Policy MP11: Mineral Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas – STRATEGIC POLICY

Comment

Representation ID: 99239

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the reference to the conservation benefits of carstone.

Support

Representation ID: 99298

Received: 14/12/2022

Respondent: Mineral Products Association

The MPA supports this policy and the additional reference to the agent of change.

Object

Representation ID: 99352

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited & Manor Farm Rackheath Ltd.

Agent: GP Planning Limited

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Paragraph MP11.1 - the quote from National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 210) omits reference to Mineral Consultation Areas:
c) safeguard mineral resources by defining Minerals Safeguarding Areas and Mineral Consultation Areas; and adopt appropriate policies so that known locations of specific mineral resources of local and national importance are not sterilised by non-mineral development where this should be avoided (whilst not creating a presumption that the resources defined will be worked);

There are two issues with the wording/content of the policy MP11.
Firstly, the final paragraph is not in line with NPPF. Stating that the Mineral Planning Authority will object regardless of any other factors is clearly wrong and contrary to policy. NPPF at paragraph 12 states: Local Planning Authorities should not normally permit other development proposals in Mineral Safeguarding Areas if it might constrain potential future use for mineral working."
Nowhere in the NPPF or Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) does it state that MPAs should object to every application that would lead to sterilisation, which is basically what the draft policy is saying.
This also sits contrary to the supporting text at paragraph MP11.11.

Secondly, the link to Appendix 10 in the third paragraph of the policy will cause problems for some developments. Appendix 10 basically reiterates the guidance note referred to above. At least in this case it allows interested parties to comment on its content, unlike the current Plan where neither the policy not the supporting text refers to the Guidance Note on the Mineral Safeguarding Process for Aggregates -Sand & Gravel and Carstone (2014). This note is referred to on the Council website but has no statutory status as it was not subject to any consultation. Therefore it does not form part of the development Plan. It is also noted that the 'link' to the document only takes you to the Core Strategy, so it is not actually available through the main website pages.

In general, the proposed Appendix 10, is too onerous and rigid and does not follow BGS advice, which is cross-referenced in PPG. Of particular concern is paragraph 4.11 in Appendix 10: "The assessment of the onsite mineral resources would require the addition of Particle Size Distribution (PSD) tests of batches of any sand and gravel bearing deposits recovered, although this is often carried out for the FRA. Assessment of the results of Particle Size Distribution testing should refer to material class types in Table 6/1 of the Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works vol 1: Specification for Highway Works Series 600. to identify potential suitability for use in the construction phases."

This is a very onerous requirement, particularly for smaller developments, where an FRA or boreholes may not be needed as part of the site assessment.

In addition, the statement at the end of paragraph 10.5.2 (in the Appendix) that "Assessing the practicality of prior extraction as a standalone operation is to assess a false premise" is neither clear nor helpful.

The imposition of MMP-Ms through condition (requiring PSD testing) would be onerous and very difficult to manage on a large phased development. If a developer is required to produce a plan to cover every phase, including boreholes and having the material tested this will be an extremely onerous task and could prejudice the delivery of non-mineral related development (e.g. housing).

Comment

Representation ID: 99473

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Sibelco UK Limited

We support the inclusion of a mineral safeguarding and mineral consultation policy but believe the policy wording should be amended as set out below. The changes set out below are suggested to ensure adequate protection of mineral resources in accordance with paragraph 210 of the NPPF. In particular, the additional text reflects the national and strategic importance of Norfolk’s silica sand resource with particular reference to colourless glass production. This would allow the Council to consult with mineral operators to seek their technical industrial knowledge of minerals to best ensure effective safeguarding. This is an approach taken by Devon County Council in response to the existence of nationally important ball clay resources.

Object

Representation ID: 99488

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Silica Sand Safeguarding Programme

1. Silica sand mineral deposits in Norfolk are confined to a narrow linear band lying close to the eastern side of Kings Lynn and oriented in a north-south direction. The resource has been protected from the uncontrolled imposition of other developments by the Norfolk Safeguarding programme for silica sand (and carstone) as represented by the Safeguarding Map. All developments proposed to the Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council and adjacent District Councils within this area have to be permitted by the County Council. One potential problem is in the absence of democratic control of this process. It is administered by N.C.C. Minerals and Waste officers, although the map is published electronically. Public familiarity with the safeguarding map is uncommon and, as only one area of the County is involved, it should probably be more actively promoted, certainly among parish councils. It was a considerable surprise to the great majority of users of Shouldham Warren (AOS E) and West Bilney Wood (AOS D) when these sites were proposed for silica sand extraction. The failure to involve the public is not a 'sound' policy.

2. Presumably at the development of the silica sand safeguarding map (around 2004), it was decided that the two sites were unsuitable for consideration as open-cast mines because of their long history as important sites of public recreation. Both wooded areas were omitted from the map, leaving two lacunae within the otherwise homogeneous safeguarded area. There was no relevant N.C.C. comment in NMWLP documents when both were incorporated in suggested silica sand extraction AOS in both the Initial and Preferred Options consultations; in neither did this fact appear to play any role in the decision-making. Their prior long-term existence as heavily used public recreation areas also was not mentioned in any of the curated development documents.

