Download the Report Item 8 Upper

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF WELLINGBOROUGH AGENDA ITEM 8 Development Committee 31 October 2016

Report of Head of Planning and Local Development

UPPER NENE VALLEY GRAVEL PITS SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (SPD) MITIGATION STRATEGY

1 Purpose of report

To seek approval to adopt the mitigation strategy in Appendix 2, as an addendum to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document.

2 Executive summary

A Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was produced to help local planning authorities, developers and others ensure that development has no significant effect on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA), in accordance with the legal requirements of the Habitats Regulations. This was adopted at Services Committee on 14 September 2015.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Joint Core Strategy identified that development across North Northamptonshire, specifically in East Northamptonshire and Wellingborough, is likely to have a significant effect on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA) and proposed a mitigation strategy to remove the significant effects. During the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) examination process Natural England, confirmed that this approach was necessary to ensure that the plan was legally compliant. A draft mitigation strategy has been the subject of consultation and this report seeks approval of an updated version taking account of comments received to be adopted as an addendum to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area SPD.

3. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Consultation Statement including consultation comments and officer responses. Appendix 2 - Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area SPD mitigation strategy October 2016.

4 Proposed action:

4.1 The committee is invited to RECOMMEND that the Mitigation Strategy in Appendix 2 be adopted as an addendum to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document.

5 Background

5.1 As required through the Habitats Directive during the preparation of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) a Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) was undertaken.

5.2 The HRA was undertaken by URS, now known as AECOM. The result of this assessment was that development across North Northamptonshire, specifically in East Northamptonshire and Wellingborough, is likely to have a significant effect on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA) and proposed a mitigation strategy to remove the significant effects.

5.3 Due to this significant effect Natural England, as a statutory consultee, responded saying that unless a mitigation strategy was in place to remove these significant effects then they would object to the JCS as not being legally compliant.

5.4 Dialogue and meetings took place over the course of summer 2015, in the run up to the JCS examination, with Natural England, the NNJPU and the two councils. An agreement was reached on how to progress a mitigation strategy. Background information was collected to understand the impact of new dwellings on the SPA, which mainly results from an increase in visitor numbers, and more specifically those visiting with dogs.

5.5 During the JCS examination the inspector asked Natural England if they could endorse the approach being taken for the mitigation strategy to support the JCS and they confirmed that they were.

5.6 The discussion at the examination resulted in a main modification to the JCS (Main Modification number 2). This sets out in policy 4 that:

‘A Mitigation Strategy document concerning the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area will be produced, with a view to its subsequent adoption as an Addendum to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document by June 2016, to support the adopted Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031.’ 5.7 Therefore the mitigation strategy needs to be in place as soon as possible after the adoption of the JCS.

5.8 Approval was given on 27 June, by Development Committee, to consult on the draft mitigation strategy as an addendum to the SPA SPD. The consultation took place between 5th August 2016 and 16th September 2016.

6 Discussion

6.1 The mitigation strategy (Appendix 2) is an addendum to the adopted Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document (SPA SPD).

6.2 This part of the SPA SPD will relate to a 3km buffer around the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA, and will apply to all new residential development within this buffer, where a net gain in housing is achieved. The ‘in- combination’ impact of proposals involving a net increase of one or more dwellings will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA unless avoidance and mitigation measures are in place. It is deemed that one extra visitor to the SPA will cause a significant effect; therefore a contribution from each new dwelling is required to meet the Regulations.

6.3 Following research into the Strategic Access and Monitoring Measures (SAMMs) required and the anticipated amount of development over the life of the JCS, it has been calculated that each new dwelling within the buffer needs to contribute £269.58. The mitigation measures identified all fall under the heading SAMMs. This includes fencing and screening, footpath diversions, wardening and monitoring. As competent authorities both East Northamptonshire Council and the Borough Council of Wellingborough are defining these measures as access management required to mitigate effects on the SPA, and not infrastructure. As these measures are required to mitigate effects on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits, as required by the Habitat Regulations, and not general infrastructure, this means that pooling of more than five S106 contributions can take place. This will ensure that the mitigation contribution can be secured from all qualifying developments to ensure no significant effects can occur.

6.4 This contribution is a legal obligation to mitigate against effects on a European site. Following the process set out in the SPD will result in a more efficient and quicker process for the applicant. The alternative of undertaking a project level Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) on each application made, may lead to higher mitigation costs being identified and is likely to take significantly longer.

6.5 The council normally only enter into a S106 agreement for developments of 10 or more units. In this instance, to meet the legal requirements, small developments under this threshold will be liable to contribute to mitigation.

6.6 There are two possible ways the council can collect the contribution. Either through direct payment using Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 or through unilateral undertakings. Officers have considered these options and feel that the best approach to ensure efficiency and speed is to collect payments through the direct payment route using S111.

6.7 The council will retain the contributions that are paid, and will work to instruct contractors to undertake the access management, the wardening and the monitoring. It is anticipated that the Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust will undertake the practical and wardening work, and Natural England will commission the monitoring.

Consultation

6.8 The addendum to the SPD has been consulted on for a six week period between 5th August 2016 and 16th September 2016. The consultation responses received along with the officers responses are shown in Appendix 1. There were 11 responses received to the consultation, 4 supporting the document, 4 providing no comment, 2 that had elements of support with caveats and one objection. In summary the main issues identified through the consultation are: • That the collection of money is not compliant with the CIL regulations. • That a standard approach should not be taken. • Each application will need to meet its own requirements. • That other large scale developments do not need to make the contributions on top of other provision. • Not clear where each ‘unit’ of the SPA is.

6.9 Following the consultation the changes proposed to the mitigation strategy include: • Further text to explain how the mitigation is required to meet Habitat Regulations and how CIL regulations are met (Paragraph 1.1 and new Appendix 3). • Clarify that applicants have the option of undertaking their own project level Appropriate Assessment should they wish and meeting the identified mitigation. • Clarification that large developments that are capable of meeting the mitigation required through the Habitat Regulation can do so on site, where this is providing a size of open space that is sufficient to ensure no significant effect on the SPA they will not be required to contribute further (paragraph 1.5). • Include an overview map of the SPA with the unit numbers marked.

6.10 The changes identified have been included in the attached Mitigation Strategy in Appendix 2 and this report seeks approval to adopt this as policy.

7 Legal powers

Supplementary Planning Documents are prepared under the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (Statutory Instrument 2012 No. 767).

The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar site is legally protected by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’).

It is proposed to collect direct payment using Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.

8 Financial and value for money implications

The implementation of a mitigation strategy will require legal resources for reviewing legal documents; these costs would be sought from the applicant. There could also be a resources implication to monitor and enforce and collect monies however this is anticipated to be quite low, but this will need to be reviewed regularly and factored in to the figure requested.

9 Risk analysis

Nature of risk Consequences Likelihood of Control if realised occurrence measures Not having a Reliance on Medium Provide guidance mitigation strategic and through mitigation strategy for the national policy strategy. Upper Nene which are broad. Valley Gravel Pits SPA to Not being able assist the to provide Council in relevant fulfilling its information to statutory duties. Natural England which will delay determination of planning applications. Not approving Lack of Low Adoption of the the SPD consistent SPD addendum. addendum to approach to the the Upper Nene SPA across the Valley Gravel local authorities. Pits SPA. Applicants will need to provide individual Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRA).

