Support
Initial Consultation document
Representation ID: 92005
Received: 08/08/2018
Respondent: Longwater Gravel Co. Ltd.
Agent: Small Fish
We are writing on behalf of mineral operator Longwater Gravel Company Ltd. in relation to site MIN 45 and in response to the consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review "Initial Consultation" in summer 2018.
As you will be aware, the Council has come to the initial conclusion that the site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation because:
* It is considered unlikely that a proposal largely on an ancient woodland site, for the extraction of sand and gravel, would meet the benefit/loss test set out in the NPPF.
* It has not been proved that soil translocation would have no detrimental effects to the quality of the PAWS, or that this would aid the proposal in meeting the benefit/loss test. Natural England in 2012 stated that "ancient woodland as a system cannot be moved", and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee states that the uncertainty of habitat translocation means that it should be viewed only as a measure of last resort in partial compensation for damaging developments."
Proposed Policy MW 2 states that:
"Proposals for minerals development and/or waste management development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact (including cumulative impact in combination with other existing or permitted development) on:
... k. The natural and geological environment (including internationally, nationally or locally designated sites and irreplaceable habitats);
... Where appropriate, enhancement of the environment would be sought, including, but not exclusively, the enhancement of the Public Rights of Way Network, creation of recreation opportunities and enhancement of the natural, historic and built environment and surrounding landscapes."
The supporting text to Policy MW 2 states further that:
"Minerals or waste management development which impacts on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves and irreplaceable priority habitats such as ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees will only be permitted where the impact does not conflict with the wildlife or geological conservation interests of that asset."
The proposal for MIN 45 is compliant with this proposed policy. Although the site encompasses an area of a planted ancient woodland site (PAWS), in accordance with Policy MW 2 the proposal will not conflict with the wildlife or geological conservation interest of the ancient woodland asset. Furthermore, the proposed minerals development will lead to an overall environmental enhancement. These aspects of compliance of the proposal to extract sand and gravel from site MIN 45 are explained in more detail throughout this representation.
Since the publication of the consultation document, the NPPF has been revised and the Council will be aware that it continues to provide protection to ancient woodland and veteran trees as an "irreplaceable habitat" unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy can be agreed (Paragraph 175c). We believe 'wholly exceptional circumstances' exist in this particular case and that a suitable compensation strategy can be agreed. Paragraph 205 of the revised NPPF supports this and requires that "great weight" is given to the benefits of minerals extraction.
Firstly, as the Council will be aware, MIN 45 consists predominantly of a conifer plantation planted in the late 1960s/early 1970s, which has likely undergone at least two conifer rotations. This is significant in terms of the ecological value of the area. A survey of flora completed by Norfolk Wildlife Services shows very little flora associated with ancient woodland and it is thought that over 100 years of coniferous cover on the site is the reason for this. MIN 45 currently exists solely for providing lumber on a commercial basis, not for providing biodiversity value. Most, if not all, of the existing trees within MIN 45 will eventually be cut down, regardless of any proposals for minerals extraction, and will likely be replaced with more conifers, thus limiting the long-term habitat potential of this site.
It is worth noting that site MIN 115 shares the same characteristics as MIN 45 in that they are both conifer plantations, although MIN 115 has not been designated as a plantation on ancient woodland site. MIN 115 has been found suitable for allocation, despite providing the same habitat as MIN 45.
It is also worth pointing out that the revised National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) definition of "irreplaceable habitat" is:
"Habitats which would be technically very difficult (or take a very significant time) to restore, recreate or replace once destroyed, taking into account their age, uniqueness, species diversity or rarity. They include ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, blanket bog, limestone pavement, sand dunes, salt marsh and lowland fen."
Ancient woodland designations are based on historic mapping which indicates whether the site has been continuously wooded, not on the quality of the habitat at the time of designation. In this respect, it is not a biodiversity designation.
The relatively young commercial plantation woodland at MIN 45 should not be considered an irreplaceable habitat in the context of Paragraph 175c of the NPPF, as all of the trees lost during the minerals extraction process (the vast majority of which are conifers) will be replaced with native species broadleaved trees. As the site measures around 22 hectares, this will result in a massive gain in terms of biodiversity and landscape. Therefore, with reference to the definition of irreplaceable habitat, the site would not "be technically very difficult to restore, recreate or replace" and therefore should not be considered an irreplaceable habitat.
