Statement of Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 99514

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Avoidance of Public Accountability and Inaccuracy of MPA Responses to the Consultation Submissions:
The elicited contributions from the two rounds of "consultee" contributions and from the two rounds of public "commentaries" are reproduced in a variable, abbreviated format in the May 2022 document, the NMWLP Review Statement of Consultation. Given the selective nature of the issues reported, it is surprising how often they are disregarded or misrepresented in the attached MHA commentary. The odd infelicity is of little significance, but this occurs on an unacceptable number of occasions. It is regrettable that such instances have not been edited from the document as it calls into question whether this reflects internal agendas?

It is difficult to be certain of the implications, particularly as the public contributions, in particular are presented in a manner which is particularly difficult to interpret. Action items are usually presented as brief, aggregate comments from which it can often be observed that important critique is omitted. Specific aspects, including such examples, are discussed in greater detail elsewhere. Here. a brief listing is provided limited to discussions of minerals process and of individual site considerations. The principal source (as per MPA) of the action item(s) is stated, with headline subject and page number given. Elsewhere. it is shown that public comments are given far less weight than those of 'official' consultees, and there is little MHA response that can be shown to be directly associated with public submissions. The list presented is not comprehensive as there are undoubtedly missing examples, on a random basis.[see representation 99528 for list]

Immediate problems include the absence of recognition of local public concerns and the failure to recognize recreational public land-use issues. As we shall see later, the NMWLP planning has almost completely ignored the interests of local and regional communities throughout the 13-year history of this Plan. The NMWLP document, 2022, under review, furthermore, has failed to give due recognition and has essentially suppressed the submitted views of 4.500 local citizens who submitted statements that they systematically used the Shouldham Warren area (AOS E and SIL 02) for recreation as an open access site. It will also be shown that worrisome facts that are inconvenient to the MH/\ have been deliberately suppressed.

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

Object

Representation ID: 99528

Received: 16/12/2022

Respondent: Dr L David Ormerod

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

6B. Avoidance of Public Accountability and Inaccuracy of MPA Responses to the Consultation Submissions:

The elicited contributions from the two rounds of "consultee" contributions and from the two rounds of public "commentaries" are reproduced in a variable, abbreviated format in the May 2022 document, the NMWLP Review Statement of Consultation. Given the selective nature of the issues reported and the importance of public accountability, it is surprising how often the "public commentaries" are disregarded or misrepresented in the attached MHA response. The odd infelicity is of little significance, but this occurs on an unacceptable number of occasions. It is regrettable that such instances have not been edited from the document as it calls into question whether this reflects internal agendas?

It is difficult to be certain of the implications, particularly as the public contributions, in particular, are presented in a manner which is particularly difficult to interpret. Action items are usually presented as brief, aggregate comments from which it can often be observed that important critique is omitted. Several specific aspects are discussed in greater detail elsewhere. Here, a brief listing is provided that is limited to discussions of minerals process and of individual putative site considerations. The principal source (as per MPA) of the action item(s) is stated, with headline subject and page number given. Elsewhere, it is shown that public comments are given far less weight than those of 'official' consultees, and there is little MPA response that can be shown to be directly associated with public submissions. The list presented is not comprehensive as there are undoubtedly missing examples. on a random basis.

