Proposed Main Modifications

Insert the following text as a new first paragraph: "The policies within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan will seek to deliver the economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development; the presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out in section 5 of this Plan."

Amend the first sentence of the sixth paragraph as follows: "In line with the proximity principle for waste, (which is for the UK to establish a network of facilities to enable waste to be disposed of and mixed municipal waste to be recovered in one of the nearest appropriate installations, by means of the most appropriate technologies) new waste management facilities will be located in proximity to Norfolk's urban areas and main towns (where the majority of waste is likely to arise) or otherwise located close to the source of the waste or the destination of the recovered waste material."

Amend the seventh paragraph as follows: "Minerals developments and waste management facilities will support the local economy, including the rural economy. [No changes to the first sentence] Opportunities to enhance such features will be supported. All developments will provide a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and wherever possible contribute to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives."

Amend the last paragraph as follows: "Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. The movement of minerals and waste will use sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles. Mineral development and waste management facilities , and will be designed and located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

Amend to the last sentence to state: "All developments will provide a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gains and temporary developments will contribute to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives on restoration".

Amend objective MSO1 as follows:
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding existing extraction sites and infrastructure."

Amend objective MSO2 as follows:
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years where practicable and safeguarding existing extraction sites and infrastructure."

Amend to the last sentence of objective MSO9 to state: "The restoration scheme and aftercare will protect and enhance the environment, including landscape improvements, contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives and the provision of a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gains".

Delete Sheringham and West Lynn. Add Easton and the Growth Triangle to the Norwich urban area.

Delete the stone curlew mitigation zone and the 'grid cells with less than 50% survey coverage' for stone curlews.

Extend silica sand Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA) to include the land at Roydon where borehole data was provided by Sibelco at the Regulation 19 stage.

Also amend to show the location of the mineral extraction site near Great Yarmouth.

See Appendix 1 to this document for the revised key diagram

Amend policy point (h) as follows: 'The appearance, quality and character of the landscape, countryside and visual environment, including intrinsically dark landscapes, and any local features that contribute to its local distinctiveness'.

Add new text at the end of the existing paragraph on the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF as follows: "Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of less than national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."

Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing biodiversity and geodiversitynet gains, providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives".

Amend requirement (d): "Unacceptable physical impacts on the highway network (e.g. road and kerbside damage) traffic movements along unsuitable sections of the highway network, taking into account the proposed level of traffic movements and provision of highway mitigation measures"

Add the following additional text to the end of the policy: "In relation to sustainable transport, proposals are also required to comply with requirement (g) of Policy MW3."

Amend requirement (c) as follows:

" demonstrate how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement) and set out how the proposal will make use of renewable energy, including generating the energy used on site from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources. Where on-site renewable or low-carbon energy generation is not practicable, evidence must be provided to the County Planning Authority and the applicant should source the electricity required from renewables through an energy supplier."

Amend point (e) to state: "take account of potential changes in climate including rising sea levels, larger river flows and coastal erosion;

Delete the last sentence: Such circumstances may include the use of existing buildings and development where completely masked from the SPA by existing development.

Delete the whole paragraph: Stone Curlews are also found outside the SPA; these birds are clearly part of the SPA population and functionally linked. Accordingly, a mitigation zone indicated areas that have been identified where there are concentrations of Stone Curlew (most recently using data from 2011-2015). There are also areas within 3km of the SPA, where Stone Curlews could be associated with the SPA, but there is a lack of survey data. The yellow squares on Map 2, indicate precautionary areas where there is a lack of data, but future surveys could identify regular use by nesting Stone Curlew, functionally linking these areas to the SPA.

Delete the whole paragraph: Within these areas, built development may be brought forward, providing a project level Habitats Regulations Assessment can demonstrate adverse effects have been prevented, for example where alternative land outside the SPA can be secured to adequately mitigate for the potential effects.

Delete the last sentence: "Within this zone additional built development is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA."

Add the following new text: "Stone Curlews are also found outside of the SPA. Stone Curlew are a protected species listed in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 so any direct or indirect impacts (such as disturbance up to 1,500m away) to non-SPA stone curlew will still need to be assessed and if necessary mitigated / compensated for outside of the Habitats Regulations process".

