Policy WP3: Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities

we need to protect the earth from exploitation and find other non invasive ways of providing for human needs or learn to live differently.

This is not sustainable for the planet which means it's not sustainable for the human race

Agree with a criteria based policy and support the requirement to comply with Policy MW2.

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.

Thank you for consulting Great Yarmouth Borough Council (GYBC) on this document. Following consideration of the documentation, the Borough Council's response is set out below. This response was considered and endorsed by the Council's Policy and Resources Committee on the 15th October 2019:

Strategic vision and Objectives:
Comment: Support for the aims of the Strategic Vision and Objectives

Policy MW2-Development Management Criteria
Comment: The supporting text to the Policy doesn't explicitly reference 'all sources of flooding' just notes flood risk, GYBC would suggest that reference is made to all sources of flooding as well as reference to the Environment agency's flood mapping as well as the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments which have been produced across Norfolk. The supporting text should make clear that site specific flood risk assessments will be required where flood risk is identified within the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments.

Policy MW6 - Agricultural Soils
Comment: Parts of the Great Yarmouth Borough are classified as Grade 1 agricultural land. The need for development of land for housing and other uses mean that some of this land will be lost to development. The Council therefore supports this policy to minimise the loss of grade 1 agricultural land, when there are sufficient areas of lower grade agricultural land elsewhere in the County to accommodate minerals and waste developments.

Policy WP3 - Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities &
Policy WP6 -Transfer, storage, processing and treatment of hazardous waste
Comments: These policies set out a criteria based approach to waste development and hazardous waste. The criterion indicates that land in B2 (general industrial) or B8 (storage and distribution) use would be potentially suitable for waste development. It also indicates that waste development would be suitable on land allocated for B2 and B8 uses in Local Plans or other development plan documents.
Whilst the Council considers this a broadly acceptable approach, it has significant concerns with respect to two strategic employment areas within the Borough. It is considered that new generic waste development would not be suitable on the proposed Beacon Business Park extension or the existing Beacon Park Business Park and therefore strongly objects to the policy as currently drafted. It is also considered that new generic waste development would not be suitable within the identified Great Yarmouth port and harbour area. The Council's objectives for these sites are to promote businesses within the offshore energy and port related sectors. Generic waste developments in these areas would either be incompatible with these proposed uses or use land needed to create a cluster of these proposed uses. The strategic significance of these sites is also recognised through the Enterprise Zone status of Beacon Business Park and its extension, and the wider area associated with the outer harbour.
The Council therefore requests that an exception is made to this policy for the above employment areas. The Council recognises that there may be some waste operations which can be associated with port and offshore energy/engineering activities which could be more compatible in principle (for example, some kinds of decommissioning). The Council would welcome the opportunity to discuss how the policy could be redrafted to best support the strategic aims of these employment areas within the Borough.
The extent of the above areas can be seen in the August 2018 Local Part 2 consultation document. Beacon Park Business Park is defined in emerging policy GN4-dp. The Beacon Park extension is defined in emerging policy GN5-dp. The Great Yarmouth Port and Harbour area is defined in policy GY12-dp

Policy MP1 - Prevision for minerals extraction
Comments: Given that the plan will allocate sufficient land to meet forecasted need, the Council supports this policy to resist proposals for Mineral extraction sites for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites.

Site MIN 203 - Land North of Welcome Pit, Burgh Castle
Comments: The Council recognises that the allocation (an extension to the existing site) would be a local source of sand to potentially help supply new developments in the Borough (albeit that the annual extraction rate is low) and that having a site close by is helpful in terms of reducing miles travelled. However, the Council recognises the highways concerns identified by the County Council about the appropriateness of the surrounding road network and therefore agrees that the extension site should not be allocated as matters stand. That being said, if appropriate highways improvements could be delivered, the Council would be supportive of the extension being allocated.
It should be noted that the description of the location of the site in respect of Belton and Burgh Castle is incorrect in the amenity paragraph. The settlement of Burgh Castle is to the west, south and north of the site.
The Council's Environmental Services team has noted the following:
If this site was brought forward, contrary to the emerging Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, noise and dust assessments would be required in line with the pertinent PPG and NPPF, in order to design appropriate mitigation. Land contamination matters would have to be considered through a Phase I (desk study and site walkover) report, due to the potential for ground gas from filled pits.

