for the assessment of the significance of the effect. ........................................................ 35 Table 3.14: Designed-in measures adopted as part of Hornsea Three with respect to ecology and nature 3. Ecology and Nature Conservation ....................................................................................................................... 1 conservation. ...................................................................................................................................... 36 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Table 3.15: Summary of maximum design scenario habitat loss impacts on designated sites assuming open cut 3.2 Purpose of this chapter ................................................................................................................................ 1 cable installation within the Ecology and nature conservation study area . ........................................ 45 Table 3.16: Summary of habitat loss impacts on designated sites if impacts are minimised / avoided through final 3.3 Study area ................................................................................................................................................... 2 route selection and / or trenchless techniques. .................................................................................. 46 3.4 Planning policy context ................................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3.17: List of other projects and plans (with planning application reference) considered within the CEA. ..... 72 3.5 Consultation ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 3.18: Maximum adversedesign scenario considered for the assessment of potential cumulative impacts on 3.6 Methodology to inform the baseline ........................................................................................................... 17 ecology and nature conservation. ....................................................................................................... 74 3.7 Baseline environment ................................................................................................................................ 18 Table 3.19: Summary of potential environment effects, mitigation and monitoring. ............................................... 80 3.8 Key parameters for assessment ................................................................................................................ 29 3.9 Impact assessment criteria ........................................................................................................................ 34 3.10 Measures adopted as part of Hornsea Three ............................................................................................ 35 List of Figures 3.11 Assessment of significance (see Part 2) .................................................................................................... 41 Figure 3.1: Hornsea Three ecology and nature conservation study area. .............................................................. 3 3.12 Cumulative Effect Assessment methodology (see Part 2) ......................................................................... 71 Figure 3.2: Location of designated sites. .............................................................................................................. 90 3.13 Cumulative Effect Assessment (see Part 2)............................................................................................... 75 Figure 3.3: Phase 1 Habitat Survey. ..................................................................................................................... 98 3.14 Transboundary effects (see Part 2) ........................................................................................................... 77 3.15 Inter-related effects (see Part 2) ................................................................................................................ 77 3.16 Conclusion and summary (see Part 2) ....................................................................................................... 77 List of Annexes (Included separately in Volume 6) 3.17 Next Steps (see Part 2) ............................................................................................................................. 78 Annex 3.1: Onshore Ornithology – Wintering Bird Survey 3.18 References (see Part 2) ............................................................................................................................. 88 Annex 3.2: Great Crested Newt and Desmoulins Whorl Snail Habitat Suitability Assessment Survey Annex 3.3 Hazel Dormouse, Red Squirrel and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Desk Study List of Tables Table 3.1: Field surveys undertaken and associated survey area. ........................................................................ 2 Table 3.2: Summary of NPS EN-1 and NPS EN-5 policy relevant to ecology and nature conservation. ............... 4 Table 3.3: Summary of NPS EN-1 policy on decision making with regard to ecology and nature conservation (and mitigation) and consideration in the Hornsea Three assessment. ................................................ 5 Table 3.4: Summary of key consultation issues raised during consultation activities undertaken for Hornsea Three relevant to ecology and nature conservation. ............................................................................. 9 Table 3.5: Desk study record requests. ............................................................................................................... 17 Table 3.6: Designated sites within 1 km of Hornsea Three. ................................................................................ 19 Table 3.7: Approximate habitat areas identified within the onshore cable corridor search area, onshore HVAC booster station and HVDC converter/HVAC substation sites during the Phase 1 habitat survey in Hornsea Three.................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3.8: Priority Habitats under the UK BAP and Norfolk LBAP. ...................................................................... 22 Table 3.9: Summary of importance of onshore VERs identified. ......................................................................... 27 Table 3.10: Maximum design scenario considered for the assessment of potential impacts on ecology and nature conservation. ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 3.11: Definition of terms relating to the sensitivity of the receptor................................................................ 34 Table 3.12: Definition of terms relating to the magnitude of an impact. ................................................................. 34 iii Chapter 3 – Ecology and Nature Conservation Preliminary Environmental Information Report July 2017 Glossary Term Definition Term Definition Non-statutory Non-statutory designated sites are sites which have been designated due to their nature conservation interest, designated sites typically through the local planning process, which are usually protected by planning policies but not legally Biodiversity Action The UK Government’s response to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which the UK signed in 1992 in Rio de protected. Plan (BAP) Janeiro and ratified in 1994. The Convention on Biological Diversity requires signatory countries to identify, Priority Habitats UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority habitats are those identified as being the most threatened and develop and enforce action plans to conserve, protect and enhance biological diversity. The UK BAP addresses requiring conservation action under the UK BAP. this requirement. Local BAPs (LBAPs) have been produced by many counties, to detail measures to conserve, protect and enhance local/county biological diversity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marriott's Way Circular Route Guide
