1. Introduction

Norfolk Minerals & Waste Plan Review Initial Consultation & SCI Consultation

Thank you for informing the Council of the above consultations. I have no comments to make on the documents at this stage. I would be grateful is you would keep us informed of the next consultation stages as they progress.

Thank you for consulting Peterborough City Council on your Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial Consultation. We have no specific comments to make at this stage relating to the overall content of the draft Plan.

We would however draw attention to the revised National Planning Policy Framework and the implications for Plan Making, such as requiring Plans to clearly state which policies are 'strategic' and which are 'local'. This may require a re-ordering of policies for the Preferred Options draft Plan, such that all strategic policies are grouped in one section, and all local policies grouped in a subsequent section.

The council will continue to cooperate with Norfolk through our Duty to Cooperate, including in fora such as the East of England Aggregate Working Party and the East of England Waste Technical Advisory Board. Please keep the council informed of all future stages of Plan preparation.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial consultation. The following comments are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received the following response.

Part 1: Initial consultation policies

Question 11: Policy WP2 'spatial strategy for waste management facilities'

Anglian Water is generally supportive of the final paragraph of WP2 as drafted. However a distinction needs to be made between Water Recycling Centres which discharge to a watercourses and pumping stations which can convey foul flows between sewers rather than discharge to a watercourse as suggested.

Question 12: Policy WP3 'land uses potentially suitable for waste management facilities'

Anglian Water as a sewerage company is generally supportive of the final paragraph of WP3 as drafted. However evidence does not appear to have been provided for the proposal to limit the co-location of waste management uses to composting and anaerobic digestion on water recycling centre sites.

Therefore it is suggested that Policy WP3 should be amended as follows:

'f) water recycling centres; '

Question 23: Policy WP14 'Water Recycling Centres'

Anglian Water is largely supportive of Policy WP14 as drafted but has some comments particularly in relation to making the policy more positive in enabling the continued operation and development of existing water recycling centres) to enable Anglian Water to fulfil our statutory obligations under the Water Industry Act 1991.

It is therefore proposed that the first paragraph of Policy WLP14 be amended as follows:
'New or extended Water Recycling Centres or improvements to existing sites and supporting infrastructure (including renewable energy) will be acceptable in principle where such proposals aim to:
a) treat a greater quantity of wastewater; and/or
b) improve the quality of discharged water; and/or
c) reduce the environmental impact of operation.'

Question 24: Policy WP15 'Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre'

Policy WLP15 appears to be largely a continuation of Policy CS12 of the adopted Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. We recognise the importance of Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre as a strategic asset and the need to work with the Greater Norwich authorities to develop an effective to shape operational enhancements from future technologies and planned investment to accommodate further growth.

Reference is made to Anglian Water developing a long term vision for Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre with the Greater Norwich Growth Board and the EA.

Anglian Water has recognised the need to take a long term view in relation to future investment at WRCs and within the foul sewerage network similar to the Water Resource Management Plan. The Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review should have regard to the WRLTP in relation to the planned investment within Norfolk County as part of next business and future business plans.

We are currently in the process of finalising a Water Recycling Long Term Plan (WRLTP) which will set out a long term strategy to identify the need for further investment by Anglian Water at existing Water Recycling Centres or within the foul sewerage catchments to accommodate the anticipated scale and timing of growth in the company area. This document once finalised will be used to inform future business plans including the plan for 2020 to 2025 which is expected to be approved by our economic regulator Ofwat in December 2019.

Policy WLP15 as drafted includes specific criteria which apply to all development proposals at Whitlingham WRC. It is unclear whether this would apply to all development proposals on this site - for example if the proposal did not generate any additional traffic movements. Therefore we would suggest that the wording of policy WLP15 should be reviewed to consider in what circumstances it would be applied and how it relates to Policy WP15 given that the development plan is intended to be read as whole. As part of which consideration should be given to whether there is need for a separate policy as suggested.

Question 26: Policy WP17 'Safeguarding waste management facilities'

Anglian Water as a sewerage company is generally supportive of the final paragraph of W11 as drafted. However the policy should allow for a change of circumstance for example if the relevant sewerage company identifies that existing water recycling asset is no longer required for operational reasons e.g. directing foul flows elsewhere within the public sewerage network.

Also for clarity the policy should refer to 'sewerage company' as opposed to wastewater management company as drafted.

Part 2 - Proposed Mineral extraction sites

It is noted that a number of Anglian Water assets are located within the site boundary for a number of sites identified in Part 2 of the Plan. Therefore we would ask that the policy wording for these sites exclude any existing assets from the proposed working area for mineral extraction to ensure that we can continue to operate and maintain these assets for our customers.

Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know.

Thank you for your recent consultation on the above document, South Norfolk Council has the following comments to make.

General comments regarding the format of the policies:
Several policies concerning particular development types refer back to 'General' Policy MW2; whilst the reason for this is understood, there are a number of other general policies (e.g. MW3 and MW4) that might be equally applicable across a range of development types, but may get overlooked when development specific policies just refer back to MW2. As the policies in the plan should be read as a whole, is it necessary to have the references back to the general Development Management policies?
In a number of places policies are worded as aspirations, rather than requirements, consideration should be given to moving such wording to the supporting text, or strengthening the wording in the policy itself.

Comments on specific policies:

MW6 - would be more effective if it set out a hierarchy that sought development on the lowest grade of agricultural land first.

WP2 - it is not entirely clear what the first part of this policy is seeking to achieve; if it is seeking sustainable locations within easy reach of centres of population (particularly those that the proposed facilities are serving), the text may need to be expanded to better reflect this.

WP3 - in the list of potentially suitable land uses, 'within or adjacent to agriculture and forestry buildings' would appear to open up a wide range of sites to possible consideration, although it is understood that sites would need to meet the requirements of the general policies too. Permitted Development also opens up the scope for new build agricultural buildings, with relatively little input from the local planning authority. Consequently, could clause d) be caveated 'appropriately located' and 'in established use'?

WP4, WP5, WP7 etc. - a number of policies refer back to WP3 stating that proposals 'may be acceptable on land within the identified uses in', the Policy could be more effective as 'will not be acceptable outside of land identified in'.

WP7 - Concerned that this may not be legally sound, in that it goes beyond the remit of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan by seeking developer contributions. It would also be difficult to 'retro-fit' new Household Waste Recycling Centres into identified growth locations, if it was not a requirement when those locations were identified. Consideration could be given to allocating sites in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan which have good access to the growth locations.

WP15 - elements of this policy would appear to be requests rather than requirements, for example could 'strong encouragement' to Anglian Water be included in the supporting text, and the policy be reworded to say, 'Any proposals for the improvement of WWRC must to be accompanied by a longer-term vision, produced in collaboration with ...'

WP16 - This seems to overlap with MW2 and MW3; therefore, would this policy be better placed in the General Policies part of the Plan, and used to cover waste and minerals proposals?

Comments on Proposed Minerals Extraction Sites:

MIN25 at Haddiscoe - the site is very close to the nearest dwelling and the village generally, it would seem to be quite a significant site in terms of volume of material to be extracted, number of lorry movements etc. (we note there is a balance to be struck between length of extraction time and daily vehicle movements, to address concerns raised by the previous refusal of permission). Is there any scope to reduce the extent of the site, moving the boundary away from nearby dwellings and/or phasing the extraction as part of any mitigation? This, along with the impact on the Grade I Listed church and the visual impact of the proposed bunding, was a concern that South Norfolk Council raised in respect of the previous application on this site. In addition, the landscape assessment refers to mature screen planting, it would be useful if retention of this was picked up in the Initial Conclusion.

MIN 212 at Mundham - The relationship between the site and the processing plant seems to be quite poor, although it is acknowledged that the number of movements are relatively small and this is an existing route. The proposal includes increased bunding to screen the minerals workings, but doesn't indicate if that would be acceptable in terms of the landscape character type within which the site is located.

I hope you find the above comments useful.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL GRID
National Grid has appointed Wood to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf. We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regard to the current consultation on the above document.

National Grid owns and operates the high voltage electricity transmission system in England and Wales and operates the Scottish high voltage transmission system. National Grid also owns and operates the gas transmission system. In the UK, gas leaves the transmission system and enters the distribution networks at high pressure. It is then transported through a number of reducing pressure tiers until it is finally delivered to our customers. National Grid own four of the UK's gas distribution networks and transport gas to 11 million homes, schools and businesses through 81,000 miles of gas pipelines within North West, East of England, West Midlands and North London.

To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect our assets.

Specific Comments - Proposed sites crossed or in close proximity to National Grid infrastructure:

Electricity Transmission
* MIN 79 & 80 (our reference ET225)

Please see enclosed plan referenced ET225 at Appendix 1. The proposed Minerals sites are crossed by a National Grid high voltage electricity transmission overhead line.
National Grid prefers that buildings are not built directly beneath its overhead lines.
This is for two reasons, the amenity of potential occupiers of properties in the vicinity of lines and because National Grid needs quick and easy access to carry out maintenance of its equipment to ensure that it can be returned to service and be available as part of the national transmission system. Such access can be difficult to obtain without inconveniencing and disturbing occupiers and residents, particularly where properties are in close proximity to overhead lines.

National Grid seeks to encourage high quality and well planned development in the vicinity of its high voltage overhead lines. Land beneath and adjacent to the overhead line route should be used to make a positive contribution to the development of the site and can for example be used for nature conservation, open space, landscaping areas or used as a parking court. National Grid, in association with David Lock Associates has produced 'A Sense of Place' guidelines, which look at how to create high quality development near overhead lines and offers practical solutions which can assist in avoiding the unnecessary sterilisation of land in the vicinity of high voltage overhead lines.

Potential developers of the sites should be aware that it is National Grid policy to retain our existing overhead lines in-situ. The relocation of existing high voltage overhead lines will only be considered for projects of national importance which has been identified as such by central government.

The statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed. To comply with statutory safety clearances the live electricity conductors of National Grid's overhead power lines are designed to be a minimum height above ground. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath an existing line then it is important that changes in ground levels do not result in safety clearances being infringed. National Grid can, on request, provide to developers detailed line profile drawings that detail the height of conductors, above ordnance datum, at a specific site.

'A Sense of Place' is available from National Grid and can be viewed at:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Senseofplace/Download/
Further information regarding development near overhead lines and substations is available here:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/devnearohl_final/pdf/brochure.htm

General information:

Electricity Transmission
National Grid has five high voltage overhead lines (listed below) within Norfolk County Council's administrative area. These form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales.
Line Ref. Description
4YM Route 400kV two circuit route from Norwich substation in South Norfolk to Bramford substation in Mid Suffolk.
PHC Route 132kv one circuit route from Norwich substation in South Norfolk to Norwich Trowse in South Norfolk
PGG Route 132kv one circuit route from Norwich substation in South Norfolk to Norwich Trowse in South Norfolk
4VV Route 400kV two circuit route from Norwich substation in South Norfolk to Walpole substation in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk.
4ZM Route 400kV two circuit route from Bicker Fen substation in Boston to Walpole substation in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk.

National Grid has provided information in relation to electricity transmission assets via the following internet link:
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/services/land-and-development/planning-authority/shape-files/
The following substation is also located within the administrative area of Norfolk County Council:
Walpole substation - 132Kv
Necton substation - 400Kv

Gas Transmission
National Grid has seven high pressure gas transmission pipelines within the administrative area of Norfolk County Council.

Pipeline Feeder Detail
FM05 Yelverton to Stowmarket
FM05 Bacton to Yelverton
FM03 Bacton to Roudham Heath
FM02 Brisley to Wisbech Nene East
FM04 Kings Lynn Comp to Wisbech Nene East
FM04 Gt Ryburgh to Kings Lynn Comp
FM27 Bacton to Kings Lynn

National Grid has provided information in relation to gas transmission assets via the following internet link:
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/services/land-and-development/planning-authority/shape-files/
National Grid requests that any High Pressure Major Accident Hazard Pipelines (MAHP) are taken into account when site options are developed in more detail. These pipelines form an essential part of the national gas transmission system and National Grid's approach is always to seek to retain our existing transmission
pipelines in situ.
National Grid may have a Deed of Easement for each asset which prevents the erection of permanent/temporary buildings, or structures, changes to existing ground levels, storage of materials etc. Additionally written permission will be required before any works commence within the National Grid easement strip, and a
deed of consent is required for any crossing of the easement. In the first instance please consider checking with the Land Registry for the development area. If further information is required in relation to an easement please contact Spencer Jefferies, Development Liaison Officer, box.landandacquisitions@nationalgrid.com
If you require any further information in relation to the above please contact National Grid's Plant Protection team via plantprotection@cadentgas.com

Electricity Distribution
UK Power Networks owns and operates the local electricity distribution network in Norfolk County Council.
Contact details can be found at www.energynetworks.org.uk.

Appendices - National Grid Assets
Please find attached in:
* Appendix 1 provides maps of the sites referenced above in relation to the affected National Grid Transmission assets outlined above.

Further Advice
National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning our networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us. In addition the following publications are available from the National Grid website or by contacting us at the address overleaf:
▪ National Grid's commitments when undertaking works in the UK - our stakeholder, community and amenity policy;
▪ Specification for Safe Working in the Vicinity of National Grid High Pressure Gas Pipelines and Associated Installations - Requirements for Third Parties; and
▪ A sense of place - design guidelines for development near high voltage overhead lines.
▪ T/SP/SSW22 - Specification for safe working in the vicinity of National Grid high pressure gas pipelines and associated installations - requirements for third parties.
http://www2.nationalgrid.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=33968
▪ IGE/SR/18 - Safe working practices to ensure the integrity of gas pipelines and associated installations.
▪ HS(G)47 - Avoiding Danger from Underground Services.
Please remember to consult National Grid on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect our infrastructure. We would be grateful if you could add our details to your consultation database.

On behalf of our client, Bourne Leisure Ltd., please find below representations on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Initial Consultation (May 2018), published for consultation until 13 August 2018.
Background
Bourne Leisure operates more than 50 holiday sites in the form of holiday parks, family entertainment resorts and hotels in Great Britain and is therefore a significant contributor to the national tourist economy, as well as local visitor economies. The sites are managed by a number of subsidiary companies which include Haven, Butlins and Warner Leisure Hotels. Within Norfolk, Bourne Leisure operates four Haven holiday parks: Caister-on-Sea Holiday Park, Seashore Holiday Park, Wild Duck Holiday Village and Hopton Holiday Village. All four of these parks are located within the local planning authority area of Great Yarmouth.
Many of the Company's hotels and holiday sites are located in rural and/or coastal areas and these environments are one of the key draws for these holidays. The Company's operations are also major contributors to local and regional economies, both directly and indirectly. It is therefore vitally important to Bourne Leisure that both the environments within which their sites are located are protected and enhanced, to help the Company to continue to attract customers, and that planning policies also support their regular investment to provide new and improved facilities. This investment is also required to respond to changing market conditions. For many of the Company's holiday locations, improvements may necessitate the expansion of sites in order to improve the quality of accommodation, decrease densities, or increase the range of facilities in order to respond to visitors' requirements and to extend the holiday season.

Response to Policy Approaches
Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision to 2036
Bourne Leisure considers that in order to set out a comprehensive and robust vision for the future of minerals and waste in Norfolk, it is important to recognise the role of Norfolk's local economy and how sectors outside minerals and waste may be affected by the proposals in the Plan. Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, July 2018) requires planning policies to "help create conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt". It goes on to state that both local business needs and wider development opportunities should be taken into account in supporting economic growth and productivity.
Bourne Leisure therefore considers that an amendment to the Plan's vision is necessary so that the potential impacts are recognised of the location, design and operation of minerals development and waste management facilities, in terms of the effects they could have on the local economy, including, for example, on tourism accommodation and related visitor facilities. The inclusion of this amendment within the vision of the emerging Plan would also ensure that it better aligns with its draft policies, such as Policy MW2, where there is greater consideration of the role of the local economy.
Bourne Leisure suggests that the Plan's vision is amended to include additional text as follows (new text in CAPITALS):
"Minerals development and waste management facilities will be located, designed and operated without adverse impacts on the amenity of local communities, the natural, built and historic environment, THE LOCAL ECONOMY OR the landscape and townscape of Norfolk."

Policy MW2 - Development Management Criteria
Bourne Leisure owns and operates four holiday parks in Norfolk and as set out above, it is important for the Company to ensure these Parks have the ability to continue to attract customers and therefore bring wider economic and social benefits to Norfolk. Bourne Leisure therefore endorses draft Policy MW2 as it requires development proposals to demonstrate that there are no unacceptable impacts against a number of criteria including local amenity, the visual/landscape environment and the character and quality of the area. These are all key considerations that would affect holiday parks and their ability to continue to operate effectively.

This approach is consistent with national policy, namely part (f) of paragraph 204 of the NPPF which requires planning policies to set out criteria to ensure permitted and proposed developments do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health.
Bourne Leisure does not suggest any amendments to this draft policy.

Policy MW3 - Transport
Bourne Leisure endorses draft Policy MW3 for the requirement that proposals do not result in unacceptable traffic impacts, including in relation to pedestrians, other road users and air quality. The NPPF requires consideration of transport issues early in the plan-making and development proposals process so that, among other things, the potential impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed and any adverse environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be avoided and mitigated (paragraph 102).
The proposed policy approach is therefore consistent with national policy, as it aims to ensure that any mineral or waste development proposals will not have any adverse traffic impacts that could affect customers at Bourne Leisure's holiday parks in Norfolk. This is particularly important in relation to highway safety for guests and the air quality at and near to the Company's holiday parks.
Bourne Leisure does not suggest any amendments to this draft policy.

Policy MP2 - Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Bourne Leisure considers it is necessary that when establishing a spatial strategy for the extraction of minerals, all land uses are considered so that consideration is given to making environmental improvements and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions while endeavouring to make efficient use of land (NPPF, paragraph 117). The Company therefore considers that draft Policy MP2 should be amended so that tourism development is considered as a sensitive receptor to amenity impacts. The New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) identifies the visitor economy as a key sector for Norfolk's economy, as identified in their Economic Strategy (November 2017). As a result, it is key that any minerals and waste development does not have an adverse impact on tourism developments, as this would in turn impact on the sector's contribution to the local and wider economy. This is particularly important in relation to tourism accommodation, as it increasingly supports longer stays; if not considered appropriately in relation to the impacts of proposed minerals and waste development, harmful effects could result in a number of direct impacts - and critically, indirect impacts such as the loss of local jobs and reduced spend in local businesses.
Bourne Leisure therefore suggests the following amendments to part (h) of the draft policy (new text in CAPITALS):
"h. Sensitive receptors to amenity impacts (residential dwellings, educational facilities, workplaces, healthcare and TOURISM AND leisure facilities) and 250 metres around each sensitive receptor."

Appendix 4 - Development excluded from safeguarding provisions
Bourne Leisure considers it necessary that development relating to caravans, chalets and touring pitches be added to the table at Appendix 4. There is no reason why this sort of development would inhibit the use of a site for sand and gravel extraction in the future any differently than other development listed in the table, including for example, the minor infilling of development in towns and villages and the extension to existing settlements of no more than 2ha. The inclusion of caravan, chalet and touring pitch development in this table would also give Bourne Leisure and any other holiday park operators confidence that any future planning applications for the four holiday parks across the Plan area would be determined as efficiently and effectively as possible Bourne Leisure therefore suggest that the table at Appendix 4 is amended to also include "Caravans (static and touring), tents and chalets and any other caravan park development that is 'minor'" as development excluded from safeguarding provisions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Consultation for the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. We have commented on the Policies and the Allocated Sites.
Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is an important piece of legislation when reviewing planning applications. Applicants will need to demonstrate their activities will not lead to deterioration, taking account of WFD objectives and River Basin Management Plans.
Biodiversity and geological conservation
Much of this section is focused on the terrestrial environment. We would like to see the potential impacts of waste extraction on aquatic ecology addressed in the document. Aquatic ecology assessments should be carried out to determine the potential impacts on fish, invertebrates and aquatic habitat. The need for WFD assessments should be reiterated here.
Developments are likely to encounter a number of protected species issues in Norfolk which they will need to address. Species records can be obtained from the Norfolk Biodiversity Information System (NBIS). This data can be used to inform desk based studies and future surveys.

