Policy MP7: Progressive working, restoration and after-use

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99126

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Representation Summary:

We have some queries and questions. These are not saying the Plan is unsound by asking these queries, but we would welcome thoughts on these and they may result in improvements to the Plan.
MP7 – could the restoration be a walk or cycle route itself – as in, not necessarily connected to the PROW? Could it become an attraction itself?
MP7 – what about access to water, if a body of water becomes part of the scheme?

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99158

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Lead Local Flood Authority (Norfolk County Council)

Representation Summary:

We welcome the inclusion of an assessment of flooding from all sources within the Plan. We would like to provide information which you may wish to consider in relation to Policy MP7 and section Flooding, water resources and water quality.
Policy MP7: We would suggest the inclusion of a specific point relating to restoration proposals.
• The restoration scheme must ensure there will be no increase in flood risk from the pre-development scenarios and opportunities for betterment are sought.

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99238

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We welcome the reference to restoration proposals being informed by the historic environment. We suggest a very slight amendment to the wording to read:
The scheme has been informed by the historic environment and historic landscape [insert: "characterisation and landscape character"] assessments and the restoration enhances the historic environment.
Historic landscape characterisation and landscape character assessments are slightly different but have complementary roles.

Change suggested by respondent:

Amend text to read;
The scheme has been informed by the historic environment and historic landscape [insert: "characterisation and landscape character"] assessments and the restoration enhances the historic environment.

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99313

Received: 15/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Gravel

Agent: David L Walker Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In respect of Policy MP7, the application of the wording “exceptional circumstances” is questioned as this creates an unnecessary barrier to change. Sometimes the reason for a change can be simple, and therefore applying a qualifying criterion seems unjustified and unnecessary. The test should be no diminishment in quality, as per the remainder of the policy.
The absence of drainage and flood risk wording under Policy MP7 is also notable as these are key aspects when considering the design of any restoration landform under the modern day planning regime.
Soundness test: not justified

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99412

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk County Council - Natural Environment Team

Representation Summary:

It is advised that the policy clarifies that the restoration proposal must demonstrate “the scheme provides for a [insert: 'minimum 10% measurable'] biodiversity net gain”.

Change suggested by respondent:

It is advised that the policy clarifies that the restoration proposal must demonstrate “the scheme provides for a [insert: 'minimum 10% measurable'] biodiversity net gain”.

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99421

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 this policy. 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 . 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 [https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/local-nature-recovery-strategies/] 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.
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 this policy.
We advise strengthening the 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:

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99443

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation Summary:

Would suggest to replace "enhanced" with "measurable increase in biodiversity"

Change suggested by respondent:

Would suggest to replace "enhanced" with "measurable increase in biodiversity"

Comment

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99461

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Breckland District Council

Representation Summary:

Add also where appropriate, enhance water quality by provision of natural filtering interventions

Change suggested by respondent:

Add also where appropriate, enhance water quality by provision of natural filtering interventions

Object

Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Representation ID: 99512

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Unconsidered Regional Vulnerability to Uncontrolled Silica Sand Mining

When considering the landscape implications of silica sand mining, almost all documents in the N.C.C. silica sand library and in the NMWLP document, May 2022, consider only the implications of active and proposed silica sand extraction sites, and mainly from the perspective of considerations of local amenity (village) impacts and from the problem of regulating HGV transports. The historical realities are largely being disregarded.

Within and directly adjacent to West Norfolk, there are the widespread, cumulative scars of several hundred years of sand and gravel (aggregates) mining and at least 200 years of silica sand mining for glass, foundry, ceramics, and other industries. New mining sites are selected with almost no consideration of the surrounding blight; many of these sites remain unremediated and many have been reduced to lakes. The NMWLPA misleads in its discussion of cumulative adverse effects. claiming that only current mining sites are involved. In fact the National Planning Policy Minerals Guidance (2014) states, "Mineral planning authorities should include appropriate policies in their minerals local plan where appropriate. to ensure that the cumulative impact of a proposed mineral development on the community and the environment will be acceptable. The cumulative impact of mineral development is also capable of being a material consideration when determining individual planning applications" There is no preoccupation with the impacts of active sites in the NPPG or NPPF. It is the true cumulative impacts of local mining that is the pertinent factor.

Indeed, the systematic restoration of old sites would allay some of the widespread public Concerns, but there has been no interest from N.C.C. or from mining groups. Virtually all the sites that have come under consideration in the last decade are adjacent to old workings. The logical approach to this situation is for N.C.C.to contract a map maker to develop (for the first time) a map of historical and current sand mining sites in West Norfolk. The purpose would be to establish more sustainable choices of silica sand extraction sites.

