Policy MW4: Climate change mitigation and adaption

MW4 - Climate change mitigation and adaptation. NCC has no plans in place to account for reducing CO2 emissions from the quarrying of silica sand. It should put in place a plan that increases the quantity and quality of glass recycling; this will reduce the amount of raw material (silica sand) required to be quarried, which reduces the CO2 emissions from both quarrying and glass manufacturing (more recycled glass used in manufacture reduces CO2 emitted and the energy required). MW4 fails sustainability objective SA1 on pg 9 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report - Part A- Scoping (Oct 2015) and pg 15 of Part B (Jun 2019).

NCC has no plans in place to account for reducing CO2 emissions from the quarrying of silica sand. It should put in place a plan that increases the quantity and quality of glass recycling; this will reduce the amount of raw material (silica sand) required to be quarried, which reduces the CO2 emissions from both quarrying and glass manufacturing (more recycled glass used in manufacture reduces CO2 emitted and the energy required).

The M&WLP is not considering a radical overhaul of glass recycling in Norfolk that would lead to vastly increased reductions in greenhouse gasses to support reducing the effects on climate change. Without that overhaul, and by continuing to allow quarrying for silica sand on a 'business as usual' basis the M&WLP is not serious in its intent to minimise climate change and fails MW4. Detailed analysis can be read in Representation ID:94688 and selecting the link 'More about Representation ID:94688

See comments regards Policy MW3 with regard to Policy MW4f.

Whilst measures to reduce car usage are both lauable and supported, it is the Company's experience that due to the often remote location of its facilities and a corresponding lack of public transport plus the geographical distribution of its employees this can be difficult to achieve. To reflect this, it is felt that the last bullet point of this policy should be caveated by the phrase "where practicable...".

MW4 - Without forging a robust, advanced clear and flat glass recycling facility here in Norfolk, which would reduce the CO2 emissions from both quarrying and glass manufacturing (more recycled glass used in manufacture reduces CO2 emissions and the energy required), the M&WLP is unsound in not accounting for the reductions that are available but not planned for as set out in MW4.

NOTE: Additions in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, removals in [lower case example]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review. The following comments are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water.
I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received this response.

Policy MW4: Climate change mitigation and adaption
We note that Policy MW4 refers to both the use of Sustainable Drainage System, water harvesting and waste water recycling which is generally supported.
Anglian Water has some detailed comments on the wording of this requirement to ensure the policy is effective. Given the nature of mineral extraction and waste management proposals vary significantly there is a need to ensure that policy MW4 is flexible in this regard.

Surfacewater or stormwater harvesting refers to where rainfall has reached the ground and the system can collect surface water run off including permeable or impermeable surfaces. It is not made clear whether this intended to refer to stormwater harvesting or rainwater harvesting from roofs.

Waste water recycling or grey water recycling would be appropriate for minerals and waste management proposals that drain domestic foul flows to the public sewerage network. Where this is not the case grey water recycling would not be practicable.
It is therefore proposed that Policy MW4 be amended as follows:
'd) demonstrate the use of sustainable drainage systems, RAINWATER HARVESTING, STORMWATER harvesting INCLUDING from impermeable surfaces WHEREVER FEASIBLE and layouts that accommodate waste water recycling WHERE A CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC SEWERAGE NETWORK IS REQUIRED;'

Policy WP2: Spatial Strategy for waste management facilities
Anglian Water is generally supportive of the final paragraph of WP2 as drafted. We note that changes have made to the policy to make refer to a distinction between water recycling centres and sewage pumping stations as set out in earlier representations which is welcomed.

We would ask that Policy WP2 is positively phrased in relation to water recycling centres for consistency with the the National Planning Policy Framework.
It is therefore proposed that Policy WP2 be amended as follows:

'Water recycling centres can normally only be located on or adjacent to watercourses, so they [will normally only be] ARE acceptable in such locations.'
Policy WP3: Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities
Reference is made to waste management facilities on water recycling centres being limited to composting and anaerobic digestion.

Anglian Water as sewerage undertaker is concerned that this is not justified in that there may be other waste management uses which would be suitable at water recycling centres dependant upon both scale and location.

It is therefore suggested that the above wording is removed or amended to allow for other waste management uses.

It is therefore proposed that criterion f of Policy WP3 be amended as follows:
'f) waste recycling centres [(composting and anaerobic digestion only);']

Policy WP14: Water Recycling Centres
Anglian Water is largely supportive of Policy WP14 as drafted but has some comments particularly in relation to making the policy more positive in enabling the continued operation and development of existing water recycling centres) to enable Anglian Water to fulfil our statutory obligations under the Water Industry Act 1991.
We note that some changes have been made in response to our previous comments although not all of the suggested changes have been included. The final paragraph also seems to suggest that the applicant would be required to demonstrate the need for the proposed location. As there is no further explanation of how this would be demonstrated it suggested that it should be removed.

It is therefore proposed that the first paragraph of Policy WP14 be amended as follows:

'New or extended Water Recycling Centres or improvements to existing sites AND SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE (INCLUDING RENEWABLE ENERGY) will [only] be acceptable where such proposals aim to:

a) treat a greater quantity of wastewater; and/or
b) improve the quality of discharged water; and/or
c) reduce the environmental impact of operation.
[The applicant will be required to demonstrate that the proposal can be located without giving rise to unacceptable environmental impacts.']
Para 15.3 - reference is made to Anglian Water's Business Planning process which is produced once every 5 years and approved by our economic regulator Ofwat. As drafted it appears to suggest that there is no information currently available about planned investment at Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre over the plan period.
We have submitted our business plan for AMP 7 (2020 to 2025) to Ofwat and expect to receive final determination in December 2019. However Anglian Water has committed investment at Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre of £17million to accommodate further growth to 2031.

The investment at Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre is not reliant upon the determination of the business plan for AMP 7 as it forms part of our approved business plan for AMP 6 (2015 to 2020).

We are aware that the Greater Norwich Local Plan is currently being reviewed. The expectation is that Anglian Water would review the need for additional investment at Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre through the preparation of the Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) by 2022. Further details of the scope of DWMPs is available to view at the following address:

https://www.water.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Working-together-to-improve-drainage-and-environmental-water-quality-an-overview-of-Drainage-and-Wastewater-Management-Plans.pdf

Para 15.4 - reference is made to extending the membership of liaison group for Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre and changing its purpose. This group focussed on operational issues only and was not intended to consider wider issues. We would welcome further discussions with Norfolk County Council about the issues identified and the appropriate forum(s) for the issues identified to be discussed with Anglian Water.

Para 15.5 - reference is made to the need for Anglian Water to develop a long term masterplan/implementation strategy for Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre with the Greater Norwich Growth Board and the Environment Agency. As drafted it is suggested that there is a need for specific strategy for this site in addition to any plans produced by Anglian Water.

As set out in our response to the previous consultation we have recognised the need for a long term strategy for water recycling centres and within the foul sewerage network to accommodate further growth as set out in our Water Recycling Long Term Plan. We also be producing a Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan which will consider the need for further investment at our existing water recycling centres which is expected to be developed with the Norfolk authorities, Broads Authority and the Environment Agency.

We would therefore suggest that the supporting text of Policy WP15 of the Local Plan be amended to make this clear.

Policy WP15: Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre
Reference is made to the need for Anglian Water to develop a long term masterplan/implementation strategy for Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre with the Greater Norwich Growth Board and the Environment Agency. As drafted it is suggested that there is a need for specific strategy for this site in addition to any long term plans produced by Anglian Water.

As set out in our response to the previous consultation we have recognised the need for a long term strategy for water recycling centres and within the foul sewerage network to accommodate further growth as set out in our Water Recycling Long Term Plan.

We also anticipate reviewing the need for additional investment at Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre through the preparation of the Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan which is expected to be developed with the Norfolk authorities, Broads Authority and the Environment Agency as such we would suggest that a separate masterplan or similar is not required.

Anglian Water is open to discussion about the need and format for on-going liaison with the Norfolk Authorities, the Environment Agency, other interested parties and local residents. However we don't consider it is necessary to specify the purpose and membership of a liaison group in the wording of a Local Plan policy.

Policy WP15 as drafted includes specific criteria which apply to all development proposals at Whitlingham WRC. As set out in our previous representations it is unclear whether this would apply to all development proposals on this site - for example if the proposal did not generate any additional traffic movements. However the policy doesn't appear to have been amended to address Anglian Water's earlier comments.

Therefore we would suggest that the wording of policy WLP15 should be reviewed to consider in what circumstances it would be applied.

It is therefore proposed that Policy WP15 of the local plan is amended as follows:
Any proposals for the improvement of the WWRC [must be accompanied by ]should be consistent with a longer-term strategy [masterplan ] for the WW[T]RC WHICH FORMS PART OF ANGLIAN WATER'S DRAINAGE AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, produced in collaboration with the constituent authorities of the Greater Norwich Growth Board and the Environment Agency.

The County Council will work closely with Anglian Water, the Environment Agency, South Norfolk Council and the Broads Authority to ensure that development proposals at Whitlingham WRC WHERE RELEVANT TO THE SUBMITTED APPLICATION will:

a) Minimise the effect on the amenity of local residents, with particular emphasis on noise and odour;
b) Route all HGV movements to and from the site via the C202 Kirby Road and the A146 Loddon Road, with the routing of HGV movements to be controlled through planning conditions or Section 106 Legal Agreement as appropriate;
c) Not affect adversely the landscape setting of the Broads by insensitively locating and/or designing equipment or buildings on the site; and
d) In line with the requirements of the NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance, choose preferentially locations within Flood Zone 1, and where locations in Flood Zone 2 or 3 are proposed, adequate measures to control pollution and manage sewage during flooding events are put in place, to be controlled by either a Section 106 Legal Agreement or planning condition(s) as appropriate.

