Question 41: Proposed site MIN 51 & MIN 13

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Support

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92023

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: Longwater Gravel Co. Ltd.

Agent: Small Fish

Representation:

Longwater Gravel Ltd would like to confirm that it does agree with the initial conclusion to allocate Min13/Min51. In support of this opinion, Longwater Gravel would like to draw attention to the following points in relation to the emerging policies.

Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction
Specific sites for sand and gravel or carstone extraction should be located within 10 miles of one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns (detailed in the supporting text) and/or be well-related to one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns via appropriate transport infrastructure - Dereham is classed as a main town and the site is connected to Dereham via the Fakenham Road B1146 HGV route, with Dereham being only 4.5km away. Furthermore, Fakenham is only 11km away via the B1146 and this is also a main town.

Policy MP5: Core River Valleys
The Sites are not in a core river valley.

Policy MP6: Cumulative impacts and phasing of workings
There has been concern in the past that the cumulative impacts of operating Min 13 and Min 51 at the same time could be unacceptable.

Policy MP6 makes it clear it is down to the applicant to, "demonstrate that the adverse cumulative impacts can be adequately mitigated" as part of a future planning application. Longwater Gravel is confident that this can be demonstrated. Combined, or cumulatively, the estimated extraction rate will be 70,000 tonnes per annum. This low rate of extraction has been chosen with a view to minimising any cumulative impact. For example, the low extraction rate of 70,000 tonnes generates only 10 HGV out movements per day between the sites, which is around one per hour. As these will almost immediately join the B1146 HGV route which carries a large volume of traffic, the increase is unlikely to be noticeable. Other cumulative impacts of the sites will be assessed as the application is development, such as through the dust and noise assessments.

It should be noted that the extraction rate chosen is lower than the extraction rate of many other potential sites; Min 12 (80,000), Min 35 (80,000) Min 201 (200,000 to 250,000), Min 202 (140,000), Min 37 (85,000), Min 65 (200,000), Min 96 (150,000), Min 38 (85,000 to 120,000), Min 06 (80,000), Min 45 (100,000) etc. Compared to these single sites, the cumulative impacts of Min 13 and Min 51 will be relatively modest.


This acceptability will be demonstrated by the future planning application.

Policy MP7: Progressive working, restoration and after-use and Policy MP8: Aftercare
The site is proposed to be restored at a lower level and returned to arable agricultural. Due to the expected depth of extraction, it is likely that restoration to arable will require the use of imported inert material to provide a suitable profile. Lagoons are likely to be retained as ponds with planting to create wet woodland habitat. Hedgerow interspersed with oaks will be planted along the northern boundary alongside Rawhall Lane. There should therefore be some longer term ecological benefits. The application will be accompanied by an after-care plan.

Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria
The sites are in compliance with emerging Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria. For ease of reference, these criteria are set out below with comments against each one.
a. Local amenity and health (including noise levels, odour, air quality, dust, litter, light pollution and vibration) - There should be no unacceptable amenity impacts given the distances to the nearest properties. Longwater Gravel will however, prepare both dust and noise assessments and undertake any proposed mitigation measures as part of a future planning application.
b. The quality of surface waterbodies and groundwater, with particular regard to preventing the deterioration of their existing status, and the quantity of water for resource purposes within water bodies - There will be no impact on hydrogeology or water resources as it will be worked dry. There will be no impact on watercourses such as the Blackwater because of distances and drainage. The minerals will be processed on site and so the sand and gravel to be processed will not be transported across the nearby watercourses.
c. The capacity of existing drainage systems - The site is not in an Internal Drainage Board area.
d. Pluvial and fluvial flood risk - There are no concerning flood risk issues given the land use proposed.
e. The best and most versatile agricultural land - Being Grade 3, the land is not the best and most versatile.
f. Aircraft safety due to the risk of bird strike and/or building height and position - The site is not within an aerodrome safeguarding zone.
g. The safety and capacity of the road and any other transport network - Highway access from the site should be satisfactory and an appropriate financial contribution to the B1146 Fakenham Road/Rawhall Lane junction improvements will be made if required to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.
h. The appearance, quality and character of the landscape, countryside and visual environment and any local features that contribute to its local distinctiveness - The site is not in or near any landscape designations. The site is fairly flat and would be relatively easy to screen from views from surrounding roads and properties. The site contains interesting landscape features; the internal hedgerow oaks and the block of woodland and rough grass lie within the centre of the site are notable features in this open landscape and these will be protected by a the working scheme. A low level restoration scheme to arable agriculture with appropriate wide field margins and additional woodland should be acceptable in landscape terms and will result in a landscape gain.
i. Public Open Space, the definitive Public Rights of Way network and outdoor recreation facilities - There will be no impact on any of these assets.
j. Land stability - There are no issues regarding land stability.
k. The natural and geological environment (including internationally, nationally or locally designated sites and irreplaceable habitats) - Nature conservations designations will not be affected, especially given the stand-off distances and the quarry being worked dry. Restoration will be back to agricultural use, although this will include ensuring a long-term ecological gain. Lagoons will be retained as ponds with planting to create wet woodland habitat and hedgerow interspersed with oaks will be planted along the northern boundary alongside Rawhall Lane. Additional woodland will also be provided. Potential impacts on geodiversity will be assessed and appropriate mitigation identified as part of any future application. The application is likely to propose retaining some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and potentially after restoration providing this does not detract from the character of the area. Longwater Gravel will suggest a 'watching brief' is used during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered.
l. The historic environment, including heritage and archaeological assets and their settings - There should be no unacceptable impact on any of the heritage assets in the surrounding area, but Longwater Gravel will ensure that the planning application is accompanied by a Heritage Statement which will assess the potential for impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures if required. There is the potential that unknown archaeology exists on the site and an assessment of the significance of archaeological deposits will be carried out at the planning application stage. It is recognised that the archaeology assessment may initially be desk-based but may need to be followed up with field surveys and trial-trenching.
m. The character and quality of the area, in which the development is situated, through poor design - Long term the character of the area will be retained if not enhanced through a high quality restoration scheme. In the short term some screening will likely be required during working, although key features that add to the character of the area such as the hedgerow oaks and the block of woodland will be protected by the working scheme.

Policy MW3: Transport
The sites are in compliance with emerging Policy MW3: Transport. For ease of reference, these criteria are set out below with comments against each one.
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 - this potential will be assessed, but given the absence of such facilities nearby such as rail sidings, the current assumption is that this will be unlikely.
a) Unacceptable risks to the safety of road users and pedestrians - The proposed highway access into the sites using Rawhall Lane is considered to be suitable by the Highway Authority and an appropriate financial contribution to the B1146 Fakenham Road/Rawhall Lane junction improvements will be made if required to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.
b) Unacceptable impacts on the capacity and/or efficiency of the highway network (including the trunk road network). There are no capacity issues on the local road network.
c) Unacceptable impacts on air quality (particularly in relation to any potential breaches of National Air Quality Objectives and impacts on any Air Quality Management Areas) - The site is not in or near an Area Quality Management Area.
d) Unacceptable physical impacts on the highway network (e.g. road or kerbside damage) - The Fakenham Road is a designated lorry route and so suitable for HGV traffic. The short route to the Fakenham Road is a metaled adopted road and is wide enough for two-HGVs to pass and a new site access junction with Rawhall Lane will be created in accordance with design standards.
Any future planning application will be accompanied by either a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment, this being agreed with the Highway Authority in advance. This will show that:
* Suitable highway access and egress on Rawhall Lane can be achieved in accordance with published highway design guidance;
* That there is a short and suitable route to the nearest major road, this being the Fakenham Road and Longwater Gravel is content that this will be captured in a Routing Agreement if required;
* The application has considered the needs and safety of other road users, including cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians; and
* Appropriate and realistic measures to reduce car travel to the site by workers and visitors will be implemented.