Page 44. Natural England request that sites involving agri-environmental schemes consult Natural England early on. The MPA replies, No Action Required, as it does not affect them misconstrued.
Page 47. Historic England request formal Heritage Impact Assessment on mineral sites under consideration. The MHA did not explain why a "proportionate level of assessment" had been preferred, and what this meant.
Page 47. Historic England: Comments on policy MP3 - overlooked.
Page 47. Historic England: Comments on the lack of representation for non-designated heritage assets, and regarding the removal of areas unsuitable for extraction from the safeguarded map. These are ignored as the potential mineral extraction sites are reported to be removed from consideration. The two issues are not connected with the site withdrawal.
Page 48. Historic England support improvement of presentation by the use of bullet points. The MPA report that bullet points are replaced with lower case letters. These remain rare in the cumulative document.
Page 49. CATTS: "NCC M&WLP 'Vision' and policies WP1 and WP2, Objectives WS0.2.4.6 and MSO 2.3.8 and 1 (are) not sound because (they) make no mention or plan for the recycling of glass before extracting raw material". The MPA answer fails to answer the questions.
Page 50. Individuals: "This plan is not compliant with DEFRAs 25-year Plan, with BEIS Clean Growth Strategy, or NPPG refs 27-012, 013, 017, and 045-201403, or NPPF guidance to look to recycle before extraction of raw materials." No comment was offered by the MPA.
Page 50. Individuals: "NCC is failing to recycle before extracting raw materials and therefore the plan is not sound and NCC fails their own sustainability objectives SA1, SA3, SA4, SA5, SA6, SA8, SA9, SA11 and SA13 on page 9 of the Sustainability Appraisal Report - Part A - Scoping (Oct 2015) and pages 15-16 of Part B (Jun 2019)." No comment was offered by the MPA.
Page 51. Individuals x2: In total, 13 bullet points are recorded from two submissions. Statements are reported - without the supporting evidence that had been provided. None of the 13 are answered, amongst the circumlocutions. Among the latter was a statement that the consultation process exceeded the requirements of the Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement. This is challenged elsewhere, but the failure even to mention the extensive long term public utility of Shouldham Warren in any of the formidable collection of study documents over the period 2010 - May 2022 is a failure to respond to the interests of the West Norfolk public. This implies a major infringement of this informing document.
Page 52. The MPA: The MPA claim to "set out full (Consultation) Feedback Reports for each (Options cycle) stage." This was untrue. Only a flimsy and unaccountable version has been offered for the Preferred Options stage. This is another major infraction of the process set out in the Statement of Community Involvement. In addition, the latter document was delayed for three years despite the hollowness of the MPA response, presenting the MPA response to the public concerns, without public notification. and at the last possible moment after a 12-year process.
Page 52. "The MPA state, "...an appropriate method to signpost consultations is to supply parish councils... with the details of consultations, so that they can cascade information to parishioners in the wav that they consider most suitable." This expectation was an abject failure, and still NCC insist that this methodology is retained in the Statement of Community Involvement. It does remains the NCC and MPA responsibility to fully inform the public (NPPF), not a parish clerk unversed in matters of major regional planning. The MPA accepted responsibility of informing only those residents living within 250m of a site boundary, leaving the vast majority of public interested parties uninformed. Is this a casual error or a deliberate attempt to disengage from most of the public?
Page 57. When talking of biodiversity (as well as ecological or arbocultural) net gains as the consequence of a policy decision, there has to be a baseline against which to judge, with hopefully the original and the consequent measurements undertaken with the same methodology. It does not appear that such assessments in the Plan are properly grounded.
Page 58. CATTS. None of the several points made regarding the regulatory status around glass recycling are answered.
Page 59. Two more contributions from CATTS are again not answered. The replies may basically be sound in their own right. but are designed to be evasive.
Page 64. Norfolk CPRE are concerned that sustainability could be used as an argument to allocate otherwise unsuitable sites. This is just not answered.
Page 67. Broads Authority, and others. A suggestion is made to reference the Institute of Lighting Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Lights, but the answers contain no acknowledgement.
Page 70. The Environmental Agency advises that underwater abstraction licensing legislation in which dewatering water would normally be returned to the same aquifer within "a short time period" THE NMWLP still talks of a "timely" period, which is not the same. They go onto discuss the spatial set asides from various water bodies. There was no acknowledgement and it is not included in the NMWLP, 2022.
Page 72. Broads Authority: The MPA acknowledges protection for important outdoor recreation sites, but have perennially failed to recognise that Shouldham Warren had that status.
Page 114. Mineral Products Association: In reply, the MPA makes the statement. "The NPPF makes a specific link between silica sand supply and the production of the plant that it is supplying." I cannot find specific authority for this statement in the NPPF. The MHA may be relying on paragraph 11(a), when it states, "all plans should promote a sustainable level of development that seeks to meet the development needs of their area." The more likely authority is paragraph 214, which includes. "Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals." I have have not found a specific statement regarding the local silica sand processing plant in either the NMWLP or in its Minerals Guidance document. This statement occurs many times in the Plan documents. If an original authority exists, it should be identified, but it is not the NPPF.
Page 121. Norfolk Wildlife Trust made the point that County Wildlife Sites should not incorporate mineral extraction sites. The MPA states that as County Wildlife Sites are a county and not a national entity that they are not immune from minerals mining. I have not seen any rule-making that supported this differentiation. County Wildlife sites are often small and therefore particularly liable to disruption from mining activities.
Page 122. The Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk quotes the N.C.C. Environment policy to support the withdrawal of the word, "ancient" that was used to qualify woodland protection. They suggest this change owing to important climatic considerations. We have seen elsewhere that the N.C.C. cabinet had declared this same rule change, but which is not included in the NMWLP, 2022, for some reason - with the purpose of systematically enhancing the level of woodland protection.
Page 128. CATTS: "This policy fails to address the other (historical) potential cumulative impacts on the area." The MPA states, "..taking into account the impact of the proposal in conjunction with other existing. permitted or allocated mineral extraction sites." This entirely contradicts NPPG Minerals Guidance (October 2014), paragraph 214(c). This states, in reference to NPPF paragraph 17, "some parts of a mineral planning authority area may have been subjected to successive mineral development over a number of years. 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." The MPA policy in this regard seems unsound and not legally compliant.
Page 131. CATTS: In a discussion of the restoration and after care of old mineral mining sites, there is an obligation to obtain planning application for certain restorations. In a matter with potential public interest, it is germane to note that the district planning procedures have no obligation to inform the interested public of planning issues. in the absence of a Strategic Environmental Assessment request.
Page 132. CATTS: The MPA gives a misleading depiction of the Bawsey Lakes, a huge area of post-silica sand mining blight in Bawsey, incorporating 8-10 residual lakes. It is nominally a County Park, yet large areas are fenced off for heavy metal contamination, sinking sands, severe pollution, dangerous underwater obstructions and there are large expanses of unremediated acid sand.
