1.1

Support

Representation ID: 99113

Received: 16/11/2022

Respondent: Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

Officer assessment for the soundness of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan - officers are of the opinion that the plan is legally compliant and sound.

Full text: We (Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk) have considered the implications of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan for the Borough, and whether this is legally compliant and sound.

There are only four sites allocated in the Borough (three of which are existing allocated sites):
Aggregate Mineral Extraction Sites
MIN 6 - land off East Winch Road, Mill Drove, Middleton (allocation carried forward from the existing Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD (2017))
MIN 206 - land at Oak Field, west of Lynn Road, Tottenhill (our response to the preferred options consultation was ‘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’.) There is a planning application currently being considered by NCC (Validated June 2021) for the site.

Silica Sands
MIN 40 - land east of Grandcourt Farm, East Winch (allocation carried forward from the existing Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD (2017))
SIL01 - land at Mintlyn South, Bawsey (allocation carried forward from the existing Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD (2017))

Silica Sands Areas of Search - the plan does not allocate any areas of search for silica sand and instead contains a criteria-based policy for the consideration of any future planning applications for silica sand extraction

In terms of waste management facilities, as sufficient capacity currently exists to meet the growth forecast in waste arisings it is not considered necessary to allocate any specific sites for waste management facilities in the NM&WLP. Instead a criteria based policy will be in place to assess any windfall sites if they come forward.

Overall, we are of the opinion that the plan is legally compliant and sound.

Comment

Representation ID: 99148

Received: 04/11/2022

Respondent: Bungay Town Council

Bungay Town Council requested that the pre application advice should be made public. The Council also requested that the wider environmental impact on extraction of minerals and the waste produced should be considered. Consultation materials should be sent to the parish where the development takes place and all the surrounding parishes that could be affected.
E.g., Any mineral extraction in Earsham impacts on Bungay.

Comment

Representation ID: 99157

Received: 14/11/2022

Respondent: East Suffolk Council

I am writing to you in response to your Pre-Submission Consultation for the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review, which was received on 26th September 2022. East Suffolk Council had previously commented on the three mineral extraction sites at Earsham (sites MIN209, MIN210 and MIN211). However, according to information in the Statement of Consultation these have all now been granted planning permission and implemented. Therefore, having considered the document carefully, the Council has no specific comments to make in response to the Pre-Submission Consultation and does not wish to raise any objections.
It was decided not to complete the online form because none of the sections were relevant, and a letter was considered a more appropriate form of response.

Comment

Representation ID: 99160

Received: 01/11/2022

Respondent: Bradwell parish council

I am writing to advise that Bradwell Parish Council has no comment to make about this consultation.

Comment

Representation ID: 99161

Received: 03/10/2022

Respondent: The Coal Authority

The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. As a statutory consultee, the Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.
As you are aware Norfolk County Council lies outside the defined coalfield and therefore the Coal Authority has no specific comments to make on any stages of your Local Plan; SPDs etc.
In the spirit of ensuring efficiency of resources and proportionality, it will not be necessary for the Council to provide the Coal Authority with any future drafts or updates to the emerging Plans. This letter can be used as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements at examination, if necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 99170

Received: 30/09/2022

Respondent: Marine Management Organisation

Please be aware that any works within the Marine area require a licence from the Marine Management Organisation. It is down to the applicant themselves to take the necessary steps to ascertain whether their works will fall below the Mean High Water Springs mark.
Response to your consultation
The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is a non-departmental public body responsible for the management of England’s marine area on behalf of the UK government. The MMO’s delivery functions are marine planning, marine licensing, wildlife licensing and enforcement, marine protected area management, marine emergencies, fisheries management and issuing European grants.
Marine Licensing
Works activities taking place below the mean high-water mark may require a marine licence in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009.
Such activities include the construction, alteration or improvement of any works, dredging, or a deposit or removal of a substance or object below the mean high water springs mark or in any tidal river to the extent of the tidal influence.
Applicants should be directed to the MMO’s online portal to register for an application for marine licence
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/make-a-marine-licence-application
You can also apply to the MMO for consent under the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for offshore generating stations between 1 and 100 megawatts in English waters.
The MMO is also the authority responsible for processing and determining Harbour Orders in England, together with granting consent under various local Acts and orders regarding harbours.
A wildlife licence is also required for activities that that would affect a UK or European protected marine species.
The MMO is a signatory to the coastal concordat and operates in accordance with its principles. Should the activities subject to planning permission meet the above criteria then the applicant should be directed to the follow pages: check if you need a marine licence and asked to quote the following information on any resultant marine licence application:
• local planning authority name,
• planning officer name and contact details,
• planning application reference.

