Question 5: Policy MW2 'Development Management Criteria'

Policy MW2 requires proposed developments to demonstrate that they do not have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the area. The consultation discusses how visual impact should not detract from the nature of Norfolk countryside character. The consultation also discusses how pollution/emissions must be controlled by the relevant Environmental Agency and Environmental Health requirements.

There is insufficient weight given by MW2 to the impact on local people. In this context, local is considered to be any person living or working within hearing, smelling or visual sight of the proposed development. Whilst Norfolk's character must be protected, the extraction of minerals from the ground generally has most impact on those in the immediate vicinity and not those living or visiting elsewhere in Norfolk. Local people, whether 1 or 1000 in numbers, should be given a level of protection from impact, particularly visual and noise, to the same extent as if their own land was SSSI or other highly sensitive land, or other protected wildlife. This is regardless of any long term plan to recover the land.

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review: Initial Consultation
Thank you for your consultation on the above site, received on 28 June 2018.
We welcome the inclusion of an assessment of flooding from all sources within the Plan.
We would like to provide information which you may wish to consider in relation to Policy MW2 and MW4.
Policy MW2: We suggest that the wording of point d) is changed to include groundwater flooding. Mineral working can change local drainage networks, including groundwater flow (though creation of a void or dewatering) and so there should be no adverse impact on this source of flooding also.
We note that the intention is that flood risk is not increased elsewhere by development through the provision of appropriate surface water management such as sustainable drainage (SuDS). We support this approach but highlight to all potential development that working of minerals may remove infiltration media (as part of the operation). Hence any drainage scheme may rely on connection to a watercourse which is not always apparent near to the scheme. We would also request that during the works and following reinstatement a drainage strategy is put forward that considers the changes to local drainage network e.g. interception of watercourses or drainage connections. Any current drainage arrangements should be maintained or diverted appropriately. Reinstatement of land can replace permeable material with less permeable, this along with the post development ground levels must not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
Policy MW4: We welcome that that this policy supports policy MW2 with the provision of flood risk assessments (FRA) and although not specifically stated we assume that this policy's intention is that any FRA will include appropriate consideration of the most up to date climate change allowances.

It is accepted that Mineral working is a water compatible development which can be
undertaken in most areas at risk of flooding, however, we would highlight that any impacts should be considered during a planning application and appropriate measures. These measures may not be required until reinstatement when post development ground levels are considered in detail.
With regard to specific sites put forward we have the following comments:
MIN12 - Beetley - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of external flooding (2017) in the village on Fakenham Road. As the site at the top of two catchments, half of the proposed site drains towards the village and half away. Any proposal would need to consider this during its design.
MIN 37 - Buxton - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of flooding internally and externally adjacent the site boundary (2015 and 2016). Any proposal would need to consider these local flooding issues and if assess potential opportunities to improve existing flooding problems
SIL02 - Marham - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of flooding internally (2016) on The Street, Marham. Although the proposal is downgradient of this location any proposal would need to consider this during its design.

I set out below my response below on behalf of Mineral Services Ltd in relation to the above Consultation. I have also sent to you by email a copy of my response for your files.

Question 1: 'Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision'.
Reference to Norfolk's statutory obligation as set out within national policy for the supply of minerals in a sustainable manner should be included. In addition the 'adverse impacts' referred to in paragraph seven, would be better referred to as 'significant adverse impacts'. Paragraph eight is prescriptive when stating 'and will be designed and located', it is therefore suggested that the relevant words should be extended to 'and where possible will be designed and located'.

Question 3: 'Minerals Strategic Objectives'.
MSO1. In order to deliver the 'steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals' the text could be enhanced by including reference to the need to provide appropriate policies to achieve the objective.

MSO6. The proposed wording refers to 'while protecting people from harm'. This is assessed in practice by considering the impact upon the environment and human health therefore the wording should be changed to 'while developing policies to assess the impact upon the environment and human health'.

MS09. It may be that the after use is the same as the original use, therefore it is suggested that the sentence is changed to read 'The after use will, where possible, protect and enhance the environment, including landscape and biodiversity improvements'.

Question 5: Policy MW2 'Development Management Criteria.'
Within section (a.) the reference to health should be to specific items rather than be generic. In other words the health items should be noise and vibration, air quality, dust, odour and light pollution.

Question 6: Policy MW3 'Transport'.
I note the separate policy but perhaps this might be better included as a section within Policy MW2 to ensure that the transport proposals for a site do not have an unacceptable impact as opposed to the double negative 'do not generate: unacceptable risks ... etc'.

Question 7: Policy MW4 'Climate change mitigation and adaption'.
Section (c) which reads 'endeavour to generate a minimum of 10 percent of the energy used on site from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources' should be amended to remove the reference to a percentage. This is because many operators already purchase energy from centralised low carbon renewable sources and therefore an overarching benefit to climate change mitigation is being achieved. Furthermore the policy states that 'evidence must be provided to the County Planning Authority' but does not give any criteria against which the County Planning Authority will assess the evidence.

Question 20: Policy WP11: 'Disposal of inert waste by landfill'.
This policy is supported and could be extended by including the importation of inert waste where it is necessary for agricultural improvement.

Question 27: Policy MP1 'Provision for minerals extraction'
This policy is supported and to comply with National Guidance the landbank should be maintained throughout the Plan Period. Therefore additional words to make it clear that the land bank of between 7 and 10 years supply will be maintained throughout and also at the end of the Plan Period would also be supported.

Question 28: Policy MP2 'Spatial strategy for minerals extraction'.
The policy is supported but the Key Diagram which is on page 23 of the Initial Consultation and the scale of the Diagram does not allow detailed examination of the resource area. The Key Diagram should therefore be provided as a separate item as opposed to within the text so that it may be examined in more detail.

Question 30: Policy MP4 'Agricultural or potable water reservoirs'.
This policy wording is supported and could usefully be extended to cover flood alleviation schemes that include the extraction of sand and gravel.

Question 32: Policy MPG 'Cumulative impacts and phasing of working'.
This policy wording which is almost identical to Suffolk County Council Submission Draft June 2018 Policy MPS is supported.

Question 33: Policy MP7 'Progressive working, restoration and after-use'.
I note the inclusion of 'Due consideration has been given to opportunities to improve public access, particularly to implement the County Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan', may I suggest that this is currently included within Minerals Strategic Objective MSO1O which reads 'To increase public access to the countryside and enhance biodiversity through enhancing the amenity value of land when restoring extraction sites' and therefore duplication in MP7 is not required?

Question 34: Policy MP8 'Aftercare'.
The second paragraph refers to planning conditions and to matters which could be covered within the outline aftercare strategy, therefore for clarity it would be simpler to simply state that 'The outline aftercare strategy should include measures required following the annual aftercare inspection and the subsequent submission of a finalised version of the annual aftercare report detailing the actions required'.

Question 37: Policy MP11 'Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas'.
The Policies Map is embedded in the text and cannot be enlarged with reasonable clarity to view the detail of the Safeguarding areas. It should therefore be included as a separate appendix. The second paragraph is not understood, partly because of the typing error within the fifth word but also because it is confusing that the MPA has determined that the Minerals Consultation Area is the same as the Minerals Safeguarding Area for safeguarding minerals resources. Page 77 of the Initial Consultation clearly states that a mineral resource as identified by the BGS is a Mineral Safeguarding Area and any development within 250m of a Mineral Safeguarded Area falls within a Minerals Consultation Area.

Question 78: 'Proposed Site MIN 207 'Land at Pinkney Field, Briston'.
The Initial conclusion that MIN 207 'Land at Pinkney Field' is considered to be suitable for allocation for sand and gravel extraction, subject to any planning application addressing the itemised requirements, is supported.

Natural England welcomes this policy which seeks to protect and enhance the natural environment and resources, and safeguard protected landscapes and public rights of way.

