Proposed Main Modifications

Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”

Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."

Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.

The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].

In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."

Amend the wording to include:
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

The Mineral Products Association (MPA) is the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and silica sand industries. With the affiliation of British Precast, the British Association of Reinforcement (BAR), Eurobitume, MPA Northern Ireland, MPA Scotland and the British Calcium Carbonate Federation, it has a growing membership of over 530 companies and is the sectoral voice for mineral products. MPA membership is made up of the vast majority of independent SME quarrying companies throughout the UK, as well as the 9 major international and global companies. It covers 100% of UK cement production, 90% of GB aggregates production, 95% of asphalt and over 70% of ready-mixed concrete and precast concrete production. In 2016, the industry supplied £18 billion worth of materials and services to the Economy. It is the largest supplier to the construction industry, which had annual output valued at £169 billion in 2018. Industry production represents the largest materials flow in the UK economy and is also one of the largest manufacturing sectors. For more information visit: www.mineralproducts.org.
Thank you for consulting us on the above document. We have provided comments below which build upon our earlier representations and the discussions and agreements at the Examination in Public. Where we have indicated proposed amendments to the wording, inserts are in bold and underlined whereas deletions are struck through.
We welcome further engagement on this matter.

MM01 Vision
Object
It is beyond the role of the planning system to specify which vehicles can and cannot be used to transport minerals. The planning system can promote use, but this could not be enforced.
Amend the wording to read:
"Mineral development and waste management within Norfolk will be undertaken in ways that minimise and mitigate their contribution to climate change, including reducing methane emissions and reducing carbon emissions to contribute to net zero carbon targets. [insert: The Council will promote the] movement of minerals and waste [delete: will use] [insert: using] sustainable transport methods where these are available, including low or zero emission vehicles.”
Also, Minerals can only be worked where they are found and as such, unlike waste developments, their locations are constrained by geology
Amend the wording to read:
Mineral development and waste management facilities will be designed and, [insert: where the geology permits,] located to reduce the risk from and adapt to climatic effects, such as flooding.”

MM03 Minerals Strategic Objectives
Object
The amendments should reflect the requirements of the NPPF and avoid the use of loose or superfluous wording. For example, the words “where practicable” are not within the NPPF with respect to Industrial sands and the p.
Amend the wording of objective MS01 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of aggregate minerals, by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk sufficient to meet the forecast need, based on the Local Aggregate Assessment; by maintaining a landbank of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for Carstone; and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure.”
Amend the wording of objective MS02 to read
"To provide a steady and adequate supply of industrial minerals by identifying adequate mineral extraction sites within Norfolk and through the inclusion of 'criteria-based' locational policies, sufficient to meet the forecast need; by maintaining a stock of permitted reserves of silica sand of at least 10 years [insert: for individual silica sand sites and at least 15 years for silica sand sites where significant new capital is required;] [delete: where practicable] and safeguarding [insert: mineral resources and] existing [insert: and planned] extraction sites and infrastructure."

MM05 Policy MW1 Development Management Criteria
Object
The wording is introducing text which it suggests is part of the historic environment policy requirements in the NPPF. This is not the case, nor does the wording appear in the Planning Practice Guidance.
Amend the proposed additional text to read:
"Subject to the development proposal meeting the NPPF historic environment policy requirements, the preferred mitigation for developments affecting archaeological assets of [delete: less than] national importance will be through the preservation of the archaeological remains in situ. Where in situ preservation is not justified, adequate provision must be made for excavation and recording including subsequent analysis, publication and archive deposition before or during development."
In addition, unlike mandatory BNG, geodiversity may not always be practicable or possible to include and clearly it needs to be relevant to the surroundings, safe and geologically beneficial.
Amend the second bullet point as follows: "providing geodiversity gains [insert:, where practicable, geologically relevant and safe to do so;] providing a minimum measurable 10% biodiversity net gain and contributing to the delivery of the national Nature Recovery Network objectives"

MM07 – Policy MW3 Climate change mitigation and adaption
Object
Poor choice of wording. “Demonstrate” suggests a practical demonstration, whereas in reality, the Council will be seeking “a description or details of”
Amend the wording to read:
"[delete: demonstrate] [insert: details] how the proposed development will minimise and manage energy use (through the submission of an energy, climate change and sustainability statement)…”

MM30 paragraph MP1.4
Object
The proposed modification does not appear to accord with the requirements of the NPPF, be align with the LAA and the wording is subjective and therefore not positively prepared. We suggest amending the wording to read.
“However, in order to plan for future growth, [insert: in accordance 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."

MM33 Paragraph MP1.7
Object
We do not believe the Council has taken the essence of the 10% buffer in accordance with the discussions at the EIP. The Council does not appear to have made any effort to forecast demand and is simply using the “10% buffer” as a forecast. The figures should be revisited to forecast demand and then the 10% buffer added.

MM41 Paragraph MP1.18
Object
The Council needs to provide clarity on sales and production figures. Reference is made 10-years production and then 3-yearsproduction, followed by 10-years average sales data and 3-years sales data. It then refers to raw silica sand throughput of the plant. The wording requires clarity as these figures will undoubtedly be very different.