The richness of the Leziate deposits of the Sandringham sand classification has meant that this resource has been preferentially mined, with the extensive blight in Leziate, Mintlyn, Bawsey, Roydon, Middleton, West Winch, Wolferton, Sandringham, and elsewhere. There is an official preference for proposed sites close to the Leziate Factory, which is concentrating the scarring of landscape. even if newly-finished mining sites are now being reclaimed. but there is little evidence that the abundance of old mining sites will not just remain as unreclaimed and often useless landforms.

Sibelco UK, from the evidence of their application history remain quite unconcerned. yet in Belgium, their HQ, the company have a vaunted reputation for both site reclamation and the substitution of significant silica sand inputs with reclaimed glass, but not here in England. N.C.C. are not encouraging or mandating either.

Another unreported impediment to mining in the region is the very high level of governmental neutralisation of large swathes of the countryside. Since 1942, 121 square km have been appropriated as the STANTA military area for the British Army. Since the 1920s, 45,000 acres of the Brecks and West Norfolk have been planted as primarily monocultural Forestry England plantations, the largest lowland forest in Britain. There are three major airforce bases adjacent to the limited regional silica sand resource, RAF Marham, RAF Lakenheath, and RAF Mildenhall; the former in particular may invalidate significant potential sites under its statutory 13 km radius of bird-strike zone, although there are already appreciable numbers of lakes in old mining sites within this zone. There are also scattered areas of residual fen and wet woodland throughout the area. A review of the website, Who Owns Norfolk, shows the vast areas of privately-owned country estates, including the 20,000 acre Sandringham Estate and large Crown Commissioner landholdings. These facts appear never to be considered by N.C.C. in its support and adjudication of the nationally important silica sand industry.

Facts are facts and should not be disregarded. The facts speak to the necessity of a more nuanced approach to silica sand mining, the importance of restoring large swathes of the countryside damaged historically by sand mining, and not just the current mines, a determined consciousness of adjacent damaged areas. and the requirement for a more systematic approach to the identification and selection of new silica sand extraction sites. Familiarity with the cumulative documents on N.C.C. silica sand site selection ought to lead to the conclusion that perhaps a process with greater discretion and success in the identification of appropriate silica sand resources might be achievable. yet the ambient culture seems to expect different results from doing the same thing. It is clear that the public interests must be part of the solution.

Soundness test: not effective, not positively prepared, not consistent with national policy

Change suggested by respondent:

Unconsidered Regional Vulnerability to Uncontrolled Silica Sand
Mining B

1. The occasional recreational public land-use interests are unrecognised in the planning structure informing silica sand extraction site selection in the NMWLP, May 2022. They are of particular importance because of the local landscape blight associated with historical sand mining and governmental programmes. Shouldham Warren, part of AOS E, the jewel of West Norfolk countryside recreation, is perhaps the best example. Public interests cannot be excluded from planning decisions, and evidence suggests that this absence in NMWLP was systematic. Resets are required in a number of the Plan processes to accommodate this legitimate public interest before the NMWLP can be considered legally compliant.

2. A comprehensive West Norfolk region-specific mapping of both historical and current active and suspended mining sites - for silica sand, sand sand and gravel, and carstone - should be created to help inform further planning, and restoration. An independent cartographer should be engaged. This needs to be undertaken with some urgency. The purpose is to introduce greater granularity into the process that is currently available to aid specific site selection and to avoid areas of blight.

3. Restoration of the many old neglected sand mining sites, including areas of cumulative industrial blight, is an important issue for the general public as they see additional mining sites proposed for a battered landscape. Public rural recreational areas are now scarce. If the industry will not accept any responsibility, it has to be the responsibility of local government, possibly with private sponsorship.
The Bawsey Lakes area is a classical example with fenced (in disrepair) areas of heavy metal contamination, sinking sands, and chemical contamination, and several unsafe lakes, some with unsecured, below-surface obstructions. The huge site has required surveying and restoration for over 50 years. It ought to be a major regional resource, if funded properly. Ignoring the extensive heritage mining blight in West Norfolk in the execution of planning for silica sand mining is a fundamental and self-inflicted problem. I request consideration of this aspect in the adjudication of the "soundness" of the NMWLP to 2038.

4. The MPA claim that the selection of putative AOS sites may not be a useful approach in the Leziate beds anymore may well be realistic. A greater granularity of approach, aided by the mechanisms suggested, and allied with an improved collaborative endeavour with minerals firms may aid in the recognition of specific sites, and even of multiple smaller sites.