Draft Northern Area Plan 2016 RSPB response

√ support for issue or policy X objection, omission (text emboldened) C concern

1. INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT

1.1. Plan Aim and Guiding Principles. The RSPB in Northern Ireland welcomes the Plan Aim and Guiding Principles. In √ particular we strongly support the objectives:

• to promote sustainable development in accordance with the RDS • to identify land for housing…with preference for sites within the urban areas • to promote the integration of public transport etc, and • to protect and enhance the character, quality and biodiversity of natural and man- made environments.

All policies should therefore reflect the equal contributions of environmental, social and

economic concerns and we hope this will be mirrored in policy implementation. Importantly, the balance between the three cornerstones of sustainable development should not be seen as a trade-off, but rather the opportunity to ensure policies which are mutually beneficial to the environment, society and the economy.

1.2. Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA) The RSPB welcomes the publication of a Strategic Environmental Appraisal for the

Northern Area Plan 2016. We believe that the Environmental Report produced for the Northern Area Plan is a substantial improvement on the BMAP Environmental Report. √

However, the RSPB believes that Planning Service has still not tackled all biodiversity X considerations adequately in the SEA for the Northern Area Plan. Further details are

provided in the separate SEA response document, attached.

2. STRATEGY & FRAMEWORK

2.1. Housing HOU2-3 The RSPB strongly supports the plan, monitor and manage strategy for housing, √ including policy HOU2. We are also pleased to see that policy HOU3 includes the

requirement that natural features on site should be incorporated into the scheme.

Unfortunately, our observations of many sites already under construction do not lead us to believe that this is always being carried out in practice. There is little in the way of vegetation retention, open space creation or biodiversity enhancement, for example nest box provision for swifts/swallows/house martins or bats.

PPS7 policy QD1, particularly points (b) and (c) requiring integration of landscape

features, appears to be translated to a certain extent through the Key Site Requirements (KSRs) in the district proposals. We commend the use of KSRs to highlight the need for √ wildlife surveys, landscape management plans and the retention of trees and hedgerows.

The delivery of KSRs must be reinforced by the use of planning conditions or agreements to ensure no net loss of biodiversity. X

2.2. Retail, services and offices RSO1 The RSPB supports this proposal in its aim to reduce car usage. √

2.3. Tourism As the manager of two nature reserves (Lough Foyle, parts of ) in the Plan area, the RSPB is keen to see a tourism strategy which will promote sustainable tourism and recognise the need to protect and enhance the very landscapes and wildlife that form the basis of the industry.

TOU1 We agree that tourism infrastructure cannot be permitted where it would detract √ from the conservation and visual qualities of that area. Any exceptions would have to be developments of at least an equivalent level to the designation in place i.e. only internationally important developments could be considered near the World Heritage Site.

TOU3 Tourist accommodation, as well as integrating visually into the landscape, should not result in environmental degradation, either through direct habitat loss or indirectly through, for example, septic tanks leaking into groundwater. We therefore recommend X that this policy should include a fourth restriction, namely ‘the scheme does not result in damage to the biodiversity of the local area’.

TOU4 Camping and caravan sites could be encouraged to manage their sites with √ conservation objectives in mind as, for example, suggested by the David Bellamy Conservation Awards www.davidbellamyconservation.org.uk.

2.4. Environment & Conservation ENV 1 The RSPB is very pleased that this policy has been included in the draft Area Plan. √ This policy reflects the need under Regulation 32 of the Conservation (Nature Habitats etc) Regulations (NI) 1995 to encourage the management of features of importance for wildlife. With the delayed publication of PPS14 Sustainable Development in the Countryside, this policy will also help to determine decisions on single dwellings in the countryside.

We do however suggest that reference is made to the Countryside Assessment, where X priority species and habitats are described in more detail.

ENV2 We approve of the proposals for LLPAs and are pleased that some of our √ recommendations have been included.

