RE: Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Publication of proposed Main Modifications and Additional Modifications
Thank you for consulting the Water Management Alliance (WMA) on the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Publication of proposed Main Modifications and Additional Modifications.
Parts of Norfolk coincide with parts of the Internal Drainage Districts (IDD) of the Broads (2006) Internal Drainage Board (IDB), King’s Lynn IDB, Norfolk Rivers IDB and the Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB, members of the WMA. Therefore, the Board’s Byelaws apply to any development within a Board’s area.
The principal function of the IDBs is to provide flood protection within the Board’s area. Certain watercourses within the IDD receive maintenance by the Board. The maintenance of a watercourse by the IDB is an acknowledgement by the Board that the watercourse is of arterial importance to the IDD. Main Rivers within the IDB are regulated by the Environment Agency. Therefore, I recommend that an applicant proposing a discharge or any other works affecting a main river to contact the Environment Agency.
The area outside the Boards’ IDDs falls within the Boards’ watershed catchments (meaning water from the site will eventually enter the IDD). The Board will comment on planning for all major developments (10 or more properties) within the IDD watershed that are likely to discharge surface water into a watercourse within the IDD. Under certain circumstances, some major developments outside the IDD boundary may also be regulated by the Board’s byelaws. We request that the Board is consulted as any planning application comes forward relating to any of the identified allocation sites. For any development site, we recommend that a drainage strategy is supplied which has been considered in line with the Planning Practice Guidance SuDS discharge location hierarchy [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change].
Whilst the Board’s regulatory process (as set out under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Board’s Byelaws) is separate from planning, the ability to implement a planning permission may be dependent on the granting of any required Land Drainage Consents. As such I strongly recommend that the required consent is sought prior to determination of the planning application.
Please see the list overleaf of the proposed sites for development which we consider may impact a Board’s area. The Board would seek to comment on these should they come forward for planning permission, alongside an explanation of any potentially required consents should these sites be developed. Please note that this list is not exhaustive and the Board may or may not choose to comment on additional site allocations if and when more information is presented.

MIN 12 – near Norfolk Rivers IDD
MIN 08/51/13 – near Norfolk Rivers IDD
MIN 64 – near Norfolk Rivers IDD
MIN 37 – near Norfolk Rivers IDD
MIN 65 – near Norfolk Rivers IDD
MIN 96 – near Norfolk Rivers IDD
MIN 202 – near Norfolk Rivers IDD
MIN 06 – near King’s Lynn IDD
MIN 40 – adjacent to King’s Lynn IDD
SIL 01 – near King’s Lynn iDD
MIN 115 – near Norfolk Rivers IDD
MIN 25 – near Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDD
Minerals and waste works close to a Board’s boundary may impact the IDD either directly or indirectly, therefore the Board would comment to promote sustainable drainage. Consent may be required if a discharge is proposed to a Board’s IDD.
For developments outside a Board’s IDD but within its watershed catchment, where surface water discharges have the potential to indirectly affect the Board’s IDD, we would offer the following advice:
• If it is proposed that a site disposes of surface water via infiltration, we recommend that the viability of this proposal is evidenced. As such we would recommend that the proposed strategy is supported by ground investigation to determine the infiltration potential of the site and the depth to groundwater. If on-site material were to be considered favourable then we would advise infiltration testing in line with BRE Digest 365 (or equivalent) to be undertaken to determine its efficiency.
• If it is proposed to discharge surface water or product of dewatering to a watercourse within the watershed catchment of the Board’s IDD, we request that this discharge is facilitated in line with the Non-Statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/415773/sustainable-drainage-technical-standards.pdf], specifically S2 and S4. Resultantly we recommend that the discharge from this site is attenuated to the Greenfield Runoff Rates wherever possible.
For your information and in case of any allocated site being altered to be (or new site being proposed) within a Board’s IDD, in order to avoid conflict between the planning process and the Board's regulatory regimes and consenting processes where developments may be proposed within or partially within a Board’s IDD, please be aware of the following:
Byelaw 3 - Discharge of Surface Water or Product of Dewatering into a Board’s District
• If a development proposes to dispose of surface water via infiltration, we would recommend that the proposed strategy is supported by ground investigation to determine the infiltration potential of the site and the depth to groundwater. If on-site material were to be considered favourable then we would advise infiltration testing in line with BRE Digest 365 (or equivalent) to be undertaken to determine its efficiency.
• If (following testing) a strategy wholly reliant on infiltration is not viable and/or a development proposes to discharge surface water to a watercourse, the proposed development will require consent in line with the Board’s byelaws (specifically byelaw 3). Any consent granted will likely be conditional, pending the payment of a Surface Water Development Contribution fee, calculated in line with the Board's charging policy (available at https://www.wlma.org.uk/uploads/WMA_Table_of_Charges_and_Fees.pdf ).
• If a development proposes to discharge surface water to a sewer, I recommend that you satisfy yourselves that this proposal is in line with the drainage hierarchy (as per best practice) and is viable in this location.
Byelaw 3 - Discharge of Treated Foul Water into a Board’s District
• If a development proposes to discharge treated foul water to a watercourse, this proposal will require land drainage consent in line with the Board’s byelaws (specifically byelaw 3).
Byelaw 10 - Works within 9m of Board Maintained Watercourse/s
• Should any development include works within 9 metres of a Board maintained watercourse, consent would be required to relax Byelaw 10 (no obstructions within 9 metres of the edge of drainage or flood risk management infrastructure).
Byelaw 10 & 17 - Works within 7m of Board Maintained Watercourse/s and Works within the banks of Board Maintained Watercourse/s (applicable only in Waveney, Lower Yare and Lothingland IDB)
• Should any development include works within 7 metres of a Board maintained watercourse, consent would be required to relax Byelaw 10 (no obstructions within 7 metres of the edge of drainage or flood risk management infrastructure).
• If the proposal includes works to install services within, make excavations within, or otherwise alter the banks of the aforementioned Board Maintained Watercourse, consent will be required as per Byelaw 17 of the Board’s Byelaws.
Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act (1991) and Byelaw 4 - Alterations to a Watercourse
• Should any development include works to alter a Board maintained or riparian owned and maintained watercourse, consent will be required under the Land Drainage Act 1991 (and byelaw 4).
The reason for our recommendation is to promote sustainable development within the Board’s Watershed Catchment therefore ensuring that flood risk is not increased within the Internal Drainage District (required as per paragraph 167 of the National Planning Policy Framework). For further information regarding the Board’s involvement in the planning process please see our Planning and Byelaw Strategy, available online.
If you require any further information or would like to discuss the Board’s regulation in more detail, please do not hesitate to contact us.