Land and Soil Resources
We welcome this section but recommend that the last sentence is expanded to address soil erosion. Our proposed wording would be: The overall integrity of land and soil should be protected, with measures taken to prevent/control soil erosion where applicable, during working and long-term use of the site once it is fully restored

Flooding
We are pleased to see that flood risk is a consideration in the policy, however it is limited to pluvial and fluvial. Tidal, groundwater and reservoir flooding should be considered. Therefore we recommend removing the words 'Pluvial and fluvial' so that all sources of flood risk are considered.
Minerals and Waste sites have strong potential to offer betterment through reducing the runoff rates, thereby reducing the flow to adjoining watercourses. Each application should explore the potential for betterment in the site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), particularly when it comes to restoration. Ideally the requirement for Minerals and Waste sites to provide flood risk betterment where possible should be identified in Policy MW2 and may be most appropriate in the last paragraph.
The first paragraph on page 30 discusses the need to ensure flood risk is not increased. The NPPF states that all plans should use opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding. The PPG, paragraph 050, states that authorities and developers should seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area and beyond. There is great opportunity for minerals and waste development to provide flood risk betterment both locally and downstream, particularly during the restoration phase. It would be beneficial to see something in the plan that encourages opportunities for betterment.
In order to comply with the Planning Practice Guidance, we would require any planning application to consider the following issues if a site is at risk of flooding; this includes a number of the sites that have been allocated within this Plan:
 An FRA would be needed to demonstrate the risk of flooding to those working onsite and to ensure that flood risk is not increased.
 Climate change should be considered to determine the risk to the site in the future. In areas that benefit from defences, residual risk will need to be considered and what may happen in an overtopping or breach scenario. We would expect bunds and materials to be stored outside of the floodplain, otherwise we would expect flow paths to be considered to ensure there is no increase in flood risk and bunds to have gaps in for flood water.
 We would recommend that a flood plan is prepared for the development, which should include an appropriate method of flood warning and evacuation, to ensure the safe use of the development in extreme circumstances.
 Some of the allocated sites are extensions to existing sites. In this instance, appropriate measures should already be in place to manage flood risk. The application should however consider the impacts of extending the works and any site specific issues.

Environmental Permit for Flood Risk Activities
An environmental permit for flood risk activities may be required for work in, under, over or within 8 metres (m) from a fluvial main river and from any flood defence structure or culvert or 16m from a tidal main river and from any flood defence structure or culvert.

Application forms and further information can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits. Anyone carrying out these activities without a permit where one is required, is breaking the law.
The Local Plan should consider this when allocating development sites adjacent to a 'main river'. A permit may be required and restrictions imposed upon the work as a result in order to ensure the development does not have a detrimental impact upon the environment and flood risk.
Water Quality
This section addresses water as a resource, but does not expand upon pollution in relation to environmentally sensitive locations. We suggest the following wording could be used:
As well as flood risk, the effect of minerals and waste management development on all water bodies should be addressed in accordance with the WFD. This includes the quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater. A further consideration could be the protection of sources of drinking water, identified via designated Source Protection Zones. Development proposals must therefore prevent the pollution of surface water and groundwater by fuels, chemicals and other contaminants (e.g. sediments), and include pollution prevention planning for incidents such as fires (and the risks posed by contaminated fire-fighting water), collisions and vandalism. Minerals development must also ensure there will be no significant change to groundwater or surface water levels, including careful monitoring of any 'dewatering' operations (whereby water is pumped out of a pit to allow dry working below the water table) to ensure no adverse impacts on surrounding water availability and/or the water environment.
Point b) should be expanded to recognise the sensitive areas in Norfolk such as the Broads and SSSIs. Suggested wording would be: The quality of surface waterbodies and groundwater, with particular regard to preventing the deterioration of their existing status, and the quantity of water for resource purposes within water bodies and in environmentally sensitive areas that may be affected by water quantity and quality;

Environmental Permit for Dewatering
Dewatering for quarrying or mineral extraction purposes now falls under water abstraction licencing legislation. Any developer of a quarry or mineral extraction should contact the Environment Agency to discuss obtaining such a licence. The Environment Agency would normally expect dewatering water to be returned to the local aquifer within a short time period
Policy MW4: Climate Change Mitigation and Adaption
Part F may be better suited in the flooding, water resources and water quality section on page 30. However, it is important that climate change is considered when assessing flood risk. Therefore this section could specify that: 'site specific FRAs should include an assessment of the impact of climate change on flood risk using appropriate climate change allowances'.
Policy MW5: The Brecks Protected Habitats and Species
We support this policy's statement to protect the important flora and fauna within The Brecks. The allocated sites are mostly located away from sites supporting aquatic ecological features in Norfolk such as The Broads and North Norfolk Coast, but if any come forward in future then a further policy to address these features would assist in avoiding inappropriate development at these locations.

Policy MP5: Core River Valleys
Whilst recognising that mineral deposits have to be worked where they occur, new developments should be restricted to higher ground avoiding river valleys where possible to reduce the risk of mineral extraction impinging on groundwater.
Various authorities are restoring sections of river valley throughout Norfolk in order to enhance the ecology and condition status of water bodies. Developments which impact the success of existing restoration schemes will hinder the water bodies' potential to reach good status. This is particularly relevant to proposed sites MIN 55, MIN 202 and MIN 58. The location of these sites is close to an ongoing project to restore the River Wensum SSSI/ SAC/ SPA. If the developments are accepted there would be scope to work in partnership with the EA to create some enhancements which could include the use of natural flood management measures such as woody debris, planted berms, floodplain reconnection and tree planting.

Policy MP2: Spatial strategy for mineral extraction
We agree that each designated site and sensitive receptors will have different interest features and sensitivities. Therefore, proposed developments will need to be assessed to determine their potential impacts on the features for which each site is designated. Appropriate mitigation should be applied to reduce potential impacts. These may include planting buffer zones of trees around sites to act as dust suppression, and limit noise and light pollution from the development.
Policies MP7: Progressive Working, Restoration and After-use and MP8: Aftercare
The aggregate industry has the potential to create opportunities for delivering the UK BAP targets for conserving habitats and species. Topsoil at sites post-extraction can be reinstated and used to create wildflower meadows rich in pollinating insects.
Where possible green corridors should be strategically placed to link wildlife sites, creating a larger area for biodiversity which is consistent with the Biodiversity 2020 strategy to advocate the creation bigger and less fragmented areas for wildlife.

Native crayfish Ark sites
Using mineral extraction sites can provide highly suitable, inexpensive Ark sites for the rapidly declining white clawed crayfish. Norfolk contains some of the few remaining white claw crayfish populations but these are under threat from disease and non-native crayfish. Extraction operations can create permanently filled water bodies, isolated from existing rivers containing invasive crayfish and the virulent crayfish plague. We would encourage the creation of Ark sites to be a component of aftercare, thereby the industry will be contributing to regional and national BAP targets, adding greater value to restoration strategy. There would be opportunities for working in partnership with the EA, Norfolk Rivers Trust and Buglife to establish Arks at sites post extraction.

Policy WP15: Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre
Water Recycling Centres have the potential to cause significant impact on the water environment, and inhibit the ability for water bodies to achieve 'good' status under the WFD. We therefore welcome Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre having a long term policy to ensure that further capacity is provided in line with further growth.
Allocated Sites
In this section we have provided bespoke guidance relating to ecology, groundwater protection and flood risk at certain sites. MIN 38, Land at Waveney Forest, Fritton is of considerable concern.

MIN 38, Land at Waveney Forest, Fritton
We have significant concerns regarding the allocation of this site from both a Groundwater Protection and an Ecology perspective.
Groundwater Protection at Waveney Forest
Protection of groundwater quality and potable drinking supplies are of paramount concern to us.
It is highly likely that the quarry operators at this site would need to excavate below the water table, which is very shallow at this location. As such, significant dewatering would most likely result in groundwater level drawdown outside the boundary of the quarry and would affect/derogate nearby abstractions. We are aware of some local, licenced and unlicensed, abstractions which would most likely be affected.
For additional reference there is a public water supply (Northumbrian Water/Essex & Suffolk) abstraction from Fritton Lake. This is technically classed as a surface water abstraction because it is taken from the lake, but the lake is virtually a groundwater fed body, and so it is in hydraulic continuity with the same geological strata that the quarry wishes to excavate, as are the surrounding marshes. Unfortunately, our system will not assign a source protection zone to the abstraction because it only recognises the abstraction as being from surface water. While it is probably unlikely that the Lake would be impacted to the extent that it affects the public water supply abstraction, there remains the concern of contamination from air borne and groundwater pollutant resulting from quarry activities. This would otherwise have been more rigorously assessed should a Source Protection Zone have been assigned to this abstraction.
As of January this year dewatering is now a licensable activity as a New Authorisation. If we were consulted over this application, we would take a hard line, requesting detailed risk assessments and environmental impact assessments, including implications for impact to features assessed under the Water Framework Directive. We would expect detailed calculations of impact to Fritton Marshes, flow to the Waveney, Fritton Warren South County Wildlife Site, Fritton Lake, effects to local abstractors (including an updated search for domestic sources) and the Public Water Supply.
Ecology at Waveney Forest
This site has been raised in previous plans and we remain concerned that the size of the removal of aggregate could cause negative impacts on visual amenity, character and wildlife.
Numerous protected species in the area linked to fringing wetland habitat such as water vole, otter, Norfolk hawker, grass snake. Others linked to heathland and mire habitat to be lost include adder, lizard, slow-worm, nightjar and turtle dove. The narrow-mouthed whorl snail has also been recorded in habitats fringing the Waveney.
Impacts on the quality of water from run-off and draining down of surrounding wetland habitats (marshes, Fritton Lake) are likely to be severe. There is potential to compromise projects and eel passage improvements on nearby Blocka Run.
Several County Wildlife Sites (mainly heathland) will be lost to development, and it is unclear how impacts will be offset and even whether it is possible.