Two minor improvements could be made to the supporting text. X • Access should only be provided to river corridors where this will not impact adversely on flora and fauna. For example, pedestrian and dog-walking access along both sides of a riverbank could deter otters. • Protection of trees using TPOs should be automatic, as within Conservation Areas.

ENV3 We support this policy, particularly the option to use Planning Agreements to √ support habitat management or enhancement. The policy should nevertheless be clarified further by defining the phrase ‘exceptionally, where development is permitted’ in the X supporting text, i.e. describe the grounds on which the priority for nature conservation could be overridden. Comments on individual SLNCIs are made under section 3 District Proposals, below.

ENV4 This policy is welcomed and reflects a public concern evident from the number of √ telephone calls the RSPB receives about this subject every year. Unfortunately, unscrupulous developers remove trees and hedges before a planning application has been made in order to avoid compliance with such a policy. It is therefore necessary for the policy to state that the removal of trees, hedges or other features contributing to X landscape character prior to the submission of the application will be a material consideration in judging that application.

ENV5 We applaud the inclusion of this policy for a Plan area where major rivers √ contribute so much to biodiversity and landscape value.

2.5. Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation The RDS rightly draws attention to the link between open space and wildlife, and quality of life and health benefits, as outlined in the RSPB’s recent publication ‘Natural Fit’.

OSR1 The RSPB agrees that rights of way and permissive paths should be retained and √ improved where compatible with the local environment.

2.6. Public Services and Utilities PSU2 This policy is vital to ensure protection of our water resources, and we welcome its √ inclusion. SUDS can also contribute to biodiversity gains.

We believe the Area Plan should draw attention to the statement in draft PPS15 that no X development will be allowed in floodplains.

Flood defence We believe the Area Plan should consider flood defence options for the Plan area. Sea X level rise and climate change are predicted to increase the costs of flood defence, and put extra pressure on coastal and floodplain land uses, including wildlife habitats. At the very least sustainable defences should be planned, so as not to commit to future excessively costly flood management schemes. Statutory bodies in Great Britain now consider managed realignment in unpopulated rural areas where the rising costs of traditional hard flood defences have been questioned. The RSPB’s analysis shows that small strips of agricultural land, especially if of lower quality, are unlikely to be worth defending. The development plan must play a role in defining areas and policies for flood defence over the time span of the Plan.

Wind farms Uplands within the Plan area are being, and will continue to be, targeted for wind farm development. The RSPB advocates the development of renewable energy in Northern Ireland, but we recognise that some locations are unsuitable for wind turbines as they

could adversely impact priority species of conservation concern such as hen harrier or migrating birds. There is no PPS for renewable energy developments in Northern Ireland, and we would therefore like the Area Plan to consider areas suitable for such X development within the Plan area.

2.7. Minerals MIN1 (and COU15) The RSPB has not been convinced that the mining and burning of lignite is consistent with the UK’s climate change, air quality and sustainability commitments. We ask for a justification of the potential future use of this resource, set X against the carbon currently held in store in the deposit.

MIN2 We agree that development that would have a significant adverse impact on the √ environment should not be permitted. The supporting text should also refer to the Government’s aim to reduce hydrocarbon use in the face of emissions legislation and X climate change targets.

In the absence of a PPS for mineral development, and with no prospect of one in the near future, we believe that an opportunity has been missed to tackle the three issues mentioned in the Plan but not granted policies: that is sand and gravel removal from beaches, peat extraction and other workings.

We request the inclusion of a policy to restrict or prevent the removal of sand and gravel X from beaches. As acknowledged in the text, this can be a very damaging activity and in extreme cases can lead to irreparable damage to the mineral resource. This could have serious implications both for biodiversity and the economy through loss of tourism revenue. Paragraph 10.4.3 indeed recognises that ‘there is a need to control the extraction of sand/gravel from within the coastal zone’.

