MIN 65 - land north of Stanninghall Quarry

Why have only 13 sensitive receptors within 250m of the site boundary been contacted? There are hundreds more properties within the village of Horstead (239m from the site). You state that adverse dust impacts are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities. I totally dispute this figure as it will be entirely dependant on atmospheric conditions at the time. This will be particularly so when the wind is blowing, as we are all downwind from the site with the prevailing wind in this area (SW). I have already been discovering fine dust in my conservatory gutters when cleaning and I am almost 1Km from the present site. I'm sure you have yourself seen deposits of red dust on cars from the Sahara on occasions which originates from a lot further than 250m!!!
I have lived here for 2 years and have seen a massive increase in road traffic, particularly since the NDR opened. This increase will not be helped by an increase in lorry traffic of over 60% possibly into an already busy/narrow roadway network within Horstead/Coltishall.
In addition: Who would want to buy a property on the boundary of a quarry?
As I live within the 250m zone of dust/noise impacts I am very concerned. [Redacted text - personal data] Any increase of dust in the atmosphere would exacerbate this condition. Additional dust in the air is also a potential problem for young children/babies within the village.

I have tried to navigate your website to leave commentary in regards to your proposed quarry development but have found the site suitably difficult to navigate

I would raise the following objections to the proposed application

I am absolutely staggered at how close the quarry site is to my property and the surrounding settlement, why does it need to come so close increasing the risk of both noise and physical pollution to residents. I do not understand why you are seeking to elevate risk to such a level when the current quarry can be expanded directionally away from horstead, or reduced in capacity without exposing residents to an increased level of risk

The word " uncommon " in regards to dust being seen beyond 250m of the site boundary communicates to me that it is will be " common " by definition in that my property will be effected by dust pollution as its sits within the 250m boundary of the development - I do not understand why the scope of the quarry cannot be reduced to in order to limit these risks and not make either noise or dust pollution a critical issue, I am assuming that this a matter of commercial greed by the developer and that you as a council are happy to sacrifice the wellbeing of residents to facilitate this

How will you safeguard people's health to ensure there is no negative respiratory impact ?

I am also concerned for the mental health of all people subjected to the consistent noise of quarry workings so close to people's homes

I have questions regarding your existing facility

How do you currently monitor dust levels from the existing quarry ?
How do you monitor noise levels at the existing quarry ?
What are the agreed permissible limit's for both ?
Have these ever been breached ?
What action has been taken ?
Have these actions been closed out on time and in full ?

Please can you provide me with this information - if there are any gaps in adherence at the existing site then mitigating measures carry no weight at your proposed site and therefore the risk of noise and physical pollution

The existing water tower should be used as the demarcation point for the quarry boundary, this would also enable the natural topography of the land to provide an improved noise and physical barrier
This allows for quarry expansion whilst ensuring residents are not unduly negatively impacted

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Preferred Options Consultation (MIN 35 - land at Heath Road, Eccles, Quidenham)

Further to the publication of the above I would like to make the following comments on behalf of Frimstone Ltd and wish to register an Objection to the Consultation Draft and support the allocation for MIN 35 for the reasons outlined below.

Landscape
Following the initial findings of the Preferred Options Consolation a Landscape and Visual Statement was commissioned and completed by Collington Winters in October 2019. The report demonstrates and concludes that the site would have acceptable local landscape impacts and that the screening would not be intrusive in its own right. The report also recommends that it will be possible to mitigate adverse landscape impacts through advance planting and bunding.

It is highlighted in the enclosed Landscape and Visual Statement that the proposed site is not located within the AONB, a Core River Valley or any other designated landscape features. It must be noted that unlike MIN 69 - land north of Holt Road, Aylmerton, MIN 211 - land west of Bath Hills Road, Earsham (Extension area 3) which is adjacent to the boundary of the Broads Authority Executive Area and MIN 25 - land at Manor Farm (between Loddon Road and Thorpe Road), Haddiscoe which is adjacent to a Core River Valley and also is adjacent to the boundary of the Broads Authority Executive Area).