Page 209. Norfolk MPA: AOS E was cancelled as an AOS and three reasons were given: (i) MOD concerns over increased bird-strike risk at RAF Marham: (ii) the severity of heritage risks referent to Pentney Priory and the Wormegay assets; and (iii) Shouldham Warren being a public open space forming significant part of the higher ground. It is not clear whether the three factors can be relied upon alone. We have seen that for the entire 12-year process, the MPA has refused to consider Should ham Warren as the critically important public recreational area that it has long been. This can only be purposive - a deliberate pretence. As we have seen above, public recreational areas are protected sites. and so it is apparently important for the MPA to avoid this recognition. Does the MPA have an alternative explanation for their absence of a defence of Should ham Warren over a 12-year period? The issue is very likely to be "the higher ground" which would assure, if significant silica sand deposits do exist on Shouldham Warren, that they could be mined without creating a water course and increasing bird-strike risk for RAF Marham.. The unique public recreational landuse interests at Shouldham Warren have been established over 2 to 3 generations and are of crucial public value because of the widespread loss of landforms over several hundred years of sand extraction in West Norfolk. It remains very important that the priority of the public recreational land-use of Shouldham Warren be finally recognized by the MPA and by N.C.C., as otherwise it can be expected to be a target of specific applications under the proposed “criteria-based policy" - with all matters sent directly into the district planning procedures, where public issues likely have reduced standing.
Page 210. NCC Natural Environment team, and others: The abandonment of AOS E is used as an excuse to avoid consideration of the environmental and climatic regulatory implications of, “this "large block of woodland within a largely arable landscape that forms a connecting feature with the woodland (that is) centred on West Bilnev Wood, to the NE"
Page 210. CATTS and others: In consideration of a statement that parts of the Forestry Commission Plan for Shouldham Warren and West Bilney Woods, 2016-26, were being inhibited by conditions in the NMWLP. May 2022, this is answered by a reservation that Forestry England could comment if they wished. However, Forestry England as a nonministerial branch of central government is not free to contradict the planning of other Ministries, and particularly DEFRA (the parent ministry), and has formal duties to cooperate.
Page 210. CATTS and others: Concerns over River Nar Core River Valley protection garners the statement that AOS E does not include any land within the Core River Valley designation. However, the map on page 99 of NMW Development Framework, Revised Policies Map document, December 2017 suggests otherwise. If I understand it correctly (there is multiple overlapping hatching). Shouldham Warren is shown within the Nar Core River Valley. The north part of Shouldham Warren also drains into the River Nar. Core river valleys are strongly protected land forms.
Page 213. Borough of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk: The statement, "the site has the potential to cause emissions of PM10 and PM 2.5 which can effect the safety and health of local residents" is just ignored. Elsewhere. the MPA place all their eggs in one basket, by stating that there are no known reports of silicosis from silica sand mining amongst local populations (e.g. page 215/6). Silicosis is an industrial disease from regular exposure to silica dust in several industries such as hard rock mining. Silicosis is a fibrotic lung disease primarily limited to those situations. The harm caused by fine particulate material, however, is continuing to emerge, especially in road traffic pollution. There has been considerable recent interest in the increasing reports of health damage associated with the burgeoning proliferation of new sand mines in the USA to provide shale oil fracking sand. Downwind sites and the heavy dispersion on hot, windy days have been found to be important. Exposure is more likely as a periodic event. Residences, hospitals, schools, and residential care homes are likely the most sensitive receptors. A trained ecologist is best placed to identify the risks to flora and fauna. Good practice and site-specific mitigation with good site design can generally control the risks (IAOM Guidance on the Assessment of Mineral Dust Impacts for Planning, May 2016).
Silicosis is not the issue here, but acute asthma, bronchitis, the exacerbation of chronic lung disease, reduced pulmonary function, cancer, and particle dissemination with cardiac and renal disease are. The young immature lung, adults with chronic lung disease from other causes, and the immunosuppressed are vulnerable from exposure to small air-carried particles. These would not show up within silicosis data. The MPA may wish to update its concepts on micro-particulate-induced disease. This was previously drawn to the attention of N.C.C. without response, and without reproduction in the record.
Page 215. Historic England and others: It was mentioned that an historic bridge near the pumping station at Wormegay and Mow Fen, built by the Canadians in WWII, and its natural landscape, are non-registered historical entities of importance. No response was forthcoming.
Page 216. Norfolk Ramblers Association and others: The MPA provide an answer to the question of tree preservation on Should ham Warren. This has been a major concern for many, but did not appear in the bulleted action items. In several places in the NMWLP record, an argument that the scheduled coupe felling and subsequent replanting within a managed Forestry Commission property are equivalent to the massive destruction of forestry afforded by perhaps a 20-year or longer silica sand mine over perhaps 20-40 hectares, and with reduction to a less viable future in many cases, even with site restitution. There are some facts that are better left to themselves without spurious comparisons.
Page 216. Norfolk Ramblers Association and others: The only discussion of public rights of way on AOS E is the statement, "need to protect Public Rights of Way (PROW)" This hides an unlawful attempt by the MPA to avoid extensive data that I supplied directly to them to bring to their attention that there were 10 unregistered or under-registered PROW on the AOS E site that had significant historical and cartographic evidence to support their public utility. In English Common law, once a way has been recognized as a public way, the public rights remain ad infinatum unless stopped-off by legal process, no matter whether the highway is still in public usage or not. The MHA refused to accept the evidence which they are not entitled to reject, and also failed to place a map of the proposed routes with an explanation into the respective Plan file. Most of the highways were on Shouldham Warren. The county authorities have a statutory obligation to keep the Definitive Map continuously up to date, and this can never be more important than when a destructive Local Plan is proposed. This action too was unlawful. The brevity of the MPA statement is designed to be evasive as significantly more PROW would be an added complication in the apparent long-term county prosecution of the AOS E area for silica sand mining.
Page 219. Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss. MP and others: Stated that, "the government does not set out how much silica sand that the country needs," with its regional implications. Sibelco are allegedly "taking advantage local area/apathy here." It would help to view the original submission, but in the apparent absence of a specific regulation (see above) that obligates the County to supply the full silica sand requirements of Sibelco, it was considered that Sibelco had been taking advantage and had persuaded the MPA to undertake this task. The statements were just not answered. In return, there appears ( on the face of it) to have been little evidence of collaboration between the MPA and Sibelco, although the NPPF stresses the importance of early cooperative relationships between the primary parties.
Page 220. Shouldham PC and others: The impacts of silica sand extraction on woodland in Shouldham Warren and its potential implications for climate change had been submitted. The MHA failed to respond to the questioning. Only the replanting of trees in restoration was mentioned. There was also significant comment on other issues. Answering the questions asked seems to take a low priority.
Pages 221-2. Marham Parish Council and others; and NCC 'Together for Norfolk: an
Ambitious Plan for Our County, 2019-25: On conflicts between the NMWLP and the District Local Plan housing allocation and the Borough's open space and environmental policies7 over Shouldham Warren, the MPA generates an initial statement, "in principle, there is no reason why a mineral extraction area could not operate without unacceptable adverse impacts at the distances between the closest parts of 40S E and Marham." This might possibly be true. although it ignored several fundamental issues (as we have seen) and was a gratuitous comment. A round-the-houses defence of the NMWLA process follows, claiming that the "criteria-hosed policy" is novel, when it appears not to contribute anything at all that is not in the original NPPF-based Local Plan. However. it does markedly weaken the democratic structure, and provides no model for the future. It further states that, "it would be a matter for any future planning application to consider the potential for adverse impacts and suggest suitable mitigation measures to address these." The results of submitting such a heavy direct workload onto the district planning process is not evaluated. There has been no attempt at a comparative analysis or trial of this process or determination of its inherent problems. One potentially avoidable issue is the reservation of important remedy-requiring factors to the planning application process, and so true analysis is frequently delayed to the last historical moment, risking the adoption of bad policy through a simplified mechanism. There is the suspicion that the general failure to establish potential silica sand sites over the last decade is an organizational issue and not necessarily a matter of process - given the legal constraints and necessity to adopt high levels of mitigation. An additional factor is the delay in considering crucial operational issues until the planning process. thereby reducing many of the consultations to theoretical discussions without a view of the proposed specific plan details. Finally, the public has no legal right to be informed of most planning application procedures.