[The following parties should form part of the Local Liaison Group: Kirby Bedon Parish Council, Trowse Parish Council, Postwick Parish Council, Thorpe St Andrew Council, local residents, Anglian Water, the Environment Agency, Norfolk County Council, South Norfolk Council and the Broads Authority. The Liaison Group should consider requests from other organisations to join the group. The Local Liaison Group should continue to meet regularly to discuss operational issues, and planned site improvements.']

Policy WP17: Safeguarding Waste Management Facilities
Anglian Water as a sewerage company is generally supportive of the final paragraph of WP17 as drafted. We note that changes have made to the policy to allow for a change of circumstances as set out in earlier representations which is welcomed.
Reference is made to a distance of 400m being used for any proposals in the vicinity of a Water Recycling Centre managed by Anglian Water. Anglian Water's existing Asset Encroachment Policy is currently being reviewed as such we would suggest the policy be amended to provide flexibility to allow for any changes to this distance for individual WRCs.
In relation to sewage pumping stations we would expect to be consulted on proposals for occupied land and buildings within 15m of an existing pumping station consistent with the requirements of Sewers for Adoption.
It is therefore proposed that Policy WP17 of the Local Plan is amended as follows:
'The County Council will safeguard existing and permitted waste management facilities, within the following categories:
* Waste management facilities with a permitted input of over 20,000 tonnes per annum;
* Key water recycling centres (listed in Appendix 8);
* Waste water pumping stations;
Consultation areas are delineated on the Policies Map and extend to 250 metres from each safeguarded waste management facility, and 400 metres from each safeguarded water recycling centre (OR A DISTANCE SPECIFIED BY ANGLIAN WATER IN ANY SUCCESSOR DOCUMENT). The Waste Planning Authority should be consulted on all development proposals within these consultation areas, except for the excluded development types set out in Appendix 4.
Development proposals within the defined consultation areas around safeguarded facilities should demonstrate that they would not prevent or prejudice the use of those facilities. The County Council will oppose development proposals which would prevent or prejudice the use of safeguarded facilities for those purposes unless suitable alternative provision is made, or the applicant demonstrates that those facilities no longer meet the needs of the waste management industry or ANGLIAN WATER AS THE relevant sewerage company.
'In addition, any development which includes OCCUPIED LAND OR BUILDINGS proposed within 15 [50] metres of a pumping station (as identified through the planning application) will be subject to consultation with the relevant sewerage company by the planning authority responsible for determining the application. '

Policy MP4 - Agricultural or potable reservoirs
The need for any additional potable water reservoirs in the Anglian Water company area would be identified through our Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) which identifies how we will manage the supply/demand balance to continue to supply water our existing and new customers.
Anglian Water's Revised Draft WRMP identifies a number of potential (water) supply side options include winter storage reservoirs in South Lincolnshire and South Fenland.
Currently Anglian Water is undertaking some initial technical work on these and the other options identified in the WRMP (please see page 88 for further details). However it is important to emphasise that the reservoirs are currently options only. No decisions have been by Anglian Water about whether these options will be included in the next WRMP to be published in 2024.
Additional criteria has been added to Policy MP4 following the previous consultation to limit the scale of reservoirs to the minimum possible and to ensure the early delivery of water resources.
The timing of any required reservoirs for potable water for public supply would be determined through the WRMP process which is approved by Defra following consultation with the Environnment Agency and other interested parties. It is therefore unclear whether the appropriateness of any proposed timing should be considered as part of the planning application process.
Similarly what is the intended purpose of limiting the scale of any reservoir and how would this be considered as part of any application.
It is currently unclear whether the criteria are currently effective as currently drafted and we would welcome clarification of what is intended. As there is no further explanation of how applicants could demonstrate that the criteria has been met it suggested that it should be removed.

SIL 02 - land at Shouldham and Marham (silica sand)
We note that the above site is identified as a preferred area for an allocation for silica extraction rather than a site specific allocation or an area of search.
This site is located over a principal aquifer (bedrock) and partially over a Secondary A aquifer (superficial deposits). The eastern part of the site is within groundwater Source Protection Zone 1, however, this has been excluded from the proposed extraction area. The rest of the site is not within a groundwater SPZ. A planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a Hydrogeological Risk Assessment to identify any potential impacts to groundwater and appropriate mitigation measures.
The text for this site includes reference to this requirement as requested by Anglian Water in our previous comments on the Local Plan which is welcomed. However there is no specific policy for this site or reference to the requirement for a Hydrogeological Risk Assessment to be submitted with any planning application.
To ensure that this is a requirement for any proposals for mineral extraction on this site we would ask that reference to this requirement is made in a policy or policies as appropriate rather than the supporting text as proposed.

Policy MP13: Areas of search for silica sand extraction
Anglian Water supports the inclusion of a requirement for a Hydrogeological Risk Assessment to be provided for applicants of sites within the identified areas of search for silica sand.

Appendix 4: Development excluding from safeguarding provisions
We recognise the need for taking a proportionate approach to development proposals which could affect the continued operation of existing water management facilities including water recycling centres.
However Anglian Water wish to be consulted on all residential development proposals which could be affected by the normal operation of a WRC.

Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know.

1. Response to Draft Policies
1.1 Strategy - Vision and Objectives
1.1.1 Mineral Safeguarding should refer to paragraph 182 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) such that the applicant for adjacent development ('agent of change') should be required to provide suitable mitigation to take account of existing and allocated development.

1.2 Mineral Strategic Objectives
1.2.1 The Mineral Strategic Objectives should be revised to properly reflect the wording of the NPPF.

1.2.2 MSO2
1.2.3 We suggest that MSO2 is amended to read (new text in CAPITALS):
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites/areas within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need AND STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES OF SILICA SAND OF AT LEAST 10 YEARS PRODUCTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SILICA SITES OR AT LEAST 15 YEARS WHERE SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL IS CAPITAL IS REQUIRED and safeguarding existing infrastructure"

1.2.4 We suggest that MS04 is amended to read:
1.2.5 "To safeguard silica sand, carstone, and sand and gravel resources for future use. Avoiding unnecessary sterilisation by encouraging the extraction of minerals prior to other development taking place where practicable and using minerals in construction on the land from which they are extracted. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED AREAS OR SITES."

1.3 Policy MW3 Transport
1.3.1 Proposed amendment to bullet point 4 under part d) of the policy:
1.3.2 "Where practical and realistic measures to reduce car travel to the site by workers and visitors and encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport."

1.3.3 Policy MW4 Climate Change
1.3.4 Proposed change:
g) incorporate proposals for sustainable travel, including travel plans where PRACTICAL AND appropriate.
1.3.5 Due to the often-isolated nature of mineral workings public transport or cycling are not practical. Therefore, the additional wording is suggested to make the policy effective and preventing unnecessary work for the developer/applicant.

1.4 MW6: Agricultural Soils
1.4.1 This policy should be applied flexibly since minerals can clearly only be worked where they exist and for silica sand for glass making the potential land is further restricted by virtue of the scarcity of this mineral.

1.5 MP1: Provision for minerals extraction
1.5.1 Changes are required to make it clear that the landbanks levels have to be maintained so they are in place at the end of the plan period to make the policy accord with national policy and be effective. In respect of silica sand changes are needed to make the policy accord with NPPF .

1.5.2 Suggested changes as follows;
The strategy for minerals extraction is to allocate sufficient sites to meet the forecast need for both sand & gravel and hard rock (carstone).

For sand and gravel, specific sites to deliver at least 20,313,300 tonnes of resources will be allocated. The sand and gravel landbank will be maintained at a level of at least 7 years supply THROUGHOUT THE PLAN PERIOD (excluding any contribution from borrow pits for major construction projects).

Mineral extraction for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites will be resisted by the Mineral Planning Authority unless the applicant can demonstrate: a) There is an overriding justification and/or overriding benefit for the proposed extraction, and b) The proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan.

For carstone, a site or sites to deliver at least 340,200 tonnes of resources will be allocated.
The landbank for carstone will be maintained at a level of at least 10 years' supply
THROUGHOUT THE PLAN PERIOD.

For silica sand, sufficient sites and/or areas to deliver at least 10,500,000 tonnes of silica sand
will be allocated. The landbank STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES FOR SILICA SAND WILL BE
MAINTAINED AT A LEVEL OF AT LEAST 10 YEARS' SUPPLY PRODUCTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SILICA SAND SITE OR AT LEAST 15 YEARS WHERE SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL IS REQUIRED [DELETE: Where practicable]. Planning applications for silica sand extraction located outside of allocated sites or areas of search, which would address the shortfall in permitted reserves, will be determined on their own merits in accordance with the policies in this Local Plan, including the requirements contained within Policy MP13.

1.6 Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction - strategic policy

1.6.1 There should be no buffers applied to the so-called planning constraints. The acceptability or not of approaching such constraints will be a matter for the EIA and the development management process. Arbitrary buffers risk the sterilisation of workable mineral when they could be satisfactorily worked without impact.

1.6.2 There is no evidential basis for the buffers and the policy is unsound as it is not effective and is not positive planning.

1.7 Policy MP11: Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas

1.7.1 The policy wording should be altered to incorporate the 'agent of change' principle:
The County Council will safeguard existing, permitted and allocated mineral extraction sites from inappropriate development proposals. Minerals Consultation Areas are delineated on the Policies Map and extend to 250 metres from each safeguarded site. Development proposals within 250 metres of a safeguarded site should demonstrate that they would not prevent or prejudice the use of the safeguarded site for mineral extraction, AND THE AGENT OF CHANGE PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED IN ALL SUCH CASES. The County Council will object to development proposals which would prevent or prejudice the use of safeguarded sites for mineral extraction.