Delete the last two sentences in the paragraph: "Due to the sample size and the number of buildings identified, there needs to be an element of caution applied to the results, however, the research indicates that there was no evidence of a negative impact of agricultural or commercial buildings. As such, the analysis suggests that project level HRA for non-residential development in the SPA buffer zones may be able to demonstrate that adverse effects can be ruled out."

Replace with the following new text at the end of the paragraph: "The research indicates that the effect of buildings is from residential rather than other building types. However, due to the sample size and number of buildings identified, there needs to be an element of caution applied to the results. As such, proposed non-residential building developments in the 1,500m buffer zone should be carefully considered. Any project level HRA undertaken should ensure it can demonstrate adverse effects can be ruled out."

Amend the policy wording as follows:

"The Council will require suitable information to be provided to enable it to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment of all proposals for development that are likely to have a significant effect on the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) which is classified designated for its populations of Stone Curlew, Woodlark and Nightjar, and/or Breckland Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which is designated for its heathland habitats amongst other features. Development will only be permitted where sufficient information is submitted to demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA or SAC.

Stone Curlew

A buffer zone has been defined (indicated in red hatching on Map 2) that extends 1,500m from the edge of those parts of the SPA that support or are capable of supporting Stone Curlew, where new built development would may be likely to significantly affect the SPA population.

A buffer zone has also been defined (indicated in orange hatching on map 2) that extends 1,500 metres around areas that have a functional link to the SPA, because they support Stone Curlew outside, but in close proximity to the SPA boundary, within which new built development would be likely to significantly affect the SPA population.

Built development (including plant and processing sites) within the SPA boundary or located less than 1,500m away from the SPA boundary or identified areas that have a functional link (see map 2) will not normally be permitted, unless a project level HRA is able to demonstrate that adverse effects can be ruled out. 

Where a proposed building is outside the SPA but within 1,500m of the SPA boundary or identified areas that have a functional link, including those precautionary areas where there is currently a lack of data (see Map 2)or within areas considered functionally linked, there may be circumstances where a project level Habitats Regulations Assessment is able to demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA.

Circumstances where the proposal is able to conclusively demonstrate that it will not result in an adverse effect on the Breckland SPA may include where the proposal is:

• More than 1,500km away from potential stone curlew nesting sites inside the SPA (these are those parts of the SPA that are also designated as Breckland Farmland SSSI) however, these proposals will still need to assess direct and indirect impacts to stone curlew as a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
• A new building that will be completely masked from the SPA by existing built development;
• A proposed re-development of an existing building that would not alter its footprint or increase its potential impact."

There are no changes proposed to the policy text regarding woodlark and nightjar.

Delete the mitigation zone for Stone Curlew (orange hatching) and the 1km grid cells where less than half the area surveyed (squares outlined in orange)

Amend the map title to: 'Map 2: Stone curlew mitigation zones and protection zones'

See Appendix 2 of this document for the revised Map 2

Amend the last sentence to update the figures: "Assessment of the maximum recorded throughputs for a range of waste management sites in Norfolk has indicated that approximately 3.534 3.755 million tonnes of capacity per annum exists for the treatment and processing of waste."

Amend the last sentence of the paragraph as follows: "The facilities in Norfolk have the annual throughput capacity to manage a greater quantity of hazardous waste than arises in the county."

Norfolk's waste management capacity consists of:

The maximum existing waste management capacity of operational sites in Norfolk, which is calculated to be 3.5343.755 million tonnes per annum in 2020 2022. This is based on the maximum recorded throughputs at sites between 2017 and 2020 2022; and these may not represent absolute maximums, with many sites having higher maximum volumes set out in their Environmental Permits. This waste management capacity includes composting facilities, metal recycling, inert waste recycling, sewage sludge treatment, waste transfer and waste treatment facilities.

Permitted void space within two non-hazardous landfill sites at Feltwell and Blackborough End of 3.7673.529 million m³ at the end of 20222020; 1.4221.304 million m³ for non-hazardous waste and 2.342.225 million m³ for inert waste (further detail is provided in paragraph W12.3).