Page 223. MPA: The decision to abandon AOS E. I & J as "too fragmentary to form an appropriately sized area within which a potentially viable silica sand extraction site" is not explained anywhere in the cumulative files. What is meant by "too fragmentary." and could this have been foreseen? This decision is opaque and it is not obvious why any of the three sites have been abandoned in a MPA-led process.
Page 225. Highway Authority: Regarding proposed transport of silica sand from three potential sites in the south of Kings Lynn, with routes via the Hardwicke Junction. The Highway Authority authorized (or suggested) phased HGV so that no more than one silica site at any one time was transporting mineral. There was no comment from the MPA.
Page 226. West Norfolk Riding School for the Disabled Association: The proposed AOS F was "likely to disrupt our charity to provide sporting activity to disabled people." No comment was forthcoming. The site was abandoned, as discussed.
Page 234. Wormegay PC and others: The MPA states, "it is unlikely that a Minerals Plan would he found sound at Examination if it suggested that the mineral could be sourced internationally or nationally." This statement conflicts with NPPF. paragraph 214(a), "Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by (a) co-operating with neighbouring and more distant authorities to ensure adequate provision of industrial minerals lo support their likely use in industrial and
manufacturing processes."
Page 25l. The Labour Party and others: There is a discussion about the landscape
consequences of 160 years of silica sand extraction at Leziate, although it is not admitted that
very extensive areas of the old mining sites are not rehabilitated. The sites were sold by Sibelco UK in only 2015 apparently leaving the new private owner to "carry out the restoration of the site." It is difficult to conceive that such extensive blight can be managed without either or both of mineral industry and public finance. given the considerable regional landscape scarring. The This is not answered. The problem of antisocial behavour is the lack of significant oversight and investment (and adequate fencing) in Bawsey Lakes, just 2 miles from Kings Lynn.
Page 256. The MPA state that the NPPG and footnote 68 of the NPPF underpin determination of the silica sand requirement. but footnote 68 of the current NPPF(2021) refers to non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest.
Page 257. Individuals: The MPA states that "a legal framework (the planning system) exists to consider these rights (Article 2. Article 8 and Protocol I of the European Convention on Human Rights) against the needs of society as a whole. ...Human rights legislation is considered during the planning application decision making process." I may be wrong, but I cannot recollect such human rights being discussed anywhere in the cumulative Local Plan library. Is this lip service?
Page 258. Individuals: The N.C.C. document, An Ambitious Plan for Our County 2019-2025, is quoted. "...clear ambition to he a place where we put people first where everyone works together to create a better place to live. A place of opportunity: where we can fulfill our potential and lead productive healthy and independent lives." The context from the original "consultation" is not given, and it is not responded to. However, how is this goal consistent with the 12-year actions of the surveying authority in suppressing recognition of the considerable public recreational land-use at Shouldham Warren right up to 2022, and its prior claim on this unique landform in rural West Norfolk?
Page 259. Sibelco UK: The MPA states "criteria-hosed policy MPSS1 will he used to determine planning applications that come forward on unallocated sites for silica sand extraction." This is quoted often in the "consultation" answers. It implies that the NPPF-based procedures that are currently sanctioned are less of a criteria-based policy than MPSS1, but this is not the case. The new, simplified version has far less independent oversight and is certainly less subject to public consultation - for reasons of a lack of public standing in the district planning procedures. There is also no statutory obligation to even inform the public or many other interested parties of a mineral planning application proceeding at this level.
Page 260. Carter Concrete Ltd: In MIN 69, it was proposed to excavate part of an existing woodland. The problem is put succinctly by the MPA, "it is not possible at the Local Plan stage to provide detail on how much woodland could be removed." Quite. All consulted parties are left in limbo until this information is supplied to the final planning application stage, in a controlled venue with much less opportunity to influence. This is shared with several areas of concern, including environmental and ecological reviews, archaeological and historic landscape reviews, hydrogeological and hydrological reviews, and the whole problem of mitigation and restitution. etc. With good will, many of these factors could be settled out in the open, in support of equity and accountability, before an application to the district planning procedures.
Page 262. Friends of St Andrews School Trust: The problems presented are as to whether there are unacceptable impacts on a School for Autistic Children. The school is on the opposite side of the A148 6highway and is obscured from the proposed mining site by an existing screen of trees. There was particular concern as to additional noise levels. The autism spectrum does include individuals with sensory hypersensitivity. The MPA states, "The noise of mineral extraction operations are not expected to increase the existing noise levels arising from the traffic on the AI48. As a proposed extension to an existing site the number of vehicle movements is expected to remain the same but to continue for more years." The reasoning behind this conclusion. and whether there has been any acoustical testing. is not stated. The hours and schedules of operation. the distance from the extraction site to the school, and as to whether acoustical mitigation practices are in operation at the original site, are also important. It is not stated whether the school is residential, or whether clinical noise-related issues have occurred.
Page 265/6. N.C.C Natural Environment Team: It is not clear from the abbreviated
representation as to which company is being referred to, unless possibly it is to "quarry operations." The MPA states. "...the planning system is not in place to protect private business interests." This is disturbing as the economy is naturally to be protected where feasible. However, without context, this just looks very awkward, if not suspicious.
Page 269. Individuals: The sand and gravel allocation MIN 115 is at Lord Anson's Wood near North Walsham, a private, coniferous plantation. It has been allocated (NMWLP 2022. p. 166) without any consideration of climatic change implications, despite the recent important national and county tree planting initiatives. The arbocultural implications for climate change were not part of the SA/SAE assessments that underscored the choice of sites, utilising the March 2016 sustainability appraisals and the strategic environmental assessments. The reasons for not considering these relatively new objectives is unexplained.
Page 276. Haddiscoe PC: A parish-owned property used as a recreation ground for children and dog walkers was not mentioned in the MIN 25 documentation.. The abbreviated record reported no MP A response.
Page 278. Haddiscoe PC: It is not stated whether the MPA has taken into consideration that the proposed housing development on the edge of the village is within 100m of the proposed sand and gravel extraction area. Are there potential impact sites on this side of the village that might be subject to both developments simultaneously?
Page 288. CATTS: With regard to the Sustainability Scoping Report, MPA state, "the NM&WLP contains criteria-based policies which would he used to determine planning applications for waste management facilities including glass recycling In terms of silica sand, National Planning Policy Guidance states that the required stock of permitted reserves for each silica sand site is based on the average of the previous 10 year sales: it does not take into account any other supply options (such as recycled materials)." Actually, the Guidance is for mineral operators (and not for MPA) and does not mention mineral recycling anywhere in the large document. "Required stock" is a notional reserve and not an extraction goal. Moreover, paragraph 214(b) under section 17, Facilitating the Sustainable Use of Minerals, in the National Planning Policy Framework. 2012, says the following, "Planning policies should: (b) so far as practicable, take account of the contribution that substitute or secondary and recycled materials and minerals would make to the supply of materials, before considering extraction of primary materials, whilst aiming to source minerals supplies indigenously."
Soundness test: not effective, not positively prepared, not consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 99529

