Update on the the Norfolk County Council minerals planning consultation.
This page provides details of the current consultation process that includes the Ditchingham site proposed by Lafarge Aggregates.
This Post comprises
2 The reasons why Ditchingham is inappropriate for minerals development
6 The Ditchingham Site Specific Allocation plan document
There is now a very real risk that the quarry site at Ditchingham could again be revived. Be clear! This is no surprise, but is a consequence of the ongoing consultation by Norfolk County Council (NCC) in their development of the Norfolk Minerals and Waste Development Framework (NMWDF), and in the context of minerals, to establish a successor for NCC existing minerals plan.
NCC is obliged by Government to consult with stakeholders in the development of the NMWDF and other documents that comprise the LDF. Over recent months NCC has progressed its consultations and has reached the stage that it promotes as Issues and Options. The consultation documents are available in both hard and soft copy from NCC and can be accessed from the NCC web site. The unfamiliar reader should note that while they have the appearance of a glossy publication the documents are not well edited and can be difficult to follow.
Specifically with regard to minerals our readers should be aware of the consultation on the Core Strategy and Development Control policies and on the Site Specific Allocations involving consultation with various interested parties including Elected Members, other local authorities, Statutory Environmental Bodies, the minerals industry, and parish councils, and members of the public.
Current consultation commenced 15 February and ends 28 March 2008. The consultation stages are shown in the Table below.
|
|
Core Strategy and Development Control policies |
Mineral Site Specific Allocations |
|
Issues and Options |
Completed June 2007 |
Current Consultation (15/02/2008 – 28/03/2008) |
|
Preferred Options |
Current Consultation (15/02/08 – 28/03/08) |
November 2008 |
|
Submissions Stage |
Summer 2008 |
Spring 2009 |
While NCC are encouraging electronic feedback of responses by promoting a prize draw; traditional consultation feedback can be sent by email, post or fax, to the following:
Email: ldf@norfolk.gov.uk
Post to: Planning Services, Norfolk County Council, County Hall, Martineau Lane, Norwich, Norfolk NR1 2SG
Fax: 01603 223219
The cut off date for receipt of consultation responses is 28 March 2008
The following paragraphs provide brief context for the current consultation and in the main has been abstracted from NCC documents. For the purpose of brevity this has been summarised to focus on those attributes appropriate to the possibility of development at Ditchingham. Where the reader seeks further information they are directed to the NCC website or the planning pages of the Communities and Local Government web site; the successor body of the ODPM who were previously responsible for planning matters. www.communities.gov.uk
ENRAGED has added its own comment to provide additional context for Ditchingham gained through our experience of objecting to the previous planning application by Lafarge. In posting this update ENRAGED has updated web links in the body of the main site where these have become invalid through time and confirms its commitment to ensuring that no minerals development will ever be permitted on this particular site. But this requires your continued support. Watch these pages for further updates.
We request that the reader give consideration to the wealth of professional advice and opinion obtained by ENRAGED through the technical experts that we engaged that confirmed that the Ditchingham site was not suitable for minerals exploitation and that it was contrary to then (2006) national and local policy; much of which has been confirmed, or otherwise reinforced by the current consultation. Conclusions reached by our experts’ include:
· Professor Tom Williamson of UEA acknowledged as a leading expert on historical landscapes in general and the Ditchingham Estate in particular. He has concluded in a report submitted to NCC ‘the Application [if approved]…would have a very serious negative impact on the historic landscape, both of the Grade 2 listed Park around Ditchingham Hall and of the wider working countryside’
· Chris Stratton of the Landscape Partnership which was appointed by the Countryside Commission to prepare the Landscape Character Map of England for much of the Eastern Region confirms Professor Williamson’s view: ‘If approved the proposals will result in profound long-term and irreversible adverse change to the landscape of the “outer park” at Ditchingham. This will have a detrimental impact upon the Park and also on views from the B1332”…..”We consider the proposals are therefore contrary to the landscape and environmental protection policies contained in the relevant adopted plans and should therefore be refused outright’
· And Gerry Bullard who is a Chartered Engineer and Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers contends that ‘there is a fundamental highway objection to the proposal for sand and gravel extraction from the proposed site, since the B1332 is unsuitable for further HGV use by virtue of its alignment, width, accident record and volume of traffic it currently carries’. ENRAGED has since met with senior officers of NCC who have confirmed procedural irregularities in the conduct of their officers evaluation of the highways aspects of the Lafarge application.
· While John Peecock, of Peecock Short concludes that ‘[the] application fails to demonstrate a clear need for a new sand and gravel extraction site in Norfolk that is compliant with guidance set out in MPS2 and the Norfolk Minerals Local Plan’.