2. Proposed Mineral Extraction Sites

2.1 MIN 40 land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch
2.1.1 Sibelco supports the specific site allocation of MIN 40.
2.1.2 Sibelco submitted a planning application accompanied by an environmental impact assessment which determines that there will be no significant impacts from the continued working of Grandcourt quarry.

2.2 SIL01 land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey
2.2.1 Sibelco supports the specific site allocation of SIL01.

2.3 AOS E land to the north of Shouldham.
2.3.1 Sibelco supports the inclusion of Area of Search E, land to the north of Shouldham.

2.3.2 We disagree with the updated plans of the area which identify an arbitrarily drawn heritage setting standoff. The standoffs are based on a Heritage Impact Assessment (Percival, 2019) which by its own admission is incomplete. There is not 'clear and convincing justification' for these arbitrarily drawn standoffs. Any application forthcoming within the Areas of Search should be determined on its own merits and supported by a detailed environmental impact assessment.

2.4 AOS F land to the north of Stow Bardolph
2.4.1 Sibelco supports the inclusion of Area of Search F.

2.5 AOS I land to the east of South Runcton
2.5.1 Sibelco supports the inclusion of Area of Search I.

2.6 AOS J land to the east of Tottenhill
2.6.1 Sibelco supports the inclusion of Area of Search J.

2.7 Policy MP13: Areas of Search for silica sand extraction
2.7.1 Sibelco supports policy MP13. This policy should be applied flexibly since minerals can clearly only be worked where they exist and for silica sand for glass making the potential land is further restricted by virtue of the scarcity of this mineral.

2.8 SIL02: land at Shouldham and Marham
2.8.1 Sibelco supports the inclusion of SIL02 as an allocated site and would propose that given the promoters knowledge of the local geology, the site should be allocated as a Specific Site.
Further silica sand provision will be required at the end of the Plan period
2.8.2 The National Planning Practice Guidance says:
"designating Specific Sites - where viable mineral resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms..."
2.8.3 This definition applies to SIL02.
2.8.4 The Mineral Planning Authorities conclusion (paragraph 2.28) is subjective. It would be for any planning application coming forward on the site to proposed a method of working and restoration to satisfy concerns regarding bird hazard.
2.8.5 In the context of NPPF paragraph 16 the plan as written is not positively prepared and there remains a significant shortfall in silica sand supply. SIL02 should be allocated as a specific site with any subsequent planning application required to evidence the effective mitigation measure in relation to concerns regarding bird hazard.

Norfolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan Review 2019

Policies
Vision
* We support the progressive restoration schemes and enhancement of Norfolk's biodiversity. Where the third paragraph makes reference to the enhancement of Norfolk's biodiversity, we recommend this is expanded to incorporate the upcoming mandatory requirement for biodiversity net gain, as set out in the Environment Bill and supported by the NPPF.
* Recognising the negative impacts a changing climate will have on the future for wildlife in Norfolk, we recommend that the Vision's target for minimising the impact of minerals development and waste management on climate change is made more ambitious, by changing it to at least a target of net zero or net positive where possible. Opportunities exist for gains for both wildlife and carbon sequestration through appropriate habitat restoration and creation as part of proposals, as already noted in Minerals Strategic Objective MS08.

MW2 - Development Management Criteria
* We support the policy requirement to ensure that development will not have a damaging effect on the natural environment, in particular for locally designated sites (I.e. the County Wildlife Site network).
* However, the aim of the policy appears to focus on a no net loss principle, with enhancements only being sought 'where appropriate'. We recommend that in order to conform with the NPPF, the policy makes reference to the requirement for biodiversity net gain. Reference can also be made to the recent publications by DEFRA on its implementation.

MW4 - Climate change adaptation and mitigation
We support the inclusion of targets for emissions minimisation and renewable energy provision. Given the overlap between new habitat creation, the upcoming mandatory provision of biodiversity net gain and carbon sequestration, we recommend that the policy and supporting text is expanded to note the role habitat creation and restoration can provide in climate change mitigation.

MP2 - Spatial strategy for minerals extraction
We recommend that in addition to the existing defining areas of search, that County Wildlife Sites are also excluded from the Areas of Search for silica sand extraction. We are concerned at the overlap between some proposed minerals sites and the County Wildlife Site network and we do not believe that allocating minerals extraction on CWSs is compatible with the plan's Vision to enhance Norfolk's biodiversity.

MP5 - Core river valleys
We support the approach taken by this policy to safeguard these important key corridors for wildlife through the county, in particular through the requirement for development in these areas to demonstrate that it will enhance the biodiversity of the river valley either immediately or on restoration.

MP7 - Progressive working, restoration and after-use
* Notwithstanding any site specific concerns regarding loss of wildlife sites or indirect impacts (e.g. dust and hydrology), we strongly support the restoration of mineral sites to priority habitats. Such measures offer a rare opportunity to create new habitats that can help Norfolk's wildlife recover from the significant and ongoing declines which it faces.
* Restoration plans should be included at the planning application stage to ensure that the strategic contribution of the site to landscape scale conservation and delivery of biodiversity net gain can be considered.
* Wherever possible, restoration proposals should be matched to existing priority habitats in proximity, to allow for greater connectivity through the landscape for local species. This will also help create a more permeable landscape for the movement of species' ranges in response to climate change in the future.
* Wherever possible, if there is the potential for native species seeds to be present in the seed bank at the start of the working period, then such soils should be stored appropriately to ensure that it can be used in any restoration scheme and allow for recolonization by native flora.

MP8 - Aftercare
We support the aftercare of restored mineral sites in order to ensure that their target habitats are achieved. We strongly support the requirement for longer aftercare provision to ensure successful establishment and maintenance of the approved after-use. As habitat creation/ restoration offers the opportunity to also provide carbon sequestration and contribute to climate change mitigation targets, their establishment may also require longer aftercare periods to demonstrate successful delivery.

Minerals Site Allocations

Silica Sand

MIN40
* We note the potential dewatering risk to East Winch Common SSSI and CWS 140 East Winch Common. This site should only be included in the plan if the Council is confident that such issues can be dealt with satisfactorily through hydrological studies at planning permission, in order to avoid risks to delivery of the plan.
* We therefore support the recommendation that any permission will require a detailed hydrological assessment to determine the safe extent of working that can occur without risking impacts on nearby SSSIs and CWSs.
* We recommend that the restoration proposals include heathland due to the proximity to heathland habitats on East Winch Common, as this will provide ecological connectivity and allow for more movement of wildlife through the landscape.
* The site also has the potential to provide new green infrastructure for the adjoining settlement through provision of wildlife rich public open space as part of restoration proposals.

SIL01 (land at Mintlyn South Bawsey)
* During the previous consultation phase we highlighted that part of the proposed allocation overlaps with CWS 416 '70 & 100 Plantations' and recommended that these areas are safeguarded. The supporting text correctly identifies potential adverse impacts to this CWS and the adjacent CWS 418 Haverlesse Manor Plantation, but makes no attempt to safeguard these. The most appropriate way to ensure that impacts to the CWS are avoided is to exclude it from the minerals allocation, therefore we strongly recommend that CWS 416 is completely excluded from the proposed allocation. In addition, in order to safeguard from any indirect impacts to CWS from impacts such as dust, any allocation would need to include a non-worked buffer between it and both CWS.
* We support the recommendations in the policy text for noise, dust, air quality and hydrology assessments which will help inform ecological assessments of potential impacts on nearby wildlife sites. We recommend that any restoration plan ensures that the existing ecological connectivity between the adjacent wildlife sites is maintained through progressive working and that restoration post-extraction complements the adjoining habitats.
* We also note in the supporting text that the land use of the proposed allocation is classed as non-agricultural land, however we understand that this is likely to be incorrect as the southern part of the site has been in regular use as grazed grassland for at least twenty years. This area is likely to be of ecological significance, with anecdotal records of several protected species present as well as a number of mature oak trees on the southern boundary. In the absence of further information on the ecological value of this area and the potential impacts on a range of protected species (and any consequent impacts on delivery) as a precaution we recommend that this part of the site is removed from the allocation.

AoS E
* We are concerned at the large scale of this AoS and its proximity to multiple CWS. Any application within the AoS would need to be accompanied by a detailed ecological appraisal and hydrological assessment where appropriate.
* Mow Fen CWS is within the AoS and not suitable for minerals extraction, therefore we strongly recommend its removal from AoS and the provision of a buffer around it to avoid impacts such as dust.
* The AoS lies adjacent to CWS 373, species-rich grassland which will need buffering from the AoS.

AoS F
* We note the proximity of the northern area of the AoS to CWS 365, Broad Meadow Plantation. We strongly recommend a stand-off or buffer between any proposal in the AoS and the CWS in order to safeguard from indirect impacts.
* Proposals in proximity to any CWS would need to be accompanied by dust and hydrology assessments.
* We note from the maps provided that there appear to be a high number of ponds within the AoS and in the wider landscape. The potential for impacts on protected species and the likely requirements for ecological restoration will need to be considered as part of any application in this AoS.

AoS J
Due to the proximity to wildlife sites, we support the requirement for ecology and hydrology assessments as part of any application within this AoS.

SIL02 - land at Shouldham and Marham (silica sand)
Due to the unknown potential scale of minerals development that this Area of Search would support and the number of CWS in close proximity in particular Marham Fen CWS, we are concerned at the potential for significant impacts on wildlife and therefore support the Council's recommendation that this site is not progressed in the plan.

