Question 72: Area of Search AOS J

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92348

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Ministry Of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation)

Representation:

DIO Safeguarding main concern when reviewing Mineral and Waste local plan, relates to the proposed site allocations and the restoration/aftercare scheme.
The county of Norfolk has several statutory safeguarding sites within its authority area, these being RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall and RAF Marham.
On reviewing the proposed mineral sites the following occupy statutory birdstrike safeguarding consultation zones for RAF Marham: MIN 19 & 205;76;77;40; SIL01 SIL02; AOS E &J.
Therefore, DIO Safeguarding is concerned with the development of open water bodies, the creation of wetland habitat, refuse and landfill sites. These types of development have the potential to attract large flocking bird species hazardous to aviation safety. Therefore, we would recommend dry restoration and dry phased working.

Full text:

Submission Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Consultation
Thank you for consulting the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in relation to the above referenced consultation document.
DIO Safeguarding main concern when reviewing Mineral and Waste local plan, relates to the proposed site allocations and the restoration/aftercare scheme.
The county of Norfolk has several statutory safeguarding sites within its authority area, these being RAF Lakenheath, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Mildenhall and RAF Marham.
On reviewing the proposed mineral sites the following occupy statutory birdstrike safeguarding consultation zones for RAF Marham: MIN 19 & 205;76;77;40; SIL01 SIL02; AOS E &J.
Therefore, DIO Safeguarding is concerned with the development of open water bodies, the creation of wetland habitat, refuse and landfill sites. These types of development have the potential to attract large flocking bird species hazardous to aviation safety. Therefore, we would recommend dry restoration and dry phased working.
The following sites MIN 6; MIN 204; MIN 74; MIN 206 and MIN 32 the restoration is dry using inert waste or imported inert materials. If this were to change to wet restoration or there was potential for wet working as part of the extraction scheme, DIO Safeguarding would need to be consulted.
Please note the remaining sites fall outside of the statutory safeguarding areas and we have no concerns regarding these allocations.
Please note the above comments are purely related to the DIO Statutory Safeguarding interests. I trust this adequately explains our position on this matter.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92403

Received: 29/08/2018

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation:

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.

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.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 92424

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Woodland Trust

Representation:

The following sites have be found to affect ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees:
AOS J - Land to the east of Tottenhill. Proposed for an area of search for mineral extraction. Two veteran oaks to the east of Craven Lane. Grid reference TF65105491

We would like to highlight the presence of two veteran oaks to the east of Craven Lane which are listed on the Ancient Tree Inventory but are not listed within the constraints for AOS J. These trees must be listed as a constraint. In the event of any application coming forward these veteran trees should be subject Policy MP2.

Full text:

The Woodland Trust is the largest woodland conservation charity in the UK and a leading voice in bringing to the attention of government, land owners and the general public the state of the UK's trees and woodland. We champion and deliver the most dynamic solutions to protect and revitalise our natural environment - the recreation of wooded landscapes on a national scale.
We campaign to ensure that laws governing environmental protection are enforced and that the government is held to account on environmental pledges. We also campaign vigorously with the support of local communities, to prevent any further destruction of ancient woods.
And, to further protect the UK's natural environment, we've built up an estate of our own managed woodland covering over 73 square miles across the UK, of which a third is irreplaceable ancient woodland. With a supporter base of half a million we were the first, and remain the most significant contributor to woodland protection, restoration and creation in the UK. We are experts in a natural resource that has the potential to transform the UK's natural environment and ensure its continued
survival.
Ancient woodland, veteran and ancient trees
Ancient woodland, veteran and ancient trees are irreplaceable natural resources. Ancient Woodland is land that has remained constantly wooded since AD1600. The length at which ancient woodland takes to develop and evolve (centuries, even millennia), coupled with the vital links it creates between plants, animals and soils accentuate its irreplaceable status. The varied and unique habitats ancient woodland sites provide for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost.
Ancient and veteran trees are especially important for wildlife. Along with their historical or cultural significance, our ancient trees are loved by communities because of their special appearance, the rare fungi, plants and animals they support and the stories associated with them. Ancient and veteran trees can be classified due to the presence of ancient and veteran features.
As such, the Woodland Trust aims to prevent the damage, fragmentation and loss of these finite irreplaceable habitats from any form of disruptive development. Approximately one quarter of priority UK BAP species are associated with woodland habitats. Forests, woods, and trees make a significant contribution to biodiversity, and ancient sites are recognised as being of particular value.
Due to their longevity, ancient woodlands are more species rich, and are often refuges for specialist woodland species that struggle to colonise new areas.

