Policy MW1: Development Management Criteria

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99138

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

It is good that light pollution is mentioned in terms of amenity, but situations could arise where a site is isolated and there would be no impacts on amenity, but light pollution could be caused. The policy needs to consider the impact of light pollution in all instances – on people, landscape, dark skies, wildlife. The current wording is narrow in scope - only impact on people (amenity). Addressing light pollution is not necessarily about not having lighting, but a good design, doing what is needed at the right intensity and for as long as needed. Particularly in or near the Broads which have intrinsically dark skies. As worded, the policy means that schemes that have external lighting that does not cause amenity issues, but could cause other light pollution issues, fall through the gap.

Soundness test: Not justified

Change suggested by respondent:

Another criterion needs to be added that specifically talks about light pollution. Para 6.12 is very good, but that is not policy – adding that wording as a new criterion would address our comment. Noting our comments on para 6.16 (see other comment), lighting needs to be fully justified as well.
Referring to this guide would also address our comments: “Towards A Dark Sky Standard” [https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Towards-A-Dark-Sky-Standard-V1.1.pdf]. This is a general guide and overview of the key considerations needed for good lighting design and the protection of dark skies.

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99144

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

MW1 part 1 – to be consistent with the NPPF, this criterion needs to mention the impact on the setting of these assets as well as on the assets themselves.

Soundness test: Not justified

Change suggested by respondent:

Change criterion to say:
Protected landscapes [insert: 'and their setting'] including the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Heritage Coast and the Broads.

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99171

Received: 07/11/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Local Access Forum (NLAF)

Representation Summary:

Given the significant impact made on local communities by extraction works, and the large sums of money generated, NLAF requests that every opportunity is taken to upgrade and enhance both footpaths, bridleways and cycleways wherever possible.
Past experience suggests that when extraction works are completed, there can be considerable reluctance to honour promises of funding for restoration and improvements. NLAF asks that Norfolk County Council should find some way of ensuring that funding is ring fenced or a Bank Guarantee is put in place to ensure that agreed measures are fully implemented when the work is completed.
NLAF also requests that as a statutory advisory body to the County Council on access matters, it be added (using this email address) to the list of future consultees on any matters which could impact public access to the countryside (in its widest sense).

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99201

Received: 01/12/2022

Respondent: Pauline Davies

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Having reviewed the available documentation considering mineral extraction and waste management in Norfolk with other scientific evidence, I am concerned that climate change and the risk of flooding issues are not addressed sufficiently within the narrative and responses. Please see the map diagram from the journey of flood management 2020, showing flood risk in Norfolk.
In this regard, several submissions by various environmentally focused agencies that signal concerns have met a council response that indicates that no action is required.

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99224

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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. In order to make this policy consistent with the NPPF and effective in securing sustainable development, we suggest that the policy wording is amended.