Permitted void space at mineral extraction sites which will be restored using imported inert material was at least 3.5 2.523 million m³ at the end of 20202022, with a further 0.90.97 million m³ permitted in 2021 2023 and a further 2.342.225 million m³ available at Blackborough End landfill site as detailed above. In addition, a few of the mineral extraction sites proposed to be allocated through this local plan are proposed to be restored using inert waste materials, although the amounts needed have not been quantified for all sites. Together, these sites will meet the capacity requirements for the inert waste arisings that are unsuitable for recycling, over the Plan period.

New planning permissions were granted during 2020 and 20212023 for facilities with a total throughput of over 0.250.2 million tonnes waste management capacity per annum.

Additional capacity in planning permissions granted in 2020 and 20212023 =>250,000>200,000 tpa

Permitted inert void space (landfill and quarry restoration) at 30/12/202031/12/2022 = 4.8635.725 million m³

Additional inert void capacity for quarry restoration granted in 2023 = 0.97 million m³

Permitted non-hazardous landfill void space at 30/12/2020 31/12/2022= 1.4221.304 million m³ total

Update the list of urban areas and main towns in the paragraph as follows:

"The settlement hierarchy is defined by the Local Planning Authorities in Norfolk. The urban areas and main towns are as follows:

Urban Areas: Norwich, King's Lynn (including West Lynn), Thetford, Attleborough, Great Yarmouth and Gorleston-on-Sea. The Norwich urban area consists of Norwich andincludes the built-up parts of the urban fringe parishes of Colney, Costessey, Cringleford, Easton, Trowse, Thorpe St Andrew, Sprowston, Old Catton, Hellesdon, Drayton, and Taverham and the remainder of the Growth Triangle.

Main Towns: Aylsham, Cromer, Dereham, Diss, Downham Market, Fakenham, Harleston, Holt, Hunstanton, Long Stratton, North Walsham, Swaffham, Watton, Wymondham."

Amend the policy wording as follows: "New or enhanced waste management facilities should be located within five miles of one of Norfolk's urban areas or three miles of one of the main towns and be accessible via appropriate transport infrastructure, subject to the proposed development not being located within:

• The Broads Authority Executive Area or the Norfolk Coast National Landscape (designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), other than in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, or
• A Site of Special Scientific Interest of a Habitats site and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it, or
• Ancient woodland or other irreplaceable habitat, or
• a designated heritage asset, including listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, conservation areasand scheduled monuments, or their settings if the proposed development would cause substantial harm to or the loss of the significance of the heritage asset (including any contribution to significance by setting).

For the purpose of this policy Norfolk's main towns are Aylsham, Cromer, Dereham, Diss, Downham Market, Fakenham, Harleston, Holt, Hunstanton, Long Stratton, North Walsham, Swaffham, Watton and Wymondham. Norfolk's urban areas are King's Lynn (including West Lynn), Thetford, Attleborough, Great Yarmouth, Gorleston-on-Sea and Norwich [the Norwich urban area consists of Norwich and includes the built-up parts of the urban fringe parishes of Colney, Costessey, Cringleford, Easton, Trowse, Thorpe St Andrew, Sprowston Old Catton, Hellesdon, Drayton, and Taverham and the remainder of the Growth Triangle].

However, in exceptional circumstances,due to their characteristics, the following types of facilities will be acceptable in locations more distant from the urban areas or main towns,locating a waste management facility at a greater distance from an urban area or main town will be acceptable if it isif they are close to (that is within three miles of) the source of the waste, or the destination of the recovered waste material. Such facilities could include:

• Agricultural waste treatment facilities,
• Windrow (open air) composting facilities
• Community composting facilities
• Small scale local facilities (including 'bring' sites for the collection of recyclables)

Water recycling centres can normally only be located on or adjacent to watercourses, so they are acceptable in such locations

Waste management facilities will only be acceptable on the types of land identified within Policy WP3 and must also comply with the development management criteria set out in Policy MW1."

Amend the first sentence as follows: "Waste management facilities for non-hazardous waste (other than landfill sites and water recycling centres) will be acceptable only on the following types of land."

Amend criteria g) as follows: "water recycling centres (composting and anaerobic digestion facilities only) (to principally manage wastes arising from the WRC process only);"

Add a new paragraph containing the following text: "Policy WP4 applies to proposals for the recycling or transfer of inert construction, demolition and excavation waste, and includes proposals to treat and process this waste and produce recycled aggregates. Proposals for the treatment of waste materials to produce recycled aggregates will be supported where the proposal will promote the sustainable management of waste in accordance with the principles of the waste hierarchy and will facilitate a reduction in the need for primary aggregates."