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 (2012) paragraphs 9, 16 (c) 'note that communities are the first stipulated partner', 39 (pre-application) and 42 (statutory planning consultees role in pre-application) are quoted.

Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement
One purpose of this submission is to elucidate the core issue of how the public interests in Shouldham Warren were apparently gamed. recognising that in many other putative extraction sites there will likely be insignificant or minor public issues involved. The Plan was conducted in general accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), with the exception of overlooking Development Management Policy MW1(j) which exempts "public open space, local green space, the definitive Public Rights of Way network and outdoor recreation facilities."

The failure to include the public interest as a formal consultee had inappropriate consequences that could have been avoided if there had been an obligation to involve local communities comprehensively and early (NPPF paragraphs 16(c); 25; 39; 93(c); 98; 99; 120(a); 131; 132; and 180(a)). Experience has categorically shown the current schedule to inform the local public is unfit for purpose, and that early village meetings for all village or hamlet communities within 3 km are suggested as an achievable objective. This option is included as a possibility in the core documents, although apparently never been used on silica sand extraction issues. If community rights are to be properly recognised, this would require appropriate changes in the SCI, which is a document written for minerals licensing and being tested for the first time in the conduct of the NMWLP, 2022. This has exposed an additional need for a formal community recreational open-space assessment in Mineral and Waste site selections. Any regional and local public recreational land-use interests remain without representation in the current SCI. It is crucial to concentrate minds on these matters as the new so-called "criteria-based policy" (policy MSS 1) provides minimal opportunities for public representation of unresolved or unconsidered public interests. such as public recreational land use.