Policy MW5: The Brecks Protected Habitats and Species
The sites are not in the Special Protection Area SPA or the Stone Curlew buffer zone

Policy MW6: Agricultural soils
The soil is Grade 3. It is not known at the moment whether this is Grade 3a or 3b. This will be determined during the development of a future planning application. If it is Grade 3a then a suitable soil handling management plan will be developed as part of the application. Restoration will be to agricultural land and so there will, in the long-term, be no loss to agriculture.

Summary: The combined site is in a good location for mineral extraction, being close to appropriate transport infrastructure and main towns. There appear to be few if any constraints, such as amenity or nature conservation designations, although impacts will be assessed where appropriate, such as through noise and dust assessments. The low extraction rate should make any cumulative impacts acceptable, although this will also be thoroughly assessed during the application. In addition to the benefit of extracting sand and gravel to support the construction sector, there will be additional ecological and landscape gains upon restoration.

Full text:

Longwater Gravel Ltd would like to confirm that it does agree with the initial conclusion to allocate Min13/Min51. In support of this opinion, Longwater Gravel would like to draw attention to the following points in relation to the emerging policies.

Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction
Specific sites for sand and gravel or carstone extraction should be located within 10 miles of one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns (detailed in the supporting text) and/or be well-related to one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns via appropriate transport infrastructure - Dereham is classed as a main town and the site is connected to Dereham via the Fakenham Road B1146 HGV route, with Dereham being only 4.5km away. Furthermore, Fakenham is only 11km away via the B1146 and this is also a main town.

Policy MP5: Core River Valleys
The Sites are not in a core river valley.

Policy MP6: Cumulative impacts and phasing of workings
There has been concern in the past that the cumulative impacts of operating Min 13 and Min 51 at the same time could be unacceptable.

Policy MP6 makes it clear it is down to the applicant to, "demonstrate that the adverse cumulative impacts can be adequately mitigated" as part of a future planning application. Longwater Gravel is confident that this can be demonstrated. Combined, or cumulatively, the estimated extraction rate will be 70,000 tonnes per annum. This low rate of extraction has been chosen with a view to minimising any cumulative impact. For example, the low extraction rate of 70,000 tonnes generates only 10 HGV out movements per day between the sites, which is around one per hour. As these will almost immediately join the B1146 HGV route which carries a large volume of traffic, the increase is unlikely to be noticeable. Other cumulative impacts of the sites will be assessed as the application is development, such as through the dust and noise assessments.

It should be noted that the extraction rate chosen is lower than the extraction rate of many other potential sites; Min 12 (80,000), Min 35 (80,000) Min 201 (200,000 to 250,000), Min 202 (140,000), Min 37 (85,000), Min 65 (200,000), Min 96 (150,000), Min 38 (85,000 to 120,000), Min 06 (80,000), Min 45 (100,000) etc. Compared to these single sites, the cumulative impacts of Min 13 and Min 51 will be relatively modest.


This acceptability will be demonstrated by the future planning application.

Policy MP7: Progressive working, restoration and after-use and Policy MP8: Aftercare
The site is proposed to be restored at a lower level and returned to arable agricultural. Due to the expected depth of extraction, it is likely that restoration to arable will require the use of imported inert material to provide a suitable profile. Lagoons are likely to be retained as ponds with planting to create wet woodland habitat. Hedgerow interspersed with oaks will be planted along the northern boundary alongside Rawhall Lane. There should therefore be some longer term ecological benefits. The application will be accompanied by an after-care plan.

Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria
The sites are in compliance with emerging Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria. For ease of reference, these criteria are set out below with comments against each one.
a. Local amenity and health (including noise levels, odour, air quality, dust, litter, light pollution and vibration) - There should be no unacceptable amenity impacts given the distances to the nearest properties. Longwater Gravel will however, prepare both dust and noise assessments and undertake any proposed mitigation measures as part of a future planning application.
b. The quality of surface waterbodies and groundwater, with particular regard to preventing the deterioration of their existing status, and the quantity of water for resource purposes within water bodies - There will be no impact on hydrogeology or water resources as it will be worked dry. There will be no impact on watercourses such as the Blackwater because of distances and drainage. The minerals will be processed on site and so the sand and gravel to be processed will not be transported across the nearby watercourses.
c. The capacity of existing drainage systems - The site is not in an Internal Drainage Board area.
d. Pluvial and fluvial flood risk - There are no concerning flood risk issues given the land use proposed.
e. The best and most versatile agricultural land - Being Grade 3, the land is not the best and most versatile.
f. Aircraft safety due to the risk of bird strike and/or building height and position - The site is not within an aerodrome safeguarding zone.
g. The safety and capacity of the road and any other transport network - Highway access from the site should be satisfactory and an appropriate financial contribution to the B1146 Fakenham Road/Rawhall Lane junction improvements will be made if required to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.
h. The appearance, quality and character of the landscape, countryside and visual environment and any local features that contribute to its local distinctiveness - The site is not in or near any landscape designations. The site is fairly flat and would be relatively easy to screen from views from surrounding roads and properties. The site contains interesting landscape features; the internal hedgerow oaks and the block of woodland and rough grass lie within the centre of the site are notable features in this open landscape and these will be protected by a the working scheme. A low level restoration scheme to arable agriculture with appropriate wide field margins and additional woodland should be acceptable in landscape terms and will result in a landscape gain.
i. Public Open Space, the definitive Public Rights of Way network and outdoor recreation facilities - There will be no impact on any of these assets.
j. Land stability - There are no issues regarding land stability.
k. The natural and geological environment (including internationally, nationally or locally designated sites and irreplaceable habitats) - Nature conservations designations will not be affected, especially given the stand-off distances and the quarry being worked dry. Restoration will be back to agricultural use, although this will include ensuring a long-term ecological gain. Lagoons will be retained as ponds with planting to create wet woodland habitat and hedgerow interspersed with oaks will be planted along the northern boundary alongside Rawhall Lane. Additional woodland will also be provided. Potential impacts on geodiversity will be assessed and appropriate mitigation identified as part of any future application. The application is likely to propose retaining some open faces for scientific study during the operational stages, and potentially after restoration providing this does not detract from the character of the area. Longwater Gravel will suggest a 'watching brief' is used during the extraction phase in case features of potential geodiversity interest are uncovered.
l. The historic environment, including heritage and archaeological assets and their settings - There should be no unacceptable impact on any of the heritage assets in the surrounding area, but Longwater Gravel will ensure that the planning application is accompanied by a Heritage Statement which will assess the potential for impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures if required. There is the potential that unknown archaeology exists on the site and an assessment of the significance of archaeological deposits will be carried out at the planning application stage. It is recognised that the archaeology assessment may initially be desk-based but may need to be followed up with field surveys and trial-trenching.
m. The character and quality of the area, in which the development is situated, through poor design - Long term the character of the area will be retained if not enhanced through a high quality restoration scheme. In the short term some screening will likely be required during working, although key features that add to the character of the area such as the hedgerow oaks and the block of woodland will be protected by the working scheme.

