6.27

Object

Representation ID: 99536

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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.

26. Under Recreation, page 31 of the NMWLP document, May 2022, s. 8.26 discusses public rights of way (PROW) in the context of the Definitive map. It is acknowledged that many ways are under-registered from the instigation of the Definitive Map as only basic cartography was available in the 1950/60s. The surveying authority has a statutory duty to keep the Definitive map under continuous review, but this is an unfunded mandate and cannot be achieved. There is however the presumptive responsibility to consider the question of whether there might be under-registered or unregistered PROW on the site when the potential for major topographical changes is proposed. Furthermore, a separate diversion order has to be obtained to justify a temporary deviation, although it does not alter the Definitive Map. This section of the NMWLP goes on to state that the restoration must have access at least as good as that existing previously. Under s. 261(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, the highway must be restored "to a condition not substantially less convenient to the public." This is customarily interpreted to mean in length, conditions, and enjoyment. The word "access" in the context of restoration appears misguided.

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