3. Of particular concern is the NPPF, 2012, admonitions in paragraphs 16(C) for early engagement with communities so that public issues do not present late surprises, and in paragraph 39 for full exposition and discussion of problems.

4. This is a substantial planning exercise with low tens of thousands of pages in the silica sand extraction site programme library. It is a difficult task to identify all the changes that would be required to fully accommodate the changes necessary to give proper recognition to public recreational land use. I will attempt to provide some proposed textual changes, but NMW Officers are much more appropriate.

5. The foundation documents that will require change include the Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement, the Norfolk Core Strategy and Minerals and Waste Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (DPD), and the Norfolk Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD.

[Statement of Community Involvement]
6. The main document that led to the paucity of public land-use accountability was the Norfolk Statements of Community Involvement (DCI), 2012/ 2018/2022. The newly updated version will be used to probe the continuing deficiencies with regard to this matter, with suggested wording, as requested.

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

Object

Representation ID: 99530

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 (2012) paragraphs 9, 16 (c) 'note that communities are the first stipulated partner', 39 (pre-application) and 42 (statutory planning consultees role in pre-application) are quoted.

Background
The first rendition of the Silica Sand Review was subject to two 6-week direct consultation periods with the statutory and general consultees, in April-May 2015 and in November-December 2015. NMWLP documents were published to discuss the consultants' views. A process of revising the boundaries of areas of search to address significant constraints, led to the removal of AOS B, AOS C, AOS G. and AOS H which were considered undeliverable as a result. The Pre-submission version of the Silica Sand review were subject to a representation period between May 16 and June 27, 2016, but it failed to attract many public comments other than for AOS A in Snettisham, Ingoldisthorpe, and Dersingham, which was subsequently dropped. SIL 01 was also dropped because of its close proximity to RAF Marham. Modifications were made to the Plan including the addition of four AOS sites. The Revised NMWLP was published, and then sent for review by the Minister of State, represented by the Planning Inspectorate. The document received a "sound" and "legally compliant" certification. At this Stage, little public attention had been drawn to a major regulatory development process, then 6-7 years in development.

NMWLP Public Representation Practices in Mineral Planning:
It is important to consider the public representative practices involved in the NMWLP silica sand proposals. The principal representation was afforded by "Consultees" that did not involve the public. Remarkably, this involved 451 separate institutional bodies and individuals, comprising 8 Norfolk local planning authorities; 9 local planning authorities joining Norfolk; 29 relevant English minerals and waste planning authorities; 100 Norfolk parish/town councils; 32 parish/town councils adjoining Norfolk, 9 specific consultation bodies in Cambridgeshire, and 1 in Lincolnshire; 36 other specific consultation bodies (including many of the statutory consultees); 58 general consultation bodies, including the Ramblers Association and Sustrans); 30 mineral operators; 55 land agents and consultants; and 84 county councillors. Only these "consultees" received direct communications from N.C.C. and were then afforded the opportunity to engage at length on matters of concern, including the submission of systematically-organised evidence with the "right'' of a detailed published reply. I suspect no one would design so complex a process this way if there was a choice

The only members of the public across the County that were 'consulted' directly (via a notification letter) were 642 residents living within 250m of a proposed or putative mineral extraction site/area; the adjacent communities were ignored. The 250m distance apparently reflected the distance at which noise and dust nuisance were usually considered ameliorated – it had nothing to do with recreational use.