Following submission of a marine licence application a case team will be in touch with the relevant planning officer to discuss next steps.
Environmental Impact Assessment
With respect to projects that require a marine licence the EIA Directive (codified in Directive 2011/92/EU) is transposed into UK law by the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (the MWR), as amended. Before a marine licence can be granted for projects that require EIA, MMO must ensure that applications for a marine licence are compliant with the MWR.
In cases where a project requires both a marine licence and terrestrial planning permission, both the MWR and The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/571/contents/made may be applicable.
If this consultation request relates to a project capable of falling within either set of EIA regulations, then it is advised that the applicant submit a request directly to the MMO to ensure any requirements under the MWR are considered adequately at the following link
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/make-a-marine-licence-application
Marine Planning
Under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 ch.4, 58, public authorities must make decisions in accordance with marine policy documents and if it takes a decision that is against these policies it must state its reasons. MMO as such are responsible for implementing the relevant Marine Plans for their area, through existing regulatory and decision-making processes.
Marine plans will inform and guide decision makers on development in marine and coastal areas. Proposals should conform with all relevant policies, taking account of economic, environmental and social considerations. Marine plans are a statutory consideration for public authorities with decision making functions.
At its landward extent, a marine plan will apply up to the mean high water springs mark, which includes the tidal extent of any rivers. As marine plan boundaries extend up to the level of the mean high water spring tides mark, there will be an overlap with terrestrial plans which generally extend to the mean low water springs mark.
A map showing how England's waters have been split into 6 marine plan areas is available on our website. For further information on how to apply the marine plans please visit our Explore Marine Plans service.
Planning documents for areas with a coastal influence may wish to make reference to the MMO’s licensing requirements and any relevant marine plans to ensure that necessary regulations are adhered to. All public authorities taking authorisation or enforcement decisions that affect or might affect the UK marine area must do so in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act and the UK Marine Policy Statement unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. Local authorities may also wish to refer to our online guidance and the Planning Advisory Service soundness self-assessment checklist. If you wish to contact your local marine planning officer, you can find their details on our gov.uk page.
Minerals and waste plans and local aggregate assessments
If you are consulting on a mineral/waste plan or local aggregate assessment, the MMO recommend reference to marine aggregates is included and reference to be made to the documents below.
• The Marine Policy Statement (MPS), section 3.5 which highlights the importance of marine aggregates and its supply to England’s (and the UK) construction industry.
• The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out policies for national (England) construction minerals supply.
• The Managed Aggregate Supply System (MASS) which includes specific references to the role of marine aggregates in the wider portfolio of supply.
• The National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005-2020 predict likely aggregate demand over this period including marine supply.
The NPPF informed MASS guidance requires local mineral planning authorities to prepare Local Aggregate Assessments, these assessments have to consider the opportunities and constraints of all mineral supplies into their planning regions – including marine. This means that even land-locked counties, may have to consider the role that marine sourced supplies (delivered by rail or river) play – particularly where land-based resources are becoming increasingly constrained.
If you require further guidance on the Marine Licencing process, please follow the link https://www.gov.uk/topic/planning-development/marine-licences

Comment

Representation ID: 99203

Received: 29/11/2022

Respondent: Kirklees Council

We have considered the latest Aggregate Minerals Survey data which indicates that there have been no aggregate flows between Kirklees/West Yorkshire and Norfolk. We therefore have no comments to make on the minerals policies and designations in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 99270

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Anglian Water

Anglian Water is the water and water recycling provider for over 6 million customers in the east of England. Our operational area spans between the Humber and Thames estuaries and includes around a fifth of the English coastline. The region is the driest in the UK and the lowest lying, with a quarter of our area below sea level. This makes it particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change including heightened risks of both drought and flooding, including inundation by the sea.

Anglian Water is a statutory consultee under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning( (England) Regulations 2012. Anglian Water wants to proactively engage with the local plan process to ensure the plan delivers benefits for residents and visitors to the area, and in doing do protects the environment and natural resources. In the context of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan preparation, we are engaging as a waste operator through the operation and management of our water recycling network and centres. As a purpose-led company, we are committed to seeking positive environmental and social outcomes for our region.

