Proposed Main Modifications

As such Breedon request that MM68 is further amended as follows:
"The nearest residential property is 19m from [insert: MIN 25] site boundary. There are 55 sensitive receptors within 250m of the [insert: allocation] site boundary, [insert: as shown on MIN25 Proposals Plan], and 15 of these are within 100m of the site boundary. Many of these properties are within the settlement of Haddiscoe, which is 55m away. [delete: However, the site proposer has stated that land within 100 metres of the nearest sensitive receptors will not be extracted. Therefore, there are 47 sensitive receptors (buildings) within 250m of the proposed extraction area and none within 100m of the proposed extraction area]. Even without mitigation, adverse dust impacts from sand and gravel sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities. The greatest impacts will be within 100 metres of a source, if uncontrolled. [delete: The operational area of the site would need to be set back approximately 100 metres from the nearest residential properties.] Any planning application for mineral extraction at the site would need to include noise and dust assessments and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity impacts."

MM01. Vision - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM01.
MM03. Minerals Strategic Objectives - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM03.
MM05. Policy MW1. Development Management Criteria- Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM05.
MM06. Policy MW2. Transport - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM06.
MM07. Policy MW3. Climate change mitigation and adaption - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM07.
MM29. Paragraph MP1.3 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM29.
MM30. Paragraph MP1.4 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM30.
MM30 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Norfolk County Council (‘NCC’) has not taken into consideration Paragraph 226 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (‘NPPF’) which states:
“Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by:
a) preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly, to forecast future demand, based on a rolling average of 10 years’ sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources)”
Breedon maintain that the Plan needs to reflect NCC’s own finding for future aggregate demand set out in its own Local Aggregate Assessment (2022) (‘LAA’). The LAA identifies significant housing demand, economic demand, population growth and infrastructure requirements.
To remove this objection, Breedon suggest the last sentence of MM30 is amended to read:
“However, in order to plan for future growth [insert: in line with the LAA], the 10-year sales average is considered to be [delete: slightly] too low to use when forecasting future need for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate in Norfolk."
This amendment will link the forecast to the LAA ensuring MM30 seeks to meet objectively assessed need so that it is positively prepared. It also ensures that MM30 is consistent with national policy. It avoids a scenario where NCC solely consider historic sales trends when considering future demand.
MM31. Paragraph MP1.5 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM31.
MM32. Paragraph MP1.6 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM32.
MM 33. Paragraph MP1.7 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM33.
MM33 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
NCC has updated its figures based on the note updating sand and gravel provision [‘Update on the sand and gravel, carstone and silica sand provision within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan’]. However, NCC has failed to have regard to future demand for sand and gravel set out in the LAA, as discussed at the EIP and as Breedon set out in its Hearing Paper on Main Matter 3.
The 10% flexibility figure was discussed with the Inspector and regarded as a buffer against Specific Sites not coming forward for development. It was not regarded as a measure to meet future growth demand for sand and gravel, as is indicated by the housing allocations, economic growth, population growth and infrastructure projects outlined in the LAA. These indicators suggest growth beyond that experienced over the past 10 years.
Breedon contends that either a 20-year sales average or 10-years sales average plus a 20% buffer should be used in the calculations to ensure that the Plan meets future growth forecasts outlined in the LAA. This change is suggested as the Plan simply rolls forward historic demand. It does not plan or consider the scenario outlined in the LAA which indicates that growth will significantly increase.
This amendment will link the forecast need to the conclusions of the LAA ensuring MM33 seeks to meet objectively assessed need ensuring it is positively prepared. It also ensures that MM33 is consistent with national policy, noting Paragraph 226 of the NPPF.

MM34. New paragraph before paragraph MP1.8 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM34.