General point - it is not necessary or desirable for policies to cross-reference to general policy MW2. There is a danger that if you just refer to MW2 this implies that other policies are not relevant, and other policies (e.g. MW 3 and MW4) that might be equally applicable across a range of specific development types may be overlooked .

MW1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development. This largely duplicates policy contained in the NPPF. As such it is not necessary and conflicts with plan-making guidelines about duplication. It is suggested that it is deleted, and perhaps reworded into appropriate supporting explanatory text.

MW4 - Climate change mitigation and adaption. The wording of this policy is a little unspecific, through the use of "should" and "minimise" and "endeavour", and potentially conflicts with other regimes such as Building Regulations. It is suggested that it is made clear at the beginning of the policy that measures will be encouraged, or expected, to go beyond normal "national" standards if at all feasible, but that this is not a requirement.

MW6 - Agricultural soils. The policy should seek to guide development to the lowest grade of land available, and not lump 3b, 4 and 5 together.

WP2 - Spatial Strategy for waste management facilities. The meaning of the first sentence is unclear. It is unlikely that anywhere will be within five miles of more than one urban area or main town, and the reference to "at least one" implies that encouragement is being given to serving more than one area which could put the focus on a mid-point that poorly serves all areas.

WP3 - Land uses potentially suitable for waste management facilities
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, it is suggested that 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 would be more effective as 'will not be acceptable outside of land identified in'.

WP7 - Household Waste Recycling Centres. The reference to an "appropriate level of developer contributions from new developments will be sought" goes beyond the remit of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan by seeking to be applied to non - mineral or waste development. As such it would make the plan fail the test of legal soundness. Such a policy might be appropriately located within the local Plan of a local planning authority such as a District Council. An example is policy CSU4 in BDC's Development Management DPD 2015.
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 - Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre. The majority of this policy is not worded as policy for land use and development, and would appear to be requests, for example Anglian Water being strongly encouraged to develop a long-term vision, and suggestions for the local liaison group and working relationships. Reference to these matters could perhaps be included in the supporting text with, possibly, the policy requiring the demonstration of how any improvement proposals fit into a long-term vision eg 'Any proposals for the improvement of WWRC must to be accompanied by a longer-term vision, produced in collaboration with ...' as this would likely be a consideration in the determination of any proposals.
As regards the Local Liaison Group, it might be worthwhile inviting other nearby Parish Councils in addition to the ones listed (eg Postwick and Thorpe St Andrew).

WP16 - Design of Waste Management facilities. This overlaps with MW2 and MW3. Therefore, this policy might be better placed in the General Policies part of the Plan, and used to cover waste and minerals proposals.

I have considered the consultation document with reference to impacts on air quality. I note that the consultation document contains Development Management Criteria that are relevant when considering air quality impacts:

Policy WM2 in particular states that 'Proposals for minerals development and/or waste management development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the development would not have an unacceptable impact (including cumulative impact in combination with other existing or permitted development) on:
a. Local amenity and health (including noise levels, odour, air quality, dust, litter, light pollution and vibration.'

We would support the wording of this policy especially as it considers cumulative impacts with other development. The discussion section (headed Pollution and Local Amenity Impacts) states thatt detailed controls are exercised through specific pollution prevention and control regimes. However, it should be noted that some mineral activities fall outside of the environmental permitting regime and therefore mitigation under planning system may become necessary as stated in the closing paragraph of this section.

Policy MP6 specifically considers cumulative impacts of mineral sites which are located in close proximity and recommends mitigation. We would support the wording of this policy as other cumulative impacts (from non-mineral sites) are covered by policy WM2.

The consultation document includes two new proposed sites and one 'preferred area':
MIN204 - north of Lodge Rd Feltwell: The report notes that 'The nearest residential property is 21m from the site boundary. There are six sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. We agree that any planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a dust assessment and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts. This is likely to include a buffer zone due to the proximity of the nearest sensitive receptors.
MIN206 - Oak Field, Tottenhill: The report notes that 'The only residential dwelling within 250m of the site boundary is 243m away. The settlement of Tottenhill is 243m away. We agree that any planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a dust assessment and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts.
SIL02 - land at Shouldham and Marham: This site is considered to be a potential 'Preferred Area' rather than a specific site allocation, from which smaller specific sites could come forward. The nearest residential property is reported to be 81m from the site boundary. There are 10 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary. However, a buffer area is proposed which would mean that the nearest residential would be 280m from the area. We would agree that the buffer area should be enforced and that any planning application for mineral extraction within the site would need to include a dust assessment and a programme of mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity or health impacts.

Thank you for consulting Norfolk Wildlife Trust on the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review, and for granting us an extension to the consultation period.
Owing to the lack of information that we hold on the ecological value of the wider countryside we have largely restricted our comments to impacts from proposed allocations on County Wildlife Sites and our reserves. In the wider countryside where possible we have made suggestions on restoration proposals based on sites' locations within our Living Landscapes .
Policies
Vision and Objectives
We strongly support the requirement in the Vision for progressive restoration schemes that enhance biodiversity. Equally, we support the positive contribution minerals planning makes to biodiversity improvements in the county promoted in MSO9 and the creation of opportunities for wider public engagement with nature in MSO10.
MW2: We strongly support this policy, which provides important protection for locally designated sites, as well as supporting net gains for biodiversity through planning in section k, which encourages wherever possible that enhancement of the environment will be sought, as per paragraph 170 of the NPPF.
MP 7: We support the restoration requirements included in this policy, in particular the recommendation that sites that are to be restored to agriculture can still include biodiversity enhancements alongside their primary use. We also support the reference to the county's priority habitats and species and recommend that the policy makes further reference in the supporting text to the specific habitats and species that are present in the county for the benefit of plan users.
MP 8: We support the inclusion of an aftercare policy to ensure that restoration habitats are established to a sufficient standard post-extraction.

Sites
Our comments below relate specifically to sites in proximity to our reserves, SSSIs, CWSs and ancient woodland sites.
Where sites are proposed adjacent to or in close proximity to County Wildlife Sites, we strongly recommend that these are only chosen sequentially after other sites have been selected, that they are only taken forward if it can be demonstrated that they are deliverable whilst providing sufficient stand off from the allocation boundary to account for hydrological and dust impacts, that any planning application will be accompanied by an ecological impact assessment and that restoration will be to habitats in support to those existing nearby, for example expanding existing habitats where adjacent and providing greater connectivity in the wider countryside between existing sites. We note that several proposed allocations are situated close to multiple CWS, and in these locations it would be very beneficial to co-ordinate restoration proposals in order to maximise the gains for wildlife through improving landscape scale connectivity. We would be happy to offer further advice on this in later plan consultations, if that would be helpful.

MIN 35: We support the inclusion of nature conservation in the restoration proposals for this site.

MIN 202: We are concerned that this proposed site partially overlaps with CWS 1344, 'Triumph and Foxburrow Plantations'. We recommend that either the allocation boundary is redrawn to avoid the CWS, or that the site policy includes a requirement for a stand-off area around the edge that includes that part that overlaps the CWS. In addition, given the proximity to the CWS, we would expect the site to be worked dry to avoid any impacts on hydrogeology and a stand-off area sufficient to avoid any impacts on the CWS from dust. We support the proposed restoration to a mosaic of acid grassland, woodland and wetland, and also support the Council's recommendation that the site could support new heathland when restored.

MIN 37: We support the Council's restoration recommendations for the inclusion of acid grassland/ heathland on this site, which would complement the nearby CWS 1411 'Disused Gravel Pit', which supports similar habitats.

MIN 76, MIN 206
We support the Council's proposals for conservation led restoration at MIN 76 and the inclusion of wide field margins and hedgerow planting at MIN 206. Given the proximity of these proposals to several CWS, we recommend that co-ordinated restoration to enhance landscape connectivity between all the nearby CWS should be supported in the site policy.

MIN 40: Given the location within a kilometre of East Winch Common SSSI, restoration of this site to heathland has the potential to enhance the connections of the SSSI with the wider landscape. Therefore we support the Council's recommendation that the restoration proposals for this site should include heathland. Additionally, given the proximity to King's Lynn, the site has the potential to support the provision of new green infrastructure.