Anglian Water has previously engaged with Norfolk County Council in making representations on earlier iterations of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (MWLP). Through our representation on the Publication Version of the MWLP we will positively respond with reference to our previous comments and indicate areas of support and where we have outstanding matters of concern

Conclusion
Anglian Water is supportive of many of the policy areas that guide development associated with our role as a waste operator, and policies that seek to safeguard our existing assets and network. We though continue to have a number of concerns in relation to the soundness of the plan, and a number of these were previously raised in our consultation response to the Preferred Options consultation (Reg. 18) and newly introduced policies/policy tests.
Given the matters raised in our response, we would want to engage with Norfolk County Council Minerals and Waste Policy Team to identify areas where we can agree proposed modifications to policy and areas where there are outstanding matters to be addressed through examination process. We would welcome the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground in this respect.

Comment

Representation ID: 99491

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Surrey County Council

Thanks you for consulting Surrey County Council on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Please not that we do not have any comments to raise.

Comment

Representation ID: 99492

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Broadland District Council

Thank you for your recent consultation on the above document. Having reviewed the consultation documents, we are pleased to note that the previous comments made by South Norfolk Council in relation to Policies MW6, WP2, WP15 and MIN 212 (now removed) have been incorporated into the updated document.
However, we also note that the other amendments suggested in our response to the Initial Public Consultation (dated 13 August 2018) which were also reiterated at Regulation 19 (dated 29 October 2019) have not been included within the latest version of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. We therefore wish to reiterate these comments and where relevant provide any further note.

Summary
Overall whilst the Councils have provided comments on the updated document, these are considered suggestions and in most cases are reiterating previous comments. Consideration has also been given to the Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework (NSPF), where the plan is largely consistent with the agreements of this Framework.
Therefore, the Council wishes to make has no object to the adoption of the plan and look forward to working with you further as the plan progresses.

Comment

Representation ID: 99507

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Breckland District Council

Breckland District Council recognises the importance of having sufficient minerals and waste provisions within the county to support growth and broadly supports Norfolk’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
It has the following comments:
1. Nutrient Neutrality
In March 2022, Norfolk LPAs were alerted to the issue of the “unfavourable condition” of the River Wensum and Broads SAC leading to a requirement to mitigate nutrient pollution from development, farming and to upgrade wastewater treatment works. Nitrogen and Phosphorus affects both water and air quality and Breckland District Council considers that the location of waste facilities particularly from agricultural waste and composting and its impact on the River Wensum and Broads SAC should be carefully considered.

Object

Representation ID: 99515

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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 and 30th October 2019.
Please also see our detailed comments in the attached table, Appendix 1.
SUMMARY
Whilst we welcome many of the changes you have made in this latest draft of the Plan and consider many aspects of the plan to be sound, we have identified issues with some of the policies and site allocations which remain and 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 key issues:
a) Insufficient Historic Environment Policy (MW1, WP2 and MP2)
Whilst we appreciate that you have made some changes to policy MW1 to include more references to the historic environment, which is welcome, it is still our view that there is currently insufficient policy provision for the historic environment in the Plan. 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. We are particularly concerned about the lack of detail in relation to below ground archaeology.
We have also raised concerns about the wording in relation to harm to the historic environment in policies WP2 and MP2.
In order to make these policies consistent with the NPPF and effective in securing sustainable development, we suggest that the policy wording is amended.
Further detail is set out in the attached table.

b) Site allocations requiring further assessment/ proportionate evidence
Thank you for the helpful update on the status of the various sites where we had previously requested a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). We appreciate that for some of those sites an HIA is no longer necessary (for example the site is no longer allocated).
However, we continue to have concerns about sites where permission has been granted but not yet implemented (MIN 207 and MIN 65), and also a couple of sites where an application is due (MIN 25 and MIN 96).
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.
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. We suggest it might be helpful to set up a meeting to discuss any outstanding issues and begin work on a Statement of Common Ground. Please suggest some potential meeting times (noting my part time hours). In the meantime, we look forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues.

Comment

Representation ID: 99520

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Thank you for your recent consultation on the above document. Having reviewed the consultation documents, we are pleased to note that the previous comments made by South Norfolk Council in relation to Policies MW6, WP2, WP15 and MIN 212 (now removed) have been incorporated into the updated document.
However, we also note that the other amendments suggested in our response to the Initial Public Consultation (dated 13 August 2018) which were also reiterated at Regulation 19 (dated 29 October 2019) have not been included within the latest version of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. We therefore wish to reiterate these comments and where relevant provide any further note.

Summary
Overall whilst the Councils have provided comments on the updated document, these are considered suggestions and in most cases are reiterating previous comments. Consideration has also been given to the Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework (NSPF), where the plan is largely consistent with the agreements of this Framework.
Therefore, the Council wishes to make has no object to the adoption of the plan and look forward to working with you further as the plan progresses.