Site MIN 38 - Land at Waveney Forest
Comment: The Council supports the conclusion that this site should not be allocated. The Council considers that the forest whilst not open-access, does serve as an important recreational asset to the Borough given the public rights of way around and within the site. It is also worth noting that saved policy REC11 identifies an area of recreation space to the east of the site which is not mentioned in the assessment. Therefore, the recreational value of the site should be given greater weight in the assessment.
The Council's Environmental Services team has noted the following:
If this site was brought forward, contrary to the emerging Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, noise and dust assessments would be required in line with the pertinent PPG and NPPF, in order to design appropriate mitigation. Land contamination matters would have to be considered through a Phase I (desk study and site walkover) report, due to the historic military and railways land uses.

Preferred Options Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Preferred Options stage of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. We have commented on the policies and allocated sites in the same format as the Local Plan itself below.

The Process so far
We are pleased to see water resources are mentioned in this section. However, this section could be strengthened by making reference to whether working beneath the water table is required and whether dewatering is required. This could potentially pose a challenge to sites moving forward so it should have a stronger mention in this section.

Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria
We are pleased to see that point k in this policy makes reference to the natural and geological environment. This point could be enhanced by also making reference to the hydrogeological environment including maintaining groundwater dependent wetlands, surface water flows, groundwater quantity and flow regime.

The policy makes no reference to local air quality regarding waste developments, be it from gas utilisation units or fugitive emissions from landfilled areas and their perimeter. This is especially key where development is close to sensitive receptors or such receptors are developed close to the sites.

We welcome the inclusion of point D in the policy. This could be enhanced to state
"flood risk TO THOSE WORKING on site or an increase in flood risk elsewhere" (addition in CAPITALS ). The policy could also be improved by requiring a Flood Response Plan to manage the safety of the people on site.

Pollution and Local Amenity Impacts
We agree with the inclusion of paragraph 8.12 that lighting levels should be assessed with consideration given to the impact lighting will have on European Protected species. Mitigation could include limiting the operational hours of the site and using down lighting.

We fully support the protection of Local Wildlife sites (county wildlife sites, local nature reserves and local wildlife sites) highlighted in paragraph 8.20 as well as priority habitats and species. We agree that any proposal should only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the activities will not significantly harm the site, and will require submission of appropriate ecological surveys, carried out by an appropriately qualified ecologist, at the correct time of year as described in paragraph 8.21. We recommend the rewording of the final sentence of paragraph 8.20 to state "Development that may affect Water Framework Directive waterbodies e.g. rivers, streams, lakes will require a WFD compliance assessment".

Water Framework Directive
The plan should make reference to the fact that any development that could impact the status of a water body, whether WFD or not, should be subject to a WFD assessment.

Flooding, Water resources and water quality
We agree with the reference this section makes to flood risk betterment after restoration, reducing flood risk elsewhere and acknowledgement that climate change needs to be considered. However this section does not refer to ensuring there is no increase in flood risk elsewhere through the duration of the works. In addition there is no mention of the flood risk to people on site and the need for management to ensure their safety with a Flood Response Plan. The plan should therefore be updated to this effect.


It is encouraging to see that paragraph 8.40 makes it clear that dewatering for mineral abstraction purposes requires a water abstraction licence from the Environment Agency. However, it should be noted that an abstraction licence for dewatering may not be granted and it is likely that any de-watering water will need to be returned to the aquifer close to where it is abstracted and in a timely manner after the abstraction takes place. Our current Catchment Area Management Strategy (CAMS) policy for issuing abstraction licences intervening use of this water for activities such as mineral washing and dust suppression which have a consumptive element will not be permitted, this be a challenge for sites going forward if alternative sources of water for associated activities such as mineral washing and dust suppression cannot be found.

Paragraph 8.40 refers to the Water Framework directive. A WFD assessment is a good addition and we welcome the suggestion to protect the designated drinking water source protection zones. We also support the use of pollution prevention measures, to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater. This paragraph should also state that the assessment should determine if there could be a deterioration in WFD status. Activities should not allow any deterioration in any of the WFD elements. Minerals and waste management developments should not cause deterioration or prevent a water body from achieving Good Ecological Status/Potential, and whenever possible, help to implement environmental improvement measures to improve waterbodies.

Policy MW4: Climate Change mitigation and adaptation
Paragraph 10.2 states the need to minimise demands on potable water resources. The sentence should continue by saying 'and water resources in general'. As stated above, we are not issuing new consumptive abstraction licences.

