7. Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 94361

Received: 21/10/2019

Respondent: Campaigners Against Two Silica Sites

Representation:

Presumption in favour of sustainable development as per Pg 6 para 11 NPPF

The NPPF has 3 dimensions to sustainable development - economic, social and environmental.

NCC's plan does not consider the infrastructure required for ensuring that the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development are accounted for in Norfolk with regard to glass recycling and the associated reduced mineral extraction. Therefore, the plan does not contribute to a strong, competitive economy (in Norfolk); support the health, social and cultural well-being of communities; and contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural environment, biodiversity, use of natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate against climate change by moving to a low carbon economy through an innovative and technologically advanced glass recycling policy. Without this the plan fails sustainability objective SA1, SA4, SA6, SA8, SA9, SA11 and SA13 on pg 9 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report - Part A- Scoping (Oct 2015).
.
There are no sustainable economic or social benefits to be had for the local areas around Marham and Shouldham from any quarrying in Shouldham Warren or Marham Fen. There would only be a couple of jobs created but the siting of a quarry will deter people visiting the area for recreation and tourism and will also stop any local growth, such as that being planned by the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk in their Local Plan. Quarrying these areas will remove the social benefits currently enjoyed by residents and visitors to Shouldham Warren and the Nar Valley Way; this is hardly following the NPPF.

Full text:

Presumption in favour of sustainable development as per Pg 6 para 11 NPPF

The NPPF has 3 dimensions to sustainable development - economic, social and environmental.

NCC's plan does not consider the infrastructure required for ensuring that the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development are accounted for in Norfolk with regard to glass recycling and the associated reduced mineral extraction. Therefore, the plan does not contribute to a strong, competitive economy (in Norfolk); support the health, social and cultural well-being of communities; and contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural environment, biodiversity, use of natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate against climate change by moving to a low carbon economy through an innovative and technologically advanced glass recycling policy. Without this the plan fails sustainability objective SA1, SA4, SA6, SA8, SA9, SA11 and SA13 on pg 9 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report - Part A- Scoping (Oct 2015).
.
There are no sustainable economic or social benefits to be had for the local areas around Marham and Shouldham from any quarrying in Shouldham Warren or Marham Fen. There would only be a couple of jobs created but the siting of a quarry will deter people visiting the area for recreation and tourism and will also stop any local growth, such as that being planned by the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk in their Local Plan. Quarrying these areas will remove the social benefits currently enjoyed by residents and visitors to Shouldham Warren and the Nar Valley Way; this is hardly following the NPPF.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 94713

Received: 27/10/2019

Respondent: Campaigners Against Two Silica Sites

Representation:

A SERIOUS glass recycling plan would ensure increased local employment that far outweighs the numbers and level of jobs generated through quarrying alone, as well as reducing the size and number of areas required for silica sand extraction and aiding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Without such a plan the M&WLP fails the economic and environmental objectives of the Presumption in favour of sustainable development. A more in-depth analysis can be found in Representation ID:94688 and selecting the link More detail about Representation ID:94688

Full text:

A SERIOUS glass recycling plan would ensure increased local employment that far outweighs the numbers and level of jobs generated through quarrying alone, as well as reducing the size and number of areas required for silica sand extraction and aiding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Without such a plan the M&WLP fails the economic and environmental objectives of the Presumption in favour of sustainable development. A more in-depth analysis can be found in Representation ID:94688 and selecting the link More detail about Representation ID:94688

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98590

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Carter Concrete Limited

Agent: David L Walker Ltd

Representation:

Carter Concrete is pleased to see the council's commitment to Sustainable Development, but is disappointed to note that the council haven't provided a clear policy in this regard. Such an approach is clearly not consistent with the NPPF nor the attendant Planning Practice Guidance. The council already has a policy in this regard (SD1 of the Mineral Site Allocations DOD 2017) which could be easily translated into this emerging policy document.

Full text:

We are instructed by Carter Concrete (part of the RG Carter Group) to prepare and submit representations on the Preferred Options consultation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review.
Carter Concrete own and operate the existing sand and gravel pit at Beeston Regis. The site benefits from an allocation for an eastern extension (site MIN69 under the adopted MSA). The company is promoting the same area of land under this emerging plan (retaining the reference MIN 69).