Policy MW3: Transport
The sites are in compliance with emerging Policy MW3: Transport. For ease of reference, these criteria are set out below with comments against each one.
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 - this potential will be assessed, but given the absence of such facilities nearby such as rail sidings, the current assumption is that this will be unlikely.
a) Unacceptable risks to the safety of road users and pedestrians - The proposed highway access into the sites using Rawhall Lane is considered to be suitable by the Highway Authority and an appropriate financial contribution to the B1146 Fakenham Road/Rawhall Lane junction improvements will be made if required to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.
b) Unacceptable impacts on the capacity and/or efficiency of the highway network (including the trunk road network). There are no capacity issues on the local road network.
c) Unacceptable impacts on air quality (particularly in relation to any potential breaches of National Air Quality Objectives and impacts on any Air Quality Management Areas) - The site is not in or near an Area Quality Management Area.
d) Unacceptable physical impacts on the highway network (e.g. road or kerbside damage) - The Fakenham Road is a designated lorry route and so suitable for HGV traffic. The short route to the Fakenham Road is a metaled adopted road and is wide enough for two-HGVs to pass and a new site access junction with Rawhall Lane will be created in accordance with design standards.
Any future planning application will be accompanied by either a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment, this being agreed with the Highway Authority in advance. This will show that:
* Suitable highway access and egress on Rawhall Lane can be achieved in accordance with published highway design guidance;
* That there is a short and suitable route to the nearest major road, this being the Fakenham Road and Longwater Gravel is content that this will be captured in a Routing Agreement if required;
* The application has considered the needs and safety of other road users, including cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians; and
* Appropriate and realistic measures to reduce car travel to the site by workers and visitors will be implemented.

Policy MW5: The Brecks Protected Habitats and Species
The sites are not in the Special Protection Area SPA or the Stone Curlew buffer zone

Policy MW6: Agricultural soils
The soil is Grade 3. It is not known at the moment whether this is Grade 3a or 3b. This will be determined during the development of a future planning application. If it is Grade 3a then a suitable soil handling management plan will be developed as part of the application. Restoration will be to agricultural land and so there will, in the long-term, be no loss to agriculture.

Support

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92024

Received: 09/08/2018

Respondent: Longwater Gravel Co. Ltd.

Representation:

Summary: Longwater Gravel is a small scale quarry operator and our proposed new quarry at MIN51/13 is necessary to meet the needs of our growing customer base in the Dereham area. The quarry will annually produce 70,000 tonnes and employ 10 people. We have already commenced work to secure an abstraction licence from the Environment Agency and we are fully committed to submitting an application for planning permission which will meet all of the requirements set out in M&WLP and MIN 51/13 within the next two years.

I write to confirm that Longwater Gravel agree with and support Norfolk County Council's initial conclusion to allocate MIN 51 and MIN 13.

Longwater Gravel Company is a small scale quarry operator which specialises in small deliveries of sand and gravel to a customer base which includes local builders, groundworkers and the general public. We also supply sand and gravel to a number of small volume readymixed concrete producers.

The proposal for Longwater Gravel to develop and operate a small, low volume quarry at MIN 51/13 is driven by the need for us to further support our growing customer base in and around Dereham and in the area to the west of Norwich. The quarry, if granted planning permission, would directly employ 4 full time staff and indirectly employ a further 6. We plan to produce around 70,000 tonnes per year, the majority of which would be transported by our fleet of small delivery vehicles and a small number of HGV's. Access to the quarry would be via Rawhall Lane through a new entrance located on the north east boundary. The main operations area, where the gravel washing plant, loading areas, weighbridge, etc. will be sited, would be located in the southwest corner of MIN 13. Phased working and restoration of the quarry would commence in MIN 13 and move in a west-east direction towards Bilney Road. Once all reserves in MIN 13 have been exhausted, extraction and restoration operations will commence in MIN 51, again working in a west-east direction with the operations area remaining located in MIN 13. Soils which are stripped to enable access to the sand and gravel would be stored in grassed bunds along the northern and eastern margins which would assist in screening views of the operations area. On completion of sand and gravel extraction, the land would be restored to agricultural use at a lower level and to achieve this a small quantity of material such as soil may need to be imported to assist with constructing an acceptable restoration profile. The overall timescale to complete extraction and restoration from MIN 51/13 would be around 16 years.

We have already commenced work on the development of a quarry at MIN 51/13 and to date this work includes the drafting of legal agreements with landowners and negotiation with the Environment Agency to secure an abstraction licence for water for gravel washing. The Environment Agency has now issued a permit to Longwater Gravel to install and test a new borehole at the site which will provide data to determine if an abstraction licence can be issued. If we can secure an abstraction licence, then work will immediately commence on a planning application which will fully comply with the requirements as set out in MIN 51/13.

