Policy MP2: Spatial Strategy for minerals extraction – STRATEGIC POLICY

Object

Representation ID: 99233

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We have raised concerns about the wording in relation to harm to the historic environment in policy MP2.
In order to make this policy consistent with the NPPF and effective in securing sustainable development, we suggest that the policy wording is amended.

We welcome the addition of designated heritage assets as a bullet point in this policy. Conservation Areas should also be added to this list as they are designated heritage assets.
Substantial harm is a very high bar. Less than substantial harm is still harm and harm should be avoided in the first instance. We suggest that you reword this bullet point to delete the word substantial and add reference to significance and setting.
The bullet point would then read:
a designated heritage asset, including listed buildings, registered parks and gardens, [insert: 'conservation'] areas and scheduled monuments, or their settings if the proposed development would cause [delete: substantial] harm to [delete: or] the [delete: loss] [insert: 'significance'] of the heritage asset [insert: '(including any contribution to significance by setting)'].

Object

Representation ID: 99296

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Mineral Products Association

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy MP2 is not legally compliant or sound. Paragraph 209 of the NPPF states:
“It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods that the country needs. Since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation.”

It is notable that Policy MP2 dictates that specific sites for silica sand, “should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant and railhead at Leziate via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route.” There is no basis or justification for imposing this restriction as a new mineral site could be a significant distance from the existing processing plant which might mean that the only viable or the most sustainable option is to build a new processing plant or warehousing facility. This is clearly not an effective approach to meet unmet need and is not consistent with the principles of national policy which set out that minerals can only be worked where they are found.

Furthermore, there is very little basis for the remainder of the spatial strategy, which simply states areas where mineral extraction sites are not acceptable. This ignores that silica sand is a nationally important mineral and that the extraction of this mineral in areas mentioned within the policy has been found to be acceptable. This very clearly cannot be termed a spatial strategy for silica sand extraction and as drafted is not justified, consistent with national planning policy, effective or positively prepared. It is simply unsound.

Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states:
“Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and landuse designations and allocations identified on a policies map. Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should include planning for and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area (except insofar as these needs can be demonstrated to be met more appropriately through other mechanisms, such as brownfield registers or nonstrategic policies).”

Paragraph 210 of the NPPF states:
“Planning policies should:
a) provide for the extraction of mineral resources of local and national importance, but not identify new sites or extensions to existing sites for peat extraction;…

The reasoning for removing Areas of Search from the plan is unequivocally flawed. Especially as the criteria used differs from that set out in the policy and effectively implies that the whole of the resource area is an unacceptable location for minerals development. This undermines the strategic and national importance of silica sand whilst also prejudging specific applications which may evidence that a particular location is suitable for mineral extraction.

The draft Plan approach does not meet the requirement of Paragraph 210 of the NPPF which states that planning policies should provide for the extraction of mineral resources. Indeed, Paragraph 23 of the NPPF is clear that strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing forward sufficient land to address objectively assessed need. This policy does not do this, but rather attempts to set out a principle that silica sand resources are not located in areas acceptable for extraction. This means that the policy is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. It is important to note that Norfolk is one of the only areas in England processing sand capable of colourless glass manufacture. This damaging rhetoric and reckless approach to policy making threatens the viability of the nation’s glass industry. Using a set of baseless principles that would be liable to legal challenge.

The policy as drafted serves no basis and should be re-evaluated in light of the above-mentioned policies and PPG. Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 27-008-20140306 of the PPG states:
“Mineral planning authorities should plan for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in one or more of the following ways (in order of priority):
1. Designating Specific Sites – where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms. Such sites may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction;
2. Designating Preferred Areas, which are areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated. Such areas may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; and/or
3. Designating Areas of Search – areas where knowledge of mineral resources may be less certain but within which planning permission may be granted, particularly if there is a potential shortfall in supply.