Addressing each in turn.
1. General policy comments
Carter Concrete would support the Vision promoted by the council in section 6 of the document. However, the company would like to see emphasis placed on the value and significance of minerals and waste development in providing a diverse and affluent rural economy consistent with Paragraph 83 of the NPPF.

Carter Concrete is pleased to see the council's commitment to Sustainable Development, but is disappointed to note that the council haven't provided a clear policy in this regard. Such an approach is clearly not consistent with the NPPF nor the attendant Planning Practice Guidance. The council already has a policy in this regard (SD1 of the Mineral Site Allocations DOD 2017) which could be easily translated into this emerging policy document.

The company would support Policy MW2, but would suggest that in the final paragraph when considering potential environmental benefits this could clearly states geo-diversity benefits where applicable.

Regarding Policy MW3 whist the company supports the aspiration for the use of other transport modes more often that not such avenues are not available, and as such the term "Where appropriate" should replace the word "All".

No comments are offered on the remainder of the general or the waste policies.

As regards to the mineral policies the contents of paragraphs MP1-MP10 inclusive are supported in full. No comments are offered on the remainder of the strategic landbank type policies for the other minerals.

Under paragraph MP2.6 the company would question the definition of a Main Town as this does not appear to list the town of Sherringham which is a clear development centre identified under local policy documents.

In respect of Policy MP2, paragraph 23 of the NPPF states "Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and landuse designations and allocations identified on a policies map." The spatial definition identified is suggested to be too narrow to meet the broad criteria identified above and is therefore not consistent with national policy as it does not take account of the unique facet of minerals extraction (i.e. they can only be worked where they are found).

Paragraph MP7.6 refers to Green Infrastructure mapping. It is suggested that a high-resolution copy of the map provided is either included as an appendix or a weblink, as the drawing provided is of low quality and cannot be easily used on an interpretive basis.

It is considered that Policy MP7 should apply equally to extensions as well as new sites.

It is respectfully suggested that Policies MP9 and MP10 could be expanded to include reference to precast blockworks to use indigenous materials and aggregate bagging plants, as both are viable forms of ancillary development at aggregates sites in principal.

2. Comments on site MIN 69
Carter Concrete has recently submitted a planning application (ref FUL/2019/0001) to receive approximately half of the mineral resource identified in this allocation profile. This is as a sustainable and logical extension to the current site utilising the processing and access infrastructure of the latter. A Regulation 25 response is being collated and will shortly be submitted to address matters raised through the consultation process in the determination of the planning application.

Carter Concrete would confirm that the boundary on the allocation map is correct but would state that the indicative site buffer illustrated in the south of the allocation are is no longer proposed. This was proposed to provide a means of mitigation in view of the proposal to remove part of the existing woodland around the current site. This proposal no longer forms part of the scheme and therefore the mitigation isn't required. It is therefore proposed that the area indicated as the herringbone hatch on the plan is no longer required and should be included in the allocation area.

A plan confirming this proposed change is attached. This also illustrates a 100m radius around the allocation area, with the only potentially sensitive receptors situated south of Holt Road which is a clear and apparent source of acoustic and air quality impacts. Carter Concrete would not disagree with the wording of paragraph M69.1 which is factual in nature but would suggest that for context the influence of the A148 on local amenity is clearly indicated as this forms part of the baseline consideration of any scheme.

Regarding paragraph M69.2, Carter Concrete have committed to provide enhancements to Britons Lane and the junction of Holt Road with Britons Lane as part of application ref FUL/2019/0001. This has included an alternative solution to provide a cost-effective means (consistent with paragraph 108c of the NPPF) to consider highways safety. The reference to the consideration of a sustainable and cost-effective alternative solution (backed up by an RSA) could therefore also be provided in this paragraph. It should also be noted that the company is also content to enter into an obligation to restrict right turn access out of the site thereby limiting traffic along Britons Lane north of the site access.

Regarding paragraph M69.3, it is recommended that the earthwork and bank features along the parish boundary between Aylmerton and Beeston Regis (Norfolk HER ref 57910) areclearly referenced for baseline context.

Reference paragraph M69.5, as part of the current planning application Carter Concrete have provided geophysical investigation and trial trench evidence which has identified that whilst there are finds and features on site these are indicative of the surrounding area and as such would only have a local value or significance. Again, this could be added to provide context.

