Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Comment

Representation ID: 99127

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

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.
Appendix 2 – I am not sure what these are. Are you saying that these policies in another document will still be in place? They have not been reviewed, but left as is? So this Local Plan is additional to these policies? Where are these saved policies? This is not clear and might need explaining better. For example, I searched the document for ‘Appendix 2’ and the only two occurrences are the title of Appendix 2 and the contents page.

Comment

Representation ID: 99128

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

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.

Could the situation arise whereby peat is excavated, not as a produce to sell, but to access a minerals site or to develop a waste site? Peat has many qualities. We have a policy that seeks the reduction of peat excavated as part of a scheme and its appropriate assessment/’disposal’ to address these qualities and prevent it from becoming a carbon source. Should the Minerals and Waste plan have something similar? (See DM10, page 49 Local-Plan-for-the-Broads.pdf (broads-authority.gov.uk)).

Object

Representation ID: 99131

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Uses the word ‘should’. This is a weak term and all other policies before use the term ‘will’ – why is this wording used in this policy and why is it different to other policies?
Does WP16 repeat MW1? If they are both needed, then WP16 needs to refer to impact on the Broads and AONB and their setting.
Should it cross refer to MW1 like lots of other policies do?

Soundness test: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99132

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is noted that this site has planning permission and the plan may not include this policy if the scheme has started.
M65.6 Landscape states: it should be possible to design a scheme of working, incorporating screening.  However, the plan does not show any screening (only areas of Buffer).  Some of the northern and eastern boundaries may require screening as mitigation for adverse visual effects if identified by LVIA.
Soundness test: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99133

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is noted that this site has planning permission and the plan may not include this policy if the scheme has started.
The Site Characteristics para states could be extracted within 13 years. It is not entirely clear whether this refers to the proposed site only or the proposed plus existing sites. 

Soundness test: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99134

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This is immediately adjacent to the Broads Authority boundary
Landscape impact concerns are as follows:
Proximity and landscape sensitivity mean that there would be potential for adverse effects on the Broads and setting.
Visual: processing plant – topography could enable this to be more visible.  Possible lighting associated with plant and operation would exacerbate visual effects. Bunding during the extraction phases could also cause visual intrusion.
Footpath to NE across marshes - users are sensitive receptors.   There may also be views from northern valley side above Blunderston/Flixton to Herringfleet Marshes.
Noise from plant and lorry movements.
Dust from extraction operations.
Additional lorry traffic on local roads in BA area.
Heritage concerns are as follows:
The proposed site here is immediately adjacent to the BA Executive Area boundary and I would suggest that there is the potential for harm to the setting of listed buildings, in particular, the White House, which is positioned to the north-east of the site.
In its assessment the document appears to assess the impact on heritage assets largely in terms of potential views of the mineral extraction site. However, I would suggest that the definition of ‘setting’ is somewhat wider than that, with the NPPF glossary definition stating it is ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced’. The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 guidance by Historic England goes on to state (p2): ‘The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors, such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places’.
Amenity concerns are as follows:
This scheme is going to bring new mineral extraction to the area. There are properties and businesses nearby, that are already in existence. The amenity impacts of the scheme on existing properties needs to be considered. Any scheme will need to consider and address amenity policy requirements and this could relate to the issue or noise, dust, over bearing, hours of operation for example. Has an assessment on the impact on amenity been completed as part of the consideration of this site?

Soundness: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99135

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is noted that this site has planning permission and the plan may not include this policy if the scheme has started.
On Google Maps there is a photograph apparently showing some plant of significant size at the existing Tarmac Stanninghall Quarry. The Plan text does not indicate anything of this scale/height although Policy MIN 65 (j) refers to use of existing processing plant at the proposed site.  This is somewhat concerning. 
The site could potentially have adverse effects on the Broads and setting of the Broads in terms of scale, and proximity in relation to the numbers of visitors to attractions and facilities in Horstead/Coltishall area – this needs to be addressed by the LVIA.

Soundness test: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99136

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This policy does not mention impact on the Broads or its setting and does not cross refer to MW1 like other policies do.
For consistency, this policy needs to refer to the Broads and/or cross refer to MW1. You could add the following to the end of the policy:
All schemes must also comply with the development management criteria set out in Policy MW1.
Soundness: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99137

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This policy uses the term ‘should’ in relation to the submission of a Minerals Infrastructure Impact Assessment. The rest of the policy uses ‘will’ for example. It seems that this assessment is essential, but the policy using the term ‘should’ implies it is not. Why is there difference in wording in this policy when compared to others?

Soundness: Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 99138

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Broads Authority

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is good that light pollution is mentioned in terms of amenity, but situations could arise where a site is isolated and there would be no impacts on amenity, but light pollution could be caused. The policy needs to consider the impact of light pollution in all instances – on people, landscape, dark skies, wildlife. The current wording is narrow in scope - only impact on people (amenity). Addressing light pollution is not necessarily about not having lighting, but a good design, doing what is needed at the right intensity and for as long as needed. Particularly in or near the Broads which have intrinsically dark skies. As worded, the policy means that schemes that have external lighting that does not cause amenity issues, but could cause other light pollution issues, fall through the gap.

Soundness test: Not justified