Mineral extraction is temporary and cannot be compared to other developments which would lead to the permanent loss of ancient woodland such as buildings, roads, etc. constructed on ancient woodland sites. If the final stage of a mineral extraction development is to replant the woodland, using the same soils in exactly the same location, then arguably there is no loss. The restoration of MIN 45, which will be to replant the woodland with native broadleaved trees will provide a significantly improved habitat for local biodiversity. Whilst there may be some adverse effects in the short-term in terms of habitat loss during the extraction of the minerals, the proposal and its restoration plan will provide a long-term benefit to biodiversity.
In this particular case, the circumstances of the proposal are wholly exceptional and the restoration of the site to a native, high-quality broadleaved woodland habitat should be considered a long-term public benefit when coupled with the economic benefits of the minerals extraction, which would more than adequately replace and compensate for the loss of a low-quality conifer woodland habitat.
In addition to the biodiversity benefit, MIN 45 also offers the following environmental, social and economic benefits:
* Existing minerals site extension, operated by a reputable local minerals operator
* Suitable existing highways access
* Retention of jobs at this facility for an additional 7 years
* Well-located to facilitate growth in Fakenham, an area designed for significant growth in the West Norfolk Local Plan
* Remote from settlements and housing, limiting amenity impacts such as noise, dust and vibration
* Not in an area of flood risk
* No impact on water resources
* No impact on landscape designations, such as AONB, Heritage Coast, National Parks or Core River Valleys
* No impacts likely on any international, national or locally designated nature conservation sites, such as Ramsar, SPA, SAC, SSSI, NNR, LNR, CGS or CWS
* No impacts likely on any designated or known non-designated heritage assets, including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Historic Parks or Conservation Areas
* This site is not within or near to an AQMA
* Restoration proposal would act as a carbon sink, absorbing CO2 emissions
Therefore, we urge you to reconsider the Council's initial conclusion that MIN 45 is unsuitable for allocation, as the single short-term impact of the loss of a relatively poor-quality habitat needs to be sensibly balanced against (and will be outweighed by) the numerous benefits the site would provide in environmental, social and economic terms.
Summary: We strongly object to the conclusion that site MIN 45 is not suitable for allocation. The existing conifer plantation is not a high quality or irreplaceable habitat and the proposed restoration scheme will result in a significant habitat improvement and environmental gain. The circumstances surrounding this site and the proposed development are wholly exceptional and the site should be considered suitable for sand and gravel extraction and allocated.
We are writing on behalf of mineral operator Longwater Gravel Company Ltd. in relation to site MIN 45 and in response to the consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review "Initial Consultation" in summer 2018.
As you will be aware, the Council has come to the initial conclusion that the site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation because:
* It is considered unlikely that a proposal largely on an ancient woodland site, for the extraction of sand and gravel, would meet the benefit/loss test set out in the NPPF.
* It has not been proved that soil translocation would have no detrimental effects to the quality of the PAWS, or that this would aid the proposal in meeting the benefit/loss test. Natural England in 2012 stated that "ancient woodland as a system cannot be moved", and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee states that the uncertainty of habitat translocation means that it should be viewed only as a measure of last resort in partial compensation for damaging developments."
Proposed Policy MW 2 states that:
"Proposals for minerals development and/or waste management development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact (including cumulative impact in combination with other existing or permitted development) on:
... k. The natural and geological environment (including internationally, nationally or locally designated sites and irreplaceable habitats);
... Where appropriate, enhancement of the environment would be sought, including, but not exclusively, the enhancement of the Public Rights of Way Network, creation of recreation opportunities and enhancement of the natural, historic and built environment and surrounding landscapes."
The supporting text to Policy MW 2 states further that:
"Minerals or waste management development which impacts on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserves and irreplaceable priority habitats such as ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees will only be permitted where the impact does not conflict with the wildlife or geological conservation interests of that asset."
The proposal for MIN 45 is compliant with this proposed policy. Although the site encompasses an area of a planted ancient woodland site (PAWS), in accordance with Policy MW 2 the proposal will not conflict with the wildlife or geological conservation interest of the ancient woodland asset. Furthermore, the proposed minerals development will lead to an overall environmental enhancement. These aspects of compliance of the proposal to extract sand and gravel from site MIN 45 are explained in more detail throughout this representation.
