Question 27: Policy MP1 'Provision for minerals extraction'

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Support

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 91702

Received: 09/07/2018

Respondent: North Yorkshire County Council

Representation:

Support the policy MP1 especially in terms of silica sand provision. North Yorkshire imports silica sand for glass production from Norfolk so important to secure supply by the provision of new sites.

Full text:

Support the policy MP1 especially in terms of silica sand provision. North Yorkshire imports silica sand for glass production from Norfolk so important to secure supply by the provision of new sites.

Support

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 91961

Received: 07/08/2018

Respondent: Mineral Services Ltd

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92014

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: CPRE Norfolk

Representation:

We have concerns about the open-ended nature of the amounts to be extracted. We would prefer to see realistic maxima added for each of the materials as well as the included "at least" figures.

Full text:

We have concerns about the open-ended nature of the amounts to be extracted. We would prefer to see realistic maxima added for each of the materials as well as the included "at least" figures.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92357

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Aggregate Industries UK Ltd

Representation:

MP1 Provision for Minerals Extraction - It is considered production capacity should be captured within this policy to ensure deliverability of a steady supply of mineral.

Full text:

This representation is made on behalf of Aggregate Industries UK Limited (AIUK). AIUK is a leading player in the construction and infrastructure industries producing and supplying a wide range of construction materials including aggregates, asphalt, ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete products. AIUK imports and produces cementitious materials and offers a national road surfacing and contracting service. AIUK prides itself on best practice in sustainability having become the first company to be certificated to BES 6001, The Framework Standard for the Responsible Sourcing of Construction Products, developed by the BRE (Building Research Establishment) and is a founding member of the UK Green Building Council. AIUK is a member of the LafargeHolcim Group which is the leading global building materials and solutions company with 90,000 employees, operating in 80 countries.

Please see below AIUK's response to Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Consultation May 2018.

Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision implies sand and gravel sales shall remain within Norfolk, It is hoped Norfolk will support sand and gravel demand within the region in addition to being self-sufficient.

MW4 seeks a minimum of 10 % of energy used on site to be generated from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources. The geographical location of minerals sites, phased operation and temporary nature hinders the ability to implement the aims of MW4.

WP1 Waste Management Capacity to be provided - waste statistics are not comprehensive or robust therefore I believe flexibility should be built into the policy allowing sites to come forward based upon market need.

MP1 Provision for Minerals Extraction - It is considered production capacity should be captured within this policy to ensure deliverability of a steady supply of mineral.

MP7 Progressive working, restoration and after-use - It is considered Best and Most Versatile soils should be recognised as a preferred afteruse.

We would be obliged if the above comments can be taken into account in the consultation process.

AIUK welcome being involved with the Minerals and Waste review process and are happy to meet in relation to these representations.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92477

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: Sibelco UK Limited

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92503

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Mineral Products Association

Representation:

No as it does not accord with National Policy and is unsound. Suggested re wording as follows;

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)

"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, para 1) 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.

Full text:

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.

Support

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92528

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Limited

Agent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Representation:

Q27. Tarmac supports the approach of seeking to allocate sites to deliver at least an additional 23m tonnes of sand and gravel over the plan period (ref calculation in the table on page 30). This will make the plan more robust than an alternative approach of using a 10 year average for sales over the last10 years, since this coincided with a recession in the aggregates industry (and economy in general) which supressed sales to historically low levels. (It should also be noted that there appears to be an error in the 'alternative table' on page 64 where the figures for reserves and shortfall seem to be been transposed).

Full text:

