Object
Background documents
Representation ID: 99529
Received: 16/12/2022
Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
These comments are limited to the Single-issue Silica Sand Site Selection process. It is of considerable concern when the NMW Local Plan policies accommodate a clear avoidance of the public interest.
NPPF (2012) paragraphs 9, 16 (c) 'note that communities are the first stipulated partner', 39 (pre-application) and 42 (statutory planning consultees role in pre-application) are quoted.
Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement
One purpose of this submission is to elucidate the core issue of how the public interests in Shouldham Warren were apparently gamed. recognising that in many other putative extraction sites there will likely be insignificant or minor public issues involved. The Plan was conducted in general accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), with the exception of overlooking Development Management Policy MW1(j) which exempts "public open space, local green space, the definitive Public Rights of Way network and outdoor recreation facilities."
The failure to include the public interest as a formal consultee had inappropriate consequences that could have been avoided if there had been an obligation to involve local communities comprehensively and early (NPPF paragraphs 16(c); 25; 39; 93(c); 98; 99; 120(a); 131; 132; and 180(a)). Experience has categorically shown the current schedule to inform the local public is unfit for purpose, and that early village meetings for all village or hamlet communities within 3 km are suggested as an achievable objective. This option is included as a possibility in the core documents, although apparently never been used on silica sand extraction issues. If community rights are to be properly recognised, this would require appropriate changes in the SCI, which is a document written for minerals licensing and being tested for the first time in the conduct of the NMWLP, 2022. This has exposed an additional need for a formal community recreational open-space assessment in Mineral and Waste site selections. Any regional and local public recreational land-use interests remain without representation in the current SCI. It is crucial to concentrate minds on these matters as the new so-called "criteria-based policy" (policy MSS 1) provides minimal opportunities for public representation of unresolved or unconsidered public interests. such as public recreational land use.
3. Of particular concern is the NPPF, 2012, admonitions in paragraphs 16(C) for early engagement with communities so that public issues do not present late surprises, and in paragraph 39 for full exposition and discussion of problems.
4. This is a substantial planning exercise with low tens of thousands of pages in the silica sand extraction site programme library. It is a difficult task to identify all the changes that would be required to fully accommodate the changes necessary to give proper recognition to public recreational land use. I will attempt to provide some proposed textual changes, but NMW Officers are much more appropriate.
5. The foundation documents that will require change include the Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement, the Norfolk Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD), and the Norfolk Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD.
[Statement of Community Involvement]
6. The main document that led to the paucity of public land-use accountability was the Norfolk Statements of Community Involvement (DCI), 2012/ 2018/2022. The newly updated version will be used to probe the continuing deficiencies with regard to this matter, with suggested wording, as requested.
Soundness tests: Not effective, not positively prepared, not consistent with national policy.
6. The main document that led to the paucity of public land-use accountability was the Norfolk Statements of Community Involvement (DCI), 2012/ 2018/2022. The newly updated version will be used to probe the continuing deficiencies with regard to this matter, with suggested wording, as requested.
7. In a scarred countryside of small, scattered villages, may I suggest that the local communities are not being served adequately by the stand-off regulations with regard to their public interests, Under s1.2: Who We Will Involve - I suggest "Villages and towns within 3 km of the boundary of a proposed silica sand extraction site or AOS will be offered a community meeting with NMW Officers to amplify the proposal, and will later have an opportunity for submission of comments and documentation."
8. Under s. 2.1.5.1: Validation - Replace the bullet 'Direct Neighbour Notification.' The statement "immediately abuts the application boundary" is interpreted to mean within 250 yards. This has proved entirely inadequate with AOS E, for example. (1) I suggest a 500m span. (2) As a separate sentence in this section, I suggest, "All villages and towns within 3 km of a proposed silica extraction site or ADS will be consulted by village meeting with Plan Officers. Subsequently, an opportunity to submit comments will be presented."
9. Under s. 2.1.5.4: Initial Consultation period - After the short paragraph on Public Service infrastructure, add, a new paragraph, "Villages and towns within 3 km of a site will be offered a community meeting with NMW Officers."
10. Under s. 2.1.6.1: Availability of Documents - At the beginning of the second paragraph, suggest replacing the first sentence starting with, "Please note ... " with "A formal N. C. C response to all submitted consultation statements will be submitted on the website, for simultaneous viewing."
11. Under s, 3.1: Minerals and Waste Local Plan - For the third bullet, Public Examination Stage (Regulation 24), modify to reflect the additional requirement to consult communities within 3 km of a proposed silica sand site or AOS with a community meeting.
12. Under s. 3.1.1.3: How you can be involved - suggest adding, "Communities with public recreation areas within selected sites or ADS, or their offsets, will be offered a direct consultation at a community meeting with N. C. C. MW officers, with additional opportunities to submit comments and documentary evidence."
13. Under s. 3.2.2: Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) - Add a statement after the words, " ... Regulations takes place" with regard to a SPD describing the changes to assure accountability over public recreational land-use, and particularly on Forestry Commission Land."
14. Under s. 3.4.1: Consultation and Notifications, what we will do - There is no legal requirement to consult with individuals and organisations suggesting changes, but that does not mean it would not be good policy. May I suggest that exceptions be made for organisations and individuals making specific suggestions? On matters such as a systematic failure of N.C.C. support for public interests, it would seem inappropriate to deny such an opportunity .
15. In Appendix 1, under "Other Consultation Bodies". add "Communities within 3 km of a silica sand site or AOS."