Carstone

MIN6 - Land off East Winch Road, Mill Drove, Middleton
We support the working of this site dry to avoid hydrology impacts, and the proposed restoration of this site to heathland habitat.

Breckland

MIN51&MIN13
We support the creation of new wet woodland habitat around retained wetland areas, as well as new hedgerows and oak standards alongside the northern boundary.

MIN200
We support the restoration proposals for this site.

MIN 102
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the adverse impacts likely on the adjacent Swangey Fen SSSI, a component of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC.

Broadland

MIN202
* We previously raised concerns that this allocation overlaps with CWS 1344 'Triumph and Foxburrow Plantations' and repeat our recommendation that, in order to safeguard the CWS, the allocation boundary should be modified, with a stand-off area between any mineral working and wildlife sites (the CWS and ancient woodland at Mileplain Plantation) in order to mitigate for any indirect impacts such as dust.
* We support the restoration to a mosaic of acid grassland, woodland and wetland [check policy text] and recommend that the potential for heathland to be added.

MIN37 & MIN64
We hold no specific information on the proposed sites MIN 37 and MIN 64, but note their proximity to two County Wildlife Sites and strongly recommend that any restoration proposals for these sites, if allocated, are targeted to match wherever possible the habitats present in the nearby CWS in order to maximize ecological connectivity.

MIN96
We note the proximity to CWS 2205, Spixworth Bridge Meadows, and CWS 1396, Spixworth Meadows, and support the requirement for this site to only be worked dry in order to avoid any potential impacts on the CWSs through changes in local hydrology. We also support the requirement for a dust assessment.


MIN213
* We note that this allocation is adjacent to CWS 2204, Hevingham Park, a replanted ancient woodland with pingos and rich ground flora in places, as well as an additional area of ancient woodland outside the CWS. These habitats will be vulnerable to typical impacts from minerals operations and any application will need to be supported by a dust assessment, with appropriate mitigation including vegetative screening for the extraction period.
* The policy text indicates that the site would be worked wet. We support the policy requirement for a hydrogeological assessment to be provided as part of any application, and note this should also cover impacts on the ecology of adjacent wildlife sites. In addition, we also recommend that the Council will need to be sure that the site can be worked wet without leading to adverse impacts on adjacent wildlife sites (after mitigation) in order to ensure that it is deliverable.
* We support the restoration proposals to heathland where opportunities around the existing holiday park consent allow.
* We have been made aware of the likely presence of great crested newts on the site. In addition, given the extensive woodland on site, the presence of other protected species such as bats are also likely. As a result we would expect any application to be accompanied by a detailed ecological appraisal. Should such populations be present, then any progressive working programme is likely to require retention of sufficient areas of habitat at any one time to allow for their retention.
* Given the proximity of pingos to the north, the potential for this site to include pingos should also be investigated.

MIN48
Due to the proximity to Swannington Upgate Common SSSI and likely impacts, we support the removal of this from the plan.

Great Yarmouth

MIN38 - land at Waveney Forest, Fritton
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the likely impacts on the Waveney Forest and Fritton Warren South County Wildlife Sites (CWS), in particular the remnant heathland elements of the Forest and the adjoining wetland habitats at Fritton Warren. Should the Council proceed with this site in the plan, then we would expect further evidence on ecology and hydrology to demonstrate that it is deliverable whilst avoiding impacts on the adjacent CWSs. Given the potential for the areas adjacent to the CWSs to support protected species and be of similar ecological value, any application would need to be accompanied by detailed ecological and hydrological appraisals, including restoration plans that complement the adjacent wildlife sites.

King's Lynn & West Norfolk

MIN 206 - land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill
We support the requirements for hydrological assessment in the supporting text as part of any ecological appraisal accompanying an application for this site, and recommend that this is also included in the policy text for clarity.

MIN 45
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to its location on ancient woodland, defined as an irreplaceable habitat in the NPPF.

MIN19&205
We support the exclusion of these sites from further consideration in the plan due to the proximity to the River Nar SSSI.

MIN74
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the adverse impacts predicted on wildlife sites.

MIN77
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the adverse impacts predicted on wildlife sites.

North Norfolk

MIN69 - north of Holt Road, Aylmerton
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 only be worked dry in order to avoid hydrological impacts on the nearby Norfolk Valley Fens SAC and be subject to high quality restoration and formal aftercare, creating a large new area of heathland with benefits both for wildlife and green infrastructure provision. We support the precautionary requirement for noise and dust assessments as part of any application in order to evaluate potential impacts on nearby wildlife sites and the requirement to demonstrate that adverse effects on the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC would be avoided.

MIN115 - land at Lord Anson's Wood, near North Walsham
Due to the proximity of two SSSIs and Weaver's Way County Wildlife Site (CWS) which include wetland habitats, the site should only be worked dry in order to avoid any impacts. We support the requirement for dust assessments and identification of appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that nearby CWSs are not impacted by this allocation. We support the proposed restoration to woodland and heathland and recommend that restoration proposals are secured as part of any application.

MIN207 - land at Pinkney Field, Briston
We note the proposed restoration to reservoir and agricultural grassland which we understand is linked to existing adjacent planning consents. However, we recommend that any allocation should demonstrate it can deliver biodiversity net gain in its own right and should include sufficient areas of priority habitats as set out in policy MP7 (see supporting text MP7.5, for example woodland and heathland) to ensure this can be delivered in addition to compensating for displaced features from existing consents.

MIN208 - land south of Holt Road, East Beckham
We support the proposed restoration of the site to a mosaic of native woodland, scrub and acid grassland.

MIN71- land west of Norwich Road, Holt
We agree with the Council's evaluation that this site is unsuitable for allocation due to the likely impacts to Holt Lowes SSSI, a component of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, as well as to the multiple County Wildlife Sites in close proximity. In the absence of a detailed hydrological assessment it is not clear that this site can be worked without an adverse effect on the SAC, therefore there is a risk that the site would not be deliverable if retained in the plan.

South Norfolk

MIN209
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN210
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN211
* We support the requirement for dust assessment and mitigation proposals as part of any application given the proximity to CWSs and ancient woodland.
* We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN25
* We support the requirement for dust and hydrology assessments and mitigation proposals as part of any application given the proximity to CWSs.
* We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN212
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN92
We support the exclusion of this site from further consideration in the plan due to the adverse impacts predicted on wildlife sites.

Please note that the MPA would wish to attend the EiP.
Comment:
Vision
We agree with the principle of the vision but suggest change in wording in respect of the safeguarding vision in that mention should be made to the agent of change detailed in the NPPF (para 182) and make the vision compliant with National Policy.

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
Resources of sand and gravel, carstone and silica sand within defined Mineral Safeguarding Areas will be safeguarded from needless sterilisation by non-mineral development. Infrastructure for the storage, handling, processing and transportation of minerals will also be safeguarded from incompatible development. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED AREAS OR SITES.

Mineral Strategic Objective
The following adjustments are suggested to the following objectives to make the to properly reflect NPPF;
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)

MSO1. To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals AND TO PROVIDE AT LEAST A 7-YEAR LAND BANK FOR SAND AND GRAVEL, AND 10-YEAR LANDBANK FOR CARSTONE, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites/areas within Norfolk sufficient to meet the requirements of the Local Aggregate Assessment and safeguarding existing infrastructure.

MSO2. To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites/areas within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need AND STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES OF SILICA SAND OF AT LEAST 10 YEARS PRODUCTION FOR INDIVIDUAL SILICA SITES OR AT LEAST 15 YEARS WHERE SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL IS CAPITAL IS REQUIRED and safeguarding existing infrastructure.

MSO4. To safeguard silica sand, carstone, and sand and gravel resources for future use. Avoiding unnecessary sterilisation by encouraging the extraction of minerals prior to other development taking place where practicable and using minerals in construction on the land from which they are extracted. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IMPACTING ON SAFEGUARDED AREAS OR SITES.

MSO5. To promote the sustainable transport of minerals by rail, road and water, including the safeguarding of railheads and wharfs for the import of minerals to and export of minerals from Norfolk. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ANY NEW PROPOSED development impacting on safeguarded sites.

Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Para 8.18 to 8.21
We consider that the above paragraphs do not properly reflect NPPF in that the Plan as drafted does not properly distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites as required by paragraph 171 of the NPPF. As such the Plan is unsound.

Historic Environment
Para 8.28 to 8.30
In the absence of a specific policy on this topic we believe the text needs to better reflect the NPPF at paragraph 189;
"The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance."
While the text goes some way to this by using the phrase 'in a manner appropriate to their significance', we believe that there is a difference between proportionate and appropriate. Proportionate goes to the amount of time/resource needed to determine the impact of a development proposal on a heritage asset.
In addition, as drafted the text could be interpreted that all heritage assets regardless of significance must be preserved.
For the above reasons the text is unsound as it does not align with nation al policy and is also not effective. The text needs to be redrafted to reflect national policy.

Policy MW3: Transport
Suggested altered wording for the last bullet point of the policy as follows to make the policy effective;

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
WHERE PRACTICAL AND appropriate measures to reduce car travel to the site by workers and visitors and encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport.
This alteration is made to prevent a dogmatic approach being taken. We have examples of cycle racks needing to be provided when it was clearly impractical for individuals to safely cycle to the site.

Policy MW4: Climate Change
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
g) incorporate proposals for sustainable travel, including travel plans where PRACTICAL AND appropriate.
Due to the often-isolated nature of mineral workings public transport or cycling are not practical. Therefore, the additional wording is suggested to make the policy effective and preventing unnecessary work for the developer/applicant.