With regard to Paragraph M69.6 this should reflect the fact that the woodland to the south is mainly advance planting provided by the applicant as a means of long-term visual mitigation.

Carter Concrete would wholly support the wording of paragraphs M69.7 and M69.8.

With respect to paragraph M69.10, it is noted that the Council would be willing to consider the removal of some trees to connect to the two landforms. Would the council be willing to confirm how much woodland could be removed in principle, as recent discussions indicated that some of the council's internal departments would be concerned with large scale removal of such habitat.

Carter Concrete would wholly support the wording of paragraphs M69.12 to M69.19 inclusive and would reaffirm that as part of the current planning application the company is developing long term plans to sustainably manage the biodiversity and geo-diversity.

Paragraphs M80.20-M69-24 inclusive, no comments are offered.

Regarding paragraph M69.25, the company would consult with the council and other interested stakeholders to develop a suitable site restoration strategy.

The prime focus of the scheme would be to provide a very high quality restoration scheme for both the existing site, and proposed extension, with an emphasis on nature conservation habitat (specifically heathland), with improved public access, better access to geo-diversity and retention of exposures wherever possible; together with information boards (conveying information about the ecology, geology and geomorphology of the site). The provision of permissive routes through the restoration landform would also be considered by Carter Concrete.

In general terms the company supports the allocation of site MIN69, with the above intended to provide greater context and content for the allocation profile.

In the event that written reps and or a hearing is required as part of the examination process Carter Concrete would reserve the right to make further representations either to reinforce the above or provide new content where applicable.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98779

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

Paragraph 7.1 The NPPF reference should be to paragraph 8 not paragraph 11

Suggested change: Change NPPF reference to paragraph 8, not 11.

Full text:

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Preferred Options Draft 2019

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Further Consultation Draft. As a statutory consultee, our role is to ensure that the conservation of the historic environment is fully integrated into planning policy and that any policy documents make provision for a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment.

Our comments below should be read with reference to our previous comments dated 31st August 2018. Please also see our detailed comments in the attached table, Appendix 1. [ATTACHED]

SUMMARY
Whilst we consider many aspects of the plan to be sound we have identified issues with some of the policies and site allocations which do compromise the overall soundness of the plan.

Under paragraph 35 of the NPPF some aspects of this Plan are unsound as they have not been positively prepared, are not justified, effective, or consistent with national policy. We have identified below some of the key areas where we find the Plan unsound and what measures are needed to make the Plan sound. In summary we highlight the following issues:

a) Insufficient Historic Environment Policy
It is our view that there is currently insufficient policy provision for the historic environment in the Plan. We note that the historic environment is addressed in bullet point l of policy MW2. We remain very concerned that criterion l does not provide sufficient protection for the historic environment. Normally we would expect to see a specific separate policy for the historic environment in a Minerals and Waste Local Plan. This policy is insufficient as it stands. Further detail is set out in the attached table.

b) AOS E and SIL2 - HIA
Whilst we welcome the completion of an HIA for AOSE and site SIL2, we have identified a number of shortcomings in the assessment, particularly the need to address non-designated heritage assets and the wider historic environment and inter-relationship between the various assets in this complex medieval landscape. Our concerns are set out in more detail in the attached table. We suggest that the HIA is revised accordingly to provide a robust evidence base for the Plan. We also suggest that the Plan should not simply mark areas with purple hatching that have been identified by the HIA as unsuitable for extraction, but actually delete those areas from the areas of search and site allocation in the Plan altogether.

c) Other allocations requiring further assessment/proportionate evidence
We have identified a number of site allocations where we continue to have concerns regarding the potential impact on the historic environment, perhaps due to proximity of heritage assets or the highly graded nature of some of these assets. These sites are set out in the attached table and include MIN65, MIN96, MIN213, MIN 209/10/11, MIN25 AND MIN40. For these sites we recommend an HIA is prepared now in advance of the next draft of the Plan. This should provide a robust evidence base for the plan. Any evidence needs to be proportionate, and need not necessarily be particularly onerous. .For most of these sites a fairly brief HIA will suffice. Our site allocations advice note <https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/historic-environment-and-site-allocations-in-local-plans/> provides further advice in this respect and we would be happy to discuss the matter further and advise on a suitable way forward.

d) MIN 207 Land at Pinkney Field, Briston
We recommend that site is deleted from the Plan due to the impact on the historic environment.

