Object

Representation ID: 99527

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

6A. Letter to the N.C.C. Chief Executive concerning Silica Sand Site-selection Issues over Shouldham Warren (AOS E) and the Improper Data Suppression

The August 13, 2020 letter brought a number of issues related to maladministration within the NMWLP processes to the attention of the Chief Executive. The data has proven unacceptable to the MPA and they have not found the light of day within the Plan process, as statutorily required. There is no reference to these issues within the NMWLP, 2022. Document, or elsewhere in the record. I will present it without comment as I believe it is self-explanatory, and the issues have been covered in passing elsewhere in this submission. The implications regarding the integrity of the silica sand site-selection processes in the Local Plan are not attractive. The information is illustrative of how the public common has been at serious disadvantage in this Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement-driven process. [letter text attached]

6B. Public Accountability

1. These observations have been mainly relevant to the Single-issue Silica Sand Site Selection Process, but there is also evidence of both inattention and of group think in the MPA responses to both consultations and commentaries.

2. It is extraordinary to observe a 12-year, major Local Plan, and in its silica sand mining programme in particular, where an established regional pattern of public recreational land use - in Shouldham Warren - is intentionally disregarded, for (presumably) internal departmental reasons.

3. A few words on public rights of way. The MPA has not understood that it is the revealed historical nature of the way that determines its status under law. Once a public way has been acknowledged, the public rights of way persist in the absence of a legal modification, and even when privatised and no longer in use. It is the County responsibility to keep the Definitive Map continuously updated, The refusal of the MPA to accept this data and acknowledge its existence on the programme website was improper. To attempt to game the system and assure that they would not consider the issues before the mine might have been in operation for many years was irresponsible and unacceptable. The facts were reported to the Chief Executive. but there was no acknowledgement of the implications for Shouldham Warren planning in the Plan documents: the issue was suppressed.

4. The extensive public recreational land-use preceded the silica sand safeguarding map by 2-3 generations, and indeed Shouldham Warren and West Bilney Woods were not included on the map. Yet, the MPA continued to support the introduction of sand mining at Shouldham Warren, presumably as it could potentially be compatible with the RAF Marham bird-strike risk aversion. When provided with an opportunity to re-establish public accountability. the Chief Executive failed in his duty. The NMWLP 2022 still prefers to characterise the Shouldham Warren issue as one of open access (and one only recently acknowledged) and not primarily one of a public right to recreation and a historical public utility. The massive public reaction appeared to be a complete surprise to N.C.C. Far too many MPA officer responses to the consultations and commentaries have been inaccurate, opaque, casual, just plain wrong, or have avoided an answer. It is not difficult to answer fully and appropriately, but internal considerations appear to have got in the way.

5. It does not appear that there is an established rule-based environment at the MPA when we see some of the actions reviewed in this section. Are there effective SOPs in place to govern decision-making'? In such a complex regulatory environment, there probably should be in place so that consistent, lawful decisions continue to be made.

6. To undo the unnecessary assault on regional recreational interests in the attempts by Norfolk MPA to incorporate Shouldham Warren (and West Bilney Wood) into AOS when neither was on the safeguarding map. and then to attempt to game public "commentaries" that mentioned the extent and variety of public recreational use requires N.CC to recognise that major public recreational centres are protected from minerals development by law. The huge number of "commentaries" received by the MPA reflected also the totally inadequate public discourse that had been undertaken. These activities had been sanctioned in a poorly conceived section of the Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement, of which this Local Plan process was its first time in the sun. If the SCI is not improved, these events or something like them will be feted to return in the future. The SCI is currently under review and needs to integrate appropriate changes. Another contentious issue was the diffident consultation offered the general public, and with "commentaries" rather than a true "consultation" as offered to all other stakeholders. Village/town meetings are needed. Other instances have been mentioned in these documents. The discounted treatment of the public's views continued throughout the long process.

7. These data support the notion that, for a variety of reasons, the MPA silica sand extractive site-selection process has been unsuccessful at maintaining sufficient reserves. NPPF explains the task of identifying accessible sites as a cooperative process with minerals firms, but for Norfolk silica sand developments, there is little evidence of this publicly. Perhaps the Rt. Hon. Elizabeth Truss MP has a correct analysis and Sibelko UK have not been pulling their weight. The company, however, has certainly been investigating widely over the last 18 months. Perhaps there have been strategic mistakes. Dependency on AOS as large as 1,014 hectares in size do appear, while having the attraction of scale, to founder on unmitigatable issues when promulgated in the centre of a river valley characterised by numerous medieval monasteries, and close to a major military airbase.

8. The water-body bird-strike issue is presented as an immovable object, tin spite of the fact that both of the recently successful sites. SIL 01 and MIN 40, lie within this umbrella. Instead of looking for improvements and a change of tack. the MPA has decided to simplify its task and to refer all applications directly into the district planning procedures. A more focused policy, based upon going the extra distance and identifying potential mineral sites, is recommended by the NPPF. There may indeed be other reasons why the proposed AOS sites have not been adopted, although there is no such explanation given. Instead, the MPA relies on an obscure rule intended for mineral areas inside extensive AONB, as decision-making is usually secondary to the landscape designation, that, only then, is the MPA permitted to allow mineral applications directly into planning inspection. I doubt most sincerely that the large safeguarded area for silica sand mining falls into this criterion, partly because it is a widely spread area. The public representation over the 12-year advent of this Local Plan has demonstrably been poor and sub-standard. What is your public supposed to do when they would likely have no standing in the planning application process, and anyway there would be no statutory obligation to even inform the public that the planning application meeting was to take place?

9.I cannot support the proposed shredding of the NPPF criteria-led process and see too many demerits of the voidance of foundational Local Plan principles and the referral directly to the district planning procedures, with untested overall consequences, and lessening yet further the opportunities for representation of the public interests.

10. In Consultation no. 99001, The Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council said the following (as quoted in its abstracted form), "it would he unrealistic to seek to have no areas of search at all, and the Plan could be found unsound" The answer ignores the cadence of this statement. It is suggested. as your district council is too polite to lay out fully, that the current County proposals for the selection of silica sand sites are contrary to basic tenets of the NPPF and I suggest are, in fact, unsound. The silica sand extraction site development programme needs to be redrawn in accordance with the regulations.

Soundness test: not effective, not positively prepared, not consistent with national policy