Although our preference would be for a separate historic environment policy, we recognise that this policy is now much more detailed in relation to the historic environment which is welcomed.
We note that the policy has been expanded to include greater reference to the historic environment which is welcomed. This has included reference to the NPPF, balancing harm and public benefit and avoiding harm in the first.
The policy does reference cumulative effects and enhancement which is welcomed.
The policy now also includes reference to the need to conserve and where opportunities arise enhance the historic environment which is welcomed.
In the list of bullet points we suggest a minor rewording to read;
• the [delete: setting] significance of heritage assets [insert: '(including any contribution made to significance by setting)'] and protected landscapes,
Although this represents an improvement on the previous draft of the policy, we remain concerned that the policy 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. This policy remains unsound as it does not meet the requirements of paragraph 210(f) of the Framework.
In fact, Policy MW2 appears to be a similar list of areas to cover in paragraph 210 but provides limited historic environment criteria against which planning applications will be assessed so as to ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts.
As this policy underpins all the other policies in the plan we are concerned that, as drafted, this policy undermines the plan.
We are also concerned about the lack of detail in relation to below ground archaeology in this policy. In relation to archaeology, we offer the following more detailed advice:
When considering the historic environment, it is necessary to consider the below ground archaeological remains which includes structures, artefacts, and deposits/features of palaeoenvironmental and geoarchaeological interest such as palaeochannels.
The potential for these sorts of remains to be present, both within the area of proposed works and in the adjacent areas needs to be investigated as part of the desk-based assessment and evaluation stages.
The impacts of the proposed extraction works also need to be considered in terms of the direct and indirect impacts that may occur. This includes the potential for the works to alter the groundwater levels within the areas of the proposed works and in adjacent areas, which may affect the movement of water through archaeological deposits, or the preservation conditions. If this occurs it can result in the damage or even loss of vulnerable archaeological remains, such as waterlogged wood, leather or palaeoenvironmental remains, or effect the preservation of archaeological materials (e.g. peat).
There is also the potential for the effects of mineral extraction to impact adjacent areas. For example, hydrological assessments were carried out before, during and after the extraction of materials at the Over quarry, Cambridgeshire, which demonstrated that ground water levels were lowered by between 2 to 5m up to 500m from the quarry face (French 2004, Environmental Archaeology vol 9).
We would therefore recommend that the following Historic England documents are referred to in terms of the materials that may be present and how the potential impacts could be investigated, such as changes to the groundwater levels or chemistry in the area:
Preservation of Archaeological Remains (2016):
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/preserving-archaeological-remains/
Environmental Archaeology (2011):
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/environmental-archaeology-2nd/
Geoarchaeology (2015):
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/geoarchaeology-earth-sciences-to-understand-archaeological-record/

Change suggested by respondent:

Include a separate policy for the historic environment to more closely reflect the requirements of the NPPF. This should cover matters such as the need to conserve and enhance heritage assets and their settings and incorporate the relevant tests in relation to harm.
The separate historic environment policy should also address below ground archaeology.

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99271

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Anglian Water

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We note that the policy has been amended to include additional clauses regarding the conservation and enhancement of the natural, built and historic environment, and surrounding landscapes. Whilst we support the policy aims, the approach is unclear and does not provide sufficient detail for applicants.
For example, the bulleted list provides a range of measures and enhancements to be provided, but these should be informed by the context of the application, given that the nature of mineral extraction and waste management proposals vary significantly. Furthermore, the supporting text for the requirement to provide biodiversity and geodiversity net gains, does not provide an interpretation of geodiversity net gain nor how applicants should demonstrate how it will be provided and managed.
We disagree with the use of the 'must' in the final section of this policy, as the purpose of planning is to balance the benefits versus the harm. We propose that 'should' is a term that provides a better interpretation of this policy requirement, particularly as enhancement measures need to be justified and proportionate to development proposals.
The policy seeks to address a wide range of development management criteria and it may be clearer if it is split into specific subject/topic areas that reflects the supporting text.
Soundness test: not justified

Change suggested by respondent:

We disagree with the use of the 'must' in the final section of this policy, as the purpose of planning is to balance the benefits versus the harm. We propose that 'should' is a term that provides a better interpretation of this policy requirement, particularly as enhancement measures need to be justified and proportionate to development proposals.
The policy seeks to address a wide range of development management criteria and it may be clearer if it is split into specific subject/topic areas that reflects the supporting text.

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99307

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Gravel

Agent: David L Walker Ltd

Representation Summary:

The company would support Policy MW1, but would suggest that in the final paragraph when considering potential environmental benefits this could clearly states geo-diversity benefits where applicable.

Change suggested by respondent:

In the final paragraph when considering potential environmental benefits this could clearly states geo-diversity benefits where applicable.

Support

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99338

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

We support the inclusion of the natural environment in the list of features where development would only be regarded if unacceptable impacts are avoided. The requirement to conserve and enhance the natural environment as set out in this policy is a clear commitment to the biodiversity duty laid on the Council in the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 and the 2021 Environment Act.