SIL 01: We are concerned at the proposal to include part of CWS 416 '70 & 100 Plantations' in this allocation and recommend that as part of any mitigation that these areas are not excavated and are safeguarded as part of any restoration proposals. Provided that suitable mitigation can be provided to ensure the CWS are safeguarded, we support the restoration of the site to habitat types similar to the surroundings to provide connectivity and note the potential for the site to provide green infrastructure with links to the nearby country park.

SIL 02: We note the Council identifies SIL 02 as a Preferred Area, within which a smaller area could be subject to an application at a later date. We note the proximity of several CWS to the boundary of SIL 02 and recommend as with all other proposals near CWS that any application would need to demonstrate it could avoid adverse impacts on these sites. We would support any restoration proposals that enhance the landscape connectivity of the CWS network locally.

MIN 69: Whilst we are unable to comment on the wider impacts of this proposal as they are outside of our remit, should this site be progressed, then we strongly support the Council's recommendations that this site should be subject to high quality restoration creating a large new area of heathland with benefits both for wildlife and for green infrastructure provision.

MIN 71: We are concerned about this proposal due to its close proximity to the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC and Holt Lowes SSSI. The plan will need to demonstrate that it would not result in an adverse effect on the SAC in order to demonstrate that it is deliverable, and in addition to any project level HRA that would be required to accompany any planning application. Should the site be considered deliverable in the local plan HRA, then we strongly recommend that the site is restored to nature conservation with public access, given the significant potential the site has to make landscape scale connections with the multiple designated and county wildlife sites in the area, as well as provide valuable new green infrastructure on the edge of Holt.

MIN 115: We note the proximity of this proposal to several CWS, including CWS 1170 'Lord Anson's Wood'. We support the Council's recommendations for ecological assessment to accompany any application, due to the proximity to the CWS as well as for protected species, and also support the restoration recommendations for a mix of deciduous woodland and heathland, to complement the habitats in nearby CWS.

MIN 207, MIN 208, MIN 209, MIN 210, MIN 211, MIN 212, MIN 79, MIN 80
We support the Council's recommendations for restoration to nature conservation after use on these sites.

MIN 25
Provided potential ecological impacts on the nearby CWS 2221, 'Devil's End Meadow' can be avoided, we support the restoration proposals to acid grassland, woodland and wetland.

Other sites
Whilst we hold no specific knowledge on the following sites, we broadly support the restoration proposals proposed for MIN 12, 13, 51, 200 and 65. Additionally, sites 79 and 80 being close to the Norwich growth area may support restoration that includes specifically includes green infrastructure provision.

Proposed sites for removal
We support the Council's proposed to remove the following sites from further consideration in the plan on the grounds of adverse impacts on wildlife sites, namely MIN 102, 201, 48, 45, 19, 205, 74 and 77.
Areas of Search E, F, I, J
We note that in previous iterations of the Minerals plan, it has been considered acceptable to modify Areas of Search to exclude CWS and their immediate surroundings. In order to safeguard multiple CWS from both direct and indirect impacts of minerals extraction, we recommend that similar provisions are made and the Areas of Search are modified to provide sufficient stand off from these CWS to safeguard them from adverse impacts. In particular we note CWS 425 'Mow Fen' which is within AoS E, CWS 424 'Westbrigg's Wood' and CWS 373 'Adj. Adams Plantation' which are both adjacent to AoS E and CWS 365 'Broad Meadow Plantation' which is adjacent to AoS F.

We trust that these comments are helpful. Should you wish to discuss them in any more detail whilst preparing the next iteration of the plan, please do not hesitate to contact me.

The Woodland Trust is the largest woodland conservation charity in the UK and a leading voice in bringing to the attention of government, land owners and the general public the state of the UK's trees and woodland. We champion and deliver the most dynamic solutions to protect and revitalise our natural environment - the recreation of wooded landscapes on a national scale.
We campaign to ensure that laws governing environmental protection are enforced and that the government is held to account on environmental pledges. We also campaign vigorously with the support of local communities, to prevent any further destruction of ancient woods.
And, to further protect the UK's natural environment, we've built up an estate of our own managed woodland covering over 73 square miles across the UK, of which a third is irreplaceable ancient woodland. With a supporter base of half a million we were the first, and remain the most significant contributor to woodland protection, restoration and creation in the UK. We are experts in a natural resource that has the potential to transform the UK's natural environment and ensure its continued
survival.
Ancient woodland, veteran and ancient trees
Ancient woodland, veteran and ancient trees are irreplaceable natural resources. Ancient Woodland is land that has remained constantly wooded since AD1600. The length at which ancient woodland takes to develop and evolve (centuries, even millennia), coupled with the vital links it creates between plants, animals and soils accentuate its irreplaceable status. The varied and unique habitats ancient woodland sites provide for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost.
Ancient and veteran trees are especially important for wildlife. Along with their historical or cultural significance, our ancient trees are loved by communities because of their special appearance, the rare fungi, plants and animals they support and the stories associated with them. Ancient and veteran trees can be classified due to the presence of ancient and veteran features.
As such, the Woodland Trust aims to prevent the damage, fragmentation and loss of these finite irreplaceable habitats from any form of disruptive development. Approximately one quarter of priority UK BAP species are associated with woodland habitats. Forests, woods, and trees make a significant contribution to biodiversity, and ancient sites are recognised as being of particular value.
Due to their longevity, ancient woodlands are more species rich, and are often refuges for specialist woodland species that struggle to colonise new areas.

National Policy
The recently revised NPPF states:
175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and

Footnote 58 elaborates: For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.

Policy Specific Comments
We welcome the recognition of the importance of ancient woodland, aged and veteran trees for both biodiversity and landscape as set out in pages 27 and 28. However we would like to flag the revised wording set out in the NPPF, the term 'aged' has been replaced with 'ancient as this is seen to better align with the practical interpretation of the NPPF.
The Woodland Trust warmly welcomes Norfolk's proposed approach (set out on page 67) to Areas of Search for silica sand extraction; the 250m exclusion zone for dust is a best practice approach. As such we strongly support Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction.

Sites
The following sites have be found to affect ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees.

MIN 45 - land north of Coxford Abbey Quarry (south of Fakenham Road), East Rudham. Proposed for mineral extraction. Contains Coxford Wood which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS). Size of affected woodland 23.73 ha. Grid reference TF82315566.

MIN 38 - land East of Fritton marshes. Proposed for mineral extraction. Contain veteran beech. Grid reference TG46390076.

MIN 202 - land south of Reepham Road, Attlebridge. Proposed for mineral extraction. Mileplain Plantation, which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) and is adjacent to the site boundary. Size of affected woodland 19.8 Ha. Grid reference TG14163195

AOS J - Land to the east of Tottenhill. Proposed for an area of search for mineral extraction. Two veteran oaks to the east of Craven Lane. Grid reference TF65105491


MIN 45
We strongly support the Council's initial conclusion that the site should not be taken forward due to the presence of ancient woodland.

MIN 38
Again the Trust supports the Council's position not to allocate the site but would like to add the presence of a veteran beech tree (as noted on the Ancient Tree Inventory) as a further reason not to take this site forward.

MIN 202
We welcome the recognition of Mileplain Plantation, which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) adjacent to the site boundary. Planning authorities and inspectors increasingly act to prevent the direct destruction of ancient woodland. However, the damage and impacts posed to ancient woods by nearby development are not so widely appreciated. The Trust opposes MIN 202 in its current form due to the potential impact on ancient woodland. Any future application should be subject to a substantial planted buffer of 50m to ensure the integrity of the ancient woodland.

AOS J
We would like to highlight the presence of two veteran oaks to the east of Craven Lane which are listed on the Ancient Tree Inventory but are not listed within the constraints for AOS J. These trees must be listed as a constraint. In the event of any application coming forward these veteran trees should be subject Policy MP2.