Allocated Sites with Ecological Constraints
The following section outlines the constraints at certain sites, which will need to be considered at the application stage to ensure that ecology is not adversely affected.
MIN 48 The proximity of the site to Swannington Upgate Common. Potential impacts on features of interest and Swannington beck, a chalk stream with associated priority habitat and species.
MIN 96 Close proximity to Spixworth Beck, concerns over impacts on the associated habitat including coastal and floodplain grazing marsh.
MIN 45 Potential impacts to ancient woodland, and county wildlife sites, particularly the hydrology and ecology of Syderstone Common SSSI which supports a population of protected natterjack toad.
MIN 202 The proximity to ancient woodland and county wildlife sites could cause habitat fragmentation.
MIN 115 Potential loss of deciduous woodland priority habitat.
MIN 25 Potential impacts on Priority Habitats - deciduous woodland and coastal and floodplain grazing marsh.
MIN 71 Proximity to Holt Lows SSSI and potential impact on groundwater dependant habitat.

Allocated Sites with Groundwater Protection Constraints

In this section we have provided guidance on the pollution prevention measures that we would expect to be considered at these allocated sites.

MIN 200, Land west of Cuckoo Lane Carbrooke
It is unclear whether de-watering is proposed. There is mention of the proximity to Scoulten Mere Wetland SSSI. If no de-watering is to take place then there would be no impacts, however if de-watering is to take place, by inference, there may be impacts. We welcome the recommendation for a hydrogeological impact assessment to determine if de-watering is acceptable, and if not then the mineral may have to be worked wet. With this proviso we agree with the conclusions that the site is likely to be suitable for complete sands and gravel extraction. The need for hydrogeological impact assessment should be added to the list of the requirements that need addressing in the initial conclusion.
We are aware of the proposed restoration of this site. The site lies within an SPZ 2 so it is recognised that sufficient protection of groundwater is required at the site. Groundwater has been identified at the base of excavation, and de-watering is a potential issue.As such any waste management development must employ pollution prevention measures where possible. The aquifers on site must be adequately protected from potential contamination, and any waste management development will require robust risk assessment. When this site is progressed, we will be heavily involved to ensure environmental protection.

MIN 35, land at Heath Road Quidenham
The site is located approximately 2km from Swangey Fen (wetland SSSI) and also close to Banham Fens and Quidenham Meres SSSI. This is proposed to be worked dry so, we have no de-watering concerns. The site is considered suitable provided there is no working below the water table.

MIN 102, land at North Farm Snetterton
The site is adjacent to Swangey Fen SSSI and therefore we do not consider it suitable for mineral extraction. A stronger argument is required than that presented in the recommendations, which state that 'this is a significant constraint to the development of the site and therefore the site is considered less deliverable than other sites that have been proposed for extraction'. If it is taken forward as a site it would have to be worked wet because we would not grant a de-watering licence, and we would request with strict planning conditions.
As the excavated void is to be utilised for waste disposal or recovery, a robust risk assessment will be required. We would expect waste disposal here to meet all best practice techniques. Due to the sensitivity of groundwater (within an SPZ2) it will not be possible to accept reduced liner thickness or design at this site. The aquifers on site must be adequately protected from potential contamination, and if this site is progressed the Environment Agency will be heavily involved to ensure environmental protection.

MIN 201, land at Swangey Farm Snetterton
The site is adjacent to Swangey Fen SSSI and therefore we do not consider it suitable for mineral extraction. If it is taken forward as a site it would have to be worked wet because we would not grant a de-watering licence, and we would request with strict planning conditions.

MIN 6, land off East Winch Road Middleton
We agree that a hydrogeological impact/risk assessment is needed for working beneath the water table. It may be necessary to apply constraints such as a limiting or precluding de-watering at the site, which will be dependent on the results of the hydrogeological risk assessment. The assessment should include impacts on protected rights (water features and other lawful users) and the risk of pulling in contaminated groundwater due to the proximity of black borough end Landfill. The issue of contaminated groundwater being mobilised from Blackborough End landfill is not addressed in the current assessment report.

MIN 204, land off Lodge Road Feltwell
It is not clear whether de-watering is proposed. Planning requirements in the initial conclusion should include the need for 'an appropriate hydrogeological risk assessment'.

MIN 40, land east of Grandcourt Farm East Winch
We agree with the need for an appropriate hydrogeological risk assessment as set out in the initial conclusions. This should also consider the proposed restoration scheme as well as the de-watering phase. Restoration and de-watering phases should consider thepossibility of a perched aquifer in the Carstone Formation. We would not accept any passive de-watering of this aquifer.

SIL 01: This is potentially a high risk site with a County Wildlife site situated within it. However we agree with the recommendation to allocate

Further Guidance
Sites MIN 40, MIN 19, MIN 205, MIN 201, MIN 35, MIN 51, MIN 13, and MIN 32 propose low level restoration using inert material to restore the site. Whilst these sites do not lie within an SPZ we would expect groundwater to be sufficiently protected. This would involve a robust waste acceptance criteria. We would expect diligence is maintained to ensure non-inert wastes are not accepted at this site. If deposition will be sub-water table, as at sites MIN 200 and MIN 102, the applicant should refer to the EA technical guidance note 30_18 'Compliance with the Landfill Directive when depositing inert waste into water'.

At sites MIN 12, MIN 08 and MIN 45, the the excavated void is to be utilised for waste disposal or recovery, so a robust risk assessment will be required. We would expect waste disposal here to meet all best practice techniques. Due to the sensitivity of groundwater (within an SPZ3) it will not be possible to accept reduced liner thickness or design at this site. The aquifers on site must be adequately protected from potential contamination, and if this site is progressed we will be heavily involved to ensure environmental protection.

At sites MIN 6, MIN 204, MIN 23 and MIN 116 it is not stipulated if these sites are to be utilised for waste disposal or recovery. If either of the options are progressed a robust risk assessment will be required. We would expect waste disposal here to meet all best practice techniques. Whilst the site does not lie within an SPZ we would expect groundwater to be sufficiently protected.

Allocated Sites with Flood Risk Constraints

MIN 102, Land at North Farm, south of the River Thet, Snetterton
As stated on p133, the majority of site MIN 102 is situated within flood zone 1, however there is a small percentage of the site within flood zones 2 and 3 which align the River Thet. There is also a small percentage shown at risk of surface water as shown on the risk of flooding from surface water flood map.
Although the site is currently considered to be unsuitable for allocation, should this change a FRA would be needed to demonstrate the risk of flooding to those working onsite and to ensure that flood risk is not increased. The impact of climate change on flood risk will also need to be considered.

MIN 76, land at West Field, Watlington Road
The plan incorrectly states that MIN 76 is situated in Flood Zone 1. The North West corner of the site is situated in Flood Zones 2 and 3, as shown on our Flood Map for Planning. This should be updated to ensure flood risk is addressed and mitigation measures considered.

Policy MP13: Areas of Search for silica sand extraction
Policy MP13 does not address the need for an FRA, although the requirement to follow the sequential approach to flood risk has been listed. An FRA is vital if the planning authority is to make informed planning decisions. In the absence of an FRA, the flood risk resulting from the proposed development are unknown.

Planning Advice Service
We trust the advice we have given is useful and will contribute to the soundness of the emerging local plan. We will continue to provide further advice and comments at future statutory stages of the emerging local plan. Should you wish us to review any draft policies and text as well as technical documents and background studies, such as strategic flood risk assessments or water cycle studies which may be used to support your plan, we can offer this as part of our planning advice service.
This service will ensure that your evidence documents fully support the local plan and ensure that environmental issues are addressed in an effective and timely way contributing to sustainable development. As part of the planning advice service we will provide you with a single point of contact who will co-ordinate access to our technical specialists, who will be able to provide bespoke advice and help you prepare any supporting documents. We will be pleased to provide you with an estimated cost for any work we would undertake as part of the service.

As the Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process. Our comments below should be read with our detailed comments in the attached table.

Summary
At this early stage in the plan process, we have identified in detail in the attached table the changes that we recommend. However, looked at as a whole we have identified two key issues to address for the next iteration of the plan, which we summarise below:

a) Evidence-based allocations: the aim should be to avoid harm in the first instance before minimising or mitigating (Planning Practice Guidance, paragraph 019 reference ID 18a-019-20140306 revision date 06 03 2014). A proposed allocation needs to be based on evidence and should seek to avoid harm to heritage assets in the first instance, then set out how it could be mitigated against if the harm is unavoidable and the public benefits justify that harm under paragraphs 194, 195, or 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The following sites do not meet that threshold: MIN 79 and 80, SIL 02, MIN 40, MIN 32, MIN 19 and 205, MIN 48 and MIN 116. Of those, SIL 02 (a large preferred area immediately abutting a complex of highly graded heritage assets) along with AOS E, MIN 19 and MIN 205; MIN 48 (which incorporates a scheduled monument) and MIN 79 (with other development considerations) are most concerning. We would expect some level of heritage impact assessment to be done on the most sensitive sites in order for them to be allocated.

When areas are included in allocations, preferred areas or areas of search which cannot be developed adds confusion and complexity to the planning system. Once the principle of development is established through inclusion within a site allocation, preferred area or area of search, it is more difficult to rebut the presumption in favour of development owing to the assumption that, in an evidence and plan-led system, these aspects are factored into the allocation. As such all sensitive sites should be assessed and the results of that assessment inform whether or not there is an allocation, preferred area or area of search; what size and location it can be and what policy requirements, including mitigation measures, need to be embedded to conserve or enhance the historic environment.

b) Lack of specific local historic environment policy protection: policy MW2 is too generic to provide specific local criteria and/or requirements against which planning applications will be assessed. This could be addressed through an historic environment policy or through specific site allocation policies that specify requirements such as impact assessments, avoidance and mitigation measures, archaeological investigation, progressive working, and aftercare requirements. Many of these already have been identified in the Sustainability Appraisal Annex B. This particularly affects sites MIN 35, MIN 38, and MIN 203, though we have identified where many more proposed allocations should incorporate this information.