We have asked Small Fish Consultants to assess the site and our proposals against the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan and they will comment separately.

Full text:

I write to confirm that Longwater Gravel agree with and support Norfolk County Council's initial conclusion to allocate MIN 51 and MIN 13.

Longwater Gravel Company is a small scale quarry operator which specialises in small deliveries of sand and gravel to a customer base which includes local builders, groundworkers and the general public. We also supply sand and gravel to a number of small volume readymixed concrete producers.

The proposal for Longwater Gravel to develop and operate a small, low volume quarry at MIN 51/13 is driven by the need for us to further support our growing customer base in and around Dereham and in the area to the west of Norwich. The quarry, if granted planning permission, would directly employ 4 full time staff and indirectly employ a further 6. We plan to produce around 70,000 tonnes per year, the majority of which would be transported by our fleet of small delivery vehicles and a small number of HGV's. Access to the quarry would be via Rawhall Lane through a new entrance located on the north east boundary. The main operations area, where the gravel washing plant, loading areas, weighbridge, etc. will be sited, would be located in the southwest corner of MIN 13. Phased working and restoration of the quarry would commence in MIN 13 and move in a west-east direction towards Bilney Road. Once all reserves in MIN 13 have been exhausted, extraction and restoration operations will commence in MIN 51, again working in a west-east direction with the operations area remaining located in MIN 13. Soils which are stripped to enable access to the sand and gravel would be stored in grassed bunds along the northern and eastern margins which would assist in screening views of the operations area. On completion of sand and gravel extraction, the land would be restored to agricultural use at a lower level and to achieve this a small quantity of material such as soil may need to be imported to assist with constructing an acceptable restoration profile. The overall timescale to complete extraction and restoration from MIN 51/13 would be around 16 years.

We have already commenced work on the development of a quarry at MIN 51/13 and to date this work includes the drafting of legal agreements with landowners and negotiation with the Environment Agency to secure an abstraction licence for water for gravel washing. The Environment Agency has now issued a permit to Longwater Gravel to install and test a new borehole at the site which will provide data to determine if an abstraction licence can be issued. If we can secure an abstraction licence, then work will immediately commence on a planning application which will fully comply with the requirements as set out in MIN 51/13.

We have asked Small Fish Consultants to assess the site and our proposals against the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan and they will comment separately.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92143

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Beetley parish council

Agent: Mr B Leigh

Representation:

At the previous Minerals and Waste Framework both sites were assessed as not suitable. No mention is made of a processing plant on site if sited there would be two plants in close proximity. This would not be acceptable. If no processing pant is to be sited at these sites then gravel extraction will have to be transported. The C225 is not suitable for this and the B1146 is not guaranteed to be used. The Parish Council feels that the cumulative effect of these two sites plus MIN12 would not be acceptable.
The initial conclusion is not agreed with.

Full text:

At the previous Minerals and Waste Framework both sites were assessed as not suitable. No mention is made of a processing plant on site if sited there would be two plants in close proximity. This would not be acceptable. If no processing pant is to be sited at these sites then gravel extraction will have to be transported. The C225 is not suitable for this and the B1146 is not guaranteed to be used. The Parish Council feels that the cumulative effect of these two sites plus MIN12 would not be acceptable.
The initial conclusion is not agreed with.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92399

Received: 29/08/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

Owing to the lack of information that we hold on the ecological value of the wider countryside we have largely restricted our comments to impacts from proposed allocations on County Wildlife Sites and our reserves. In the wider countryside where possible we have made suggestions on restoration proposals based on sites' locations within our Living Landscapes .

Whilst we hold no specific knowledge on the following sites, we broadly support the restoration proposals proposed for MIN 12, MIN 13, MIN 51, MIN 200 and MIN 65.

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92415

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Cllr M Kiddle-Morris

Representation:

MIN51 & MIN 13: The proposer of the site has indicated a potential start date for extraction at these sites of 2020. There is no mention in the initial assessment of a processing plant, any on site plant would mean the close proximity of 2 such plants. If MIN12 were to be allocated as well as these 2 sites the cumulative impact on the area would be unacceptable.
I disagree with the initial conclusion.

