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

Natural England considers a criteria based policy is satisfactory and we support the requirement to comply with Policy MW2.

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.

The explanatory text for Policy WP3 states that modern waste management facilities can require purpose built buildings and structures that are suited to industrial areas, however this is not reflected in the text of the policy itself. It would be helpful to add clarification into the policy wording, to require that waste management activities should take place within purpose designed facilities where appropriate - this would apply particularly to criteria (b) and (c), ie. land either in existing B2/B8 use or allocated as such.

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

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

Part 1: Initial consultation policies

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

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

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

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

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

'f) water recycling centres; '

Question 23: Policy WP14 'Water Recycling Centres'

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

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

Question 24: Policy WP15 'Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre'

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

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

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

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

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

Question 26: Policy WP17 'Safeguarding waste management facilities'

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

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

Part 2 - Proposed Mineral extraction sites

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

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

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

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

Comments on specific policies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on Proposed Minerals Extraction Sites:

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

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

I hope you find the above comments useful.

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.

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.

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

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

Waste Management specific policies

Policy WP1 - Waste Management capacity to be provided

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question 21
We agree with the proposed policy wording.

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

Question 23 & 24
No comments.

Question 25
No further comments

Question 26
No further comments

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

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

Minerals and Waste Local Plan Regulation 18 Comments

Breckland Council would wish to make the following representations on the Regulation 18 Minerals and Waste Local Plan:

Question 8: Breckland supports the inclusion of Policy MW5 'The Brecks Protected Habitats and Species' within the Local Plan, however would like to bring attention to additional evidence in relation to Stone Curlew buffer zones. As part of the Habitats Regulation Assessment to support the Breckland Local Plan revisions have been required to the buffer zones and policy to reflect areas within 3km of the SPA. Further information is available within the Breckland Habitat regulations Assessment on pages 30-32. However the issue can be summarised as follows:

Evidence, explained within the HRA for the Breckland Local Plan, identifies 3km as a distance at which stone curlew outside the SPA could be associated with the SPA. Survey effort tends to be focussed on areas regularly used and good quality habitat, so the additional buffer 'orange cells' simply reflect a lack of data. The orange cells therefore represents a precautionary area, in light of our understanding of the distance outside the SPA the birds may be present, where checks are necessary and mitigation could be required if the checks identify regular use by nesting stone curlew.

The orange cell areas could therefore comprise of some functionally linked land for Stone Curlews, however the data is incomplete. The Breckland HRA has therefore proposed an additional buffer zone to include these cells where there are data gaps and additional data checks or survey data may be required to check for use by Stone Curlews. The Breckland Local Plan has interpreted the additional 'orange cell' buffer area as a location where any site allocation would need to be supported by a project level HRA.

It is recommended that the policy is revised to reflect these additional areas and the map 2 should also be updated. For your information, I have included the proposed modified Breckland policy and also map.

Question 10: The waste policy currently considers there is sufficient capacity to meet the need for waste facilities without further allocations. The growth rate has had regard to the Norfolk SHMAs. Is there sufficient capacity within the existing waste facilities using the standardised housing methodology for calculating new household growth? Further justification would be required for a criteria based approach to ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Question 12: The policy would support the development of waste facilities on general industrial areas. Breckland would not wish to see the economic potential of industrial areas reduced due to the provision of waste facilities. Breckland would wish the policy to have regard to the employment aspirations for the area. Of particular concern is the Snetterton General Employment Area which is a key priority for Breckland within the A11 Norwich to Cambridge Technology Corridor. Breckland is proposing allocations through its Local Plan which would deliver 3,174 jobs to the area. Policy EC02 of the emerging Local Plan seeks to zone the employment area in order to meet these aspirations. Further to this, the Thetford Enterprise Park is also a key area on the A11 corridor and forms an important element of the growth strategy for the area. Breckland would wish to see the policy amended to reflect that important employment sites (including general employment areas such as Snetterton and the Thetford Employment Park) should not be prejudiced through development of waste sites.

Question 46: Site MIN35 Land at Heath Road Quidenham. Whilst located within Quidenham parish, this site is directly adjacent to the Snetterton General Employment Area, which is a strategic site for economic development within Breckland on the A11 corridor. At present the assessment does not appear to make reference to the proximity of the site to the GEA, and Breckland would wish to see this acknowledged within the assessment.

The access to the site is through the General Employment Areas to the A11. Further information is requested in relation to the operating hours of the quarry. This is in relation to the potential for weekend extraction. The site is in close proximity to the Snetterton Race Track, and at weekends when the circuit predominantly operates visitor traffic will also be using the access routes to the A11. Regard should be had to this in any transport assessment.

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'.