MIN 206 - land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill

Please find enclosed the comments and objections of Totten hill Parish Council to the proposal of AOS J and I areas of search and to MIN74, 77 and 206, as requested under the Preferred Options Consultation on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (M&WLP).

ASO J and AOS I Land to the east of Tottenhill.
OBJECTION
Reasons for objection.
AOSJ J.1 Tottenhill and Wormegay school is close to this site, the prevailing wind blows directly onto the school this could course the children to have breathing and lung problems in the future through dust and pollution blowing from the site onto the school. The noise from machinery coursing distraction in the classroom. This site would have a visual impact on the area from the site access along the A134 and from A134 to Tottenhill. There would be a visual impact along Deals Lane overlooking the site.
J.2 State access from the site could be via the southern track unto A134 subject to junction improvements, a dedicated access could be created to the A134 or the A10 with junction improvements. If the junction unto the A134 is used It will course traffic to back up either side of the junction coursing further congestion and accidents, this road is used by heavy lorry's going to and from the Sugar Beet Factory. Going via the A134 it will be taking traffic by the school junction coursing more risk of accidents happening involving parents and children.
Site traffic would go to the A134 and A10 roundabout, at the same time there would be site traffic from the quarry plant and safari park entering the Roundabout coursing more congestion and frustration to motorist.
AOS I Site traffic going via the junction onto the A10 at Thieves Bridge turning right and going through the accident black spot at the junction to Tottenhill and Watlington and onto the roundabout joining the A134 coursing the same situation as stated above.
A footpath going from Deals Lane and up to the A134 to Tottenhill church, This footpath is running through the south side of the proposed site and will be taken if put forward.
Cutting down a complete fir wood losing all the wild life and habitat, this is a 100 year old wood.
With these two sites small hamlet of Tottenhill will be surrounded with quarries.

Proposed site MIN 74 - OBJECTION
Reasons for objecting.
M74.1 It states adverse dust impacts are uncommon beyond 250m the nearest property Is within 77m. The impact on the residents will be dust/ noise/pollution from machinery. M74.16 States Sand and gravel will be transported by existing conveyor This means transporting materials to the
conveyor along the back of all the Properties causing more disturbance pollution noise and dust. The foundations to these properties are minimal and close to the surface, vulnerable to subsidence, due to vibration and the water table dropping which is more noticeable in all of Tottenhill This last few years with all the quarrying going on in the area.
A quarry on this site would have an unacceptable impact to the area, the Tottenhill Row residents and residents along the A10 overlooking the site. Bunding would be intrusive to this conservation area.
Traffic going unto the roundabout A10 and A134 plus the private companies Collecting sand and gravel, 80 passes a day to and from safari park all coursing more congestion to these already over loaded roads impacting on the residents and all in the surrounding area who use these roads. Tottenhill Row is a conservation area an area of natural beauty this site would be intrusive. Quarrying in Tottenhill has been going on for a 100years or more the first planning application in the 1990s, 60 years disturbance and disruption in the area.
Taking Arable land out of the food chain which is needed more than ever.
Surly NCC you can see why Tottenhill and its residents have had enough and stop this being put forward.

PROPOSED Site Min77 - OBJECTION
Reasons for objection
There are broad leave trees in this wood over 100+years old Cutting this wood down would devastate the area killing or moving all wildlife and habitat. Completely changing the landscape, Ecological impact would be great.
When Min76 came up for planning we asked if the conveyor belt could be moved To the north side of Watlington Road to be further away from the residents at Tottenhill Row the answer was no, one of the main reasons it would involve cutting down trees which were mainly saplings, now it is convenient to cut down a mature wood. In this case the environment and conservation has conveniently been forgot.
We need to keep and maintain all the woodlands to help check pollution. Helping the small birds which are disappearing in the area, and the wildlife.
MIN77.16 It states sand and gravel will be transported to the existing processing plant by conveyor, the conveyor has been moved to Min76 the culvert under the road to the processing plant has been granted planning permission for-trafficking visitors to the Safari Park. Will this mean traffic to the Safari Park will go by road causing more congestion? 40 vehicles a day= 80 passes on the roads a day.
There is no mention how the site will be cleared and managed when cutting and clearing the trees, how hardwood and mature trees will be transported off site Which road and junction will be used. This means very large vehicles using the roads at the same time as vehicles from the plant site and safari park causing congestion on the roads.
M77.19 States the site is proposed to be restored to nature conservation comprising a mixture of ponds. wet woodland, and wet grass land etc., Combined with the vast area of open water we already have in Tottenhill we will lose even more water to open water evaporation, ltis stressed we should save all the water we can, in the last few years with all the quarrying the
whole area is drying out dropping the water table. The past planning applications for MIN 75 76 the PC has asked for an open water evaporation report. Not seen one to date. Tottenhill is being surrounded with quarries which are being left open and causing loss of water through evaporation and are intrusive to the landscape. If this site is put forward Tottenhill has another Minimum of thirteen years of traffic/pollution/noise/and disruption on top of the 60 years we have already had, we have given our fair share of aggregates to Norfolk and surrounding counties. Tottenhill and the residence say Enough Is Enough.

