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 withDuty 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 period since its original permission. Most recently this was in 2018. The Appropriate Assessment states that Suffolk County Council Page 5
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 the reason for the 2012 permission not coming forward is a downturn in the market. This is particularly surprising given that construction sector has been buoyant between 2012 – 2018. The lack of interest/deliverability in this site is clearly as a result of the seasonal restrictions on the site from April – September. 2.12 As stated within paragraph 32 of the NPPF, Local Plans and Spatial Development Strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant legal requirements. This should address how the plan has addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives. Significant adverse 4 impact on these objectives should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce and eliminate such impacts should be pursued. 2.13 Although Suffolk County Council have produced a Sustainability Appraisal for the emerging Local Plan, this Sustainability Appraisal was undertaken prior to the Appropriate Assessment being undertaken. It is considered that in order for the plan to be justified, that the Sustainability Appraisal should be updated in order to account for the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal. 2.14 An update to the Sustainability Appraisal for the Barnham quarry site is considered to be particularly important, given that the current Sustainability Appraisal assesses the impact upon Barnham Quarry on Biodiversity and Geodiversity as ‘amber’. It is questioned, why the quarry wasn’t scored ‘red’ given the proximity of the site to the Breckland Beacons Special Protection Area. The Appropriate Assessment is considered to provide additional evidence for the Barnham site to be considered ‘red’ on the sustainability appraisal. 2.15 In addition to the ecological matters, Barnham Quarry is also some two miles from the nearest trunk road (A11). Access and egress to the quarry will require HGV’s to travel along single countryside lanes (such as Elevedon Road), which will be detrimental in terms of air and noise pollution to neighbouring dwellings in the area. Conversely, land at Holton Hall Farm, is located only 700 metres distance from the A12. It is also questioned why Barnham is being allocated, given that it is on the edge of Suffolk and relatively remote from the majority of the housing growth, which is likely to be delivered in and around Ipswich. It is located in close proximity to Thetford, which is within Norfolk so therefore will not assist with meeting the mineral need Suffolk County Council Page 6
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
required within Suffolk. Conversely the land at Holton Hall Farm is located in very close proximity with ideal access to the housing growth in Ipswich and the infrastructure upgrades to the A12. 2.16 In addition, it is noted that the Appropriate Assessment was prepared by the Landscape Partnership. The Landscape Partnership were also responsible for the production of the landscape plans to support the Barnham Quarry allocation. It is considered that there is a clear conflict of interest, with the Landscape Partnership acting for both the Council and the applicants on the Barnham Quarry allocation. It is questioned how this approach can be justified and explanation is required in this regard. 2.17 Having regard to paragraph 32 of the NPPF, in order for the plan to be considered sound it is considered that an alternative allocation needs to be considered and Barnham Quarry removed from the plan, in order to protect the Brecklands Beacons SPA. The land at Holton Hall Farm, Holton St Mary unlike Barnham Quarry is not located in close proximity to any statutory ecological sites of European or National importance. The proposed new quarry allocation at Holton Hall Farm, could be delivered without any impact upon protected sites and therefore should be allocated within the plan in place of Barnham Quarry. 101221063 Peter Orrock, Yes Yes Yes I support the legal compliance and soundness of the Noted Mineral HRA/AA. No modifications are necessary Services Ltd, for Frederick Hiam Ltd
3. BELSTEAD ALLOCATION, M3
Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response
Number
operate?
-
Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance withDuty to co 101663590 James Potter Yes Yes No Chosen site next to charity farm has possibility to affect The comment is unrelated to HRA. No change water supply for property, we are not on mains water and needed. use a ground water well supply. Quarrying into the adjacent Suffolk County Council Page 7
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
land may well affect the water table and thereby our only water supply to this residence. In order to overcome this duty of care, I think it reasonable and just that any plan stipulate that we are put onto mains water supply and any costs incurred by this plus bills for water during the duration of quarrying are paid for by the person/company successful in getting planning for the quarry.
4. CAVENHAM ALLOCATION, M4
Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response
Number
operate?
-
Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance withDuty to co 101221063 Peter Orrock, Yes Yes Yes I support the legal compliance and soundness of the Noted Mineral HRA/AA. No modifications are necessary Services Ltd, for Frederick Hiam Ltd 102261065 Kevin No No Yes Report does not highlight the lightly huge increase in traffic The comment relates to non-HRA matters. No Hamilton through the villages of Tuddenham and Cavanham. change to HRA is needed. Re-write the repot to emphasise and highlight the anticipation huge increase in traffic and the catastrophic effects on quality of village life in Tuddenham and Cavanham.
102262013 Nichola No No No This expansion of Cavenham pit will affect the nearby Impact on homes is not related to HRA. Hamilton homes, have a massive detrimental impact on wildlife habit; Tuddenham Heath (part of Cavenham Heath NNR) not only by destroying a larger area than currently but by is a dry heath not dependent on water table. affecting the water table on a much larger area surrounding No change to HRA is needed. the pit which will have a massive impact on Tuddenham Heath. Stop the expansion until such time as a genuine plan is agreed with local residents and wildlife organisation. 102306582 Adrian Lucas No No Yes General Point on long-term effects of disturbance: At the SCC considers that the assessment was sufficient consultation meeting in Tuddenham Village Hall on 10th based on adequate evidence. The respondent has Dec 2018, attendees were informed by the ecological provided opinion but no new evidence on which to
Suffolk County Council Page 8
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 expert (Andrew Murray-Wood?) that the proposed minerals base his opinion. Points mentioned were covered extraction expansion plan would remove habitat for a in the HRA. wildlife, e.g. stone-curlew, nightjar and woodlark, and that this would result in clear “disturbance” to that wildlife — no No change is needed to the HRA. one is claiming otherwise. Attendees were also informed that stone-curlew in particular required “300m” of undisturbed area around them in order to nest. However, this disturbance was explained as being acceptable because of the assumption that in the longer term (15-25 years) a suitable habitat could potentially be restored and that the short-term and/or cumulative effects were assumed not to have an effect on the longer term. However, this assumption appears to be based (if it has basis at all) on small-scale previously-restored land and not of the significantly larger proposed site (and associated sites) mined over several phases. An insufficient assessment has been presented of the genuine risks of permanent disturbance on this particular site to the most vulnerable species on an extraction site of this scale. It is not sufficient to interpolate a small-scale to a large-scale extraction without supporting evidence. For example, where will the disturbed wildlife likely move to? Is there sufficient undisturbed area during the phased extraction for the birds to move to? Is there sufficient habitat in the vicinity for them to move to that they will continue to be able to establish with sufficient time to survive and nest (in the case of birds)? It is not clear that an assessment has been presented or carried out that demonstrates sufficiently that with the particular size and timing of the proposed expansion and recycling plant, that certain species would be disturbed to a point where they would no longer naturally re-inhabit this area after gravel extraction area had been restored. Although the council’s representative said at the meeting that the council monitors site operations and restoration, insufficient evidence was presented that this would guarantee adherence to the current proposals, which this assessment and conclusions are based. The council’s representative explained that there were a number of situations in other areas where site management and processes were found to be in breach of guidelines and the law and prosecutions were required. Given that this occurs and that site operators clearly do not always adhere to the original proposals, the council should be presenting a plan Suffolk County Council Page 9
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 which reduces or removes the significant negative effects of the proposed development rather than relying entirely on adherence and monitoring or prosecution after the damage has occurred. Please design a proposal/plan that is robust to such breaches or propose stricter regulations that would prevent or stop detrimental effects of a breach before it is too late for habitat/wildlife. 2.3.1 The proposed quarry and recycling site expansion would have a significant effect in all of the areas listed in section 2.3.1 of the HRA 2018-11- 01, namely: loss of land in SPA and close to a SAC, disturbance to important bird populations through noise (extraction, vehicles and recycling), light (even the existing site is illuminated extremely brightly through much of the night), movement and increased traffic levels (on site/in area), pollution from vehicle emissions and dust (e.g. during the crushing and recycling of materials), changes in groundwater levels and/or surface water flows. Although seasonal extraction was mentioned as a general mitigation strategy, Mr Gunby noted at the meeting on 10th Dec 2018 that it was unlikely that this would be performed at the Cavenham site. It should have been a proposed mitigation strategy there and no explanation has been presented as to why this is not the case. There is insufficient explanation of mitigation strategies for noise, dust and air pollution — the report simply states that these “would be controlled” but not how this would be achieved or with evidence of effectiveness on this site. The explanation given was that this would be detail at the planning application stage, but it is not acceptable or sound to defer these important criteria for assessment until that stage. 3.4.1 states that “It is theoretically possible that an insignificant effect at each one of the allocations could, when both allocations are considered together, result in an overall significant effect leading to loss of nesting ability and an adverse affect on the integrity of Breckland SPA. However, it is considered that the small size of even the combined allocations compared to the size of the SPA, and the phased extraction and restoration, would not combine to have an adverse affect on the integrity of Breckland SPA.” No evidence is provided behind this consideration in order to demonstrate that the possibility of cumulative effects is negligible or that the proposal has been modified in order to make it so. 3.2.6 Clearly the “evidence” sited in the appendices shows Suffolk County Council Page 10
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
that disturbance due to vehicles exists, yet it has not been quantified. As such, it is unsound to assume that the disturbance is not significant. The materials used in restoration are not defined, e.g. in draining quality, harmful contaminant levels, suitability for the site and nature restoration, etc. The site proposal is clearly inappropriate, being in a SPA and close to an SPC. It is insufficient (and irrelevant) to claim that the expansion proposals must somehow be acceptable because the existing Cavenham site was operating before the SPA area was defined. The assessment and evidence needs to be based on current standards and regulations, not what existed decades ago.