10 Implications for resources

Natural England must be consulted on proposals that could affect the SPA. The introduction of the mitigation strategy provides greater clarity for the development management team as to how to deal with potential impact on the SPA.

11 Implications for stronger and safer communities

None anticipated.

12 Implications for equalities

There are no equality and diversity implications anticipated arising from the proposals.

13 Author and contact officer

Sue Bateman, Senior Planning Officer

14 Consultees

Julie Thomas, Head of Planning and Local Development Liz Elliott, Head of Finance Bridget Lawrence, Head of Resources Victoria Phillipson, Principal Planning Policy and Regeneration Manager Maxine Simmons, Principal Planning and Building Control Manager Erica Buchanan, Assistant Principal Development Management Officer Felicity Webber, Landscape Officer Emma Granger, District Law

15 Background papers

None

Appendix 1

Statement of Consultation

Addendum to the SPA/SPD Mitigation Strategy

Regulation 12 (a) requires the preparation of a consultation statement before a local planning authority adopts a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The consultation statement must set out:

• The persons the local planning authority consulted when preparing the supplementary planning document; • A summary of the main issues raised by those persons; and • How those issues have been addressed in the supplementary planning document

Regulation 12 (b) and 35 set out further statutory requirements in respect of the consultation process. They require that:

• There is a consultation period of at least 4 weeks; • Documents are available for inspection at the Council’s principal office and at such other places as the local planning authority consider appropriate; and • Documents are published on the local planning authority’s website.

Following approval by committees at

East Northamptonshire Council - 27th July 2016

Borough Council of Wellingborough 27th June 2016

A public consultation was undertaken between Friday 5th August 2016 and Friday 16th September 2016 by the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (NNJPU) on behalf of the two councils. This was for a period of six weeks in accordance with the adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

Borough Council of Wellingborough SCI - http://www.wellingborough.gov.uk/downloads/file/6101/statement_of_community_involveme nt_2014

East Northamptonshire SCI - http://www.east- northamptonshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/6776/statement_of_community_involvement

In all 1,285 consultation emails were sent, this included specific targeted emails to small housebuilders and agents across the area. Copies of the documents were available at all the Libraries and Council offices in East Northamptonshire and Wellingborough. A newspaper article was in the local paper, the Nene Valley News, and consultation material was also available on both council websites and the NNJPUs.

The consultation email was sent to all Town and Parish Councils in the area of North Northamptonshire and all the statutory consultees and local interest groups.

There were in total 11 responses to the consultation, the majority (8) of which were no comments or supportive of the strategy. The responses came from:

• Sport England • Historic England • Higham Ferrers Town Council • Natural England • Harrington Parish Council • Anglian Water • Davidsons Developments • Bovis Homes • Northampton Borough Council • Chelveston Parish Council • Taylor Wimpey and Barratts

Representations will be considered and taken on board in the reiteration of the document for reporting back to the committees for adoption.

Ref Rep Name Organisation Summary of Response Support JPU response Modifications No No or Object?

001 1 Steve Beard Sport England Sport England that advised that they do not wish to make any comments No Noted no on this consultation. comment 002 1 Emilie Carr Historic England Thank you for consulting Historic England. Historic England have no No Noted no comment to make comment 003 1 Sandra Higham Ferrers The Council have now considered the Addendum to the SPA/SPD Mitigation Support Noted no Mitcham Town Council Strategy and have agreed that they fully support the document. 004 1 Kayleigh Natural England Thank you for consulting Natural England. Natural England is supportive of the Support Noted no Cheese addendum to the SPA/SPD: Mitigation Strategy for the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document. Natural England has been involved in the process and agreed to the mitigation measures, therefore we 005 1 Betty West Harrington Harringtonh fh Parish Council was pleased k to be informed of this strategy but Support Noted. It should be highlighted that there is no intention to build no Parish Council dismayed that it is the intention to build on this protected site. directly on the SPA. This is to mitigate development that will be built a set distance 006 1 Stewart Anglian Water We note that the SPD is intended to provide guidance for residential No Noted no Patience developers proposing sites within proximity to a European designated nature comment conservation site. Anglian Water has no comments relating to this document as the planning guidance falls outside our remit as a water company.

007 1 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf DDL have a number of land interests with the district, including the promotion Comment Noted no Smith of Davidsons of development at Land off Attley Way. Irthlingborough. The promoted site is Developments subject to a live planning application which falls within the area of East Northamptonshire Council, which is an area proposed to be covered by the addendum to the SPD. 007 2 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf DDL acknowledge the international importance of the SPA and its ecological Comment Noted no Smith of Davidsons value. It is agreed that a clear process for agreeing mitigation that addresses Developments site specific impacts is likely to be quicker and more efficient than undertaking a project level Habitat Regulations Assessment for any residential development. 007 3 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf DDL raise strong objection to the overall strategy being proposed. The Object The strategy does accord with policy 4 and the supporting text. A no Smith of Davidsons approach of a 'blanket' contribution towards mitigation does not accord with blanket approach is not being required applicants can still produce Developments Policy 4 'Biodiversity and Geodiversity', and the relevant policy guidance text a site specific HRA if they prefer, this approach was intending to set out in Paragraphs 3.30- simplify the process for 007 4 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf Policy 4d) states that development must satisfy requirements of the Habitat Object There is an option of undertaking a project level Appropriate yes - set out more clearly in Smith of Davidsons Regulations, determining site specific impacts and avoiding or mitigating Assessment if the applicant wishes and then meeting the mitigation introduction that applicants Developments against impacts where identified. Mitigation may involve providing or required to ensure no significant effects on the SPA will occur, can undertake their own contributing towards a combination of measures. The measures set out in including in combination effects. This could be set out more clearly HRA instead. Paragraph 1.3. Policy 4 should be considered on a site by site basis. Para 3.43 states that in the Strategy. "When planning new development...... those outcomes to be resourced by developer contributions, where considered necessary to deliver mitigation measures. "

Ref Rep Name Organisation Summary of Response Support JPU response Modifications No No or Object?

007 4 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf Policy 4 and associated text promotes a flexible approach in considering site Object Do not agree. The mitigation strategy provides developers with no Smith of Davidsons specific impact mitigation; it does not follow that a 'blanket' approach should options and if necessary Natural England will require further Developments therefore be taken. If a site has an impact it is necessary to mitigate that mitigation, because of the local impact/design, at some sites on top impact locally. In principle, the approach of the mitigation strategy as of the standard SAMMs contribution. Or a bespoke project level proposed is in conflict with the adopted development plan policy. Appropriate Assessment can be undertaken. If there is an impact it needs to be mitigated where the impact occurs. Walkers by their very nature create impacts away from the site.

007 4 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf Mitigation measures that are to be secured through the planning system via Object The mitigation is required to meet Habitat Regulations in order to yes - additional text to Smith of Davidsons S106 or condition must meet the relevant planning policy (NPPF) and allow the development to take place. Small developments will be explain how the legal tests Developments legislative requirements, in particular those set out within regulations 122 and through a s111 agreement. Large developments more likely to be are being met. New Appendix 123 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010) as amended. through a s106. The mitigation measures are considered to meet 3. the relevant NPPF and legislative requirements.

