Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Object

Representation ID: 99470

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Sibelco UK Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

1. Policy MP1 is not legally compliant or sound.

2. Paragraph 214 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states:
“Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by:…
c. maintaining a stock of permitted reserves to support the level of actual and proposed investment required for new or existing plant, and the maintenance and improvement of existing plant and equipment74.”

3. Footnote 74 states:
“These reserves should be at least 10 years for individual silica sand sites; at least 15 years for cement primary (chalk and limestone) and secondary (clay and shale) materials to maintain an existing plant, and for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required; and at least 25 years for brick clay, and for cement primary and secondary materials to support a new kiln.”

4. National policy is clear that Mineral Planning Authorities are required to plan for a steady and adequate supply of silica sand, it is therefore wholly inappropriate for Policy MP1 to state that a landbank of at least 10 years shall be maintained “where practical”. It is notable that where significant new capital is required a landbank of at least 15 years is required rather than just 10 years. This means that the policy as drafted is not prepared positively and is not consistent with national policy.

5. It follows that the calculation of forecasted need is not consistent with national policy. Whilst there is no guidance on how this should be calculated for the purposes of plan making, Paragraph: 090 Reference ID: 27-090-20140306 of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides guidance for how this should be calculated at the point of planning application submission:
“The required stock of permitted reserves for each silica sand site should be based on the average of the previous 10 years sales. The calculations should have regard to the quality of sand and the use to which the material is put.”

6. No reference is made to the permitted throughput of a processing site. Indeed the ‘throughput’ of a particular site does not determine the sales made from the site. National policy makes the clear distinction that sales should be used to determine the level of permitted reserves required as the processing of raw mineral results in waste unsuitable for sale.

7. The average 10 year sales (2012 to 2021) for the King’s Lynn Quarry complex is 807,548 tonnes per annum. Therefore, the forecasted need over the Plan period is at least 14,535,864 tonnes.

8. Taking into consideration permitted silica sand reserves (3,232,000 tonnes) this indicates a shortfall of 11,303,864 million tonnes.

Object

Representation ID: 99471

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Sibelco UK Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy MP2 is not legally compliant or sound.

Paragraph 209 of the NPPF states:
“It is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy, and goods that the country needs. Since minerals are a finite natural resource, and can only be worked where they are found, best use needs to be made of them to secure their long-term conservation.”

It is notable that Policy MP2 dictates that specific sites for silica sand, “should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant and railhead at Leziate via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route.” There is no basis or justification for imposing this restriction as a new mineral site could be a significant distance from the Leziate Plant Site which might mean that the only viable or the most sustainable option to provide a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is to build a new processing plant or warehousing facility. This policy is clearly not an effective approach to meet unmet need and is not consistent with the principles of national policy which set out that minerals can only be worked where they are found.

Furthermore, there is very little basis for the remainder of the spatial strategy, which simply sets out where mineral extraction sites are not acceptable. This ignores that silica sand is a nationally important mineral and that the extraction of this mineral in areas specified within the policy has been found to be acceptable. This very clearly cannot be termed a spatial strategy for silica sand extraction and as drafted is not justified, consistent with national planning policy, effective or positively prepared. It is simply unsound.

Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states:
“Broad locations for development should be indicated on a key diagram, and landuse designations and allocations identified on a policies map. Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This should include planning for and allocating sufficient sites to deliver the strategic priorities of the area (except insofar as these needs can be demonstrated to be met more appropriately through other mechanisms, such as brownfield registers or nonstrategic policies).”

Paragraph 210 of the NPPF states:
“Planning policies should:
a) provide for the extraction of mineral resources of local and national importance, but not identify new sites or extensions to existing sites for peat extraction;…

It follows that the reasoning for removing Areas of Search from the plan is unequivocally flawed. Especially as the site selection criteria used differs from that set out in the policy and effectively implies that the whole of the resource area is an unacceptable location for minerals development. This undermines the strategic and national importance of silica sand whilst also prejudging specific applications which may evidence that a particular location is suitable for mineral extraction.

Fundamentally it does not meet the requirement of Paragraph 210 of the NPPF which states that planning policies should provide for the extraction of mineral resources. Indeed, Paragraph 23 of the NPPF is clear that strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing forward sufficient land to address objectively assessed need. This policy does not do this, but rather attempts to set out a principle that silica sand resources are not located in areas acceptable for extraction. This means that the policy is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. It is important to note that Norfolk is one of the only areas in England processing sand capable of colourless glass manufacture. This damaging rhetoric and reckless approach to policy making threatens the viability of the nation’s glass industry, using a set of baseless principles that would be liable to legal challenge.

The policy as drafted should be re-evaluated in light of the above-mentioned policies and PPG. Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 27-008-20140306 of the PPG states:
“Mineral planning authorities should plan for the steady and adequate supply of minerals in one or more of the following ways (in order of priority):
1. Designating Specific Sites – where viable resources are known to exist, landowners are supportive of minerals development and the proposal is likely to be acceptable in planning terms. Such sites may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction;
2. Designating Preferred Areas, which are areas of known resources where planning permission might reasonably be anticipated. Such areas may also include essential operations associated with mineral extraction; and/or
3. Designating Areas of Search – areas where knowledge of mineral resources may be less certain but within which planning permission may be granted, particularly if there is a potential shortfall in supply.