Further details of each of these main areas are set out in the attached table.
We have suggested a series of other changes to the Plan. Many of these changes do not go to the heart of the Plan's soundness, but instead are intended to improve upon it. We believe that these comments can be addressed by changes to wording in the plan.

Sustainability Appraisal
We do not have the capacity to review the Sustainability Appraisal report in any detail but did note on quickly skimming the report some surprising conclusions in the report. For example in relation to site MIN 40 - land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch where it was concluded that there would be 'No effects expected during the extraction phase' despite a grade II* listed church being located just 50m from the site boundary.

We consider that with such proximity there is likely to be some effects on the setting of this asset. On this brief observation we must question the some of the assessment in the SA.

In preparation of the forthcoming 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 a policy, allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the policy, allocation or document is devoid of historic environment issues. We should like to stress that this response 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 as a result of this plan, where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

If you have any questions with regards to the comments made then please do get back to me. In the meantime we look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues.

Object

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98883

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: West Winch parish council

Representation:

Presumption in favour of sustainable development is likely to breach paragraph 7.1 (b) Communities health....
'Presumption in favour ...' should be removed.

Full text:

Fracking
Unnatural disturbance of the Earth's geological structure and plates is caused by fracking. Unknown effects could be disastrous and harmful for communities. It is irresponsible and dangerous for the current and future population. Fracking will contribute to climate change so goes against all policies to lessen effects of unnatural 'actions', eruptions and earth tremors.
Fracking already taking place in the Country has caused several tremors, causing fear, alarm and distress to residents. This is a material effect on human health and well-being.

Incineration
West Norfolk is responsible for more than a quarter of the County's emissions
(Lynn News page 12 - 9 August 2019.)

To allow, or even think of putting incineration into policies, is blatantly going against democracy of the last King's Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Poll where 65,000 people voted against incineration and NCC wasted millions of pounds on an abandoned project. Efforts should be put into alternative methods of waste reduction and disposal, or re-use schemes.

Questions asked by Norfolk County Councillor, Alexandra Kemp to NCC Cabinet.
Following £34 million lost from Council's budget, with the cancellation of the infamous South Lynn incinerator contract for Planning Failure in 2014, Council agreed a No-Incineration-in-Norfolk Policy, ("Appendix M").

West Norfolk is alarmed by the criteria-based Draft Waste Plan, which fails to state our No-Incineration Policy, instead permissively lists forms of incineration ( page 56), endangers West Winch Growth Area by permitting prospecting for fracking ( page 90), erroneously ignoring prospecting always causes earthquakes.

Can Cabinet amend the Plan to state " in West Norfolk, where 65,000 people voted against incineration in the Borough Poll, applications for incinerators will not be permitted"; and exclude fracking and prospecting for fracking?

West Winch Parish Council agrees with the County Councillor, Alexandra Kemp.

We do not need these policies which can cause more problems with emissions and climate change.

Policy WS07 Huge risks to human health and well-being and Air Quality page 17, para 5.18.

Page 26 Presumption in favour of sustainable development is likely to breach 7.1 (b) Communities health....
'Presumption in favour ...' should be removed.

Policy MW2 Development Management Criteria
'Unacceptable impact on (a) to (m).

Page 28 Pollution and Local Amenity Impacts
Para 8.9 there should be no impact on human health - densely populated area King's Lynn and proposed massive development at South East King's Lynn (SEKL).
Para 8.20 mentions Ancient Woodland - This must also apply to historical Grazing Commons, especially in West Winch and North Runcton.

Historical Environment
Para 8.28 - King's Lynn has ancient historical buildings. Harmful emissions and fracking would affect these valued buildings which attract visitors and tourists, contributing major finance to the area's economy.

West Winch and North Runcton have protected sites of local value -
Reference - page 20, West Winch and North Runcton Neighbourhood Plan (Planning material consideration)
Plus, 2 sites of Special Scientific Interest, and
3 County Wildlife Sites, including West Winch Common.