007 5 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf The Mitigation Strategy proposes all new residential development within the Object Do not agree. The mitigation is a) directly related. Evidence yes - additional text to Smith of Davidsons 3km zone will pay the sum of £269.44 to cover the Habitat Regulation demonstrates that visitors come mainly from within a 3km zone explain how the legal tests Developments Requirements to ensure that no significant in-combination effects occur within around the SPA and visit different areas within the SPA. Therefore are being met. New the SPA. DDL do not believe that this approach meets the planning new development that falls within the 3km buffer can be seen to Appendix 3. obligations tests as the financial contributions being sought are (a) not directly be directly increasing visitors to the SPA. b) it is fair and related to the development or (b) fairly and reasonably related in scale and reasonable because the true costs have been minimised where kind to the development. DDL does not object to the principle of financial possible, as shown in the difference between table 1 and 2 in the contributions are required in this instance, then there needs to be better document. The costs are apportioned between all development transparency in the connection between specific projects, costs, assumed across the identified area and this will mitigate the impacts across impact of specific sites and the amount sought in order to satisfy the planning the SPA. Wardening costs need to be spread across a wide area obligation tests. The mitigation strategy addendum as it stands fails to do this. to achieve economies of scale and a manageable area to cover. They would not be able to warden one parcel, this would increase, significantly, the costs involved. Additional text can be added to clearly state how the planning obligations tests are being met.

Ref Rep Name Organisation Summary of Response Support JPU response Modifications No No or Object?

007 6 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf DDL note one of the key issues being addressed through the Mitigation Object Aspects such as this will be taken into account by the case officer no Smith of Davidsons Measures is disturbance, particularly from dog walkers (page 10). Land at in relation to the plans and proposals submitted. No exemptions to Developments Attley Way, Irthlingborough is presently being promoted for residential be incorporated into the document as this will be determined on a development comprising market and affordable homes, together with a care site by site application bases. home. Based upon the current guidance, this development will be expected to make equal financial contributions from each new dwelling, irrespective of the fact that it is unlikely future residents of the Care Home will result in trips to the SPA for dog walking. This provides an excellent example that, even on a single site, the contributions being sought are not fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

007 6 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf The SPD indicates that contributions will be sought through S106 agreements Object Natural England have considered what is required to mitigate yes - change to paragraph Smith of Davidsons and fall outside the definition of infrastructure as SAMM (Strategic Access against increased visitors to the SPA, this takes into account the 1.1 and new appendix 3. Developments Monitoring Management) contributions and are a ‘legal obligation’ to mitigate in-combination effects, as required by the Habitat Regulations. the effects of residential development on a European Site; a fuller explanation Agree that further text should be added to make it clearer the of this should be included within the text of the SPD. If this interpretation is distinction that these requirements are because of Habitat correct, DDL acknowledge that the pooling requirements of CIL regulation Regulations, if Habitat Regulations are not met and impacts 123 do not apply. However, the definition of infrastructure is somewhat mitigated then permission must not be granted. ambiguous and some measures such as access improvements, footpath diversions and interpretation boards (as listed on page 17) could be considered ‘infrastructure’. These bring about general improvements to the area and cannot be specifically linked to a single site. Careful consideration needs to be given to the wording and measures to ensure that only measures required to make the development acceptable in planning terms are included.

Ref Rep Name Organisation Summary of Response Support JPU response Modifications No No or Object?

007 6 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf DDL would like to emphasise that planning obligations cannot be used to Object The measures outlined in the mitigation strategy are to mitigate yes - include an overview Smith of Davidsons address any existing infrastructure deficits. The proposed approach to the against the impact of future development. map showing the units and Developments Mitigation Strategy results in contributing to mitigation as a result of existing Unit 1 is located in Northampton and does not appear to be visited add text that explains why use by existing residents for recreational purposes. Planning obligations by North Northamptonshire walkers and is therefore not some maps not required. cannot be used to ‘make good’ existing deficits. Appendix 2 provides the considered further. Units 4 has no further mitigation at present Add in Appendix 2. Mitigation Needs Assessments. This section sets out all the measures beyond what has been agreed with the Stanton Cross required to mitigate the recreational impacts on the Upper Nene Gravel Pits. development, therefore a map is not necessary. These are generally: screening, fencing, wardening and monitoring. From Unit 5 has some path rerouting and fencing required alongside these requirements, a short list of options has been included with a series of wardening. Further discussions need to take place for the exact mitigation measures set out for relevant ‘units’. DDL note that some of the location of these. Issues and Mitigation have been omitted from the document (Unit 1), whilst Unit 6, Stanwick Lakes, has no identified requirements at this others do not presently have maps (Units 4 and 5). For consistency, these stage as already a well managed site. should be included within the final document. Moreover, Unit 6 presently has no issues or mitigation requirements (although there is no map so we are unable to ascertain where this unit is located).

007 6 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf DDL requests fully costed mitigation measures for each part of the SPA to Object In combination effects need to be accounted for as per the habitat yes - add further text in Smith of Davidsons enable transparency and to ensure that each development actually results in regulations. Therefore a suit of mitigation that is required to meet section 2: Developments the suggested impact. Page 17 (and table 2) set out the measures that are the anticipated development in the buffer area needs to set out. 'Wardening and off-lead included in the calculation of the final costs. DDL is somewhat concerned that For example wardening can only happen effectively at a scale exercise areas are both this includes the funding of 0.5 officers within the Local Planning Authorities to across the area, this will make it more cost effective and this is necessary for successful monitor and coordinate the collection of mitigation funds, oversee works and reflected in the standard SAMM figure provided. Add further text mitigation of visitor impacts report on the mitigation strategy. DDL wish to highlight a recent court case1 in to demonstrate how the figure has been moderated from the full to the SPA. Both are very respect of monitoring S106 obligations which has found that a requirement for cost. high- cost measures: the the payment of administration and monitoring fees does not accord with reg. Admin costs are factored into the SAMM to cover the costs of cost of four wardens alone 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010, as amended. This collection, governance and management of implementation of would be cost (monitoring and administration) should, therefore, be discounted from any the mitigation. £2,465,484 over the life of financial contributions sought. Furthermore, sites should not be contributing to Strategic Access Management and Monitoring are those aspects the Joint Core Strategy. 'wardening' as this is a revenue cost. All capital projects to be paid for by the that are needed to ensure no significant effect occurs on the SPA. Including them would contribution need to be clearly identified, costed and demonstrate how they In this instance a variety of measures are required to deliver the therefore render new mitigate impact from a specific site. If a site provides its own mitigation, then overall package to mitigate the effects. development unviable and this should remove the requirement for any off site measures/contributions. If a development is meeting its own mitigation requirements as would cause it to pay for identified through a project level Appropriate Assessment approved existing effects on the SPA’s by the local authority and Natural England then there will be no qualifying features. The further requirement to contribute further. Although the majority of mitigation strategy must the smaller developments will be unable to provide their own instead include an mitigation, because the impacts to the SPA occur away from the appropriate but development site. On site mitigation wouldn't work so would violate representative proportion of the Habitat Regulations. the total measures required.'

Ref Rep Name Organisation Summary of Response Support JPU response Modifications No No or Object?