National Park Authorities are not expected to designate Preferred Areas or Areas of Search given their overarching responsibilities for managing National Parks.
Furthermore, in exceptional circumstances, such as where a local authority area is largely made up of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it may be appropriate for mineral planning authorities to rely largely on policies which set out the general conditions against which applications will be assessed.
In planning for minerals extraction, mineral planning authorities are expected to co-operate with other authorities.”

The Specific Sites proposed for allocation cover a very small proportion of the overall forecasted need for silica sand. Sibelco strongly disagree with the Council’s assertion in paragraph 13.4 of the Silica Sand Topic Paper that, “there are exceptional circumstances in Norfolk to rely largely on a criteria-based policy.” Norfolk is not made up largely of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are a number of areas where silica sand extraction could come forward in both non-designated and designated areas. Nationally important mineral is routinely extracted within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other designated sites such as Ramsar and SSSI’s where effective mitigation measures can control development. The following evidence should also be considered in NCC policy making:
• In his examination of the Norfolk County Council Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD (2017) the Inspector found that to address a shortfall of 0.68 million tonnes of silica sand, it was appropriate to designate some 946 hectares of Area of Search. On this matter the Inspector concludes, “I am mindful that the Plan has identified 946 hectares of land within the AoS, which I consider provides a suitable level of provision, given the uncertainties involved and the need for some flexibility should the future need for silica sand increase. Overall, I consider that the site selection methodology is sound.”

• In his examination of the Norfolk County Council Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD (2017) the Inspector found the site selection methodology sound. The current site selection methodology appears to be the same. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Sustainability Appraisal excludes all the proposed Areas of Search, especially as these areas were deemed acceptable for inclusion and proposed allocation within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options.

Comment

Representation ID: 99311

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Gravel

Agent: David L Walker Ltd

In respect of Policy MP2, paragraph 23 of the NPPF states “Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and land use designations and allocations identified on a policies map.” Can the council please confirm that when referencing “resource areas” within the policy they are actually referring to the “Mineral Safeguarding Areas” on the Key Diagrams as a “reserve area” is noted in the legend for those plans.

Object

Representation ID: 99340

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

In order to ensure the plan is effective and does not set policy MP2 against policy MW1, we recommend that County Wildlife Sites are added to the list provided in bullet points at the end of the policy. The CWS network in Norfolk consists currently of approximately 1400 sites, the safeguarding of which is vital to the future of Norfolk’s wildlife. With legal targets in the 2021 Environment Act for nature’s recovery, a duty on public bodies to have regard to nature’s conservation and enhancement in the NERC Act and the Environment Act, and a policy requirement in policy MW1 to safeguard and provide gains for biodiversity through planning decisions, it would be counterproductive to not afford the CWS network the same policy protection under policy MP2.

Object

Representation ID: 99471

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Sibelco UK Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy MP2 is not legally compliant or sound.

Paragraph 209 of the NPPF states:
“It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy, and goods that the country needs. Since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation.”

It is notable that Policy MP2 dictates that specific sites for silica sand, “should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant and railhead at Leziate via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route.” There is no basis or justification for imposing this restriction as a new mineral site could be a significant distance from the Leziate Plant Site which might mean that the only viable or the most sustainable option to provide a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is to build a new processing plant or warehousing facility. This policy is clearly not an effective approach to meet unmet need and is not consistent with the principles of national policy which set out that minerals can only be worked where they are found.

Furthermore, there is very little basis for the remainder of the spatial strategy, which simply sets out where mineral extraction sites are not acceptable. This ignores that silica sand is a nationally important mineral and that the extraction of this mineral in areas specified within the policy has been found to be acceptable. This very clearly cannot be termed a spatial strategy for silica sand extraction and as drafted is not justified, consistent with national planning policy, effective or positively prepared. It is simply unsound.

Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states:
“Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and landuse designations and allocations identified on a policies map. Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should include planning for and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area (except insofar as these needs can be demonstrated to be met more appropriately through other mechanisms, such as brownfield registers or nonstrategic policies).”