National Policy
The recently revised NPPF states:
175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and

Footnote 58 elaborates: For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.

Policy Specific Comments
We welcome the recognition of the importance of ancient woodland, aged and veteran trees for both biodiversity and landscape as set out in pages 27 and 28. However we would like to flag the revised wording set out in the NPPF, the term 'aged' has been replaced with 'ancient as this is seen to better align with the practical interpretation of the NPPF.
The Woodland Trust warmly welcomes Norfolk's proposed approach (set out on page 67) to Areas of Search for silica sand extraction; the 250m exclusion zone for dust is a best practice approach. As such we strongly support Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction.

Sites
The following sites have be found to affect ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees.

MIN 45 - land north of Coxford Abbey Quarry (south of Fakenham Road), East Rudham. Proposed for mineral extraction. Contains Coxford Wood which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS). Size of affected woodland 23.73 ha. Grid reference TF82315566.

MIN 38 - land East of Fritton marshes. Proposed for mineral extraction. Contain veteran beech. Grid reference TG46390076.

MIN 202 - land south of Reepham Road, Attlebridge. Proposed for mineral extraction. Mileplain Plantation, which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) and is adjacent to the site boundary. Size of affected woodland 19.8 Ha. Grid reference TG14163195

AOS J - Land to the east of Tottenhill. Proposed for an area of search for mineral extraction. Two veteran oaks to the east of Craven Lane. Grid reference TF65105491


MIN 45
We strongly support the Council's initial conclusion that the site should not be taken forward due to the presence of ancient woodland.

MIN 38
Again the Trust supports the Council's position not to allocate the site but would like to add the presence of a veteran beech tree (as noted on the Ancient Tree Inventory) as a further reason not to take this site forward.

MIN 202
We welcome the recognition of Mileplain Plantation, which is a Plantation on Ancient Woodland Site (PAWS) adjacent to the site boundary. Planning authorities and inspectors increasingly act to prevent the direct destruction of ancient woodland. However, the damage and impacts posed to ancient woods by nearby development are not so widely appreciated. The Trust opposes MIN 202 in its current form due to the potential impact on ancient woodland. Any future application should be subject to a substantial planted buffer of 50m to ensure the integrity of the ancient woodland.

AOS J
We would like to highlight the presence of two veteran oaks to the east of Craven Lane which are listed on the Ancient Tree Inventory but are not listed within the constraints for AOS J. These trees must be listed as a constraint. In the event of any application coming forward these veteran trees should be subject Policy MP2.

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93007

Received: 31/08/2018

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

We note that this area of search forms part of the recently adopted Silica Sand Review. As identified, this Area of Search is in close proximity to the Church of St Botolph at West Briggs (Grade I) at a distance of 325 metres to the area of search (AOS) boundary and around 1200/1250 metres to the Motte and Bailey castle in Wormegay village and 1600 metres to the Wormegay priory moated site (further to the north west).

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: 93211

Received: 16/08/2018

Respondent: Norfolk County Council Historic Environment Service

Representation:

We agree with the conclusion to allocate the area of search, but with the following comments:
J.4 should state that the archaeological assessment should include a desk-based assessment and field evaluation. It should also refer to archaeological remains rather than 'deposits'

Comment

Initial Consultation document

Representation ID: 93235

Received: 10/12/2018

Respondent: Ministry Of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation)

Representation:

The MOD previously commented on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan in August 2018. However, based on safeguarding comments regarding birdstrike, the policy team submitted additional information to determine the viability of the proposed sites.
The sites identified as part of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan occupy the statutory birdstrike safeguarding consultation zone surrounding RAF Marham. The MODs main concern regarding mineral schemes is the phased working, proposed restoration and aftercare of the site. As the creation of open water bodies in this area has the potential to increase birdstrike risk to aircraft operations.
Please note each planning application is assessed on their individual merits at present there is limited information for a full detailed assessment to be carried out. However, please see below the MODs comments based on the additional information received on the 18/11/18:

AOS J Land east of Tottenhill
In line with my comments above wet working and restoration at this location would have the potential to attract and support hazardous waterfowl. The MOD is unable to determine the extent of our concerns without knowing the restoration scheme.