007 7 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf Whilst DDL agree that contributions toward mitigation should be paid early on Object There are two ways of payment of the mitigation. For small yes - add in that phasing of Smith of Davidsons in the development, upfront payment in total is onerous and should instead developments, those of 9 or less, where a s106 is not required, will payments can be an option Developments look at phasing of the payments. Furthermore, due to the manner in which pay their mitigation through a s111 agreement. It is considered for for those using a s06 for obligations are being pooled, the applicant will have no guarantee as to when development of this size that payment up front, in order to ensure larger developments if the proposed mitigation will be implemented. Moreover, due to the current they gain planning permission by meeting habitat regulations, is appropriate. Para 4.6. proposals that allow for money to be spent anywhere within the SPA, DDL achievable. For larger developments where a s106 will be in place envisage a situation where mitigation is being provided some distance from then there could be the potential to phase payments, however the site and not addressing the direct impacts of the site. some mitigation money will be required at the start to ensure that the management and mitigation is in place for occupation, to ensure no significant effects on the SPA takes place. The work programme that will be in place will ensure that the mitigation is taking place in the locations that it is required by aligning planning permissions and work streams. The nature of the in combination effects and that the impact from walkers means that the mitigation of a development may take place some distance away. 007 8 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf DDL acknowledge the importance of the SPA and its ecological value. It is Object Noted no Smith of Davidsons recognised that the production of a Mitigation Strategy as an addendum to the Developments Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA SPD is a requirement of NNJCS Policy 4 and the Habitats Regulations. The mitigation of disturbance on the SPA, particularly from dog walkers, is recognised to be a key planning challenge which requires a strategic approach to the co-ordination of mitigation.

007 8 Rebecca Bidwells on behalf However, DDL strongly objects to the approach being proposed. The principle Object Do not agree with this principle. However additional wording will be yes - change to paragraph Smith of Davidsons that all sites within a 3km buffer of the SPA are to make a standard financial added to set out the reasons for this and how the Habitat 1.1 Developments contribution for mitigation measures represents a 'blanket' approach which Regulations need to be met to allow any permission to be given. does not conform to the adopted planning policy. Furthermore, it fails to meet the statutory tests of Reg 122, in particular being directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

008 1 Mark Rose Bovis Homes Bovis Homes and their landowner partners support the principle purpose of the Support Noted. Additional wording to be added to make clear how yes - new Appendix 3 addendum, which seeks to secure specific mitigation for impacts on the SPA regulations are being met. resulting from new residential development. In doing so, they recognise the benefits of the contribution mechanism as a means of financing measures to mitigate the impact on bird species as a result of increased access to the SPA stemming from development, thereby sharing the financial burden associated with that across all development in the identified area. In this respect it is assumed that all of the CIL regulations are fully met in terms of the costing of mitigation and the pooling of contributions from different schemes.

008 2 Mark Rose Bovis Homes Para 1.5 of the addendum entirely appropriately seeks to omit 'sites that Support Noted no already have planning permission' and confirms that these will not be required to pay any additional migration sum. BHL and their landowner partners support this approach, which reflects the assumptions set out within the Habitat Regulations Assessment Addendum (June 2015).

Ref Rep Name Organisation Summary of Response Support JPU response Modifications No No or Object?

008 3 Mark Rose Bovis Homes Whilst Stanton Cross SUE is identified on the JCS Key Diagram (Figure 12), it Support Noted no is not included as a point of reference on the JCS Policies Maps (Appendix 1) for North Northamptonshire overall, or the Wellingborough Inset Map, despite it being identified as a Committed SUE in the context of Policy 29 (Distribution of New Homes). Given this and the proposed inclusion of Stanton Cross SUE (Site Policy 1) in the emerging Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough (PBW) that will form Part 2 of the Local Plan, the committed site is clearly relevant to the SPA impact area considered within the addendum and should be specifically identified in that context.

008 4 Mark Rose Bovis Homes In any case, the presumption against applying the SPD retrospectively to Support Noted no committed strategic developments is critical in respect of Stanton Cross and very much supported. There has been specific and comprehensive consideration of the mitigation requirements of the Stanton Cross SUE in relation to any associated impact on the SPA, and ongoing consultation with Natural England in relation to the delivery of development in this location. Notably, that includes the phased provision of specific ecological mitigation areas and the development and implementation of an access and management strategy for the SPA area. This is proposed in conjunction with the significant green infrastructure that will be delivered within the Stanton Cross SUE, over and above the normal requirements for open space provision for the scale of development proposed, and the future management of such. In this context, the mitigation directly provided by the Stanton Cross SUE has also been considered in the context of meeting the requirements of the Habitats Regulations Assessment. This clearly justifies the exemption of Stanton Cross SUE from the proposed contributions. 008 5 Mark Rose Bovis Homes In conclusion, BHL considers that the guidance provided within this addendum Object Further text can be added into paragraph 1.5 of the addendum. yes - change to para 1.5 should provide further explanation and explicit reference to key strategic sites Large scale developments that have the scope to deliver Suitable that are intended to be exempt from the proposed contribution. In particular Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs) are unlikely to be specific reference should be made to the committed development at Stanton required to meet the standard contribution as a bespoke project Cross, the comprehensive mitigation measures proposed, and logically level Appropriate Assessment will be required. associated development of East of Stanton Cross. In doing so, the SPD can be readily applied to new development, whilst still ensuring that the mitigation requirements relevant to committed strategic sites are maintained.

009 1 Claire Berry Northampton Thank you for consulting Northampton Borough Council on the Addendum No Noted no Borough Council to the SPA/SPD Mitigation Strategy. I confirm that Northampton Borough comment Council has no comments.

010 1 Mark Hunter Chelveston With regard to the above consultation, this was considered by the Parish Support Noted no Parish Council Council earlier this week. The meeting noted the need for the mitigation contributions and does not consider that a charge of £269.44 per dwelling would materially impact any developers. The proposal is therefore supported.

Ref Rep Name Organisation Summary of Response Support JPU response Modifications No No or Object?

011 1 Eleanor Bidwells on behalf As part of satisfying the legal requirements to restore, protect and maintain the Comment Noted no Gingell of Taylor Wimpey ecological integrity of the SPA, the NNJCS provides for a strategic approach and Barratts through the adoption of a mitigation strategy. This strategy was considered fundamental to ensuring that the NNJCS was found sound and removing standing objections from Natural England. The proposed addendum, which is enshrined within Policy 4 of the adopted NNJCS, forms part of this mitigation strategy and was intended to be adopted no later than June 2016.

011 2 Eleanor Bidwells on behalf Paragraph 1.5 of the document states, "due to its size Rushden East will Comment Noted no Gingell of Taylor Wimpey provide its own Suitable Natural Alternative Greenspace (SANG), and is and Barratts therefore not considered to fall in the remit of this mitigation".