In particular we ask that the reader note the objections from Statutory consultees who commented:
· In their letter of response to Norfolk County Council as part of the consultation process the Environment Agency highlighted Lafarge’s failure to provide ‘any justification for a quarrying operation at a site that is not within any of the “Investigation Areas” set out in the Norfolk Minerals Plan 2004’ and the fact that Lafarge ’does not appear to have considered any alternative sites’ and concludes 'this represents a departure from the reasoning behind the concept of “Investigation Areas” which arguably provide a sequential test that should be carried out for the purpose of selecting a mineral extraction site that would result in the lowest environmental harm’. The Agency then formally objected to the application firstly on the grounds that Lafarge failed to undertake a proper flood risk assessment as it is required to do, and secondly, because the Hydrological assessment which has been submitted by Lafarge is defective in underestimating the impact of de-watering.
· English Heritage provided a scathing rebuke as to the fundamental defects in the Lafarge landscape assessment indicating that it is unable to provide its detailed comments on the application until these defects are remedied.
· The Council for the Protection for Rural England (CPRE) identified at least 6 specific planning policies to which the application is contrary and concluded ‘The proposal for such a development in this location would have an overwhelming detrimental impact on the environment and cannot be justified’.
· The parish councils of Seething, Woodton, Hedenham and Ditchingham have been unanimous in their objections to the scheme and have highlighted in particular the unsuitability of the B1332 for additional HGV movements.
· English Nature and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust have expressed their concerns about the proposed removal of Heater Plantation (a mature woodland on the site), the possible damage to Oliver’s Oak and other veteran trees as well as the threat to protected species (such as bats and great crested newts). They have insisted on the need for mitigating measures and identified the inadequacy of the proposed restoration scheme. They have also asked for strict conditions to be imposed if the scheme goes ahead.
· The Broads Authority and South Norfolk County Council were yet to complete their assessments and provide their comments to NCC prior to the application being withdrawn, but it is understood that in advance of concluding their opinion that they have expressed serious reservations.
The East of England Plan sets out minerals and waste apportionments for Norfolk. With regard to minerals, the supply of sand and gravel is set at 2.98m tonnes pa and the supply of crushed rock (carstone) at 0.2m tonnes pa.
Over the years to 2021, NCC is required to plan the minerals supply and how to manage it in a way that is sustainable and this approach is set out in the NMWDF ensuring that adverse impacts are minimized (eg, quality of life and the environment), and that potential positive impacts are maximized (eg economic opportunities).
The NMWDF has three main parts, otherwise referred to as Development Plan Documents (DPDs):
the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies that set out the overall policy approach to where (in broad terms) and how minerals and waste development should happen;
the Minerals Site Specific Allocations that set out the specific plots of land where minerals developments will occur, that in effect maintaining a supply of land which enables NCC to respond positively to new proposals for development; and
the Waste Site Specific Allocations (as for minerals)
Combined, this system replaces the local plans for both minerals and for waste. The development of the Core Strategy and Development Control DPD has already been through the first stage; Issues and Options and is now consulting on the second stage; Preferred Options, that’s sets out what NCC believes the policy approach should be. The next stage will be the Submission, where the DPD is submitted to an inspector ready for an examination in public. After that, and following the inspector’s binding report, NCC will formally adopt the final version. The reader should note that it will be Spring 2010 before final adoption of documents.
In the context of possible minerals development in Ditchingham the Preferred Options for the Core Strategy and Development Control DPD are as follows:
· The overall spatial strategy that sets out the locational principles in the form of broad areas where waste development will be encouraged. Although minerals can only be extracted where they occur, if there is a choice of potential site allocations then this policy area gives an indication of where we would prefer to see them.
· For minerals supply, the minerals landbanks will be maintained as close as reasonably possible to 7 supply for sand and gravel [and 10 years for carstone], except in the instance of borrow pits for major infrastructure needs, in which case the landbanks could go significantly over the 7 and 10 years.
· The impact on transport and traffic will be assessed and managed through requiring Transport Assessments. Through these, developers will need to show how accessibility and sustainable transport opportunities are being maximised and impacts on congestion and road safety minimised, the latter supported by road safety audits. For the residual lorry traffic, the use of unsuitable roads will be reduced, primarily by encouraging potential site allocations with good access to the route hierarchy.
· In terms of environmental protection and natural and cultural heritage, NCC suggest an approach that avoids adverse impacts on protected and sensitive areas of the county, such as Sites of Scientific Interest, Heritage Coast, Historic Parks and Gardens, and Groundwater Zone 1 however NCC are careful to qualify that ‘this generally means that we will try to avoid allocating minerals and waste sites in or adjacent to such areas, whilst balancing this against the need to provide enough allocations to meet the minerals and waste apportionments’.
· With regard to amenity and well being, NCC propose an approach avoiding clear adverse impacts on human health, trying to avoid allocating waste sites in Air Quality Management Areas with development control policies that will require developers to minimise impacts on air quality (in areas not covered by Air Quality Management Areas), dust, odour, noise, vibration and light pollution.
Combined with the Core Strategy that part of this consultation that will impact Ditchingham is the process by which Site Specific allocations are determined.