MM43. Policy MP1. Provision for mineral extraction - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM43.
MM43 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Breedon welcome the overall more positive approach and rewording to reflect that sand and gravel extraction will be supported and not resisted, however MM43 does not go far enough to ensure the steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel.
As already set out the use of 10-year sales plus a 10% buffer does not meet forecast growth outlined the LAA. Breedon suggests either a 20-year sales average or 10-year sales average plus a 20% buffer would better meet objectively assessed need.
The Council has an obligation to provide a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel under Paragraph 226 of the NPPF which is defined as maintaining landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel. As such supporting proposed extraction in a scenario where sand and gravel landbank is already below 7 years is in itself contrary to the NPPF. Policy MP1 must prevent this scenario from occurring rather than providing support where this important national policy is breached. Therefore, MM43 should be changed so that NNC support mineral extraction outside of allocated sites where the development is required to maintain a 7-year landbank.
Breedon also considers the criteria used in MP1 of overriding benefit, overriding justification and proposed extraction to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel above 7 years should be met individually and therefore ‘or’ should be used rather than ‘and/or’ within the policy wording. Breedon suggests amending the wording such that it may be possible for development to meet one or more criterion with an overarching requirement to be consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan.
Breedon suggest MM43 should be revised and amended as follows:
“Mineral extraction for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites will be supported by the Mineral Planning Authority where [insert: the proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan and] the applicant can demonstrate [insert: one or more of the following]:
a) There is overriding benefit for the proposed extraction [delete: and/]; or
b) There is overriding justification for the proposed extraction [delete: and]; or
c) [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years;] [insert: The proposed extraction is required to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel above 7 years.]
[delete: The proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan]”
This is especially pertinent given the recent publication of the NPPF and the delivery of 1.5 million homes and increased growth and development aspirations. This is not considered by the current LAA (notwithstanding our concern that the Plan does not fully consider demand outlined in the LAA) therefore it is essential that increased flexibility is introduced into MP1 because demand for sand and gravel is likely to increase significantly.

MM44. Paragraph MP1.25 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM44.
MM44 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Breedon has set out that further flexibility is required to respond to increasing demand for sand and gravel. Indeed the Inspector asked NCC at the EIP to add examples of overriding planning reasons to provide flexibility to respond to changes in demand. MM44 does not provide examples of scenarios where there would be overriding planning reasons due to increase growth or demand rather isolated examples which might coincidentally increase supply. Breedon does not consider that NCC has met the Inspector’s request. The NCC examples given, agricultural irrigation schemes and extraction prior to sterilisation are windfall sites, where prior extraction can take place rather than the mineral extracted to meet overriding need or public benefit.
To reflect Paragraph 226 of the NPPF and Footnote 79 Breedon suggest MM44 is amended as follow to include additional overriding planning reasons:
“Examples of potential overriding planning reasons for mineral extraction to occur on unallocated sites may occur include, but are not limited to in relation to:
• Agricultural irrigation reservoirs - where mineral is extracted and exported to create the reservoir landform,
• Borrow pits - where extraction takes place over a limited period for the exclusive use of a specific construction project such as for a specific road scheme,
• Prior extraction to prevent mineral sterilisation - this may be required on occasions where significant development takes place (on a site of over 2 hectares) and where a workable mineral resource could otherwise be permanently lost through sterilisation.,
• [insert: Conclusions of the latest annual local aggregate assessment identifying a shortage of sand and gravel supply,
• Significant forecasted growth due to levels of planned construction and house building,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”
This is especially pertinent given the recent publication of the NPPF and the delivery of 1.5 million homes and increased growth and development aspirations. This is not considered by the current LAA (notwithstanding our concern that the Plan does not fully consider demand outlined in the LAA) therefore it is essential that increased flexibility is introduced into the supporting text of MP1 because demand for sand and gravel is likely to increase significantly.