Question 1: 'Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision'
The Vision should refer the provision of minerals supply to be in accordance with and as required by National Policy
Mineral Safeguarding should refer to paragraph 182 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework such that the applicant for adjacent development ('agent of change') should be required to provide suitable mitigation to take account of existing and allocated development.

Question 3: 'Minerals Strategic Objectives'
The following amendments are proposed (in CAPITALS):
MSO2. To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites/areas within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need AND STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES OF SILICA SAND OF AT LEAST 10 YEARS PRODUCTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SILICA SITES AND AT LEAST 15 YEARS FOR SILICA SAND SITES WHERE SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL IS REQUIRED and safeguarding existing infrastructure. (To accord with NPPF 2018 paragraph 208 footnote 68)

MSO4. To safeguard silica sand, carstone, and sand and gravel resources for future use. Avoiding unnecessary sterilisation by encouraging the extraction of minerals prior to other development taking place where practicable and using minerals in construction on the land from which they are extracted. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED AREAS OR SITES.

MSO5. To promote the sustainable transport of minerals by rail, road and water, including the safeguarding of railheads and wharfs for the import of minerals to and export of minerals from Norfolk. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED SITES.

MSO8. To ensure that mineral development addresses and minimises the impacts it will have on climate change by: REDUCING greenhouse gas emissions during the winning, working and handling of minerals, SEEK TO PROVIDE sustainable patterns of minerals transportation, and WHERE POSSIBLE integrating features consistent with climate change mitigation and adaption into the design of restoration and aftercare proposals.
MSO9. To positively contribute to the natural, built and historic environments with high quality, progressive and expedient restoration to achieve a beneficial after use. The after use will protect and enhance the environment, including landscape and biodiversity improvements.

Comment: the restoration of mineral sites can deliver landforms to facilitate different after uses of land, however mineral planning has no role in the after use of itself.

MSO10. WHERE PRACTICAL to increase public access to the countryside and enhance biodiversity through enhancing the amenity value of land when restoring extraction sites.

Question 4: Policy MW1 'Presumption in favour of sustainable development'
This policy is supported including the recognition in the preamble that the three pillars of sustainability have equal standing.
 
Question 5: Policy MW2 'Development Management Criteria'
Where appropriate AND PRACTICAL, enhancement of the environment would be sought, including, but not exclusively, the enhancement of the Public Rights of Way Network, creation of recreation opportunities and enhancement of the natural, historic and built environment and surrounding landscapes.

Question 6: Policy MW3 'transport'
WHERE PRACTICAL AND REALISTIC measures to reduce car travel to the site by workers and visitors and encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport.

Question 7: Policy MW4 'climate change mitigation and adaption'
b) be planned so as to REDUCE carbon dioxide and methane emissions ON A SITE UNIT BASIS
c) endeavour to SOURCE a minimum of 10 per cent of the energy used on site from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources.
d) WHERE PRACTICAL AND RELEVANT to demonstrate the use of sustainable drainage systems, water harvesting from impermeable surfaces and layouts that accommodate waste water recycling
e) WHERE RELEVANT TO take account of potential changes in climate including rising sea levels and coastal erosion
g) incorporate proposals for sustainable travel, including travel plans where PRACTICAL AND appropriate.

Question 9: Policy MW6 'agricultural soils'
This policy should be applied flexibly since minerals can clearly only be worked where they exist and for silica sand for glass making the potential land is further restricted by virtue of the scarcity of this mineral.

Question 27: Policy MP1 'Provision for minerals extraction'
No as it does not accord with National Policy and is unsound. Suggested wording for silica sand:
STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES for silica sand will be maintained at 10 years' PRODUCTION FOR EACH SILICA SAND SITE. Sufficient sites and/or areas to deliver at least 12,380,000 tonnes of silica sand will be allocated TO THE END OF THE PLAN PERIOD WITH FURTHER PROVISION TO ENSURE A STOCK OF PERMITTED RESERVES BEYOND THE PLAN PERIOD.
In the table on page 63 in the preamble to Policy MP1 is should read:
B Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2016

Question 28: Policy MP2 'Spatial strategy for minerals extraction'
"Within the resource areas identified on the key diagram, specific sites or preferred areas for silica sand extraction should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant and railhead at Leziate via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway routes". This contradicts wording in proposed Policy MP13 and the Single Issue Silica Sand Review of the Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD (adopted in December 2017) which discussed highway routes from Areas of Search to the Leziate processing site.
There should be no buffers applied to the so-called planning constraints. The acceptability or not of approaching such constraints will be a matter for the EIA.
Agricultural land grades 1 and 2 should not be excluded. This contradicts Policy MW6 which should in all circumstances be adopted and applied flexibly.

Question 33: Policy MP7 'Progressive working, restoration and after-use'
After use is noted several times in the policy but after use is not a matter for mineral planning.
There is no mention of restoration to agricultural land
Any important geology or geomorphology on the site will be retained in sample exposures for study purposes ONLY WHERE PRACTICAL AND SAFE TO DO SO

Question 36: Policy MP10 'Safeguarding of port and rail facilities, and facilities for the manufacture of concrete, asphalt and recycled materials'
The 'agent of change' principle will be applied to all development in proximity to safeguarded sites.


Question 37: Policy M11 'Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas'
The 'agent of change' principle will be applied to all development in proximity to safeguarded sites.

Question 67: Proposed Site MIN 40 'land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch'
The site is allocated as a specific site for silica sand extraction in the Adopted in the Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2026 (adopted September 2011) and identified in the Minerals Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) (adopted October 2013, amendments adopted December 2017).

The Initial conclusion on the MIN40 site in the May 2018 consultation document notes that "the site is considered suitable for allocation for silica sand extraction, subject to any planning application addressing the requirements below: [requirements are detailed in the Initial Consultation document]

Sibelco has submitted a planning application for an extension of Grandcourt Quarry into the MIN40 site and has the following comments on some of the "requirements" noted in the Initial Consultation document.

* Opportunities during working for any geodiversity assets to be studied, and if compatible with the landscape and ecology objectives, an open face to be retained as part of the restoration scheme

Sibelco will examine working faces during operation and can take photographic records of any features of note observed, if any. Following extraction being completed in each phase, Carstone material will be used to cover and stabilise the Leziate Sand faces to create safe long term slopes as described in Appendix 9 to the submitted Planning Statement (Geotechnical Design and Assessment).
Opportunities could be afforded during working to geology students to inspect and study open faces and overburden areas under supervision where consistent with health and safety of the site. Bearing in mind the proposed open water restoration with peripheral broadleaved woodland and shrub/grassland it is not been possible to incorporate any open face in the restoration, which would in addition be difficult to maintain safely due to the nature of the geology, which makes it vulnerable to erosion and a potential safety hazard.

* A restoration scheme incorporating heathland or a heathland/arable mix with blocks of woodland which provides biodiversity gains and does not result in permanent dewatering of a perched water table in the carstone aquifer if one is identified in a hydrogeological risk assessment
*
The lodged planning application proposes a combination of restored areas of open water (51.4%), native broadleaved woodland (8.8%), hedgerows (increase of 920 linear metres), scrub & species rich grassland (20.7%), agricultural land (15.2%) and public rights of way for the restored site with biodiversity gains. The hydrogeological assessment of the site showed there were no significant impacts on the perched water table in the Carstone as a result of working and restoration.

The proposed restoration is primarily to water since the excavation will be several metres below the natural groundwater level in order to release the proven mineral. It will not be possible to deliver a dry restoration using on-site overburden materials. For the same reason it will not be possible to deliver a requirement of MIN40, which is to incorporate heathland into the restoration. The proposed site for the former Site Specific Allocations DPD was considerably reduced in area at examination which removed land which may have been suitable for heathland restoration. The much reduced currently allocated area reflects very closely the area of excavation. Once the restored margin areas are accounted for, the remaining area of land restoration is at the lake margins on mostly slopes to the water's edge, which is not suitable for heathland. Significant heathland restoration has been delivered by the Applicant on former mineral sites to the north of Middleton Stop Drain.