Full text:

MIN12: MIN12 is a third extension to an existing quarry situated to the north of Rawhall Lane. The existing conveyor system can be extended to transport the extracted sand and gravel to the processing plant at the original quarry site, all HGV movements would be from the processing plant on Rawhall Lane. Reserves indicate that MIN12 could be operated until 2036 and if adequate mitigation measures were put in place extraction at the site would have little or no additional impact than that already experienced in Beetley.
I agree with the initial conclusion.

MIN51 & MIN 13: The proposer of the site has indicated a potential start date for extraction at these sites of 2020. There is no mention in the initial assessment of a processing plant, any on site plant would mean the close proximity of 2 such plants. If MIN12 were to be allocated as well as these 2 sites the cumulative impact on the area would be unacceptable.
I disagree with the initial conclusion.

MIN08: This site should not be allocated for the same reasons as given for MIN51 & MIN13 above.

MIN23: The allocation of this site would be unacceptable for the reason given in the assessment.
I agree with the initial conclusion.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92537

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Mr G Parker

Representation:

In view of the recent scorching weather, and news that farmers will be under stress for years to come trying to provide for an ever increasing population, I must ask if this is really the time to commandeer so much agricultural land for building materials, when it will be at such a premium for its Primary Purpose?
I am very concerned about the noise pollution which will inevitably accompany an extraction site within 250 metres of my house.
I must add, however that I am amazed that so much PRODUCTIVE land can be sacrificed in this way. The recent weather has changed the news, and the future looks bleak enough, and even worse if the bread basket of East Anglia is to be swallowed by solar farms and extraction sites.

Full text:

In view of the recent scorching weather, and news that farmers will be under stress for years to come trying to provide for an ever increasing population, I must ask if this is really the time to commandeer so much agricultural land for building materials, when it will be at such a premium for its Primary Purpose?
Further to my earlier email, and our telephone conversation, I am very concerned about the noise pollution which will inevitably accompany an extraction site within 250 metres of my house.
I must add, however that I am amazed that so much PRODUCTIVE land can be sacrificed in this way. The recent weather has changed the news, and the future looks bleak enough, and even worse if the bread basket of East Anglia is to be swallowed by solar farms and extraction sites.

Object

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92695

Received: 12/08/2018

Respondent: Gressenhall parish council

Representation:

MIN51 and 13 - Gressenhall Parish Council consider these applications to be premature whilst mineral is extracted from the east side of Fakenham Road with a proposed extension to run until 2040 (MIN12)

Full text:

MIN12- Gressenhall Parish Council have no adverse comments to make.

MIN51 and 13 - Gressenhall Parish Council consider these applications to be premature whilst mineral is extracted from the east side of Fakenham Road with a proposed extension to run until 2040 (MIN12)

MIN08- Gressenhall Parish council consider this application to be even more premature than MIN51 and 13, none of which should be worked until MIN12 is exhausted.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92935

Received: 08/08/2018

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allocated Sites with Groundwater Protection Constraints

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allocated Sites with Flood Risk Constraints

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

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

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

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

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92954

Received: 31/08/2018

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

We note the existing mineral working in the area MIN 08, MIN 12, MIN 13 and MIN 51 but would highlight the highly graded heritage assets nearby- grade I St Mary Magdalene at Beetley with the tower visible from the flat landscape that makes up the proposed allocation and the scheduled deserted medieval village at Bittering. The recommendations in the Sustainability Appraisal Appendix B should be incorporated in policy.

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93081

Received: 21/08/2018

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Natural Environment Team

Representation:

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

Full text:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93122

Received: 30/07/2018

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Highway Authority

Representation:

The Highway Authority considers the site is acceptable subject to the use of the existing access and the use of conveyor / haul routes to the plant site.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93179

Received: 16/08/2018

Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service

Representation:

We agree with the initial conclusion for this site.