Page 32 - Land and Soil Resources
Para 8.31 Agricultural Land, which should include Grazing Common Land, must all be protected from contamination to protect our food chain for the future of the whole Country.

Page 34 Cumulative Impacts
It is imperative that cumulative impacts are taken into account as too often measurements are only taken close to the proposed development. Cumulative measurements impact on human health.

Page 46 '.... Not considered necessary to allocate any waste management sites in the Plan' - which means these sites can be developed anywhere on industrial sites etc and they could be near to densely populated areas.
This should be scrutinised more closely and incineration must be deleted.

Page 46 Policy WP1 Hazardous -----
Norfolk County Council needs to keep tight control over hazardous waste received from other Waste Planning Authorities.

Page 48 Policy WP2 Distance
Distance of waste facilities needs to be considerably increased to safe levels for human health away from populated areas.

Support

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98896

Received: 28/10/2019

Respondent: IGas Energy Plc

Representation:

IGas supports the Council's approach to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Full text:

IGas Energy PLC (IGas) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the Norfolk County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan Preferred Options (the Plan). IGas has extensive interests in hydrocarbon production and exploration within the UK.
Summary
* IGas supports the vision and objectives of the Plan for future development and is of the view that onshore oil and gas could make a significant contribution towards achieving sustainable development by the efficient use of natural mineral resources and which would contribute to the economy.
* It is questionable whether there is a need for the Chapter and MP12 Energy Minerals and Policy MP12 given the geology of the county. However, I Gas understands why they have been included and supports the principles of such.
* IGas recommends the role of the Oil and Gas Authority is included alongside those of the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.
* IGas recommends the soles of other regulators be relied upon in accordance with national policy and guidance and criterion (c) be deleted from Policy MP12.
* IGas supports those views expressed by UKOOG in response to this consultation.