Amend the first sentence as follows: "Household waste recycling centres maywill be acceptable within purpose designed of suitably adapted facilities on the types of land identified within Policy WP3."

Add a new fourth bullet point to state: "the proposals demonstrate that there will be improvements to biodiversity, landscape, the historic environment and/or amenity on restoration, when compared to the baseline prior to landfill".

Insert "and/or d. comply with new legislation and/or e. incorporate climate change adaption and mitigation measures (as detailed in Policy MW3)".

Insert the following new text before the last sentence in the policy: "Where appropriate, applications will also need to demonstrate the contribution that the development would make to water quality improvement".

Amend the last sentence of the paragraph as follows: "In the absence of a longer-term masterplan or visionmedium-term strategyfor the future development of the site it is not easy to assess the significance of individual proposals or the cumulative impact of a number of separate, but linked proposals."

Amend the last sentence of this paragraph as follows:

However, there is still a need for Anglian Water to develop a longer term masterplan/implementation medium-term strategy (covering a period of at least 5 years) for the Whitlingham WRC site with the local authorities of the Greater Norwich Growth Board and the Environment Agency so that the strategic importance and cumulative impact of individual development proposals at Whitlingham WRC can be most effectively understood and assessed.

Add the following the new text to the end of the paragraph:

"The medium-term strategy will provide information regarding the Whitlingham water recycling and sludge treatment centre, for a five-year Asset Management Plan (AMP) period and be kept up to date. The scope of the strategy will include:

1. The context of Whitlingham WRC/STC - current role and function of the site as a water recycling and sludge treatment centre
2. Environmental obligations that are required - setting out where built development that may require planning permission is likely to be required, if known at the time

The scope of future investments in the AMP period in broad terms noting the dynamic environmental of these investments with potential for change and scope for flexibility - setting out where built development that may require planning permission is likely to be required, if known at the time."

Amend the third paragraph as follows: Any proposals for the improvement of the WRC must be accompanied by and be consistent with a longer-term masterplan medium-term strategy for the WRC, produced in collaboration with the constituent authorities of the Greater Norwich Growth Board, the Broads Authority and the Environment Agency."

Amend the second sentence in this paragraph as follows: "However, in the last 10 years (2011-2020)2013-2022 this has not been reflected in the actual sand and gravel production in Norfolk, which has not met the sub-national guidelines at any time in the last ten years and has only reached 2.57 million tonnes twice in the last 20 years."

Update the data in the paragraph as follows:

"The average sand and gravel production on Norfolk over the last 10 years (2011-2020) was 1.369(2013-2022) was 1.413 million tonnes per annum (tpa). Using the 10-year sales average to forecast the future need for sand and gravel would mean that sites for 10.131 4.654 million tonnes of sand and gravel extraction would need to be allocated over the plan period. The 10-year sales average is higher lower than the 3-year sales average (2018-2020) of 1.384 (2020-2022) of 1.39 million tonnes. Therefore However, in order to plan for future growth, the 10-year sales average is considered to be slightly too low to use when forecasting future need for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate in Norfolk."

Update the data in the paragraph as follows: "The NPPG suggests the use of 3-year average figures to indicate recent trends in sales. The average sand and gravel production in Norfolk over the last 3 years (2018-2020) was 1.384 (2020-2022) was 1.39 million tonnes per annum. The three-year production average has remained stable for the last three years, and it has also been very similar to the 10-year production average during that period. Whilst this is lower than the previous 3-year average, it is still higher than each of the seven years from 2010-2017, therefore showing a general upward trend and production levels above the 10-year average."

Update the data in the first sentence of the paragraph as follows: "The permitted reserve of sand and gravel at 31/12/2020 31/12/2022 was 14,511,38517.954 million tonnes."