011 2 Eleanor Bidwells on behalf My clients are presently in the process of preparing a masterplan document in Comment Support noted. The SANG will need to be provided, discussions on no Gingell of Taylor Wimpey partnership with East Northants Council. As part of the preparation, a number this will take place through the master planning work with the and Barratts of meetings have been held with relevant stakeholders including Natural Council and developer. England. At present, based on the advice received, my client is preparing a masterplan, which will inform on Outline Planning Application. The masterplan is being developed on the premise that a SANG could potentially be provided as part of the development, subject to detailed negotiations with Natural England. This area is likely to comprise a large single area of space, together with multi-functional green links to enable circular walks and easy access to strategic green infrastructure for residents of Rushden and the proposed development. 011 2 Eleanor Bidwells on behalf It is acknowledged that paragraph 1.5 also indicates that, should a SANG not Comment Noted. SANGs are classified as infrastructure, so agree with this no Gingell of Taylor Wimpey be provided, then financial contributions may become payable. It is comment. and Barratts considered that, due to the size and scale of the proposed development that any mitigation agreed with Natural England will follow a 'bespoke' path and not be subject to the standard change. Any contributions or obligations agreed as part of a mitigation package will need to meet the tests of Regs 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010).

011 3 Eleanor Bidwells on behalf My clients acknowledge the importance of the SPA and its ecological value Support Noted no Gingell of Taylor Wimpey and through continued joint working with East Northants Council and and Barratts Natural England will seek to identify suitable mitigation.

Appendix 2

The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document

Addendum to the SPA SPD: Mitigation Strategy

Document for adoption approval Borough Council of Wellingborough – 31st October 2016 East Northamptonshire Council – 21st November 2016

Please note that no change is being made to the already adopted SPA SPD, this addendum will slot into the end of the document as a new section 6.

CONTENTS

Section Page

1 Purpose 4 2 Background 4 3 Regulations 5 4 Implications and Contribution to Access Management 5 5 Process 6 6 Payment mechanisms 8 7 Governance 8 8 Conclusions 8

Appendix 1 Map showing 3km zone around SPA 9 Appendix 2 Mitigation Needs Assessment 10 Appendix 3 Compliance with planning obligation tests 22 Appendix 4 S106 Wording 24 Appendix 5 Section 111 template 25

Definitions 26

This addendum (to the Special Protection Area SPD for the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits) applies to the council areas of East Northamptonshire and Wellingborough. These two authority areas in North Northamptonshire have the potential for residential sites to be located within the 3km buffer zone of the SPA, which is detailed further below.

1. Purpose 1.1 Local Planning Authorities have the duty as competent authorities under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations) to ensure that planning application decisions comply with the Habitats Regulations. The North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011 – 2031 (Local Plan part 1) policy 4 safeguards the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area, which was designated in April 2011 under the regulations, due to its number and type of bird species present. If Habitat Regulations are not met and impacts not mitigated then development must not be permitted.

1.2 Evidence produced to inform the production of the Councils’ Local Plan as identified in the Habitats Regulation Assessment for the Joint Core Strategy (JCS)1 and detailed in paragraph 3.40 – 3.42 and policy 4 of the JCS, states that all new residential development within 3km 2 of the SPA will result in a significant effect on the SPA, a map can be found in Appendix 1 showing the 3km buffer. The ‘in- combination’ impact of proposals involving a net increase of one or more dwellings within a 3km radius of the SPA are concluded to have an adverse effect on its integrity unless avoidance and mitigation measures are in place. This is through an increase in visitors that will in turn increase the level of disturbance to the wintering waterbirds, particularly through dog walking.

1.4 For residential developments which result in a net increase in the number of dwellings within 3km of the SPA it is proposed to avoid and mitigate likely significant effect on the SPA by making a financial contribution towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) and/or other suitable mitigation. This would reduce the adverse impact of people visiting the SPA through specific measures and monitoring.

1.3 This section of the SPD sets out the mitigation costs for residential developments that fall within the 3km catchment. For most development, the contribution to mitigation will remove the adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA. Alternatively applicants can undertake their own project level Appropriate Assessment and fulfil the mitigation that is required through that Assessment.

1.5 Sites that already have planning permission will not be required to pay any additional mitigation sum, unless they are resubmitted for consideration. Due to its size Rushden East will provide its own Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and is therefore not considered to fall in the remit of this mitigation, however if suitable space is not provided within that development, this will need to be reassessed. Other large scale development, that have the scope to deliver SANGs, are unlikely to be required to meet the standard contribution as a bespoke project level HRA will be required and the mitigation identified in that assessment will need to be delivered.

2. Background 2.1 An assessment of need was undertaken to understand the impacts of recreational use in the SPA, this can be found in Appendix 2. This primarily used data collected by Footprint Ecology in their Visitor Access Study of the Nene Valley3 (2014). This demonstrates that the number of dog walkers

1 http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/publications/docdetail.asp?docid=1503 2 This definition means any new residential development that includes land within its red line boundary that falls within the 3km buffer and the whole site is expected to pay towards access management as set out in this document. 3 http://www.nnjpu.org.uk/publications/docdetail.asp?docid=1437 3

visiting the area is high and that further development will increase pressure at various locations along the SPA.

2.2 The required mitigation includes access management such as screens and fencing as well as directing walkers to less sensitive areas, alongside wardening and monitoring to minimise or address the adverse effects of people visiting the SPA.

2.3 Table 1 and 2 in Appendix 2 demonstrate that wardening and off-lead exercise areas are both necessary for successful mitigation of visitor impacts to the SPA. Both are very high-cost measures: over the life of the Joint Core Strategy. Including them would render new development unviable and would cause it to pay for existing effects on the SPA’s qualifying features. The mitigation strategy has instead included an appropriate but representative proportion of the total measures required. Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) costs have then been apportioned by distributing the costs evenly across the anticipated development within 3km of the SPA within the plan period.

3. Regulations 3.1 The Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) contributions are a specific SPA mitigation measure. They are sought for the management of access to the SPA and do not provide wider benefit or represent the provision of infrastructure. These contributions should not be classed as providing infrastructure so can be secured through section 106 obligations without any restriction on pooling of contributions from 5 or more developments (Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations). This approach is consistent with the views of other local authorities across the country in dealing with mitigation requirements for other SPAs and has been accepted by inspectors at appeal.

3.2 The National Planning Practice Guidance4 also confirms that local planning authorities may seek planning contributions for sites of less than 10 dwellings to fund measures with the purpose of facilitating development that would otherwise be unable to proceed because of regulatory or EU Directive requirements.

3.3 The SAMM contribution is a legal obligation to mitigate against effects on a European site. By following the process set out in this SPD it will be quicker and more efficient for applicants than the requirement to undertake a project level Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) for any residential development applications, which may lead to higher mitigation costs.

3.4 Appendix 3 demonstrates compliance with the three tests of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010 as amended) and paragraph 204 of the NPPF.

3.5 Where developments result in the need for specific new infrastructure in addition to the SAMM contribution to mitigate impacts on the SPA, contributions will be negotiated on a case by case basis in dialogue with Natural England and the Local Authority, and will need to meet the relevant regulations. This would include items such as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs). Such infrastructure would not be sought from sites of less than 10 dwellings.

4 Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 23b-020-20160519 of the national Planning Practice Guidance 4

4. Implications and Contribution to Access Management

4.1 The contribution figure detailed below was arrived at through the needs assessment work that costed out the required works, mainly screening and fencing alongside the use of a warden to guide and educate dog walkers in the sensitive locations of the Nene Valley. Monitoring is an important part of access management to ensure that the schedule of works are completed in a timely manner, identify any significant changes in access which could require alterations to management works, and investigate how disturbance affects the birds to inform future management. These works are those required over the lifetime of the Joint Core Strategy to 2031.