Introduction
IGas is a British company listed on the Alternative Investment Market of the London Stock Exchange. It is a leading UK onshore oil and gas exploration and production business, holding a portfolio of production and exploration assets primarily focused on three regions: the North West, East Midlands and the Weald Basin in Southern England.
The business has more than thirty years' experience of successfully and safely extracting and producing hydrocarbons onshore in the UK working closely with local communities, regulators and mineral planning authorities (MPAs). The UK is recognised globally as a leading example for oil and gas industry regulation.
IGas is committed to the protection of the environment and providing safe and healthy working conditions for its employees and contractors. It is also committed to maintaining close and responsive relationships with the communities in which it operates and has a long track record of engaging with local residents.
IGas has been operating its own Community Fund since 2008 which has, over the last decade, distributed almost £1 million to local projects that are charitable, educational or benevolent in purpose.
IGas holds a number of onshore UK licence interests in the three regions many of which it both owns and operates:
* North West: EXL273 and PEDLs 056, 145, 147, 184, 188, 189, 190,193, 293 and 295.
* East Midlands: AL009, EXL288, ML, 3,4,6 and 7, PEDLs 006, 012, 139, 140, 146,169, 200, 210, 273, 278, 305, 316, 317 and 337 and PLs162, 178,179,199 and 220.
* Weald Basin: DL002 and 004, ML 18 and 21, PEDLs 021, 070, 233, 235, 257 and 326 and PLs 182, 205, 211, 233, 240 and 249.
The East Midlands area is comprised of two primary production centres:
* Welton and Gainsborough. The Welton area is made up of six fields and a gathering centre where the produced oil, gas and water are separated. The produced oil is transported to Conoco lmmingham via road tanker; gas is used for power generation and exported to the National Grid; produced water is pumped for reinjection.
* The Gainsborough area is made up of 10 fields and a processing facility. Oil is transported to Phillips 66 via road taker, gas is piped to Gainsborough 1 for power generation and produced water is pumped for reinjection.
More recently IGas obtained planning permission in east Nottinghamshire (Misson) to develop a hydrocarbon wellsite and drill up to two exploratory boreholes with shale gas being targeted. Construction of the well pad and the drilling of a vertical well has been completed. The results of the drilling are subject to ongoing analysis but the indications are that hydraulic fracturing of the rock should be effective subject to further planning permission.
Our response to the Plan, focusses on the Vision and Strategic Objectives; Policy MP12 Conventional and unconventional oil and gas development and the supporting text; and the general development management policies.
Local Planning Policy
IGas supports the process of local plan considerations and wishes to ensure that any proposed plan with respect to onshore hydrocarbons is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the NPPF (as amended), Planning Practice Guidance and related WMSs.
In particular, any policy framework which serves to significantly impede or prevent such development in areas where minerals are found and have been licensed by the Government for hydrocarbon development, will be contrary to national policy unless there is strong evidential justification.
The planning process for onshore oil and gas is one of five regulatory processes that are required under the current policy framework set by government. Planning Policy Guidance 012 and 112 make clear that mineral planning authorities are not responsible for matters covered by other regulatory regimes. It states, MPAs "should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Whilst these issues may be put before mineral planning authorities, they should not need to carry out their own assessment as they can rely on the assessment of other regulatory bodies." This planning policy principle has been re-confirmed in a number of legal cases (see Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014)1. The Plan should make the role of the regulatory bodies clear.
Comments on the Plan
IGas supports the views of UKOOG, the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and production. IGas notes the geology of the Plan area and the fact that it is unlikely to support the presence of hydrocarbons. IGas also notes that whilst historically wells for hydrocarbons have been drilled and more recently seismic surveys carried out, there are no current PEDLs covering the Plan area and therefore no hydrocarbon development proposals could be brought forward at this moment in time. Whilst there may be a further round of onshore licences, which could include Norfolk, there is no timetable for such. It is therefore questionable whether it is necessary for a policy and supporting text for hydrocarbons to be included in the Plan. However, notwithstanding this, in the event the policy is to be retained, IGas would make the following comments in respect of the plan and those polices considered relevant to the hydrocarbon industry.
Vision and Strategic Objectives
IGas supports the Vision of the Plan. IGas supports the requirement for mineral developments to minimise their impacts on climate change and without unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of local communities etc. However, the vision should recognise the diversity of mineral operations and the fact that minerals can only be worked where they occur. IGas is of the view that onshore oil and gas development is compatible with this vision, specifically through the development of an adequate supply of domestic minerals under a regulatory environment superior to that of countries from which the UK imports its minerals. A domestic oil and gas supply offers significant carbon savings over fuels, which otherwise would be imported from overseas, possibly without regulatory regimes as strong as those in the UK, generating much needed local jobs in fields such as engineering and contributing to the transition towards a low carbon economy.