MM45 Paragraph MP1.26 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM45.
MM54 - Policy MP7. Progressive Working, Restoration and Afteruse - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM54. It should be noted that measurable 10% biodiversity gain will not need to use the biodiversity net gain matrix calculator where the development proposal is exempt from BNG under the BNG Regulations.
MM55. Paragraph MP8.1 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM55.
MM56. Paragraph MP8.3 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM56.
MM57. Policy MP8. Aftercare - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM57.
MM58. Paragraph MP11.4 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM58.
MM60. Mineral extraction sites - sand and gravel table - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM60.
MM68. Paragraph 25.1 - Breedon objects to this as a Main Modification MM68.
MM68 is not justified and is not consistent with national policy.
The Inspector requested an additional amendment (AM) was made to paragraph 180 to take account of the distance of the proposed extraction area from the dwellings (as set out in application FUL/2022/0056). In the EIP it was agreed that a buffer distance is not an appropriate measure and that the distance that extraction takes place from a sensitive receptor should be set out in accordance with the noise or air quality assessments and any mitigation measures. Continuing use of arbitrary buffers is not justified and not consistent with the NPPF. The proposed MM70 wording of Site Specific Policy MIN 25a below reflects this as the buffer distance has been removed. MM68 should be amended in a similar fashion.
In addition, Breedon considers that the Council should remove reference to numbers of sensitive receptors as this will vary according to the planning application submitted and the design of the scheme.
As such Breedon request that MM68 is further amended as follows:
"The nearest residential property is 19m from [insert: MIN 25] site boundary. There are 55 sensitive receptors within 250m of the [insert: allocation] site boundary, [insert: as shown on MIN25 Proposals Plan], and 15 of these are within 100m of the site boundary. Many of these properties are within the settlement of Haddiscoe, which is 55m away. [delete: However, the site proposer has stated that land within 100 metres of the nearest sensitive receptors will not be extracted. Therefore, there are 47 sensitive receptors (buildings) within 250m of the proposed extraction area and none within 100m of the proposed extraction area]. Even without mitigation, adverse dust impacts from sand and gravel sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities. The greatest impacts will be within 100 metres of a source, if uncontrolled. [delete: The operational area of the site would need to be set back approximately 100 metres from the nearest residential properties.] Any planning application for mineral extraction at the site would need to include noise and dust assessments and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity impacts."

MM69. Paragraph M25.23 Restoration- Breedon object to this Main Modification MM69.
MM69 is not justified this is because as the supporting text makes clear the allocated site is part of a 20th-century agricultural landscape. Indeed, the boundary hedgerows which the text seeks to retain under historic field boundaries were planted in the last 30 years. NCC need to clarify with Historic England, whom are behind the suggested modification, from which century they wish to see hedgerows re-established within the site. NCC needs to identify and understand which historic landscape hedgerows they want reinstated and what the benefits would be, before including the above wording. Breedon considers reinstatement of certain historic hedgerows may have disadvantages, that have not been considered by the council, such as blocking views from Bridleway BR5. Breedon suggests that the paragraph text is amended and replaced with the following to read:
“Restoration shall include the retention of boundary hedgerows and trees and [delete: the reinstatement of historic hedgerows and field boundaries informed by Historic Landscape Characterisation] [insert: shall include additional hedgerows and planting. Any restoration planting shall be informed by national and local biodiversity strategies, local landscape and historic landscape characterisation, where appropriate.]”
MM70. Policy MIN25 land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe
Breedon does not object to this Main Modification MM70 but suggests “where appropriate” is added after “Historic Landscape Characterisation”, such that the policy requirement (c) reads as follows:
“The submission of an acceptable phased working and progressive restoration scheme to a nature conservation after use, including retention of boundary hedgerows and trees, to provide landscape and biodiversity gains and the reinstatement of historic hedgerows and field boundaries informed by Historic Landscape Characterisation [insert: where appropriate]".

Breedon suggests that the paragraph text is amended and replaced with the following to read:
“Restoration shall include the retention of boundary hedgerows and trees and [delete: the reinstatement of historic hedgerows and field boundaries informed by Historic Landscape Characterisation] [insert: shall include additional hedgerows and planting. Any restoration planting shall be informed by national and local biodiversity strategies, local landscape and historic landscape characterisation, where appropriate.]”