This structure was consistent with the administration proposed in the NPPF with the exception that the public were relegated to a far less functional and markedly delayed inquiry, that was treated with very different criteria including the obfuscation of evidence and including selective suppression of data. This will no doubt be denied, but the evidence is incontrovertible.

When is a "Consultation" a Consultation?
The public were confined to two belated "consultation" (really commentary) periods of 6-weeks when they were indirectly asked for comments. The notification of the public was very poor, if compliant with the Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement, 2012, (SCI), as modified. In the initial consultation, a substantial proportion of AOS E respondents complained that they had only heard of this proposal shortly before the deadline and had to hurry to put something together. N .C.C. then extended the dead line. but strangely only for residents of two of the four involved villages. The call for letters is not a consultation in any meaning of the word. The Oxford Dictionary defines a consultation as "the act of discussing something with someone or with a group of people before making a decision about it". For a consultation to occur, there has to be the opportunity to contribute systematically, organised data and include the opportunity for debate. At least the Initial "Consultation" public responses were published together with MHA responses. This was the first inkling that questions were often just disregarded or gamed with a less than frank answer. Publication of the Preferred Options Consultations were delayed for three years until close to the end of the process and specific MHA responses are absent.

In the Initial Options sequence, there were several responses that mentioned the great variety of users of Shouldham Warren. I will just quote one, as they all received the same standard and disingenuous reply. The letter had stated, “The threat to recreational activities: not only is the Warren used by many villagers on a daily basis, people come from all over to walk, bird watch, horse ride and cycle. There are also many clubs/organisations that use it to enhance their lives. Would this be hindered in any way?"

This was answered by, "The area of search includes Shouldham Warren. It is noted that public access is permitted in Shouldham Warren and it is used by many local residents for recreation. There is legislation (s.261 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) to allow the temporary diversion or stopping up of a Public Right of way for mineral extraction. Any future planning application for mineral extraction would need to address the location of existing footpaths and public access. There have been multiple examples of mineral extraction sites in Norfolk, where similar issues regarding PROWs have been successfully addressed." This answer disregards responsibilities for early involvement of the public in such matters according to the Rights of Way Circular (1/09) s 7.4 to 7.7. The reply avoids consideration of the multiplicity of recreational uses of the 372-hectare open-access Shouldham Warren site. It solely relates to the current registered PROW on Shouldham Warren. The County has a duty to keep the definitive map in continuous review, and therefore never more so than when major Local Plans are under consideration (see below). This provided the first evidence of the MHA reluctance to consider the nature of rural public recreational areas

Publicity for Public Involvement
It was very clear that the public announcement of the Local Plan was markedly unfit for purpose, but the deficient protocol remains unaltered. This was the subject on many public comments. This de facto suppression of public responses has to be interpreted as deliberate; the only satisfactory mechanism short of contacting all voters/rate payers is to institute an obligatory requirement for N.C.C.-led village meetings (perhaps for villages <3km from putative sites) to facilitate public familiarity with the local and regional effects of major planning decisions. This is recommended in the Norfolk DCI, and requested in several public comments, but has always been disregarded by N.C.C. The public's right to know appears to have been gamed. Where regional interests are involved, much wider dissemination of some kind is required.

The second Preferred Options consultation was particularly notable for the local and regional attention self-generated regarding the adjacent sites. SIL 02 and AOS E, principally organized by CATTS, the Campaign for Two Silica Sand Sites, based in Shouldham. A colossal 3,222 public responses were submitted for AOS E and 1,255 for SIL 02, a total of 4,477 public responses over the two closely-related sites. It took 3 years for N.C.C.to post these comments on their silica sand website (where they are organized in random folders with no practical way to search them, and (unlike the submissions from the formal consultees) no NMW officer comments were ever attached. By this time, we are at 5 minutes to midnight in a 12-year process. Amongst the most interesting letters submitted were those from CATSS. Liz Brewer, and Svetlana Ignatieva. It is said in the NMWLP, 2022, that the public responses have been considered, but no evidence has been submitted that shows this has occurred. Let us see how the collected responses from all sources have been handled?

Differential Management of "Consultations"
All "consultations" were assembled in a 291-page document. NMWLP Statement of Consultation, May 2022 which was filed in the LP submission file, without direction elsewhere among the cumulative project files as to its existence or venue. The entire Plan files have not been assembled with public access in mind. It therefore required a specific intention to read the lot to gain any sense of the structure of 12 years of activity.

Altogether, the comments are collected into 451 official "consultations." Comments were abstracted and often "combined" with a number of consultees married together, with a brief summation of substantive issues, presented in a format in which it was very difficult to evaluate the quality of the process. The individual lists were invariably headed by official 'consultees’ with public contributions apparently reduced to a subsidiary role. This structure may have been helpful in organising the extensive file, but it had the effect of the egregious under-representation of the public contributions. I can only realistically contribute my own experience which will be discussed below, and it will show that some uncomfortable facts were entirely disregarded by the MHA and others were met with misleading statements.