Developments of 9 or fewer

4.2 Any new residential development will have an impact and therefore must be mitigated. The calculated contributions are for each new dwelling to contribute a set figure of £269.44. This will be indexed linked, with a base date of 2016. This will be reviewed periodically.

4.3 Making this contribution will remove the need for developments to undertake project level Appropriate Assessment and speed up the process of approval from Natural England. This would, in turn, speed up the determination of these minor applications.

4.4 An example of specific wording to secure this contribution through a planning obligation can be found in Appendix 4. If following this mechanism of payment then a legal fee will also be required. Alternatively a payment through section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 can be made with no further legal cost, see Appendix 5. Templates and guidance notes can be downloaded from the Council’s website.

Developments of 10 or more

4.5 Where a development will create 10 or more net additional dwellings it is advised that early dialogue with Natural England should take place. Natural England will then advise the Local Planning Authority if mitigation may be dealt with through a fixed contribution of £269.44 per dwelling (indexed linked, with a base date of 2016) and/or bespoke mitigation. Further mitigation will be in exceptional circumstances and where Natural England advise. If a bespoke process is required then a project level Appropriate Assessment will be required.

4.6 The contribution would be set out in a legal agreement for the application. An example of specific wording to secure this contribution through a s106 agreement can be found in appendix 4. If appropriate, phasing of payments for larger schemes can be written into the legal agreement with the agreement of Natural England, but some upfront payments would normally be required.

Permitted Development Rights

4.7 The General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) allows for the change of use of some buildings and land to Class C3 (dwelling houses), with this development subject to prior approval process. However the Habitats Regulations also apply to such developments. The Council is obliged by the regulations to assume that there will be an in-combination significant effect on the SPA.

4.8 Any development for prior approval should also be accompanied by an application for the council to do a Habitats Regulations Assessment on the proposed development (please note there will be a

charge for this). The development will need to include a mitigation package to remove the significant effect on the SPA which new residential development would otherwise result in.

4.9 The mitigation package will be secured through a direct payment using a Section 111 agreement.

Examples of different level of contribution

Development of 8 units within the 3km buffer – 8 x £269.44 = contribution of £2,155.52 for SAMMs.

Development of 27 units within the 3km buffer - 27 x £269.44 = contribution of £7,274.88 for SAMMs PLUS cost of access infrastructure due to location near to an access point.

Development of 44 units within the 3km buffer – 44 x £269.44 = contribution of £11,855.36 for SAMMs.

5. Process 5.1 The flow chart set out on the next page shows how the process will work.

Development involving net additional dwellings within 3km of SPA to contribute to mitigation measures as follows: Committed Developments (see FC 21 of the JCS) - No further HRA or contributions to mitigation required unless scheme is resubmitted. New Developments

9 or fewer net additional dwellings, or 10 or more net additional dwellings, or (for outline applications) less than 0.4 Ha (for outline applications) 0.4 Ha or site area, provided that the scheme does greater site area. not form part of a larger potential

development.

Natural England to advise LPA whether mitigation may be dealt with through one or both of

Fixed contribution to Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMMs). Bespoke Fixed contributions to contribution to Strategic Access Management mitigation measures and Monitoring (SAMMs) and based on detail of where necessary, contribution scheme. to infrastructure. No project level Appropriate Assessment required for recreational Project level Appropriate No project level Appropriate pressure impacts subject Assessment and bespoke Assessment required subject to per-dwelling legal agreement/condition to contribution being secured. required to secure contribution being secured. mitigation measures.

Developer contributions held by LPAs and drawn down by implementing bodies for:

Strategic Access Infrastructure specific 7 Management and projects (pooling from up to Monitoring. 5 Developments).

Process Chart 1 to determine contributions to mitigate impact on the SPA.

6. Payment mechanisms 6.1 If using a planning obligation, on commencement of development the contributions to SAMM will be required as per the legal agreement. It is important that the contribution towards SAMM is made on commencement to ensure the mitigation is in place ahead of any significant effect on the SPA. For dwellings of 9 or less and the s111 mechanism has been followed as in paragraph 4.4 a form should be completed with payment at the application stage.

6.2 To comply with Habitats Regulations, payment for the mitigation must be in place before occupation of the development. The obligation will contain the following occupation restriction. This is non negotiable. Not to occupy the development or any part thereof until the Council has issued written confirmation that the payment for the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring contribution has been received.

As referred to in paragraph 4.6 above phasing options can be considered for larger schemes on a case by case basis. Occupation restrictions could relate to specific phases of the development.

7 Governance 7.1 The Local Authority will hold the developer contributions and this will be paid to third party providers to undertake the physical work required or to undertake the wardening. One of the partners will be the local Wildlife Trust who also own or manage a number of sites along the Nene Valley.

8 Conclusion 8.1 The above contributions are in line with the CIL pooling restrictions and are necessary to enable the proposed development to satisfy policy, guidance and the Habitats Regulations. Failure to mitigate the impacts on the SPA will result in an approval of the application being unlawful and contrary to Policy 4 of the JCS.

8.2 This approach to SPA mitigation has been fully endorsed by Natural England.

Appendix 1 – map of the SPA

Appendix 2 – Mitigation Needs Assessment

Introduction

This summarises the measures needed to mitigate the recreational impact on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA arising from proposed housing provision in the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031.

The Habitats Regulations require that the effects of plans and projects be assessed and mitigation implemented for any likely significant effects on a European site. This report presents a suite of measures which are considered feasible, appropriate and necessary to mitigate the likely effects of additional housing proposed in the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

It is the intention that all new residential development within 3km of the SPA will be subject to the Mitigation Strategy, irrespective of whether such development is included in this needs assessment.

SPA mitigation Options

Mitigation needs have been determined on a unit-by-unit basis at the request of Natural England. The most common requirements are screening, fencing, wardening and monitoring, which is required throughout the SPA to evaluate visitor pressure and patterns over time. Below is the short list of options which could provide effective mitigation for additional recreational pressure.

Access management

Access management measures are focused on a) screening the SPA’s qualifying features from disturbance and b) redirecting visitor access away from highly sensitive areas towards less sensitive parts of the SPA. Some interpretation is also included to explain the reasoning behind these measures and help visitors to continue to enjoy using the site while protecting its conservation value.

Wardening

Wardening is by far the single most costly mitigation element. In addition to enforcement and education, wardening may be able to facilitate measures like car park charging and seasonal zoning/access management. It is estimated that a team of four wardens would be required to mitigate visitor impacts across the SPA.

Monitoring

The role of monitoring must be restricted in an SPA mitigation strategy. It is not permissible, for example, to include monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures as this presupposes the possibility of their failure. Implementation of the mitigation strategy itself must be monitored however to ensure it progresses on schedule. Patterns of visitor access to and around the SPA must be monitored for any significant changes that could require adjustments to access management. Finally, the reaction of the SPA’s birds to disturbance needs to be monitored to better inform future mitigation measures.