A possible linkage could be made between point's b and c - on site renewable energy (both electricity and hot water) could well be provided from captured landfill gas emissions. Any excess energy could then be fed into the local networks.
It would be beneficial to update the wording of point 3 to state "...including rising sea levels, LARGER RIVER FLOWS, and coastal erosion..." (addition in CAPITALS).

Waste Management Specific Policies
In terms of paragraph W0.3, you should ensure that you plan for sites that will 'Prepare for Re-use' as it has been stated that greater weight is being put to the management methodology at the top of the waste hierarchy.

W1.12
The plan states "The latest Defra estimate of C&I waste growth for England is 0.6% per annum, therefore an alternative option would be to forecast C&I waste growth over the Plan period at 0.6% per annum instead of 1.5% per annum. However, it is considered that it is more appropriate to use the Norfolk specific figure of 12.5% per annum". We are unsure where and how this figure of 12.5% has been calculated and why it is so different to DEFRA's estimate. Sustainable economic growth will need enough commercial and industrial waste processing capacity to deal with this increase in waste generation.

Policy WP2: Spatial Strategy for Waste Management Facilities
We support the policy WP2 regarding the location of Water Recycling Centres. It should be noted that the decision, ultimately, remains with Anglian Water Services.

Policy WP3: Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities
This policy should state that waste management facilities (aggregate recycling) also need to consider consumptive water use and where this water will come from.

Policy WP6: Transfer, Storage, Processing and treatment of hazardous waste
It is highly likely that any proposals for the discharge of hazardous waste to surface water or groundwater will require a discharge permit, if allowed. The policy could be improved by saying that under no circumstances, should there be a discharge of treated hazardous waste/materiel to surface waters or groundwater without prior consultation with the EA.

Policy WP9: Anaerobic Digestion
The policy could be improved by making reference to Emergency Planning. Proposals for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facilities should include a detailed emergency plan should there be an incident, such as a major leak or fire for example. AD leachate is extremely rich in nutrients, which if entering a watercourse, could cause significant environmental harm. We suggest the emergency pan includes nearby watercourses, overlying geology, depth to water table, detailed site drainage plan for example. If possible, an emergency plan should be provided for the Environment Agency to review.

W12: Non-hazardous and hazardous waste landfill
Along with section 5.35, we question whether allowing planning permission for Blackborough End to become an inert landfill and reducing the county's non-hazardous landfill waste capacity to just 1.53 million cubic metres is sufficient for residual waste disposal over the plan period. It is unclear from the Local Plan what the options for residual waste disposal will actually be, except reliance on Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) and its export. Bearing in mind NCC are keen for sustainable waste management, then the export of RDF by definition its potential energy, does not appear the best long term option. Although waste management options higher up the waste hierarchy are always preferable, there will always be waste streams that can only be disposed in landfill.

Policy WP13: Landfill Mining and Reclamation
Please note that such a proposal will require detailed input and agreement from the Environment Agency.

Policy WP15: Whitlingham Water Recycling Centre
We have previously provided comments stating that we welcomed that the WRC has a long term policy to ensure that further capacity is provided in line with growth. We continue to support long term plans being developed for Whittingham and other WRCs.
W15.2 mentions the sites location is close to the Broads and the associated 'landscape and flood risk concerns'. The location also means there are concerns for water quality due to the close proximity of sensitive protected sites of conservation importance. A statement to acknowledge that water quality needs to be protected should therefore be added to the plan here or in this policy.

Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction
Point e makes reference to the hydrological catchment around Roydon Common SSSI and Dersingham Bog SSSI. It should be ensured that it is mentioned that it is the hydrological and hydrogeological catchment around Roydon Common and Dersingham bog which should be avoided.
We support the policy to provide a 250m buffer around ancient woodland and designated sites.

Policy MP5: Core River Valleys
This policy should also include "the impact of mineral development on groundwater and the potential to need to work beneath the water table".
Any proposal for quarrying activity within a core river valley should not be approved unless the applicant can demonstrate no adverse effect on the WFD status of the river water body, or its tributaries. A Full WFD assessment (as outlined above) will be required for any proposal for this activity to be carried out within a floodplain.

Policy MP7: Progressive working, restoration and after-use
We are fully supportive of supporting paragraph 7.3 which states there may be suitable ark sites to protect wild-clawed crayfish. Such sites need to be identified well in advance of de-commissioning to that the site can remain bio-secure.
The first bullet point in policy MP7 refers to BAP habitat. Please note that this has been superseded by Priority Habitat (S41 NERC Act, 2006).