Detailed issues could not be represented by the abbreviated (effective) bullet points selected. There is a strong case to be made for the full NMW Officer response to each representation to be reproduced in consort with the respective full submission in an entirely separate file, as was undertaken for the Initial Options consultation. This was required of the process, but was avoided in the Preferred Options sequence, for unexplained reasons. The May 2022 Statement of Consultation document is a useful summary, but as process integrity has to be seen to be done, the sole presentation of the institutional response to the Preferred Options in this tabulated format inhibits any assessment of this data, which must therefore remain suspect. The County Council is knowledgeable about the nature of data and must face full responsibility for this serious epistemological misconduct. These MHA actions are neither sound nor legally compliant.

The Statement of Communication document, May 2022, reported 829 action items. The majority reported multiple factors of advice or dispute as summary statements. How these brief statements had been assembled by the NMW Officers represents appreciable unknown variables. Choices have been made for purposes of brevity. I am aware of important but "inconvenient" facts that have quite deliberately been omitted. It is impossible to know how great a problem this has been given the opaqueness of the adopted reporting procedures. However, it was obvious that "consultees" generally were given greater due diligence than virtually any of the 4,500 public "respondees" for AOS E and SIL 02. The major consultees usually were afforded their own representation, and commonly involved points of clarity regarding their area of expertise. But, there were many multiple summaries, largely involving "second-line consultees" and it was the practice for the numbers representing public comments to he added on at the end. Without there being comprehensive. institutional comments on the content of each submission (in a separate File as had been used with the Initial Consultation), there is no opportunity afforded to assess the integrity and validity of this reporting process.

Of the 829 action items identified by the MHA and presented in a summary and aggregated format, 671 were placed in a "No Action Required” basket. This very high number reflected a large variety of subjects, but which were nullified by the MHA decision to abandon all the silica sand extraction site candidates, and the normal cull elsewhere of potential non-safeguarded mineral sites. There is an important procedural matter here in that a considerable amount of work from external collaborative institutions and individuals has been largely wasted, through no fault of their own, by the N.C.C. failure to select silica sand extraction sites and the consequent policy change proposal to remove minerals applications away from the current NPPF-informed structure and the abandonment of the current silica sand extraction site selection process. In view of this irregularity. it is suggested that all consultations be retained for a 25-year period. and not destroyed in the relative short term as permitted under the NMWLP 2022.

The action items that went into the "Action Required” basket numbered 158. If we analyse this group, we find that only 3 of the total public comments selected from all minerals (but not waste) programs (including the 4,477 submitted for the Preferred Options silica sand cycle) were represented by an action item of their own. They comprised a submission on a Poors Charity landholding, an incinerator, and a sustainability comment based on EU Human Rights Law. Every other public submission was relegated to a subordinated role in which it was entirely impossible to determine how they had been individually represented, if at all. .Justice has to be seen to be done, but a quite different process has accommodated public representation in the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2021-2038 than was used for all other interested parties, which was unfit for purpose.

To provide some insight into the process, the top 15 primary authors of "Action Required' items (with total) were: Historic England (23); the Broads Authority (22); Environmental Agency (21); Anglia Water Service (11); Norfolk Wildlife Trust (8); Natural England (7); NCC Historic Environment Service (7); South Norfolk and Broadland DCs (6); Essex County Council (6); Norfolk Highway Authority (5); Minerals Product Association (5); Breedon Group (ex-Cemex) (5); Heaton Planning Ltd/Brett Group (5); Gas Energy/UK Onshore Oil and Gas (4); and West Winch PC (2). The extensive submissions of CATTS, the Campaign Against Two Silica Sand Sites, as the principle public representative body, were abstracted into about a dozen action Items, but all found there way into the "No Action Required” category, largely because the AOS E and SIL 02 were cancelled, nullifying the contribution. Despite the recognition as the principal public representative body, N.C.C. never met with them, in conflict with the Norfolk Statement of Community Involvement.

Avoidance and/or Downplaying of the Legitimate Consideration of Public Issues
It has been possible to demonstrate that N.C.C. avoided mentioning the intensive recreational public land-use of Shouldham Warren in all 179 Plan documents in the silica sand Plan library between 2010 and 2022, that N.C.C. declined to engage in discussion on this issue, suppressed formal representation of this complaint in the Preferred Options cycle, and then designed an opaque process allegedly designed to consider and respond to several thousand public declarations, principally on the public utility of Shouldham Warren, but in which there has been no objective evidence of any valid response from the MHA. On the question of the long-term public land-use interests in Shouldham Warren, it is more likely than not that the MHA has sought, for some reason of their own, to deliberately ignore the issue over a prolonged period, and involving multiple acts of commission. I submit that the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that these activities of the MHA are neither sound, nor legally compliant.

Extracts of Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan [Silica Sand Single Issue Review - Pre-Submission Representations Feedback Report August 2016 page 6]
Below the middle of the page is the statement. "There is no requirement for another Mineral Planning Authority to plan to help meet Norfolk's demand for silica sand as the feedstock for the processing plant at Leziate." There is no reference to support this statement. Indeed. another County MCA consultee wrote a recorded consultation letter in which she had apparently offered (or requested information of) collaboration, but had heard nothing, to receive a curt reply that this would be unnecessary. An important consideration to the public is whether this is a fixed obligation irrespective of the contemporary realities of a difficult local supply chain?