    MARRIOTT’S WAY CIRCULAR ROUTE GUIDE WELCOME TO MARRIOTT’S WAY MARRIOTT’S WAY is a 26-mile linear trail for riders, walkers and cyclists. Opened in 1991, it follows part of the route of two former Victorian railway lines, The Midland and Great Northern (M&GN) and Great Eastern Railway (GER). It is named in honour of William Marriott, who was chief engineer and manager of the M&GN for 41 years between 1883 and 1924. Both lines were established in the 1880s to transport passengers, livestock and industrial freight. The two routes were joined by the ‘Themelthorpe Curve’ in 1960, which became the sharpest bend on the entire British railway network. Use of the lines reduced after the Second World War. Passenger traffic ceased in 1959, but the transport of concrete ensured that freight trains still used the lines until 1985. The seven circular walks and two cycle loops in this guide encourage you to head off the main Marriott’s Way route and explore the surrounding areas that the railway served. Whilst much has changed, there’s an abundance of hidden history to be found. Many of the churches, pubs, farms and station buildings along these circular routes would still be familiar to the railway passengers of 100 years ago. 2 Marriott’s Way is a County Wildlife Site and passes through many interesting landscapes rich in wonderful countryside, wildlife, sculpture and a wealth of local history. The walks and cycle loops described in these pages are well signposted by fingerposts and Norfolk Trails’ discs. You can find all the circular trails in this guide covered by OS Explorer Map 238.
    [Show full text]
  • Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm Appendix 22.14 Norfolk Vanguard Onshore Ecology Consultation Responses
    Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm Appendix 22.14 Norfolk Vanguard Onshore Ecology Consultation Responses Preliminary Environmental Information Report Volume 3 Author: Royal HaskoningDHV Applicant: Norfolk Boreas Limited Document Reference: PB5640-005-2214 Date: October 2018 Photo: Ormonde Offshore Wind Farm Date Issue Remarks / Reason for Issue Author Checked Approved No. 20/07/18 01D First draft for Norfolk Boreas Limited review GC CD DT 20/09/18 01F Final for PEIR submission GC CD AD/JL Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 2 Consultation responses Norfolk Vanguard ............................................................... 1 3 References ........................................................................................................... 27 Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page ii Tables Table 2.1 Norfolk Vanguard Consultation Responses 2 Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page iii Glossary of Acronyms CoCP Code of Construction Practice DCO Development Consent Order EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement ETG Expert Topic Group HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current HVDC High Voltage Direct Current PEIR Preliminary Environmental Information Report SoS Secretary of State Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page iv This page is intentionally blank. Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page v 1 Introduction 1. Consultation is a key driver of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, and throughout the lifecycle of the project, from the initial stages through to consent and post-consent. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • David Tyldesley and Associates Planning, Landscape and Environmental Consultants
    DAVID TYLDESLEY AND ASSOCIATES PLANNING, LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document Durwyn Liley, Rachel Hoskin, John Underhill-Day & David Tyldesley 1 DRAFT Date: 7th November 2008 Version: Draft Recommended Citation: Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Underhill-Day, J. & Tyldesley, D. (2008). Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Document. Footprint Ecology, Wareham, Dorset. Report for Breckland District Council. 2 Summary This document records the results of a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of Breckland District Council’s Core Strategy. The Breckland District lies in an area of considerable importance for nature conservation with a number of European Sites located within and just outside the District. The range of sites, habitats and designations is complex. Taking an area of search of 20km around the District boundary as an initial screening for relevant protected sites the assessment identified five different SPAs, ten different SACs and eight different Ramsar sites. Following on from this initial screening the assessment identifies the following potential adverse effects which are addressed within the appropriate assessment: • Reduction in the density of Breckland SPA Annex I bird species (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark) near to new housing. • Increased levels of recreational activity resulting in increased disturbance to Breckland SPA Annex I bird species (stone curlew, nightjar, woodlark). • Increased levels of people on and around the heaths, resulting in an increase in urban effects such as increased fire risk, fly-tipping, trampling. • Increased levels of recreation to the Norfolk Coast (including the Wash), potentially resulting in disturbance to interest features and other recreational impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Improvement Plan Norfolk Valley Fens
    Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS) Planning for the Future Site Improvement Plan Norfolk Valley Fens Site Improvement Plans (SIPs) have been developed for each Natura 2000 site in England as part of the Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 sites (IPENS). Natura 2000 sites is the combined term for sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protected Areas (SPA). This work has been financially supported by LIFE, a financial instrument of the European Community. The plan provides a high level overview of the issues (both current and predicted) affecting the condition of the Natura 2000 features on the site(s) and outlines the priority measures required to improve the condition of the features. It does not cover issues where remedial actions are already in place or ongoing management activities which are required for maintenance. The SIP consists of three parts: a Summary table, which sets out the priority Issues and Measures; a detailed Actions table, which sets out who needs to do what, when and how much it is estimated to cost; and a set of tables containing contextual information and links. Once this current programme ends, it is anticipated that Natural England and others, working with landowners and managers, will all play a role in delivering the priority measures to improve the condition of the features on these sites. The SIPs are based on Natural England's current evidence and knowledge. The SIPs are not legal documents, they are live documents that will be updated to reflect changes in our evidence/knowledge and as actions get underway.