The site proposal is clearly inappropriate, being in a SPA and close to an SPC. It is insufficient (and irrelevant) to claim that the expansion proposals must somehow be acceptable because the existing Cavenham site was operating before the SPA area was defined. Therefore, the council should exclude the Cavenham site (M4) as being inappropriate under the current environment regulations (not those that were in place several decades ago). The proposed site is too large in its current form to be able to provide sufficient evidence from other sites that there isn’t a significant risk to habitats and wildlife caused by (for example): inability of birdlife to move to adjacent sites that they can inhabit and breed; that the significant noise and dust/pollutants (from extraction, vehicles and recycling) can be adequately assessed as having no significant effects. If the council believes that a smaller site expansion can be proposed where sufficient evidence can be produced that no significant effect will occur, it should reconsider the size of the site and make a significantly smaller proposal. Regardless of the size of the site, mitigation and enforcement proposals need to be presented before the proposals move to detailed planning application stages. 102326253 Vicky Bright, The Parish Council have been formally charged with SCC considers that the assessment was sufficient Tuddenham submitting a representation on behalf of the residents of based on adequate evidence. The respondent has St Mary Tuddenham St Mary, this representation has been provided opinion but no new evidence on which to Parish authorised by a Parish Consultation held on 10th, base its opinion. Points mentioned were covered in Council December 2018. Residents of Tuddenham St Mary would the HRA. Part of the response regards non-HRA like to register a formal strong objection to the proposed matters. expansion of the Cavenham Quarry as shown in the Draft
Suffolk County Council Page 11
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
Minerals & Waste Local Plan. The area proposed for the No change is needed to the HRA extraction is part of the Breckland Farmland Site of Special Scientific Interest. It is believed that the proposed expansion will have a significant negative impact both on the environment, wildlife and the quality of life of people living in the locality. It is felt the Appropriate Assessment report is vague and gives very glossed over and bland statements, regarding the detailed impact on wildlife, and human life. Residents also have grave concerns about the proposed introduction of the dumping of so called “inert waste” causing unknown substances to leak into the subsoil and hence the water table, and the impact that this will have on the environment and the quality of life of people living locally. There are also concerns that further extraction will impact on the water table and it is felt that extensive Hydrological Surveys need to be carried out before any expansion is considered. There are also concerns that the proposal will increase noise, light and harmful air pollution within the village, all of which will disturb not only the wildlife, but people living locally within Tuddenham and Cavenham. It should be noted that Air Quality for Tuddenham is currently taken in Newmarket, and we ask that air quality be monitored in the village itself as a condition of any approval. We would strongly advise the removal of the Recycling Scheme from the proposal, or confirmation that any conditions of approval include strict regulation on the types of waste and materials being brought in and processed, including to ensure that the characteristic free drainage of the soil required by Stone Curlews is not compromised, to ensure the proposed restoration to Breckland Heath is successful. We are very concerned that there are several inaccuracies within the submission from Forest Heath, including incorrect data, Air Quality readings from Newmarket, and reports on impact from supposed experts, that haven’t visited the site, village or spoken with residents. 102299454 David No In addition to Barnham, the Appropriate Assessment also SCC considers that the assessment was sufficient Fletcher, provides an overview of the impact that the allocated sites based on adequate evidence. The respondent has Strutt and at Cavenham could have upon the Breckland Beacons and provided opinion but no new evidence on which to Parker for H nesting birds. It is appreciated that Cavenham Quarry, is a base its opinion. Points mentioned were covered in R Philpott Ltd slightly different situation to Breckland Beacons in that it the HRA. Part of the response regards non-HRA has been an established quarry for a number of years. matters.
Suffolk County Council Page 12
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
Nonetheless, in accumulation with the allocation of Barnham, there will be additional pressure and impact upon No change is needed to the HRA nesting birds within the Breckland Beacons SPA. This is an additional reason to remove the allocation of Barnham Quarry on the grounds of adverse impact upon nesting birds and the SPA. 2.19 In addition, Cavenham Quarry is located some 5.5 miles from the A11 and will involve HGV’s travelling along countryside roads and through the village of Tuddenham, which will have a negative impact in terms of noise and air pollution to residential dwellings along this route. In addition, as with Barnham Quarry it is located on the edge of Suffolk and is remote from the parts of the County with the highest need for the mineral. As set out above, conversely land at Holton Hall Farm is located in an ideal location and only 700 metres from the A12. Wangford 2.20 The final allocation assessed as part of the Appropriate Assessment relate to Wangford, which is located only 240 metres from Minsmere – Walberswick Special Protection Area (SPA). 2.21 As identified within paragraph 3.5.8 of the Appropriate Assessment, the likely significant effects on the Minsmere – Walberswick SPA/SAC/RAMSAR of the proposed mineral allocation could include the following: A reduction in bird population size resulting from disturbance to birds on the SPA Loss of land used for SPA/RAMSAR bird roosting on the site at high tide Hydrological changes e.g. through excavation, dewatering, drainage or abstraction severing, reducing or increasing surface water or groundwater flows into the SAC/SPA/RAMSAR Water chemistry changes in the SPA, for example through groundwater pollution, reduced freshwater flows increasing upstream saline incursion or sediment laden-water entering the upper estuary. 2.22 As detailed within the Appropriate Assessment, a number of mitigation measures would be needed in order to ensure that the proposed quarry does not impact upon the SPA/SAC/RAMSAR site. In this regard, the plan is not considered to be in accordance with paragraph 32 of the NPPF, which states that significant adverse impacts on the three objectives of sustainable development (including environmental impacts) should be avoided. In this regard, it is considered that the Council have failed to justify why the proposed quarry at Wangford has been allocated above land at Holton Hall Farm, Holton St Mary. The plan is Suffolk County Council Page 13
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 considered to be unsound in this regard. As referenced above, the land at Holton Hall Farm is not situated in close proximity to any designated ecology sites of national importance and can be delivered without impacting upon nesting birds. 6 The full merits of the site at Holton Hall Farm is set out within our previous representations for the site. 2.23 In addition, the proposed quarry at Wangford is located in a remote location that is not situated in close proximity to any of the major settlements within either Norfolk or Suffolk. It is therefore questionable why a quarry in Wangford has been allocated instead of Land at Holton Hall Farm, which as detailed above is ideally located to serve the housing and infrastructure growth in the County.
Suffolk County Council Page 14
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
5. SIZEWELL, WP2/WP16
Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response
Number
operate?
-
Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with Duty co to 102287341 Matt Verlander, Yes Yes Yes We are writing to you on behalf of the Nuclear The comment primarily relates to non-HRA GVA, on behalf Decommissioning Authority (the NDA) and Magnox matters; no comments regarding the content of the of the Nuclear Limited (Magnox), in respect of the current consultation on HRA were provided. No change to HRA is needed Decommissionin the Minerals & Waste Local Plan (MWLP), Appropriate g Authority (the Assessment (October 2018). GVA is the appointed NDA) and property advisor for the NDA and Magnox and provides Magnox Limited planning advice across the NDA’s UK-wide estate. This (Magnox) representation is made in respect of the NDA site at Sizewell ‘A’ Nuclear Power Station Site (the Sizewell ‘A’ Site), which is operated by Magnox (the Site Licence Company) on the NDA’s behalf in order to carry out the decommissioning of the site (including waste management and, where appropriate, land remediation). Decommissioning is a long process expected to occur throughout and beyond the plan period. Previous Representations As you will be aware, GVA previously submitted representations on behalf of the NDA and Magnox to Suffolk County Council (SCC) at the MWLP Issues and Options consultation stage on 6th February 2017, and the Preferred Options consultation stage on 11th December 2017. In addition, a response was submitted to the Pre-submission Consultation in July 2018. In summary, while the NDA and Magnox are supportive of the proposed allocation of Sizewell A in the Submission Draft, we maintain our previous stance that certain changes are required to proposed Policy WP16 and the text included within Chapter 19 (Sizewell “A” Nuclear Power Station). Therefore, GVA would like to reiterate the importance of the comments made previously and would refer the Council / the Inspector to our representation dated 11th December 2017 in particular. Comments As noted above the NDA and Magnox are supportive of the policies in the Plan generally. The Appropriate Assessment and supporting documentation has been Suffolk County Council Page 15
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
reviewed and we are of the view that they do not present any new additional issues of relevance to the NDA and Magnox Limited - other than those previously considered and set out in our previously submitted representations.
6. WETHERDEN ALLOCATION M8
Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response
Number
operate?
-
Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance withDuty to co 102204992 Joanna No No No Doesn’t adhere to planning permission with regard to dust The comment relates to non-HRA matters. No Gordon pollution. We live within 50m of boundary of quarry and change to HRA is needed. house, garden gets covered. Air quality extremely poor in summer months.
