Land and soil resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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