PROPOSED MIN 206
OBJECTION
Reasons for objecting
The nearest residents are well within the impact area of dust/ noise
Pollution and vibration, Running alongside Watlington road and the A10
This could course subsidence to properties and the A10
There will be a visual impact from the A10 and the Watlington road.
Whichever way you go from Tottenhill to Watlington all you can see is intrusive and unsightly earth bunds, screening this site will add even more.
M206.8 There are public footpaths shown on the map going from the Al0 through to Tottenhill Row on this site. Planning permission has been granted on the site for car parking to the safari park, where will this parking be located?
M206.12 It states CWS 385 Tottenhill Village Green it is an area of moderately species rich neutral grassland containing three small ponds which seasonally dry. These ponds very really dried up until the last Two to three years of intensive quarrying coursing the water table to drop and the whole area drying out.
This site will put more traffic on the roads more pollution/noise dust.
Affecting the water table even more, And coursing the spring at Tottenhill Row conservation area to stop running and feeding the spring pit.
Tottenhill is virtually surrounded in old and recent quarries left open and not landscaped as planning permission granted Over 60 years of quarrying, Tottenhill has had Enough.
We are asking NCC not to put this site forward for review.
In the EXTRACTS NORFOLK MINERALS LOCAL PLAN policies.
It shows 3 and four reasons for each one of the sites Min74 77 and 206 that NCC should reject putting these sites forward for review.

I wish to comment and object to inclusion of mineral sites on the latest review of the NM&WLP
I have read that MIN 74 and 77 have been considered unsuitable due the location to Tottenhill Row conservation area and negative impact to the landscape.
I agree that any bunding / screening for MIN 74 would be unable to hide the impact on the said area.
However I believe that these statements have been spoken before relating to MIN 75 and 76 when in question.
MIN 76 was taken off the local plan but years later reinstated when MIN 75 was granted planning consent. I therefore fear that history will repeat itself where sites have been claimed to be unsuitable then applied for at a later date.
If the noise and dust experienced from both MIN 75 and 76 are anything to go by, this will be a sad state of affairs if the sites are ever granted permission due to the fact that they are on the Local plan.
The local residents explained their concerns on these previous sites which are so close to the common and houses but these concerns were dismissed.
The overall appearance to this area has changed so dramatically the question needs to be asked is continued quarrying sustainable within this location.
I suspect that the amount of quarrying taking place in this immediate area must have an effect on the water table. During the summer months, the well on my property, dried up along with the cessation of the spring feeding the pond known as Spring pit located within the conservation area. These matters cause me concern about subsidence to the properties in the immediate vicinity. This has to be a planning consideration despite the Hydrological reports supplied by the applicants.
I would like to bring your attention to the congestion on the Al0 which is now at its highest level. Although the proposed sand and gravel sites sites are supposed to be phased in over the duration of the NM & WLP, the combination of multiple sites, such as Sand and gravel site, local Silica sites and the recently approved Safari park will only create even more of a bottleneck at Oakwood corner roundabout and beyond. The accumulative effect will reduce access onto the roundabout giving rise to stationary traffic for longer periods increasing pollutants
With reference to the proximity of local sites on the map to my home, I can conclude the following;
MIN 74 Unsuitable due to the proximity to the houses on Tottenhill Row and conservation area and would be intrusive to the front and rear of this small unique community
MIN 77 is unsuitable due to the devastation of deciduous woodland which has an untold significant biodiversity value to this already decimated area of deep marunade pits
MIN 206 Unsuitable due to the previously oversubscribed amount of quarrying in this community. This area is exhausted and fatigued from quarrying.
AOS J /E/1 these are all unsuitable due to the extraordinary uniqueness of this woodland area. The area has great notoriety for families young and old to enjoy outdoor activities. This is immensely invaluable to health and well being. The quarrying in the short term will create more water pits which absorb no Co2 comapred to woodland and vegetation. We all need to believe this is needed for future generations and the future of our planet.
Deep water pits provide no benefit to any of us