    [Show full text]
  • Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society
    20 NOV 2Q02 I FXCHA^O'-"> 1 Norfolk Bird Report - 2001 Editor: Giles Dunmore Editorial 95 Review of the Year 98 Wetland Bird Surveys for Breydon and The Wash 1 05 Norfolk Bird Atlas 1 07 Systematic List 1 09 Introductions, Escapes, Ferals and Hybrids 248 Earliest and Latest Dates of Summer Migrants 253 Latest and Earliest Dates of Winter Migrants 254 Non-accepted and non-submitted records 255 Contributors 256 Ringing Report 258 Hunstanton Cliffs: a Forgotten Migration Hotspot 268 1 Yellow-legged Gulls in Norfolk: 1 96 -200 1 273 Marmora’s Warbler on Scolt Head - a first for Norfolk 28 Pallas’s Grasshopper Warbler at Blakeney Point - the second for Norfolk 283 Blyth’s Pipit at Happisburgh in September 1 999 - the second for Norfolk 285 Norfolk Mammal Report - 2001 Editor: Ian Keymer Editorial 287 Bats at Paston Great Barn 288 Memories of an ex-editor 298 Harvest Mice: more common than suspected? 299 Are we under-recording the Norfolk mink population? 301 National Key Sites for Water Voles in Norfolk 304 A Guide to identification of Shrews and Rodents 309 Published by NORFOLK AND NORWICH NATURALISTS’ SOCIETY Castle Museum, Norwich, NRl 3JU (Transactions Volume 35 part 2 October 2002) Please note that the page numbering in this report follows on from part 1 of the Transactions pub- lished in July 2002 ISSN 0375 7226 www.nnns.org.uk Keepsake back numbers are available from David & Iris Pauli, 8 Lindford Drive, Eaton, Norwich NR4 6LT Front cover photograph: Tree Sparrow (Richard Brooks) Back cover photograph: Grey Seal (Graeme Cresswell) NORFOLK BIRD REPORT - 2001 Editorial x On behalf of the Society 1 am pleased to present the annual report on the Birds of Norfolk.
    [Show full text]
  • Site: Land Off Broomhill Lane, Reepham Work Item: Ecological
    Site: Land off Broomhill Lane, Reepham Work Ecological Assessment Item: including Bat Surveys and Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment Client: Lovell Author: Dr GW Hopkins FRES CEnv MCIEEM Date: 23 March 2020 Hopkins Ecology Ltd, St George’s Works, 51 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1DD T. 01603 435598 M: 07481 477103 E: [email protected] W: www.hopkinsecology.co.uk CONTENTS Summary 1 1. Introduction 3 2. Methods 4 3. Data Search 5 4. Site Description 8 5. Bats: Overview 10 6. Other Species of Conservation Concern 12 7. Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment 14 8. Discussion 17 9. Conclusions 21 10. Appendix 1: Additional Photographs 22 11. Appendix 2: Legislation 24 Summary Hopkins Ecology Ltd was appointed by Lovell to prepare an ecological assessment of a Site on Land off Broomhill Road, Reepham. This comprises two main fields totalling ~7.1ha in area, with access along Broomhill Road where there will be some widening over a verge. A bungalow will also be demolished. There is a single international site within 2km – the Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the nearest feature of which is c. 1.0km east (component site Booton Common Site of Special Scientific Interest). The River Wensum SAC is c. 4km south. A shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment is presented, with three pathways of potential impact identified: water supply and disposal, recreational disturbance and surface water run- off. Two pathways are screened out: water supply and disposal is treated at a plan level, while noting that the relevant waste water treatment works is downstream of the nearest Norfolk Valley Fens SAC.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019–2020
    Norfolk Wildlife Trust Annual report 2019–2020 Saving Norfolk’s Wildlife for the Future Norfolk Wildlife Trust seeks a My opening words are the most important message: sustainable Living Landscape thank you to our members, staff, volunteers, for wildlife and people donors, investors and grant providers. Where the future of wildlife is With your loyal and generous in the School Holidays. As part of our Greater support, and despite the Anglia partnership we promoted sustainable protected and enhanced through challenges of the current crisis, travel when discovering nature reserves. sympathetic management Norfolk Wildlife Trust will continue to advance wildlife We have also had many notable wildlife conservation in Norfolk and highlights during the year across all Norfolk Where people are connected with, to connect people to nature. habitats, from the return of the purple emperor inspired by, value and care for butterfly to our woodlands, to the creation of a Norfolk’s wildlife and wild species This report covers the year to the end of March substantial wet reedbed at Hickling Broad and 2020, a year that ended as the coronavirus Marshes in conjunction with the Environment crisis set in. Throughout the lockdown period Agency. Many highlights are the result of we know from the many photos and stories partnerships and projects which would not we received and the increased activity of our have been possible without generous support. CONTENTS online community that many people found nature to be a source of solace – often joy – in The Prime Minister had said that the Nature reserves for Page 04 difficult times.