Presumption in favour of sustainable development
IGas supports the Council's approach to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria
The intentions of this policy are acknowledged. However, it is considered some of the information required are matters for other regulatory bodies and which is recognised in the supporting text. Consequently it is considered that matters relating to such as air quality, water resources and impacts on ground water are matters that should not be listed in the policy.
Policy MW3: Transport
The policy does not recognise or include the use of pipelines as an alternative to HGV transport. Pipelines can be used in the minerals industry, particularly the oil and gas industry, and can contribute to a reduction I the need for HGV movements. Reference to such should be included in the policy.
Policy MW4: Climate change mitigation and adaption
IGas supports the policy and the recognition that the mitigation measures required would apply to the construction and operation of sites. However, the policy does not appear to recognise that some mineral operations may be temporary, such as the exploration of hydrocarbons which could be carried out very a short period of time and therefor the generation or sourcing of energy may not be practical in such circumstance (criterion c). Whilst the intentions of the criterion are supported, provision for temporary operations should be made.
MP12: Energy minerals
IGas supports the intentions of the Chapter. However there are various points that IGas would wish to draw attention to. The 'Background' section of the chapter refers to other regulatory bodies (MP12.9 and 12.10). Whilst the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) is referred to earlier in the Background as responsible for releasing petroleum exploration licences, it is and independent regulatory body also responsible for a variety of matters relating to the regulation of operators and operations on a site as well. It is therefore suggested the responsibilities of the OGA be included here as well as the Environment Agency (EA) and Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
MP12.28; it is important that the Mineral Planning Authority refer to national guidance, planning policy guidance and relevant Written Ministerial Statements as well as the Development Plan as a whole when considering planning applications.
MP12.30 states that 'a// applications for oil and gas developments will be considered against the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (EIA)'. However, it is not clear what this means. It is acknowledged that applications may be screened against the Regulations to establish the need or otherwise for EIA; if this is what the 12.30 intends then it should be made clear. Not all oil and gas development proposals will meet the criteria to be screened for EIA. Greater clarity should be provided as to what this statement means.
MP12.31 states that 'appropriate planning obligations and conditions will be sought to ensure the proposal adheres to the Development Plan'. It is important to be clear that planning permission should be granted if acceptable or can be made acceptable by the imposition of planning conditions. Planning obligations may be sought to control development out with the planning application boundary or within the highway. It is also possible that other agreements may be sought under different legislation, such as works within the highway. It is suggested MP12.31 be reviewed to make its intentions clear.
MP12.32; I Gas agrees that community engagement and close liaison with authorities is important for oil and gas developments. IGas actively engages with the community in accordance with the industry Community Charter and in accordance with mineral planning authority statements of community consultation. It is noted that the County Council adopted a Statement of Community Involvement in December 2018; it is suggested that this is referred to in MP12.32.
Policy MP12: Conventional and unconventional oil and gas development
IGas considers there to be very little difference in the exploration and appraisal stages and the production stages of conventional and unconventional oil and gas developments. It is therefore considered unnecessary to refer to 'conventional and unconventional oil and gas development' in the title of the policy. Given the wording and criterion set out in the policy, it is considered the title could simply refer to 'oil and gas development'.
(c) The integrity of the underlying geological structure is a matter for the OGA and the EA and should not be included as a planning criterion.
(f) 'completed to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority' should be deleted.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is questionable in the circumstances whether there is a need for the Chapter and MP12 Energy Minerals and Policy MP12. However, I Gas understands why they have been included and supports the principles of such. If they are to be retained, IGas requests the above comments are taken into account as part of the next stage of the review of the Plan.
We look forward to the next stage of the process and would be pleased to discuss any of the matters raised to ensure the plan is sound or can be made sound.