I am very disgusted with the new planning applications for MIN 74-77-206.

MIN 74.
Is near our property and conservation area, we are very concerned about the impact on our wildlife also draining of water away from our properties, these cottages are old and have no proper footings so draining of the underground water could be a serious problem.

MIN 77.
I can not believe that you would consider taking trees down in Rons Wood, as they are lovely mature mixed trees, when we hear all the time we need to set trees for the ozone layer.
How can this be an extension to existing site? All sites close to this are disclosed.

MIN 206
Once again I'm very concerned about MIN 206 because it runs so near to the A10 road.
People driving along the A10 will have to look (like people do) at the site and I'm sure accidents will happen, local people know this is as a accident black spot (even though all the high risk road signs have been taken down) and we are aware as to why this has happened.
We may be cabbage liking but we are not green.

How many more of these applications for minerals are we going to get? This has been going on for years.
I really do think that the people on the Row have had enough.
The last one isn't yet over and my goodness what we've had to put up with has and still will be terrible.
The land owner and Frimstone does not care about conservation, they start out obeying the rules but soon decide they will do what they want what ever.
The fact they are draining the water away from the area doesn't seem to matter.
We do not need any more vehicle noise, dust, or early morning wake up calls from vehicles.
Most of the people living here are elderly and I feel are entitled to some peace and quiet.
I really do feel that a visit would help you and others, to see what is going to happen if all the applications are passed.
We have lost quite a bit of wildlife please leave us with some.

Objection to potential silica extraction site. Tottenhill
We are Tottenhill residents of 32 years standing.
We wish to register out joint objections to the proposed potential silica extraction site mostly within Tottenhill civil parish as shown on attached map. Our main reason for objection is the very close proximity of this site to Tottenhill village. Silica extraction on this site will inevitably lead to high levels of noise, dust etc. to the detriment of residents of Tottenhill village.
Additionally extraction from this site will require the creation of a new access onto the A134 at a point close to Wormegay primary school with all the additional stopping and turning of traffic that this will entail. The road network to the immediate west of the proposed site, comprising entirely of single track roads, is wholly inadequate to cater for any additional heavy traffic.
For these reasons we wish to register our objections to mineral extraction from this site.

Objections to MIN 74, 76, 77 and 206 in Tottenhill and AOS E and AOS J
Objection to AOS E - land between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.

Tottenhill surrounded by quarries
No of HGV/Traffic congestion
Pollution
Too near Wormegay school
Accident black spot A134/A10 roundabout and Wormegay school
Please record this as my objection

We are Tottenhill residents of 32 years standing.
We wish to register out joint objections to the proposed potential silica extraction site mostly within Tottenhill civil parish as shown on attached map. Our main reason for objection is the very close proximity of this site to Totten hill village. Silica extraction on this site will inevitably lead to high levels of noise, dust etc. to the detriment of residents of Tottenhill village.
Additionally extraction from this site will require the creation of a new access onto the A134 at a point close to Wormegay primary school with all the additional stopping and turning of traffic that this will entail. The road network to the immediate west of the proposed site, comprising entirely of single track roads, is wholly inadequate to cater for any additional heavy traffic.
For these reasons we wish to register our objections to mineral extraction from this site.

