Policy WP7: Household waste recycling centres

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Norfolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan Preferred Options, July 2019.
Essex County Council acting as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority would like to make the following comments:
Vision
The intention for Norfolk to be self-sufficient in sand and gravel production and waste management, where practicable, is supported. The continuing recognition that Norfolk is an important supplier at the national level of silica sand is also welcomed, as is the acknowledgement of the need to safeguard minerals and waste infrastructure.
The current Vision seeks to avoid 'unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of local communities, the natural, built and historic environment, the landscape and townscape of Norfolk. Opportunities to enhance such features will be supported.' The intention is supported but it is noted that the Government have mandated that new development should result in net biodiversity gain. It is considered that this should be bought out within the Vision and/or the Strategic Objectives, as well as relevant policy.
Mineral Strategic Objectives - MSO1
It is considered that MSO1 would benefit from being re-drafted to mirror the drafting of MSO2. The stated aim of MSO1 is (inter-alia) 'To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate ... sufficient to meet the requirements of the Local Aggregate Assessment'. The Local Aggregate Assessment is a reporting and forecasting tool and therefore does not strictly contain a specific 'requirement'. MSO2 refers to the intention 'To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals...sufficient to meet the forecast need'. It is considered that MSO1 would benefit from being redrafted to also reflect the intention to meet a forecasted need. A supporting reference could set out that the LAA assists in the establishment of need forecasts.
General Policies
Policy MW3 - Transport
The plan makers may wish to consider including a hierarchy of preference for transportation routes to ensure that site promoters are required to expressly consider the most sustainable route to the nearest Principal Road or Main Distributor Road. This may aid in ensuring that applications demonstrate adherence to the provisions of Paragraph 9.5, Paragraph 9.6 and Paragraph W2.1b
Waste Specific Policies
Paragraph W0.5 - The paragraph references Article 16 of the Waste Framework Directive with regard to what is expected for compliance with the proximity principle
and self-sufficiency with respect to waste management. The Plan makers may wish to consider PPG Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 28-007-20141016 as a secondary or replacement reference as this defines expectations for the same as they relate to waste planning authorities rather than Member States. It is recognised that the appropriateness of substituting the reference is tempered by the fact that the PPG is not strictly policy.
Policy WP1 - Waste management capacity to be provided
The methodologies used to forecast future waste need are considered to be appropriate. The current preferred approach of basing LACW growth on the growth profile set out in the Norfolk SHMA rather than that published by the ONS is supported, as is the utilisation of a locally derived figure for forecasting the need for C&I capacity over the plan period.
The approach to forecasting the future need of hazardous waste management facilities is acknowledged. Forecasting a reduction in need appears appropriate given the reduction in this type of waste that has been managed in the Plan area. However, as with any reduction in forecasted need, it is expected that robust monitoring of the accuracy of these forecasts will be carried out. It is also unclear from the information presented in the Waste Management Capacity Assessment 2017 why an annual reduction in hazardous waste arising of 6.6% has been selected over any other potential figure.
Paragraph W2.1 - The spatial strategy supporting text may benefit from recognising that a number of waste management facilities can be co-located to offer synergistic benefits. The paragraph should also recognise that particular waste management facilities will have locational requirements which restrict where they can be effectively located. This is already recognised in Policy WP2 and Section W3 and therefore it would be appropriate to include the recognition for locational requirements in the factors considered under this paragraph.
Policy WP2: Spatial Strategy for waste management facilities
The requirement for new or enhanced waste management facilities to be located within five miles of one of Norfolk's urban areas or three miles of one of the main towns is considered to be arbitrary and the appropriateness of this is questioned. The primary concern should be whether the site is near to the waste source. Economics will in any event restrict the distance a facility could be located from potential sources of waste material.
Paragraph W3.3 - A distinction could be made between strategic / permanent aggregate recycling facilities and those temporary aggregate recycling facilities which are commonly co-located with active mineral workings. This distinction is already recognised in Policy WP3 so could be mentioned within the supporting text.
Paragraph W4.1 - The following text could be inserted to qualify that recycled aggregate cannot always be used as a direct substitute for primary aggregate - 'Whilst the resultant material is typically lower grade, recycled inert material can still often act as a substitute for freshly excavated material.' In the same vein, it could be noted in a relevant part of the Plan that marine-won aggregate cannot always be used as a direct substitute for land-won aggregate.
Policy WP3 - Land potentially suitable for waste management facilities
Whilst it is recognised that the intentions behind Policy WP7 are positive, it is not considered appropriate to establish caveats for Council operated sites that do not apply to the full range of potential waste management facilities that the county may require. It is considered that Policy WP3 should be amended to include text along the following theme (wording amended from Policy WP7 - "Where sufficient information is submitted to demonstrate that no suitable sites consistent with Policy WP3 are available within the area to be served by the waste management facility, the development of a waste management facility may be acceptable on other sites provided there is an established need for the facility and the proposal is consistent with the development management criteria set out in Policy MW2 and the wider Development Plan."
Policy WP7 - Household Waste Recycling Centres
Whilst it is recognised that the intentions behind Policy WP7 are positive, it is not considered appropriate to establish caveats for Council operated sites that do not apply to the full range of potential waste management facilities that the county may require.