Conclusion
As you develop the minerals and waste plan, we would welcome discussing further the points raised in our representations.

In preparation of the forthcoming minerals and waste local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment or is devoid of historic environment issues.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

As the Government's adviser on the historic environment Historic England is keen to ensure that the protection of the historic environment is fully taken into account at all stages and levels of the local planning process. Our comments below should be read with our detailed comments in the attached table.

Summary
At this early stage in the plan process, we have identified in detail in the attached table the changes that we recommend. However, looked at as a whole we have identified two key issues to address for the next iteration of the plan, which we summarise below:

a) Evidence-based allocations: the aim should be to avoid harm in the first instance before minimising or mitigating (Planning Practice Guidance, paragraph 019 reference ID 18a-019-20140306 revision date 06 03 2014). A proposed allocation needs to be based on evidence and should seek to avoid harm to heritage assets in the first instance, then set out how it could be mitigated against if the harm is unavoidable and the public benefits justify that harm under paragraphs 194, 195, or 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The following sites do not meet that threshold: MIN 79 and 80, SIL 02, MIN 40, MIN 32, MIN 19 and 205, MIN 48 and MIN 116. Of those, SIL 02 (a large preferred area immediately abutting a complex of highly graded heritage assets) along with AOS E, MIN 19 and MIN 205; MIN 48 (which incorporates a scheduled monument) and MIN 79 (with other development considerations) are most concerning. We would expect some level of heritage impact assessment to be done on the most sensitive sites in order for them to be allocated.

When areas are included in allocations, preferred areas or areas of search which cannot be developed adds confusion and complexity to the planning system. Once the principle of development is established through inclusion within a site allocation, preferred area or area of search, it is more difficult to rebut the presumption in favour of development owing to the assumption that, in an evidence and plan-led system, these aspects are factored into the allocation. As such all sensitive sites should be assessed and the results of that assessment inform whether or not there is an allocation, preferred area or area of search; what size and location it can be and what policy requirements, including mitigation measures, need to be embedded to conserve or enhance the historic environment.

b) Lack of specific local historic environment policy protection: policy MW2 is too generic to provide specific local criteria and/or requirements against which planning applications will be assessed. This could be addressed through an historic environment policy or through specific site allocation policies that specify requirements such as impact assessments, avoidance and mitigation measures, archaeological investigation, progressive working, and aftercare requirements. Many of these already have been identified in the Sustainability Appraisal Annex B. This particularly affects sites MIN 35, MIN 38, and MIN 203, though we have identified where many more proposed allocations should incorporate this information.

Conclusion
As you develop the minerals and waste plan, we would welcome discussing further the points raised in our representations.

In preparation of the forthcoming minerals and waste local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on an allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the allocation or document forms part of a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment or is devoid of historic environment issues.

Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review - Consultation response from the Waste Disposal Authority

Introduction
This consultation response is an internal response by Officers of the County Council in its capacity as the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) for Norfolk. It has therefore focussed exclusively on policies relating specifically to waste management and there are no comments on those elements of the review relating to Minerals.

Waste Management specific policies

Policy WP1 - Waste Management capacity to be provided

Question 10a
There is little to pick between the Norfolk SHMA and ONS projections in numerical terms and both can be argued to be realistic. However, the SHMA takes a reasonable and realistic view of the local picture on household growth. It appears the more appropriate tool in terms of the principles on which it is established and its projections seem sensible and realistic.

The general approach of linking waste growth to growth in households is the most appropriate. The LACW figures from 2007/08 onwards as set out in the Waste Management capacity assessment look across the whole of Norfolk and show both increases and decreases between years. This highlights the inherent difficulty and uncertainty in attempting to establish an appropriate waste growth pattern using historical waste data that contains year on year fluctuations.

Some limited analysis by the WDA has shown that waste per household levels tend to remain relatively static over longer periods of time even if they can be subject to short term fluctuations. It is reasonable to assume that it is the number of households that is fundamentally driving longer term trends in levels of waste. On that basis, using household growth is an appropriate principle.

Question 10b
The WDA is less well placed to comment on forecasting commercial and industrial waste because it does not have the statutory responsibility for dealing with it or to compile data on it.

Question 11
We do not have any specific drafting to put forward as an alternative but would comment as follows.

The consideration of proximity to urban settlements is, on the face of it, in the combined interests of the WDA and Norfolk's WCAs. In theory, this should reduce transportation costs for the WDA and increase the efficiency of collection rounds for the WCA. However, where waste treatment facilities operate at a more industrial scale (higher than 75,000 being an example given in the consultation document), waste will often travel from considerably further afield and be drawn from a far wider area than the immediate locality.

We would therefore caution against the policy creating an unintended constraint on the development of waste treatment capacity at a larger scale. In general, sourcing a site that is available and suitable for a larger waste facility is more difficult than for smaller facilities and the WDA would want to see that there remains sufficient flexibility in this policy to ensure that the waste management industry has a wide enough range of options when considering sites suitable for such a facility.

Question 11a
On the basis of the above comments, whilst understanding the additional complications it may present from a policy point of view, a principle as set out in alternative options 2 or 3 would reduce the risk of this policy placing undue restrictions on the location of industrial scale facilities.

As respects the provision of Recycling Centres, some of the WDA's facilities are located near Key Service Centres. However, where new facilities have been developed in recent years, the tendency has been to seek sites closer to centres of population.

Question 12
Whilst we would broadly agree with the general thrust of the policy, the WDA see no reason why a site that was formerly a landfill site could only be considered suitable for a waste management facility on a temporary basis (unless this is specifically referring to facilities built directly on the waste burial area). Nationally, there are examples of waste management facilities being developed on a site formerly operated as a landfill site, adjacent to closed landfill cells. The long standing association of the site with a waste management use has been advantageous in a number of ways and has proved a good fit with the broader site continuing to be in use as a waste management site but having changed to a cleaner, more modern method of waste management.

Question 12a
We would agree that the experience of having allocated 29 sites previously, having had none of them developed whilst permissions have been granted on other sites does point away from an approach of allocating sites and towards criteria based policies.

Question 13
On the basis that it does not fall to the WDA to commission services for these sorts of wastes beyond the small amounts collected at our recycling centres (for which existing offtake capacity is used) the WDA is not best placed to offer a useful comment on this question.

Question 14
Our comments concerning this policy are along similar lines to those in question 12 albeit for slightly different reasons in some cases.

Whereas the consideration of the size of the facility in terms of its throughput capacity gave rise to our comments in question 12, here it is the specialist nature of the activities proposed when considering reprocessing of ELVs and WEEE in particular that would lead us to caution against the policy unintentionally constraining the development of these facilities should they be proposed.

As respects the development of MRFs, again, if they are particularly large in scale then we would reiterate our comments from question 12 above.

When considering waste transfer stations however, these issues are of less concern because transfer stations, by their nature, ought to be located close to where concentrations of households are found.

Question 15
We would broadly agree with the proposed policy and have no further comments to make.

Question 16
Policy WP7 offers appropriate additional flexibility to that offered by WP3.

Question 17
We would broadly agree with the proposed policy and have no further comments to make.

Question 18
We would broadly agree with the proposed policy and have no further comments to make.

Question 19
The County Council in its capacity as the WDA, has a policy for the commissioning of residual waste treatment services that precludes the development of facilities in Norfolk that use incineration to treat residual waste in that the County Council as WDA is responsible for.

Our comments here are made in clear recognition that the function of the County Council as a planning authority is separate from its function as a WDA and given in a manner that is neutral about waste treatment technology.

There are few comments to make other than those already made in relation to policy WP3 in the response to question 11 earlier.

We agree that the facilities should only be treating residual waste.

We would agree that any proposed thermal treatment process should recover energy as a minimum and preferably heat also. Incineration without energy recovery would only be appropriate for small scale operations such as pet crematoria or clinical waste incineration, both of which we assume are outside of the scope of this policy.

Question 20
Since the WDA do not routinely commission services for this sort of waste we are not best placed to offer comments.

Question 21
We agree with the proposed policy wording.

Question 22
The wording of the policy is pragmatic and appropriate.

Question 23 & 24
No comments.

Question 25
No further comments

Question 26
No further comments

Further comments on the Waste Management capacity assessment
P6 states that the WDA "maintains detailed records of the amounts of Local Authority Collected Waste that is collected by the Waste Collection Authorities (District, Borough and City Councils)."

This is correct in itself but it would be more accurate to reflect that the records include waste collected by the WDA (at its HWRCs and through the third party recycling credits payments). A simple re-wording would deal with this and it could read: "...maintains detailed records of the amounts of Local Authority Collected Waste collected by the Waste Collection Authorities (District, Borough and City Councils) and by Waste Disposal Authority (the County Council)."

Norfolk County Council: Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial Consultation May 2018

Representations made on behalf of CEMEX UK Materials Ltd.

Minerals Strategic Objectives

MSO10: As currently drafted this objective appears to establish a mandatory requirement for any restoration scheme to increase public access and enhance biodiversity. There could be circumstances, however, where this requirement is not appropriate, such as limiting public access when seeking to establish an ecologically slanted restoration or where the land is best and most versatile agricultural land and returning that land back to agricultural production may be the primary driver behind its restoration. The following revision is therefore proposed: -

"WHERE APPROPRIATE, increase public access to the countryside and enhance biodiversity through enhancing the amenity value of land when restoring extraction sites."

The above would also better reflect the phrasing of Policy MW2.