Objections to MIN 74, 76, 77 and 206 in Tottenhill and AOS I and AOS J
Objection to AOS E - land between Marham and Shouldham and includes Shouldham Warren

I object to AOS E, including Shouldham Warren and the overlap with formerly SIL 02, in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. I strongly object to the fact that Norfolk County Council has deliberately misled residents by announcing the removal of SIL 02 when in reality a third of it is now/still included in AOS E.
As a member of the community, I echoed the concerns held by the Ministry of Defence when they objected to these proposals, due to the fact that the plan of a wet working and restoration in close proximity to RAF Marham, well within the statutory 13 kms limit, will increase the risk of "bird strikes" or worst-case scenario, end in an aircraft crash and potential loss of life. The economic cost of such a mishap would be greater than £100M just to replace an F35 Lightning II; add to that the costs for the emergency services and for the immediate and subsequent treatments through the NHS for the physical and mental injuries caused, and the financial costs become an unaffordable risk.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact rural Norfolk, its farming jobs, jobs of local employees i.e. British Sugar, including the increased need for home grown food, due to the impact of Brexit.
I object to the negative impact on villagers'/visitors' health. According to Public Health Profile 2018, our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory function (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Asthma), silica particles will exacerbate these conditions. Loss of natural spaces has been proven to adversely affect health, mental and physical. This fenland and forest (Shouldham Warren) is our community's public open space, our gym and our sanctuary, hundreds of people use it daily for physical recreation and social wellbeing interactions.
I object to the fact that the plan would ruin the Landscape, Shouldham Warren, the Countryside, including habitats for birds, animals, and insects. The Warren is home to 64 species of conservation concern, including endangered bats, nightjars and woodlarks. We need nature and trees now more than ever to combat pollution and climate change.
I object to the unsustainable use of a finite mineral resource, when the county only recycles a fraction of the glass already in circulation. There are national government policies and guidance including DEFRA and the Dept for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy that are clearly being ignored in order to allow a privately-owned Belgian company to profit from the devastation of our community asset, landscape and environment.
I further object to the worrying possibility of damage to our Public Water. It is very concerning that if quarrying was allowed to take place, whether through wet or dry working, the water supply could be affected, as the whole area of AOS E has very productive to moderately productive aquifers.
A further objection relates to the lack of restoration plans. Any restoration would take in excess of 30 years, until then the community would suffer from a devastated industrial landscape, increased flow of heavy articulated lorries, preventing any appreciation of its landscape and countryside. Sibelco has a poor track record for restoration in the area, and have failed to ensure safety of sites after extraction - its Bawsey site was the cause of deaths by drowning. The company has not been a 'good neighbour' and has done nothing to engage with the community or alleviate residents' concerns.
Lastly, I object to the fact that there would be no benefit to the local community or economy if this proposal goes through. What is clear is that a number of local communities will bear the brunt of a hugely disruptive and harmful industrial process; that a very popular public amenity enjoyed by a much larger section of the population will be permanently lost; and the only beneficiaries of this development will be a few landowners, Norfolk County Council, but principally the private owners of the Belgian company Sibelco.
Given that County Councils are responsible for the provision of public services for taxpayers and community wellbeing, and not the promotion of harmful and irresponsible businesses that present no local benefit, but with multiple risks, dictates that Norfolk County Council should put public interest before private profit.

* Tottenhill surrounded by quarries
* No of HGV/Traffic congestion
* Pollution
* Too near Wormegay school
Accident black spot A134/A10 roundabout and Wormegay school
Please record this as my objection