The enclosed report also demonstrates that the existing landscape detractors mean that the proposed site cannot be considered a tranquil, unspoilt area of the countryside.
The proposal sets the limit of extraction approximately 150 metres from the southern boundary of the site, so as to allow the site to be screened in a way which would not be significantly detrimental to the views from the immediate south. Existing bunding associated with the historic landfill is present which already screens out long-range views for properties to the south of the proposed site.
The proposed new bunding associated with the MIN 35 development will be set back from the southern boundary so as to not have an adverse effect on views over the field and the woodland to the west from those properties to the south of the site. The proposed limit of extraction means that there would be less difference between the views of the existing bunding associated with the historic landfill and those of new bunding associated with this proposed development from the south and southeast of the site.

Screen bunding and advance hedge planting is proposed along the site boundary on Heath Road to ensure that users of Heath Road are not able to gain medium-to-long-range views across the site, including the existing partially screened timber yard opposite the area of the site not proposed to be worked.

Any future application for mineral extractions at this site will be accompanied with a
further carefully designed landscape scheme that addresses the visual impacts that may, unless controlled, potentially affect local residents. Substantial buffer zones are proposed comprising advanced planting of woodland copses and planting belts, that are to be retained within the site restoration, and screen bunds in place surrounding the immediate area proposed for mineral extraction.

The temporary bunds are proposed to be of adequate height to screen the upper story views from housing and it will be ensured that the grading, profiles appearance and management of vegetation on the temporary bunds will benefit from careful treatment. These mitigation requirements shall be followed to ensure that the screening features are not visually intrusive as it is recognised that residents may have views of these across the existing agricultural fields to the east and southwest of the site, and also from the adjacent road.

I therefore wish to object to the conclusions reached in terms of considering MIN 35 unsuitable for allocation in landscape terms, as following a review of baseline information, together with consideration of likely landscape and visual effects, it is considered that the application site and wider landscape is able to accommodate the proposal for mineral extraction, in landscape and visual terms, without having an unacceptable effect or loss of landscape character or visual amenity. Any loss of landscape character would be temporary and upon restoration, character would be reinforced and enhanced.

Provision for minerals extraction (Policy MP1)
The NPPG suggests that the 10-year rolling average, 3 year rolling average and the sub-national guidelines should all be considered in order to establish a broad understanding of current and future mineral demand, especially during reviews of planned provision. The sub-national guidelines are for Norfolk to produce 2.57 million tonnes of sand and gravel a year.
It has been considered by the MPA that planning to provide the 20-year average annual production figure would enable a sufficient quantity of sand and gravel resources to be available over the 18- year plan period and would take into account potential fluctuations in the economy.
Over the 18-year plan period to 2036, using the considered suitable 20-year average of 1.868 million tpa, 33.624 million tonnes of sand and gravel resources would be needed in total. Taking into account the existing permitted reserve, the remaining need for allocated sites is 20.313 million tonnes of sand and gravel.
However, using the sub-national guidelines for sand and gravel, as specified in the NPPG this would mean that sites for 32,949,300 tonnes of sand and gravel extraction would need to be allocated over the plan period. The sub-national guideline figures cover the period 2005-2020 and therefore remains current at this stage of the Consultation process, and must remain so until these figures are updated. Therefore, a stronger case has to be made by the MPA as to why they consider the current subnational guidelines not to be relevant in producing this plan and more specifically the landbank figure required in the Plan period to the end of 2036. Furthermore, may I raise the question to the MPA as to what the justification is for using a 20-year average annual production figure, rather than a 25-year
average or likewise 18-year to cover the remainder of the plan period, for example?

I therefore wish to object to the methodology used in establishing the required tonnages of sand and gravel resource to be allocated within the Plan period to the end 2036 as referred to in Policy MP1: Provisions of minerals extraction. The 20-year average methodology has not been accepted as a valid methodology for establishing this figure and therefore should not be considered as sound. This is demonstrated by the NPPG which considers that only the 10-year rolling average, 3 year rolling average and the sub-national guidelines should all be considered in order to establish a broad understanding of current and future mineral demand, especially during reviews of planned provision.