Paragraph 210 of the NPPF states:
“Planning policies should:
a) provide for the extraction of mineral resources of local and national importance, but not identify new sites or extensions to existing sites for peat extraction;…

It follows that the reasoning for removing Areas of Search from the plan is unequivocally flawed. Especially as the site selection criteria used differs from that set out in the policy and effectively implies that the whole of the resource area is an unacceptable location for minerals development. This undermines the strategic and national importance of silica sand whilst also prejudging specific applications which may evidence that a particular location is suitable for mineral extraction.

Fundamentally it does not meet the requirement of Paragraph 210 of the NPPF which states that planning policies should provide for the extraction of mineral resources. Indeed, Paragraph 23 of the NPPF is clear that strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing forward sufficient land to address objectively assessed need. This policy does not do this, but rather attempts to set out a principle that silica sand resources are not located in areas acceptable for extraction. This means that the policy is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. It is important to note that Norfolk is one of the only areas in England processing sand capable of colourless glass manufacture. This damaging rhetoric and reckless approach to policy making threatens the viability of the nation’s glass industry, using a set of baseless principles that would be liable to legal challenge.

The policy as drafted should be re-evaluated in light of the above-mentioned policies and PPG. Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 27-008-20140306 of the PPG states:
“Mineral planning authorities should plan for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in one or more of the following ways (in order of priority):
1. Designating Specific Sites – where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms. Such sites may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction;
2. Designating Preferred Areas, which are areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated. Such areas may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; and/or
3. Designating Areas of Search – areas where knowledge of mineral resources may be less certain but within which planning permission may be granted, particularly if there is a potential shortfall in supply.

National Park Authorities are not expected to designate Preferred Areas or Areas of Search given their overarching responsibilities for managing National Parks.
Furthermore, in exceptional circumstances, such as where a local authority area is largely made up of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it may be appropriate for mineral planning authorities to rely largely on policies which set out the general conditions against which applications will be assessed.
In planning for minerals extraction, mineral planning authorities are expected to co-operate with other authorities.”

The Specific Sites proposed for allocation cover a very small proportion of the overall forecasted need for silica sand. Sibelco strongly disagree with the Council’s assertion in paragraph 13.4 of the Silica Sand Topic Paper that, “there are exceptional circumstances in Norfolk to rely largely on a criteria-based policy.” Norfolk is not made up largely of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are a number of areas where silica sand extraction could come forward in both non-designated and designated areas. Nationally important mineral is routinely extracted within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other designated sites such as Ramsar and SSSI’s where effective mitigation measures can control development. The following evidence should also be considered in the Council’s policy making:

• In his examination of the Norfolk County Council Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD [Single Issue Silica Sand Review] in 2017 the Inspector found that in order to address a shortfall of 0.68 million tonnes of silica sand, it was appropriate to designate some 946 hectares of Area of Search. On this matter the Inspector concludes, “I am mindful that the Plan has identified 946 hectares of land within the AoS, which I consider provides a suitable level of provision, given the uncertainties involved and the need for some flexibility should the future need for silica sand increase. Overall, I consider that the site selection methodology is sound.”

• In his examination of the Norfolk County Council Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD [Single Issue Silica Sand Review] in 2017 the Inspector found the site selection methodology sound. The current site selection methodology appears to be the same. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Sustainability Appraisal excludes all of the proposed Areas of Search, especially as these areas were deemed acceptable for inclusion and proposed allocation within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options. The following observations are made on the summary text in Section 6.3.4 of the Sustainability Appraisal which indicate the reasons why the proposed Areas of Search have been excluded from the Minerals and Waste Plan Pre-submission Document.:

AOS E:
The impacts on the setting of heritage assets at Wormegay and on the setting of Pentney Priory was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The AOS was included in the Preferred Options stage with basic heritage assessment evidence informing the designation. Using Heritage as a constraint is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS given nothing has changed in the evidence base since the AOS designation was considered sound.

o The statutory safeguarding area around RAF Marham was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The Ministry of Defence raised concerns about minerals development in response to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial Consultation but did not object. The Council’s response was to amend Policy MP13 to require a Bird Hazard Management Assessment at planning application stage. The Ministry of Defence provided the same comments in response to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options Consultation and did not object to the inclusion of the AOS. Bird strike is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS. It would be for an individual application and working scheme to mitigate any impacts within the context of these policies.
o The loss of access to public open space was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. Mineral extraction is a temporary and progressive operation and there is no reason why public open space cannot be either be maintained or returned upon restoration.