Dust monitors are required to police site. Operator sound not operate when wind is above Beaufort Scale 4! The oparator Ahmad flouts this constantly. We are seriously worried about long term health problems from the fine dust - scilicosis. Quarry propose an extension to the site which puts out property right in the path of the prevailing wind from the quarry. This extension would also be far too close to new Crest Nicolson housing development only 60m to the north. THIS MUT NOT GO AHEAD! Dreadful risk to everyone’s health!!!! No No No Aggmax the operator totally disregards it’s planning The comment relates to non-HRA matters. No permission levels with regard to generation of sand/dust change to HRA is needed. kicked up into air during dry spring and summer months. Our property is only 50m away from current site and even closer to proposed extension. Seriously problem for us as our property gets coated in fine sand constantly and can’t open any windows during dry months. Operator continues digging in high winds even when they shouldn’t produce dust over Beaufort scale 4. Scilicosis is a real worry for us in the future. Extension planning permission should NOT be granted! Vehicles drive too fast within quarry making matters worse. 102206062 Philip Gordon Suffolk County Council Page 16
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
Dust monitors need to be implemented by independent party from operators and results made public. I think council would be horrified by levels of pollutant dust in the air. We are happy to have monitors installed within grounds of our house for your convenience.
7. WANGFORD ALLOCATION M7
Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response
Number
operate?
-
Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance withDuty to co 102286913 Shaun Denny, Yes Yes Yes Despite the Company’s reservations regards paragraph Noted. Cemex UK 2.5.2 of the HRA/AA it is wholly in agreement with the conclusions made by paragraph 3.7.1 of the same. 102286225 Shaun Denny, Yes No Yes The Assessment of Potential Effects on Estuarine SCC wanted to test and describe this issue for the Cemex UK Waterfowl to which the HRA/AA refers concludes that: - proposed allocation, which is why it was selected for “there is no likelihood of a significant negative effect on the appropriate assessment. The applicant is not Minsmere-Walberswick SPA and Ramsar site resulting from disadvantaged by a conclusion of ‘no adverse affect extension of quarry workings into the Lime Kiln Farm site. upon integrity of a European site’ compared to a Accordingly, there is no requirement for the competent determination of ‘no significant effect upon a authority to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment.” European site’. As such the Company does not accept the conclusion of paragraph 2.5.2 of the HRA/AA that an Appropriate No change required to HRA. Assessment of Policy MP2 of the draft Plan is required with regard to Site M7 Wangford. Revision of the HRA/AA to reflect the findings of the Waterfowl Assessment, i.e., that: - “there is no likelihood of a significant negative effect on the Minsmere-Walberswick SPA and Ramsar site resulting from extension of quarry workings into the Lime Kiln Farm site. Accordingly, there is no requirement for the competent authority to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment.”
102136944 James Yes No Yes Table 2 Assessment para 7 Given the biodiversity of the The comment relates to policy, not to HRA of the Winterbotham area there is no need for a nett gain in biodiversity. Given policy. No change required to the HRA the nature of the landscape (mixed farming, woodland, heath, marsh and coastline) the area is already rich in biodiversity. Even farmland supports species eg the Suffolk County Council Page 17
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
Curlews. Arguing for increased biodiversity in such an area to justify destruction of the landscape is unsound. Sensitive species will lose habitat during the mining period - which on past experience may last well beyond any date offered up during the planning stage - and given that the site will only partially be returned to agriculture there will be a net loss to eg curlews
Exclude the Wangford site
102137096 James Yes No Yes In Table 3 Mitigation I disagree that earth bunds provide an The comment relates to policy, not to HRA of the Winterbotham appropriate or effective mitigation for the degree of policy. Bunds are not proposed by the HRA. No disruption caused. The landscape is flat and bunds close change required to the HRA off the long views characteristic of the area. They do not mitigate noise or dust as the "mitigation" along Mardle Road demonstrate, as testified by many residents and walkers. Bunds will create artificial landscapes over long periods, visible across the estuary. This is not appropriate for the specific character of the landscape and maybe rejected at planning stage therefore undermining the soundness of the HRA Qualify the use of "earth bunds" EXCEPT IN AREAS WHERE SUCH TREATMENT MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE TO THE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER SUCH AS THE SUFFOLK COAST AND HEATHS AONB 101228241 Helen Hall No No The area is AONB designated.Para 111and 116 of NPPF The comment relates to non-HRA matters. No major deverlopments to be refused unless exceptional change to HRA is needed circumstances.Close to SWT siteNPPF para 109-125 and EU directives.Southwold and Tourisim.Sensitive site particularly ground water source protection zone. Impossibility to make modifications other than not allowing the extension of the workings. 102134125 Mark Watson No No After reading the Habitat Regulation Assessment proposing The AONB comments relates to non-HRA matters. to extend the gravel pits on the borders of Reydon and SCC doubts that kingfishers and bitterns use the Wangford to Lime Kiln Farm, I feel that it in no way farmland as a significant part of their lifecycle as adequately addresses the Likely Significant Effects of such these birds use rivers and reedbeds respectively. an extension. Among other things it omits to mention that Impact upon Hen Reedbeds is included in the HRA the site is not only within an important AONB, but also that and no new evidence is given. it is host to many birds listed as vulnerable, such as curlews, bitterns, lapwings and kingfishers. If this proposal No change to HRA is needed is accepted and goes ahead the resultant works will destroy not only a significant area within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but will also threaten the nearby Hen Suffolk County Council Page 18
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
Reedbeds and surrounding countryside. Given that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) clearly states that such large developments should not be permitted in AONBs, unless there is an over-riding national interest (which there is not - the demand for gravel could be satisfied easily elsewhere, outside the AONB), I think the proposed Wangford pit extension should be removed from the plan.
102145739 Simon Loftus No No No See attachment...... This response is to be read in The HRA has not considered mitigation within conjunction with the attachment to my recent email to assessment of likely significant effect but it is Graham Gunby, setting out my comments in greater detail. considered within the appropriate assessment stage f In brief, the Assessment ignores the precautionary HRA. The assessment has used a bird survey which approach and imperative of no harm (para 1.4.7) - which is we consider reliable. The HRA does not rely on a legal requirement. It admits that Likely Side Effects were over-riding national interest and has not ignored a determined to occur but suggests completely inadequate precautionary approach. measures o mitigation. In any case, the People & Wind judgement makes clear that mitigation cannot be The response does not provide evidence to show considered in the case of Likely Significant Impacts. No why the HRA is deficient and no change is required proper evidence has been collected re birds listed for SPA to the HRA. or Ramscar designation using fields now proposed for the gravel pit site - the Assessment has relied on an inadequate report prepared by Cemex, which can hardly be considered unbiased. The Council's presumption of overriding national interest is both flawed (there are sufficient alternative sources of gravel) and irrelevant in this case.