Sirs, on behalf of Tarmac Trading Ltd we make the following comments on the content of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review 'Initial Consultation May 2018':
(i) Q54. We are pleased to note the appraisal of Site 'MIN 65: Land north of Stanninghall Quarry' and the initial conclusion that the site is suitable for allocation for sand and gravel extraction. We also note the requirements relating to the issues which a planning application for extraction at the site would need to address, and we are confident that at the detailed planning application / EIA stage each of the issues could be addressed in a way which would satisfactorily mitigate effects on the respective interests.
The one note of concern is the suggestion that the site would need to be phased with other sites in the area so that only one site is worked at any one time. In terms of the Stanninghall development, the northern extension area would be phased as part of a comprehensive working and restoration scheme for the existing quarry and extension area, and the timescale for the operation in the extension area would need to reflect the progress of extraction and restoration within the existing quarry and any re-phasing which may be proposed. Any cumulative effects of extraction at Stanninghall with other sites in the locality would be a matter for consideration as part of an EIA (as it was a the time of the original Stanninghall application and inquiry), and this will be an issue which will need to be considered on its merits at the time. The Authority will appreciate that Tarmac has no control over the timing of other developments in the area undertaken by third parties, and there should thus be no planning policy restrictions regarding the timing of the development: this will be a matter for consideration at the application stage. It is also noted that this phasing / timing requirement does not feature in the application requirements for the nearest other potential allocation (MIN 64 Grange Farm Horstead).
(ii) Q27. Tarmac supports the approach of seeking to allocate sites to deliver at least an additional 23m tonnes of sand and gravel over the plan period (ref calculation in the table on page 30). This will make the plan more robust than an alternative approach of using a 10 year average for sales over the last10 years, since this coincided with a recession in the aggregates industry (and economy in general) which supressed sales to historically low levels. (It should also be noted that there appears to be an error in the 'alternative table' on page 64 where the figures for reserves and shortfall seem to be been transposed).
(iii) Q27. Notwithstanding this support for the resource calculation approach in Policy MP1, Tarmac objects to the indication that the sand and gravel landbank will be maintained at "between 7 years and 10 years supply". NPPF (July 2018) and the predecessor version of NPPF 2012 is clear in requiring the maintenance of sand and gravel landbanks of "at least 7 years" with no upper limit on the landbank. This is re-enforced in Planning Practice Guidance which confirms that "there is no maximum landbank level and each application must be considered on its own merits regardless of the length of the landbank" (ref ID27-084). The suggested wording of policy MP1 is contrary to NPPF and the plan would not be 'sound' based upon such a policy wording. In practical terms, strict adherence to the policy as worded would mean that an otherwise acceptable development could be refused if the landbank, at an arbitrary date of determination, was just above 10 years. This would be unreasonable. Policy MP1 should be revised to simply confirm a commitment to maintain a sand and gravel landbank of "at least 7 years", consistent with the requirements of NPPF.
We hope that these comments will be regarded in the constructive way in which they are intended and we look forward to participating in future stages of the plan making process. In that respect, I would be grateful if you could add me (SLR) to your database of interested parties to be notified of future consultation stages.
I would also be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of these comments.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92529

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Limited

Agent: SLR Consulting Ltd

Representation:

Notwithstanding this support for the resource calculation approach in Policy MP1, Tarmac objects to the indication that the sand and gravel landbank will be maintained at "between 7 years and 10 years supply". NPPF (July 2018) and the predecessor version of NPPF 2012 is clear in requiring the maintenance of sand and gravel landbanks of "at least 7 years" with no upper limit on the landbank. This is re-enforced in Planning Practice Guidance which confirms that "there is no maximum landbank level and each application must be considered on its own merits regardless of the length of the landbank" (ref ID27-084). The suggested wording of policy MP1 is contrary to NPPF and the plan would not be 'sound' based upon such a policy wording. In practical terms, strict adherence to the policy as worded would mean that an otherwise acceptable development could be refused if the landbank, at an arbitrary date of determination, was just above 10 years. This would be unreasonable. Policy MP1 should be revised to simply confirm a commitment to maintain a sand and gravel landbank of "at least 7 years", consistent with the requirements of NPPF.

Full text:

Sirs, on behalf of Tarmac Trading Ltd we make the following comments on the content of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review 'Initial Consultation May 2018':
(i) Q54. We are pleased to note the appraisal of Site 'MIN 65: Land north of Stanninghall Quarry' and the initial conclusion that the site is suitable for allocation for sand and gravel extraction. We also note the requirements relating to the issues which a planning application for extraction at the site would need to address, and we are confident that at the detailed planning application / EIA stage each of the issues could be addressed in a way which would satisfactorily mitigate effects on the respective interests.
The one note of concern is the suggestion that the site would need to be phased with other sites in the area so that only one site is worked at any one time. In terms of the Stanninghall development, the northern extension area would be phased as part of a comprehensive working and restoration scheme for the existing quarry and extension area, and the timescale for the operation in the extension area would need to reflect the progress of extraction and restoration within the existing quarry and any re-phasing which may be proposed. Any cumulative effects of extraction at Stanninghall with other sites in the locality would be a matter for consideration as part of an EIA (as it was a the time of the original Stanninghall application and inquiry), and this will be an issue which will need to be considered on its merits at the time. The Authority will appreciate that Tarmac has no control over the timing of other developments in the area undertaken by third parties, and there should thus be no planning policy restrictions regarding the timing of the development: this will be a matter for consideration at the application stage. It is also noted that this phasing / timing requirement does not feature in the application requirements for the nearest other potential allocation (MIN 64 Grange Farm Horstead).
(ii) Q27. Tarmac supports the approach of seeking to allocate sites to deliver at least an additional 23m tonnes of sand and gravel over the plan period (ref calculation in the table on page 30). This will make the plan more robust than an alternative approach of using a 10 year average for sales over the last10 years, since this coincided with a recession in the aggregates industry (and economy in general) which supressed sales to historically low levels. (It should also be noted that there appears to be an error in the 'alternative table' on page 64 where the figures for reserves and shortfall seem to be been transposed).
(iii) Q27. Notwithstanding this support for the resource calculation approach in Policy MP1, Tarmac objects to the indication that the sand and gravel landbank will be maintained at "between 7 years and 10 years supply". NPPF (July 2018) and the predecessor version of NPPF 2012 is clear in requiring the maintenance of sand and gravel landbanks of "at least 7 years" with no upper limit on the landbank. This is re-enforced in Planning Practice Guidance which confirms that "there is no maximum landbank level and each application must be considered on its own merits regardless of the length of the landbank" (ref ID27-084). The suggested wording of policy MP1 is contrary to NPPF and the plan would not be 'sound' based upon such a policy wording. In practical terms, strict adherence to the policy as worded would mean that an otherwise acceptable development could be refused if the landbank, at an arbitrary date of determination, was just above 10 years. This would be unreasonable. Policy MP1 should be revised to simply confirm a commitment to maintain a sand and gravel landbank of "at least 7 years", consistent with the requirements of NPPF.
We hope that these comments will be regarded in the constructive way in which they are intended and we look forward to participating in future stages of the plan making process. In that respect, I would be grateful if you could add me (SLR) to your database of interested parties to be notified of future consultation stages.
I would also be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of these comments.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92912

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: Mr R Carter

Representation:

I object to the initial conclusion that MIN 71 is a suitable site for the extraction of sand and gravel on the grounds that the Planning Authority is unable to demonstrate a need for extra resources of sand and gravel aggregates in Norfolk.

Supply/Demand
The apportionment targets set as Norfolk's share of the sub-national guideline figures have been missed by very wide margins every year for the last 20 years (averaging only 51.2% of apportionment in the last 10 years).

Market forces have shown that demand levels are significantly lower than the supply apportionment levels, and that Core Strategy Policy CS1 supply figures need to be severely downgraded in line with demand.

"Neighbouring Minerals Planning Authorities plan to supply the demand in their own areas, by allocating sites, and therefore Norfolk does not need to make planned provision to supply additional aggregates".(1)

"Norfolk is a net importer of sand and gravel" (1)

Norfolk quarries have supplied "90% of local consumption" whilst exporting between 30%-50% of production. (1)

Norfolk should not be subsidising exported aggregates (reduced transport costs) for the benefit of surrounding Mineral Planning Authorities and Companies at the cost of the Norfolk Countryside and amenity of local residents.

"Norfolk, due to its geology, has considerable sand and gravel resources", consequently, there are minimal short or medium term supply risks if demand does increase - however, there is a significant risk to the countryside, the tourism industry, residents and existing agricultural if unsuitable and unwarranted sites are opened.

Methodology
"The MPA does not think it prudent... to base allocation purely on a rolling average of 10 years sales as having regarding to paragraph 14 of the NPPF, flexibility is required in allocations". (1) Instead, however, the MPA chose to base its allocation on a 20 year rolling average against the following guidance:
- Guidelines from the NPPF in March 2012 para 145 state that "MPAs... determine their own levels of aggregate production based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data..."
Guidance from the NPPG requires that LAAs should provide:
"a forecast of the demand for aggregates based on both the rolling average of ten-year sales data and local information"
It also stated that "The rolling average of 10 years sales data will inform the targets for mineral extraction data" (1)
All these guidelines unequivocally call for the 10 year rolling average to be the basis to consider supply forecasts, and any variant of this would need to be justified by compelling reasons.