Policy MP12: Conventional and unconventional oil and gas development
Unconventional oil and gas production requires a lot of water to be used so it is likely an abstraction licence will be required. In addition, much of this water ends up as wastewater so the appropriate storage, treatment and disposal methods will be required. Discharge to any surface waters or groundwater will likely require a discharge permit and an application will need to be submitted. Having said this, the local plan indicates it is highly unlikely there will be hydrocarbon exploration in Norfolk in the foreseeable future so these comments may not be necessary at this point in time.

Policy MP13: Areas of search for silica sand extraction
As stated in our previous response, policy MP13 needs to address the need for an FRA. An FRA is vital if any of the allocations are located in Flood Zones.
Site Allocations

MIN38: Land at Waveney Forest, Fritton
Following our previous comments, we are welcome the conclusions drawn in this document which state the allocation is unsuitable for allocation.

MIN200: Land West of Cuckoo Land, Carbrooke
The site allocation text mentions that the site will be worked dry above the water table several times. If this is the case then this would alleviate our concerns on impacts on Scoulton Mere SSSI. This however is not included within the policy on page 124 and must be included.

MIN40: Land East of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch
We have concerns regarding this site. In the existing site, permeant dewatering of Carstone is proposed in restoration which goes against our previously raised comments. We would recommend not allocating this site.
Any depth of extraction should be severely limited to minimise de-watering. This could impact of the amount of mineral which can be recovered. As this is a principal aquifer, any de-watering water would need to be returned to the aquifer from which it is taken. An appropriate hydrogeological impact assessment will be required and it may well be that de-watering is not considered suitable at this site, which could limit the amount of mineral that could be recovered.

MIN35: Land at Heath Road, Quidenham
Our comments that we gave to the 2018 consultation remain valid.We have no concerns as it is proposed to work above the water table. This may need to be a planning condition on any application submitted.

MIN102: Land at North Farm, Snetterton
This site is adjacent to Swangey Fen SSSI. We previously stated that we do not consider the site suitable for mineral extraction. We are therefore supportive of the conclusions drawn in this consultation document stating that it is considered unsuitable for allocation

MIN201: Land at North Farm, Snetterton
This site is adjacent to Swangey Fen SSSI. We previously stated that we do not consider the site suitable for mineral extraction. We are therefore supportive of the conclusions drawn in this consultation document stating that it is considered unsuitable for allocation.

MIN6: Land off East Winch Road, Middleton
We are pleased to see that the specific site allocation policy for MIN 6 states the need to work above the water table. However, a hydrogeological impact assessment (not impact assessment) would be required to establish the depth of working.

Min204: Land off Lodge Road, Feltwell
Our previous comments raised within the issues and options stage of the consultation remain valid.

MIN74: Land at Turf Field, Watlington Road, Tottenhill
We agree with the conclusion that this site is unsuitable to be carried forward. If the site were to be taken forward, we would want to see a suitable hydrogeological impact assessment.

MIN76: Land at West Field, Watlington Road, Tottebhill
We are already aware of the planning application that has been submitted in terms of this application and have no further comments to make.

MIN77: Land at Runns Wood, South of Whin Common, Tottenhill
We agree with the conclusion that this site is unsuitable to be carried forward. If the site were to be taken forward, we would want to see a suitable hydrogeological impact assessment.

MIN206: Land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill
We consider this site suitable for sands and gravel extraction. The need for a hydrogeological impact assessment must be included within a bullet point in the specific site allocation policy. It's likely that de-watering will be required here.

MIN32: Land west of Lime Kiln Road, West Dereham
We agree with the conclusion that the site is unsuitable to be carried forward. We would want to see a suitable hydrogeological impact assessment if the site was carried forward and, as it is sands and gravels overlying chalk bedrock, it is possible that de-watering would not be considered a suitable option.

Area of search for AOE E
Given previous issues we have had with silica sand extraction in the vicinity of this site, we would expect all extraction to be above the watertable. This is likely to limit the amount of resource that can be recovered. It should be noted that the silica sand is part of a principal aquifer.


SIL01, AOS F, AOS I and AOSJ
The starting position should be not to allow de-watering as outlined in our comments to site allocation MIN40.

Silica Sand search locations
If de-watering is not to occur at the silica sand search locations as mentioned in our response above, this can heavily impact on the amount of resource available.

