Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Pre-Submission Publication

Object

Representation ID: 99336

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We support the requirement for progressive restoration schemes and the enhancement of Norfolk’s biodiversity but given the significant changes since the previous iteration of the plan in 2019 (changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, the passing of the Environment Act 2021 and the Leaders Pledge for Nature made at a virtual United Nations event in September 2020), there is a clear need for planning policy to not only encourage but ensure delivery of nature’s recovery.

Recent reporting from the COP27 and COP15 international summits on climate change and biodiversity, highlight the need for significant and urgent progress to be made in tackling the interlinked global crises of biodiversity loss and climate change.
We expect all Norfolk planning policy to make serious and effective contributions towards society’s goals of delivering a carbon neutral future and halting the ongoing decline of biodiversity, in line with legal requirements set out legislation such as the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act.
To bring greater certainty to the framing of the objectives and ensure that the plan not only supports meaningful change but requires it, we recommend the wording of the Vision is changed.

Comment

Representation ID: 99337

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

In addition to project level HRA, there is a clear need for the Plan to demonstrate that it won’t result in adverse effects on any European Sites (SPAs and SACs, whilst Ramsar sites are also afforded the same level of protection). The Plan's HRA should be able to demonstrate without reliance on deferral to the project level stage that it can avoid adverse effects on SACs and SPAs. Deferral to project level HRA leaves uncertainty which could result in an undeliverable plan if there are adverse effects only identified at the project stage.

Support

Representation ID: 99338

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

We support the inclusion of the natural environment in the list of features where development would only be regarded if unacceptable impacts are avoided. The requirement to conserve and enhance the natural environment as set out in this policy is a clear commitment to the biodiversity duty laid on the Council in the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 and the 2021 Environment Act.

Comment

Representation ID: 99339

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

We support the policy requirement for proposals to take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change. However, the wording of section f appears unclear and open to interpretation. We recommend the policy wording better reflects the important role protecting all Priority Habitats, not just woodland, has in mitigating climate change and contributing to climate adaptation. We also recommend the inclusion of specific targets in order to ensure the policy is effective and delivers guaranteed benefits.

Full text: We support the policy requirement for proposals to take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change. However, the wording of section f appears unclear and open to interpretation. In mitigating climate change and helping wildlife adapt to the changing climate, the retention of existing habitats is far preferable to their loss and replacement. Their value comes in part from their ability to sequester carbon but also from the carbon then stored in the soils, plus their ability to contribute to adaptation through allowing native species to move in response to climate change, helping secure the ongoing contribution of the natural environment to climate mitigation in the future. We therefore recommend the wording is modified to ensure that retention of not only trees but all Priority Habitats, are retained as the preferred option with the other options only where on site retention is not possible. We also query why the policy does not include any specific targets, instead using language such as ‘minimise greenhouse gas emissions’ and ‘help reduce carbon emissions’. Noting the legal targets for net zero by 2050, despite the best intentions of this policy it is unclear how it will actually secure the plan’s contribution to national climate change targets, or measure that delivery to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Object

Representation ID: 99340

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

In order to ensure the plan is effective and does not set policy MP2 against policy MW1, we recommend that County Wildlife Sites are added to the list provided in bullet points at the end of the policy. The CWS network in Norfolk consists currently of approximately 1400 sites, the safeguarding of which is vital to the future of Norfolk’s wildlife. With legal targets in the 2021 Environment Act for nature’s recovery, a duty on public bodies to have regard to nature’s conservation and enhancement in the NERC Act and the Environment Act, and a policy requirement in policy MW1 to safeguard and provide gains for biodiversity through planning decisions, it would be counterproductive to not afford the CWS network the same policy protection under policy MP2.

Comment

Representation ID: 99341

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

We support the need for planning conditions and or longer term planning obligations where there is a clear need but it is clear from the supporting documents for the Defra biodiversity net gain metric that some habitats require longer than the typical 5 year aftercare period normally attached to minerals consents in order to be successfully created. We therefore recommend that the policy wording is modified in order to ensure it is effective.

Object

Representation ID: 99342

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The supporting text states that due to the site being 1.16km from the Beetley and Hoe Meadows SSSI site boundary, and being one of the finest remaining areas of wet unimproved grassland in Norfolk, the proposed extraction would be worked dry, above the water table. Also, Dillington Carr, Gressenhall SSSI is 1.44km from site boundary, CWS1027 Gressenhall Green Marshes is 730m from site boundary and Great Wood ancient woodland is 1.28km from the allocation. However, no specific condition is in included in MIN12 to ensure that the site will only be worked dry above the water table.

Object

Representation ID: 99343

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Due to the proximity to Beetley and Hoe Meadows SSSI, Horse Wood Mileham SSSI and Dillington Carr, Gressenhall SSSI, as well as Beck Farm Meadows CWS and Rawhall Wood CWS (also an ancient woodland), the supporting text states that the site would be worked dry only above the water table. However, no specific condition is in included in MIN12 to ensure that the site will only be worked dry above the water table.

Comment

Representation ID: 99344

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

The supporting text for the policy, MP200.10, with reference to Wayland Wood SSSI, which is also a Norfolk Wildlife Trust reserve, states that ‘provided that no dewatering is proposed as part of the working scheme, no impacts on this SSSI are expected’. Paragraph M200.19 states that the site is proposed to be restored to nature conservation with open grassland. We support policy section e, and recommend that the reference to open grassland in MP200.10 is added to the policy wording section e for clarity.

Object

Representation ID: 99345

Received: 18/12/2022

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

In our response to the previous 2019 consultation we noted that this site overlaps with Triumph & Foxburrow Plantations County Wildlife Site and the Mileplain Plantation ancient woodland partially within the site boundary. However, the site boundary does not appear to have been changed in order to avoid impacts on these important ecological features. Whilst we have no objection in principle to the majority of the allocation, we are significantly concerned that the allocation includes part of a County Wildlife Site, in clear contradiction with the goals of policy MW1.

Full text: In our response to the previous 2019 consultation we noted that this site overlaps with Triumph & Foxburrow Plantations County Wildlife Site and the Mileplain Plantation ancient woodland partially within the site boundary. However, the site boundary does not appear to have been changed in order to avoid impacts on these important ecological features. Whilst the supporting text for the policy states in M202.12 that there should be a stand off distance of at least 15 metres from the ancient woodland, we question why the red line boundary for the allocation abuts the ancient woodland and includes part of the CWS. Notwithstanding our concerns about the inclusion of part of a CWS in this allocation, and its unacceptable proximity to ancient woodland, we have no objection in principle to the remainder of the allocation area and support the proposed restoration to heathland.