removal of Wangford site from the list of options 102254668 Sarah Groves No No No Is the Habitat Regulation Assessment legal? The habitat There is no evidence in the comments that suggests assessment report has not addressed the legal the HRA is faulty and many of the comments are requirements of a precautionary approach and imperative of addressed in the HRA eg birds, water level changes. no harm. Wildlife sightlines and sensitivity to sound and No change required vibrations are clearly very different to ours. Referring to point 3.5.11 It is absolutely vital that the water run-off, drainage, water table and salinity levels are not affected as this will change the ecology of the freshwater, brackish and saltwater habitats of the reedbeds / Blyth estuary situated next to a Ramsar site. A change in water quality / levels here will not only affect invertebrate and fish species but also plant species and therefore every bird species that relies on these food sources, including the bittern, bearded tit, water rail, teal, gadwall, kingfishers and marsh harrier as
Suffolk County Council Page 19
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 well as otter. It is a delicate balance that absolutely must not be compromised. It is stated that the authority must conclude using scientific measures and a precautionary approach that there will be no harm to the integrity of a European Site ensuring absolutely no harm is caused to the ‘coherence of its ecological function’. Is the Habitat Regulation Assessment sound? The Habitat Regulation Assessment states that ‘Likely side effects’ were likely to occur but suggests totally inadequate mitigation measures rendering it unsound. Further extraction is likely to cause noise pollution and unnecessary disturbance to wildlife as well as threaten the enjoyment of the nearby Hen Reedbeds Nature reserve for visitors. Over the last few years, the Reedbeds have hosted thousands of roosting starlings - a red-listed species whose numbers have declined by 66% (BTO) and are a popular sight for visitors. A hedgeline will not be adequate. Refering to point 3.5.10: Four visits are absolutely not enough to establish the value of a patch of land for species. Animals and birds will move freely around landscapes as and when food or shelter is needed, and that includes the European Sites neighbouring these fields. The Assessment has relied on an inadequate report. As a recent example, over 100 curlews were seen on 8 December in the fields neighbouring the Hen Reedbeds nature reserve. Wildlife simply must have the space it needs to survive - there is no alternative for them. The fields in question contain worms and invertebrates that are a lifeline for bird species such as curlew. Economic growth is no argument for destroying vitally important habitat and there are sufficient alternative sources of gravel to meet demand. The Council’s presumption of overriding national interest is not relevant in this case. Does the Habitat Regulation Assessment comply with the Duty to Co- operate? The compiler of this Assessment appears not to have sought the views of those who objected to the Draft Waste Plan and has only sought comments from Cemex while briefly referencing concerns from the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust. There is no reference to co-operation with those who live locally and understand the value of the oak trees, hedgerows and farmland of this site to wildlife, as well as the irreversible character change of this area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Suffolk County Council Page 20
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
Remove Wangford from proposed site listings 102258246 Kevin West No No No Living very close to the proposed site, I regularly visit the The HRA recognised the value of Hen Reedbeds and And area and am familiar with the nature and wildlife that inhabit other parts of the European site, and assessed duplicated in it. Having read the report it is very clear that important impacts. No evidence is presented which suggests 102258961 points have been missed. Although the Blyth estuary is not any change is needed; for example bird information yet a Ramsar site, it is part of a larger corridor of habitat is anecdotal and not location -specific. which includes the Minsmere - Walberswick Ramsar area. The wildlife moves around constantly between these sites and has no concept of borders. The existing Hen Reed Bed reserve is home to breeding Bitterns, Otter, Water Vole, Marsh Harrier. All very rare and shy species requiring no disturbance to their behaviour patterns. I note in paragraph 3.5.10 that Cemex commissioned a study involving ‘Four visits made between January and March 2018’. This is a woefully inadequate amount of time to study the area and is clearly biased. I regularly see the changes in movement of wildlife between the fields and marshes and it is never the same. Different behaviour is observed at different time of the year by different species. I have recently counted flocks of 100 plus Curlew (conservation status, Red, RSPB) and several hundred Lapwing, (also Red listed), constantly moving between fields and the adjoining marsh land. Great spotted Woodpecker are regularly seen in the many mature oak trees along the perimeter of the proposed site. These trees also support hundreds of insect species, most of which are in serious decline and should be protected at all costs. Green Woodpecker are seen searching for ants on the ground and in winter months the Suffolk Wildlife Trust- owned Hen Reed Beds, right next to the proposed site, is home to thousands of roosting Starlings, and recent sightings of the amber listed Short Eared Owl. Buzzards, and the very rare Marsh Harrier are regular hunters directly over the site. A comprehensive study of insect and invertebrate life, tree, other plant life and fungi needs to be carried out before any decision is made on this area. To rely on Cemex commissioned data from this extremely short survey is frankly ridiculous. The screening proposed will do little to protect wildlife or people visiting the reserve, from noise, dust or diesel fume pollution. In the Habitats Regulation Assessment, it is admitted that “likely significant effects were determined to occur’. These include loss of
Suffolk County Council Page 21
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
land for roosting birds, reduction in bird population and hydrological changes.
Removal of Wangford from proposed site list 102285551 Charlotte No No No This Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) does not The HRA recognised the value of Hen Reedbeds and DuCann adequately assess the Likely Significant Effect’s (LSE’s) of other parts of the European site, and assessed the proposed gravel pit in Reydon/Wangford. The HRA impacts. No evidence is presented which suggests does not provide justification for including the Wangford site any change is needed. in the Minerals and Waste Plan and fails to adequately demonstrate that these LSE’s can be overcome or mitigated. The HRA appears to be written as a generic document covering all the proposed sites in the Minerals and Waste Plan. It fails to mention that the proposed Wangford site is in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Hence in Section 4 General Policies on Page 12 the HRA presents an interpretation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF is clear that major developments (such as the proposed Wangford pit extension) should normally be refused in AONB’s (and National Parks), unless there is an over-riding national interest. It is clear that the demand for gravel could be easily met from outside of the AONB, and hence there is no national need, and therefore no justification for allowing the proposed pit. The proposed Wangford/Reydon site and neighbouring reservershave a rich bio diversity that will be threatened by the industrial scheme. The habitats include estuary, pasture, reed beds, arable farmland, hedges, trees and gardens. Farmland is an essential part of this mix and currently is the feeding ground for vulnerable bird species such as as the curlew, lapwing, fieldfare and redwing, as well as for marsh harriers and red kites. Other vulnerable species in the adjacent Hen Reedbeds Nature Reserve and European Protected Sites, such as the bittern and kingfisher, are also likely to be significantly affected by the proposed gravel pit. In Appendix 2 Section 7. Wangford, the HRA appears to acknowledge there will likely be significant adverse effects of this proposed development, however it proposes that any environmental survey work were done after, rather than before, the plan is submitted. It seems clear there are LSE’s on the vulnerable species and the European Sites, as well as a complete lack of justification for the proposal
Suffolk County Council Page 22
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
based on the NPPF and AONB, There is no way that 'migitation' or barriers will either screen the Outstanding Ugliness of any kind of industrial development, nor will assist wild life in any shape or form, as can be witnessed by the current gravel pit excavation along the Mardle Road and its oppressive and disturbing earthworks to human and non- human inhabitants and visitors..
This proposal needs to be rejected on the ground outlined above. The plan should be amended to exclude Wangford completely, as there is no valid justification for including this site in the Plan. 102315541 William Irving No No No Legal Compliance – Lack of community involvement in the Comments are related to Local Plan processes, preparation of the plan (ref. second bullet point under AONB, and lack of demand, not the HRA. No section 2.2. of the guidance notes attached to the blank change is required to HRA. form downloaded from SCC’s web site). Duty to co-operate – Section 33A (2.a.) of the PCPA 2004 mentions the duty of the LPA “to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process by means of which activities within subsection (3) are undertaken”, for example (in subsection 3) in the preparation of the plan. There is a widespread feeling that the views other public bodies (for example Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and numerous private individuals have not been taken into account in preparing this Plan. In other words, there does not seem to have been adequate consultation. These submissions show that the Wangford/Reydon proposed gravel pit is not justifiable, as there are adequate alternative ways of supplying the gravel without destroying the AONB. Soundness – The proposal is not justified or consistent with National Policy (for example NPPF). In other words it is not justifiable in the AONB.
Soundness – Delete Site 7 (Wangford). The demand can be met from other existing pits, general excess provisions in the plan anyway and increased use of marine gravel, not least as indicated by a number of gravels pit owners and operators in the area. 102284662 Bill and Aileen See Attachment saved...... 1. Summary This Habitats 1. SCC disagrees that the HRA fails to demonstrate Irving Regulation Assessment (HRA) does not adequately assess that mitigation is effective. the Likely Significant Effect’s (LSE’s) of the proposed gravel 2. The comments about AONB are not relevant to the pit in Reydon/Wangford. The HRA does not provide HRA.
