Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Comment

Representation ID: 99163

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Essex County Council

The requirement for a borrow pit to be capable of being accessed from the construction project site either directly or via a short length of suitable highway is considered to be unduly restrictive and may unduly fetter the development management process. Further, rather than stipulating that the borrow pit must be worked and restored by the completion of the related construction project, it may be more appropriate to request that the site is restored by completion of the related construction project or as soon as practicable after, in order to potentially increase the scope for beneficial after-uses to be delivered as part of the restoration of the borrow pit. The remaining provisions are supported.

Support

Representation ID: 99164

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Essex County Council

The additional information around a Minerals Infrastructure Impact Assessment (MIIA) and Appendix 9 which set out the nature of evidence that would be required to be submitted alongside a non-mineral development within the consultation areas of safeguarded sites such that the County Council could be satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on existing or allocated sites for mineral development is welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 99165

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Essex County Council

The additional information around a Waste Management Facilities Impact Assessment (WMFIA) and Appendix 9 which set out the nature of evidence that would be required to be submitted alongside a non-waste application such that the County Council could be satisfied that the proposed development would not impact on the operation of the current or future waste management facility is welcomed.
It is also considered that the plan makers consider including extending safeguarding provisions to sites allocated for a waste use. Whilst it is noted that the current version of the emerging Plan includes no such waste allocations, this stance may change in the future, and the inclusion of ‘allocated sites’ in the policy wording at this juncture may future proof the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 99166

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Essex County Council

The following text ‘Whilst the resultant material is typically lower grade, recycled inert material can still often act as a substitute for freshly excavated material’ to qualify that recycled aggregate cannot always be used as a direct substitute for primary aggregate is welcomed. In the same vein, it could be noted in a relevant part of the Plan that marine-won aggregate cannot always be used as a direct substitute for land-won aggregate.

Support

Representation ID: 99167

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Essex County Council

Vision
The intention for Norfolk to be self-sufficient in sand and gravel production and waste management, where practicable, is supported. The continuing recognition that Norfolk is an important supplier at the national level of silica sand is also welcomed, as is the acknowledgement of the need to safeguard minerals and waste infrastructure. The inclusion of all developments providing biodiversity net gains is supported.