Question 84: Proposed site MIN 92

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'.

Agree due the landscape impacts on the Broads. Potential for adverse impacts on SSSI.

Please refer to our comments on protected landscapes in our letter of 13 August 2018.

Site Ref: MIN 92 - Land west of Ferry Road, Heckingham
We are responding to the above site included in the consultation document. We are the authorized agents for the landowner, the Raveningham Estate.

We note that the initial conclusion is that the site is not suitable for allocation. We respond to the reasons that have been stated in the consultation document as follows:-

1. There is a tall hedge long the eastern boundary and a large wood to the North and West. Impact on the Broads Authority Executive Area will be minimal. Advanced tree planting would help to mitigate any adverse impact as well.

2. The line of trees crossing the site could be removed or left in situ and material could still be extracted from the site.

3. The site is adjacent to an existing working gravel pit so there are benefits as sand and gravel can be processed on the adjacent site with no need to install new machinery which would be the case on a greenfield site.

All in all we believe that the provisional grounds for refusing to allocate this site are incorrect and the issues that have been raised can all be dealt with at the planning stage. We believe the site is suitable for mineral extraction and should be identified as such in the Draft Plan.

Further representations made on behalf of CEMEX UK Materials Ltd.

Proposed Minerals Extraction Sites

MIN 92: The Company does not agree with the initial conclusions of the Minerals Planning Authority regards this site, land east of Ferry Lane, Heckingham.

The proposed site abuts the boundary of the Broads Authority Executive Area to the north, south and west, albeit separated by a minor road in all bar the latter. It is noted, however, that the Broads Authority concluded that the extant permitted quarry immediately to the east would have a "negligible" impact on the character of the Broads. The statement that "... more open views from the road to the west..." is not supported by evidence 'in the field' as it is apparent that a significant body of existing trees sever all visibility of the site from the Broads area. It has been acknowledged that to the south the site is more open, but it is proposed that the area between the power cables and Beacon Farm be subject to an advanced planting programme. This would have the benefits of mimicking the tree screen to the north and west, screening Beacon Farm from the proposed development, and linking existing woodland to woodland areas planted by the Company in the course of implementing extant planning permissions. Given that the reserves within the proposed site are not likely to be required for at least 11 years there is ample time for any advanced planting to be undertaken and mature so as to be effective. Furthermore, there are no publicly accessible viewpoints to the south of the site until the Norton Road, from which only the most fleeting views of the site are available due to intervening vegetation, topography and buildings.
It is acknowledged that the site is bisected on an east to west axis by a row of mature trees, possibly remnants of a removed hedgerow. None of the trees in question appear to be the subject of Tree Preservation Orders. It is the Company's view that this site can be worked for sand and gravel economically with these trees being retained whilst not being materially affected by that working. Conversely, it is considered premature to take the view that the felling of these trees would constitute an "...unacceptable landscape impact..." in the absence of mitigation measures or an assessment of the condition of the trees themselves. As discussed above, the Company would propose as part of any development programme to implement an extensive advanced tree planting scheme along the site's southern boundary. As part of any proposed restoration it is quite possible that the original field boundaries, dividing the site into quarters, could be reinstated. It is also possible that these trees may not be in a condition that would secure their long term retention. It is the Company's view that the site should be identified as a Specific Site for minerals extraction and that it will be for an applicant to demonstrate that these matters of acknowledged significance can be adequately mitigated. The site is suitable for minerals extraction in principle and should be identified as such in the draft Plan.

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.

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.

In our opinion the plan is fit for purpose. We have a few comments/ recommendations regarding the plan as follows:

SIL 02 Land at Shouldham and Marham
This site is located adjacent to the River Narr SSSI, we would advise no extraction takes place outside of the 'reduced development area' between the proposed site and River Narr SSSI to reduce the likelihood of impacts on the River Narr SSSI and its qualifying features.
We agree that an assessment of potential impacts on the River Narr SSSI and Marham Fen, including from dust deposition and hydrogeology, together with appropriate mitigation would be required as part of any planning application.
It should be noted in the 'initial conclusion' that an ecological assessment to determine baseline conditions on the site must be prepared which may lead to the need for further surveys and mitigation measures, if necessary. (This should always be the case with 'greenfield sites'. I know this was mentioned in the wider document, however it would be good if this could be included in the 'initial conclusions' for new sites). It would also be useful in the initial conclusions to ensure it is clear that a restoration scheme to protect and enhance biodiversity will be put in place post extraction.