Suffolk County Council Page 23
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 justification for including the Wangford site in the Minerals 3. Anecdotal evidence of birds is of interest, but and Waste Plan. On the contrary, it appears to state that carries little weight as it is not location -specific and there are LSE’s and fails to adequately demonstrate that there is no evidence that the Wangford allocation is these LSE’s can be overcome or mitigated. Hence the HRA of significance to the life-cycle of the birds mentioned helps demonstrate that the proposed Wangford site should which are also qualifying species of the European be deleted from the Plan. 2. Context of the Assessment site. The bird information is not consistent with the the HRA appears to be mainly written as a generic survey provided by Cemex. document covering all the proposed sites in the Minerals 4. The quote from the HRA is not recognised by and Waste Plan. It fails to mention that the proposed SCC; we can’t find it in the HRA. Wangford site is in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Inadequacy of tree belt as screening. No evidence Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Hence in Section 4 has been provided that the current tree belt is General Policies on Page 12 the HRA presents an inadequate to prevent disturbance of birds on the interpretation of the National Planning Policy Framework European site, yet the proposed allocation is further (NPPF) biased towards development generally. The NPPF from the European site than the existing woodland is clear that major developments (such as the proposed belt. The value of trees, hedges and woodland belts Wangford pit extension) should normally be refused in vary across time as trees and shrubs grow and die; it AONB’s (and National Parks), unless there is an over-riding may be precautionary to review at planning national interest. It is clear that the demand for gravel could application stage if screens remain suitable or need be easily met from outside of the AONB, and hence there is reinforcing. no national need, and therefore no justification for allowing the proposed pit. Please see our previous comments on the draft Minerals and Waste Plan for further details. 3. Habitats and biodiversity Having lived and worked near the proposed Wangford/Reydon site for some years now, it is striking how much habitat and bio diversity, perhaps especially of the bird life, there is here currently. The habitats within a very few hundred metres include estuary, pasture, reed beds, arable farmland, hedges, trees and gardens. Some of the diverse bird species occurring in the European Sites and/or in the area of the proposed gravel pit and listed as vulnerable and/or on the Wild Birds Directive Annexes are contained in the table below. The farmland is an essential part of this habitats mix and is clearly an important feeding ground for vulnerable bird species such as the curlew, lapwing, fieldfare and redwing, as well as for the marsh harriers and red kites. It is notable that the curlews seem to feed on arable land when the tide is high in the Blyth Estuary and the mud flats are under water. The curlews seem to favour the light soil on and around the proposed site, over the adjacent heavier land, perhaps as it is easier to probe in the softer and lighter soil with their fragile looking beaks. Other vulnerable species in the Hen Reedbeds Nature Reserve and European Protected Sites, Suffolk County Council Page 24
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 such as the bittern and kingfisher, are also likely to be significantly affected by the proposed gravel pit. Table of selected bird species on the European Red List or Wild Birds Directive Annex 1 seen or noted on and around Lime Kiln Farm (continued on next page) English Name Latin Name Wild Birds Directive Annex European Red List Status Remarks Kingfisher Alcedo atthis I Vulnerable in EU27 Countries and Europe as a whole on list at Hen Reedbeds. Bittern Botaurus stellaris I Live in Reedbeds. Can be heard booming in Spring and Summer at Reydon Grange and around Lime Kiln Farm. On list at Hen Reedbeds. Barnacle goose Branta leucopsis I Fairly sized flocks (many dozens of birds) on Reydon marshes in Winter. Nightjar Caprimulgus euroaeus I On list at Hen Reedbeds. Summer visitor. Marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus I Common hunting around hedgerows at and around Lime Kiln Farm. Also, on list at Hen Reedbeds. Hen harrier Circus cyaneus I Noted at Hen Reedbeds. Great white egret Egretta alba I Seen flying over Hen Reedbeds. On list at Hen Reedbeds. Little egret Egretta garzetta I Quite common on Reydon marshes and Blyth Estuary. On list at Hen Reedbeds. Brambling Fringilla montifringilla III Vulnerable in EU27 Countries, near vulnerable in Europe as a whole Seen in garden at Reydon Grange. Winter visitor. Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus IIB Vulnerable in EU27 Countries and Europe as a whole On list at Hen Reedbeds. Seen on Reydon Marshes. Wigeon Mareca penelope IIA, IIIB Vulnerable in EU27 Countries, near vulnerable in Europe as a whole Seen on Reydon Marshes. Red kite Milvus milvus I Quite common hunting over the fields and hedgerows around Lime Kiln Farm and at Reydon Grange. Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata IIB Vulnerable in EU27 Countries and Europe as a whole Commonly seen feeding on fields proposed to be dug out for gravel pit. Seem to prefer light sandy soil. Autumn, winter and spring visitor. Very shy bird. On list at Hen Reedbeds. Habitat includes Lime Kiln Farm and European sites. Redwing Turdus iliacus IIB Vulnerable in EU27 Countries, near vulnerable in Europe as a whole Seen in fields round Lime Kiln Farm and at Reydon Grange. Winter visitor. Fieldfare Turdus pilaris IIB Vulnerable in EU27 Countries, near vulnerable in Europe as a whole Seen in fields round Lime Kiln Farm and at Reydon Grange. Winter visitor. Lapwing Vanellus vanellus IIB Vulnerable in Suffolk County Council Page 25
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
EU27 Countries and Europe as a whole Seen on Blyth estuary, Reydon marshes and fields round Lime Kiln Farm. On list at Hen Reedbeds. 4. Likely Significant Effects of the proposed development In Appendix 2 Section 7. Wangford, the HRA seems to be saying that yes there will very likely be significant adverse effects of this proposed development. The HRA goes on to say “….the developer will need to undertake suitable survey work….”. So, the HRA seems to be saying that we should first include this proposal in the Plan, and then afterwards look at the evidence for the consequent effects on the environment. Surely, we should be carrying out an adequate and more detailed assessment of the likely environmental effects of a proposal before including this proposal in the Plan, not afterwards. It seems clear there are LSE’s on the vulnerable species and the European Sites, as well as a complete lack of justification for the proposal based on the NPPF and AONB, so the plan should be amended to exclude Wangford completely, perhaps as suggested in our previous comments, as there is no valid justification for including this site in the Plan. 5. Inadequacies of proposed mitigation measures From inspecting the tree ‘screens’ planted some time ago beside the Halesworth Road and walking along Mardle Road past the current excavation area, it is clear that any ‘mitigation’ measures would completely fail to hide the fact that there was a large scale industrial development going on in the AONB adjacent to the Blyth estuary and along the main road into the resort of Southwold. You can see right through the tree screens along the Halesworth Road, as well as through the gaps in the screens, which were presumably planted about 30 years ago. Hence the screening mentioned in the HRA would not shield the vulnerable wildlife and European Sites from the proposed development. Walking along Mardle Road near the current gravel pit excavation area is not at all pleasant, due to all the noise produced by the excavation machinery and the oppressive looking earthworks. As a result of the disturbance due to the current excavations many people who used to walk along Mardle Road to and from the Hen Reedbeds no longer do so, which demonstrates that the kind of mitigation works proposed in the HRA do not mitigate the effects of these developments. The kind of vulnerable wildlife which lives on the fields at Suffolk County Council Page 26
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
Lime Kiln Farm and in the nearby European sites is more nervous of human activity than the average bird watcher, rambler or dog walker in Mardle Road. So, the wildlife will be at least as badly affected by the proposed works as the people. Hence the effects on the wildlife and the European Sites of the proposed excavations cannot be adequately mitigated by the kind of measures proposed, or by any similar measures that may be proposed.
102285184 Philip o'Hear No Further to my earlier representations, I now wish to respond No new evidence is provided, and AONB comments to the current consultation in the Habitat Regulations are not relevant. There have been no responses Assessment for the proposed extension of Wangford Gravel received from the Reydon Parish Council or the Pit to Lime Kiln Farm in Reydon. I do not consider this Southwold and Reydon /Society and it is unclear if Mr assessment adequate and therefore regard the Plan as not O’Hear is authorised to respond on their behalf. legally compliant. I refer you to the detailed submission by Mr Bill Irving which provides the evidence of important No change is needed to HRA. wildlife on and close to this site and demonstrates the inadequacy of the mitigation measures which will not protect either the wildlife on the site nor prevent damaging impacts on recognised sites of habitat importance which are extremely close to the site. In addition, of course, if permitted this gravel pit will permanently alter a significant area of the AONB and I continue to believe you have failed to demonstrate the threshold of need required for this development to be in an AONB. Although I am making this submission in a personal capacity, I can also confirm that both the Parish Council and the Southwold and Reydon Society (the local Amenity Society with 400 members) oppose this proposal.
102298311 David No The final allocation assessed as part of the Appropriate The response regarding the allocation at Wangford Fletcher, Strutt Assessment relate to Wangford, which is located only 240 hinges on a reading of NPPF para 32 excluding the and Parker for metres from Minsmere – Walberswick Special Protection possibility of mitigation for harm. Our reading of that H R Philpott Area (SPA). 2.21 As identified within paragraph 3.5.8 of the paragraph is that mitigation for significant adverse Ltd Appropriate Assessment, the likely significant effects on the effects is possible; however at Wangford the Minsmere – Walberswick SPA/SAC/RAMSAR of the character of the development and its distance from proposed mineral allocation could include the following: · A the European site indicates that the required reduction in bird population size resulting from disturbance measures are in place. Discussion of Holton Hall is to birds on the SPA · Loss of land used for SPA/RAMSAR not relevant to assessment in HRA of Wangford. bird roosting on the site at high tide · Hydrological changes Comments about the Wangford site made in the e.g. through excavation, dewatering, drainage or respondents comments about Cavenham (see abstraction severing, reducing or increasing surface water above) have also been considered by SCC. Suffolk County Council Page 27
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 or groundwater flows into the SAC/SPA/RAMSAR · Water chemistry changes in the SPA, for example through No change required groundwater pollution, reduced freshwater flows increasing upstream saline incursion or sediment laden-water entering the upper estuary. 2.22 As detailed within the Appropriate Assessment, a number of mitigation measures would be needed in order to ensure that the proposed quarry does not impact upon the SPA/SAC/RAMSAR site. In this regard, the plan is not considered to be in accordance with paragraph 32 of the NPPF, which states that significant adverse impacts on the three objectives of sustainable development (including environmental impacts) should be avoided. In this regard, it is considered that the Council have failed to justify why the proposed quarry at Wangford has been allocated above land at Holton Hall Farm, Holton St Mary. The plan is considered to be unsound in this regard. As referenced above, the land at Holton Hall Farm is not situated in close proximity to any designated ecology sites of national importance and can be delivered without impacting upon nesting birds. 6 The full merits of the site at Holton Hall Farm is set out within our previous representations for the site. 2.23 In addition, the proposed quarry at Wangford is located in a remote location that is not situated in close proximity to any of the major settlements within either Norfolk or Suffolk. It is therefore questionable why a quarry in Wangford has been allocated instead of Land at Holton Hall Farm, which as detailed above is ideally located to serve the housing and infrastructure growth in the County.
Suffolk County Council Page 28
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
8. REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT HRA PROCESS/CONCEPTS AND/OR MULTIPLE SITES
Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response
Number
operate?
-
Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance withDuty to co 102327696 James Meyer, Yes No No Whilst we acknowledge that the HRA document states that The respondent acknowledges that the in- Suffolk Wildlife the in-combination effects of other plans and projects have combination effect has been considered. Trust been considered as part of the assessment, we remain of the There is no suggestion from the respondent opinion that the plans and projects included as part of this that adding further detailed information would assessment should be identified within the report in order to change the conclusions. provide clarity on those that have been included. It must also be ensured that this assessment takes account of relevant planning applications and permissions (that have not been commenced) as part of this assessment. If, as suggested in Appendix 3 of the report, it is considered that listing all of the plans and projects within the body of the report would take up too much space, we would recommend that they are included in an appendix.