Update the data in the paragraph as follows:

"Due to the 3-year sales average being slightly higher than the 10-year sales average,In order to plan for future growth, a 10% buffer (0.137 million tpa) (0.141 million tpa) has been added to the 10-year average in the calculation of forecast need during the Plan period. Over the 18-year 16-year plan period to 2038, using the 10-year average plus 10% (1.506 million tonnes per annum)1.554 million tpa, 27.108 24.864 million tonnes of sand and gravel resources would be needed in total. Taking into account the existing permitted reserve, the remaining need for allocated sites is 12.5976.91 million tonnes of sand and gravel.

Calculation of forecast need for sand and gravel

• The 10-year sales average for sand and gravel (2011-2020) is 1.369 (2013-2022) is 1.413 million tonnes per annum (tpa)
• For flexibility an additional 10% of 0.1370.141 million tpa has been included for each year
• This is a total forecast need of 1.5061.554 million tpa
• The forecast need for sand and gravel from 2021-2038 is therefore 1.506 million tpa x 18 years (27.108 million tonnes)2023-2038 is therefore 1.554 million tpa x 16 years (24.864 million tonnes)
• Sand and gravel permitted reserve at 31/12/2020 = 14.511 31/12/2022 = 17.954million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = 12.5976.91 million tonnes

The total shortfall and minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore 12.5976.91 million tonnes which is equivalent to a need for 9.24.4 years further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

Insert a new heading of 'Secondary and Recycled Aggregates' before this paragraph.

Insert a new paragraph before existing paragraph MP1.8 as follows: "In accordance with the NPPF (December 2023), minerals planning policies should, as far as practicable, take account of the contribution that secondary and recycled aggregates would make to the supply of minerals before considering extraction of primary aggregates. In construction, the use of secondary and recycled aggregates should be considered ahead of primary aggregates and Norfolk's Local Planning Authorities should have regard to the approach in the NM&WLP and the NPPF and include the use of secondary and recycled aggregates in relevant policies in their Local Plans. Policy WP4 in this NM&WLP applies to the determination of planning applications for facilities producing recycled aggregates."

Amend the third sentence in the paragraph as follows: "As set out in the Local Aggregate Assessment for Norfolk 2022, the annual average quantity of inert and construction/demolition waste recovered at waste management facilities over the ten years from 2011-2020 2013-2022 was 460,383291,320 tonnes per annum, however, some parts of this waste stream are unsuitable for use as a recycled aggregate (such as soil and timber)."

Update the data in the paragraph as follows: "The sub-national guidelines are for Norfolk to produce 200,000 tonnes of carstone a year. However, in the last 10 years (2011-2020)(2013-2022) this has not been reflected in the actual carstone production in Norfolk, which has not met the sub-national guidelines at any time in the last 10 years and has only reached 200,000 tpa once in the last 20 years. During the last ten years Carstone production has only been between 19% and 59%69% of the sub-national guidelines. Therefore, the sub-national guidelines for Carstone are considered to be too high. In addition, the sub-national guideline figures only covered the period 2005-2020 and have not been updated, making these figures increasingly obsolete."

Update the data in the paragraph as follows: "The average carstone production in Norfolk over the last ten years (2011-2020) was 75,138tpa(2013-2022) was 80,984 tpa. Using the 10-year sales average to forecast the future need for Carstone would mean that no additional Carstone extraction sites are required to be allocated over the plan period."

Update the first sentence of the paragraph as follows: "The average Carstone production in Norfolk over the last three years (2018-2020) was 67,354(2020-2022) was 98,321 tonnes per annum.

Update the data in the paragraph as follows: "The permitted reserve of Carstone, at 31/12/2020 was 1,663,00031/12/2022 was 1.423 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore currently provides a landbank of more than 10 years' worth of Carstone production as required by the NPPF."

Update the data in the paragraph as follows: "Over the 18-year 16-year plan period to 2038, using the 10-year average plus 10% (82,650 tpa)(0.089 million tpa), a total of 1,487,7001.424 million tonnes of Carstone resource would be needed. The existing permitted reserves are equivalent tohigher than this forecast need and therefore there is only a minimal forecastnot a shortfall of Carstone (1,000 tonnes) during the Plan period which would be within the margin of error for the data. However, the current permitted reserve is contained in only three sites, which may not provide sufficient flexibility to meet any future increase in the demand for Carstone. Therefore, it is considered that for the plan to be positively prepared, a site for Carstone extraction should be allocated.