MM01. Vision - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM01.
MM03. Minerals Strategic Objectives - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM03.
MM05. Policy MW1. Development Management Criteria- Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM05.
MM06. Policy MW2. Transport - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM06.
MM07. Policy MW3. Climate change mitigation and adaption - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM07.
MM29. Paragraph MP1.3 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM29.
MM30. Paragraph MP1.4 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM30.
MM30 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Norfolk County Council (‘NCC’) has not taken into consideration Paragraph 226 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (‘NPPF’) which states:
“Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by:
a) preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly, to forecast future demand, based on a rolling average of 10 years’ sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources)”
Breedon maintain that the Plan needs to reflect NCC’s own finding for future aggregate demand set out in its own Local Aggregate Assessment (2022) (‘LAA’). The LAA identifies significant housing demand, economic demand, population growth and infrastructure requirements.
To remove this objection, Breedon suggest the last sentence of MM30 is amended to read:
“However, in order to plan for future growth [insert: in line with the LAA], the 10-year sales average is considered to be [delete: slightly] too low to use when forecasting future need for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate in Norfolk."
This amendment will link the forecast to the LAA ensuring MM30 seeks to meet objectively assessed need so that it is positively prepared. It also ensures that MM30 is consistent with national policy. It avoids a scenario where NCC solely consider historic sales trends when considering future demand.
MM31. Paragraph MP1.5 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM31.
MM32. Paragraph MP1.6 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM32.
MM 33. Paragraph MP1.7 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM33.
MM33 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
NCC has updated its figures based on the note updating sand and gravel provision [‘Update on the sand and gravel, carstone and silica sand provision within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan’]. However, NCC has failed to have regard to future demand for sand and gravel set out in the LAA, as discussed at the EIP and as Breedon set out in its Hearing Paper on Main Matter 3.
The 10% flexibility figure was discussed with the Inspector and regarded as a buffer against Specific Sites not coming forward for development. It was not regarded as a measure to meet future growth demand for sand and gravel, as is indicated by the housing allocations, economic growth, population growth and infrastructure projects outlined in the LAA. These indicators suggest growth beyond that experienced over the past 10 years.
Breedon contends that either a 20-year sales average or 10-years sales average plus a 20% buffer should be used in the calculations to ensure that the Plan meets future growth forecasts outlined in the LAA. This change is suggested as the Plan simply rolls forward historic demand. It does not plan or consider the scenario outlined in the LAA which indicates that growth will significantly increase.
This amendment will link the forecast need to the conclusions of the LAA ensuring MM33 seeks to meet objectively assessed need ensuring it is positively prepared. It also ensures that MM33 is consistent with national policy, noting Paragraph 226 of the NPPF.

MM34. New paragraph before paragraph MP1.8 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM34.

MM43. Policy MP1. Provision for mineral extraction - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM43.
MM43 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Breedon welcome the overall more positive approach and rewording to reflect that sand and gravel extraction will be supported and not resisted, however MM43 does not go far enough to ensure the steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel.
As already set out the use of 10-year sales plus a 10% buffer does not meet forecast growth outlined the LAA. Breedon suggests either a 20-year sales average or 10-year sales average plus a 20% buffer would better meet objectively assessed need.
The Council has an obligation to provide a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel under Paragraph 226 of the NPPF which is defined as maintaining landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel. As such supporting proposed extraction in a scenario where sand and gravel landbank is already below 7 years is in itself contrary to the NPPF. Policy MP1 must prevent this scenario from occurring rather than providing support where this important national policy is breached. Therefore, MM43 should be changed so that NNC support mineral extraction outside of allocated sites where the development is required to maintain a 7-year landbank.
Breedon also considers the criteria used in MP1 of overriding benefit, overriding justification and proposed extraction to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel above 7 years should be met individually and therefore ‘or’ should be used rather than ‘and/or’ within the policy wording. Breedon suggests amending the wording such that it may be possible for development to meet one or more criterion with an overarching requirement to be consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan.
Breedon suggest MM43 should be revised and amended as follows:
“Mineral extraction for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites will be supported by the Mineral Planning Authority where [insert: the proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan and] the applicant can demonstrate [insert: one or more of the following]:
a) There is overriding benefit for the proposed extraction [delete: and/]; or
b) There is overriding justification for the proposed extraction [delete: and]; or
c) [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years;] [insert: The proposed extraction is required to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel above 7 years.]
[delete: The proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan]”
This is especially pertinent given the recent publication of the NPPF and the delivery of 1.5 million homes and increased growth and development aspirations. This is not considered by the current LAA (notwithstanding our concern that the Plan does not fully consider demand outlined in the LAA) therefore it is essential that increased flexibility is introduced into MP1 because demand for sand and gravel is likely to increase significantly.