Include a list of all plans and projects assessed for in- combination effects within the report. 102327937 James Meyer, Yes No Yes The assessment of the proposed allocations at Barnham SCC considers that policy GP4 secures all Suffolk Wildlife (3.2), Cavenham (3.3) and Wangford (3.5) all conclude no measures necessary to avoid harm to a Trust adverse impact on the integrity of the relevant designated European site. Details are not necessary at sites subject to controls on the extraction activities and Local plan stage; SCC is satisfied that all restoration proposals for the developments. For example, part measures are realistic and achievable, and of the conclusion of no adverse impact on integrity of the can be delivered through planning Breckland SPA from Barnham and Cavenham is based on applications. SCC does not think that the restoring the sites to habitats that are better for stone curlews Local Plan is contrary to NPPF. than those that are currently present (sections 3.2.14-18 and 3.3.10-13). At Wangford there are working measures proposed, such as a maximum dig depth, to prevent hydrological impacts on the nearby SPA and Ramsar site (section 3.5.11). However, none of these requirements are secured as part of the proposed site allocations policies in the Plan (policies MS2 (Barnham), MS4 (Cavenham) and MS7 (Wangford)). Section 3.1.3 of the HRA report states that “the Local Plan does not normally provide specific detail that would be expected to be found within planning applications”, Suffolk County Council Page 29
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
this sentiment is also present in sections 3.2.18 and 3.3.12. However, a plan policy must provide enough security that a planning application coming forward for one of these allocations will be required to deliver measures need to ensure that it does not result in an adverse impact on a European designated site. If these measures are known at the time of the adoption of the Local Plan they should be included within the relevant policy, at least in principle. We consider that failure to do this is contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (in particular sections 16 and 28).
102328867 James Meyer, Yes No Yes Sections 3.2 and 3.3 set out how the assessment of likely Paragraphs 3.2.17 and 3.3.11 demonstrate Suffolk Wildlife impacts on stone curlew (the designation feature of the that the location of recent nest sites was Trust Breckland SPA relevant for the proposed Barnham and known, and considered, but this information Cavenham allocations) has been undertaken and what the was not published as it may put nests at risk of conclusions are. The assessment concludes that there is no egg theft. The recommendation by the adverse impact on the integrity of the designated site, in part respondent has already been carried out so no due to the relatively small scale of the two allocations when change is needed. compared to the SPA as a whole. Whilst when assessed this way the two allocations are a relatively small part of the whole designated site, we consider that the assessment should also consider the number of pairs of stone curlew that the proposed extraction work is likely to displace (and over what time period). As stone curlew do not nest evenly distributed across the SPA there is the potential for works in relatively small areas to have a disproportionate impact on the population and this is something that must be considered as part of this assessment.
The assessment must consider the numbers of pairs of stone curlew that the proposed allocations at Barnham and Cavenham may displace when assessing the likely impact of these allocations on the integrity of the designated site.
102327122 James Meyer, No Yes Yes Since the publication of this draft of the Habitats Regulations We think that the HRA is consistent with the Suffolk Wildlife Assessment (HRA) there have been a number of further latest CJEU ruling referred to by the Trust EUECJ rulings relating to undertaking HRAs, in particular respondent reference C-461/17 of 7th November 2018. We query
Suffolk County Council Page 30
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
whether the HRA will be revisited again prior to submission to take account of these rulings?
Ensure that HRA takes account of latest EUECJ rulings in relation to the requirements of the HRA process in assessing Plans.
102329844 Mark Nowers, Yes No Yes We understand that comments at this stage are only Paragraphs 3.2.17 and 3.3.11 demonstrate RSPB requested in relation to the Appropriate Assessment (AA) that the location of recent nest sites was published for consultation on the 5 November 2018. This has known, and considered, but this information been presented for consultation after the submission stage of was not published as it may put nests at risk of the Minerals Plan, to which we provided comments in July egg theft. The recommendation by the 2018. Any disagreement we have with the contents of the AA, respondent has already been carried out. would mean that the plan itself is unsound. We consider it unusual to apply tests of soundness to the HRA process. SCC considers that policy GP4 secures all Assessing the impacts on stone-curlews should not be based measures necessary to avoid harm to a on the allocation as a percentage of the SPA, but on up to European site. Details are not necessary at date information around the number of nesting pairs, foraging Local plan stage; SCC is satisfied that all extent and their sensitivity to disturbance. It is imperative that measures are realistic and achievable, and any areas that could support stone-curlews are not can be delivered through planning compromised. We acknowledge and agree with the AA’s applications. SCC does not think that the findings that “restoration to high quality nesting habitat for Local Plan is contrary to NPPF. stone-curlew would be an essential part of those [Barnham/Cavenham] applications” (para 3.1.3), but leaving any restoration to application stage cannot be the most appropriate strategy in the context of an operation that is taking place over a significant period of time within an SPA. This would not be justified in terms of the tests of soundness.
We recommend that the Plan incorporates distinct policy- wording (policies MS2, MS4, MP6 and MP7) that will ensure there is no Adverse Effect on Integrity (AEOI) and that restoration of minerals sites to brecks grass-heath creation for stone-curlews can be achieved. Paragraph 204(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages councils in their planning policies to “set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment”. Suffolk County Council has an opportunity to revise the findings of the AA and the policy wordings to ensure that these measures are secured. We remain willing to work with SCC and other key stakeholders
Suffolk County Council Page 31
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
(Natural England and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust) to ensure that a genuinely sustainable solution is agreed.
102131198 James No No Yes I am unsure whether the HRA is legally compliant. I disagree There is not a premise, as thought by the Winterbotham with the premise that "a presumption in favour of sustainable respondent, that the presumption in favour of development" will not have an LSE - it weights the Council's sustainable development means that there judgement too heavily in favour of development. For this would be no likely significant effect on a reason, I consider the HRA unsound. The Wangford site European site. Whilst it is theoretically should not be in the Plan in the first place but be considered possible that a planning application could be only on the submission of a full planning application and not made simultaneously with putting forward a before. site for inclusion into a Local Plan it has not occurred in the case of the Wangford Amend GP1 to add words in capitals: The County Council will allocation, and SCC does not intend to delay take a positive approach to minerals and waste development the Local Plan preparation until an application that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable is received. development EXCEPT WITHIN AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY. Alternatively exclude Wangford site. The prosed amendment to policy GP1 is not relevant to HRA as AONB is outside the scope of HRA.
102035316 William Fuller, I write further to the below mentioned consultation. Thank Noted. Tendring District you for consulting Tendring District Council. This is an Council officer-level consultation response and should be taken as such. Should there be no adverse effect on the European sites within and adjoining Suffolk, the Council would raise no objection to the emerging Plan. I would ask that you keep us informed of this and any other plans and procedures that might be published by Suffolk County Council in the future. 102329252 Louise Oliver, Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 1 Noted Natural England November 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Natural England provided advice in relation to earlier drafts of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan review (SM&WLP) previously in correspondence dated 8 December 2017 (our ref: 230240); 23 July 2018 (our ref: 249702), 12 October 2018 (our ref: 259232) and 31 October 2018 (ref: 259232), along with comments on specific policies and proposed site allocations. In this letter, we provide further comments on the revised Habitats Regulations Assessment Suffolk County Council Page 32
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
(HRA) dated November 2018 that is currently out to public consultation. Natural England welcomes the latest amended version of the HRA and the inclusion of some of the advice and comments provided previously, and collectively, by Suffolk Wildlife Trust, RSPB and ourselves, particularly given the tight timescale in which it was produced
102329252 Louise Oliver, Summary Thank you for your advice. Our comments on Natural England Natural England notes that your authority, as competent the advice are listed below. authority under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, has undertaken an appropriate assessment of the Local Plan, in accordance with Regulation 63 of the Regulations. Natural England is a statutory consultee on the Appropriate Assessment (AA) stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process, and a competent authority should have regard for Natural England’s advice. The Appropriate Assessment in the HRA concludes that your authority is able to ascertain that the SM&WLP Submission Draft June 2018 will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any of the sites in question. Having considered the assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for any adverse effects, it is the advice of Natural England that it is not yet possible to ascertain that the Local Plan will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the European sites in question. Natural England advises that the Plan policies, and in places the assessment itself, do not currently provide enough certainty to justify the AA conclusion. Further assessment and consideration of amendments to relevant policies in the Local Plan need to be undertaken, and Natural England provides the following advice on the additional assessment work required
102329252 Louise Oliver, 1. Amendments to policies Previously, Natural England, SCC considers that policy GP4 secures all Natural England together with Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the RSPB, expressed measures necessary to avoid harm to a concerns about the wording of policies GP4: General European site. Details are not necessary at Environmental Criteria; and the following sites allocated under Local plan stage; SCC is satisfied that all Policy MP2: Proposed sites for sand and gravel extraction: measures are realistic and achievable, and MS2: Barnham, MS4: Cavenham and MS7: Wangford. We can be delivered through planning advised that amendments should be made to the wording of applications. SCC does not consider that you these policies either to ensure they were compliant with the are not able to agree to the conclusions of the Habitats Regulations; provided broad avoidance and/or assessment. mitigation measures, identified at a strategic level, and that restoration would ensure delivery of a net biodiversity gain Suffolk County Council Page 33