Re: Objections to Min74, 76, 77 and 206 and ASOI and ASOJ
I object to the new quarry plans Norfolk County Council have put forward in the revised Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan which include the above sites.
As a parishioner of Tottenhill I am concerned about the impact these proposals will have upon the village where I have lived for 60 years.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact on rural Norfolk at a time when we need to produce more home grown produce. Especially as our population increases and we are told to reduce transportation of produce.
According to Public Health Profile 2018 our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory functions. Silica particles in the air will exacerbate these conditions.
We are encouraged to exercise more for our health and wellbeing. As there are no footpaths in the village (apart from a short path on the A134 to the school) people use Deals Lane and Priors Road for walking and exercising their dogs. I regularly use this lane with my husband and grandchildren as recreation. However, the landscape will be destroyed and instead of peace, quiet and birdsong there will be noise and air pollution.
I am also concerned that if the developments are passed there is a lack of restoration plans. This village already has many quarry sites which have resulted in large areas of open water which do not enhance the village in any way. Any future landscaping would take years and the village would suffer a devastating industrial landscape. Sibelco has a poor record of restoration and has failed to ensure safety after extraction - Bawsey, cause of deaths by drowning.
The excess traffic on the A10 will make travelling on this road even worse. I use this road for work which can take me 45 minutes plus to travel 11 miles to work. With extra traffic already earmarked because of the Safari Park and developments at West Winch, not to mention the sugarbeet lorries, the situation would become intolerable. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through - again what consideration is there for those in need. Also Oakwood Corner and the Wormegay turning at Wormegay School are already known black spots.
There is also great concern for children attending Wormegay School. We are encouraged to walk or cycle instead of using our cars for the school run. Cycling to school is a non starter for those living in Tottenhill as there is a danger of being dragged under lorries travelling on the A10. Also children using the footpath can easily be blown to the side by passing lorries. Just imagine what this is like in inclement weather. I have also witnessed near misses when cars are trying to turn right from the A134 to go to school. Vehicles often have to stand for long periods waiting for passing traffic before they can turn and are vulnerable to traffic from behind. Although there is a speed limit it is often exceeded and there in no crossing for the children to use.
If there proposals go through Tottenhill will be surrounded by quarries. Resident's health and wellbeing will suffer. Although some may want to move, there may be a devaluation of properties and who would want to live in such a village?
On a personal level my family has enjoyed the tranquility of this parish for over 60 years. Four generations have used and still use these lanes for our health and wellbeing. Other footpaths which we had access to were taken away from us by the landowner and now form part of his agricultural land. For somebody who wants to promote the protection of wildlife, what has happened to the protection of our rural communities?
Please record this as my object

Re: Objections to Min74, 76, 77 and 206 and ASOI and ASOJ
I object to the new quarry plans Norfolk County Council have put forward in the revised Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan which include the above sites.
As a parishioner of Tottenhill I am concerned about the impact these proposals will have upon the village where I have lived for 43 years.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact on rural Norfolk at a time when we need to produce more home grown produce. Especially as our population increases and we are told to reduce transportation of produce.
According to Public Health Profile 2018 our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory functions. Silica particles in the air will exacerbate these conditions.
We are encouraged to exercise more for our health and wellbeing. As there are no footpaths in the village (apart from a short path on the A134 to the school) people use Deals Lane and Priors Road for walking and exercising their dogs. I regularly use this lane with my husband and grandchildren as recreation. However, the landscape will be destroyed and instead of peace, quiet and birdsong there will be noise and air pollution.
I am also concerned that if the developments are passed there is a lack of restoration plans. This village already has many quarry sites which have resulted in large areas of open water which do not enhance the village in any way. Any future landscaping would take years and the village would suffer a devastating industrial landscape. Sibelco has a poor record of restoration and has failed to ensure safety after extraction - Bawsey, cause of deaths by drowning.
The excess traffic on the A10 will make travelling on this road even worse. I use this road for work which can take me 45 minutes plus to travel 11 miles to work. With extra traffic already earmarked because of the Safari Park and developments at West Winch, not to mention the sugarbeet lorries, the situation would become intolerable. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through - again what consideration is there for those in need. Also Oakwood Corner and the Wormegay turning at Wormegay School are already known black spots.
There is also great concern for children attending Wormegay School. We are encouraged to walk or cycle instead of using our cars for the school run. Cycling to school is a non starter for those living in Tottenhill as there is a danger of being dragged under lorries travelling on the A10. Also children using the footpath can easily be blown to the side by passing lorries. Just imagine what this is like in inclement weather. I have also witnessed near misses when cars are trying to turn right from the A134 to go to school. Vehicles often have to stand for long periods waiting for passing traffic before they can turn and are vulnerable to traffic from behind. Although there is a speed limit it is often exceeded and there in no crossing for the children to use.
If there proposals go through Tottenhill will be surrounded by quarries. Resident's health and wellbeing will suffer. Although some may want to move, there may be a devaluation of properties and who would want to live in such a village?
On a personal level my family has enjoyed the tranquility of this parish for many years. Four generations have used and still use these lanes for our health and wellbeing. Other footpaths which we had access to were taken away from us by the landowner and now form part of his agricultural land. For somebody who wants to promote the protection of wildlife, what has happened to the protection of our rural communities?
Please record this as my object