General Policies

MW3: Quarries by their nature have to be located where the mineral that is sought to be quarried occurs. This often places them in rural and/or remote areas where there is little or no access to public transport. This potential remoteness can also mean that travel to work distances are too great for employees to be reasonable expected to either cycle or walk to work. Furthermore, due to the demands of customers, quarries often commence daily operations early, before public transport commences operations itself, if any is available. As drafted Policy MW3 does not reflect these practicalities. The following revision is therefore proposed: -

* "WHERE APPROPRIATE, measures to reduce car travel to the site by workers and visitors and encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport."

Minerals Specific Policies

MP1: As currently drafted the Company believes that this policy would be found to be unsound as it does not reflect Government guidance regards the provision of sand and gravel and no material circumstances have been identified by the Plan that explain why the approach taken is appropriate. The following revision is proposed: -

"For sand and gravel, specific sites to deliver at least 23,063,560 tonnes of resources will be allocated. The sand and gravel landbank will be maintained TO at LEAST 7 years' supply (excluding any contribution from borrow pits for major construction projects)."

The above phraseology better reflects guidance contained with paragraph 207f of the revised NPPF and is considered sound.

MP7: The Company wholly support the aim of retaining sample exposures of scientifically important geological exposures, but this must be tempered by health and safety considerations. There may be circumstances, such as high quarry faces or face instability where retention would not be appropriate. As such it is proposed that the policy be revised as follows: -

* Any important geology or geomorphology on the site will be retained in sample exposures for study purposes WHERE APPROPRIATE.

MP10: Paragraph b of this policy does not specifically refer to facilities for the handing of primary won aggregate; this oversight should be remedied as follows: -

b) Existing, planned and potential sites for concrete batching, the manufacture of coated materials, other concrete products and the handling, processing and distribution of PRIMARY, substitute, recycled and secondary aggregate material.

Appendix 5

Both the Company's Norwich (Broadsman Close) or Brandon (Mundford Road) railheads appear not to have be identified within this appendix as safeguarded facilities. It is requested that both are added to the appendix.

Appendix 7

Neither the Company's Costessey recycling facility nor the adjacent landfill appear to been identified within this appendix as safeguarded waste management facilities. It is requested that both are added to the appendix.

Proposed Minerals Extraction Sites

MIN 202: The Company supports the identification of land south of Reepham Road, Attlebridge, as suitable for allocation for sand and gravel extraction.

MIN 25: The Company supports the identification of land at Manor Farm (between Loddon Road and Thorpe Road), Haddiscoe, as suitable for allocation for sand and gravel extraction.

An additional site has very recently been drawn to the Company's attention, Mansom Plantation, please find attached a completed pro forma, location plan and preliminary geological report (additional detail is expected shortly). On the basis of geological investigations to date this site appears to contain approximately 1.5 million tonnes of coarse sand and gravel lying in close proximity to the County's main aggregate market, Norwich, and with direct access to the A140. Part of the site is also subject to an extant permission for leisure development. As such the Company propose its identification in the Development Plan as a Specific Site for mineral extraction.

The Company has as yet not been able to consider in detail the potential environmental constraints that relate to this site. It would be happy to discuss with the Minerals Planning Authority expanding the evidence base for this site if would assist the Authority in its deliberations.

Thank you for consulting me on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The plan is very thorough and I broadly feel that Landscape has been considered in an accurate and suitable manner.

MIN51 / MIN13 The landscape features within this site, including hedgerow oaks and blocks of woodland are significant in the landscape and should be protected during working of the site. These should also be used as focal points for restoration. The restoration should reflect and strengthen the retained features.

MIN23 I support the conclusion that this site would be unsuitable due to landscape impacts. Screening or bunding used to mitigate these impacts would be intrusive and due to the sloping topography, would be unlikely to be effective.

MIN200 Screening will be particularly important with this site so as to minimise views and retain the setting of nearby listed buildings.

MIN116 I am in support of the initial conclusion for this site. Impacts on nearby dwellings/ Public Rights of Way and the local landscape would be unacceptable. Although bunding and advanced planting is proposed, I feel this would not be sufficient and the bunding itself is likely to be unnecessarily intrusive.

MIN55 The deep extraction proposed on this site would make it hard to restore to a suitable landform that could be sinuous with the surrounding landscape. I agree with the conclusion that this would make the site unsuitable for allocation.

MIN202 The deep extraction proposed on this site would make it hard to restore to a suitable landform that could be sinuous with the surrounding landscape. I agree with the conclusion that the site would be suitable for allocation with a shallower depth of extraction.

MIN 37 Screening should be carefully considered, with native species chosen where possible. The extensive use of conifers should be avoided where possible. Advance planting is required to mitigate views.

MIN64 It is important to retain field boundary hedgerows and trees, the removal of these will have a major impact on the landscape. In addition any planting proposed should strengthen the existing with hedgerow and tree belts and form part of the restoration after the site has been worked.

MIN203 The landscape impacts of this extension site would be negligible.

MIN38 Although screening trees would be retained, there are large areas of woodland within the site which, although not characteristic of the area, form an identifiable part of the landscape. Although loss of woodland in this area would not cause a large impact on the wider landscape the immediate effects from within the woodland would be noticeable.

MIN45 In support of my Arboriculture colleagues comments, I am in agreement that this site is unsuitable for allocation.

MIN204 I support the requirement for a detailed landscaping scheme to mitigate impacts on Feltwell Gate Lodge and surrounding landscape.

MIN19 and MIN205 Whilst the removal of the plant is now not a consideration in the issue of landscape gain, with the right restoration these sites could provide other landscape gain.

MIN77 In support of my Arboriculture colleagues comments, I am in agreement that this site is unsuitable for allocation due to the importance of Runs Wood.

AOS E This area contains a large amount of woodland, which is intrinsic within the overall landscape, providing important visual and biodiversity connections. Where possible woodland should be retained, but where loss is unavoidable suitable mitigation should be provided during the working of any site within the area of search, and the planting of woodland should be considered as part of any restoration.

AOS I There are a number of viewpoints which will need to be considered within this area of search, it may be that only part of the area of search is suitable for mineral extraction.

SIL02 Bunding for this site has the potential to be intrusive. There are a number of views/settings and impacts on the wider landscape that will need to be carefully considered. A combination of advanced planting and bunding may be suitable, but care needs to be taken that the mitigation in itself doesn't have further impacts.

MIN69 This site lays within the Norfolk Coast AONB therefore screening will be of utmost importance. Restoration would need to demonstrate that after the site has been worked it could become exceptionally beneficial to both the landscape and the public.

MIN71 This site has the potential to have detrimental impact on residential amenity, a suitably designed strategy will need to demonstrate that this amenity can be protected and views minimised. I would agree with conclusions that a buffer for Holt itself will be required.

MIN115 I am in agreement with my Arboriculture colleague that this site is not suitable for allocation. Should the allocation remain in place it would be necessary to ensure a suitable tree belt screen is maintained to minimise views from adjacent Public Rights of Way.

MIN209/MIN210/MIN211 I would support the movement of the processing plant to an area to be worked over the choice to relocate it to an already restored area.

MIN92 The retention of the hedgerow oaks is important with their place in the landscape being intrinsic in the attractiveness of the area. I agree that this combined with the location adjacent to the Broads Authority Executive Area make the site unsuitable for allocation.

MIN79 Sprow's pit copse should be retained throughout the works and become a focus on in the restoration scheme. The restoration scheme should incorporate and extend the copse and strengthen the boundary planting.

Public Rights of Way - Where PRoW are adjacent or within the site, consideration should be given to insure that impacts are minimal. Where works will have a direct impact on the PRoW, discussions will need to take place with NCC to agree a suitable temporary diversion and subsequent reinstatement.

In our opinion the plan is fit for purpose. We have a few comments/ recommendations regarding the plan as follows:

SIL 02 Land at Shouldham and Marham
This site is located adjacent to the River Narr SSSI, we would advise no extraction takes place outside of the 'reduced development area' between the proposed site and River Narr SSSI to reduce the likelihood of impacts on the River Narr SSSI and its qualifying features.
We agree that an assessment of potential impacts on the River Narr SSSI and Marham Fen, including from dust deposition and hydrogeology, together with appropriate mitigation would be required as part of any planning application.
It should be noted in the 'initial conclusion' that an ecological assessment to determine baseline conditions on the site must be prepared which may lead to the need for further surveys and mitigation measures, if necessary. (This should always be the case with 'greenfield sites'. I know this was mentioned in the wider document, however it would be good if this could be included in the 'initial conclusions' for new sites). It would also be useful in the initial conclusions to ensure it is clear that a restoration scheme to protect and enhance biodiversity will be put in place post extraction.

MIN45 land North of Coxford Quarry and MIN 77 Runs Wood Tottenhill
We are in agreement with the conclusions that the sites are unsuitable for allocation in accordance with Section 15 of the NPPF.

MIN40 land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch
We agree with the Arboricultural officers comments for land east of Grandcourt Farm. It should also be noted that if avoidance measures are not possible and these veteran trees are removed, an assessment of the value of these trees for wildlife in particular bats and nesting birds must be undertaken prior to any works on these trees.

Search: AOS E land to the North of Shouldham and MIN115 Lord Anson's Wood near North Walsham
Woodland is located within the allocated area for these sites. These woodland areas are of ecological value and likely support protected species and other wildlife. We would like to see woodland areas retained where possible. Where woodland areas are proposed for removal then an ecological assessment needs to be undertaken and any further surveys need to be carried out or mitigation proposed, if necessary.

MIN 92 Land east of Ferry Lane, Heckingham
We agree with the Arboricultural officers comments that this site is unsuitable for allocation.

Overall the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan is a very thorough and accurate document. My only comments are that trees have been considered under the headings of landscape or ecology throughout the document, rather than under a separate arboriculture heading. Having said this, I am happy for the document to remain as it is.

However as far as I can see, no reference has been made with regards to Arboricultural Impact Assessments (AIA) in the initial conclusions. I feel that where hedgerow trees or woodlands are adjacent to a proposed site that the offset from them needs to be determined at the very least by an annotated Tree Protection Plan or a full AIA to ensure root protection for the long term retention of the trees. For sites where an LVIA has been recommended (e.g MIN71) this would also need to include a full AIA.