I would consequently like to object to this figure in relation to MIN 35, which at the 'Initial Consultation' stage of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review was considered as suitable for allocation based on the proposed 20-year average annual production figure in August 2018.

However, the current proposed allocation figure less than 18 months later is greatly reduced and is considered the only reason for the site to now be considered as unsuitable, due to the fact that the proposals have not changed in terms of the site development since that date.

Suitability of alternatives considered as suitable for allocation
There are a number of sites that have been considered suitable for allocation in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review that are very similar to MIN 35 in terms of their potential impact on the local landscape from viewpoints from surrounding sensitive receptors. The table below and subsequent consultation extracts identifies and breaks down each site in terms of the number of sensitive receptors within 250m and 100m of the proposed extraction area compared with MIN 35, respectively. Therefore, on a logical comparative basis MIN 35 sits within the top three of the proposed sites with the least number of sensitive receptors.

INSERT TABLE

MIN 210 "the impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long-distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting. The views of the mineral working from Park Farm Cottages will predominantly be screened by bunding"

MIN 211 "the impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long-distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting. The views of the mineral working from nearby properties will predominantly be screened by bunding"

MIN 65 "glimpses of the land can be seen from Frettenham Road to the west through gaps in boundary hedges. Views could also be seen from two properties which lie close to the site perimeter to the west and east respectively"

MIN 213 "views into the site may be possible from Shorthorn Road, through the proposed entrance"

MIN 25 "there are mature screen planting forming hedgerows on all sides of the site, except a section of the eastern boundary closest to Manor Farm"

MIN 12 "views of the site would be seen from Field Lane, a road used as a public path which bounds the site to the north. In addition, the southern part of the site is slightly elevated and may be visible in a long view from public paths crossing land to the north of the Whitewater valley"

MIN 209 "a number of properties back onto the road overlook the site, the impact of the proposed mineral working on the wider landscape would predominantly be the decreased long-distance views and increased roadside vegetation due to the proposed bunding and advanced planting"

The above findings were concluded by the MPA as being acceptable subject to the erection of screen bunds and advanced planting. Likewise, it is stated that any potential views of MIN 35 would require mitigation through screen bunding and advance hedge planting. Therefore, given the supporting information above, as part of the independent Landscape and Visual Statement, it is considered that the MIN 35 site should be considered suitable for allocation due to the similarities it shares in landscape terms with the above sites that themselves have been considered suitable for allocation.

Furthermore, three sites have been considered suitable for allocation that are either within or adjacent to the AONB, a Core River Valley or any other designated landscape features, namely MIN 69, MIN 211 and MIN 25. Since MIN 35 is not located within or even close to any of these designated landscape features, preference must be given to this site in planning terms as required by the
requirements of NPPF Paragraph 205.

Since the 'Initial Consultation' stage of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review and additional site has come forward and is now considered as suitable for allocation in the 'Preferred Options Consultation'. This is MIN 213 land at Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless for a total estimated sand and gravel resource of 1 million tonnes. The site has been selected in preference to MIN 35, due to the fact that the MIN 35 site was formerly considered as suitable for allocation at the 'Initial Consultation' stage. However, it is considered that this new site (MIN 213) not only presents a similar landscape impact to MIN 35 as described above, but also represents a site that will result in the permanent loss of a well-established coniferous plantation for after use as a holiday lodge development. MIN 213 is also located adjacent to an ancient replanted woodland to which deterioration is likely to occur as a result of the mineral operation. As such, any application that concludes this unless there are wholly exceptional reasons should be refused as in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 175c. Therefore, the site cannot be considered as being suitable for allocation given this likely impact.

I therefore would like to object to the inclusion of the above sites as being considered suitable for allocation, whereas MIN 35 is considered unsuitable solely on landscape grounds. It has been demonstrated above that preference should not be given to any of these sites over and above MIN 35 and that MIN 35 should be reconsidered in light of the additional supporting landscape and visual statement and be concluded as once again suitable for allocation as at the 'Initial Consultation' stage of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review.