The proposed restoration scheme is shown on the submitted restoration drawings. This scheme has been designed with due regard for the precise setting of the site; the local geology; local topography; position of the natural groundwater table and the volumes of different overburden materials identified within the site by drilling programmes.

Policy Min 40 states that a restoration scheme for the site should seek to incorporate heathland or a heathland/arable mix with blocks of woodland which provides biodiversity gains. Given the volumes of sand and overburden materials present and the position of the local groundwater table this is not possible in its entirety in this case.

Sibelco has restored former mineral extraction area locally to heathland (for example Wicken North and Wicken South), however, these areas have very different physical parameters which allowed such restoration to be designed and implemented. Wicken North and Wicken South are located on lower ground and had relatively low sand to overburden ratios which allowed significant areas to be restored to generally level ground above the local groundwater level. Grandcourt Quarry extension is located on higher ground, has a different ratio of sand to overburden (higher ratio) and a different relationship of ground levels to groundwater level. Final restored slopes must be stable in the long term and at the same time utilise only suitable overburden materials from the site (there are no proposals to import any materials from elsewhere to effect the restoration). Tailings materials from the mineral washing (silts and lays) are unsuitable for restoration in this area due to high water content of the tailings and distance from the processing plant. The company has sufficient permitted tailings space elsewhere on the wider site.

The restoration scheme proposed for the extension area in the lodged planning application does include agricultural land, woodland blocks and scrub with a lake of some 9.2 hectares representing the natural groundwater level. The proposed restoration of the MIN40 site reflects the permitted restoration of the existing Grandcourt Quarry site and has been designed to complement and fit in with this overall restoration which is dictated by the geotechnical assessment and local geological circumstances.

The overburden volumes in the Grandcourt extension area and volumes required to restore the site as per the submitted proposed restoration scheme are as follows:

Overburden materials identified by drilling programmes:
Soils 78,000m3
Carstone 1,300,000 m3
Clay 420,000 m3
Material required to create the proposed landform in the MIN40 site:
Material required to create 1:4 slopes on final sand and overburden faces 1,020,000 m3
Material required to create embankment for bridleway and farm access 736,000 m3
Given the material balance for the site as shown above and with no proposal to import any material for restoration or other purposes, the final landform and restoration scheme proposed is the only one which can reasonably be implemented. The MIN40 site is not suitable for heathland restoration.

The submitted Environmental Statement contains a hydrogeological risk assessment which identifies potential impacts on groundwater including the perched water table in the Carstone. The proposed eastern extension will have little or no additional significant impacts to the north, south and west. The area over which drawdown in groundwater levels will occur will increase to the east, but no water sensitive receptors have been identified within the predicted area of influence in this direction. It is proposed that the potential additional impacts to surface and groundwater are monitored and controlled via a minor revision of the existing Water Management Plan.
There is electricity infrastructure within MIN40 site
Subject to the above comments Sibelco supports the inclusion of MIN40 as a Specific Site.

Question 68: Proposed Site SIL 01 'land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey'
Sibelco supports the inclusion of SIL01 as a Specific Site

Question 69: Area of Search AOS E 'land to the north of Shouldham'
Area of Search E
Sibelco supports the inclusion of Area E as an Area of Search for silica sand

Question 73: Policy MP13: 'Areas of Search for silica sand extraction'
Sibelco supports Policy MP13 on Areas of Search for silica sand, subject to our response to Question 9

Question 74: Proposed Site SIL 02 'land at Shouldham and Marham'
Sibelco supports the inclusion of SIL02 as an allocated site and would propose that given the promoters knowledge of the local geology, the site should be allocated as a Specific Site. Further silica sand provision will be required at the end of the Plan period
The National Planning Practice Guidance says:
a) designating Specific Sites - where viable mineral resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms ....

This definition applies to SIL02

Question 1: 'Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision'
Comment:
We agree with the principle of the vision but suggest change in wording to make clear to the lay reader that there is a statutory duty on Norfolk CC re the supply of aggregates. Suggested wording below;

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
Norfolk will continue to be self-sufficient in the production of sand & gravel, whilst making an important contribution to the national production of silica sand. A steady and adequate supply of minerals to support sustainable economic growth will be planned for through allocating sufficient sites and/or areas in the Plan to meet the forecast need for sand and gravel, carstone, and silica sand AS REQUIRED BY NATIONAL POLICY.

In respect of the safeguarding vision mention should be made of the agent of change now in the revised NPPF (para 182);

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
Resources of sand and gravel, carstone and silica sand within defined Mineral Safeguarding Areas will be safeguarded from needless sterilisation by non-mineral development. Infrastructure for the storage, handling, processing and transportation of minerals will also be safeguarded from incompatible development. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED AREAS OR SITES.

Question 3: 'Minerals Strategic Objectives'
The following adjustments are suggested to the following objectives;

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
MSO2. To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites/areas within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need AND STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES OF SILICA SAND OF AT LEAST 10 YEARS PRODUCTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SILICA SITES OR AT LEAST 15 YEARS WHERE SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL IS CAPITAL IS REQUIRED and safeguarding existing infrastructure.

MSO4. To safeguard silica sand, carstone, and sand and gravel resources for future use. Avoiding unnecessary sterilisation by encouraging the extraction of minerals prior to other development taking place where practicable and using minerals in construction on the land from which they are extracted. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED AREAS OR SITES.

MSO5. To promote the sustainable transport of minerals by rail, road and water, including the safeguarding of railheads and wharfs for the import of minerals to and export of minerals from Norfolk. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED SITES.

MSO10. WHERE PRACTICAL increase public access to the countryside and enhance biodiversity through enhancing the amenity value of land when restoring extraction sites.


Question 4: Policy MW1 'Presumption in favour of sustainable development'
This policy is supported. We also welcome the recognition in the preamble that the 3 pillars of sustainability have equal standing.

Question 5: Policy MW2 'Development Management Criteria'
MW2 (b) needs redrafting as it is unclear.
The last paragraph need adjusting as follows;
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS) Where appropriate AND PRACTICAL, enhancement of the environment would be sought, including, but not exclusively, the enhancement of the Public Rights of Way Network, creation of recreation opportunities and enhancement of the natural, historic and built environment and surrounding landscapes.


Question 6: Policy MW3 'transport'
Suggested altered wording for the last bullet point of the policy as follows;
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS) WHERE REALISTIC AND PRACTICAL measures to reduce car travel to the site by workers and visitors and encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport.
This alteration is made to prevent a dogmatic approach being taken. We have examples of cycle racks needing to be provided when it was clearly impractical for individuals to safely cycle to the site


Question 7: Policy MW4 'climate change mitigation and adaption'
MW4(g) should be reworded as follows;
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS) g) incorporate proposals for sustainable travel, including travel plans where PRACTICAL AND appropriate

Question 9: Policy MW6 'agricultural soils'
It should be noted that the industry has shown that Grade 1 land can be successfully restored to equivalent quality and the policy should reflect this or at least referenced in supporting text.
The wording of the policy needs adjusting as follows:

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
Policy MW6: Agricultural soils
Where development is proposed on agricultural land, the County Council has a clear preference for locating new mineral extraction and associated activities, and composting facilities, on land of agricultural grades 3b, 4 and 5.
Development proposals affecting Grade 1 agricultural land will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, where it is demonstrated that there are no alternative locations for the development.
In addition to the above, when minerals development, particularly extraction, is proposed on agricultural land of grades 1, 2 or 3a it will [delete only] be permitted where:
* Provision is made for high standards of soil management that would enable restoration to a condition at least as good as its previous agricultural quality. To demonstrate this, soil and land quality surveys, and soil handling and replacement strategies (based upon Defra's 'Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils') must be submitted to the County Planning Authority; or

* The benefit of restoring the land to another after-use can be shown to outweigh the loss of the agricultural use of the land. [delete all of this bullet point]
The NPPF does not require that exceptional circumstances need to be shown for best and versatile land to be worked. Furthermore, minerals can only be worked where they exist.

