Policy MP7: Progressive working, restoration and after-use

MP7 - Restoration of a site relies on the operator being the owner. Where this isn't the case then MP7 does not account for the landowner denying opportunities for greater public access after gleaning the financial benefits from the mineral extraction whilst the local community suffer the losses of amenity involved with a mineral extraction site for many years and even generations. Neither does it address the timescale that some sites may be actively quarried before greater public access is potentially achievable. Finally, it does not specify that the restoration will be for the benefit of the local community and not a fee-paying public for a development by a private company. MP7 fails sustainability objective SA4, SA8 and SA9 on pg 9 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report - Part A- Scoping (Oct 2015).

The local community suffer the losses of amenity for the benefit of the mineral operator, the landowner and kudos for the MPA, with a mineral extraction site for many years and even generations being blighted. Neither does it address the timescale that some sites may be actively quarried before greater public access is potentially achievable. Finally, it does not specify that the restoration will be for the benefit of the local community and not a fee paying public for a development by a private company.

MP7 - Restoration - Once again there is no timeframe bounding how long communities must suffer quarrying in their area before it will be restored. The statement "that worked land is reclaimed at the earliest opportunity" is open to interpretation in favour of the quarrying company and the disadvantage of the local residents. That makes the policy flawed, unacceptable and unsound. As it currently stands the policy means a local community suffers the loss of amenity for the benefit of the mineral operator, the landowner and the kudos for the MPA, for a mineral extraction site that lasts for many years and even generations. Finally, it does not specify that the restoration will be for the benefit of the local community and not a fee-paying public for a development by a private company. Without a definitive timescale to restoration and guarantees that land will be returned freely for the amenity of the local community, this policy is unsound.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silica Sand Extraction Policies and Controls
Living with the results of NCC Silica Sand Extraction Policy has generated a number of concerns which are best illustrated by reviewing the state of play of various former extraction sites.
The NCC has attempted to control the outcome with Covenants and/or S52 documents with very little effect. The Police and BCKLWN have had to be called to intervene on many occasions.
See attached plan:
A These two lakes were part of land originally leased by Sibelco and following excavation of Silica Sand were returned to the land owner without restoration. They are in an appalling state with polluted flooding and equipment remains.
B Is the main Bawsey Lake now owned by the Bacon family and only very recently reopened to the public, is the location where two drownings occurred which may have involved the equipment left at the bottom of the lake following the sand extraction. There is a long history of anti-social and inappropriate behaviour and the dumping of rubbish around the lake which is what originally caused Sibelco to sell the lake and surrounding land.
C The location of the original Golf Club, which was converted to a Sailing Club following the extraction of Silica Sand by Sibelco/BIS. The property was sold in 1999 to the current owners. The club was closed a few years later, which has been followed by criminal entry and activity leading to the mysterious fire destroying all the Club buildings.
The owner has now achieved outline planning {BCKLWN 18/00053} to build 7 dwellings with the commitment to provide a minimal members only sailing club house at the lake edge. This proposal will provide little to no discouragement to any criminal activity since any club facilities will be totally separate and invisible from any of the proposed dwellings. The net effect is the community asset originally protected by Covenant & S.52 agreements is no longer.
D This lake, following extraction has now been used for water skiing causing noise nuisance to the local inhabitants.

In conclusion the Silica Sand extraction sites as currently monitored and controlled has led to: generation of waste land/lakes, inappropriate behaviour, some criminal activity, dumping of waste and obstructive road side parking. Thus a new strategy and controls are required before any further extraction should be permitted eg. SIL 01

Norfolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan Review 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minerals Site Allocations

Silica Sand

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carstone

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

Breckland

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

MIN200
We support the restoration proposals for this site.

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

Broadland

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

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

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


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

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

Great Yarmouth

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

King's Lynn & West Norfolk

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

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

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

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

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

North Norfolk

MIN69 - north of Holt Road, Aylmerton
Whilst we are unable to comment on the wider impacts of this proposal as they are outside of our remit, should this site be progressed, then we strongly support the Council's recommendations that this site should only be worked dry in order to avoid hydrological impacts on the nearby Norfolk Valley Fens SAC and be subject to high quality restoration and formal aftercare, creating a large new area of heathland with benefits both for wildlife and green infrastructure provision. We support the precautionary requirement for noise and dust assessments as part of any application in order to evaluate potential impacts on nearby wildlife sites and the requirement to demonstrate that adverse effects on the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC would be avoided.

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

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

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

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

South Norfolk

MIN209
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

MIN210
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

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

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

MIN212
We support the proposed restoration scheme for this site.

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

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.

Original response received 30.10 2019
Revised response received 18.12.2019

3. Implications for the Borough from sand and gravel and silica sand policies / areas
3.1 Tottenhill (Site 206 - West of Lynn Road) This is an extension of existing works. The Tottenhill sites would be worked sequentially to mitigate any cumulative impacts. Potentially acceptable subject to the requirements in the policy.