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire & Essex Butterfly Conservation
    Butterfly Conservation Regional Action Plan For Anglia (Cambridgeshire, Essex, Suffolk & Norfolk) This action plan was produced in response to the Action for Butterflies project funded by WWF, EN, SNH and CCW This regional project has been supported by Action for Biodiversity Cambridgeshire and Essex Branch Suffolk branch BC Norfolk branch BC Acknowledgements The Cambridgeshire and Essex branch, Norfolk branch and Suffolk branch constitute Butterfly Conservation’s Anglia region. This regional plan has been compiled from individual branch plans which are initially drawn up from 1997-1999. As the majority of the information included in this action plan has been directly lifted from these original plans, credit for this material should go to the authors of these reports. They were John Dawson (Cambridgeshire & Essex Plan, 1997), James Mann and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Plan, 1998), and Jane Harris (Norfolk Plan, 1999). County butterfly updates have largely been provided by Iris Newbery and Dr Val Perrin (Cambridgeshire and Essex), Roland Rogers and Brian Mcllwrath (Norfolk) and Richard Stewart (Suffolk). Some of the moth information included in the plan has been provided by Dr Paul Waring, David Green and Mark Parsons (BC Moth Conservation Officers) with additional county moth data obtained from John Dawson (Cambridgeshire), Brian Goodey and Robin Field (Essex), Barry Dickerson (Huntingdon Moth and Butterfly Group), Michael Hall and Ken Saul (Norfolk Moth Survey) and Tony Prichard (Suffolk Moth Group). Some of the micro-moth information included in the plan was kindly provided by A. M. Emmet. Other individuals targeted with specific requests include Graham Bailey (BC Cambs. & Essex), Ruth Edwards, Dr Chris Gibson (EN), Dr Andrew Pullin (Birmingham University), Estella Roberts (BC, Assistant Conservation Officer, Wareham), Matthew Shardlow (RSPB) and Ken Ulrich (BC Cambs.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Norwich Local Plan Site Proposals Document
    Greater Norwich Local Plan Site Proposals document Contents Page Page 1 Introduction 5 2 Settlement Summaries and Sites 12 3 Broadland 12 o Horsford 56 o Acle 16 o Horsham & Newton St. Faiths 61 o Attlebridge 17 o Horstead & Stanninghall 64 o Aylsham 21 o Lingwood & Burlingham 65 o Beighton 22 o Marsham 68 o Blofield 24 o Panxworth 71 o Blofield Heath 26 o Postwick 72 o Brundall 28 o Rackheath 75 o Buxton with Lamas 30 o Reedham 78 o Cantley 31 o Reepham 79 o Cawston 33 o Salhouse 83 o Coltishall & Horstead 35 o South Walsham 87 o Crostwick 36 o Spixworth 89 o Drayton 40 o Sprowston 90 o Felthorpe 41 o Strumpshaw 94 o Foulsham 43 o Taverham 96 o Frettenham 44 o Thorpe St. Andrew 98 o Gt & Lt Plumstead 47 o Weston Longville 101 o Gt Witchingham & Lenwade 49 o Woodbastwick 102 o Hainford 51 o Wroxham 103 o Hellesdon 53 o Hevingham 54 o Honningham 2 4 Norwich 105 5 South Norfolk 125 X o Alpington & Yelverton 125 o Hingham 226 o Ashby St Mary 126 o Keswick 230 o Aslacton 127 o Ketteringham 232 o Ashwellthorpe & Fundenhall 130 o Kirby Cane 234 o 132 236 Barford o Little Melton o Barnham Broom 134 o Loddon & Chedgrave 240 o Bawburgh 136 o Long Stratton 244 o Bergh Apton 139 o Marlingford & Colton 247 o Bixley 142 o Morley 250 o Bracon Ash 144 o Mulbarton 252 o Bramerton 147 o Mundham 254 o Bressingham 148 o Needham 255 o Brockdish (inc Thorpe Abbotts) 149 o Newton Flotman 257 o Brooke 150 o Norton Subcourse 259 o Broome 153 o Poringland 260 o Bunwell 155 o Pulham Market 265 o Burston and Shimpling 158 o Pulham St Mary 267 o Caistor St Edmund
    [Show full text]
  • Some Historically Significant Trees in Norfolk