We trust this advice is useful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Plan - Preferred Options, July 2019

MJCA are instructed by FH Ventures Norfolk Ltd to review the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Preferred Options document, July 2019 and prepare a response with comments on policies in the plan relevant to waste management and the site at Harling Road, Snetterton (an allocated site in the Adopted Norfolk Waste Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document 2013 (DPD, 2013)).

The site at Harling Road, Snetterton is part of a former mineral working including the road frontage which is occupied by the site access road and a ready mix cement plant. To the south and adjacent to the former mineral working is a closed, restored landfill site, substation and recycling centre. A copy of the plan showing the site is attached for your information. The former mineral working and the closed, restored landfill are under separate ownership. In this document reference to the site is to the former mineral working and the road frontage.

As part of the work to assess the relevant Preferred Options Policy the planning status of the site has been reviewed and information on the current status regarding the adjacent closed, restored landfill site has been discussed with Norfolk County Council. The approved restoration scheme is for a single landform with a domed profile over the landfill and the former mineral extraction site. It is concluded that based on the dual ownership status, together with the presence of the closed landfill to the south of the site at which leachate and landfill gas generated is actively managed it is highly unlikely that the approved restoration scheme for the site will be achieved this is in particular as the sites are owned separately and any restoration scheme covering both sites in a single domed profile would include filling of a boundary wedge which would extend into both sites. It is also highly unlikely that it would be viable to raise the ground levels at the site to the domed shape in the approved profile with wastes that needed to be deposited in engineered containment cells due to the limited waste void that would be generated. It is considered that the site is suitable for the base to be raised with suitable compacted inert material if a larger footprint is needed for waste treatment and storage. The landowner acknowledges that the site can be returned to a beneficial use and that there is a need to bring forward a plan which addresses the long term use of the site compatible with its setting.

The Company are considering development options for the site such as waste treatment and storage and as part of any planning application will amend the consented restoration scheme for the former mineral extraction site which as stated above cannot be achieved.

Comments on specific policies

Policy WP1 Waste management capacity to be provided
The Policy provides indicative arising forecasts for waste types during the plan period up to 2036. It should be acknowledged that a strategic policy relating to waste management capacity may need to be updated over time as forecasts for the quantities of waste generated change and sites included in the capacity assessment close, or are not brought forward. The policy does acknowledge that new facilities or changes to existing facilities which help achieve the targets for recycling, composting, reuse and recovery set out in the Waste Management Plan for England (2013) will be encouraged. The wording of Policy WP1 should be changed to remove reference to sufficient capacity exists to meet the growth forecast as it is likely this will change during the plan period. The implementation of the Resources and Waste Strategy (December 2018) will require flexibility in plans in order that waste management operators can respond to specific requirements as the policy details become clearer.

Policy WP2 Spatial Strategy for waste management facilities
The policy is generally supported and provides flexibility for new waste management sites to be brought forward where they are needed on sites in proximity to where the production of waste is likely to be concentrated in the larger settlements where the greatest housing and employment growth during the plan period will take place.
It is stated in Policy WP2 that waste management facilities will only be acceptable on the types of land identified within Policy WP3 (land potentially suitable for waste management facilities). It is considered that to provide flexibility to ensure waste management sites are brought forward where a need is demonstrated on sites that are suitable in the specific development context wording such as 'or other sites demonstrated as suitable for the facility proposed' should be added to the policy.

Policy WP3 Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities
The policy provides flexibility for new waste management sites to be brought forward where they are needed based on contracts and market conditions during the timeframe of the plan. It is considered that former mineral extraction sites should be added to the list of land types where waste management facilities will be acceptable. It is unclear why a call for sites exercise was undertaken earlier in 2019 if the Council were not intending to allocate sites in the plan. The need to allocate sites for waste management development should be reconsidered as part of the examination process. As stated in the Preferred Options Document planning applications for waste management facilities will come forward during the plan period and allocations for the location of potential waste management sites is helpful in terms of planning for a specific area.

Appendix 3 - Existing Waste Site Specific Allocations Policies
It is noted that all of the sites allocated in the Waste Strategic Sites Allocations Document, 2013 are proposed for deletion. It is acknowledged in the Preferred Options document, 2019 that waste management sites will come forward during the plan period. It is considered that site allocations provide certainty regarding the type and location of waste management sites that may come forward during the plan period. In the event that the allocated sites are reviewed as part of the Examination it is requested that the promoters are provided the opportunity to make representation on the assessment of previously allocated sites.