MM42 Paragraph MP1.20
Object
The wording does not reflect the NPPF or the wording of proposed amendment MM41. The latter states that “the quantity of silica sand to be planned for will be at least the current maximum lawful throughput of the Leziate processing plant site”. The proposed wording does not reflect “at least the current maximum”, it is precisely the quoted current maximum. The text should be amended to read:
"The permitted reserve of silica sand, at 31/12/2022 is estimated at 3.08 million tonnes. The permitted reserve therefore provides a [delete: landbank] [insert: stock of permitted reserves] of less than 10 years' worth of silica sand production, which is below the level required by the NPPF.
Further, the forecast is clearly an underestimate and is not being based upon true output but a “maximum throughput”. This is also wholly contrary to the discussions and agreement at the EIP. The amended text using the 10 year average clearly states silica sand production in Norfolk over the last 10 years (2013-2022) was 825,643 . It is this figure which should be used to forecast production over the next 16 years to ensure a steady and adequate supply of silica sand is maintained and avoid under-supply. Failure to deliver this will render the plan unsound.
The bullet points should be amended to read.
• The forecast need for silica sand from 2023-2038 [insert: based upon the 10 years production] is [delete: therefore 0.754 )] [insert: 0.826] million tpa x 16 years = [delete: 12.064] [insert:13.216] million tonnes
• Silica sand permitted reserve at 31/12/2022 = 3.08 million tonnes
• Total shortfall is the forecast need minus permitted reserve = [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes.
The total shortfall and the minimum quantity to be allocated is therefore [delete: 8.984] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes which is equivalent to the need for [delete: 11.9] [insert: 12.27] years' further supply over the period of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan."

MM43 Policy MP1 Provision for mineral extraction
Object
Whilst we recognise a more positive wording, as highlighted above, we have concerns over the forecast for growth which has not been predicted and is limited to an arbitrary 10% buffer.
We would suggest amending bullet point a) to read:
There is an overriding justification and/or [delete: overriding] benefit for the proposed extraction; and/or [delete: the landbank of permitted reserves of sand and gravel in Norfolk is below seven years; and] [insert: to maintain the landbank of permitted sand and gravel of at least 7 years].
In addition, the silica sand text needs to be amended to reflect the forecast highlighted above and the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
“For silica sand, sufficient sites to deliver at least [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand resources will be required during the Plan period."

MM44 Paragraph MP1.25
Object
We believe the identification of overriding planning reasons should be broadened to reflect spatial planning issues and planning policy requirements. Amend the wording to include
• 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, house building and or infrastructure development,
• Insufficient production capacity of other permitted sites.]”

MP47. Paragraph MP2.4
Object
We believe the amended wording is overly restrictive linking future and lacks flexibility.
"Silica sand is mostly exported out of Norfolk by train, for glass production elsewhere. [delete: Therefore,] within the confines of the available mineral resource, the spatial preference for new silica sand extraction sites is for sites which would be able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another silica sand processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.] Whilst Policy MP2 identifies the overall spatial strategy for silica sand extraction, Policy MPSS1 sets out the detailed requirements for applications for silica sand extraction on unallocated sites to address."

MM49. Policy MP2. Spatial Strategy for Minerals Extraction
Object
As referenced above, the spatial element is overly restrictive. The wording should be amended to read
“Within the resource area identified on the key diagram, or in other locations where borehole data is submitted to demonstrate a viable silica sand resource, specific sites for silica sand should be located where they are able to access the existing processing plant at Leziate (or another processing plant in Norfolk if one was to be built) and [insert: where appropriate and practicable, the] railhead via conveyor, pipeline or off-public highway haul route. [insert: However, it is recognised that minerals can only be worked where they are found and any proposals for a new silica sand site and processing plant will be considered on its merits in accordance with the policies of the plan.]”

MM50 Policy MPSS1 Silica Sand Extraction Sites
Object
The proposed amendment (i) errs in law. It is not for the planning system to state who will be required to pay for water main or sewer diversions. This will be a commercial decision between two private companies and dependant upon any wayleave or easement requirements. "A sufficient stand-off distance around any water main or foul sewer that crosses the site or diversion of the water main/sewer [delete: at the developer's cost and] to the satisfaction of [insert: the utility provider.] [delete: Anglian Water]"
Proposed amendment (m) is too prescriptive. Our proposed amendment also makes more sense in light of the second sentence. In addition, surely a right turn lane would be dependent upon the source of sand supply:
Amend the text to read: "The processing plant and railhead should [insert:, where appropriate and practicable,] be accessed via conveyor, pipeline or off-public haul routes. However, if silica sand is proposed to be transported to the existing processing plant at Leziate using the public highway, then there will be a preference for a transport route which minimises amenity impacts through the use of off-highway haul routes from the B1145 to the processing plant. A right-turn lane at the junction with the B1145 [delete: would probably] [insert: may] be required to provide a suitable junction."

MM56 – Paragraph MP8.3
Object
The proposed wording is cumbersome and non-compliant with the legislation. Planning conditions cannot be used to secure aftercare periods in excess of 5 years. The whole section requires re-writing.

MM57 Policy MP8. Aftercare
Object
It is wholly acceptable to require a restoration strategy to agriculture, forestry, amenity by condition and not prior to determination.
Amend the text accordingly

MM62 Mineral extraction sites – silica sand
Object
As detailed above, there is a recognised shortfall in the forecast and the figures require amendment. The figure requires amendment to accord with the discussions and agreement at the EIP.
"These two sites would not meet the forecast need of [delete: 8.98] [insert: 10.136] million tonnes of silica sand during the plan period."