Since the publication of the consultation document, the NPPF has been revised and the Council will be aware that it continues to provide protection to ancient woodland and veteran trees as an "irreplaceable habitat" unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy can be agreed (Paragraph 175c). We believe 'wholly exceptional circumstances' exist in this particular case and that a suitable compensation strategy can be agreed. Paragraph 205 of the revised NPPF supports this and requires that "great weight" is given to the benefits of minerals extraction.
Firstly, as the Council will be aware, MIN 45 consists predominantly of a conifer plantation planted in the late 1960s/early 1970s, which has likely undergone at least two conifer rotations. This is significant in terms of the ecological value of the area. A survey of flora completed by Norfolk Wildlife Services shows very little flora associated with ancient woodland and it is thought that over 100 years of coniferous cover on the site is the reason for this. MIN 45 currently exists solely for providing lumber on a commercial basis, not for providing biodiversity value. Most, if not all, of the existing trees within MIN 45 will eventually be cut down, regardless of any proposals for minerals extraction, and will likely be replaced with more conifers, thus limiting the long-term habitat potential of this site.
It is worth noting that site MIN 115 shares the same characteristics as MIN 45 in that they are both conifer plantations, although MIN 115 has not been designated as a plantation on ancient woodland site. MIN 115 has been found suitable for allocation, despite providing the same habitat as MIN 45.
It is also worth pointing out that the revised National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) definition of "irreplaceable habitat" is:
"Habitats which would be technically very difficult (or take a very significant time) to restore, recreate or replace once destroyed, taking into account their age, uniqueness, species diversity or rarity. They include ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, blanket bog, limestone pavement, sand dunes, salt marsh and lowland fen."
Ancient woodland designations are based on historic mapping which indicates whether the site has been continuously wooded, not on the quality of the habitat at the time of designation. In this respect, it is not a biodiversity designation.
The relatively young commercial plantation woodland at MIN 45 should not be considered an irreplaceable habitat in the context of Paragraph 175c of the NPPF, as all of the trees lost during the minerals extraction process (the vast majority of which are conifers) will be replaced with native species broadleaved trees. As the site measures around 22 hectares, this will result in a massive gain in terms of biodiversity and landscape. Therefore, with reference to the definition of irreplaceable habitat, the site would not "be technically very difficult to restore, recreate or replace" and therefore should not be considered an irreplaceable habitat.
Mineral extraction is temporary and cannot be compared to other developments which would lead to the permanent loss of ancient woodland such as buildings, roads, etc. constructed on ancient woodland sites. If the final stage of a mineral extraction development is to replant the woodland, using the same soils in exactly the same location, then arguably there is no loss. The restoration of MIN 45, which will be to replant the woodland with native broadleaved trees will provide a significantly improved habitat for local biodiversity. Whilst there may be some adverse effects in the short-term in terms of habitat loss during the extraction of the minerals, the proposal and its restoration plan will provide a long-term benefit to biodiversity.
In this particular case, the circumstances of the proposal are wholly exceptional and the restoration of the site to a native, high-quality broadleaved woodland habitat should be considered a long-term public benefit when coupled with the economic benefits of the minerals extraction, which would more than adequately replace and compensate for the loss of a low-quality conifer woodland habitat.
In addition to the biodiversity benefit, MIN 45 also offers the following environmental, social and economic benefits:
* Existing minerals site extension, operated by a reputable local minerals operator
* Suitable existing highways access
* Retention of jobs at this facility for an additional 7 years
* Well-located to facilitate growth in Fakenham, an area designed for significant growth in the West Norfolk Local Plan
* Remote from settlements and housing, limiting amenity impacts such as noise, dust and vibration
* Not in an area of flood risk
* No impact on water resources
* No impact on landscape designations, such as AONB, Heritage Coast, National Parks or Core River Valleys
* No impacts likely on any international, national or locally designated nature conservation sites, such as Ramsar, SPA, SAC, SSSI, NNR, LNR, CGS or CWS
* No impacts likely on any designated or known non-designated heritage assets, including Listed Buildings, Scheduled Monuments, Historic Parks or Conservation Areas
* This site is not within or near to an AQMA
* Restoration proposal would act as a carbon sink, absorbing CO2 emissions
Therefore, we urge you to reconsider the Council's initial conclusion that MIN 45 is unsuitable for allocation, as the single short-term impact of the loss of a relatively poor-quality habitat needs to be sensibly balanced against (and will be outweighed by) the numerous benefits the site would provide in environmental, social and economic terms.