Designated off-lead exercise areas

Off-lead exercise was an issue mentioned frequently by dog walkers interviewed. Natural England considers off-lead dogs to be the most significant cause of disturbance to the SPA’s birds. Dog owners generally agree that off-lead exercise and socialising are important for their dogs and will let their dogs off lead wherever possible.4 However there appear to be only two designated off-lead exercise areas in Northamptonshire: a section of Rushden Hall Park in Rushden and an area of Sywell Country Park. By contrast the much smaller county of Bedfordshire has at least six large designated off-lead areas, primarily located at country parks. Given the low provision in Northamptonshire and the dog walking pressure on the SPA, mitigation measures include the creation of new off-lead exercise areas.

4 Edwards V, Knight S. 2006. Understanding the psychology of walkers with dogs: new approaches to better management. University of Portsmouth. Report to Hampshire County Council, The Countryside Agency and The Kennel Club, p. 27.

Figure 1: Units 2 – 8 of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI/SPA

Unit 1 is located in Northampton and does not appear to be visited by North Northamptonshire walkers and is therefore not considered further.

Mitigation Options by SPA unit

Unit 2:

Issues Mitigation • Disturbance to birds along Nene Way • Fencing (2-3km) along Nene Way (black • Potential for overspill from Summer Leys hashed line; see map below) (unit 3), which is already very crowded • Promote Sywell Country Park as local off- lead area (e.g. in new home packs). Would also include promoting Country Parks Annual Car Park Passes scheme to encourage regular park use

Unit 3:

Issues Mitigation • Overspill onto Mary’s and Moon Lakes • Fencing (2km) around Mary’s Lake (black • Visitors diverting off paths, especially around hashed line; see map below) Moon Lake which has no formal access • Wardening • Interpretation • Potential for off-lead exercise area south of Mary’s Lake (blue dotted line; see map below. Would require negotiation with landowner)

Unit 4:

No map included as nothing to indicate.

Issues Mitigation • Highly sensitive wigeon in southern lakes • None identified at this time beyond that already agreed for Stanton Cross development

Unit 5:

No map included as exact location of fencing needs further discussion with land owners.

Issues Mitigation • Visitors diverting off paths • Fencing throughout to keep people on paths • Rights of way through sensitive areas • Interpretation • Wardening • Reroute footpaths away from sensitive areas • Promote Rushden Hall Park as local off-lead area (e.g. in new home packs)

Unit 6:

A new survey has identified the need for some screening in this unit, further discussion with the landowner to take place on the exact location.

Unit 7:

Issues Mitigation • Low disturbance area however needs to be • Interpretation at Kinewell Lake kept as such • Potential for off-lead area at southern lake (see map below; blue dotted line. Would require negotiation with fishery)

Unit 8:

Issues Mitigation • Shorter grass in northwest part of unit • Screening (0.5km) around cut-through to attracts dog walkers and free-running dogs shield birds from visual disturbance (black • Informal cut-through has been created hashed line; see map below) around sensitive corner of a lake • Might be potential for off-lead area at • Wardening not feasible in this unit (too adjacent field (would need to be investigated remote) so access management must be further) robust

Indicative costs

The costs in Table 1 are indicative costs to implement a full complement of measures required to mitigate the impacts of visitor pressure as identified above.

Table 1 Indicative costs to implement full complement of measures required to mitigate the impacts of visitor pressure in the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA

TOTAL 5 Fencing @£30/m £180,000 Screening @£30/m* £15,000 6 Wardening @£30K/yr/warden** £2,465,484 7 Interpretation panel (each) £14,529 8 Interpretation leaflet A3 10,000 copies £17,148 Right of Way/path rerouting £10,500 9 @£3500/path*** 10 Identified potential off-lead area £300,000 11 Monitoring £40,000 TOTAL per unit £3,042,661 * assumes screening costs = fencing costs ** assumes four wardens 5 (WT estimate). Assumes 2% annual inflation. Does not include equipment, transport or administration costs. Based on recent WT experience the annual figure is likely to be closer to £46,000. *** includes administration and legal fees only. Three paths are considered to require rerouting.

5 Average of several sources 6 Natural England. 2011. Thames Basin Heaths Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Project Tariff Guidance, p.11. 7 Heritage Lottery Fund. 2013. Interpretation good-practice guidance, p. 9. 8 Heritage Lottery Fund. 2013. Interpretation good-practice guidance, p. 10. 9 Newcastle City Council. Date Unknown. Information, guidance and application form to divert a public Right of Way. 10 Based on average local agricultural land prices 2015 as advertised on www.bletsoes.co.uk August 2015. Legal/conveyance fees not included. 11 Natural England. 2014. Site Improvement Plan: Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits, p. 5.

Measures included in the mitigation strategy

The access management measures included in the strategy have been selected for their combination of low cost and high effectiveness. These are:

• Fencing • Screening • Path redirection/rerouting • Interpretation

Wardening and off-lead exercise areas are both necessary for successful mitigation of visitor impacts to the SPA. Both are very high-cost measures: the cost of four wardens alone would be £2,465,484 over the life of the Joint Core Strategy. Including them would therefore render new development unviable and would cause it to pay for existing effects on the SPA’s qualifying features. The mitigation strategy must instead include an appropriate but representative proportion of the total measures required.

Some on-site presence is required, to oversee implementation of the access management measures on the ground, talk to visitors, and answer questions about and generate public support for the changes. In dialogue with the local Wildlife Trust and Natural England it is estimated that this could be accomplished by 0.5 FTE (full-time equivalent) of a warden position.

At present no further work has been done on the off-lead areas, and Natural England are of the opinion that these are not needed as part of the mitigation package to ensure no significant effects. They are therefore not included in the set of mitigation measures. Creation of new off- lead areas in the future may occur through other funding.

Resources will also be required to coordinate the collection of mitigation funds, oversee works contracts and report on mitigation strategy progress. It is estimated that this would require 0.5 FTE to be placed within the local planning authorities.

Indicative costs are presented in Table 2, these are the costs to take forward to be contributed by development within the 3km buffer.

Table 2: Indicative costs to implement recommended mitigation measures in the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA

TOTAL Fencing @£30/m* <£180,000 Screening @£30/m* £15,000 Interpretation panel (each)* £14,529 Interpretation leaflet A3 10,000 copies* £17,148 Right of Way/path rerouting @£3500/path* £10,500 Monitoring £40,000 Wardening 0.5 FTE @ £46K/yr** £460,277 Admin 0.5 FTE @ £30K/yr £300,181 TOTAL per unit £1,037,635 * Access management (AM) measures include fencing, screening, interpretation and path rerouting. ** While the figure of £30,000/warden/year has been used in Table 1, the Northamptonshire Wildlife Trust has suggested that the true cost is closer to £46,000/warden/year once equipment, transport and administration costs are included. For that reason the higher figure has been used here.

Apportioning mitigation costs

Mitigation costs can be apportioned in different ways. For example they can be spread evenly among all new dwellings or targeted such that developments which generate the greater impact pay the greater share of the costs. Using the indicative costings above as an example, basic ‘even’ and ‘proportional’ apportioning would yield the following results:

• ‘Even’ cost distribution: Dividing the sample total allocation costs (£1,037,635) by the total number of dwellings (3851; Appendix 3) produces an average per dwelling cost of £269.44.