As per our previous representations we would suggest that an additional modification is made to paragraph MP10.3 to amend the second sentence to read: “Each decision will take into account the particular use of the safeguarded site, the nature of the proposed development, including its policy context and relationship to strategic regeneration opportunities.....”

Thank you for making us aware of the publication of the proposed main modifications and additional modifications for the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Within our statement of common ground there were three matters. We can see that the first two matters, both relating to defining the ‘agent of change’, have been addressed and incorporated which we support.

However we note that the third matter remains unresolved. Norwich City Council would still like to see the acknowledgement of ‘strategic regeneration opportunities’ within the supplementary text of policy MP10 as contextual information. As per our previous representations we would suggest that an additional modification is made to paragraph MP10.3 to amend the second sentence to read: “Each decision will take into account the particular use of the safeguarded site, the nature of the proposed development, including its policy context and relationship to strategic regeneration opportunities.....”

Thank you for consulting Historic England about the proposed Modifications to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. We have the following comments to make on the suggested changes to the Plan:-
We welcome many of the Proposed Modifications. Our detailed comments on the proposed Main Modifications and Additional Modifications to the Plan are set out in Appendix A.
There is just one minor issue that we raise in relation addition of the words ‘where appropriate’ in Policy MP5 Core River Valleys. See Appendix A for details. We recommend these words are deleted.
We continue to have concerns regarding the allocation at Haddiscoe but welcome the additional policy wording in relation to site restoration.
Finally, we should like to stress that this opinion is based on the information provided by the Council in its consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise where we consider that these would have an adverse effect upon the historic environment.
If you have any queries about any of the matters raised or consider that a meeting would be helpful, please do not hesitate to contact me. [Appendix A provided as an attachment]

Anglian Water Consultation Response
Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan
Main Modifications Consultation
1. Anglian Water and Minerals and Waste Plans
1.1. Anglian Water is the statutory water and sewerage undertaker for the majority of Norfolk and a statutory consultee under The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Anglian Water wants to proactively engage with the local plan process to ensure the plan delivers benefits for residents and visitors to the area, and in doing so protect the environment and water resources. As a purpose-led company, we are committed to seeking positive environmental and social outcomes for our region.
2. Commentary on the Schedule of Proposed Main Modifications
2.1 Anglian Water has engaged with Norfolk County Council throughout the preparation of the Norfolk and Minerals Waste Plan, as documented in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) [A19] and our hearing statement for the examination [F28]. Our comments on the proposed main modifications are set out in the table below:
MM21: Anglian Water supports the amendment to the policy to allow greater flexibility in how waste is managed at our sludge treatment centres. This represents the amendment agreed in the SoCG.
MM25: Insert "and/or d. comply with new legislation and/or e. incorporate climate change adaption and mitigation measures (as detailed in Policy MW3)".
Anglian Water supports the amendment to the policy to insert clause d. to address that future development proposals at our water recycling centres (WRCs) that may include climate change mitigation and adaptation measures to help meet our Net Zero Strategy commitments. This represents the amendment agreed in the SoCG.
Insert the following new text before the last sentence in the policy: "Where appropriate, applications will also need to demonstrate the contribution that the development would make to water quality improvement".
This additional clause did not form part of the agreed amendment specified in the SoCG for Policy WP14. Therefore, it does not clearly represent our previous submissions to the Local Plan consultation or examination.
We consider that the additional new text before the last sentence in Policy WP14 is unnecessary as the need to demonstrate the contribution that the development would make to water quality is part of the regulatory permitting system that is overseen by the Environment Agency and includes legislative requirements. Therefore, we object to the insertion of this text as it is subject to a separate permitting system which includes environmental obligations through our Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP) to ensure we deliver our fair share of water quality objectives.
MM26: Anglian Water supports the modification which reflects the wording suggested in our hearing statement and aligns with our Business Plan and Asset Management Periods (AMP) of five years, that outline the investments being made during this period.
A minor clarification – should the final paragraph of the modification text be sub-paragraph c)?
MM27: Anglian Water supports the modification to Paragraph W15.5 which reflects the wording suggested in our hearing statement and our internal decision-making processes that must be followed to deliver planned investments at Whitlingham WRC during the AMP.