Question 27: Policy MP1 'Provision for minerals extraction'
No as it does not accord with National Policy and is unsound. Suggested re wording as follows;

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)

Policy MP1: Provision for minerals extraction
The strategy for minerals extraction is to allocate sufficient sites to meet the forecast need for both sand & gravel and hard rock (carstone).
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 at A LEVEL OF AT LEAST 7 YEARS INCLUDING AT THE END OF THE PLAN PERIOD (excluding any contribution from borrow pits for major construction projects).
For carstone, a site or sites to deliver at least 480,000 tonnes of resources will be allocated. The landbank for carstone will be maintained at a LEVEL OF AT LEAST 10 years' supply.
For silica sand, sufficient sites and/or areas to deliver at least 12,380,000 tonnes of silica sand will be allocated. STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES for silica sand will be maintained at "at least" 10 years' PRODUCTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SILICA SAND SITE OR AT LEAST 15 YEARS WHERE SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL IS CAPITAL IS REQUIRED.

We would seek clarification "why it is considered appropriate" (page 63, para1) for basing silica sand projections at 750,000 tpa when the current projections indicate average production over the past 3 years (785,400tpa) is much higher than the 10-year average and the figure upon which the plan projection is based. Basing a figure which is clearly lower than current sales is hardly forecasting (page 65). Further, para 2 on page 63 suggests that no planning applications for silica sand extraction have been submitted for over 10 years, although it is understood that a recent application has yet to be validated by the Council.

With less than 4 years "stocks of permitted reserves" of silica sand, the supply issues are clearly critical.


Question 28: Policy MP2 'Spatial strategy for minerals extraction'
There should be no buffers applied to the so-called planning constraints. The acceptability or not of approaching such constraints will be a matter for the EIA.
It is not clear what the term 'are least constrained' means it the last sentence of the policy and the sentence does not make sense.

Question 33: Policy MP7 'Progressive working, restoration and after-use'
The following alterations are proposed to the policy;
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)

Proposals for new mineral workings must be accompanied by a scheme for the phased and progressive working and restoration of the site throughout its life.
Restoration and after-use of mineral extraction sites and associated development will be determined on a case-by-case basis, prioritising the most appropriate after-use(s) for each site. Restoration and after-use proposals may include agriculture, forestry, ecology, reservoirs, amenity or flood alleviation.
Preference will be given to after-uses and restoration that:
* enhance Norfolk's biodiversity (focussing on priority habitats and species in Norfolk),
* contribute positively to identified Green Infrastructure corridors, and
* create high-quality, locally distinctive landscapes
* RESTORATION TO AGRICULTURAL LAND.

The after-use and restoration proposal must demonstrate that:
* The appropriate restoration and after-use is both feasible and achievable in the proposed time scales.
* Due consideration has been given to opportunities to improve public access, particularly to implement the County Council's Rights of Way Improvement Plan.
* Due consideration has been given to supporting the aims of the Green Infrastructure Strategy.
* Any important geology or geomorphology on the site will be retained in sample exposures for study purposes ONLY WHERE PRACTICAL AND SAFE TO DO SO.


Question 36: Policy MP10 'Safeguarding of port and rail facilities, and facilities for the manufacture of concrete, asphalt and recycled materials'
The wording should be adjusted as follows to 'apply the agent' of change principle;

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
"The County Council will safeguard:
a)Existing, planned and potential rail heads, rail links to quarries, wharfage and associated storage, handing and processing facilities for the bulk transport by rail, sea or inland waterways of minerals, including recycled, secondary and marine-dredged materials; and
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.
Development proposals within 250 metres of the above minerals related facilities should demonstrate that they would not prevent or prejudice the use of those facilities. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ALL SUCH DEVELOPMENT.
The Mineral Planning Authority should be consulted on all development proposals within Minerals Consultation Areas, except for the excluded development types set out in Appendix 4.
The County Council will oppose development proposals which would prevent or prejudice the use of safeguarded sites for those purposes unless suitable alternative provision is made, or the applicant demonstrates that those sites no longer meet the needs of the aggregates industry.

Question 37: Policy M11 'Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas'
Wording of the policy should be altered to incorporate the 'agent of change' principle as follows;
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
The County Council will safeguard existing, permitted and allocated mineral extraction sites from inappropriate development proposals. Minerals Consultation Areas are delineated on the Policies Map and extend to 250 metres from each safeguarded site. Development proposals within 250 metres of a safeguarded site should demonstrate that they would not prevent or prejudice the use of the safeguarded site for mineral extraction, AND THE AGENT OF CHANGE PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED IN ALL SUCH CASES. The County Council will object to development proposals which would prevent or prejudice the use of safeguarded sites for mineral extraction.

Other Comment
Section 42. Page 84...The Targets/trigger levels do not conform with land bank policy requirements or those for stock of permitted reserves, wither in the proposed Policy MP1 or the NPPF.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Annual Growth Rate of Waste
Statistics of how many people are in the UK are taken from out of date surveys. The Policies are allowing for 1% - 1.5% annual growth rate of waste. Will this be sufficient in the light of Government Policies on reduction of plastic use, etc. People will be disposing of all items made of these materials. Plastic bottles could potentially be changed to glass in the future. Glass needs more protection with potentially more recycling material at the initial stage of transport to and from shops. Has this been taken into account with provision of adequate facilities. More needs to be done to collect and dispose of hard plastic. The Recycling Centre at King's Lynn had this facility which is no longer available.

Waste Reduction at Source
Work needs to be done with Suppliers of goods to avoid unnecessary waste in the first place. A start has been made with alternative packaging but this should be intensified.

UK and the European Union
If the UK leaves the European Union, has the full impact of import/export of waste been taken into account and the practical and financial effects.

Development Wording - Presumption in Favour
Development presumption must not be 'in favour' when there are obvious reasons to object. The wording gives developers advantage over local issues.

Public Education on Waste Issues
Education for the Public in clear and simple messages needs to be addressed. A lot of people are confused. For instance, we have heard in the past - it does not matter about washing items. Some people think if waste items are washed it wastes the resource of water. A lot of households tend to have dishwashers and not bowls of washing-up water which can be used to wash items. Bottle and jar tops - some leave them on, some leave them off.

Water Resources
Norfolk is the driest County in the UK for water resources. Cumulative usage totals must be taken into account in any planning.

Recreation
Would you need to include the fact (just for information) that there is a Public Consultation process on anything which would affect Public Rights of Way (PROWs).

Land and Soil Resources
Stronger wording and protection must be given to Grade 1, 2 and 3a land classification. Norfolk is an agricultural and rural County. It will be crucial for growing our own food in the future - more so, if we leave the European Union. Also, the UK may need to be more self-sufficient with food growing.

Policy WP3
Land allocated for B2 and B8 uses may be situated near to populated areas where there are health risks to residents. These sites must not be assumed to be suitable.

Transport Network
Ways of delivering goods and shopping are changing. Transport on our roads gets heavier every day, including huge HGVs. The road network in Norfolk is often congested and poorly maintained. It must be strongly stressed that impact on communities in unsuitable waste site locations for transport links should definitely be avoided.

Distance of Sites
Policy WP2 states that new or enhanced waste management facilities should be located within 5 miles .... Whilst we can understand some reasons for this - as in travelling time, the conflicting effects are major risks to human health being closer to populated areas.

Human Health Risks
Human health risks must be a major consideration in waste development as the eventual cost to the NHS and UK is huge. Health effects can be disastrous. Robust Health Policies must be in place.

Incinerators and Similar Projects
Any Policies referring to larger facilities must have stronger wording to protect the Public from harmful emissions and effects. They should not be situated within populated urban areas. Cumulative emissions from all surrounding other activities must be taken into account.