Re: Objections to Min74, 76, 77 and 206 and ASOI and ASOJ
I object to the new quarry plans Norfolk County Council have put forward in the revised Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan which include the above sites.
As a parishioner of Tottenhill I am concerned about the impact these proposals will have upon the village where I have lived for 60 years.
Permanent loss of agricultural land will impact on rural Norfolk at a time when we need to produce more home grown produce. Especially as our population increases and we are told to reduce transportation of produce.
According to Public Health Profile 2018 our villages have higher levels of respiratory problems and reduced respiratory functions. Silica particles in the air will exacerbate these conditions.
We are encouraged to exercise more for our health and wellbeing. As there are no footpaths in the village (apart from a short path on the A134 to the school) people use Deals Lane and Priors Road for walking and exercising their dogs. I regularly use this lane with my husband and grandchildren as recreation. However, the landscape will be destroyed and instead of peace, quiet and birdsong there will be noise and air pollution.
I am also concerned that if the developments are passed there is a lack of restoration plans. This village already has many quarry sites which have resulted in large areas of open water which do not enhance the village in any way. Any future landscaping would take years and the village would suffer a devastating industrial landscape. Sibelco has a poor record of restoration and has failed to ensure safety after extraction - Bawsey, cause of deaths by drowning.
The excess traffic on the A10 will make travelling on this road even worse. I use this road for work which can take me 45 minutes plus to travel 11 miles to work. With extra traffic already earmarked because of the Safari Park and developments at West Winch, not to mention the sugarbeet lorries, the situation would become intolerable. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through - again what consideration is there for those in need. Also Oakwood Corner and the Wormegay turning at Wormegay School are already known black spots.
There is also great concern for children attending Wormegay School. We are encouraged to walk or cycle instead of using our cars for the school run. Cycling to school is a non starter for those living in Tottenhill as there is a danger of being dragged under lorries travelling on the A10. Also children using the footpath can easily be blown to the side by passing lorries. Just imagine what this is like in inclement weather. I have also witnessed near misses when cars are trying to turn right from the A134 to go to school. Vehicles often have to stand for long periods waiting for passing traffic before they can turn and are vulnerable to traffic from behind. Although there is a speed limit it is often exceeded and there in no crossing for the children to use.
If there proposals go through Tottenhill will be surrounded by quarries. Resident's health and wellbeing will suffer. Although some may want to move, there may be a devaluation of properties and who would want to live in such a village?
On a personal level my family has enjoyed the tranquility of this parish for over 60 years. Four generations have used and still use these lanes for our health and wellbeing. Other footpaths which we had access to were taken away from us by the landowner and now form part of his agricultural land. For somebody who wants to promote the protection of wildlife, what has happened to the protection of our rural communities?
Please record this as my object

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.

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.

I am writing, somewhat belatedly, to lodge my strong objection to to the proposed plans for quarrying in and around Tottenhill. As a resident of Tottenhill I believe the impact any further plans for quarrying in the immediate area will be detrimental to the village and surrounding areas for a number of reasons. My objections are as follows:

1. The area has already been extensively quarried, which still has a daily impact on the area. Further quarrying could destroy this small hamlet of Tottenhill completely - which is already split with the A10 running through it.
2. The road network in and around Tottenhill would not support any additional traffic - there has previously been a number of accidents at the two junctions on the A10, which is a major route into Kings Lynn.
3. There are very few unspoilt areas in Norfolk, without street lighting, like Tottenhill and this should be preserved as far as possible.
4. The watercourse could be affected by additional quarrying, as well as the quality of the water and water table. As a local resident, we regularly have issues with water - many times over the course of a year we lose the water pressure and at other times we lose water altogether.
5. Although Tottenhill now has access to the mains sewer some of the local residents still use septic tanks. Further quarrying could have an impact on the sewage system.
6. Any extracted material, in particular the silica sand, would firstly need to be transported to Leziate, treated and then, as it has historically, been transported mostly by road, to various parts of the country. It will not be used in Norfolk alone, if at all.
7. Tottenhil is an area of natural beauty with many interesting birds and other species. Further quarrying can only have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the area.
Please listen to the local residents and look at other sites in Norfolk. We are only small and already over-quarried!