The Mineral Consulting Area (MCA) in Norfolk is defined in Policy MP11 as the Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA). An additional 250m safeguarded buffer is established around all permitted and active silica sand extraction sites, providing a buffer that might contain extensions of deposits and to prevent future non-minerals development that might prevent access.

Safeguarding retains the flexibility to identify areas which have the least impact on the environment. There is no presumption that any areas within an MSA will ultimately be acceptable for mineral extraction. Defining the MSA in strategic terms, ensures that known mineral resources are optimally considered in land-use planning decisions. MCAs are principally defined as tools to ensure that mineral resources are considered at the district level by consultation with the county MHAs.

How two sites that were not within the MSA/MCA because of high-level public usage were then proposed as part of two of the most significant AOS is not explained. It is significant that both were selected by Sibelco UK who were clearly unconcerned by their public nature and by the several other confounding factors involved. This clearly was 'unsound,' 'unjustified,' 'not evidence-led,' and inconsistent with national policy.'

3. The DEFRA document, A Guide to Mineral Safeguarding in England, published in 2007, is a useful explanatory text. Under Part 1, it states, "Key stakeholders, including communities, should be informed at the outset and kept informed During the process of creating an effective system." It does not appear that this ever occurred with the four village communities adjacent to Shouldham Warren, or with the wider user community. During the long gestation period of the NMWLP, there is no evidence of any intention to protect Should ham Warren in the cumulative documents, and there was little direct communication on this matter with local government.

4. The MCA/ MSA should be defined with the best available data. It is not clear whether new data from Sibelco UK is incorporated into the map. It is known that Sibelco has been conducting extensive bore hole investigations over a wide area during the last two years. Is a map update due, or is this information retained within the company? This is a relevant issue, as collaboration is supposed to suffuse the process. "Any modification by a mineral planning authority (MPA) to the BGS mineral resource outlines, such as decisions not to include a particular resource, or reduce or extend a resource boundary, will need to be based on robust and credible evidence to withstand the scrutiny of a public examination."

Ultimately selecting an extraction site is a dynamic process that takes into account a range of factors defined in the Plan DPD. Mineral-specific factors include the quality, thickness and extent of the deposits, as well as its variability and situation. The presence of an MSA does not necessarily preclude all development within these areas, although the current abandonment by N.C.C. of all AOS in the Preferred Options group might imply this to be the case. Whether more defined and fully investigated potential extraction sites might be a more effective strategy appears untried.

5. There is a conundrum in this Local Plan in that, at the death, N.C.C. announce that nothing can be achieved with the present national system, and that a simplified mechanism, with the direct referral by commercial mineral operators directly into the district planning procedures, where, incidentally, there is no guaranteed access for outstanding public interest concerns. Neither am I impressed that the NMWLP, 2022 has provided sufficient evidence for this conclusion. The solution proposed appears to be at odds with fundamental democratic principles elaborated by the National Planning Policy Framework. I respectfully suggest that the newly recommended approach to silica sand site selection is neither legally compliant or sound.

6. The minerals planning processes are not fixed. The above mentioned DEFRA Safeguarding Guidance reports how Staffordshire County Council had adapted their procedures as of 15 years ago. Basically, this approach involved (i) BGS data were periodically revised to incorporate all mineral data as it accumulated primarily from industry; (ii) continual refinement of the MSA using Master Map (a very large data set) - including removal of uneconomic areas and addition of mineral buffers (250m for silica sand); (iii) introduced a schema to identify the granularity of (primarily) residences within the MSA by creating building clusters of buildings within 100m of each other with an additional 25m around the outermost buildings, and the infill of all interior polygons (as too small to be productive) and the removal of conurbations greater than 20 hectares in size as "urban areas." Communities divided by rivers had special treatment. "Interior open spaces ... such as golf courses, recreation grounds, (and) urban parks were included in the building clusters polygon"; in Norfolk, this would have removed Shouldham Warren and West Bilney Wood from contention. The procedures are reviewed in the Guidance.

This is not to claim that the system could work in Norfolk. It is mentioned only to bring attention to different approaches that have been used elsewhere to accommodate community granularity and other factors. This is from 15 years ago, and it is a safe assumption that this and other approaches will have improved utility in the interim, and possibly incorporating additional factors - as a possible alternative to "declaring victory from defeat and going home." However initially extraction sites are defined, they will need to be refined in discussion with industry and other stakeholders. Sustainable development remains the strategic objective. There is an ironic component in the failure to protect public recreational sites, as it is the widespread historical pattern of sand mining in West Norfolk that has caused the acute shortage of rural sites, such as Shouldham Warren and East Bilney Wood, for personal and institutional public recreation. A failure to explore realistic alternatives in a 13-year journey might be considered an 'unsound' approach. To accept a market failure without a comprehensive analysis of opportunities and practices is an unsound proposition.