Question 32 : Policy MP6 'cumulative impacts and phasing of workings'

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 91847

Received: 20/07/2018

Respondent: Broads Authority

Representation:

What are the criteria or is there a checklist that helps ascertain if cumulative impacts are unacceptable?

Full text:

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'.

Support

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 91964

Received: 07/08/2018

Respondent: Mineral Services Ltd

Representation:

This policy wording which is almost identical to Suffolk County Council Submission Draft June 2018 Policy MP5 is 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.

Support

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92336

Received: 23/08/2018

Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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