Conclusion
On behalf of Frimstone Limited, I would contend that the information submitted as part of this consultation adequately addresses the reasons why this site has not been considered suitable for allocation and that the site should now be allocated. This would add only a further 0.5 million tonnes to the overall landbank figure for the plan period and be worked and restored considerably before the end of 2036. Therefore, I see no reason why these revisions should not be carried forward to adoption in the review of the Local Plan.

Enc.
Landscape and Visual Statement (Ref. CW0121-RPT-001), dated 30 October 2019
Ecological Scoping Report (Ref. E17864), dated 2 August 2017

Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan - Preferred Options Draft 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In preparation of the forthcoming local plan, we encourage you to draw on the knowledge of local conservation officers, the county archaeologist and local heritage groups.

Please note that absence of a comment on a policy, allocation or document in this letter does not mean that Historic England is content that the policy, allocation or document is devoid of historic environment issues. We should like to stress that this response is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise as a result of this plan, where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.

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

Original draft response received 30.10.2019
Revised response received 08.11.2019

Highway Authority comments regarding sites proposed for allocation only

MIN 12 - North of Chapel Lane, Beetley
Acceptable subject to continued use of conveyor

MIN 51 & MIN 13 - West of Bilney Road, Beetley
Acceptable subject to suitable access strategy. MIN51 to be accessed via MIN13

MIN 200 - West of Cuckoo Lane, Carbrooke
Acceptable subject to provision of acceptable access at Mill Lane along with provision of passing places between the site and the B1108. Existing haul route and Mill Lane crossing to processing plant to be utilised, or appropriate alternative to be provided. Routing agreement required along with weight limit to protect Carbrooke settlement north of the site.

MIN 202 - South of Reepham Road, Attlebridge
Acceptable subject to use of existing access at Reepham Road and lorry routing via A1270 Broadland Northway

MIN 37 - Mayton Wood, Coltishall Rd, Buxton
Acceptable subject to provision of satisfactory temporary access at C494 Coltishall Road with acceptable visibility. Local highway improvements including widening required, to be delivered via S278 agreement. Temporary access to be removed on restoration of site. Routing agreement required.

MIN 64 - Grange Farm, Buxton Rd, Horstead
Acceptable subject to provision of satisfactory temporary access at C494 Coltishall Road with acceptable visibility. Local highway improvements including widening required, to be delivered via S278 agreement. Temporary access to be removed on restoration of site. Routing agreement required.

MIN 65 - North of Stanninghall Quary
Acceptable subject to access via existing site and routing agreement.

MIN 96 - Grange Farm (between Spixworth Rd & Coltishall La), Spixworth
Acceptable subject to access via A1270 Broadland Northway roundabout at Norwich Airport. Improvements required at the roundabout to formalise access to site, along with relocation of access gates to provide sufficient space for 2 HGVs to stop clear of the roundabout. Relocation of processing plant to south of C250 Church Lane required. Removal of HGV access at Buxton Road also required.

MIN 213 - Mansom Plantation, Stratton Strawless
Acceptable subject to acceptable access at Shortthorn Road and routing agreement via A140.

MIN 206 - Oak Field west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill
Acceptable subject to access via land to north, then A10. Routing agreement required.

MIN 69 - North of Holt Road, Aylmerton
Acceptable subject to provision of right hand turn lane at A148 junction with Briton's Lane, visibility improvements at site access, improvements to Britons Lane and routing agreement, in accordance with the existing allocation.

MIN 115 - Lord Anson's Wood, North Walsham
Acceptable subject to site access being via private haul route to acceptable access at B1150

MIN 207 - Pinkney Field, Briston
Acceptable subject to continuation of existing haul route

MIN 208 - South of Holt Road, East Beckham
Acceptable subject to access via existing right turn facility. Right turn lane to be removed following completion of extraction/restoration.