Policy MW6: Agricultural soils
It is felt that the last bullet point is unnecessary and could dilute the policy in terms of the importance of agricultural restoration. With climate change the ability to have land to grow food will become even more important. The proposed changes make the policy effective.
The wording of the policy needs adjusting as follows:

Proposed Changes
Where development is proposed on agricultural land, the County Council has a clear preference for locating new mineral extraction and associated activities, and composting facilities, on land of agricultural grades 3b, 4 and 5.
Development proposals affecting Grade 1 agricultural land will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, where it is demonstrated that there are no alternative locations for the development.
In addition to the above, when minerals development, particularly extraction, is proposed on agricultural land of grades 1, 2 or 3a it will [DELETE: only] be permitted where:
* Provision is made for high standards of soil management that would enable restoration to a condition at least as good as its previous agricultural quality. To demonstrate this, soil and land quality surveys, and soil handling and replacement strategies (based upon Defra's 'Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils') must be submitted to the County Planning Authority; or
DELETE THE FOLLOWING TEXT: "The benefit of restoring the land to another after-use can be shown to outweigh the loss of the agricultural use of the land."
Policy MP1: Provision for minerals extraction
Changes are required to make it clear that the landbanks levels have to be maintained so they are in place at the end of the plan period to make the policy accord with national policy and be effective .In respect of silica sand changes are needed to make the policy accord with NPPF .
Suggested re wording as follows;
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
For sand and gravel, specific sites to deliver at least 20,313,300 tonnes of resources will be allocated. The sand and gravel landbank will be maintained at a level of at least 7 years supply THROUGHOUT THE PLAN PERIOD (excluding any contribution from borrow pits for major construction projects).
For carstone, a site or sites to deliver at least 340,200 tonnes of resources will be allocated. The landbank for carstone will be maintained at a level of at least 10 years' supply THROUGHOUT THE PLAN PERIOD.
For silica sand, sufficient sites and/or areas to deliver at least 10,500,000 tonnes of silica sand will be allocated. [Delete: The landbank] STOCKS OF PERMITTED RESERVES for silica sand will be maintained at a level of at least 10 years' [Delete: supply] PRODUCTION FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SILICA SAND SITE OR AT LEAST 15 YEARS WHERE SIGNIFICANT NEW CAPITAL IS REQUIRED. [Delete: where practicable]. Planning applications for silica sand extraction located outside of allocated sites or areas of search, which would address the shortfall in permitted reserves, will be determined on their own merits in accordance with the policies in this Local Plan, including the requirements contained within Policy MP13.

Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction - STRATEGIC POLICY
There should be no buffers applied to the so-called planning constraints. The acceptability or not of approaching such constraints will be a matter for the EIA and the development management process. Arbitrary buffers risk the sterilisation of workable mineral when they could be satisfactorily worked without impact.
There is no evidential basis for the buffers and the policy is unsound as it is not effective and is not positive planning.

Policy MP10: safeguarding of port and rail facilities, and facilities for the manufacture of concrete, asphalt and recycled materials
The MPA welcomes and support the reference to the 'agent of change' principle in paragraph MP10.3 of the supporting text. However, it is felt that for the purposes of clarity and effectiveness the wording of the policy should be adjusted as follows to apply the 'agent of change' principle;

Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
The County Council will safeguard:
a) Existing, planned and potential rail heads, rail links to quarries, wharfage and associated storage, handing and processing facilities for the bulk transport by rail, sea or inland waterways of minerals, including recycled, secondary and marine-dredged materials; and
b) Existing, planned and potential sites for concrete batching, the manufacture of coated materials, other concrete products and the handling, processing and distribution of PRIMARY, substitute, recycled and secondary aggregate material.
Development proposals within 250 metres of the above minerals related facilities should demonstrate that they would not prevent or prejudice the use of those facilities. THE 'AGENT OF CHANGE' PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED TO ALL SUCH DEVELOPMENT.

Policy MP11: Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas.
For the same reasons as stated for Policy MP10 wording of the policy should be altered to incorporate the 'agent of change' principle as follows;
Proposed Changes (new text in CAPITALS)
Policy MP11: Minerals Safeguarding Areas and Minerals Consultation Areas
The County Council will safeguard existing, permitted and allocated mineral extraction sites from inappropriate development proposals. Minerals Consultation Areas are delineated on the Policies Map and extend to 250 metres from each safeguarded site. Development proposals within 250 metres of a safeguarded site should demonstrate that they would not prevent or prejudice the use of the safeguarded site for mineral extraction, AND THE AGENT OF CHANGE PRINCIPLE WILL BE APPLIED IN ALL SUCH CASES. The County Council will object to development proposals which would prevent or prejudice the use of safeguarded sites for mineral extraction.

Other Comment

Section 42. Page 84...The Targets/trigger levels do not conform with land bank policy requirements or those for stock of permitted reserves, wither in the proposed Policy MP1 or the NPPF.

The MPA would like to be present at any EiP.

North Norfolk District Council welcome the opportunity to make comments on the Norfolk County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation. North Norfolk District Council raise no fundamental objections to the Plan, but the Council wish to make the following comments/observations on the proposed allocations and the wording of proposed policies.

Proposed Policies

As you will be aware, North Norfolk District Council declared a state of climate emergency on the 24th April of 2019. As such in relation to draft Policy MW4 'Climate Change Mitigation and Adaption' the Council consider that more could be done in regard to the issue of climate change. It is stated that 10% of energy should be from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon sources and that due to the rural nature of the District a figure higher than this cannot be achieved. However, North Norfolk District Council consider that this figure could be higher and it is not clear as to the source of the evidence that backs up the figure of 10%.

North Norfolk District Council is currently producing an emerging Local Plan to 2036. Through the Regulation 18 consultation on the North Norfolk Local Plan, Norfolk County Council Minerals and Waste provided comments on a number of proposed allocations to include wording within the site-specific policies in line with current Policy CS 16 and the safeguarding of minerals. It is noted that the current Policy CS 16 is to be split across three different policies: MP 10 (safeguarding of port and rail facilities, and facilities for the manufacture of concrete asphalt and recycled materials); MP 11 (Minerals safeguarding Areas and Minerals Consultation Areas); and MP 17 (Safeguarding Waste Management Facilities).

The Council has no objection to the splitting up of Policy CS 16 in the way suggested. As Policy MP 11 tightens up the wording set out within existing Policy CS 16 this may have implications for comments made on future iterations of the North Norfolk Local Plan should the Norfolk County Council Minerals and Waste Local Plan be formally adopted first. North Norfolk would welcome the opportunity to include any revised policy wording in our emerging Local Plan to ensure mineral deposits are appropriately safeguarded.

Proposed Allocations

North Norfolk District Council note that there are five sites considered within North Norfolk for the extraction of minerals, four of which are proposed to be allocated and one deleted. North Norfolk District Council welcome the deletion of the site at Holt (Min 71: Land West of Norwich Road, Holt) due to the potential impact upon the natural environment.

North Norfolk District Council raises no fundamental concerns regarding the four sites proposed for allocation, but reserves the right to change this position based upon feedback from members of the public to the proposed allocations through this Regulation 18 consultation.

Notwithstanding the above, North Norfolk District Council would ask that further consideration is given to the proposed allocation, Min 115, at Lord Anson's wood, near North Walsham. In light of the proposed expansion of North Walsham through the Local Plan, careful consideration should be given to the proximity of North Walsham and the impact this expansion may have upon any transport solution based on the findings of a Transport Assessment associated with this proposal.

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.

UKOOG is the representative body for the UK onshore oil and gas industry, including exploration and production.
We support the process of local plan making and want to ensure that any proposed plan with respect to onshore oil and gas is sound and meets with the criteria and policies outlined by Government in the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and related Written Ministerial Statements. In our view, minerals plans should establish clear criteria-based policies against which proposals can be transparently assessed on a case by case basis.
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. Our view is that minerals plans should include a review of each regulatory function and identify those areas which fall outside of the planning process. PPG 012 and PPG 112 make clear that planning authorities are not responsible for matters covered by other regulatory regimes. 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 including; Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v West Sussex CC 2014.

Our comments on draft plan are as follows:
Vision and Strategic Objectives
UKOOG supports the vision of the minerals and waste plan. We agree with the need to minimise the impacts of onshore oil and gas developments, while ensuring no unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of local communities. The plan area is not covered under the latest Petroleum Exploration and Development License (PEDL) round as it was not identified as a region of interest for onshore oil and gas operators.
By developing onshore oil and gas - the UK can reduce the carbon footprint of the fuel consumed by homes and businesses and improve the UK's energy security by strengthening supply resilience in the advent of disturbance to supply.
Policy MW4: Climate Change Policy and adaption
UKOOG supports MW4 and its recognition that the mitigation measures required would apply to onshore oil and gas sites. However, the plan does not take into account the fact that onshore oil and gas sites are temporary uses of land, with drilling, workover or stimulation activities representing a small period over the life of the site. Therefore, the generation or sourcing of energy may not be practical in such circumstances (criterion c).
MP 12: Energy Minerals
MP 12:28: It is important that the Minerals Planning Authority refer to national guidance, planning policy guidance and relevant written ministerial statements as well as the development plan when considering applications.
MP12.30 states that 'all applications for oil and gas developments will be considered against the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017'. This statement requires clarification because not all onshore oil and gas sites will fall under the scope of requiring an EIA.
MP 12 also states that applications should:
e. 'includes a full appraisal programme for the oil and/or gas resource, completed to the satisfaction of the Mineral Planning Authority; and
f. includes a development framework for the site, incorporating or supplemented by justification for the number and extent of the proposed production facilities and an assessment of the proposal's economic impacts.
Both of these points fall within the remit of the Oil and Gas authority (field development plans) and are therefore not material to a local planning committee.
Policy MP 12: Conventional and unconventional oil and gas development
There should not be a differentiation between unconventional and conventional oil and gas development. From a surface perspective, and therefore from a planning perspective - the difference is unnoticeable.
Similarly, the integrity of the underlying geological structure is a matter for the OGA and the EA - it should not be included as a planning criterion.
Please do not hesitate to get in contact if any of the above requires clarification

* 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.

NORFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL: MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION 2019
Please find to follow representations submitted on behalf of the Brett Group (Bretts). Bretts have previously made representations to the initial Plan Review consultation in 2018 and have submitted a site - MIN 38 Land at Waveney Forest, Fritton - for consideration by the Minerals Planning Authority (MPA) as a suitable allocation for sand and gravel extraction.
NORFOLK MINERALS AND WASTE LOCAL PLAN REVIEW - PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT
The process so far
Section 3 sets out the methodology for site assessments - including landscape, ecology, highways etc.
What is not clear from the site assessment and sustainability appraisal methodology is the balance applied to the impacts alongside the economic and social benefits. The NPPF (paragraph 8) is clear that achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, economic, social and environmental, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives). Para 32 of NPPF (2019) states:
Local plans and spatial development strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant legal requirements. This should demonstrate how the plan has addressed the relevant economic, social and environmental objectives (including opportunities for net gains). Significant adverse impacts on these objectives should be avoided and, where possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered).
Whilst there is individual scoring on each sustainability appraisal objective for every site put forward (contained within the Sustainability Appraisal), there does not appear to be a clear process for illustrating how a judgement has been reached on whether to allocate a site or not and how sites with similar scoring on certain objectives have been taken forward or discounted. The methodology does not clearly provide a balance of the impacts - a number of sites clearly have numerous environmental sensitivities but do not constitute an objection in their own right. There should be some consideration of the cumulative impact of such effects. In addition, the deliverability of sites and their location in proximity to markets should be given weight in the overall balance.
Norfolk's Spatial Portrait
Paragraph 5.29 identifies there are, 'particular clusters of sand and gravel workings near to King's Lynn, in the north of Breckland District and around Norwich'. Whilst the MWLP is not advocating a locational strategy per se, the location of sites is to a certain degree dictated by proximity to market given the limited access to major roads within the County. This should be reflected within the overall strategy and greater weighting given to the potential for new development and the need for mineral sites to be located in close proximity to those markets.
Paragraph 5.30 states that, 'sand and gravel production in Norfolk was 1.511 million tonnes in 2018. The 10-year rolling average of sand and gravel sales was 1.361 million tonnes in the period 2009-2018. The 3-year rolling average of sand and gravel sales was 1.58 million tonnes in the period 2016-2018. The permitted reserves for sand and gravel extraction sites in Norfolk were 13.31 million tonnes at the end of 2018.
Based on the 10-year sales average, the permitted reserve provides a sand and gravel landbank of over 9 years. The 'trend' over the last 3 years is for a higher level of sales than the 10 year average. Using these figures the landbank is reduced to 8.4 years. Whilst this exceeds the requirements of the NPPF for at least 7 years, the latest LAA (December 2018) is indicating that there were no planning applications or planning permissions for new sand and gravel extraction in 2017. This needs to be kept under careful review to ensure that replenishment rates do not affect long term supply of sand and gravel.
The Strategy - Vision and Objectives
Minerals and Waste Local Plan Vision to 2036:
1st para - Norfolk will continue to be self-sufficient in the production of sand & gravel, whilst making an important contribution to the national production of silica sand. A steady and adequate supply of minerals to support sustainable economic growth will be planned for through allocating sufficient sites and/or areas in the Plan to meet the forecast need for sand and gravel, carstone, and silica sand, as required by national planning policy
Whilst the MWLP is proposing the County to be 'self sufficient' in the production of sand and gravel, the location of sites to market is an important consideration. Sole reliance on sites within the County to meet demand does not take account of the spatial strategy (Policy MP2) which is advocating sites are located close to urban/growth areas.

3rd para - All mineral workings will be covered by progressive restoration schemes
This is not in accordance with para 205(e) of the NPPF (2019) which recommends restoration should be at the earliest opportunity. It is not always possible to put in place a progressive restoration scheme, we recommend the wording is amended to be in accordance with NPPF.

Minerals Strategic Objectives [proposed new text in CAPITALS]
The following wording changes are suggested to MS01 to accord with paragraph 207(a) of the NPPF. This would also bring objective MSO1 in line with MSO2 for industrial minerals. Reference to the importance of safeguarding mineral resources should be a separate objective.
MSO1. To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites/areas within Norfolk sufficient to meet the FUTURE DEMAND requirements FORECAST WITHIN [delete: of] the Local Aggregate Assessment [delete: and safeguarding existing infrastructure].
MSO4 - requiring the justification for the potential sterilisation of minerals from competing development interests is supported.
MSO7 - para 204(g) of the NPPF (2018) recognises that some noisy short term activities, which may otherwise be regarded as unacceptable, are unavoidable to facilitate minerals extraction. MSO7 should be reworded to conform with NPPF.
MSO7. To ensure potential impacts on the amenity of those people living in proximity to minerals development are effectively controlled, minimised and MITIGATED TO ACCEPTABLE LEVELS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED STANDARDS.
MSO9 - a mineral operator cannot always guarantee a positive contribution to natural, built and historic environment, particularly when the operator does not own the land with the landowner seeking different aspirations. The objective should be to seek to positively contribute.
Development Management Criteria
Policy MW2 - Development Management Criteria
Policy MW2 is supported - the policy is in line with NPPF, in particular the final requirement on restoration recognising that environmental enhancements sought where appropriate. However, this is contrary to the earlier Vision and Objectives. The Vision and Objectives should be amended to seek conformity throughout the plan and with NPPF.

Policy MW4 - Climate Change
Whilst the principle of reducing the climate change impact of new development is accepted, Criteria C of Policy MW4 should be deleted as it is not reasonable and overly onerous on operators. It is not clear how this would even be measured let alone controlled/enforced.

Policy MW6 - Agricultural soils
Policy MW6 is supported. The final bullet point of Policy MW6 state, 'the benefit of restoring the land to another after-use can be shown to outweigh the loss of the agricultural use of the land.' This is supported and in accordance with NPPF. However, this approach needs to be reflected in strategic objective MSO9 which requires landscape and biodiversity improvements, this cannot always be the case, MSO9 should be amended to reflect Policy MW6.
Waste Management Specific Policies
Policy WP3 - Land uses potentially suitable for waste management facilities
Policy WP3 identifies that waste management facilities at existing mineral workings and landfill sites may be considered acceptable on a temporary basis with planning permission restricted to a cessation date for the mineral operation or landfill activities. We consider that greater flexibility should be provided within the Policy - there can be occasions when it is appropriate to retain a facility, for example recycling, that can benefit from the retention of infrastructure and continue to serve the markets established. This would support the overall strategic objective WSO1. We recommend Policy WP3 should provide greater flexibility and be amended accordingly.

Policy WP4 - Recycling or transfer of inert construction, demolition and excavation waste
As with Policy WP3, Policy WP4 seeks to restrict waste management operations to the life of the mineral operation. We do not consider that this is always necessary or appropriate and there may be opportunities for long term use of facilities to serve existing markets. It is recommended that Policy WP4 is less restrictive.
Notwithstanding the above, the second part of the policy, repeats the requirements of the first and it is not clear why it is necessary as it serves the same purpose.
[Delete: 'Applications to vary planning conditions to extend the time for recycling operations on mineral workings will only be acceptable where:
a) there are exceptional circumstances to justify why the timely restoration of the mineral workings set out in the extant planning permission could not be completed;
b) the recycling operation is ancillary to the primary land use of mineral extraction at the site; and
c) the recycling operation would cease no later than the cessation date of the planning permission for the mineral extraction operation.']

Policy WP11 - Disposal of inert waste by landfill
Policy WP11 is supported and could be extended by including the importation of inert waste where it is necessary for agricultural improvement as part of criterion (d).
Minerals Specific Policies
NCC (paragraph MP1.6) propose to use the last 20 years average of 1.868mtpa rather than the 10 year average of 1.361mtpa or 3 year trend of 1.58mtpa. The justification for this is to enable a sufficient quantity of sand and gravel resources to be available over the 20 year plan period and would take into account potential fluctuations in the economy. The Plan recognises a need to provide for an additional 20,313,300 tonnes of sand and gravel. This has reduced from 23,063,560 tonnes since the previous consultation in August 2018. Whilst this positive approach to securing a steady and adequate supply of aggregates is supported, careful consideration needs to be given to the replenishment rates of sand and gravel sites, their location as well as production capacity to meet the annual production requirement. It is not considered that the annual monitoring/LAA captures this adequately.

Policy MP1 - provision for minerals extraction
Policy MP1 is seeking to ensure sufficient sites are allocated to deliver at least 20,313,300 tonnes of sand and gravel. This is supported. However, there needs to be some flexibility built into the Plan to ensure that sites not allocated could be brought forward to maintain production capacity in the County to meet anticipated annual production requirements. The County benefits from having so many sites operating. However, the Council can not control the applications being brought forward by industry. If there is a delay in Planning Applications or operational constraints affect production at a number of sites, the ability to meet the annual production requirement is affected unless other sites can be brought forward. The 20,313,300 tonnes is a forecast of demand and should not be perceived as a ceiling. The MPA's approach to 'resist' non allocated sites could threaten any flexibility.
The second part of the policy should be amended to read [new text in CAPITALS],
Mineral extraction for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites will be [delete: resisted] SUPPORTED by the Mineral Planning Authority [delete: unless] WHERE the applicant can demonstrate:
a) There is an overriding justification and/or overriding benefit for the proposed extraction, INCLUDING MAINTAINING A CONTINUITY IN SUPPLY AND OVERALL PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY, and
b) The proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan.