The MPA has chosen to double the length of the recommended time-base against this advise, and to use a 20 year average, leading to the following supply differences -
- based on a 20 year rolling average 1.98 million tpa would be needed.
- based on a 10 year rolling average 1.41 million tpa would be needed
The difference over a 20 year plan is some 11.4 million tonnes at 570,000 tonnes a year - this clearly stretches the meaning of the phrase 'flexible' beyond any reasonable interpretation.

Conclusion
The clear evidence is that existing supply levels of aggregates are significantly greater than demand exhibited by market forces in Norfolk, and any new policies/calculations should address this significant imbalance.

(1) figures/narrative quoted are from - 'Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Monitoring report - Mineral data Local Aggregate Assessment and Silica Sand Assessment 2016 (published October 2017)

Full text:

Site MIN 71 - land west of Norwich Road, Holt. Question 76
I would ask that these comments be read in conjunction with my previous submission. I object to the initial conclusion that MIN 71 is a suitable site for the extraction of sand and gravel on the grounds that the Planning Authority is unable to demonstrate a need for extra resources of sand and gravel aggregates in Norfolk.

Supply/Demand
The apportionment targets set as Norfolk's share of the sub-national guideline figures have been missed by very wide margins every year for the last 20 years (averaging only 51.2% of apportionment in the last 10 years).

Market forces have shown that demand levels are significantly lower than the supply apportionment levels, and that Core Strategy Policy CS1 supply figures need to be severely downgraded in line with demand.

"Neighbouring Minerals Planning Authorities plan to supply the demand in their own areas, by allocating sites, and therefore Norfolk does not need to make planned provision to supply additional aggregates".(1)

"Norfolk is a net importer of sand and gravel" (1)

Norfolk quarries have supplied "90% of local consumption" whilst exporting between 30%-50% of production. (1)

Norfolk should not be subsidising exported aggregates (reduced transport costs) for the benefit of surrounding Mineral Planning Authorities and Companies at the cost of the Norfolk Countryside and amenity of local residents.

"Norfolk, due to its geology, has considerable sand and gravel resources", consequently, there are minimal short or medium term supply risks if demand does increase - however, there is a significant risk to the countryside, the tourism industry, residents and existing agricultural if unsuitable and unwarranted sites are opened.

Methodology
"The MPA does not think it prudent... to base allocation purely on a rolling average of 10 years sales as having regarding to paragraph 14 of the NPPF, flexibility is required in allocations". (1) Instead, however, the MPA chose to base its allocation on a 20 year rolling average against the following guidance:
- Guidelines from the NPPF in March 2012 para 145 state that "MPAs... determine their own levels of aggregate production based on a rolling average of 10 years sales data..."
Guidance from the NPPG requires that LAAs should provide:
"a forecast of the demand for aggregates based on both the rolling average of ten-year sales data and local information"
It also stated that "The rolling average of 10 years sales data will inform the targets for mineral extraction data" (1)
All these guidelines unequivocally call for the 10 year rolling average to be the basis to consider supply forecasts, and any variant of this would need to be justified by compelling reasons.

The MPA has chosen to double the length of the recommended time-base against this advise, and to use a 20 year average, leading to the following supply differences -
- based on a 20 year rolling average 1.98 million tpa would be needed.
- based on a 10 year rolling average 1.41 million tpa would be needed
The difference over a 20 year plan is some 11.4 million tonnes at 570,000 tonnes a year - this clearly stretches the meaning of the phrase 'flexible' beyond any reasonable interpretation.

Conclusion
The clear evidence is that existing supply levels of aggregates are significantly greater than demand exhibited by market forces in Norfolk, and any new policies/calculations should address this significant imbalance.

(1) figures/narrative quoted are from - 'Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Monitoring report - Mineral data Local Aggregate Assessment and Silica Sand Assessment 2016 (published October 2017)

Support

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93025

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Brett Group

Agent: Heaton Planning Ltd

Representation:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93073

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Cemex UK Materials Ltd

Representation:

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

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

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

Full text:

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

Representations made on behalf of CEMEX UK Materials Ltd.

Minerals Strategic Objectives

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

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

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

General Policies

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

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

Minerals Specific Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 5

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

Appendix 7

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

Proposed Minerals Extraction Sites

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

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

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

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