Suffolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan, Responses to HRA Consultation, December 2018 Suffolk County Council Page 0 SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 Contact Graham Gunby Development Manager Growth, Highways & Infrastructure Directorate Suffolk County Council 8 Russell Road Ipswich Suffolk IP1 2BX Tel: 01473 264807 Email: [email protected] Website: www.suffolk.gov.uk For more information about our minerals and waste planning policy go to: https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning- applications/minerals-and-waste-policy/ . CONTENTS 1. Summary ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Barnham allocation, M2 ....................................................................................... 4 Suffolk County Council Page 1 SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 3. Belstead Allocation, M3 ....................................................................................... 7 4. Cavenham Allocation, M4 .................................................................................... 8 5. Sizewell, WP2/WP16 ......................................................................................... 15 6. Wetherden allocation M8 ................................................................................... 16 7. Wangford allocation M7 ..................................................................................... 17 8. Representations about HRA process/concepts and/or multiple sites ................. 29 9. Other responses ................................................................................................ 41 Suffolk County Council Page 2 SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 1. SUMMARY 1.1 This document sets out the representations received in response to the public consultation held between 5 November at 5pm until 17 December at 5pm, upon the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Habitats Regulations Assessment November 2018. Also included in the County Councils responses to those representations. 1.2 In total 53 representations were made with none made after the deadline. This included 7 people who had entered their personal details onto the survey but then did not go on to make any response about the Habitats Regulations. Some people made more than one representation. Four representations said that the HRA was legally compliant and sound, seven representations considered that the HRA was legally compliant but not sound, one representation considered that the HRA was sound but not legally compliant, and fifteen representations considered that the HRA was neither legally compliant or sound, One representation considered that the HRA was not legally compliant but did not offer a view on soundness, five representations considered that the HRA was not sound but offered no view on legal compliance, and twenty representations contained no view on soundness or legal compliance. 1.3 Many respondents appeared unfamiliar with the HRA process and that the consultation was restricted to the HRA only. There were numerous comments about other matters, such as dust affecting residents, traffic affecting residents, AONB impacts and others, which although genuine concerns were not relevant to this consultation. 1.4 Nature Conservation organisations, including Natural England, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and RSPB asked for more detail on individual policies as they considered that the additional detail was necessary to secure mitigation measures for various European sites. Suffolk County Council considers that the Local Plan is strategic, and policy GP4 provides sufficient strength to control planning applications that more detail is not necessary. In some cases further information was requested, but respondents did not suggest that the further information would change the conclusions. 1.5 Natural England as the statutory consultee advised that it was unable to agree to the conclusions of the HRA. However SCC considers that there was sufficient detail in the HRA and in Local Plan policies that NE could have agreed to the conclusions of the HRA. This topic is likely to be discussed prior to Examination working towards Statements of Common Ground and at Examination. Suffolk County Council Page 3 SMWLP HRA Consultation Responses to Representations December 2018 2. BARNHAM ALLOCATION, M2 Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response Number operate? - compliant? Sound? Compliance with Duty to co Legally 102296331 David No Having regard to the potential impact that the allocated sites The response regarding the allocation at Barnham is Fletcher, at Barnham, as acknowledged within paragraph 3.2.4 of the primarily not related to impact upon European sites, Strutt and Appropriate Assessment, significant impacts of the proposed i.e. not HRA related. It is also based on a Parker for H mineral allocation at Barnham could include a reduction in misperception that seasonal working is prescribed in R Philpott Ltd stone-curlew nesting population size resulting from: Loss the HRA. of land used for stone-curlew nesting Loss of land used for stone-curlew foraging Disturbance to stone-curlew nesting The Landscape Partnership currently has no within or close to the allocation site 2.4 As identified by the appointment to act for the quarry operator. Our RSPB, stone-curlew are defined as follows: ‘A strange, rare previous appointments to the quarry operator was summer visitor to southern England and East Anglia, the declared to SCC prior to entering into the HRA, and stone-curlew is a crow-sized bird with a large head, long our HRA commission was declared to the quarry yellow legs and relatively long wings and tail. Active at night, operator. Neither though that there was a significant its yellow eyes enable it to locate food when it is dark.’ 2.5 conflict of interest. Stone-curlew is identified under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and UK, with breeding in the UK as low No change required as 400 pairs annually. The strongholds for stone-curlew birds are in Wiltshire, around Salisbury Plain and the Breckland Beacons (adjacent to the Barnham application site). 2.6 As identified within paragraph 3.2.5 of the Appropriate Assessment, likely significant effects on the Breckland SAC of the proposed mineral allocation at Barnham could include deterioration of habitat caused by: Dust Covering vegetation Air pollution, especially nitrogen oxide deposition from vehicles 2.7 To mitigate against this impact, it is recommended within the Appropriate Assessment that a seasonal restriction is placed on mineral working at the Barnham Quarry allocation 3 (policy MS2), to restrict seasonal working of the minerals to avoid the stone-curlew nesting season. 2.8 A number of concerns are raised in relation to this approach, which is not considered to be sound in planning terms. One of the key tests of soundness, as set out in national policy (paragraph 35) is for policies to be effective and deliverable. It also states that plans must Suffolk County Council Page 4 SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. 2.9 Policy MS2 (Barnham Quarry) is not considered to be deliverable, given that the seasonal restriction on working months for the year is not considered to be enforceable or practical in planning terms. As the Mineral Planning Authority will be aware, the success of quarries is based on having contracts in place with local developers and operators to provide sand and gravel for new developments. The stone-curlew bird nesting season of April – September also coincides with the busiest period of the year for construction activity, which is often completed in Spring and Summer months, when the days are lighter and the weather is drier. Having a seasonal restriction for the Barnham Quarry to be closed during this period will place a significant restriction on the ability of the operators of the quarry to reach agreement with local developers regarding the sale and distribution of mineral from the site. This is especially the case given that most major developments have a significantly longer build programme than 6 months. It is also worth noting that timescales for construction/mineral extraction can often slip from scheduled dates, which could mean agreed orders not being completed outside of the bird- nesting season. For this reason, it also considered that restricting the extraction of material during the bird nesting period will be difficult to enforce by the Mineral Planning Authority. 2.10 One of the rationales for allocation of the site at Barnham Quarry, having regard to the impact on stone- curlews, is on the basis that a quarry was granted permission on the site in 2012. However, the area of the permitted quarry is modest at 15 hectares, when compared with the size of the proposed quarry and therefore the impact upon stone- curlews is not considered to be comparable. It is also understood that the original quarry was only permitted to use the material as part of the Elvedon Bypass development. Without an identified local project for the mineral use, the allocation of this site above unconstrained sites such as land at Holton Hall Farm is considered to be not justified. 2.11 The existing permission at Barnham has already raised concerns regarding deliverability of the site. The original permission was granted in 2012 but has already been extended twice in the short