Policy MP2 Spatial strategy for minerals extraction
Paragraph MP2.5 identifies, Norfolk's urban areas and main towns are the locations where there will be the greatest need for a supply of aggregate for new housing developments and associated infrastructure'.
Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction states:
'Within the resource areas identified on the key diagram, specific sites for sand and gravel or carstone extraction should be located within five miles of one of Norfolk's urban areas or three miles of one of the main towns (detailed in the supporting text) and/or be well-related to one of Norfolk's urban areas or main towns via appropriate transport infrastructure'.
The MPA is not proposing to allocate any sites within the Great Yarmouth area. Within the listed settlement hierarchy Great Yarmouth is in the highest tier as an urban area (Paragraph MP2.6). The Council are advocating a 'self sufficiency' in overall sand and gravel supply for the County without giving due consideration to a spread of aggregate site allocations to ensure that the need can be met. The assumption that demand will be supplied from somewhere within the County does not meet the spatial strategy approach advocated in Policy MP2 to locate sites close to the anticipated demand - i.e major growth areas. We do not believe this secures a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel to the Great Yarmouth area and the Council should be allocating additional reserves. These additional reserves could be secured through the allocation of land at MIN38 - Waveney Forest, Fritton.
Great Yarmouth is constrained by the presence of 'The Broads' National Park. Therefore, limited opportunities for sites to be located close to it. There is one major active sand and gravel site - Cemex's Norton Subcourse Quarry - in close proximity to Great Yarmouth (circa 15 miles). Planning permission was granted for an extension to this site in 2015 (C/7/2012/7017). At that time it was proposed to extract 2.3 million tonnes of sand and gravel at a rate of between 100,000 and 200,000 tpa - between 11 and 21 years of operational life. At a worst case operating at the lower rate of 100,000tpa, the site is likely to be exhausted during the Plan period unless other extensions are put forward (none of which appear to have been promoted to the Plan). Even this site has to use the A143 and pass through the National Park area. The other nearest sites appears to be the LP Group operating Kirby Cane Quarry (planning permission expires in 2025) and Burgh Castle. Land at Welcome Pit to the north of Burgh Castle has been promoted but has been considered unsuitable for allocation because the local road network is sub standard. Even if this site were considered suitable for allocation the reserve and annual tonnage are so small that they would not make a meaningful contribution to the landbank and year on year supply of aggregate to the local market.
The site at MIN38 - Waveney Forest, Fritton, could secure a long term solution to mineral supply in this location without having to move through the National Park boundary.

Policy MP5 - Core River Valleys
Paragraph MP5.4 identifies that the Core River Valleys are not formally designated for their landscape or biodiversity interest. Policy MP5 seeks protection to the Core River Valleys that is over and above the protection offered in the NPPF to sites of national landscape and biodiversity importance. There is also no weighting of the importance of mineral extraction against the potential for any impact (which could be mitigated/compensated). The policy should not preclude all development, but it is accepted it is appropriate to caveat with the requirement to assess any impact.
Policy MP9 - Concrete batching and asphalt plants
Policy MP9 limits the use to the life of the quarry, it is sometimes beneficial to retain the use of ancillary facilities after the mineral operation has been completed making full use of a developed access and transport links and facilitating an existing market. Retaining existing plant and facilities and importing mineral from satellite sites may actually have some local amenity benefits and limit potential impacts.
The second paragraph could be amended as follows [proposed new text in CAPITALS]:
At sand and gravel workings, planning permission will be limited to the end date of the quarry permission, or to when the indigenous material no longer forms the majority of the feedstock being used, whichever is the sooner, UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER OVERRIDING REASONS/JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE PLANT'S RETENTION.
PROMOTION OF MIN 38 - WAVENEY FOREST, FRITTON
In a response to Norfolk County Council's 'Call for Sites' a comprehensive submission was made on behalf of the Brett Group promoting land at Waveney Forest, Fritton. The submission included a detailed assessment of the potential environmental and amenity impacts that may arise from the development of a new sand and gravel quarry at Fritton.
The individual site assessment contained within the Draft Plan has concluded the site is considered to be unsuitable for allocation because:
* * The harm to the significance of Waveney Forest as an example of a WW2 training area could not be appropriately mitigated, as the significance relates to the area as a whole.
* * The site is located within the Broads; there are more acceptable alternative sites for sand and gravel extraction proposed in the Plan in accordance with paragraph 205 (a) of the NPPF and there are not exceptional circumstances for mineral extraction at this site in accordance with paragraph 172 of the NPPF.

In regard to the Historic Environment the assessment states,
Historic environment: The historic landscape character of the site is 18th to 20th Century plantation woodland. The site is within a wider historic landscape character of 20th century agriculture with enclosure, boundary loss and boundary loss with a relict element; pastoral farming, and agriculture with 18th to 19th century piecemeal enclosure. The wider historic landscape character also includes modern built up areas of linear settlements, small farm clusters, nucleated clusters and urban development; and drained reclaimed enclosed land (rectilinear enclosure from 19th to 20th century). The wider historic landscape character also includes drained enclosed rectilinear grazing marsh (17th to 20th century enclosure), a historic earthwork, leisure/recreation, informal parkland, sea defences, saltings, a reservoir and woodland (18th to 19th century plantation woodland, carr woodland and regenerated alder carr woodland).
The nearest Listed Building is the Grade II* Drainage Pump which is 260m away. There are 20 Listed Buildings within 2km of the site. There are two locally listed heritage assets within the site, the remains of a WW2 firing range and a concrete railway bridge, although these are not within the proposed extraction areas. The nearest Scheduled Monument is St Olave's Priory, which is 390m away. There are 2 Scheduled Monuments within 2km of the site. Halvergate Marshes Conservation Area is adjacent to the site boundary and Haddiscoe Conservation Area is 330m from the site. There are no Registered Historic Parks and Gardens within 2km of the site. A planning application for mineral extraction at this site would need to include a Heritage Statement to identify heritage assets and their settings, assess the potential for impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures if required.
Archaeology: This site could reveal nationally important remains for early and middle Pleistocene early human settlements in NW Europe, perhaps linking to finds at Norton Subcourse and Pakefield (in Suffolk). There are Historic Environment records of features in the site most of which are linked to a WW2 military site possibly a training site, within the site boundary. The proposer of the site has indicated two extraction areas within the wider site area; neither the local listed features (remains of a WW2 firing range, and a former railway bridge) are within these extraction areas. A number of undesignated heritage assets have been provisionally identified which may be linked to the WW2 training area. The site is currently a commercial forestry plantation within which felling operations take place, which involve the use of heavy vehicles and earth moving operations. These operations may have degraded the undesignated heritage assets, although good practice for tree felling operations states that archaeological features should be protected. Therefore, an assessment of the significance of archaeological deposits will be required at the planning application stage, in order to protect and mitigate the impact of mineral extraction in this site. However, the Norfolk Historic Environment Service have stated that they consider that no appropriate mitigation or modification of the site would be able to prevent harm to the undesignated heritage assets which as a whole make up the significance of the WW2 training area, of which few examples remain.
The final few sentences of the extract have been underlined because they clearly contradict one another. We believe that the site is able to be developed for quarrying purposes. Within the submission by Brett for the Call for Sites a detailed heritage appraisal was undertaken - a summary of the report is provided below:
Direct Impacts on Heritage Assets - The site is known to contain military structures dating from WWI and predominantly WWII. Some of these are solidly engineered in concrete, whilst the majority are understood to be of more flimsy construction making use of wood, chicken wire and corrugated iron.
The PAA may also retain earlier archaeology, in particular from the later prehistoric period.
In the past 5 years tree felling has occurred across approximately 60% of the proposed extraction areas. This has involved heavy machinery, including evidence of some ground reduction caused by the windrowing of the wastage. The damage caused to archaeology, both military and earlier, could not be quantified on the site visit, but it is considered that it could be significant.
Should this site be allocated, a thorough survey should be carried out using GPS and photography to create a catalogue of archaeology. Some archaeological evaluation may be required. This would allow an assessment of the distribution, form, condition and significance of all archaeology within the PAA.
Opportunities - Any future planning application would require a mitigation strategy to manage the archaeological resource. This would involve a combination of preservation in situ, excavation and recording.
The majority of the military structures identified in the 2009 survey by Warner and Wilby lie outside or on the periphery of the proposed extraction areas and preservation in situ of these outliers should be the objective.
These were only temporary structures and in time they will inevitably decay and collapse through natural processes. Excavation and recording of a selection of structure types within the extraction areas would be an important contribution to our understanding of how they were constructed and operated.
Consideration should be given to the consolidation of some of the military remains to ensure their preservation for the future. There is also potential to create an educational resource, based around any consolidated structures should the restoration concept permit, that would be an important public benefit.
This approach has been adopted elsewhere, for example at Binnegar Quarry, Dorset where an auxiliary bunker has been archaeologically excavated and the results will form the focus of a display in an on-site education centre recounting the history of the Auxiliary Units in Dorset
The Heritage Appraisal reaches the following conclusion:
"On current evidence, there are no overriding constraints to the allocation of this site and, from an archaeological and heritage perspective and subject to appropriate mitigation, the proposals provide opportunities for educational benefit and conform to national planning policy and guidance."
The current Consultation Documents produced by the County Council acknowledge that:
* * no local listed feature falls within the proposed extraction area;
* * the site is commercial forestry plantation within which felling operations take place, which involve the use of heavy vehicles and earth moving operations;
* * commercial forestry operation may have degraded the undesignated heritage assets;
* * further archaeological assessment work will be required.