Comment

Preferred Options consultation document

Representation ID: 98951

Received: 15/10/2019

Respondent: Broads Authority

Representation:

* Where is MW1? The first policy is MW2.

Full text:

* 1.5 - one specific site[s] for carstone extraction
* 1.14 - tpa - presume that is tonnes per annum - not used consistently in this para
* Page 12 - SA section - bullet point list does not mention landscape impact or biodiversity
* 5.16 The area known as the [Breaks] Brecks
* Where is MW1? The first policy is MW2.
* MW2 - The first part is written in quite a different way to other policies I have read; rather than saying that impacts of development will be minimised on the criteria, or schemes will address the criteria, you ask for information only. I am not sure how strong this approach is. b) what about the quantity of surface water (as in what to do with it in relation to flooding) and the quality of water bodies? E) what agriculture land class do you consider this to be - Grade 1 and 2 perhaps - might need to say that. What about if the soil that is to be excavated or disturbed is peat soils? Peat soils have many special qualities, such as are a carbon sink but a carbon source if allowed to dry out. We recommend that you consider protecting Peat Soils - you can look at our Peat Soils policy for ideas. i) what are 'outdoor recreation facilities' and do you need to include Local Green Space as well as Open Space?
* 8.12 - request there is some text, perhaps as a footnote, that refers to the identified dark skies of the Broads and refers to our maps and policy.
* 8.16 says 'Directing lighting downwards and away from properties' but taking this literally, this contradicts - implying angling the light away from properties which could cause light pollution. I think you are saying design any lighting so it points downwards and ensure that there is no light trespass for example into neighbouring properties. You might want to consider that wording and you might want to look at our policy on light pollution. The key point is - do you really need lighting, if so why? Keep it to a minimum, use it when needed and point it down and have it fully shielded - I suggest you get those points across strongly in the policy.
* 8.24 first bullet point - weave in wording that refers to the setting of the landscapes.
* 8.31 and section 12 - I see you refer to soil grades 1, 2 and 3a. As a bit of advice from our experience, do you know where 3a is? There is limited mapping relating to 3a. You might want to consider removing this or just saying '3'. Happy to chat this through. Should the soil grade be mentioned in the policy? Note what is said on page 73, I - that 3a and 3b are not mapped.
* 8.32, 12.2 - temporary yes, but for a number of years. Suggest that text is clarified. See above regarding if the soil is peat soils and its care.
* 8.35 - is it worth asking applicants to state how they have considered water and rail and road and thoroughly justify their chosen mode, rather than just encourage it?
* MW3, last bullet point - is that a travel plan? MW4 refers to travel plans.
* MW4 - is it better to just say 'greenhouse gas emissions'? Does using the term 'endeavour' reduce the strength of criterion c? d) just demonstrate or implement too?
* 12.4 says 'Given their nature, most waste management facilities will tend to be suitably located on previously developed land and industrial locations and it is not expected that there will be a great need to locate such uses on agricultural land' - not sure what this is saying - they tend to be located there or are suitable to be located there?
* Map 3 - see above comments - where are areas of 3a?
* Section 12 - no mention of peat soils and their qualities - see above.
* Page 41 onwards and then 64 onwards - formatting - should this have a section number - perhaps section 13? The bullet points are numbered differently to elsewhere in the Plan - WO rather than, say, 13.2 etc.
* WP4 - a) when compared to another option that takes longer?
* W7.1 - do you mean 2018?
* WP13 - so a, b, c are 'or' and d, e, f are 'and'. It might be easier to separate them out and say something like 'in all cases d, e, f will apply'.
* WP15 - first para seems reasoned justification rather than policy text. Suggest the Broad Authority be involved in the organisations listed in para 3 - the organisations in para 4 seem to be the ones that need to be involved in the Masterplan.
* WP17 and MP11 - on adoption, presume we will be sent these GIS layers to upload to our system?
* Page 71, and MP2 - that NPPF paragraph applies to the Broads too. We have a Major Development policy. Why is the AONB excluded and the Broads not? Or is it?
* Page 73, g - why not the undesignated heritage assets?
* MP2.14 - 'Developers wanting to [extraction] extract mineral from specific sites or land within an area of search allocated in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review will still need to apply for and be granted planning permission before mineral extraction can take place'.
* MP2 - why the 3mile/5 mile rule for minerals?
* MP4.1 and MP4 - how about if the reservoir is not associated with mineral abstraction?
* Page 76 - what is shown on this map? There is no key. If it is core river valleys, why are the rivers over in the Broads not blue?
* MP6 might make sense but the first part says acceptable, unacceptable and acceptable. A check might be needed.
* MP8.3 'The need for annual reports after the initial five-year period [for] will be assessed on a case by case basis'.
* M65.5 - starts off saying 'The site is not located within...'. Being within is one issue, but affecting the setting of is another. So such assessments should state whether the site is near to those designations. This should therefore correctly read that the site is near to the Broads.
* Page 181 onwards - Min 38 - Waveney Forest, Fritton - support not allocating this site.
* Min 65, Stanninghall Quarry - extension to existing minerals site. No landscape visual or character concerns with regards to the Broads itself.
* Min 25, we would definitely want to be consulted on any forthcoming planning applications on this site, particularly concerning landscape scheme and restoration as the landscape character areas in this locality are well defined and susceptible to change.
* Min 211, Restoration as wet grassland for biodiversity needs to be balanced with long-term effects on local landscape character. The local character and experience of the landscape varies between the north and south of the site and restoration should reflect this.
* Generally, an LVIA assesses the effects of a development (the impact) on the landscape as a resource and the effects on visual receptors. The assessment will cover both the site itself and a wider study area determined by desk study and ground-truthing. LVIA's should be carried out to a set standard (Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment, 3d edition - which I believe is part of the NCC validation checklist) so by definition will be required to include the site and any surrounding area that could be affected by the development; Existing: "Submission of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which will identify any potential impacts to the wider landscape and suggest appropriate mitigation measures ..." Proposed: "Submission of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which will identify any potential effects and suggest appropriate mitigation measures ..." This text is used across a number of the policies.

SA Part A Scoping
Page 31 needs a very big update.
* Core Strategy, DM and Sites not in place any more.
* Local Plan adopted May 2019.
* Flood Risk SPD - most recent is 2017
* Broads Plan is 2017
Seems relevant to refer to our dark skies data and policy

SA - Part B
4.5 - did you consider a zone from the Broads?


Please note: The Broads Authority has adopted a new Local Plan which can be found here. The policies in the Core Strategy, Development Management and Site Specific documents are all superseded and not in place anymore.