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99425

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

Natural England welcome the Plan’s emphasis on ensuring Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) is achieved, enhancing the green infrastructure network, and taking a positive approach to mitigate and adapt to climate change. There is also a clear emphasis on ensuring high quality restoration and after-use of sites to protect Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Land and to enhance Norfolk’s biodiversity and protect its landscapes. However, we advise that there is scope for the Plan to be more ambitious in its delivery of some of these policies and objectives.
Nature Recovery Network (NRN) and Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs)
Natural England commends the NMWLP for acknowledging the potential that restoration and after-use of mineral workings has for the benefit of enhancing landscape, geodiversity and biodiversity. We welcome the reference to contributing, “to identified strategic green infrastructure corridors and known ecological networks,” made in Policy MP7. We would advise that reference to the Nature Recovery Network [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-recovery-network/nature-recovery-network] is also included within strategic Policy MW1 (Development Management Criteria) (pg. 27). The NRN is a commitment in the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and enacted by the Environment Act 2021. Natural England is working with partners on NRN and the development of LNRSs [https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/local-nature-recovery-strategies/] . The NRN is used to refer to a single, growing national network of improved joined-up, wildlife rich places which will benefit people and wildlife. LNRSs will be the key mechanism for planning and mapping local delivery of the NRN.
LNRSs will form a new system of spatial strategies for nature that will be mandated by the Environment Act. They will cover the whole of England and will be developed by Responsible Authorities (RAs) appointed by the Secretary of State, usually at a county scale. Each strategy will:
• Map the most valuable existing habitat for nature
• Map specific proposals for creating or improving habitat for nature and wider environment goals
• Agree priorities for nature’s recovery
LNRSs have also been designed to help local planning authorities deliver existing policy on conserving and enhancing biodiversity and to reflect this in the land use plans for their area.
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
In line with paragraph 174(d) of the NPPF, reference to providing BNG is made throughout the NMWLP, which Natural England commends. BNG will be an important tool in securing investment for nature recovery through the planning system, helping deliver the government’s commitment to create a national NRN. However, we advise strengthening this wording by stating the minimum BNG uplift required to be delivered. With regards the upcoming mandatory requirement for a minimum of 10% BNG, we advise that you consider BNG delivery above this level, for example at 15% or 20% BNG. Strategic level viability assessments in Kent have concluded that this shift will not impact viability in most cases irrespective of onsite or offsite BNG delivery. This is because after the initial cost of securing the minimum 10% BNG, the cost of increase to 15 or 20% is much less and generally negligible. Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric 3.1 may be used to calculate biodiversity losses and gains for terrestrial and intertidal habitats and can be used to inform any development project.
It is the government’s intention that mandatory BNG will provide a financial incentive for development to support the delivery of LNRSs through an uplift in the calculation of biodiversity units created at sites identified by the strategy through the Biodiversity Metric ‘strategic significance’ scoring.

Change suggested by respondent:

We would advise that reference to the Nature Recovery Network [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nature-recovery-network/nature-recovery-network] is also included within strategic Policy MW1 (Development Management Criteria) (pg. 27).
We advise strengthening this wording on BNG by stating the minimum BNG uplift required to be delivered. With regards the upcoming mandatory requirement for a minimum of 10% BNG, we advise that you consider BNG delivery above this level, for example at 15% or 20% BNG.