• ‘Proportional’ cost distribution: In this example, access management costs are allocated based on the expected number of dog walking visits to each unit of the SPA. Therefore a development which is expected to contribute 20% of new visits to unit A and 45% of new visits to unit B would pay for 20% and 45% of the access management for units A and B respectively.

It is concluded for usability that the ‘even’ cost distribution is used ie the same contribution is paid per new dwelling anywhere within the 3km zone. This will be easier for both applicants understanding the amount they have to contribute, and easier for the councils to administer.

Using this approach means that each new dwelling in the 3km zone will pay £269.44 to cover their Habitats Regulations requirements to ensure no significant in-combination effect occurs on the SPA. This has been calculated using the £1,037,635 cost to implement the recommended mitigation (Table 2) and the level of expected development over the course of the Joint Core Strategy within the 3km zone as 3,851 units (Table 3).

Table 3: Housing figures used to calculate mitigation contribution

Wellingborough Irchester Irchester Total 130 Wellingborough Park Farm Way/Shelley Road (U7) 700 East of Eastfield Road (U20) 75 Windsor Road (U9 & U10) 60 Leys Road/Highfield Road (U1) 50 WEAST independent landowners 65 Town Centre AAP sites (B, C, D, E1, E2, F, G, H, I) 590 Wellingborough Total 1540 Wollaston Emerging Neighbourhood Plan 96 Outstanding requirement 26 Wollaston Total 122 East Northamptonshire Higham Ferrers Land east of Ferrers School 273 Other smaller sites (<200 dwellings) 10 Irthlingborough Irthlingborough West 700 Other smaller sites (<200 dwellings) 291 Raunds Smaller sites (<200 dwellings) 79 Rushden Rushden Total (excluding Rushden East) 119 Thrapston Thrapston South 525 Other smaller sites (<200 dwellings) 29 Urban areas total 2026 Ringstead Smaller sites (<200 dwellings) 13 Chelveston Smaller sites (<200 dwellings) 9 Titchmarsh Smaller sites (<200 dwellings) 11 Rural areas total 33 TOTAL 3851

Appendix 3 –

Compliance with the three legal tests of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:

1. Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Local Planning Authorities have the duty as competent authorities under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations) to ensure that planning application decisions comply with the Habitats Regulations.

Evidence produced to inform the production of the Councils’ Local Plan as identified in the Habitats Regulation Assessment for the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and detailed in paragraph 3.40 – 3.42 and policy 4 of the JCS, states that all new residential development within 3km of the SPA will result in a significant effect on the SPA. The ‘in-combination’ impact of proposals involving a net increase of one or more dwellings within a 3km radius of the SPA are concluded to have an adverse effect on its integrity unless avoidance and mitigation measures are in place. This is through an increase in visitors that will in turn increase the level of disturbance to the wintering waterbirds.

2. Directly related to the development. Evidence demonstrates that visitors come mainly from within a 3km zone around the SPA and visit different areas within the SPA. Therefore new development that falls within the 3km buffer can be seen to be directly increasing visitors to the SPA. The ‘in-combination’ impact of proposals involving a net increase of one or more dwellings within a 3km radius of the SPA are concluded to have an adverse effect on its integrity unless avoidance and mitigation measures are in place.

Natural England have considered what is required to mitigate against increased visitors to the SPA, this takes into account the in-combination effects, as required by the Habitat Regulations.

Walkers and dog walkers, by their nature means that their impact can be some distance away from the development site. The in-combination assessment and spread of the SPA means that the impact and therefore mitigation needs to take place across the SPA.

3. Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. The measures put forward represent the lowest cost set of options available which will be both deliverable and effective in mitigating the anticipated increase in recreational pressure from new development. The costs are apportioned between all development across the identified area and this will mitigate the impacts across the SPA. Wardening costs need to be spread across a wide area to achieve economies of scale and a manageable area to cover. They would not be able to warden one parcel, this would increase, significantly, the costs involved.

qualifying features. The mitigation strategy must instead include an appropriate but representative proportion of the total wardening measures required, in this instance £460,277.

Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) costs have then been apportioned by distributing the costs evenly across the anticipated development within 3km of the SPA within the plan period. This has been calculated as a cost of £269.44 for each new dwelling. This contribution is therefore a proportionate cost dependent on the scale of development proposed and it is therefore fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Appendix 4 –Planning Obligation Wording

Wording for SAMMs contributions to be included in any legal agreement.

To pay to the Council (ENC or BCW) on or before commencement of development the following sums Indexed Linked:

1.1 The Strategic Access Management and Monitoring contribution in the sum of [ ] pounds and [ ] pence (£ ) for use by the Council for providing strategic access management and monitoring arrangements in relation to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area to mitigate any adverse significant effect arising from the development. This is in accordance with the Joint Core Strategy policy 4 and the Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document.

Appendix 5 – S111 Template

The following template would need to be submitted at the planning application stage.

Habitats Mitigation Contribution Agreement5 DRAFT To the Planning Manager, Borough Council of Wellingborough/East Northamptonshire Council

Application Reference Number: ...... Address of Planning Application: ......

I am contributing a sum of £...... towards the cost of measures to mitigate the impact of the proposed residential development at the above address on the Nene Valley Special Protection Area (SPA)6 – known as the ‘Strategic Access Management and Monitoring contribution’.

I hereby acknowledge and agree that: a) The Strategic Access Management and Monitoring contribution has been paid to Borough Council of Wellingborough/East Northamptonshire Council as a contribution towards mitigation of the effect of the proposed development on the Nene Valley SPA as set out in North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (2016) Policy 4; b) No refund of this habitats mitigation contribution will be made unless the application does not receive approval or is later withdrawn. c) In respect of any refund (including where an application is withdrawn) I further acknowledge that: • A request for a refund will be made to the Local Planning Authority in writing; • The total amount refunded will be the sum of the original habitats mitigation contribution payment less an administration fee of £50; • No interest will accrue to be refunded; and, • No refund will be made until the period for appeal has passed or an appeal has been dismissed or six months has elapsed since the date of withdrawal.

Signature of applicant/agent: ...... Date: ......

Full name of applicant/agent: ......

Borough Council of Wellingborough/East Northamptonshire Council

Signed:

Borough Council of Wellingborough/East Northamptonshire Council Planning Manager

This receipt signifies the agreement on behalf of Borough Council of Wellingborough/East Northamptonshire Council to the terms in which the habitats mitigation contribution is made by the applicant as set out in this form and in accordance with Section 111 Local Government Act 1972.

5 A signed copy of this form and a direct payment by cheque must accompany the relevant application as a contribution towards mitigation of the effect of proposed development on the Nene Valley SPA. 6 This amount must be the sum of £269.44 for each dwelling to be developed. 25

Definitions:

Commencement: commencement of development is in accordance with the legal requirements in section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This states that ‘development is taken to be begun on the earliest date on which a material operation is carried out’. A material operation is defined in the Act and can include any works of construction, digging foundations, laying out or constructing a road and a material change in the use of the land.

Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM): this comprises of various methods of access management including wardening and general monitoring of the SPA. It is not classed as infrastructure.

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG): this is provision or enhancement of an alternative greenspace that will provide an alternative greenspace to the SPA. Sometimes known as Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace.