Object

Representation ID: 99471

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Sibelco UK Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy MP2 is not legally compliant or sound.

Paragraph 209 of the NPPF states:
“It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy, and goods that the country needs. Since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation.”

It is notable that Policy MP2 dictates that specific sites for silica sand, “should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant and railhead at Leziate via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route.” There is no basis or justification for imposing this restriction as a new mineral site could be a significant distance from the Leziate Plant Site which might mean that the only viable or the most sustainable option to provide a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is to build a new processing plant or warehousing facility. This policy is clearly not an effective approach to meet unmet need and is not consistent with the principles of national policy which set out that minerals can only be worked where they are found.

Furthermore, there is very little basis for the remainder of the spatial strategy, which simply sets out where mineral extraction sites are not acceptable. This ignores that silica sand is a nationally important mineral and that the extraction of this mineral in areas specified within the policy has been found to be acceptable. This very clearly cannot be termed a spatial strategy for silica sand extraction and as drafted is not justified, consistent with national planning policy, effective or positively prepared. It is simply unsound.

Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states:
“Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and landuse designations and allocations identified on a policies map. Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should include planning for and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area (except insofar as these needs can be demonstrated to be met more appropriately through other mechanisms, such as brownfield registers or nonstrategic policies).”

Paragraph 210 of the NPPF states:
“Planning policies should:
a) provide for the extraction of mineral resources of local and national importance, but not identify new sites or extensions to existing sites for peat extraction;…

It follows that the reasoning for removing Areas of Search from the plan is unequivocally flawed. Especially as the site selection criteria used differs from that set out in the policy and effectively implies that the whole of the resource area is an unacceptable location for minerals development. This undermines the strategic and national importance of silica sand whilst also prejudging specific applications which may evidence that a particular location is suitable for mineral extraction.

Fundamentally it does not meet the requirement of Paragraph 210 of the NPPF which states that planning policies should provide for the extraction of mineral resources. Indeed, Paragraph 23 of the NPPF is clear that strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing forward sufficient land to address objectively assessed need. This policy does not do this, but rather attempts to set out a principle that silica sand resources are not located in areas acceptable for extraction. This means that the policy is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. It is important to note that Norfolk is one of the only areas in England processing sand capable of colourless glass manufacture. This damaging rhetoric and reckless approach to policy making threatens the viability of the nation’s glass industry, using a set of baseless principles that would be liable to legal challenge.

The policy as drafted should be re-evaluated in light of the above-mentioned policies and PPG. Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 27-008-20140306 of the PPG states:
“Mineral planning authorities should plan for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in one or more of the following ways (in order of priority):
1. Designating Specific Sites – where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms. Such sites may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction;
2. Designating Preferred Areas, which are areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated. Such areas may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; and/or
3. Designating Areas of Search – areas where knowledge of mineral resources may be less certain but within which planning permission may be granted, particularly if there is a potential shortfall in supply.

National Park Authorities are not expected to designate Preferred Areas or Areas of Search given their overarching responsibilities for managing National Parks.
Furthermore, in exceptional circumstances, such as where a local authority area is largely made up of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it may be appropriate for mineral planning authorities to rely largely on policies which set out the general conditions against which applications will be assessed.
In planning for minerals extraction, mineral planning authorities are expected to co-operate with other authorities.”

The Specific Sites proposed for allocation cover a very small proportion of the overall forecasted need for silica sand. Sibelco strongly disagree with the Council’s assertion in paragraph 13.4 of the Silica Sand Topic Paper that, “there are exceptional circumstances in Norfolk to rely largely on a criteria-based policy.” Norfolk is not made up largely of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are a number of areas where silica sand extraction could come forward in both non-designated and designated areas. Nationally important mineral is routinely extracted within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other designated sites such as Ramsar and SSSI’s where effective mitigation measures can control development. The following evidence should also be considered in the Council’s policy making:

• In his examination of the Norfolk County Council Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD [Single Issue Silica Sand Review] in 2017 the Inspector found that in order to address a shortfall of 0.68 million tonnes of silica sand, it was appropriate to designate some 946 hectares of Area of Search. On this matter the Inspector concludes, “I am mindful that the Plan has identified 946 hectares of land within the AoS, which I consider provides a suitable level of provision, given the uncertainties involved and the need for some flexibility should the future need for silica sand increase. Overall, I consider that the site selection methodology is sound.”

• In his examination of the Norfolk County Council Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD [Single Issue Silica Sand Review] in 2017 the Inspector found the site selection methodology sound. The current site selection methodology appears to be the same. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Sustainability Appraisal excludes all of the proposed Areas of Search, especially as these areas were deemed acceptable for inclusion and proposed allocation within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options. The following observations are made on the summary text in Section 6.3.4 of the Sustainability Appraisal which indicate the reasons why the proposed Areas of Search have been excluded from the Minerals and Waste Plan Pre-submission Document.:

AOS E:
The impacts on the setting of heritage assets at Wormegay and on the setting of Pentney Priory was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The AOS was included in the Preferred Options stage with basic heritage assessment evidence informing the designation. Using Heritage as a constraint is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS given nothing has changed in the evidence base since the AOS designation was considered sound.

o The statutory safeguarding area around RAF Marham was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The Ministry of Defence raised concerns about minerals development in response to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial Consultation but did not object. The Council’s response was to amend Policy MP13 to require a Bird Hazard Management Assessment at planning application stage. The Ministry of Defence provided the same comments in response to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options Consultation and did not object to the inclusion of the AOS. Bird strike is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS. It would be for an individual application and working scheme to mitigate any impacts within the context of these policies.
o The loss of access to public open space was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. Mineral extraction is a temporary and progressive operation and there is no reason why public open space cannot be either be maintained or returned upon restoration.

AOS F, AOS I and AOS J:
o The statutory safeguarding area around RAF Marham was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The Ministry of Defence raised concerns about minerals development in response to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial Consultation but did not object. The Council’s response was to amend Policy MP13 to require a Bird Hazard Management Assessment at planning application stage. The Ministry of Defence provided the same comments in response to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options Consultation and did not object to the inclusion of the AOS. Bird strike is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS.
o The Inspector found the size of this AOS as acceptable and it is therefore not just able to remove on this basis.

It is also noted that a number of superfluous reasons with little planning basis have been used to reject the Areas of Search approach. For instance, landowner willingness is not required by PPG for Preferred Areas or Areas of Search. In addition, in relation to designations such as AONB’s, SPA’s and SAC, mineral extraction has been found to be acceptable both within and in close proximity to these designations.

In summary there are no sound planning reasons to deviate from the Areas of Search approach. Omitting Areas of Search and introducing a criteria-based approach renders the Plan not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. The Plan is unsound.

We suggest Policy MP2 is re-worded to include Areas of Search and also set out a hierarchy of delivery. to properly set out a spatial strategy for silica sand development.