Policy WP17 - Safeguarded waste management facilities
The proposed approach is supported although it is considered that the operation of this policy would be significantly improved by delineating, by way of an appendix referred to in the policy, the nature of evidence that would be required to be submitted alongside a non-waste application such that the County Council could be satisfied that the proposed development would not impact on the operation of the current or future waste management facility.
It is also considered that the plan makers consider including extending safeguarding provisions to sites allocated for a waste use. Whilst it is noted that the current version of the emerging Plan includes no such waste allocations, this stance may change in the future, and the inclusion of 'allocated sites' in the policy wording at this juncture may future-proof the policy.
Mineral Specific Policies
Sand and gravel requirements and shortfall
The intention to provide aggregate above both the ten year and three year rolling averages is supported in recognition of the fact that the last three years of sales demonstrate an upward trend and that the ten year rolling average would fail to satisfy the last four years of production. It is agreed that sales over the last ten years have been significantly lower than the figure presented in the sub-national guidelines although it is further noted that sales prior to the recession were noticeably closer to the figure presented in the guidelines.
The argument of basing sand and gravel provision on a 20 year sale average is however questioned. The 20 year period is considered to 'take into account potential fluctuations in the economy' (Para MP1.6) whereas the Norfolk LAA 2017/18 states (Section 6.2) that 'modern methods of construction use considerably less aggregate than methods used in previous decades, and this decline in the intensity of aggregate use has been a continuing trend over a number of years.' This LAA statement brings into question the appropriateness of using 20-year-old figures and appears to contradict the appropriateness of doing so as advocated by the Norfolk MWLP Paragraph MP1.6.
Notwithstanding the above, the 20-year sand and gravel production average equates to approximately 85% of current production. Whilst it is recognised that a direct parallel cannot be made, it is considered that the appropriateness of the 20-year production average figure needs to be justified, in qualitative terms, on the basis of both current rates of production / development in Norfolk and future rates of development. This assessment should also consider demand from significant projects such as the relatively proximate Sizewell C nuclear facility.
To clarify, ECC is not necessarily objecting to the annualised production figure that equates to the 20 year rolling sales average, but considers that this figure needs to be more robustly justified in the context of a comparison of current and future needs rather than that the figure simply equating to 20 years of rolling sales.
The intention to not offset the need for primary allocations with an assumed contribution from recycled and marine-won aggregate is supported.
Paragraph MP1.10 - The appropriateness of basing silica sand supply on an annual production figure of 750,000 is not understood on the basis of this figure failing to meet the three-year sales average since 2013. As noted in the Norfolk LAA 2017/18, Norfolk is a significant national supplier of silica sand and it is considered that the proposed annual production figure may represent under-provision.
Policy MP1 - Provision for mineral extraction
The over-arching principles of Policy MP1 are supported although the appropriateness of the need figures for sand and gravel and silica sand are questioned on the basis of the representations made with regard to the 'sand and gravel requirements and shortfall' section and Paragraph MP1.10.
Defining Areas of Search (for Silica Sand) and Policy MP2 - Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction
It is considered that Areas of Search should not be limited by factors that would not amount to show-stoppers for mineral working itself. For example, as a temporary land use, mineral extraction is not considered to have the same impact on heritage assets and their setting as more permanent forms of development. Mineral extraction may even present opportunities to improve the setting of heritage assets in the long-term through sympathetic restoration. As such, it is considered that Areas of Search should be re-defined to include all relevant land where mineral extraction could theoretically be permitted.
The requirement for all sites to be within five miles of one of Norfolk's urban areas or three miles of one of the main towns is considered to be arbitrary. It is questioned how much land otherwise suitable for mineral extraction would be lost through not conforming to this requirement.
Policy MP3 - Borrow Pits
The requirement for a borrow pit to be capable of being accessed from the construction project site either directly or via a short length of suitable highway is considered to be unduly restrictive and may unduly fetter the development management process. Further, rather than stipulating that the borrow pit must be worked and restored by the completion of the related construction project, it may be more appropriate to request that a restoration scheme is agreed as part of the construction project in order to potentially increase the scope for beneficial after-uses. The remaining provisions are supported.
Paragraph MP11.6 - This paragraph states that 'To ensure that the Mineral Safeguarding Areas are proportionate, the area covered by the MSA will include only those deposits which are most likely to be commercially viable.' On this point, it is noted that the aim of safeguarding mineral is to protect the mineral to allow its future use, which may be some way into the future. What is considered 'most likely to be commercially viable' may well change in the future. On that basis, it is considered more appropriate to safeguard the whole sand and gravel resource and apply a threshold above which planning applications within an MSA will be subject to safeguarding policy. . It is suggested that the plan makers consider the provisions of the POS/MPA Minerals Safeguarding Practice Guidance in relation to this issue.
Policy MP10: safeguarding of port and rail facilities, and facilities for the manufacture of concrete, asphalt and recycled materials and Policy MP11: Minerals Safeguarding Areas and Minerals Consultation Areas
The proposed policy approaches are supported although it is considered that the operation of these policies would be significantly improved by delineating, by way of an appendix referred to in each policy, the nature of evidence that would be required to be submitted alongside a non-mineral application such that the County Council could be satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on existing or allocated sites for mineral development. It is suggested that the plan makers consider the provisions of the POS/MPA Minerals Safeguarding Practice Guidance as a basis for the type of information that should inform the relevant assessments.

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 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.