Question 54: proposed site MIN 65

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'.

I object to the inclusion of this site on the following grounds-
1 Property devaluation.
It is inevitable that my property and others nearby will be devalued if a quarry is situated so close.
It is unreasonable and unacceptable to expect property owners to suffer in this manner while the aggregate company and landowner will profit by millions of pounds.
If the site goes ahead then compensation should be paid to the property owners.

2 Noise pollution
There will undoubtedly be noise pollution created and with the prevailing wind in this area being westerly/south westerly this noise will be carried directly to the nearby properties.
No amount of noise mitigation will mask the noise all of the time.

3 Dust pollution
For the same reason as mentioned in 2 above there will be dust pollution, particularly in high wind conditions.

4 Lorries
Problems are currently being seen resulting from lorries exiting the quarry site onto the B1150.
They are unable to accelerate away and southbound traffic have to slow down to a crawl for some distance as overtaking is not usually possible. This causes extreme frustration which could lead to dangerous overtaking.
While the proposal indicates that lorry movements will remain the same, this could well change if the overall site enlarged. This would clearly create more problems at the quarry exit point.

Agree, though please refer to our separate comments regarding the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

Horstead with Stanninghall Parish Council objects to the expansion of this site. When the original site was put forward around 2006, this area was included in those proposals and was scaled back before the current site was approved. Amongst other concerns raised was the impact of such a large site on the surrounding villages and their inhabitants. These concerns are equally valid today. While the Parish Council meets regularly with Tarmac, and Tarmac tries to be a 'good neighbour', Parishioners have been impacted by the current site - for example, lorries frequently use inappropriate country lanes to access the site, the vegetation planted on the bunds is not blocking the visual impact as it should (much of it didn't survive the first year), and there is light pollution when floodlighting is accidentally left on overnight.
Another major concern is that the road infrastructure in the area is not adequate to handle either the size/weight of the vehicle or any further increase in traffic. The current site is accessed via Quarry Road which leads directly to the B1150 North Walsham Road. This road has seen a 33% increase in traffic since the Broadland Northway opened earlier this year (as evidenced by data recorded by SAM2 equipment - NCC and Police approved). A 250 metre stretch of this road leading to the 'Recruiting Sergeant' mini roundabout has seen 4 accidents in the last 6 weeks - 2 of which have involved vehicles crossing the footpath which runs alongside the road, these would both have been fatal for anyone walking there. Neither the mini roundabout or the bridge over to Coltishall are designed to cater for the lorries that frequent the quarries.
From the above, the Parish Council doesn't believe it would be in the interest of the village for the current site to expand.

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.

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

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.