MM28: Anglian Water supports the modification to Policy WP15 that appropriately clarifies the medium-term strategy for Whitlingham WRC – consistent with the interpretation of this strategy in MM27.
MM50: Anglian Water supports the modification to Policy MPSS1 requirement (i) to ensure appropriate measures are taken regarding the protection of our assets.

It is noted that there are several proposed Additional Modifications (AM) to the plan which are minor in nature and do not materially affect the policies. However, they do provide factual corrections and clarifications to the interpretation of the policies.
AM26: Anglian Water supports the AM as requested and agreed in the SoCG.
AM34: Anglian Water supports the proposed AM to refer to water resources. Anglian Water is currently in the unfortunate position that it needs to limit new requests for non-domestic water (i.e. for manufacturing or processing) where it exceeds 20m3/day per site (this may be dependent on the availability of water in that area or where there is a cumulative impact from a number of smaller requests). This means that non-domestic water requests may be declined as these could compromise our regulatory priority of supplying existing and planned domestic growth. Our non-domestic water requests policy is published on our website which explains our position in further detail.
Developers that request greater volumes will need to complete a Water Resources Assessment as part of our planning process setting out a daily demand for each stage of the project and whether this is for domestic or non-domestic uses.
AM53: We support the clarification for the appropriate Policy application for WRCs in paragraph W3.6.
AM59: Anglian Water supports the AM and clarification on anaerobic digestion, as requested and agreed in the SoCG.
AM65: We welcome the clarification in this AM regarding permitted development rights, as requested and agreed in the SoCG.
AM66: Anglian Water agrees that the new paragraph relating to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act is helpful to explain the additional infrastructure needs at the identified ‘nutrient significant plants’ or WRCs, to meet the relevant nutrient pollution standards (technically achievable limits for phosphorus and nitrogen).
AM67: Anglian Water supports the AM which provides an example of the investments we have committed to at Whitlingham WRC (as agreed through the SoCG).
AM68: We welcome this AM which reflects the agreed wording in the SoCG.
AM69: We support the insertion of the suggested wording which has been agreed through the SoCG in respect of the Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan.
However, we disagree with the Reason to “clarify the timescale to be covered by the masterplan” because, as evident by the main modifications, our Business Plan clarifies the timescale for the medium-term strategy – as a five-year period. The DWMP provides the high-level strategies for the WRC to 2035 and 2050.
3. Fens Reservoir – Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project
3.1 As the Council will be aware, Anglian Water and Cambridge Water are progressing the Fens Reservoir through the RAPID gated process, recognising the need to plan long term for our region’s future water needs. Fens Reservoir is a 55 million cubic metres (MCM) raw water reservoir, with a useable volume of 50 MCM, located to the north of Chatteris, with a useable volume of 50 MCM.
3.2 Anglian Water recently undertook a second stage non-statutory consultation on the Fens Reservoir. As the host authority for some of the associated infrastructure to bring water into the Anglian Water network – with a pipeline around Downham Market and service reservoir at Bexwell – Norfolk County Council has indicated in their submission the Minerals and Waste implications. These include safeguarded mineral resources within the pipeline corridor and service reservoir polygon.
3.3 Anglian Water acknowledges that further investigation and assessment will be required through the DCO process to determine whether the construction of the associated infrastructure will result in the extraction of silica sand and carstone suitable for commercial use or reuse in the Project.
3.4 Following review of the main modifications, we do not consider that they present any additional constraints to the delivery of the Project that will help support sustainable growth in the region.
4. Conclusion
4.1 Anglian Water welcomes the opportunity to comment on the main modifications, which we generally support, given our engagement with the Council throughout the plan-making process.

I am writing to you in response to your Main Modifications and Additional Modifications Consultations for the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review, which was received on 16th October 2024. Having considered the documents carefully, the Council has no specific comments to make in response to the Main Modifications Consultation and does not wish to raise any objections.
However, there was an error in the additional modifications document, which is set out below. AM21, paragraph 3.35 (bullet point 2) – The main modifications table states that there are five commercial composting facilities. However, the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Publication Version states that there are six composting facilities. However, this has not been marked as a change.
It was decided not to complete the online form because a letter was considered a more appropriate form of response. However, please contact me if you do need the response form to be completed.
Please contact me if there is anything in this response that you wish to discuss or if you require further information from East Suffolk Council.