MM44. Paragraph MP1.25 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM44.
MM44 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Breedon has set out that further flexibility is required to respond to increasing demand for sand and gravel. Indeed the Inspector asked NCC at the EIP to add examples of overriding planning reasons to provide flexibility to respond to changes in demand. MM44 does not provide examples of scenarios where there would be overriding planning reasons due to increase growth or demand rather isolated examples which might coincidentally increase supply. Breedon does not consider that NCC has met the Inspector’s request. The NCC examples given, agricultural irrigation schemes and extraction prior to sterilisation are windfall sites, where prior extraction can take place rather than the mineral extracted to meet overriding need or public benefit.
To reflect Paragraph 226 of the NPPF and Footnote 79 Breedon suggest MM44 is amended as follow to include additional overriding planning reasons:
“Examples of potential overriding planning reasons for mineral extraction to occur on unallocated sites may occur include, but are not limited to in relation to:
• Agricultural irrigation reservoirs - where mineral is extracted and exported to create the reservoir landform,
• Borrow pits - where extraction takes place over a limited period for the exclusive use of a specific construction project such as for a specific road scheme,
• Prior extraction to prevent mineral sterilisation - this may be required on occasions where significant development takes place (on a site of over 2 hectares) and where a workable mineral resource could otherwise be permanently lost through sterilisation.,
• [insert: Conclusions of the latest annual local aggregate assessment identifying a shortage of sand and gravel supply,
• Significant forecasted growth due to levels of planned construction and house building,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”
This is especially pertinent given the recent publication of the NPPF and the delivery of 1.5 million homes and increased growth and development aspirations. This is not considered by the current LAA (notwithstanding our concern that the Plan does not fully consider demand outlined in the LAA) therefore it is essential that increased flexibility is introduced into the supporting text of MP1 because demand for sand and gravel is likely to increase significantly.

MM45 Paragraph MP1.26 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM45.
MM54 - Policy MP7. Progressive Working, Restoration and Afteruse - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM54. It should be noted that measurable 10% biodiversity gain will not need to use the biodiversity net gain matrix calculator where the development proposal is exempt from BNG under the BNG Regulations.
MM55. Paragraph MP8.1 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM55.
MM56. Paragraph MP8.3 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM56.
MM57. Policy MP8. Aftercare - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM57.
MM58. Paragraph MP11.4 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM58.
MM60. Mineral extraction sites - sand and gravel table - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM60.
MM68. Paragraph 25.1 - Breedon objects to this as a Main Modification MM68.
MM68 is not justified and is not consistent with national policy.
The Inspector requested an additional amendment (AM) was made to paragraph 180 to take account of the distance of the proposed extraction area from the dwellings (as set out in application FUL/2022/0056). In the EIP it was agreed that a buffer distance is not an appropriate measure and that the distance that extraction takes place from a sensitive receptor should be set out in accordance with the noise or air quality assessments and any mitigation measures. Continuing use of arbitrary buffers is not justified and not consistent with the NPPF. The proposed MM70 wording of Site Specific Policy MIN 25a below reflects this as the buffer distance has been removed. MM68 should be amended in a similar fashion.
In addition, Breedon considers that the Council should remove reference to numbers of sensitive receptors as this will vary according to the planning application submitted and the design of the scheme.
As such Breedon request that MM68 is further amended as follows:
"The nearest residential property is 19m from [insert: MIN 25] site boundary. There are 55 sensitive receptors within 250m of the [insert: allocation] site boundary, [insert: as shown on MIN25 Proposals Plan], and 15 of these are within 100m of the site boundary. Many of these properties are within the settlement of Haddiscoe, which is 55m away. [delete: However, the site proposer has stated that land within 100 metres of the nearest sensitive receptors will not be extracted. Therefore, there are 47 sensitive receptors (buildings) within 250m of the proposed extraction area and none within 100m of the proposed extraction area]. Even without mitigation, adverse dust impacts from sand and gravel sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities. The greatest impacts will be within 100 metres of a source, if uncontrolled. [delete: The operational area of the site would need to be set back approximately 100 metres from the nearest residential properties.] Any planning application for mineral extraction at the site would need to include noise and dust assessments and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity impacts."