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.

Representations submitted on behalf of the Brett Group.
Section 3 - The process so far
Section 3 sets out the methodology for site assessments - including landscape, ecology, highways etc.
For Historic Environment and Archaeology:
* Details of known assets
* Proposals for protection / mitigation
* Support from Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service and whether this is dependent on appropriate protection / mitigation.
For Sustainability Appraisal:
* Ensures that potential environmental effects are given full consideration alongside social and environmental issues.
* Sustainability appraisal an integral element of the preparation of the MWLP review ... informing in a comprehensive way of the likely impacts of proposed planning policies and specific sites / preferred areas and areas of search.
What is not clear from the methodology is the balance applied to the impacts alongside the economic and social benefits. The revised NPPF (2018) is clear at Chapter 2 that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, economic, social and environmental, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives). Para 32 of NPPF (2018) states:
Local plans and spatial development strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant legal requirements. This should demonstrate how the plan has addressed the relevant economic, social and environmental objectives (including opportunities for net gains). Significant adverse impacts on these objectives should be avoided and, where possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered).
The methodology does not clearly provide a balance of the impacts - a number of sites clearly have numerous environmental sensitivities but do not constitute an objection on their own right. There should be some consideration of the cumulative impact of such effects.

Section 6 - The Strategy - Vision and Objectives
Question 1: 'Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision'
We have the following comments and suggestions to make:
Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision to 2036:
3rd para - All mineral workings will be covered by progressive restoration schemes
This is not in accordance with para 205 of the NPPF (2018) which recommends restoration should be at the earliest opportunity. It is not always possible to put in place a progressive restoration scheme, we recommend the wording is amended to be in accordance with NPPF.
7th para - 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 landscape and townscape of Norfolk.
This is unreasonable, it would be very difficult for a mineral operation not to have some form of adverse impact, it is the degree of impact which is important. Para 204(f) of the NPPF (2018) seeks to ensure that permitted operations do not have an unacceptable adverse impact. This is reiterated within para 205 (c) of the NPPF (2018). We recommend the wording is amended to be in accordance with NPPF.

Draft Minerals Strategic Objectives
Question 3: 'Minerals Strategic Objectives'
We have the following comments to make:
MSO4 - requiring the justification for the potential sterilisation of minerals from competing development interests is supported.
MSO6 - the adverse impacts should be amended to unacceptable adverse impacts to conform with NPPF.
MSO7 - para 204(g) of the NPPF (2018) recognises that some noisy short term activities, which may otherwise be regarded as unacceptable, are unavoidable to facilitate minerals extraction. MSO7 should be reworded to conform with NPPF.
MSO8 - could you provide some clarification on 'providing for sustainable patterns of minerals transportation'. As is stated on page 29 of the consultation document the majority of minerals and waste sites in Norfolk are served by Heavy Goods Vehicles, with the majority of bulk materials likely to continue being transported by road as this is currently the most feasible mode of transport. We do not believe Objective MS08 is deliverable.
MSO9 - a mineral operator cannot always guarantee a positive contribution to natural, built and historic environment, particularly when the operator does not own the land with the landowner seeking different aspirations. The objective should be to seek to positively contribute.
MSO10 - we do not consider this objective to be deliverable as an operator cannot be in a position to increase public access for every restoration scheme. The objective should be to seek to increase public access.

Section 7 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development
Question 4: Policy MW1
Policy MW1 - 1st bullet should be unacceptably adverse, to conform with NPPF and reflect the advice within Section 8 of the Consultation Document, page 25, 4th paragraph.

Section 8 - Development management criteria
Question 5: Policy MW2
Policy MW2 is supported - the policy is in line with NPPF, in particular the final requirement on restoration recognising that environmental enhancements sought where appropriate. However, this is contrary to the earlier Vision and Objectives. The Vision and Objectives should be amended to seek conformity throughout the plan and with NPPF.

Section 12 - Agricultural soils
Question 9: Policy MW6
Policy MW6 is supported. The final bullet point of Policy MW6 state, 'the benefit of restoring the land to another after-use can be shown to outweigh the loss of the agricultural use of the land.' This is supported and in accordance with NPPF. However, this approach needs to be reflected in strategic objective MSO9 which requires landscape and biodiversity improvements, this cannot always be the case, MSO9 should be amended to reflect Policy MW6.

Section 15 - Land uses potentially suitable for waste management facilities
Question 12: Policy WP3
Policy WP3 identifies that waste management facilities at exiting mineral workings and landfill sites may be considered acceptable on a temporary basis with planning permission restricted to a cessation date for the mineral operation or landfill activities. We consider that greater flexibility should be provided within the Policy - there can be occasions when it is appropriate to retain a facility, for example recycling, that can benefit from the retention of infrastructure and continue to serve the markets established. We recommend Policy WP3 should provide greater flexibility and be amended accordingly.

Section 16 - Recycling or transfer of inert and construction, demolition and excavation waste.
Question 13: Policy WP4
As with Policy WP3, Policy WP 4 seeks to restrict waste management operations to the life of the mineral operation. We do not consider that this is always necessary or appropriate and recommend that Policy WP4 is less restrictive.

Section 23 - Disposal of inert waste by landfill
Question 20: Policy WP11
Policy WP11 is supported and could be extended by including the importation of inert waste where it is necessary for agricultural improvement.

Section 30 - Provision for minerals extraction
Question 27: Policy MP1
NCC propose to use the last 20 years average of 1.98mtpa rather than the 10 year average of 1.41mtpa. The justification for this is to enable a sufficient quantity of sand and gravel resources to be available over the 20 year plan period and would take into account potential fluctuations in the economy. This positive approach to securing a steady and adequate supply of aggregates is supported.
Policy MP1 - provision for minerals extraction including the need to allocate 23,063,560 tonnes of sand and gravel is supported. However, to be in accordance with NPPF, the policy should be amended so that it provides a sand and gravel landbank of at least 7 years.

Section 31 - Spatial strategy from minerals extraction
Final para of page 66 states:
... Norfolk's urban areas and main towns are the locations where there will be the greatest need for a supply of aggregate for new housing development and associated infrastructure.
Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction
Within the resource areas identified on the key diagram, specific sites for sand and gravel ... should be located within 10 miles of one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns and/or be well related to one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns via appropriate transport infrastructure.
Within the listed settlement hierarchy Great Yarmouth is in the highest tier as an urban area. This being the case we question the Council's approach to allocate one site within 10 miles of the Great Yarmouth urban area. We do not believe this secures a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel to the Great Yarmouth area and the Council should be allocating additional reserves. These additional reserves should be secured through the allocation of land at MIN38 - Waveney Forest, Fritton.

Section 33 - Agricultural or potable water reservoirs
Question 30: Policy MP4
Policy MP4: Agricultural or potable water reservoirs is supported.

Section 34 - Core River Valleys
Question 31: Policy MP5
Policy MP5 seeks protection to the Core River Valleys that is over and above the protection offered in the NPPF to sites of national landscape and biodiversity importance. The policy should be caveated with 'So far as is practicable minerals development will be permitted ...' removing the word 'only'.

Section 36 - Progressive working, restoration and aftercare
Question 33: Policy MP7
Policy MP7 is supported - it provides a balance in seeking progressive working, enhancements to landscape / biodiversity but is not mandatory. This is in contrast to some of the earlier policies and strategic objectives, such as MSO10.

Section 38 - Concrete batching and asphalt plants
Question 35: Policy MP9
Policy MP9 limits the use to the life of the quarry, it is sometimes beneficial to retain the use of ancillary facilities after the mineral operation has been completed making full use of a developed access and transport links, and facilitating an existing market.