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
long term, with regard to the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) specifically. The requirement to include this information at application stage should be made clear in each relevant allocation. Please see previous correspondence for full details. However, the relevant policies have not been amended to address these points in full and so we are unable to agree with the conclusions in the Appropriate Assessment. There appears to be a disconnect between the HRA and the SM&WLP, particularly with regard to ensuring any restoration proposals will benefit the SPA long term 102329252 Louise Oliver, 2. Sizewell ‘A’ Nuclear Power Station In an earlier draft of the Sizewell ‘A’ Nuclear Power Station is Natural England HRA, Strategic Habitats Regulations Assessment, dated assessed for likely significant effect in para August 2018, Policy WS1: Sizewell ‘A’ Nuclear Power Station 2.3.4 / Appendix 2 of the HRA, with respect to was screened in for likely significant effects and considered policies WP2 (site allocation W1) and WP16. further at the AA stage. In our response dated 12 October SC notes that the power station has been 2018 (our ref:259232) we commented: ‘Without further decommissioning (and producing waste from information on the proposal to manage waste arising from the this decommissioning) for many years. decommissioning of Sizewell A and some waste potentially arriving from sister stations, it is difficult to make a specific comment. This is a highly sensitive location environmentally and any proposal would have to take full account of any likely significant impacts to landscape, biodiversity and coastal access.’ If you have specific information on likely impact pathways, please identify them as they are probably different to the list you have identified for minerals operations and cut and pasted here.” In the November 2018 HRA, Policy WS1: Sizewell ‘A’ Nuclear Power Station has not been screened in (or even mentioned) and therefore has not been considered at AA stage. It is unclear why it has been omitted and we would appreciate understanding the reasons behind this given our previous advice 102329252 Louise Oliver, 3. Other Comments on the revised HRA, dated November Natural England 2018 2.4.1 – Rather than simply listing the generic category of plan The respondent acknowledges that the in- or project, the specific plans or projects identified should be combination effect has been considered. listed in an annex to demonstrate what had been considered. There is no suggestion from the respondent that adding further detailed information would change the conclusions
3.2.6, 3.2.14, 3.3.10 and 3.4.1 – It is important to note that the Paragraphs 3.2.17 and 3.3.11 demonstrate number of breeding pairs (of stone curlew) affected by an that the location of recent nest sites was individual allocation or in combination with other allocations or known, and considered, but this information
Suffolk County Council Page 34
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
other plans or projects should be assessed against the total was not published as it may put nests at risk of number of pairs over the whole SPA rather than simply egg theft. The recommendation by the considering the area of SPA affected by an allocation. respondent has already been carried out
3.6.1 – A list of the identified plans or projects which have See above for para 2.4.1 been identified and screened out from in combination effects with the SM&WLP should be included in an annex.
Appendix 3 - Stakeholder’s comments dated 31 October 2018 SCC invites further information from the –we do not agree with many of the remarks made against the respondent regarding the lack of agreement so comments submitted by Natural England, Suffolk Wildlife an attempt to resolve outstanding issues Trust and RSPB) in the table. This includes those made in relating to HRA conclusions can be made. regard to the temporary loss of land, policy wording not being amended, traffic impacts and planning conditions.
Sustainability Appraisal - The conclusions and Noted. recommendations of the revised HRA need to be incorporated into the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) report, as well as being reflected in the allocations and policies of the SM&WLP Submission Draft June 2018 102329252 Louise Oliver, 4. New legal ruling regarding functionally-linked land Since We think that the HRA is consistent with the Natural England the revised HRA was produced there has been a judgement latest CJEU ruling referred to by the from the European Court of Justice, issued on 7 November respondent and note that no suggestion to the 2018, regarding the consideration of the typical species of contrary has been made. SAC habitats, and also ‘functionally-linked land (Case C- 461/17 Holohan and Others). Suffolk County Council, as competent authority for the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, should consider this judgment in relation to its HRA under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and may wish to take its own legal advice on the implications of the judgment, including in relation to the Wangford allocation. A link to the judgement is provided below: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid= AE8B2578FD5FBFD652349AA9090A083C?text=&docid= 207428&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ= first&part=1&cid=577996 102329252 Louise Oliver, 5. Typing errors Please note the cover page of the HRA, Noted. Natural England dated November 2018, contains a typo in the second line of the document title and should be amended to read ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’. There is also a typo in the wording of Policy GP4: General Environmental Criteria (on page 16) of the SM&WLP Submission Draft June 2018 document which
Suffolk County Council Page 35
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
currently reads: “Minerals and waste development will be acceptable so long as the proposals, adequately access and address the potentially significant adverse impacts upon: …”. This should be amended to read ‘assess’ 102329252 Louise Oliver, 6. Way Forward Natural England looks forward to working Noted and welcomed. If this topic is to be Natural England with your authority to address the issues that we have raised discussed at Examination SCC would hope to in this letter, and in our previous responses, to ensure that the work towards a Statement of Common Ground HRA and the SM&WLP can both be deemed sound. We with all relevant participants. recommend working together, along with Suffolk Wildlife Trust and RSPB, to ensure that these matters can be resolved satisfactorily before the Examination in Public Stage of the Local Plan commences. We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Louise Oliver on 02080 264893. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected] 102330120 Stewart Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Appropriate Noted Patience, Assessment report prepared in support of the Suffolk Anglian Water Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The following comments are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water. Having reviewed the report it doesn’t appear to raise any issues of relevance to Anglian Water. Therefore we have no comments relating to the content of the Appropriate Assessment report. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know. 102330382 Beverley General Comment Overall we accept the conclusions of the SCC notes that this respondent accepts the McClean, AONB Appropriate Assessment (AA) however we have a number of conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment. Team issues to raise which are discussed below. It is not clear how the recommendations in the 2018 AA will be integrated into SCC considers that policy GP4 secures all the Suffolk County Council Submission Minerals and Waste measures necessary to avoid harm to a Plan Local Plan. Any mitigation identified through the AA European site. Details are not necessary at needs to be integrated into the relevant site specific policies Local plan stage; SCC is satisfied that all in the document. We have proposed suggested measures are realistic and achievable, and amendments later in this response in relation to this matter. can be delivered through planning applications
102330651 Beverley Section 2 All the Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Noted McClean, AONB Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites that could Team potentially be affected by proposals in the Submission Suffolk Minerals and Waste Plan have been correctly identified in
Suffolk County Council Page 36
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
Section 2 of the HRA report. Section 2.3 - Likely Significant Effects We agree with the conclusion set out in paragraph 2.5.1 of the HRA that the proposed allocation of sites M2 Barnham, M4 Cavenham and M7 Wangford and the supporting policies for these sites had the potential to result in likely significant effects and therefore required further consideration through Appropriate Assessment. 102330814 Beverley Section 3 Appropriate Assessment Appropriate Assessment SCC considers that policy GP4 secures all McClean, AONB of Policy MP2/MS2, Site M2 Barnham We concur with the measures necessary to avoid harm to a Team potential likely significant effects identified in paragraphs 3.2.4 European site; it is more than just an & 3.2.5 in the HRA report that could arise from the proposed implication. Details are not necessary at Local allocation and policy for MP2/MS2, Site M2 Barnham. plan stage; SCC is satisfied that all measures Mitigation embedded in the Local Plan In section 3.1.1, the are realistic and achievable, and can be AA states the following ‘Policy GP4 states that minerals and delivered through planning applications waste development will be acceptable provided that proposals adequately assess and address potentially significant adverse impacts upon biodiversity.’ Any proposal that would have an adverse affect upon the integrity of any European site would fail this policy test, and not be permitted.’ Policy GP4 (General Environmental Criteria) is regarded as a mitigating policy in the Suffolk’s Submission Minerals & Waste Local Plan. As drafted, we consider that the need to assess impacts of proposals in the Submission Suffolk Mineral and Waste Local Plan on international/European designated sites is only implied in bullet point (d) of policy GP4. The need to assess impacts on all designated sites including Natura 2000 sites (and Ramsar sites) should be made much clearer in policy GP4. Such an amendment would provide certainty for operators and ensure that impacts on internationally designated & European Sites are properly considered throughout the entire mineral & waste planning processes. As stated in para 3.3.1 of the AA, Policy MP2 identifies the requirements that future planning applications for this site will need to satisfy. This includes the importation of inert materials to aid restoration, phased working and restoration, impacts on European sites, an air quality assessment to address pollution and dust and a noise assessment. When considered along side the requirements of policy GP4 we are satisfied with the conclusion reached in para 3.2.19 that all measures are in place to ascertain that there would be no adverse affect upon the integrity of any European site, and a long-tern benefit to Breckland SPA
Suffolk County Council Page 37
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