There should be a statement precluding any expansion of commercial peat extraction in X the Plan area. Under the EU Habitats Directive, the UK government has an international responsibility to protect the peat resource for future generations.

Paragraph 10.4.5 states that other mineral extraction proposals will be determined in accordance with Policy Min 3 of the Rural Strategy. This must be changed to mention all X the mineral policies in the Rural Strategy, in particular MIN 1 and MIN 2, and should also be cross-referenced with policy COU16 Areas of Constraint on Mineral Developments.

Current policy (Rural Strategy MIN1) suggests that the Department will ‘balance’ the case for mineral development against the need to protect and conserve the environment. The term ‘balance’ may be misleading since environmental obligations are often more firmly determined that this implies. For instance, the EU Birds and Habitats Directives set out clear requirements for internationally protected sites and species. Potentially damaging development can only be granted where there are no alternatives and there is an imperative reason of overriding public interest. While PPS2 provides international and national site protection policies, there is a need to justify the scale and type of mineral X need in the Plan area, in order to inform the application of PPS2 policies (i.e. to determine under what circumstances environmental designations can be overridden for minerals development). In the absence of a PPS for mineral development, Area Plans should include

this policy.

No policy has been included for the restoration of despoiled land, yet this is a major X opportunity both to meet habitat creation targets set in the NI Biodiversity Strategy and to improve landscape value. This could be incorporated in a policy for ‘other workings’ in the Area Plan.

2.8. Transportation TRA4 In paragraph 11.6.1, the Department recognises the adverse impact new road schemes and upgrades can have on biodiversity, although opportunities can be taken to make improvements through careful landscaping and habitat creation. This welcome assessment, however, is not carried through to any of the policies. We recommend that X there is a condition on rural road improvement schemes such that the schemes would be subject to agreed landscape plans allowing for habitat creation and management.

In addition, the status of the ‘other important elements of the road network’ is not clear. X Do the four stretches of road mentioned in 11.6.2 fall under policy TRA3? If so, they should be included within the TRA4 policy. If not, a separate policy may be required depending on what is intended for these roads. It is not clear whether planning will be restricted along the routes, or whether proposals for those routes would be subject to any particular conditions or restrictions. Note that the B62/B67 route from to Coleraine lies immediately adjacent to Garry Bog (ASSI, Ramsar, NNR).

TRA6 The RSPB supports the encouragement given to alternatives to the private car. √

2.9. Strategic Countryside and Coast COU1-3 We do not object to the proposed Green Belts.

COU4-8 We do not object to the proposed CPAs. COU5 is notable for the population of twite, a red-listed species of conservation concern, utilising the cliff top grasslands.

COU9 Rathlin The RSPB supports this proposal, recognising that the character of the whole island, √ subject to various nature conservation designations, could be changed irreparably if second home development continues. Part of our operation on Rathlin involves the management of fields around Church Bay for corncrakes, a globally endangered species. We are concerned that a concentration of development around Church Bay may lead to loss of fields which may be suitable for corncrake.

COU10-14 The RSPB is pleased to see these proposed policies. Existing AONB policies √ have proved inadequate at preventing inappropriate development in the vicinity of the World Heritage Site. We would however wish to see a policy encouraging the main X tourism infrastructure away from the site. In this case, the obvious base for tourism related to the causeway is or , rather than permitting excessive facilities at the site itself.

COU15 Please see our response to MIN1, above.

COU16 We lend our backing to the definition of Areas of Constraint on Mineral √ Development, but see our response to MIN2, above.

3. DISTRICT PROPOSALS

The RSPB supports the various landscape and environment designations across the four districts. We do not have the facility to check and comment on each one individually, so the comments below highlight those where we are aware of issues.