Calculation of forecast need for Carstone

• The 10-year sales average for Carstone (2011-2020) is 0.075(2013-2022) is 0.081 million tonnes per annum (tpa)
• For flexibility an additional 10% of 0.008 million tpa has been included for each year
• This is a total forecast need of 0.0830.089 million tpa
• The forecast need for carstone from 2021-2038 is therefore 0.083 million tpa x 18 years = 1.494 million tonnes2023-2038 is therefore 0.089 million tpa x 16 years = 1.424 million tonnes.
• Carstone permitted reserve at 31/12/2020 = 1.663 31/12/2022 = 1.423 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = -0.169 0.001 million tonnes

Therefore, there is only a minimalno forecast shortfall of Carstone reserve during the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan because the permitted reserve is equivalent togreater than the forecast need."

Update the data in this paragraph as follows: "The average silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2011-2020) was 800,051(2013-2022) was 825,643 tonnes per annum. The average silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 3 years (2018-2020) was 814,625(2020-2022) was 792,338 tonnes per annum. 10-year average sales data and 3-year average sales data is provided to Norfolk County Council annually by Sibelco UK Ltd, but annual silica sand production data is not provided. The NPPF makes a specific link between silica sand supply and the production of the plant that it is supplying: therefore, it is considered appropriate to forecast the need for silica sand extraction in Norfolk based on the maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate Processing Plant site, which is 0.754 million tonnes of raw silica sand per annum. However, there is the potential for the processing plant throughput to be increased during the Plan period if a suitable planning application was submitted and granted. Therefore, the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site."

Update the data in this paragraph as follows: "The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2020 is estimated at 3.23231/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a landbank of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF. However, the permitted reserve is dependent upon the submission of suitable planning applications. Planning permission was granted in August 2021 for the extraction of 1.1 million tonnes of silica sand at Bawsey (allocated site SIL 01) and permission was granted in June 2023 A planning application for the extraction of 3 million tonnes of silica sand at East Winch (allocated site MIN 40) was received in 2018 and had not been determined by December 2021. However, even with the inclusion of the mineral resource in both of these planning applicationspermissions, the landbank of permitted reserves would still be less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production.

Calculation of forecast need for silica sand

• The maximum total lawful throughput per annum for the Leziate Plant site is 0.754 million tonnes of silica sand
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2021-2038 is therefore 0.754 million tpa x 18 years = 13.572023-2038 is therefore 0.754 million tpa x 16 years = 12.064 million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2020 = 3.232 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = 10.348.984 million tonnes

The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore 10.348.984 million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for 13.711.9 years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

Amend the policy wording regarding sand and gravel as follows:

"The strategy for minerals extraction is to allocate sufficient sites to meet the forecast need for both sand & gravel and hard rock (Carstone).

For sand and gravel, specific sites to deliver at least 12.5976.91 million tonnes of resources will be allocated. The sand and gravel landbank will be maintained at a level of at least 7 years' supply (excluding any contribution from borrow pits or major construction projects).

Mineral extraction for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites will be resistedsupported by the Mineral Planning Authority whereunless the applicant can demonstrate:

1. There is an overriding justification and/or overriding benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and
2. The proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan

Amend the policy wording for silica sand as follows:

For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least 10.348.98 million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

The rest of the policy wording, regarding Carstone and silica sand, will not change.

Amend the paragraph as follows:"Paragraph 15 of the NPPF (December 2023) states that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led and provide a framework for addressing need and other economic, social and environmental priorities. To ensure future sand and gravel extraction is clearly focused on the Spatial Strategy and identified allocated sites in this Plan, whilst enabling flexibility for changing circumstances during the Plan period, other proposals for sand and gravel extraction at locations situated outside of the areas identified for future working will be supportednormally be resisted by the Mineral Planning Authority (MPA). There may, however, be circumstances where an 'over-riding justification and/or overriding benefit' for mineral development can be demonstrated by the applicant. Examples of potential overriding planning reasons for mineral extraction to occur on unallocated sites may occur include, but are not limited to in relation to:

• Agricultural irrigation reservoirs - where mineral is extracted and exported to create the reservoir landform,
• Borrow pits - where extraction takes place over a limited period for the exclusive use of a specific construction project such as for a specific road scheme
• Prior extraction to prevent mineral sterilisation - this may be required on occasions where significant development takes place (on a site of over 2 hectares) and where a workable mineral resource could otherwise be permanently lost through sterilisation."