· The issues and options stage that presents all the potential allocations (the options) and the issues associated with each of those potential allocations. This is the current stage of consultation.
· The preferred options stage that describes NCC’s suggested way forward, which for minerals Site Specific Allocations will be the preferred sites for minerals development.
· The publishing of the Submission Plan Document for examination in public.
· And the Adopted Plan which following examination can be adopted, and once adopted these will replace the current Norfolk Minerals Local Plan (Adopted Version January 2004).
Given that minerals sites produce the aggregates and raw materials used, mainly, by the construction industry and recognising the developments identified by the East of England plan, NCC must secure sufficient sites that will deliver the requisite ‘apportionments’. To achieve this NCC:
· has undertaken the ‘Call for Sites’ process for an extended period to encourage land owners, developers and their agents to submit sites for mineral development. This resulted in 104 proposed mineral allocation sites being submitted.
· evaluated the Issues and Options on the submitted site allocations (the options) to assist in identifying preferred sites at the next stage (Preferred Options). This stage should include:
o gathering information on each potential site (the options) allocation from internal Council specialists, such as those specialising in landscape, archaeology, transport and ecology.
o summarising this professional feedback (provided by NCC as a separate document; the Minerals Site Allocations Evidence Base)
o reporting this information to Elected Council Members.
· must identify ‘new’ site allocations to establish the Preferred Options, that is, to establish the preferred sites for development. NCC indicate that potential minerals site allocations will be subject to three types of assessment:
o The outcome of this issues and options consultation will be used to inform the process
o Potential site allocations will be checked against the requirements of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Submission Document
o The sustainability of each site, as assessed in the Sustainability Appraisal, will be taken into account
· and must use the feedback from the Preferred Options consultation and the Inspectors binding report on the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies to inform the submission plan for the minerals Site Specific Allocations report, which will be submitted to the Secretary of State. The final step of this stage will be to carry out a formal consultation on the preferred options for the minerals Site Specific allocations.
Importantly with the Ditchingham site in mind; whereas NCC states that the site specific allocation process will involve some sites being excluded, they continue that ‘however, ultimately we will need enough site allocations to meet the need for minerals supply. Any shortfall in site allocations may result in some of those sites that were ruled out of the process being re-examined for their potential inclusion.’ Through your continued commitment to ENRAGED we must ensure that notwithstanding all other measures and exclusion based on valid assessment against policy that Ditchingham is never allowed through this back door caveat.
Within the plan, the mineral sites for excavation have been submitted either as an ‘allocation’ where the site has been submitted with documented evidence for the mineral capacity or an ‘area of search’ for the sites for mineral extraction that have no documented evidence to demonstrate the amount of aggregate suitable for use. NCC has stated that more weight will be given to the allocation sites that have submitted the documented evidence, including a borehole test report. The Ditchingham site has been submitted as an allocation site as clearly the proposed developer (Lafarge) through their agents DL Walker have much evidence of potential minerals opportunity through the previous planning history of the site.
When Lafarge made their previous planning application; they may not have been prepared for such strong local (and Statutory) objection and the quality of their application submissions was at the best ‘poor’. However; given another opportunity they will ensure that their agents prepare a more comprehensive and more accurate application; proposal and environmental impact assessment. By ensuring that the Ditchingham site is ruled out of the NMWDF as a Site Specific allocation from the outset that opportunity should never arise. Your representations through the current consultation process are an essential contribution to this process.
· Respond to the consultation using the information provided in this update and the information available on the NCC website. Use other online resources; most specifically the planning pages Communities and Local Government web site that provide national context
· Contact NCC using the details above and request the background to the consultation documents that identify those options that were evaluated and now eliminated and why; this is not sufficiently transparent in NCC published documents. Remember that without the background you are not adequately informed.
· Remember also that elected councillors are your representatives, and are accountable to the electorate; and that council officers are paid employees to serve and support you, your environment and your amenity. Ensure that you receive the support that they are obliged to provide. Be satisfied with nothing less.
· Re-use the information and the correspondence from the last application. Your reasons why Ditchingham was not an appropriate site for minerals development remain valid (if not more so). Ask the consultation if your previous representations (ie the previous planning history) were evaluated as part of their current considerations; and what the outcome of that evaluation was.
· Remember however that those issues that were specific to the original planning application and that relate to the actual development may not be totally relevant. The focus of this planning document is to gain a clearer picture on the broad planning issues such as environmental constraints, state of the highway network within the vicinity of the site, vistas, flora and fauna etc to enable NCC to make a judgement on the best sites in Norfolk to develop at a later date.
· Ensure your neighbours and the broader community are aware of the new threat.
· And watch this space for further updates!
The following entry comprises MIN 78, the Ditchingham site details as summarised by NCC officers and included in the Minerals Site Allocations Development Plan Document – Issues and options. Click here for link to word document containing an 'extract' from the NCC documents (DOC 559K)