3.1. Ballymoney

BYO01 It is not clear to us why open space has been allocated in the Green Belt, outside C the development envelope. This could pave the way for housing outside this area in future. BYH10, 15, 22, 23, 31, 42 and BYI03 are all in low-lying meadows or adjacent to the river, raising concerns about loss of biodiversity and/or flood risk. We therefore support the √ KSRs that deal with flooding, storm water disposal and protection of the environment for

these allocations. √ DLH08 We agree with KSR4 to protect trees and hedges for this proposal in .

3.2. Coleraine

EH37, 38, 39 and 56 are all located by a tidal river. We therefore agree with KSRs to √ promote the riverside pedestrian and cycle path, retention of vegetation, exclusion of

development from floodplains and pre-development wildlife surveys. CEH56 It is inappropriate to include SLNCI 3/40 (Sandelford Bridge) within this X housing allocation. GHH10 This area also lies within LLPA GHL01 so any development proposal must include a condition to protect the trees in line with the KSRs and LLPA policy. C KAH07 We support the use of KSRs to retain the setting of the adjacent lough using a √ 25m buffer. We suggest that it is specified that the buffer will be appropriately landscape

with native woodland or meadow.

PTH25 It is unfortunate that this area of land has already been granted permission as it sets up parcels of land for future infilling with next generation of houses and plans. C Housing allocations should in general avoid this problem. CKH09 As mentioned, ‘development of this wetland site will require particular attention to levels’. Currently hosting wet vegetation, including reeds, it may be more suitable to C retain this land for open space or biodiversity use. MHH01, 02 It is regrettable that this has already been granted permission, given that C LLPA policy MCL02 states that the area is ‘entirely within green belt and protected from all development other than what is necessary for the efficient operation of agriculture’.

3.3. Limavady

LYH21A and 21B and LYC/O01 We agree with the KSRs which pertain to wildlife √ surveys, landscape management plans and buffer planting in line with the LLPA policy.

LYO01 and LYL06 We support the retention of the riverside corridor. √ DGH06 We agree that native planting is required to replace the scrub habitat which will √ be lost when development takes place.

DGH08 We note that swifts use the area and would benefit from the inclusion of nest site provision in new houses. C

3.4. Moyle

BAH01 A rookery is located in trees by road so we support the KSR to retain existing √ trees.

WTH02-05 Further development in Waterfoot should only be permitted once sufficient C sewage treatment facilities are available. WTL03 This LLPA could be extended along Glasaneely and Black Burn in Glenariff Bay. Both burns have access roads alongside, which opens up the possibility for development, C which should be restricted along these scenic and wildlife corridors.

3.5. SLNCIs In our response to the Issues Paper (July 2002) we nominated a number of sites for SLNCI designation. We support the inclusion of these sites in the draft Area Plan: √ 2/22 Black Lough and Castlequarter Lakes

2/23 Boyd’s Bog

2/31 Long Mountain Bogs 5/17 Craigagh Wood 5/21 Galboly 5/32 Gortconny 5/34 Killen Vale

In addition, Leslie Hill and Dundarave Estate have been designated as demesnes, while

Ballypatrick Forest, Glenariff Forest and Slieveanorra Forest are now under consideration

by EHS as pSPAs for hen harrier.

Our remaining nominations have not been included. We would like to know whether these sites were considered, and if rejected, on what criteria this decision was taken: X Ballykenver Forest (D180360) – bogland with breeding wader records, near 5/34 Clare Wood (D070410) – breeding buzzard, kestrel, sparrowhawk and long-eared owl Lisconnan, Bush River (C950318) – wintering Whooper swans, kingfisher and otter, near Garry Bog ASSI Quarry (D092225) – breeding peregrine falcon Boghill (C8734) – wintering Whooper and Bewick’s swans Springwell Forest (C775270) - breeding buzzard, kestrel and sparrowhawk Crocknabrock Road, Foreglen (C617092) – bog with breeding wader records Myroe Levels (C630280) – damp grassland and arable with breeding lapwing (though numbers have fallen in recent years) Longfield Beg (C555218) – breeding lapwing

RSPB Northern Ireland July 2005