National Park Authorities are not expected to designate Preferred Areas or Areas of Search given their overarching responsibilities for managing National Parks.
Furthermore, in exceptional circumstances, such as where a local authority area is largely made up of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it may be appropriate for mineral planning authorities to rely largely on policies which set out the general conditions against which applications will be assessed.
In planning for minerals extraction, mineral planning authorities are expected to co-operate with other authorities.”

The Specific Sites proposed for allocation cover a very small proportion of the overall forecasted need for silica sand. Sibelco strongly disagree with the Council’s assertion in paragraph 13.4 of the Silica Sand Topic Paper that, “there are exceptional circumstances in Norfolk to rely largely on a criteria-based policy.” Norfolk is not made up largely of designated areas such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There are a number of areas where silica sand extraction could come forward in both non-designated and designated areas. Nationally important mineral is routinely extracted within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other designated sites such as Ramsar and SSSI’s where effective mitigation measures can control development. The following evidence should also be considered in the Council’s policy making:

• In his examination of the Norfolk County Council Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD [Single Issue Silica Sand Review] in 2017 the Inspector found that in order to address a shortfall of 0.68 million tonnes of silica sand, it was appropriate to designate some 946 hectares of Area of Search. On this matter the Inspector concludes, “I am mindful that the Plan has identified 946 hectares of land within the AoS, which I consider provides a suitable level of provision, given the uncertainties involved and the need for some flexibility should the future need for silica sand increase. Overall, I consider that the site selection methodology is sound.”

• In his examination of the Norfolk County Council Minerals Site Specific Allocations DPD [Single Issue Silica Sand Review] in 2017 the Inspector found the site selection methodology sound. The current site selection methodology appears to be the same. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Sustainability Appraisal excludes all of the proposed Areas of Search, especially as these areas were deemed acceptable for inclusion and proposed allocation within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options. The following observations are made on the summary text in Section 6.3.4 of the Sustainability Appraisal which indicate the reasons why the proposed Areas of Search have been excluded from the Minerals and Waste Plan Pre-submission Document.:

AOS E:
The impacts on the setting of heritage assets at Wormegay and on the setting of Pentney Priory was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The AOS was included in the Preferred Options stage with basic heritage assessment evidence informing the designation. Using Heritage as a constraint is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS given nothing has changed in the evidence base since the AOS designation was considered sound.

o The statutory safeguarding area around RAF Marham was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The Ministry of Defence raised concerns about minerals development in response to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial Consultation but did not object. The Council’s response was to amend Policy MP13 to require a Bird Hazard Management Assessment at planning application stage. The Ministry of Defence provided the same comments in response to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options Consultation and did not object to the inclusion of the AOS. Bird strike is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS. It would be for an individual application and working scheme to mitigate any impacts within the context of these policies.
o The loss of access to public open space was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. Mineral extraction is a temporary and progressive operation and there is no reason why public open space cannot be either be maintained or returned upon restoration.

AOS F, AOS I and AOS J:
o The statutory safeguarding area around RAF Marham was a material consideration for the Inspector when he found the inclusion of this AOS as sound. The Ministry of Defence raised concerns about minerals development in response to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Initial Consultation but did not object. The Council’s response was to amend Policy MP13 to require a Bird Hazard Management Assessment at planning application stage. The Ministry of Defence provided the same comments in response to the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review Preferred Options Consultation and did not object to the inclusion of the AOS. Bird strike is not a justifiable reason to remove the AOS.
o The Inspector found the size of this AOS as acceptable and it is therefore not just able to remove on this basis.

It is also noted that a number of superfluous reasons with little planning basis have been used to reject the Areas of Search approach. For instance, landowner willingness is not required by PPG for Preferred Areas or Areas of Search. In addition, in relation to designations such as AONB’s, SPA’s and SAC, mineral extraction has been found to be acceptable both within and in close proximity to these designations.

In summary there are no sound planning reasons to deviate from the Areas of Search approach. Omitting Areas of Search and introducing a criteria-based approach renders the Plan not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. The Plan is unsound.

We suggest Policy MP2 is re-worded to include Areas of Search and also set out a hierarchy of delivery. to properly set out a spatial strategy for silica sand development.

Object

Representation ID: 99472

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Sibelco UK Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The supporting text to MPSS1 makes a number of assumptions without evidence and quite fatally disregards the fact that minerals can only be worked where they are found. In particular, the policy is dismissive in relation to silica sand being a mineral of national importance. It follows that there will be a number of potential sites either within or in close proximity to designated areas that may be acceptable for mineral extraction upon balance. However, the Council’s approach is to blanket dismiss areas and hide behind designations is a flawed understanding of what they are intended for.

We suggest that a hierarchy of delivery to properly set out a spatial strategy for silica sand development is included to properly plan for the forecasted need for silica sand. This will help to ensure development of mineral resources to directed to more acceptable locations. It is considered that the criteria -based approach could in fact have the opposite approach given the incoherence of the silica sand policies both in approach and wording.

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.