PROMOTION OF MIN 38 - WAVENEY FOREST, FRITTON
In a response to Norfolk County Council's 'Call for Sites' a comprehensive submission was made on behalf of the Brett Group promoting land at Waveney Forest, Witton. The submission included a detailed assessment of the potential environmental and amenity impacts that may arise from the development of a new sand and gravel quarry at Fritton.
Part 2 of the Consultation Document undertaken by the County Council concurs with the findings of the Call for Sites report submitted by Brett in August 2017, with exception of Heritage interests. Part 2 of the Consultation Document states:
Historic environment: The historic landscape character of the site is 18th to 20th Century plantation woodland. The site is within a wider historic landscape character of 20th century agriculture with enclosure, boundary loss and boundary loss with a relict element; pastoral farming, and agriculture with 18th to 19th century piecemeal enclosure. The wider historic landscape character also includes modern built up areas of linear settlements, small farm clusters, nucleated clusters and urban development; and drained reclaimed enclosed land (rectilinear enclosure from 19th to 20th century). The wider historic landscape character also includes drained enclosed rectilinear grazing marsh (17th to 20th century enclosure), a historic earthwork, leisure/recreation, informal parkland, sea defences, saltings, a reservoir and woodland (18th to 19th century plantation woodland, carr woodland and regenerated alder carr woodland).
The nearest Listed Building is the Grade II* Drainage Pump which is 260m away. There are 20 Listed Buildings within 2km of the site. There are two locally listed heritage assets within the site, the remains of a WW2 firing range and a concrete railway bridge, although these are not within the proposed extraction areas. The nearest Scheduled Monument is St Olave's Priory, which is 390m away. There are 2 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the site. Halvergate Marshes Conservation Area is adjacent to the site boundary and Haddiscoe Conservation Area is 330m from the site. There are no Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. A planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a Heritage Statement to identify heritage assets and their settings, assess the potential for impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures if required.
Archaeology: This site could reveal nationally important remains for early and middle Pleistocene early human settlements in NW Europe, perhaps linking to finds at Norton Subcourse and Pakefield (in Suffolk). There are Historic Environment records of features in the site most of which are linked to a WW2 military site possibly a training site, within the site boundary. The proposer of the site has indicated two extraction areas within the wider site area; neither the local listed features (remains of a WW2 firing range, and a former railway bridge) are within these extraction areas. A number of undesignated heritage assets have been provisionally identified which may be linked to the WW2 training area. The site is currently a commercial forestry plantation within which felling operations take place, which involve the use of heavy vehicles and earth moving operations. These operations may have degraded the undesignated heritage assets, although good practice for tree felling operations states that archaeological features should be protected. Therefore, an assessment of the significance of archaeological deposits will be required at the planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. However, the Norfolk Historic Environment Service have stated that they consider that no appropriate mitigation or modification of the site would be able to prevent harm to the
undesignated heritage assets which as a whole make up the significance of the WW2 training area, of which few examples remain.
The final few sentences of the extract have been underlined because they clearly contradict one another. We believe that the site is able to be developed for quarrying purposes. Within the submission by Brett for the Call for Sites a detailed heritage appraisal was undertaken - a summary of the report is provided below:
Direct Impacts on Heritage Assets - The site is known to contain military structures dating from WWI and predominantly WWII. Some of these are solidly engineered in concrete, whilst the majority are understood to be of more flimsy construction making use of wood, chicken wire and corrugated iron.
The PAA may also retain earlier archaeology, in particular from the later prehistoric period.
In the past 5 years tree felling has occurred across approximately 60% of the proposed extraction areas. This has involved heavy machinery, including evidence of some ground reduction caused by the windrowing of the wastage. The damage caused to archaeology, both military and earlier, could not be quantified on the site visit, but it is considered that it could be significant.
Should this site be allocated, a thorough survey should be carried out using GPS and photography to create a catalogue of archaeology. Some archaeological evaluation may be required. This would allow an assessment of the distribution, form, condition and significance of all archaeology within the PAA.
Opportunities - Any future planning application would require a mitigation strategy to manage the archaeological resource. This would involve a combination of preservation in situ, excavation and recording.
The majority of the military structures identified in the 2009 survey by Warner and Wilby lie outside or on the periphery of the proposed extraction areas and preservation in situ of these outliers should be the objective.
These were only temporary structures and in time they will inevitably decay and collapse through natural processes. Excavation and recording of a selection of structure types within the extraction areas would be an important contribution to our understanding of how they were constructed and operated.
Consideration should be given to the consolidation of some of the military remains to ensure their preservation for the future. There is also potential to create an educational resource, based around any consolidated structures should the restoration concept permit, that would be an important public benefit.
This approach has been adopted elsewhere, for example at Binnegar Quarry, Dorset where an auxiliary bunker has been archaeologically excavated and the results will form the focus of a display in an on-site education centre recounting the history of the Auxiliary Units in Dorset
The Heritage Appraisal reaches the following conclusion:
"On current evidence, there are no overriding constraints to the allocation of this site and, from an archaeological and heritage perspective and subject to appropriate mitigation, the proposals provide opportunities for educational benefit and conform to national planning policy and guidance."
The current Consultation Documents produced by the County Council acknowledge that:
* no local listed feature falls within the proposed extraction area;
* the site is commercial forestry plantation within which felling operations take place, which involve the use of heavy vehicles and earth moving operations;
* commercial forestry operation may have degraded the undesignated heritage assets;
* further archaeological assessment work will be required.
No recognition has been given, by the County Council, to the potential opportunity that could arise from a quarry development to allow for proper archaeological assessment whilst providing opportunities through a considered restoration.
We have some concerns with the Sustainability Appraisal scoring for land at Waveney Forest, Fritton:
SA1 - It is unclear why some sites score more positively than others when they are similar distances to main towns. Why has a score of '+' rather than '++' been given? The site is in close proximity to two urban areas / main towns, Great Yarmouth and Gorelston on Sea.
SA5 - We have concerns that the evaluation within the SA is not taken forward to the assessment within Part 2 of the Consultation Document. Sites with known heritage interests in close proximity are proposed for allocation with no clear indication on mitigation. Further to our comments above, the proposals for Waveney Forest do not have any impact on any designated asset. There is no justification for a score of '- -' post extraction on the site. Brett have offered a restoration scheme that would build on the heritage interest in the area and provide beneficial opportunities. This has not been recognised in any of the assessment documents produced by the County Council to date.
SA8 - why has a '-' score been applied when it is acknowledged that there will be no impact upon any designated landscape and the existing woodland will screen the proposed development.
SA11 - a score of '++' should be applied due to the proximity of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston on Sea and the lack of other allocated sites in closer proximity.
The site is located approximately 9km from Great Yarmouth, the adopted Core Strategy1 identifies that this is one of three 'major built up areas'2 in Norfolk. The Core Strategy sets out a 'locational preference' to potential site allocations which are 'close and/ or well related' to the Great Yarmouth Urban Area. This is such a site and it is understood by the promoter to be the closest land-won aggregate site to Great Yarmouth with reserves throughout the Plan period. Furthermore, there are no other extraction operations within the immediate vicinity which would lead to consideration of cumulative effects.
1 The Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 2010-2026
2 Paragraph 2.3 adopted Core Strategy
The main impact of the proposals relates to heritage interest and potential for structures from WW1 and WW2. These were predominantly temporary structures (for example constructed of timber, chicken wire, corrugated iron and sandbags) and that the cycle of forestry planting and felling will likely destroy or significantly affect these remains. Mineral extraction offers an opportunity to survey, excavate archaeologically and record, as well as consolidating and preserving some in situ for future generations.
By adopting the approach preferred by Brett and the landowner, the site will be able to offer opportunities for creating ecological habitats that are more in keeping with the local environment including woodland, wetland / wet woodland on restoration. In addition to long term habitat creation and protection, the wider benefits will be derived from the development through comprehensive restoration includes opportunities for public access and interpretation of heritage assets.
The public benefit derived from these proposals outweigh the potential damage, se set out in NPPF.
It is therefore submitted that the site represents an ideal opportunity for allocation for sand and gravel extraction as part of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review.
I trust that the above comments are helpful. Should you have any queries or wish to discuss any of the points raised in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.

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'.