Amend the second sentence of the paragraph as follows: "The MPA must be satisfied that there are overriding planningexceptional reasons for permitting such applications, after having considered all the relevant circumstances so as not to prejudice the overall strategy of the document."

Amend existing bullet point j to state "the only existing processing plant and railhead for silica sand is located at Leziate (whilst it is recognised that there is the possibility for another processing plant to be built in Norfolk in the future);

Amend the paragraph as follows: "Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. Therefore, within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and railhead at Leziate via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

Update the list of urban areas and main towns in the paragraph as follows:

"The settlement hierarchy is defined by the Local Planning Authorities in Norfolk. The urban areas and main towns are as follows:

Urban Areas: Norwich, King's Lynn (including West Lynn), Thetford, Attleborough, Great Yarmouth and Gorleston-on-Sea. The Norwich urban area consists of Norwich and includes the built-up parts of the urban fringe parishes of Colney, Costessey, Cringleford, Easton, Trowse, Thorpe St Andrew, Sprowston, Old Catton, Hellesdon, Drayton, and Taverham and the remainder of the Growth Triangle.

Main Towns: Aylsham, Cromer, Dereham, Diss, Downham Market, Fakenham, Harleston, Holt, Hunstanton, Long Stratton, North Walsham, Swaffham, Watton, Wymondham."

Amend the policy wording as follows:

[There are no changes to the first paragraph of the policy]

"For the purpose of this policy Norfolk's main towns are Aylsham, Cromer, Dereham, Diss, Downham Market, Fakenham, Harleston, Holt, Hunstanton, Long Stratton, North Walsham, Swaffham, Watton and Wymondham. Norfolk's urban areas are King's Lynn (including West Lynn), Thetford, Attleborough, Great Yarmouth, Gorleston-on-Sea and Norwich [the Norwich urban area consists of Norwich and includes the built-up parts of the urban fringe parishes of Colney, Costessey, Cringleford, Easton, Trowse, Thorpe St Andrew, Sprowston, Old Catton, Hellesdon, Drayton, and Taverham and the remainder of the Growth Triangle].

Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and railhead at Leziate via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route.

This spatial strategy for mineral extraction sites is subject to the proposed development not being located within:

• The Broads Authority Executive Area or the Norfolk Coast National Landscape (designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), other than in exceptional circumstances and there it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, or
• A Site of Special Scientific Interest or a Habitats site and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it, or
• Ancient woodland or other irreplaceable habitat, or
• a designated heritage asset, including listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, conservation areas and scheduled monuments, or their settings if the proposed development would cause substantial harm to the significance or the loss of the heritage asset (including any contribution to significance by setting)."

Amend policy requirement (a) to state: "To address the shortfall in silica sand supply to meet the requirements of the existing processing plant in Norfolk and/or a new processing plant in Norfolk if one was built (as set out in the NPPF)"

Amend requirement (i) to state "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewerthat crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewerat the developer's cost and to the satisfaction of Anglian Water"

Amend policy requirement (m) to state: "The existing processing plant and railhead should be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 would probably be required to provide a suitable junction."

Add the following new text: "Norfolk's Local Planning Authorities have published local Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs) which identify and explain the unique combination of elements and features that make landscapes distinctive by mapping and describing character types and areas. Assessment of the development proposal will be carried out through a review of the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, in line with the Landscape Institute's relevant Technical Guidance note, considering context, value sensitivity and character, including whether the scheme's design would assimilate with the landscape. Assessment of the consistency of the development proposal with the relevant local LCA will include consideration of the key characteristics identified for the Landscape Character Type and Landscape Character Area, their valued features and qualities and landscape guidelines contained within the LCA. The working, restoration and afteruse of minerals development proposals within a Core River Valley must also comply with the requirements of Policy MP7."