MIN 209 - Adjacent to A143 (Extension Area 1), Earsham
Acceptable subject to appropriate highway access and local highway improvements at Hall Road

MIN 210 - Adjacent to A143 (Extension Area 2), Earsham
Acceptable subject to site access via Site MIN 209 along with any appropriate improvements to the local highway at Hall Road and the site access. Material conveyor required.

MIN 211 - West of Bath Hills Rd (Extension Area 2), Earsham
Acceptable subject to site access via Site MIN 209 along with any appropriate improvements to the local highway at Hall Road and the site access. Material conveyor required.

MIN 25 - Manor Farm (between Loddon Rd & Thorpe Rd), Haddiscoe
Acceptable subject to suitable access strategy either via Crab Apple Lane, or direct to B1136. Access via Crab Lane would require local highway improvements to include widening to the access and visibility at the B1136 junction in accordance with DMRB. Direct access via B1136 to include visibility in accordance with DMRB.

MIN 212 - Mundham Rd, Mundham
The Highway Authority would not wish to comment regarding the proposed mineral extraction site. However, the location of the processing site is a concern and in particular the routing of HGVs through Trowse village. It would be desirable if the material could be processed at source.

MIN 6 - East Winch Rd, Mill Drove, Middleton
Acceptable subject to use of internal haul route, existing processing facilities, acceptable visibility at access and routing agreement. The allocation would result in a continuation of turning movements at the A47, Highways England should have the opportunity to comment.

MIN 40 - East of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch
Acceptable subject to material processing at existing plant, use of existing internal haul-route required and continued use of rail for material transportation.

SIL 01 - Mintlyn South, Bawsey
Acceptable subject to extraction phased with MIN 40, submission of Transport Assessment with acceptable access strategy. Material transportation to existing processing plant via internal haul route and acceptbale crossing / conveyor of highway and utilise existing rail facilities.

AOS E - North of Shouldham
Subject to submission of Transport Assessment including delivery of acceptable highway improvements. Access to be via A143 with right turn lane with suitable levels of visibility. Access via West Briggs Drove would not be appropriate without significant improvement. Movement of material using off-highway routes, or conveyor/pipeline etc. preferred. Should material be conveyed by highway, a suitable access to the processing facility shall be provided shall be provided at B1145, to an acceptable standard including visibility. Highways England should be consulted regarding vehicle movements at Hardwick Interchange. Material extraction to be phased such that no more than one Silica site at any one time will transport material by road.

AOS F - North of Stow Bardolph
Subject to submission of Transport Assessment including delivery of acceptable highway improvements. Northern site, access via Runcton Road, widening may be required along with improvements at its junction with A10 to include right turn lane. Southern site, access to be via A10 with right turn lane with suitable levels of visibility. Movement of material using off-highway routes, or conveyor/pipeline etc. preferred. Should material be conveyed by highway, a suitable access to the processing facility shall be provided shall be provided at B1145, to an acceptable standard including visibility. Highways England should be consulted regarding vehicle movements at Hardwick Interchange. Material extraction to be phased such that no more than one Silica site at any one time will transport material by road.

AOS I - East of South Runcton
Subject to submission of Transport Assessment including delivery of acceptable highway improvements. Runcton Road would require widening along with improvements at its junction with A10, or A134 to include right turn lane. Movement of material using off-highway routes, or conveyor/pipeline etc. preferred. Should material be conveyed by highway, a suitable access to the processing facility shall be provided shall be provided at B1145, to an acceptable standard including visibility. Highways England should be consulted regarding vehicle movements at Hardwick Interchange. Material extraction to be phased such that no more than one Silica site at any one time will transport material by road.

AOS J - East of Tottenhill
Subject to submission of Transport Assessment including delivery of acceptable highway improvements. Access via A134 to include right turn lane. Movement of material using off-highway routes, or conveyor/pipeline etc. preferred. Should material be conveyed by highway, a suitable access to the processing facility shall be provided shall be provided at B1145, to an acceptable standard including visibility. Highways England should be consulted regarding vehicle movements at Hardwick Interchange. Material extraction to be phased such that no more than one Silica site at any one time will transport material by road.

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

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

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


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