MIN45 land North of Coxford Quarry and MIN 77 Runs Wood Tottenhill
We are in agreement with the conclusions that the sites are unsuitable for allocation in accordance with Section 15 of the NPPF.

MIN40 land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch
We agree with the Arboricultural officers comments for land east of Grandcourt Farm. It should also be noted that if avoidance measures are not possible and these veteran trees are removed, an assessment of the value of these trees for wildlife in particular bats and nesting birds must be undertaken prior to any works on these trees.

Search: AOS E land to the North of Shouldham and MIN115 Lord Anson's Wood near North Walsham
Woodland is located within the allocated area for these sites. These woodland areas are of ecological value and likely support protected species and other wildlife. We would like to see woodland areas retained where possible. Where woodland areas are proposed for removal then an ecological assessment needs to be undertaken and any further surveys need to be carried out or mitigation proposed, if necessary.

MIN 92 Land east of Ferry Lane, Heckingham
We agree with the Arboricultural officers comments that this site is unsuitable for allocation.

Overall the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan is a very thorough and accurate document. My only comments are that trees have been considered under the headings of landscape or ecology throughout the document, rather than under a separate arboriculture heading. Having said this, I am happy for the document to remain as it is.

However as far as I can see, no reference has been made with regards to Arboricultural Impact Assessments (AIA) in the initial conclusions. I feel that where hedgerow trees or woodlands are adjacent to a proposed site that the offset from them needs to be determined at the very least by an annotated Tree Protection Plan or a full AIA to ensure root protection for the long term retention of the trees. For sites where an LVIA has been recommended (e.g MIN71) this would also need to include a full AIA.

For MIN45 land North of Coxford Quarry and MIN 77 Runs Wood Tottenhill, the initial conclusions recommend that that the sites are unsuitable for allocation in accordance with Section 15 of the NPPF. I am in agreement with these conclusions, particularly as Runs Wood is not ancient woodland but is still considered important due to its high biodiversity value.

MIN40 land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch - there appear to be trees within the proposed site at the NW corner which would have to be removed unless the site boundaries are amended. Bearing in mind that there were requirements regarding retaining veteran trees on land at Grandcourt Farm previously, I feel that an AIA would be required for this site to determine the categorisation of the trees in this area to determine if they are worthy of retention.

AOS E land to the North of Shouldham - this area encompasses a large amount of woodland centred on Shouldham Warren that when viewed from a satellite image shows that this is a large block of woodland within a largely arable landscape that forms a connecting feature with the woodland centred on West Bilney Wood to the NE. As such, although the woodland is undesignated in any way, it is a vital connecting feature within the landscape and where possible should be retained. If any of the woodland area is removed, appropriate planting of a similar size of broadleaved woodland should be included as part of the restoration scheme.

MIN115 Lord Anson's Wood near North Walsham - I would disagree that this site is suitable for allocation, in accordance with section 170b of the NPPF. The removal of this section of woodland would degrade the overall capital value, ecosystem services and recreational values provided by the woodland.

The landscape paragraph details mature trees and woodland that are to be retained and enhanced. The initial conclusion also states that a wide screen of trees is to be left around the site. I therefore propose that if this site remains allocated that a full AIA is required to achieve this and this should be listed in the initial conclusion.

MIN 92 Land east of Ferry Lane, Heckingham - I agree with the conclusion that this site is unsuitable for allocation due to the line of mature oaks in the centre of the site.

MIN 204 land north of Lodge Road Feltwell - this site is surrounded by coniferous woodland and hedgerows and would require an AIA to ensure sufficient standoff from the adjacent trees to ensure their roots are protected for their safe long term retention.