I am writing to object to the proposed plans for quarrying in and around Tottenhill. As a resident of Tottenhill I believe the impact any further plans for quarrying in the immediate area will be detrimental to the area for a number of reasons. My objection is:

* The area has already been extensively quarried, which still has a daily impact on the area. Further quarrying could destroy this small hamlet of Tottenhill completely - which is already split with the A10 running through it.
* Tottenhill is an area of natural beauty with many interesting birds and other species of wildlife. Further quarrying can only have a detrimental effect on the wildlife in the area.
* The road network in and around Tottenhill would not support any additional traffic - there has previously been a number of accidents at the two junctions on the A10, which is a major route into Kings Lynn.
* The noise and dust from proposed quarrying would impact on the wellbeing of the local residents.
* There are very few unspoilt areas in Norfolk, without street lighting, like Tottenhill and this should be preserved as far as possible.
* The watercourse, quality of water and water table may be affected by further quarrying. As a local resident, we regularly have issues with water - many times over the course of a year we lose the water pressure and at other times we lose water altogether.
* Although Tottenhill now has access to the mains sewer some of the local residents still use septic tanks. Further quarrying could have an impact on the sewage system.
* Any extracted mineral, especially the silica sand, would firstly need to be transported to Leziate, where it would be treated and then transported, predominantly by road, to various parts of the country. It will not be used in Norfolk alone, if at all,
Please listen to the local residents and consider other sites in Norfolk where the impact of such quarrying would not have such an effect on the immediate community - we've had enough.

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.

Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Mineral Site Specific Allocations October 2019

Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Submitted noise assessments and air quality/dust assessments should consider and include mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any potential health impacts, such as operational practices, separation/standoff areas and screening and/or bunding in line with Development Management Policies DM12 and DM13.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework.

Lighting:
Lighting is not included in the document as this is generally something which can be considered at any proposed planning application stage; however we would hope that any proposed lighting for site security and worker safety would be carefully considered prior to the planning stage so details can be submitted with any planning application. We would assume lighting would be pole mounted in elevated positions, and therefore the throw and spread of this should be assessed to ensure that there is no impact on residents. Light should be contained within the confines of sites and positioned appropriately. If necessary lighting is located near dwellings, this should be angled away and hooded/cowled to prevent any adverse impact on residents.

Vibrations:
The potential impact from vibrations should also be considered at any future planning stage, if sites are chosen close to residential receptors - including vibrations from site operations and associated transportation of extracted materials.

Soil Stripping:
Soil stripping operations must be effectively controlled through mitigation methods (e.g. buffer zones and bunding) to reduce fugitive emissions, which pose short term health impacts on nearby residents. These mitigation measures must be included in any future planning application.

Haul Roads:
Fugitive emissions from haul roads need to be addressed in any future planning application, with mitigation planned where necessary such as wheel washing.

[see attached table for comments on individual sites]

Environmental Quality and Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Comments on Waste Site Specific Allocations October 2019

Summary:
If sites have to be progressed to the planning application stage, we would hope that sites furthest from residential dwellings are looked at primarily, as this could ensure that the impact on residential health and amenity is negligible. Clearly these sites would be preferred by us, if needed at all.
Any future applications for waste sites should be accompanied by noise, odour, dust, and air quality management schemes, which should identify potential sources and mitigation/control measures to prevent nuisance issues and health impacts (e.g. emissions from as gas flaring).
Where sites are likely to be illuminated for safety/security, lighting plans and details should also be submitted which should include where lights will be located, their heights and angle/orientation, the type of lighting and the throw and spill of light across the site, and measures to ensure light spill is contained within site boundaries.
These allocated sites have been reviewed in line with Development Management Policies DM12, DM13, and DM15 as detailed within Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Existing Waste Site Specific Allocation Policies:
We note that WAS 05, WAS 25, WAS 36, WAS 40, WAS 37, WAS 45 and WAS 65 are no longer required and would therefore be deleted. There is therefore no risk to residential amenity from these sites.

Odour:
An odour impact assessment should be included within any future planning applications for allocated waste sites, along with suitable mitigation measures where appropriate.

Climate Change:
Climate change mitigation should be considered with regards to methane emissions (a greenhouse gas) released from allocated landfill sites.

[see attached table for comments on individual sites]