would occur for the proposed allocation at Barnham. However, the recommendations in the AA regarding the site at Barnham M2 have not been carried forward into the site- specific policy for Barnham which is necessary to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations. 102295086 David Fletcher, No Strutt & Parker on behalf of H R Philpot & Sons in relation to This response provides context for the Strutt and the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan Publication Stage respondents separate comments on Parker for H R Consultation (2018) have prepared this representation. This allocations at Barnham, Cavenham and Philpott Ltd representation has been prepared specifically in relation to Wangford, and is noted. the promotion of land at Holton Hall Farm, Holton St Mary, as shown on the location plan in Appendix A and should be read in conjunction with earlier representations made at Preferred Options and the Pre-Submission stage of the Local Plan. 1.2 In accordance with the requirements of the consultation, this response has been prepared solely in relation to the additional information and the appropriate assessment that has been prepared. 1.3 In accordance with the criteria set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), when allocating sites for development Local Authorities need to be satisfied that their plan is ‘sound’. It is the applicants view that based on the information contained within the appropriate assessment, that the plan is unsound in its current form. For reasons explained in section 2, in order for the plan to be considered sound the allocation for the new quarries at Barnham and Wangford should be removed from the plan and replaced with the allocation of land at Holton Hall Farm. 1.4 As set out in paragraph 12 of the NPPF to be sound, a development should be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Namely that it is: Positively Prepared – The plan should be prepared on a strategy, which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements and consistent with achieving sustainable development. Justified – The plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. Effective – The plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working cross- boundary strategic priorities; and Consistent with National Policy – The plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework. 1.5 This document also provides an assessment of why the current
Suffolk County Council Page 38
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
version of the local plan, is not justified, effective or consistent with National Policy having regard to the NPPF. The Appropriate Assessment, prepared by the Landscape Partnership, has been undertaken following on from objection raised to the emerging Local Plan from Natural England and the RSPB. This assessment was undertaken following the assessment from Natural England and the RSPB that the proposed new allocations for mineral extraction at Barnham, Cavenham and Wangford were found to be likely to have a significant effect upon European sites. 2.2 It is positive that this Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken to address the concerns raised by Natural England and the RSPB, but disappointing that alternative sites have not been allocated for development following the findings of the Appropriate Assessment. Each of the three sites assessed as part of the Appropriate Assessment (Barnham, Cavenham and Wangford) has been analysed in turn. 102298802 David Fletcher, No As set out within our Regulation 19 representations, we are There is no evidence regarding HRA, and Strutt and not in agreement with the Council that the identified extra most of the response is related to planning Parker for H R requirement for allocation of an additional 9,300 Million policy. No change to HRA needed. Philpott Ltd Tonnes of sand and gravel a year (above the already permitted sand and gravel reserves of 11,822 Million Tonnes) will meet the extraction demand over the plan period. It is not consistent with the indicative assessment of housing need for the East of England Counties, which sets out a requirement for 3,112 dwellings to be built in Suffolk per year between 2016 and 2026. Suffolk CC as the Mineral Planning Authority have also not taken into account major infrastructure projects committed over the plan period. In particular, the A12 upgrade, which land at Holton Hall Farm is ideally located to serve should be assessed, which has not been done as part of the current Local Plan. The recent increased demand for mineral is set out within annual monitoring report, which recorded sales of sand and gravel at 1,277 Million Tonnes per year in 2017. This is significantly above the 1,112 Million Tonnes per annum Suffolk are stating that is required during the forthcoming plan period and suggests that the Council have not positively planned for growth within Suffolk. 2.25 Notwithstanding our comments in the Regulation 19 assessment that the quantum of mineral identified should be higher; having regard to the focus of the current consultation, concern is raised in relation to the quantum of material to be
Suffolk County Council Page 39
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 extracted from the three sites that are adjacent to the Breckland Beacons and Minsmere- Walberswick Special Protection Areas. 2.26 As identified within the Submission Draft report, the Barnham quarry has a reserve of some 2.570 Million Tonnes of gravel, the Cavenham quarry contains 3.545 Million Tonnes of gravel, and the Wangford proposed quarry has a reserve of 1 Million Tonnes of sand and gravel. Combined the three sites will provide for a total of 7.115 Million Tonnes of gravel over the plan period. This represents approximately a third of the total material 21.122 Million Tonnes of material to be extracted over the plan period up to 2036. 2.27 For reasons explained earlier on in this representation, it is considered that the approach taken in planning terms is unsound. The allocation of the three sites (but in- particular the site at Barnham), will have a negative impact upon protected species (stone- curlews), but will also result in HGV’s travelling along rural country roads that would give rise to air, dust and noise pollution. The allocation of land at Holton Hall Farm, as explained in previous representations has capacity for the extraction of approximately 3.8 Million Tonnes. It is located in a very sustainable location with direct access to the 7 A12 and can also be extracted without resulting in a negative impact upon the Breckland Beacons and Minsmere- Walberswick Special Protection Areas or without a negative noise and air pollution that the other sites will have. In order for the plan to be considered sound land at Holton Hall Farm should replace the allocations at Barnham and Wangford, or at a minimum replace the allocation at Barnham.
Suffolk County Council Page 40
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
9. OTHER RESPONSES
Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response
Number
operate?
-
Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance withDuty to co 102034295 Chris Stanek, The Council have no comment to make on your appropriate Noted Peterborough assessment consultation. City Council 102034990 Liam Robson, Thank you for your consultation dated 5 November 2018. Noted Environment We have reviewed the Appropriate Assessment dated Agency November 2018 as submitted and can confirm that we have no comments.
102366834 Neil Jarvis, Thank you for consulting the Forestry Commission on the No matters relating to HRA matters are raised. Forestry Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan. The information Commission below is provided to assist you in assessing the appropriateness of sites for future development with regard to any which may be near to Ancient Woodland. It is noted from the Minerals Plan that ancient woodlands are in the vicinity of three of the proposed sites i.e. at Barnham, Belstead and Tattingstone. As a non-statutory consultee, the Forestry Commission is pleased to provide you with the inserted links, information that may be helpful when you consider site allocations or policies within your draft plan. Details of Government Policy relating to Ancient woodland. Information on the importance and designation of ancient woodland. Ancient woodlands are irreplaceable. They have great value because they have a long history of woodland cover, with many features remaining undisturbed. This applies both to ancient semi natural woodland (ASNW) and Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS). It is government policy to refuse development that will result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland, unless "there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists" (NPPF PARA 175). We also refer you to further technical information set out in Natural England and Forestry Commissions standing advice on ancient woodlands - plus Suffolk County Council Page 41
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018 supporting assessment guide and case decisions. As a non-ministerial government department, we provide no opinion supporting or objecting to a policy, an application or site allocation. Rather we are including information on the potential impact that the proposed development would have on ancient woodland. This response provides factual information on related policy which the planning authority may take into account of when preparing plans and when making its decisions on applications. If the Planning Authority takes the decision to approve an application which may impact on Ancient Woodland sites, we may be able to give further support in developing appropriate conditions in relation to woodland management mitigation or compensation measures. Please note however the the standing advice states that "Ancient woodland or veteran trees are irreplaceable, so you should not consider proposed compensation measures as part of your assessment of the benefits of the development proposal". We suggest that you take regard of any points provided by Natural England about the biodiversity of any such woodland. The resilience of existing and new woodland is a key theme of the Forestry Commission's work to protect, improve and expand woodland in England we will continue to work with Forestry/woodland owners, agents, contractors and other Stakeholders to highlight, identify, pests and diseases and to work in partnership to enable woodlands and forests are resilient to the impacts of Climate Change. Woodfuel and timber supplies continue to be an opportunity for local market growth whilst also enabling woodlands to be brought back into active management. The planting of newriparian and floodplain woodland, can help reduce diffuse pollution, protect river morphology, moderate stream temperature and aid flood risk management, as well as meet Biodiversity Action Plan Targets for the restoration and expansion of wet woodland. The Forestry Commission is keen to work in partnership with woodland/forest stakeholders to develop opportunities for woodland creation to deliver these objectives highlighted above. In the wider context the forestry commission encourages local authorities to consider the role of trees in delivering planning objectives as part of a wider integrated landscape approach. For instance through: the inclusion of green infrastructure (including trees abd woodland) in and around Suffolk County Council Page 42
SMWLP Responses to HRA Consultation December 2018
new development; and the use of locally sourced wood in construction and as a sustainable carbon lean fuel.
102307704 Alan Gerrard Not happy with the affect it has on residents. With the dust No site name was given but from the applicant’s and mess etc address we assume the response might relate to Wangford allocation. The response contains no HRA issue.
102034815 Nick Miller I continue to be opposed to any future minerals use, for the This site is not a proposed allocation and no HRA site between Newton Road, Sudbury, Suffolk, and Valley matters were raised. Road, which is the area around the garden centre etc. This is because of its potential future need, as: New connecting road, and possible roundabout, to improve the dangerous A134 junctions at Joes Road and Valley Road; Potential area for employment or other strategic uses, to take pressure of development away from Sudbury. Also I understand the mineral resource here is slight and uneconomic.
99078446 Lesley No No No No evidence was provided to support the three ‘No’s Palmer 99763739 Paul Bastick No comments were made
98780786 Ian Cotgrove No comments were made 98987072 Peta No comments were made Jessemey 99080645 Mitchell Paris No comments were made 99451555 Hannah No comments were made Grey, GVA for NDA 99493738 Sheila No comments were made Carmichael 101732704 Kevin Hurst No comments were made
Suffolk County Council Page 43
Suffolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan, Barnham, September 2017
Suffolk County Council Page 44