MM69. Paragraph M25.23 Restoration- Breedon object to this Main Modification MM69.
MM69 is not justified this is because as the supporting text makes clear the allocated site is part of a 20th-century agricultural landscape. Indeed, the boundary hedgerows which the text seeks to retain under historic field boundaries were planted in the last 30 years. NCC need to clarify with Historic England, whom are behind the suggested modification, from which century they wish to see hedgerows re-established within the site. NCC needs to identify and understand which historic landscape hedgerows they want reinstated and what the benefits would be, before including the above wording. Breedon considers reinstatement of certain historic hedgerows may have disadvantages, that have not been considered by the council, such as blocking views from Bridleway BR5. Breedon suggests that the paragraph text is amended and replaced with the following to read:
“Restoration shall include the retention of boundary hedgerows and trees and [delete: the reinstatement of historic hedgerows and field boundaries informed by Historic Landscape Characterisation] [insert: shall include additional hedgerows and planting. Any restoration planting shall be informed by national and local biodiversity strategies, local landscape and historic landscape characterisation, where appropriate.]”
MM70. Policy MIN25 land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe
Breedon does not object to this Main Modification MM70 but suggests “where appropriate” is added after “Historic Landscape Characterisation”, such that the policy requirement (c) reads as follows:
“The submission of an acceptable phased working and progressive restoration scheme to a nature conservation after use, including retention of boundary hedgerows and trees, to provide landscape and biodiversity gains and the reinstatement of historic hedgerows and field boundaries informed by Historic Landscape Characterisation [insert: where appropriate]".

MM01. Vision - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM01.
MM03. Minerals Strategic Objectives - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM03.
MM05. Policy MW1. Development Management Criteria- Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM05.
MM06. Policy MW2. Transport - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM06.
MM07. Policy MW3. Climate change mitigation and adaption - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM07.
MM29. Paragraph MP1.3 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM29.
MM30. Paragraph MP1.4 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM30.
MM30 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Norfolk County Council (‘NCC’) has not taken into consideration Paragraph 226 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (‘NPPF’) which states:
“Minerals planning authorities should plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates by:
a) preparing an annual Local Aggregate Assessment, either individually or jointly, to forecast future demand, based on a rolling average of 10 years’ sales data and other relevant local information, and an assessment of all supply options (including marine dredged, secondary and recycled sources)”
Breedon maintain that the Plan needs to reflect NCC’s own finding for future aggregate demand set out in its own Local Aggregate Assessment (2022) (‘LAA’). The LAA identifies significant housing demand, economic demand, population growth and infrastructure requirements.
To remove this objection, Breedon suggest the last sentence of MM30 is amended to read:
“However, in order to plan for future growth [insert: in line with the LAA], the 10-year sales average is considered to be [delete: slightly] too low to use when forecasting future need for a steady and adequate supply of aggregate in Norfolk."
This amendment will link the forecast to the LAA ensuring MM30 seeks to meet objectively assessed need so that it is positively prepared. It also ensures that MM30 is consistent with national policy. It avoids a scenario where NCC solely consider historic sales trends when considering future demand.
MM31. Paragraph MP1.5 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM31.
MM32. Paragraph MP1.6 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM32.
MM 33. Paragraph MP1.7 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM33.
MM33 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
NCC has updated its figures based on the note updating sand and gravel provision [‘Update on the sand and gravel, carstone and silica sand provision within the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan’]. However, NCC has failed to have regard to future demand for sand and gravel set out in the LAA, as discussed at the EIP and as Breedon set out in its Hearing Paper on Main Matter 3.
The 10% flexibility figure was discussed with the Inspector and regarded as a buffer against Specific Sites not coming forward for development. It was not regarded as a measure to meet future growth demand for sand and gravel, as is indicated by the housing allocations, economic growth, population growth and infrastructure projects outlined in the LAA. These indicators suggest growth beyond that experienced over the past 10 years.
Breedon contends that either a 20-year sales average or 10-years sales average plus a 20% buffer should be used in the calculations to ensure that the Plan meets future growth forecasts outlined in the LAA. This change is suggested as the Plan simply rolls forward historic demand. It does not plan or consider the scenario outlined in the LAA which indicates that growth will significantly increase.
This amendment will link the forecast need to the conclusions of the LAA ensuring MM33 seeks to meet objectively assessed need ensuring it is positively prepared. It also ensures that MM33 is consistent with national policy, noting Paragraph 226 of the NPPF.