AOS E and AOS J the MOD has concerns and would require further information to determine whether the sites could be managed with design principles and a BMP.

Full text:

The MOD previously commented on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan in August 2018. However, based on safeguarding comments regarding birdstrike, the policy team submitted additional information to determine the viability of the proposed sites.
The sites identified as part of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan occupy the statutory birdstrike safeguarding consultation zone surrounding RAF Marham. The MODs main concern regarding mineral schemes is the phased working, proposed restoration and aftercare of the site. As the creation of open water bodies in this area has the potential to increase birdstrike risk to aircraft operations.
Please note each planning application is assessed on their individual merits at present there is limited information for a full detailed assessment to be carried out. However, please see below the MODs comments based on the additional
information received on the 18/11/18:

MIN 19 & 205 Land north of the River Nar, Pentney
The site is approximately 6km north west of RAF Marham. The restoration plan for this site shows a series of lakes, which are deep and steep sided surrounded by wet woodland with reed fringes. The design also includes 2 proposed walkways consisting of grassy glades which lie above water level.
Therefore, the MOD would have no safeguarding concerns subject to open water being kept to a minimum; the lakes are designed to be less than 200mx200m with steep bank sides as per restoration plan. A robust Bird Hazard Management Plan (BHMP) to be approved by the MOD should be applied to manage the hazardous birds i.e. waterfowl, gulls, heron etc. and applied to the adjacent site if owned by the same company.

MIN 76 Land at West Field, Watlington Road, Tottenhill
The MOD have recently reviewed this planning consultation and submitted conditional response citing subject to a BHMP being implemented we have no safeguarding concerns as part of planning consent.

MIN 40 - Land East of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch
The MOD commented on this application and the proposed extension to Grandcourt Farm at planning stages. There is an existing BMP in place which includes the extension site. Therefore, the MOD stated no objection subject to the BMP being implemented as part of planning consent.

SIL 01 Land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey
This site is approximately 12.4km north by north west from RAF Marham, any proposed water bodies would need to be designed to the following principles:
 No islands- as they provide safe predator free environment for roosting and nesting birds
 The bank margins are planted with dense goose proof barrier of emergent vegetation (common reed), or fenced to prevent easy access between open water and nearby short grass areas.
 A BHMP to remove or treat any feral goose nests and eggs to prevent feral geese successfully breeding on site
The above is based on the information available at present.

SIL 02 Land at Shouldham and Marham
This site is approximately 4.8km north west from RAF Marham. The proposed extraction site is a considerable area which is planned to be restored with large areas of open water.
A development of this nature in such proximity to the aerodrome is of great concern to aircraft safety.
Even if the site were to be reduced in scale this would be of serious concern to the MOD. Therefore, we would object to this site based on current plans.

AOS E Land north of Shouldham
It is difficult to determine the risk of wet restoration in this location without any plans illustrating the extent and design of open water bodies.
The MOD have safeguarding concerns to the wet working and restoration of this site due to its potential to attract and support hazardous waterfowl closer within critical airspace. Therefore, further information would be required before a definitive response can be made.

AOS J Land east of Tottenhill
In line with my comments above wet working and restoration at this location would have the potential to attract and support hazardous waterfowl. The MOD is unable to determine the extent of our concerns without knowing the restoration scheme.

In summary, MIN 19, 205, 76 & 40 the MOD has no safeguarding concerns subject to the implementation of a robust Bird Hazard Management Plan approved by the MOD as part of any planning permission granted.

With regards to SIL 01 at present this site is of concern to the MOD. However, due
to its location depending on the nature and scale of the restoration should be manageable with the right restoration and a BHMP in place.

AOS E and AOS J the MOD has concerns and would require further information to determine whether the sites could be managed with design principles and a BMP.
Finally, SIL 02 the MOD object to this site being implemented on its current design and scale.

I trust this is clear however should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.