Attachments:

Support

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99467

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Ministry Of Defence (Defence Infrastructure Organisation)

Representation Summary:

The Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) Safeguarding Team represents the Ministry of Defence (MOD) as a statutory consultee in the UK planning system to ensure designated zones around key operational defence sites such as aerodromes, explosives storage sites, air weapon ranges, and technical sites are not adversely affected by development outside the MOD estate. For clarity, this response relates to MOD Safeguarding concerns only and should be read in conjunction with any other submissions that might be provided by other MOD sites or departments.
DIO Safeguarding may be involved in the planning system both as a statutory and/or non-statutory consultee. Statutory consultation occurs as a result of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded aerodromes, technical sites and military explosives storage areas) Direction 2002 (DfT/ODPM Circular 01/2003) and the location data and criteria set out on safeguarding maps published by the Secretary of State for Defence and issued by Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) in accordance with the provisions of that Direction.
The area covered by the NM&WLP will both contain and be washed over by safeguarding zones that are designated to preserve the operation and capability of defence assets and sites including RAF Marham, RAF Mildenhall, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Honington. RAF Trimingham, RAF Weyborne, RAF Neatishead and the East 2 WAM Network
Copies of these plans, in both GIS shapefile and .pdf format, can be provided on request through the email address above.
The MODs primary concern with respect to minerals and waste development is the potential for detriment to aviation safety, specifically related to birdstrike. The working or subsequent restoration of either mineral or waste sites have the capacity to form environments that might attract those large and/or flocking bird species that form a hazard to aviation safety. Amongst the statutory safeguarding zones issued to Local Planning Authorities through the DLUHC are those specifically designed to identify a 12.87km (8 mile) radius around military aerodromes within which birdstrike risk is most critical.
In addition to birdstrike issues, MOD may have concerns that mineral and waste development might incorporate or require structures that might fall within safeguarding zones drawn to preserve the operation and capability of technical assets such as communication systems, navigational equipment, or radar; or that might project into the airspace above and surrounding an aerodrome.
The MOD welcome the provisions of Policy MW1: Development Management Criteria and the supporting information set out in paragraphs 6.45 to 6.49 which provide an overview of the issues above and make a potential requirement for mitigation clear. It is noted that paragraph 6.49 identifies that mitigation should be provided at the planning application stage, in order to provide additional guidance to a prospective developer it would be beneficial to make clear within this section that it may be necessary that mitigation is secured through planning condition and/or planning obligation.

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99493

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Broadland District Council

Representation Summary:

Note that Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria is now referenced as MW1, however our comment in relation to several policies concerning particular development types still referring to general development management policy (now) MW1 is reiterated, and whilst the reason for this is understood, the policies in the plan should be read as a whole.

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99522

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: South Norfolk District Council

Representation Summary:

Note that Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria is now referenced as MW1, however our comment in relation to several policies concerning particular development types still referring to general development management policy (now) MW1 is reiterated, and whilst the reason for this is understood, the policies in the plan should be read as a whole.

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99541

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

These comments are limited to the Single-issue Silica Sand Site Selection process. It is of considerable concern when the NMW Local Plan policies accommodate a clear avoidance of the public interest.

NPPF paragraphs 98 and 99 are quoted.
As the recreational jewel of West Norfolk within a badly scarred regional environment with a local road system unsuitable for recreational pursuits, and where no realistic alternatives exist, it is surprising that the proposition of AOS E as a silica sand extraction candidate survived for so long. I believe that the Shouldham Warren should have been declared off-limits to all development. including mineral developments, as it provides an absolutely unique and traditional environment for West Norfolk country recreation.

1.The initial task is to convince N.C.C. that public land-use issues must always be respected in silica sand extraction site negotiations in particular, and in mineral and waste site negotiations in general. It is the law. How can the public interest be totally disregarded in a major Local Plan? This fails to pass the notions of "legal compliance" and of administrative "soundness."

2. The main problem with public representation involves the failure to recognize the long-term public recreational land-use interest in Shouldham Warren, part of AOS E.
The added comments principally seek to correct unnecessary weaknesses in the rule making regarding silica sand extraction site selection for public rural recreation areas such as Shouldham Warren and West Bilney Wood.

Soundness tests: Not effective, not positively prepared, not consistent with national policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

19. Policy MW2: Development Management Criteria Under s. (i) Public Open Spaces, suggest adding at the end, "including appropriate well-used, open-access, Forestry Commission land."