MM34. New paragraph before paragraph MP1.8 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM34.

MM43. Policy MP1. Provision for mineral extraction - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM43.
MM43 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Breedon welcome the overall more positive approach and rewording to reflect that sand and gravel extraction will be supported and not resisted, however MM43 does not go far enough to ensure the steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel.
As already set out the use of 10-year sales plus a 10% buffer does not meet forecast growth outlined the LAA. Breedon suggests either a 20-year sales average or 10-year sales average plus a 20% buffer would better meet objectively assessed need.
The Council has an obligation to provide a steady and adequate supply of sand and gravel under Paragraph 226 of the NPPF which is defined as maintaining landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel. As such supporting proposed extraction in a scenario where sand and gravel landbank is already below 7 years is in itself contrary to the NPPF. Policy MP1 must prevent this scenario from occurring rather than providing support where this important national policy is breached. Therefore, MM43 should be changed so that NNC support mineral extraction outside of allocated sites where the development is required to maintain a 7-year landbank.
Breedon also considers the criteria used in MP1 of overriding benefit, overriding justification and proposed extraction to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel above 7 years should be met individually and therefore ‘or’ should be used rather than ‘and/or’ within the policy wording. Breedon suggests amending the wording such that it may be possible for development to meet one or more criterion with an overarching requirement to be consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan.
Breedon suggest MM43 should be revised and amended as follows:
“Mineral extraction for sand and gravel outside of allocated sites will be supported by the Mineral Planning Authority where [insert: the proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan and] the applicant can demonstrate [insert: one or more of the following]:
a) There is overriding benefit for the proposed extraction [delete: and/]; or
b) There is overriding justification for the proposed extraction [delete: and]; or
c) [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years;] [insert: The proposed extraction is required to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel above 7 years.]
[delete: The proposal is consistent with all other relevant policies set out in the Development Plan]”
This is especially pertinent given the recent publication of the NPPF and the delivery of 1.5 million homes and increased growth and development aspirations. This is not considered by the current LAA (notwithstanding our concern that the Plan does not fully consider demand outlined in the LAA) therefore it is essential that increased flexibility is introduced into MP1 because demand for sand and gravel is likely to increase significantly.

MM44. Paragraph MP1.25 - Breedon objects to this Main Modification MM44.
MM44 is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.
Breedon has set out that further flexibility is required to respond to increasing demand for sand and gravel. Indeed the Inspector asked NCC at the EIP to add examples of overriding planning reasons to provide flexibility to respond to changes in demand. MM44 does not provide examples of scenarios where there would be overriding planning reasons due to increase growth or demand rather isolated examples which might coincidentally increase supply. Breedon does not consider that NCC has met the Inspector’s request. The NCC examples given, agricultural irrigation schemes and extraction prior to sterilisation are windfall sites, where prior extraction can take place rather than the mineral extracted to meet overriding need or public benefit.
To reflect Paragraph 226 of the NPPF and Footnote 79 Breedon suggest MM44 is amended as follow to include additional overriding planning reasons:
“Examples of potential overriding planning reasons for mineral extraction to occur on unallocated sites may occur include, but are not limited to in relation to:
• Agricultural irrigation reservoirs - where mineral is extracted and exported to create the reservoir landform,
• Borrow pits - where extraction takes place over a limited period for the exclusive use of a specific construction project such as for a specific road scheme,
• Prior extraction to prevent mineral sterilisation - this may be required on occasions where significant development takes place (on a site of over 2 hectares) and where a workable mineral resource could otherwise be permanently lost through sterilisation.,
• [insert: Conclusions of the latest annual local aggregate assessment identifying a shortage of sand and gravel supply,
• Significant forecasted growth due to levels of planned construction and house building,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”
This is especially pertinent given the recent publication of the NPPF and the delivery of 1.5 million homes and increased growth and development aspirations. This is not considered by the current LAA (notwithstanding our concern that the Plan does not fully consider demand outlined in the LAA) therefore it is essential that increased flexibility is introduced into the supporting text of MP1 because demand for sand and gravel is likely to increase significantly.