3.2 A site at East Winch (Site MIN06 Mill Drove, Middleton) is allocated for carstone extraction. Potentially acceptable subject to the requirements in the policy.

3.3 Silica sand - AoS's (E, F, J and I) and SIL01. The County Council concludes that Site SIL01 is suitable to allocate for silica sand extraction. Development will be subject to compliance with the relevant Minerals and Waste Local Plan Policies and Specific Site Allocation Policy SIL01. There are reasonable safeguards for the locality.

3.4 The AoS are the same as previously expressed in the Initial Consultation document. Silica sand is a nationally important industrial mineral, and as such, the County Council must make adequate provision for its extraction. However they are not able to find suitable sites for the quantity of sand required, especially having dropped a site at Shouldham / Marham. The AoS are large and the expectation is that a suitable location could be found within one of the areas. Without detailed further information or operator preferences, it is not possible to pinpoint a site and therefore assess the localised impacts. Whilst this may be unsatisfactory for local communities who fear the consequences of extraction, it does give a positive indication that the County Council is safeguarding land and narrowing down suitable sites. It would be unrealistic to seek to have no areas of search at all, and the Plan could be found 'unsound', which would not be of benefit to the area.

Policy MP13 Silica Sand Area of Search (AoS E - Shouldham Warren area) and Policy MP2 - Spatial Strategy for mineral extraction (including reference to Silica Sand Areas of Search, and buffer zones (clause e))
3.5 Policy MP13 provides a criterion based approach to potential development in Areas of Search, including Area E. The expectation is that various assessments about related impacts will be provided in support of any applications, covering matters such as archaeology, landscape etc. Heavy reliance is placed on the safeguards from supporting studies to achieve acceptable development.
The recent decision by Norfolk County Council (in respect of it's Environmental Policy - County Council 25 November) to support the planting of some 1 million trees over the next 5 years to mitigate for the effects of climate change suggests a significant policy shift in the important role that trees play in County Council operations. It is clear that much more attention needs to be given the retention of existing tree cover in any mineral extraction situation. Shouldham Warren is an extensive area of tree cover, with additional recreation opportunities. An elevated status needs to be given to this in the planning balance as to whether an Area of Search should be designated at Shouldham, the Borough Council view is that the County Council should remove the AoS for this reason.
Additionally, Policy MP2 provides a degree of protection for areas with defined characteristics. Clause a. refers to 'ancient' woodland. In view of the County Council decision referred to above, it would be appropriate to delete the word 'ancient', leaving an enhanced level of protection to woodland generally.
Conclusion on AoS E (Shouldham) - Taking into account the two proposed amendments to policies affecting the potential for extraction at Shouldham, and the significant additional constraints now evident, the AoS should be removed.
MP2 Clause e) - Whilst the hydrological catchment around Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog, is specifically mentioned in Policy MP2e for exclusion, the complex hydrology and geology of these extremely sensitive sites is not fully understood. These two habitats have been recognised through the Ramsar, SAC and SSSI designations as having protected status. The introduction of wider 1.5km buffer zones would better mitigate any risk.

3.6 Policy MP7 (relating to restoration and aftercare) suggests that preference will be given to enhancing biodiversity, green infrastructure, and high quality local landscapes. This approach is supported. Whilst not necessarily appropriate in all circumstances, tree planting on restored sites would be a useful additional boost to mitigate for climate change. It is proposed that an additional clause is added to this effect as a fifth bullet point in paragraph four to the policy.

4. Implications for the Borough from the NCC approach to proposed waste and other policies on 'energy minerals'.

4.1 NCC have reviewed the policies in the current plans and as with Minerals moved them on to an end date of 2036. One particular item is relevant to West Norfolk. This is the overall locational strategy for waste management facilities.
4.2 Main points:
* From Policy WP2 in the Preferred Options it would seem possible to locate waste management facilities away from the broad location that generated the waste. Thus necessitating potentially significant transport movements, and possibly generating resentment from recipient communities.
* Whilst not necessarily inappropriate for all types of waste where specialist facilities are needed, extremely careful thought should be given to general waste or significant quantities requiring movement.
* A better approach would seem to be one where the policy encouraged waste to be dealt with as near to the generating source as possible.
* It is suggested our original comments are still appropriate to make.
4.3 Incineration - For the avoidance of doubt, it would be helpful if the County Council could add text to explain the position whereby the County Council will not seek to procure incinerators within Norfolk.
The position of the Borough Council on incineration is clear from previous involvement in planning inquiries. A clear statement on the matter from the County Council in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan would avoid any uncertainty for residents.

4.4 Fracking - Reference could be made to latest Government announcements about the potential restrictions / banning on this subject.