Amend the policy wording as follows: "Minerals development will only be permitted in Core River Valleys (as shown on the Policies Map) where the applicant demonstrates that the development will:

• Enhance the form, local character and distinctiveness of the landscape character, consistent with the relevant local Landscape Character Assessment and historic environment; and
• Enhance the historic environment where appropriate; and
• Enhance Provide a measurable net gain in the biodiversity of the river valley (either immediately or on restoration); and
• Not impede floodplain functionality"

The rest of the policy wording will not change.

Add the following new text: "Norfolk's Local Planning Authorities have published local Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs). Landscape character assessment is the process of identifying and describing variation in character of the landscape. LCA documents identify and explain the unique combination of elements and features that make landscapes distinctive by mapping and describing character types and areas. They also show how the landscape is perceived, experienced and valued by people. Assessment of the proposed restoration scheme will be carried out through a review of the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, in line with the Landscape Institute's relevant Technical Guidance note, considering context, value sensitivity and character and including: whether the scheme's design would assimilate with the landscape, choice of materials and planting palette, and a justified rational for the restoration choices. Assessment of the consistency of the proposed restoration scheme with the relevant local LCA will include consideration of the key characteristics identified for the Landscape Character Type and Landscape Character Area, their valued features and qualities and landscape guidelines contained within the LCA."

Amend the second bullet point as follows: "contributes positively to identified strategic green infrastructure corridors, and known ecological networks, the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and the Nature Recovery Network."

Amend the third bullet point to state: "creates high-quality, locally distinctive landscapes which are informed by and consistent with the relevant local Landscape Character Assessment"

Amend the 7th bullet point to state "The scheme provides for a minimum 10% measurablebiodiversity net gain, primarily through the creation or enhancement of priority habitats and linkages to local ecological networks and green infrastructure corridors."

Amend the last bullet point of the policy as follows "the scheme has been informed by the historic environment, historic landscape characterisation andlandscape character assessments and the restoration enhances the historic environment."

Add a new bullet point to the end of the policy to state: "there will be no increase in flood risk from the pre-development scenarios and opportunities for betterment are sought."

Delete the following text from the paragraph and move it to the start of paragraph MP8.2 instead: "For an arable agriculture after-use this can entail a particular pattern of cultivation over the five-year aftercare period."

Add the following new text after the first sentence in the paragraph to state: "The approved aftercare would be secured by planning condition or a legal agreement as appropriate. Planning conditions and/or longer-term planning obligations will be used to ensure that an aftercare strategy of greater than five years and/or longer-term management is secured where required and that an annual management report is provided for the duration of the aftercare period. Examples of afteruses that would be likely to require aftercare beyond 5 years include forestry and amenity (including biodiversity), such as restoration to heathland habitat or to species-rich grassland."

Amend the policy as follows:

"Where the proposed restoration following mineral extraction is to agriculture, an outline aftercare strategy for five years is required, prior to the determination of the planning application. Where the proposed restoration is toforestry, amenity or ecology after-use; or includes a geological exposure, an outline aftercare strategy for at least five years is required, prior to the determination of the planning application. The outline strategy should set out the land management proposed to bring the restored land up to the required standard for the proposed afteruse.

Planning conditions and/or longer-term planning obligations will be used to ensure that a detailed annual management report is provided for the duration of the aftercare period, where required. The annual management report must include any measures required, following the annual aftercare inspection, to achieve the outline aftercare strategy."

Add the following new text before the last sentence of the paragraph: "The justification for the 250m consultation area is that 250m represents a distance at which amenity impacts (such as noise and dust) could be mitigated to acceptable levels with the minimum of controls. The Institute of Air Quality Management's 'Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impact for Planning' (2016) states that adverse dust impacts from sand and gravel sites are uncommon beyond 250m measured from the nearest dust generating activities and it is commonly accepted that the greatest impacts will be within 100m of a source."

Include a new indicator to record the percentage of planning applications determined per annum that are compliant with Policy MW3.

Related policy/strategic objective: Objectives, WSO6, WSO7, MSO8 Policy MW3

Target: To ensure that minerals and waste development takes a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Agency responsible: NCC, mineral operators, waste management companies

Implementation Mechanism: Development Management decisions taken on planning applications

Data Source: Determined planning applications for minerals and waste

Inclusion of the action to be taken for each indicator in the event of divergence from the identified trend or target as an additional column in the monitoring table (see Appendix 3 of this document for the amended table).