    32 The Glaven Historian No.8 Some Historically Significant Trees in Norfolk by John White Synopsis: At first glance Norfolk may seem to be devoid of significant trees but this is certainly not true. There is a wealth of arboreal diversity and history equal to any other county in England; some of this diversity is explored in this paper. Introduction applies to the species as a whole and not to an individual plant. he slate for trees in Norfolk was wiped In a strict sense a 'Native Tree' (as opposed clean during the last Ice Age, thus about to a ‘Native Species’) is a plant growing on a site 14,000 years ago there were no trees in it occupies naturally having never been moved T 2 the county. Yet by the time the British Isles artificially and, moreover, it should have regen- became separated from mainland Europe by ris- erated from only local British stock. Such ing sea levels around 6,000 years ago a small authentic native plants include those found in number of what we can call ‘Native Species’ were ancient woodlands where there is no evidence of established throughout the region. past modification, or ancient semi-natural wood- Subsequently species were added to the tree lands where there has been continuous tree or flora, mostly ‘Alien Species’ introduced through coppice cover since before the year 1600.3 human activities. Using this strict definition only two or three In the past two hundred years Norfolk species can claim to have ‘Native Trees’ in appears again to have been extensively cleared Norfolk.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Mineral Extraction Sites
    Proposed Mineral Extraction Sites 104 Breckland Sites Map of proposed sites in Beetley (MIN 08, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 51) MIN 12 - land north of Chapel Lane, Beetley Site Characteristics • The 16.38 hectare site is within the parish of Beetley • The estimated sand and gravel resource at the site is 1,175,000 tonnes • The proposer of the site has given a potential start date of 2025 and estimated the extraction rate to be 80,000 tonnes per annum. Based on this information the full mineral resource at the site could be extracted within 15 years, therefore approximately 960,000 tonnes could be extracted within the plan period. • The site is proposed by Middleton Aggregates Ltd as an extension to an existing site. • The site is currently in agricultural use and the Agricultural Land Classification scheme classifies the land as being Grade 3. • The site is 3.7km from Dereham and 12km from Fakenham, which are the nearest towns. • A reduced extraction area has been proposed of 14.9 hectares, which creates standoff areas to the south west of the site nearest to the buildings on Chapel Lane, and to the north west of the site nearest the dwellings on Church Lane. Amenity: The nearest residential property is 11m from the site boundary. There are 21 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. The settlement of Beetley is 260m away and Old Beetley is 380m away. However, land at the 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Breckland Sites Map of Proposed Sites in Beetley (MIN 08, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 51)
    Breckland Sites Map of proposed sites in Beetley (MIN 08, MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 51) 105 MIN 12 - land north of Chapel Lane, Beetley Site Characteristics • The 16.38 hectare site is within the parish of Beetley • The estimated sand and gravel resource at the site is 1,175,000 tonnes • The proposer of the site has given a potential start date of 2025 and estimated the extraction rate to be 80,000 tonnes per annum. Based on this information the full mineral resource at the site could be extracted within 15 years, therefore approximately 960,000 tonnes could be extracted within the plan period. • The site is proposed by Middleton Aggregates Ltd as an extension to an existing site. • The site is currently in agricultural use and the Agricultural Land Classification scheme classifies the land as being Grade 3. • The site is 3.7km from Dereham and 12km from Fakenham, which are the nearest towns. A reduced extraction area has been proposed of 14.9 hectares, which creates standoff areas to the south west of the site nearest to the buildings on Chapel Lane, and to the north west of the site nearest the dwellings on Church Lane. M12.1 Amenity: The nearest residential property is 11m from the site boundary. There are 22 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary and six of these are within 100m of the site boundary. The settlement of Beetley is 260m away and Old Beetley is 380m away. However, land at the north-west and south-west corners is not proposed to be extracted.
    [Show full text]