For MIN45 land North of Coxford Quarry and MIN 77 Runs Wood Tottenhill, the initial conclusions recommend that that the sites are unsuitable for allocation in accordance with Section 15 of the NPPF. I am in agreement with these conclusions, particularly as Runs Wood is not ancient woodland but is still considered important due to its high biodiversity value.

MIN40 land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch - there appear to be trees within the proposed site at the NW corner which would have to be removed unless the site boundaries are amended. Bearing in mind that there were requirements regarding retaining veteran trees on land at Grandcourt Farm previously, I feel that an AIA would be required for this site to determine the categorisation of the trees in this area to determine if they are worthy of retention.

AOS E land to the North of Shouldham - this area encompasses a large amount of woodland centred on Shouldham Warren that when viewed from a satellite image shows that this is a large block of woodland within a largely arable landscape that forms a connecting feature with the woodland centred on West Bilney Wood to the NE. As such, although the woodland is undesignated in any way, it is a vital connecting feature within the landscape and where possible should be retained. If any of the woodland area is removed, appropriate planting of a similar size of broadleaved woodland should be included as part of the restoration scheme.

MIN115 Lord Anson's Wood near North Walsham - I would disagree that this site is suitable for allocation, in accordance with section 170b of the NPPF. The removal of this section of woodland would degrade the overall capital value, ecosystem services and recreational values provided by the woodland.

The landscape paragraph details mature trees and woodland that are to be retained and enhanced. The initial conclusion also states that a wide screen of trees is to be left around the site. I therefore propose that if this site remains allocated that a full AIA is required to achieve this and this should be listed in the initial conclusion.

MIN 92 Land east of Ferry Lane, Heckingham - I agree with the conclusion that this site is unsuitable for allocation due to the line of mature oaks in the centre of the site.

MIN 204 land north of Lodge Road Feltwell - this site is surrounded by coniferous woodland and hedgerows and would require an AIA to ensure sufficient standoff from the adjacent trees to ensure their roots are protected for their safe long term retention.

Today Planning Committee endorsed the response below to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Issues and Options consultation.

I hope this is helpful and I am happy to clarify any points if needed.


Main document
* The Broads has been identified by Historic England as an area with exceptional potential for waterlogged archaeology. Any excavation within or close to the executive area will require particularly robust archaeological evaluation prior to consenting and not rely on a brief desk based evaluation and conditions.
* For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps say that this covers the entire county of Norfolk.
* Perhaps something about how it fits with our Local Plans? Something about how Authorities consulted if application in or near to area? We would like to understand how our special qualities and our policies that could be of relevance would be considered in decision making.
* Page 16, 28 - the Broads has a status equivalent to a national park.
* Page 23 - suggest A3 landscape.
* Page 28: Typographical error: 'Landscape Character Assessments have been carried by the Local Planning Authorities in for Norfolk and they consider where locally designated landscapes of importance are situated'.
* Page 39: Typographical error: 'and/or the volumes of waste in each area so low that it would be unviable for a full range of waste management facilities to exist in every area'.
* Page 41: Typographical error: 'end-of-live vehicles' - should this be 'life'?
* Page 46: Typographical error: '...have similar locational requirements due to their potential to impact on local amenity and the environmental'.
* Page 49: Typographical error: 'of waste electronic electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)'
* WP17 and MP10 and MP11 - will you provide GIS layers of these facilities and consultation zones?
* Page 61: Typographical error: 'the most recently available date'
* The areas on page 67 - the Broads is not mentioned. Presumably this is because silica sand only occurs in West Norfolk Borough?
* Page 77: Typographical error: 'will be made by on a case by case basis'.
* Page 78: Typographical error: 'Carstone is also a scare resource in Norfolk and therefore it is appropriate for the entire carstone resource to be safeguarded as part of the MSA'
* Page 78 - reference to peat. Whilst extraction is not supported in the NPPF, what about the removal of peat as part of the development related to minerals and waste? Peat has many important qualities and the Authority has a policy relating to peat. How will this be used in determining applications in the Broads? As well as that, you may wish to look at policies relating to peat in terms of its removal and how it is to be treated in relation to its properties.
* Page 81 - are there any areas in Norfolk that could be investigated for unconventional hydrocarbons/fracking?
* Appendix 4: What about moorings and river bank stabilisation and other such applications that occur in the Broads but probably not elsewhere in Norfolk?
* General comment: headers and paragraph numbering would make the document easier to read - pages of text with no breaks was difficult to read.

Question 5: MW2
* Page 26, MW2 could mention dark skies. You could refer to the CPRE Night Blight data as well as our dark skies policy and zones.
* Page 27: Dark skies are important in the Broads and elsewhere. Perhaps more could be said about lighting: directing lighting downwards and away from properties and only lighting if needed and temporary versus permanent illumination.
* Page 27: 'A baseline ecological survey will be necessary where biodiversity features are present on a proposed site. Such surveys are essential in identifying what exists on a proposed mineral or waste management site and establishing whether such features should be retained and managed'. This is a bit confusing and seems to say that a survey would be needed to see if there are biodiversity features on a proposed site to then need a survey? We recommend that all sites would require baseline ecological survey and assessment of the presence of rare and protected species.
* Page 28: 'Local recreation assets, including Public Open Space and other outdoor facilities such as country parks, are protected in District, Borough and City Local Plans'. Also protected in the Local Plan for the Broads.
* Page 29: 'whilst others designated at a local level are subject to protection through District, Borough and City Local Plans'. Also mention the Local Plan for the Broads.

Question 6: MW3
* Page 33: 'All proposals for minerals development or waste management facilities must assess and consider positively the potential for non-HGV transportation of materials to and from the facilities, principally by rail or water'. Perhaps you might want to require an assessment that looks into this and shows their considerations? As written, an applicant does not seem to be required to do anything other than think about it.
* Page 33: 'The County Council will consider minerals and waste development proposals to be satisfactory in terms of access where anticipated HGV movements, taking into account any mitigation measures proposed, do not generate'. Wonder if this could be worded in a more simple way?

Question 7: MW4
* Uses the word 'should' which is quite weak term. A stronger term similar to that uses in other policies (like will need to, must, is required to) might be better.
* Some aspects repeat MW2 - does that matter?

Question 9: MW6
* Does MW6 repeats MW2?
* See previous comment about peat. Should peat be mentioned in this policy?

Question 11: WP2
* Page 45: what is 'appropriate transport infrastructure'?
* Page 45: is the five mile requirement as the crow flies or by road/path etc?

Question 12: WP3
* Page 46: 'Policy WP3: Land uses potentially suitable for waste management facilities'. This does not seem an ideal title for the policy; the policy seems to be more about where waste management facilities can go. Not all of the areas listed in the criteria are land uses in the typical sense; they are areas to which such facilities are directed towards.
* Page 46, do criteria d, e, f apply even if the proposal is not within 5 miles of a town as talked about in the previous policy? How do WP2 and WP3 work together?

Question 16: WP7
* WP7: regarding the location, these could be away from urban areas according to some criteria in WP3. Should these be located near to larger urban areas (i.e. near to the source of the waste)?

Question 22: WP13
* Are the areas of these landfills identified and are any in the Broads?

Question 25: WP16
* Should this include reference to MW2? That seems to have relevant and detailed criteria.

Question 28: Policy MP2
* The Broads, which has a status equivalent to a national park, may need to be listed as a planning constraint

Question 29: MP3
* There is no mention of the requirement for restoration.
* In other policies you cross refer to a more detailed policy, but not in this policy. Presumably policy MW2 is of relevance and could be cross referred to?

Question 31: MP5
* Who does the assessment? Does that need to be handed in with the planning application? How will you liaise with the Broads Authority if proposals come forward in the river valleys in the Broads rather than just consult? Why is the Broads not included in the core river valleys? Is a separate policy on the Broads required? Or is it the case that the Broads is not covered by this policy as the Broads Authority Executive Area is shown on the policies map as a landscape designation and so rivers and broads within the BEA not included under core river valleys policy, potentially affording greater protection i.e. development could be acceptable in Core River Valleys? This could usefully be clarified.
* In other policies you cross refer to a more detailed policy, but not in this policy. Presumably policy MW2 is of relevance and could be cross referred to?
Question 32: MP6
* What are the criteria or is there a checklist that helps ascertain if cumulative impacts are unacceptable?

Question 33: MP7
* As well as GI, ecological networks? There is ecological network work underway for the entire county which could be of relevance.
* The last part says 'The Green infrastructure Strategy' - which strategy is this? The strategy of the district in which the proposal is located?
* There is also a Norfolk-wide habitats map that could be of relevance.

Question 34: Policy MP8
* To gain the ecological benefits outlined for many of the sites an outline aftercare strategy for a minimum of ten years, rather than five years is required prior to the determination of the planning application

Question 35: MP9
* It is not clear if the works then need to be removed and form part of the restoration works or are moth-balled. This could usefully be clarified.

Sites Document
* MIN 38 - land at Waveney Forest, Fritton - the Authority supports the conclusion that this should not be allocated for the reasons as set out in the assessment. Page 169 - the landscape character assessment is also relevant: http://www.broads-authority.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publications-and-reports/planning-publications-and-reports/landscape-character-assessments. Broads Landscape Character Assessment 2016; Land considered as heathland Landscape Character Type (LCT) within the St Olaves to Burgh Castle Landscape Character Area (LCA). Land to the north and west considered to be estuarine marshland LCT within the same LCA. Haddiscoe Island LCA beyond river. The Authority strongly requests that Norfolk County Council liaise with us regarding this site and any future policy prior to the next version of the Local Plan. Strongly support this conclusion and the reasons for it. The current commercial forest operation, whilst not ideal in terms of the HE features within it, offers a degree of continued protection to those features. Page 169 Typographical error: "although food practice for tree felling" presumably should read good practice.