The sites complete heritage significance is currently unknown. Some features which are recognised as having some historic significance (solid and brick built structures which are designated at local level) are excluded from any potential working scheme. Features which require further investigation relate to temporary structures used for an unknown purpose. They are not built of solid construction but a combination of wire, wooden posts and corrugated sheeting. None of which would survive long term and, as acknowledged, there is the potential they have already been damaged by commercial forestry activities.
A meeting took place with the County Council on 17th October 2019 to discuss the potential opportunity that could arise from a quarry development and mineral operator involvement to allow for proper archaeological assessment. Pending these investigations there is also opportunity through a considered restoration scheme for some acknowledgement and memorial to former military uses.
At the meeting held with the Norfolk Historic Environment Service it was acknowledged that it is difficult to say that, 'no appropriate mitigation or modification of the site would be able to prevent harm to the undesignated heritage assets which as a whole make up the significance of the WW2 training area, of which few examples remain', without further assessment to ascertain the significance of the asset. The Norfolk Historic Environment Service are going to liaise with the Company over the potential proportionate scope for further assessment work. This will likely include further desk based analysis and field work which the Company are prepared to consider.
In regard to Landscape Designations, the assessment states:
The site is not located within the AONB, or a Core River Valley. 43 hectares of the site are within the Broads Authority Executive Area, including one of the extraction areas, and part of the other; the NPPF states that local planning authorities should "as far as practicable, provide for the maintenance of landbanks of non-energy minerals from outside the Broads". The site is within the landscape character area described as 'Waveney Rural Wooded Valley' in the Great Yarmouth Borough Landscape Character Assessment. The Broads Authority Landscape Character Assessment classifies the part of the site within the Broads as outside the 'St Olaves to Burgh Castle' landscape character area. The proposal is that a screen of trees would be retained between the extraction areas and the 'St Olaves to Burgh Castle' landscape character area to the west and north of the site and protect long distance views.
The majority of the site comprises woodland, split between a larger area of conifer plantation, with remnant areas of heath, on the higher land and broadleaf woodland on the valley floor. An area of marshland/reedbed along the river edge is excluded from the proposed site. Expansive views of the afforested margins of the site can be seen across the marshes from the railway, the A149 and from the public rights of way along the Rivers Waveney and Yare and the New Cut. In addition, views of the edge of the conifer plantation can be seen from the edge of Fritton and New Road. The higher areas of the site within the coniferous plantations, generally the land to the south and east, would be screened by the retention of a screen of significant blocks of coniferous woodland with additional woodland planting.
The proposed haul route accesses the site from the south from the A143. Although there are highway verges with hedges and mature trees along the highway corridor, the bunding and screening of the haul route would need to be designed carefully to ensure that the impact on the setting of the Waveney Forest is acceptable and the tarmac surfacing of the road (necessary for dust suppression) would add an urbanising element to the landscape. However, with the removal of the road and removal of the screen bunds on restoration the impacts are considered acceptable in landscape terms.
A landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposed development from the wider Broads landscape would be required at any planning application stage. The landscape mitigation, restoration proposals and design approach would need to be informed by this assessment and by the relevant Landscape Character Assessments.
The NPPF (paragraph 172) advocates, 'great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues'. Although part of the site falls within the Broads Executive Area, the above landscape character descriptions appear to acknowledge that the site conflicts with the wider landscape character of the 'Broads' area. It is also likely that the Broads area boundary was established by the presence of the old railway line that cuts through the proposed site. This formed a logical boundary. Subsequent uses including woodland planting/forestry have further eroded the potential significance this specific area contributes to the wider landscape character. Existing landscape features also protect long distance views.
It is accepted that the NPPF (paragraph 205) seeks to maintain landbanks for minerals outside of these designated areas. However, as referred above, it is perceived that this area is not making an essential contribution to the landscape character. As such, temporary mineral extraction operations (screened by the presence of existing landscape features) are unlikely to cause significant harm to the designation. In addition, mineral extraction could facilitate restoration to uses more appropriate for this sites location situated within the Broads Executive Area.
The Sustainability Appraisal
We have some concerns with the Sustainability Appraisal scoring for land at Waveney Forest, Fritton:
SA1 - It is unclear why some sites score more positively than others when they are similar distances to main towns. Why has a score of '+' rather than '++' been given? The site is in close proximity to two urban areas / main towns, Great Yarmouth and Gorelston on Sea. As referred to above, the Plan is proposing a spatial strategy with preference for mineral sites located close to the likely markets they will serve.
SA5 - We have concerns that the evaluation within the SA is not taken forward to the assessment. Sites with known heritage interests in close proximity are proposed for allocation with no clear indication on mitigation. Further to our comments above, the proposals for Waveney Forest do not have any impact on any designated asset. There is no justification for a score of '- -' post extraction on the site. Brett have offered a restoration scheme that would build on the heritage interest in the area and provide beneficial opportunities. This has not been recognised in any of the assessment documents produced by the County Council to date.
SA8 - why has a '-' score been applied when it is acknowledged that there will be no impact upon any designated landscape and the existing woodland will screen the proposed development?
SA11 - a score of '++' should be applied due to the proximity of Great Yarmouth and Gorleston on Sea and the lack of other allocated sites in closer proximity.
Conclusions
The site is located approximately 9km from Great Yarmouth, the emerging Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review sets out a 'locational preference' to potential site allocations which are 'close and/ or well related' to the Great Yarmouth Urban Area. This is such a site and it is understood by the promoter to be the closest land-won aggregate site to Great Yarmouth with reserves throughout the Plan period. No other major sites are being taken forward as allocations within the Great Yarmouth area leading to increased haulage distance from other allocations/operations. Furthermore, there are no other major extraction operations within the immediate vicinity which would lead to consideration of cumulative effects. Land to the north of Welcome Pit, Burgh Castle has been promoted but has been considered unsuitable for allocation because the local road network is sub standard. Even if this site were considered suitable for allocation the reserve and annual tonnage are so small that they would not make a meaningful contribution to the landbank and year on year supply of aggregate to the local market.
The main impact of the proposals relates to heritage interest and potential for structures from WW2. These are predominantly temporary structures (for example constructed of timber, chicken wire, corrugated iron and sandbags) and that the cycle of forestry planting and felling will potentially have destroyed or significantly affected these remains. Mineral extraction offers an opportunity to survey, excavate and record, as well as consolidating and preserving archaeological artefacts in situ for future generations.
By adopting the approach preferred by Brett and the landowner, the site will be able to offer a net biodiversity gain creating ecological habitats that are more in keeping with the local environment including woodland, wetland / wet woodland on restoration. In addition to long term habitat creation and protection, wider benefits will be derived from the development through comprehensive restoration including opportunities for public access and interpretation of heritage assets.
The public benefit derived from these proposals outweigh the potential damage, as set out in NPPF.
It is therefore submitted that the site represents an ideal opportunity for allocation for sand and gravel extraction as part of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review.
I trust that the above comments are helpful. Should you have any queries or wish to discuss any of the points raised in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Comments sought on Preferred Options Consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and
Waste Local Plan (M&WLP).
Thank you for your consultation on the above site, received on 16th September 2019.
We were previously consulted on 28th June 2018 and responded under the following
reference, FWS/18/8/6750 -2, dated 30th July 2018. Our comments at that time are
included below:
We welcome the inclusion of an assessment of flooding from all sources within the Plan.
We would like to provide information which you may wish to consider in relation to Policy MW2 and MW4.
Policy MW2: We suggest that the wording of point d) is changed to include groundwater flooding. Mineral working can change local drainage networks, including groundwater flow (though creation of a void or dewatering) and so there should be no adverse impact on this source of flooding also.
We note that the intention is that flood risk is not increased elsewhere by development through the provision of appropriate surface water management such as sustainable drainage (SuDS). We support this approach but highlight to all potential development that working of minerals may remove infiltration media (as part of the operation). Hence any drainage scheme may rely on connection to a watercourse which is not always apparent near to the scheme. We would also request that during the works and following reinstatement a drainage strategy is put forward that considers the changes to local drainage network e.g. interception of watercourses or drainage connections. Any current drainage arrangements should be maintained or diverted appropriately. Reinstatement of land can replace permeable material with less permeable, this along with the post development ground levels must not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

Policy MW4: We welcome that this policy supports policy MW2 with the provision of flood
risk assessments (FRA) and although not specifically stated we assume that this policy's
intention is that any FRA will include appropriate consideration of the most up to date
climate change allowances.
It is accepted that Mineral working is a water compatible development which can be
undertaken in most areas at risk of flooding, however, we would highlight that any impacts
should be considered during a planning application and appropriate measures. These
measures may not be required until reinstatement when post development ground levels
are considered in detail.

With regard to specific sites put forward we have the following comments:

MIN12 - Beetly - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of external
flooding (2017) in the village on Fakenham Road. As the site at the top of two catchments, half of the proposed site drains towards the village and half away. Any proposal would need to consider this during its design.

MIN 37 - Buxton - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of flooding internally and externally adjacent the site boundary (2015 and 2016). Any proposal would need to consider these local flooding issues and if assess potential opportunities to improve existing flooding problems

SIL02 - Marham - We would like to highlight that we are aware of reports of flooding internally (2016) on The Street, Marham. Although the proposal is downgradient of this location any proposal would need to consider this during its design.

It is noted that our recommendation that policy MW2 is changed for point d) to
include groundwater flooding has not been taken forward. Our advice remains that
this should be changed.

Our comments on MW4, MIN12, MIN37 and SIL02 also remain.