Appendix 10 - Proposed Waste Management Sites
It is unclear why a call for sites exercise was undertaken in early 2019 if site allocations were not going to be included in the emerging plan. At Appendix 10 of the Preferred Options document an assessment of the sites proposed is presented. The conclusions for site WS2 (Former mineral working at Heath Road, Snetterton) presented in Appendix 10 that the site is unsuitable to allocate are disputed. The site is a former mineral extraction with an approved unachievable restoration scheme hence an alternative restoration or use for the site should be encouraged. The need to restore the site to a uniform ground level before a waste management facility, or other development could be brought forward would be subject to a detailed design and risk assessment in consultation with the Planning Authority and the Environment Agency. This is a specific characteristic of the site which would need careful consideration during the design and assessment of any development proposal at the site, but is not considered a significant constraint that would affect the deliverability of a permanent waste management facility on the site. It should be noted that development at the site may also be proposed without the need to infill the site to a uniform ground level.

Our Client: Serruys Property Company Limited
Atlas Works, Norwich Road, Morton-on-the-Hill and Weston Longville ("Site")
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation
We write on behalf Serruys Property Company Limited ("SPCL") in response to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Preferred Options document ("Emerging Plan"):

1. SPCL is the owner of the Site totalling 9.1 hectares. The Site includes the following land identified on the enclosed plan:

a. Part of the Site edged blue allocated by Policy WAS 76 in the Waste Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (adopted October 2013) ("Adopted DPD"). This allocation extends to 0.4 hectares for an extension to the existing scrap metal recycling facility with an estimated capacity of 50,000 tonnes per annum. Policy WAS 76 is copied below:

Policy WAS 76
The site is allocated for an extension to the existing scrap metal recycling facility. Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy and Development Management policies, and will require any planning application to address. in particular, the requirements below:
* Screening and landscaping along the boundary with Marriott's Way to protect landscape and local amenity;
* Protection or the amenities of residents, other businesses. and users of Marriott's Way through the siting and design of buildings, plant and equipment, including consideration of cumulative impacts with existing metal recycling on adjoining land, and mitigation and control of visual intrusion, noise, vibration, dust, litter and lighting;
* Appropriate site design. engineering and operations, including a Surface Water Management Strategy, impermeable site surfacing and a sealed drainage system, to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the River Wensum SAC and other protected habitats in the vicinity of the site;
* Submission of a Transport Assessment to include evaluation of the impacts of the development on the A1067 and on accesses to the A47 and provide appropriate mitigation if necessary; and
* Provision of acceptable highway access, including improvements to and rationalisation of existing site highway accesses off the A1067.

b. The remainder of the part of the Site coloured orange of 8. 7 hectares and allocated by Policy WAS 78 in the Adopted DPD for mixed waste processing, metal recycling, inert waste recycling, treatment of household waste etc of up to 150,000 tonnes per annum. Policy WAS 78 is copied below:

Policy WAS 78
The site is allocated for mixed waste processing, metal recycling, inert waste recycling, in-vessel composting, physical, chemical, and/or mechanical/biological treatment of household waste, waste transfer. and other forms of residual waste treatment excluding thermal treatment. Development will be subject to compliance with adopted Core strategy and Development Management policies, and will require any planning application to address, in particular, the requirements below:
* The scale and bulk of new buildings and structures being compatible with the landscape in this location on the edge of the Wensum Valley;
* Screening and landscaping along the boundary with Marriott's Way to protect landscape and local amenity;
* Protection of the amenities of residents, other businesses. and users of Marriott's Way through the siting and design of buildings, plant and equipment, and mitigation and control of visual intrusion, noise, vibration, dust, bioaerosols, litter, odour, and lighting;
* Appropriate site design, engineering and operations, including a Surface Water Management Strategy, impermeable site surfacing and a sealed drainage system, to ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the River Wensum SAC and other protected habitats in the vicinity of the site, particularly from water run-off and emissions to air;
* Submission of a Transport Assessment to include evaluation of the impacts of the development on the A1067 and on accesses to the A47 and provide appropriate mitigation if necessary; and
* Provision of acceptable highway access, including improvements to and rationalisation of existing highway accesses off the A1067.

c. Land hatched blue comprising the existing metal recycling facilities (which includes part of the Site allocated under WAS 78) [The capacity from this facility is included in Appendix 1 "Waste facilities over 20,000 tonnes per annum in Norfolk 2012-2016" to the Waste Capacity Assessment 2017 (updated in June 2019) ("Waste Capacity Assessment")].

d. Land hatched red comprising part of the existing allocation WAS 78 of 2.1 hectares that has the benefit of planning permission for waste processing and the production of Refuse Derived Fuel ("RDF") with an annual throughput of 150,000 tonnes per annum and associated works. This development is permitted pursuant to planning permissions granted under reference APP/X2600/W/17/318973 dated 22 August 2018 and under reference C/5/2017/5007 dated 20 September 2018 ("Existing Consents").