* MIN65; support submission of Heritage statement

* MIN 209, 210, 211; For information, the Broads Landscape Character Assessment 2016 says that this area is LCA Outney Common and Bath Hills, Industrial / Early post-industrial LCT boarders MIN 211. The Authority strongly requests that Norfolk County Council liaise with us regarding this site and the policy prior to the next version of the Local Plan. Support removal of plant site from BA executive area. What will go in its place?

* MIN 25; Broads Landscape Character Assessment 2016; Norton Marshes to Haddiscoe Dismantled Railway LCA immediately NE. Adjacent LCT is settlement fringe which would be covered in time by the Broads settlement fringe policy. Support submission of Heritage statement.Whilst this is not within the Broads, the Authority strongly requests that Norfolk County Council liaise with us regarding this site and the policy prior to the next version of the Local Plan.

MIN 92; Broads Landscape Character Assessment 2016; Chet Valley LCA, Carr woodland LCT to west and upland LCT to the north and south. Recommended not to support this site going forward (in terms of landscape) for reasons as set out in the supporting text under 'landscape'.

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 28 June 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the initial consultation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review (M&WLPR) prepared by your authority, and have submitted comments on specific policies and proposed site allocations through the on-line consultation process. In this letter we have some general comments to make about the following M&WLPR documents:
* main M&WLPR initial consultation document, dated May 2018;
* Initial Sustainability Appraisal of the M&WLPR, dated May 2018; and
* Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment of M&WLPR, dated May 2018.

Comments on the consultation
Norfolk County Council is to be congratulated on the quality of the consultation documents that have been produced. Natural England considers that the M&WLPR undertaken to date has been detailed, comprehensive and written in accordance with the then current legislation and policy. Norfolk County Council has a good overall picture of what is required to protect and safeguard our natural environment whilst fulfilling its role as the county's minerals and waste authority.

However, since these consultation documents were produced in May 2018, the planning and legislative landscape has altered with the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published; and a recent judgement from the European Court of Justice which clarified the use of mitigation measures in Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRAs). As a result, the documents listed above will need to be revised to reflect these changes. We provide more detailed comments on these specific matters below and in attached annexes.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 24 July 2018. Updated Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has also been issued by MHCLG to support various aspects of the NPPF. We recommend that the initial consultation documents are revised to reflect any relevant changes. Some key points from the updated NPPF that are relevant here include:
*Sets out a definitive list of environmental assets which may provide a strong reason to restrict development (including National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), European sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and irreplaceable habitats)
* Provides stronger protection for ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees with development to be "wholly exceptional"
*Includes strengthened policies on biodiversity net gain and encouraging opportunities to achieve net environmental gains
*Identifies green infrastructure as a strategic policy area
*Clarifies that the scale and extent of development within National Parks and AONBs should be limited.

Protected landscapes
Several allocations are either within protected landscapes or lie close to their boundaries or 'settings' which means that the highest sensitivity must be afforded to the landscape. It would be advisable to include a specific policy for protected landscapes within the Plan to reflect their protection as both the Norfolk Coast AONB and The Broads, which has the equivalent status of a national park, mat be impacted by minerals development. Any proposal which may affect a protected landscape or its setting should be subject at application stage to a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) for all stages of the operation.

The LVIA should consider how a proposal may impact the statutory purposes for which a protected landscape is designated, including impacts on landscape character and tranquillity, together with full details of mitigation and restoration. All restoration measures proposed will need to be in keeping with the local landscape character. Consideration should be given to each landscape character's sensitivity and its capacity to accommodate the proposed development. The requirement for a LVIA and mitigation measures should be identified in the Plan for each relevant allocation.

Further information needs to be provided for these allocations which demonstrates that impacts to protected landscape features have been avoided where possible, and mitigation measures put in place for those impacts which cannot be avoided, and a programme of monitoring agreed to ensure the measures are effective. The views of the relevant organisation for each protected landscape need to be taken into account fully on these proposed allocations.

Designated sites
The assessment of a proposal on nearby designated sites, including SSSIs, must include a consideration of likely changes to hydrology and increased disturbance of sensitive species from noise, lighting, vibration etc. Suitable mitigation might include avoidance of the breeding season, provision of screening etc. If there is any landfilling with material other than inert waste, the impact of attracting gulls and corvids into the area will also need to be considered. The impact assessment should provide evidence that there will be no adverse effects on the nationally and internationally designated features from dust blow, changes to hydrology etc. The requirement to include this information at application stage should be made clear in each relevant allocation.

Restoration
Natural England expects that all minerals and waste developments should achieve a net gain for nature primarily through the creation or enhancement of Priority Habitats and linkages to local ecological networks. Where possible, schemes should clearly demonstrate how they can deliver connections with strategic green infrastructure (GI) corridors and known ecological networks, in order to achieve biodiversity net gain; and avoid severing these where it is feasible to do so. We advise that, in general, a restoration scheme should contain the following:
i. restoration objectives which clearly describe how the scheme contributes to net gain for geodiversity and/or biodiversity, within a recognisable landscape context;
ii. direct ecological links to any existing habitats, green infrastructure networks etc;
iii. access links to Public Rights of Way and national trails, where appropriate.

Quality GI, delivered in a coherent manner across all the districts, is an essential requirement to meet the needs of the expanding population, and to ensure that sites designated for wildlife do not suffer adversely from increased recreational activities, including dog walking. There may be scope to include provision for this in mineral allocations.

Agri-environment schemes
Minerals sites may be under existing Higher Level Stewardship agreements before minerals are extracted and may be returned to agricultural use following landfilling. We advise early contact by agreement holders with Natural England to discuss individual cases so that any payments can be amended accordingly.

Local Sites
We trust that consultation is being undertaken with relevant parties in relation to Local Sites of geodiversity and biodiversity interest.

Soils
The M&WLPR should give appropriate weight to the roles performed by the area's soils. These should be valued as a finite multi-functional resource which underpins our well-being and prosperity. Decisions about minerals development and restoration should take full account of the impact on soils, their intrinsic character and the sustainability of the many ecosystem services they deliver. Plan policies should therefore take account of the impact on land and soil resources and the wide range of vital functions (ecosystem services) they provide in line with the NPPF.
Where minerals underlie the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the Defra Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) (system) it is particularly important that restoration and aftercare preserve the long-term potential of the land as a national, high quality resource. Where alternative after-uses (such as forestry and some forms of amenity, including nature conservation) are proposed on the best and most versatile agricultural land, the methods used in restoration and aftercare should enable the land to retain its longer-term capability, thus remaining a high quality resource for the future.

Comments on proposed minerals allocations
We have submitted our comments on specific allocations electronically online. Where we have not commented on a proposed site, you may assume that we have no comment to make. This does not mean, however, that there are no impacts for biodiversity or landscape.

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

Annex 1: Natural England's comments on the Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment of the M&WLPR, dated May 2018
A recent judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-323/17 People Over Wind v Coillte Teoranta) has provided authoritative interpretation relating to the use of mitigation measures at the screening stage of a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The judgment concluded that it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on a European site. However, when determining whether the plan or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site at appropriate assessment, a competent authority may take account of those avoidance and mitigation measures.

The Local Planning Authority, as competent authority for the Minerals and Waste Local Plan , should consider this judgment when undertaking the HRA screening under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and may wish to take its own legal advice on the implications of the judgment.

This means that for any sites where avoidance and mitigation measures have been identified to protect designated Natura 2000 sites such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) or Ramsar sites, the sites should not be screened out for likely significant effect but carried forward to Appropriate Assessment, at which point any mitigation measures, eg not de-watering, conditions to control dust or lighting etc, can be assessed in detail and taken into account.

Our specific comments on various individual allocations included in the initial consultation are intended to reflect this ruling. That is, where measures have been identified specifically to protect a Natura 2000 site, then these allocations should be screened in to Appropriate Assessment. At this stage the effectiveness of any proposed avoidance and mitigation measures and all the evidence should be examined to reach a conclusion of likely significant effect, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and to ascertain whether an adverse effect on the integrity of the site can be ruled out.

Note that any proposal which may affect a Natura 2000 designated site must go through a project-level HRA in addition to this strategic plan-level HRA. This should be identified for each relevant allocation and reflected in the policy wording, including what avoidance and mitigation measures would be necessary. This can be at a 'high' level, e.g. work would take place outside the bird breeding season to avoid disturbance to nesting birds. However, more detail would be expected in the HRA at planning application stage.

The future conclusions and recommendations of the HRA will need to be incorporated into later revisions of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) report, and be reflected in the allocations and policies of the M&WLPR.

Annex 2: Natural England's comments on the Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
of the M&WLPR, dated May 2018
Natural England is satisfied that the SA objectives, assessment methodology and framework generally accord with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations. The future conclusions and recommendations of the revised HRA will need to be incorporated into later revisions of the SA report, and be reflected in the allocations and policies of the Local Plan.

The Government expects an 'environmental net gain' principle to be embedded into development including minerals and waste. A good measure of the effectiveness of the M&WPR in delivering this would be to monitor annually the type and area of new habitats created or enhanced post restoration. It may be helpful to include the following definition of GI:
Green Infrastructure is the strategic network of multi-functional, linked green and blue spaces, both new and existing, urban and rural, which delivers a range of benefits for people and wildlife. The network is formed by individual green infrastructure components at different scales, from street trees, green roofs, and sustainable drainage, to allotments, nature conservation sites and country parks. These assets may be physically and visually connected to one another by linear features such as hedgerows, public rights of way, cycle routes, rivers and watercourses to form a green infrastructure network.

Individual elements of the green infrastructure network can serve a useful purpose at a range of scales without being connected. However, when green infrastructure components are linked together to form green networks, further combined benefits can be achieved at a strategic level. These direct and indirect benefits of green infrastructure have been termed 'ecosystem services' and are derived from physical natural assets known as 'natural capital'. Development can impact on the extent and ability of natural capital to provide ecosystem services. To ensure that these benefits are delivered, green infrastructure must be protected, well planned and managed.