AOS F, AOS I and AOS J:
o The statutory safeguarding area around RAF Marham was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The Ministry of Defence raised concerns about minerals development in response to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial Consultation but did not object. The Council’s response was to amend Policy MP13 to require a Bird Hazard Management Assessment at planning application stage. The Ministry of Defence provided the same comments in response to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options Consultation and did not object to the inclusion of the AOS. Bird strike is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS.
o The Inspector found the size of this AOS as acceptable and it is therefore not just able to remove on this basis.

It is also noted that a number of superfluous reasons with little planning basis have been used to reject the Areas of Search approach. For instance, landowner willingness is not required by PPG for Preferred Areas or Areas of Search. In addition, in relation to designations such as AONB’s, SPA’s and SAC, mineral extraction has been found to be acceptable both within and in close proximity to these designations.

In summary there are no sound planning reasons to deviate from the Areas of Search approach. Omitting Areas of Search and introducing a criteria-based approach renders the Plan not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. The Plan is unsound.

We suggest Policy MP2 is re-worded to include Areas of Search and also set out a hierarchy of delivery. to properly set out a spatial strategy for silica sand development.

Object

Representation ID: 99479

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Protection of Woodland
In Policy [paragraph] 8.1, it states, "The Climate Change Act 2008 sets up a framework for the UK to achieve its longterm goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure that steps are taken towards adapting to the impacts of climate change. That Act also introduced a requirement into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004, for local planning authorities to address climate change in preparing Local Plans. In 2019, the Climate Change Act was amended to commit the UK government by law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 100% of 1990 levels (net zero) by 2050. The government's Net Zero Strategy, Build Back Greener (2021), sets out policies and proposals for decarbonising all sectors of the UK economy to meet net zero target by 2050.

Policy [paragraph] 8.3 adds, "Forestry and woodlands act as carbon sinks and capture greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, habitat creation and the expansion of existing habitats can increase the resilience of the natural environment to cope with climate change." It goes on to support these objectives in the reclamation of mining sites.

Policy MW3 states, "Proposals for new minerals and waste developments (including extensions to existing sites) will therefore be expected to: (f) take opportunities to incorporate trees, retain existing trees and include measures to assist habitats and species to adapt to the potential effects of climate change wherever change is possible."

The NMWLP establishes 'ancient woodland' and 'veteran trees' as landscape features that will be strongly protected. Development Management Policy OM 8.23, (NMWJP, Preferred Options, July 2019) for example, states, "There are also important areas of ancient woodland across Norfolk, often with veteran trees ……All of these landscape features will be strongly protected from any adverse impacts arising from minerals and waste management development." [paragraph 6.24 of Pre-Submission document]

To help allay Net Zero, the UK government is dedicated to plant 1M acres of trees by 2050, increasing national tree cover from 14.5 to 17.5 %. In September 2019, the Norfolk County Council committed to planting 1 million trees over the next 5 years. In the Cabinet Members Delegated Decision Paper on the Preferred Options Consultation, dated December 10th, 2019, there was an important statement. Under a heading, Policy MP13 Silica Sand Area of Search AOS E and Policy MP2, it was stated, "(this) suggests a significant policy shift in the important roles that trees play in County Council operations. It is clear that much more attention needs to be given the retention of existing tree cover, with additional recreational opportunities. An elevated status needs to be given 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."

It continues, "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 in general." The next sentence refers to this new protection of woodland in the decision to remove AOS E from the preferred options site selection.

This change of definition is yet to find its way into the NMWLP document. It should be modified to affect this change.

Soundness: Not Effective, Not Positively Prepared, Not Consistent with National Policy