2. The Site remains available. SPCL remain committed and supportive of waste management facilities across the Site and in turn would fully support - and recommend - the retention of the allocations under WAS 76 and WAS 78 in the Emerging Plan.

3. As explained in previous representations made on behalf of SPCL, the Site has a capacity for waste processing of up to 300,000 tonnes; 150,000 of which has already been permitted through the Existing Consents and 50,000 of which is already deemed acceptable through the current WAS 76 allocation. An increase of only 100,000 tonnes per annum is therefore proposed, which may appropriately be accommodated on the Site.

4. It is acknowledged that the Waste Capacity Assessment concluded: "sufficient capacity already exists to accommodate the forecast growth in waste [arising] over the Plan period to 2036. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to allocate any specific sites for waste management facilities in the M&WLPR. However, planning applications for new waste management facilities are still expected to come forward during the Plan period, both to move waste management up the waste hierarchy and because waste management is a contract driven and competitive industry. Therefore, the M&WLPR contains criteria-based policies to determine those planning applications that come forward for waste management facilities. [Emerging Plan, paragraph 1.2,]

5. However, the Waste Capacity Assessment has taken into account - when reaching the conclusion that sufficient capacity may exist for waste facilities over the plan period - the anticipated capacity from the Site allocated already under WAS 78 and permitted under the Existing Consents. [Waste Capacity Assessment, paragraph 2.4 and Appendix 2]

6. It is therefore crucial to ensure that this part of the Site remains allocated for waste processing uses. Otherwise there cannot be any guarantee that the Site, or any waste processing sites of a suitable type and location to meet identified needs, would come forward during the plan period.

7. For this same reason, SPCL would support the continued allocation of the Site as a whole for waste management uses in the Emerging Plan for up to 300,000 tonnes per annum. SPCL would also propose that the proposed uses reflect that contained in existing Policy WAS 78 save for the addition of thermal treatment. This is particularly because most of RDF is currently exported as the UK does not have sufficient facilities to properly convert RDF into energy. An allocation for thermal treatment would therefore be of substantial benefit, particularly following Brexit and the uncertainties over continuation of the export of RDF.

8. It must also be remembered that the suitability of the Site for waste processing has already been accepted through adoption of the Adopted DPD policies WAS 76 and WAS 78 [See paragraphs 6.76.2 to 6.76.5 and 6.78.2 to 6.78.5 of the Adopted DPD] and the Existing Consents.

9. In particular, the Adopted DPD acknowledges that there would be no adverse impact on the integrity of European sites (i.e. the River Wensum SAC) and that any other environmental impact or constraints could be sufficiently mitigated as may be demonstrated through a planning application. [Confirmed in paragraphs 6. 76.3 and 6. 76.5, and 6. 78.3 and 6. 78.5 for WAS 76 and WAS 78 respectively]

10. The suitability of part of the Site allocated under WAS 78 for waste processing for up to 150,000 tonnes per annum was agreed through the planning applications that culminated in the Existing Consents. Both the Council (following no objection from the various statutory consultees) and the Inspector on appeal in granting consent found that there were no planning or environmental constraints preventing the grant of planning permission for waste processing.

11. For the above reasons, it is clear that the Site should be specifically allocated for waste processing for up to 300,000 tonnes per annum for those specific uses detailed in policy WAS 78 (copied above) plus thermal treatment.

12. In addition, we consider the following amendments should be made to the Emerging Plan policies for clarity:

a. Policy WP2: Spatial Strategy for waste management facilities: this policy should be amended by referring specifically to the plan on the following page so it is clear as to how the 3 and 5 mile distances are to be applied. Alternatively, such clarification may be provided in paragraph W 2.2.

b. Policy WP3: Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities: this policy should be amended so that criteria (b) includes land with an existing or lawful general industrial B2 use or storage and distribution use under B8, or on sites that were previously consented for waste management facilities.

c. Policy WP6: Transfer, storage, processing and treatment of hazardous waste: this policy should again be amended in line with the suggestion at 12 (b) above for Policy WP3.

d. Policy WP7: Household Waste Recycling Centres: this policy should be amended by replacing the words "may be" to "will only be" for clarity and to be consistent with the terminology used in policies WP3 onwards.