MM45 Paragraph MP1.26 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM45.
MM54 - Policy MP7. Progressive Working, Restoration and Afteruse - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM54. It should be noted that measurable 10% biodiversity gain will not need to use the biodiversity net gain matrix calculator where the development proposal is exempt from BNG under the BNG Regulations.
MM55. Paragraph MP8.1 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM55.
MM56. Paragraph MP8.3 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM56.
MM57. Policy MP8. Aftercare - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM57.
MM58. Paragraph MP11.4 - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM58.
MM60. Mineral extraction sites - sand and gravel table - Breedon has no objection to this Main Modification MM60.
MM68. Paragraph 25.1 - Breedon objects to this as a Main Modification MM68.
MM68 is not justified and is not consistent with national policy.
The Inspector requested an additional amendment (AM) was made to paragraph 180 to take account of the distance of the proposed extraction area from the dwellings (as set out in application FUL/2022/0056). In the EIP it was agreed that a buffer distance is not an appropriate measure and that the distance that extraction takes place from a sensitive receptor should be set out in accordance with the noise or air quality assessments and any mitigation measures. Continuing use of arbitrary buffers is not justified and not consistent with the NPPF. The proposed MM70 wording of Site Specific Policy MIN 25a below reflects this as the buffer distance has been removed. MM68 should be amended in a similar fashion.
In addition, Breedon considers that the Council should remove reference to numbers of sensitive receptors as this will vary according to the planning application submitted and the design of the scheme.
As such Breedon request that MM68 is further amended as follows:
"The nearest residential property is 19m from [insert: MIN 25] site boundary. There are 55 sensitive receptors within 250m of the [insert: allocation] site boundary, [insert: as shown on MIN25 Proposals Plan], and 15 of these are within 100m of the site boundary. Many of these properties are within the settlement of Haddiscoe, which is 55m away. [delete: However, the site proposer has stated that land within 100 metres of the nearest sensitive receptors will not be extracted. Therefore, there are 47 sensitive receptors (buildings) within 250m of the proposed extraction area and none within 100m of the proposed extraction area]. Even without mitigation, adverse dust impacts from sand and gravel sites are uncommon beyond 250m from the nearest dust generating activities. The greatest impacts will be within 100 metres of a source, if uncontrolled. [delete: The operational area of the site would need to be set back approximately 100 metres from the nearest residential properties.] Any planning application for mineral extraction at the site would need to include noise and dust assessments and mitigation measures to deal appropriately with any amenity impacts."

MM69. Paragraph M25.23 Restoration- Breedon object to this Main Modification MM69.
MM69 is not justified this is because as the supporting text makes clear the allocated site is part of a 20th-century agricultural landscape. Indeed, the boundary hedgerows which the text seeks to retain under historic field boundaries were planted in the last 30 years. NCC need to clarify with Historic England, whom are behind the suggested modification, from which century they wish to see hedgerows re-established within the site. NCC needs to identify and understand which historic landscape hedgerows they want reinstated and what the benefits would be, before including the above wording. Breedon considers reinstatement of certain historic hedgerows may have disadvantages, that have not been considered by the council, such as blocking views from Bridleway BR5. Breedon suggests that the paragraph text is amended and replaced with the following to read:
“Restoration shall include the retention of boundary hedgerows and trees and [delete: the reinstatement of historic hedgerows and field boundaries informed by Historic Landscape Characterisation] [insert: shall include additional hedgerows and planting. Any restoration planting shall be informed by national and local biodiversity strategies, local landscape and historic landscape characterisation, where appropriate.]”
MM70. Policy MIN25 land at Manor Farm, Haddiscoe
Breedon does not object to this Main Modification MM70 but suggests “where appropriate” is added after “Historic Landscape Characterisation”, such that the policy requirement (c) reads as follows:
“The submission of an acceptable phased working and progressive restoration scheme to a nature conservation after use, including retention of boundary hedgerows and trees, to provide landscape and biodiversity gains and the reinstatement of historic hedgerows and field boundaries informed by Historic Landscape Characterisation [insert: where appropriate]".