Should you wish to discuss further, or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact the writer on the details below.

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.

Norfolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan Review: Preferred Options Consultation
Thank you for your recent consultation on the above document. Having reviewed the
consultation documents, we are pleased to note that the previous comments made by South Norfolk Council in relation to Policies WP7 and WP15 have been incorporated into the updated document. However, we also note that the other amendments suggested in our response to the Initial Public Consultation (dated 13 August 2018) have not been included within the latest version of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. We therefore wish to reiterate these comments and have again attached them to this consultation response for your ease of reference.
In addition to the above general comment, our Environmental Health colleagues have expressed their support for the submission of noise and dust assessments and mitigation measures to deal with the amenity impacts of planning applications for mineral extractions.
This is due to the proximity of existing residential properties to proposed mineral extraction sites within South Norfolk and the potential for these properties to be affected, particularly by noise and dust.
I hope you find the above comments useful.

Norfolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan Review: Initial Public Consultation
Thank you for your recent consultation on the above document, South Norfolk Council has the following comments to make.

General comments regarding the format of the policies:
Several policies concerning particular development types refer back to 'General' Policy MW2; whilst the reason for this is understood, there are a number of other general policies (e.g. MW3 and MW4) that might be equally applicable across a range of development types, but may get overlooked when development specific policies just refer back to MW2. As the policies in the plan should be read as a whole, is it necessary to have the references back to the general Development Management policies?
In a number of places policies are worded as aspirations, rather than requirements, consideration should be given to moving such wording to the supporting text, or strengthening the wording in the policy itself.

Comments on specific policies:

MW6 - would be more effective if it set out a hierarchy that sought development on the lowest grade of agricultural land first.

WP2 - it is not entirely clear what the first part of this policy is seeking to achieve; if it is seeking sustainable locations within easy reach of centres of population (particularly those that the proposed facilities are serving), the text may need to be expanded to better reflect this.

WP3 - in the list of potentially suitable land uses, 'within or adjacent to agriculture and forestry buildings' would appear to open up a wide range of sites to possible consideration, although it is understood that sites would need to meet the requirements of the general policies too. Permitted Development also opens up the scope for new build agricultural buildings, with relatively little input from the local planning authority. Consequently, could clause d) be caveated 'appropriately located' and 'in established use'?

WP4, WP5, WP7 etc. - a number of policies refer back to WP3 stating that proposals 'may be acceptable on land within the identified uses in', the Policy could be more effective as 'will not be acceptable outside of land identified in'.

WP7 - Concerned that this may not be legally sound, in that it goes beyond the remit of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan by seeking developer contributions. It would also be difficult to 'retro-fit' new Household Waste Recycling Centres into identified growth locations, if it was not a requirement when those locations were identified. Consideration could be given to allocating sites in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan which have good access to the growth locations.

WP15 - elements of this policy would appear to be requests rather than requirements, for example could 'strong encouragement' to Anglian Water be included in the supporting text, and the policy be reworded to say, 'Any proposals for the improvement of WWRC must to be accompanied by a longer-term vision, produced in collaboration with ...'

WP16 - This seems to overlap with MW2 and MW3; therefore, would this policy be better placed in the General Policies part of the Plan, and used to cover waste and minerals proposals?

Comments on Proposed Minerals Extraction Sites:

MIN25 at Haddiscoe - the site is very close to the nearest dwelling and the village generally, it would seem to be quite a significant site in terms of volume of material to be extracted, number of lorry movements etc. (we note there is a balance to be struck between length of extraction time and daily vehicle movements, to address concerns raised by the previous refusal of permission). Is there any scope to reduce the extent of the site, moving the boundary away from nearby dwellings and/or phasing the extraction as part of any mitigation? This, along with the impact on the Grade I Listed church and the visual impact of the proposed bunding, was a concern that South Norfolk Council raised in respect of the previous application on this site. In addition, the landscape assessment refers to mature screen planting, it would be useful if retention of this was picked up in the Initial Conclusion.

MIN 212 at Mundham - The relationship between the site and the processing plant seems to be quite poor, although it is acknowledged that the number of movements are relatively small and this is an existing route. The proposal includes increased bunding to screen the minerals workings, but doesn't indicate if that would be acceptable in terms of the landscape character type within which the site is located.
I hope you find the above comments useful.