Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

Suffolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan, Responses to I & O Consultation, September 2017

Suffolk County Council Page 0

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

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/

Cover photograph acknowledgements:

1. Gt Blakenham Energy from Waste Facility, courtesy of SUEZ Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd, and;

2. Cavenham Quarry, with permission from Allen Newport Ltd.

Suffolk County Council Page 1

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

CONTENTS

1. Format ...... 3 2. General Policies ...... 4 3. Minerals Policies ...... 4 4. Minerals Sites ...... 5 5. Sustainability Appraisal ...... 10 6. Habitats Regulations Assessment ...... 12

Suffolk County Council Page 2

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

1. FORMAT 1.1 This document sets out the represententations made by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust to the Submission Draft Suffolk Minerals & Waste Local Plan and Appropriate Assessment consultations. A response is made to each representation by Suffolk County Council. Proposed changes are made in bold type. 1.2 Suffolk Wildlife Trust have responded and their comments are included in the column on the right.

G Gunby Simone Bullion Graham Gunby Dr Simone Bullion Development Manager Conservation Manager Suffolk County Council Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Suffolk County Council Page 3

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

2. GENERAL POLICIES

POLICY GP4: GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA

Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response SWT counter-response

Number

utyto

operate?

Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with co 90446898 Mr James Yes Yes Yes We support the comments made to Agree, typographical error will be Noted – no further comments Meyer, this policy following our comments corrected Suffolk on the Preferred Options draft of the Wildlife Trust plan. However, there is a typo in the first sentence of the policy which should read “adequately assess” not “adequately access”.

Correct "access" to "assess".

3. MINERALS POLICIES

POLICY MP6: PROGRESSIVE WORKING AND RESTORATION

Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response SWT counter-response

Number

utyto

operate?

Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with co 90447394 Mr James Yes Yes Yes We support the intention of this Noted. Noted – no further comments Meyer, policy to ensure that restoration Suffolk proposals secure net gain for Wildlife Trust biodiversity. Restoration of minerals sites offers significant opportunities for enhancing biodiversity, including to help meet local and national targets for habitat creation. The minerals planning system has the potential to play a fundamental role in halting biodiversity loss and Suffolk County Council Page 4

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

creating a coherent and resilient ecological network. We therefore consider that it is important that this policy secures maximum ecological enhancements as part of all restoration proposals.

4. MINERALS SITES

POLICY MS1: BARHAM

Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response SWT counter-response

Number

utyto

operate?

Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with co 90447939 Mr James Yes No Yes We note that this site was previously Impacts on ecology will need to be We consider the response to our Meyer, included in the Suffolk Minerals adequately addressed with any representation stating that ‘SCC Suffolk Specific Site Allocations DPD, we planning application which are encourages restorations that Wildlife Trust also note the conclusions of the requirements that are set out in provide gains for biodiversity’ to ecology section relating to this site Policy MS1 and Policy GP4. SCC be too weak in the light of recent (section 8.16). In addition to the encourages restorations that provide Government decision that all ecological receptors identified, gains for biodiversity, even if the new developments must deliver extensions in this location could restoration includes other uses, an overall increase in result in adverse impacts on UK through policy MP6. biodiversity. As the Government Priority habitats (such as hedgerows will mandate biodiversity net and deciduous woodland) and UK gain, it is essential that this is a Priority species (including birds such strict requirement of planning as turtle dove and linnet). The applications. Given the sensitive proposal could also result in adverse nature of this site with its existing impacts on badgers. It must be biodiversity interest, restoration ensured that any extraction proposal to agriculture is likely to fall short in this location adequately assess of delivering any significant level the likely impacts on biodiversity and of biodiversity net gain. includes appropriate mitigation measures. It must also be ensured that any extraction delivers a restoration plan which significantly

Suffolk County Council Page 5

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

enhances the biodiversity value of the area. We understand that the existing proposal is to return the site to agricultural use, however the current site is currently developing value for biodiversity and we therefore request that an alternative restoration scheme, to a more ecologically beneficial use, is secured.

Amend policy to include reference to assessing and mitigating impacts on all relevant designated sites, protected and/or Priority species and habitats.

POLICY MS2: BARNHAM

Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response SWT counter-response

Number

utyto

operate?

Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with co 90448352 Mr James No No - This site is within the Breckland SCC has undertaken an Appropriate Noted – no further comments Meyer, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Assessment under the Habitats Suffolk the Breckland Farmland Site of Regulations, to assess the impact on Wildlife Trust Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), European sites and has undertaken these sites are designated for consultation on the updated internationally important numbers of assessment since SWT’s breeding stone curlew (along with representation was made. woodlark and nightjar for the SPA). The site is adjacent to Thetford Heath SSSI and National Nature Reserve (NNR), Thetford Heath is Suffolk County Council Page 6

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019 also a component of the Breckland Special Area of Conservation (SAC). We note that it is proposed to only operate the site outside of the stone curlew nesting season to avoid impacts on breeding stone curlew. However, we query whether the loss of the availability of this area of land to nesting stone curlew has been assessed? Such impacts must be assessed as part of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Local Plan and sites should not be allocated which would result in an adverse impact on the designated sites. It must also be ensured that should any extraction be allocated in this location, that the site restoration plan maximises the area’s value for the species for which the SPA and SSSI are designated.

It must be ensured that the site is suitable for extraction through the HRA process and that the Local Plan Policy secures any necessary strategic mitigation measures identified as part of this. This is in addition to the requirement for a project level HRA to be undertaken at the planning application stage, should the site be allocated.

Suffolk County Council Page 7

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

POLICY MS4: CAVENHAM

Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response SWT counter-response

Number

utyto

operate?

Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with co 90458771 Mr James No No No This site is within the Breckland SCC has revised the HRA, due to Noted – no further comments Meyer, Suffolk Special Protection Area (SPA) and the European Court of Justice Wildlife Trust the Breckland Farmland Site of People Over Wind decision and has Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), carried out a focussed consultation these sites are designated for on this. internationally important numbers of breeding stone curlew. The site is adjacent to Cavenham-Icklingham Heaths SSSI and Cavenham Heath National Nature Reserve (NNR), Cavenham Heath is also a component of the Breckland Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Whilst the ecology section (11.17) identifies that there is the potential for adverse impacts on stone curlew, no avoidance, mitigation or compensation measures are suggested. Potential impacts on the SPA and SAC must be assessed as part of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Local Plan and sites should not be allocated which would result in an adverse impact on the designated sites. It must also be ensured that should any extraction be allocated in this location, that the site restoration plan maximises the area’s value for the species for which the SPA and SSSI are designated.

It must be ensured that the site is suitable for extraction through the Suffolk County Council Page 8

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

HRA process and that the Local Plan Policy secures any necessary strategic mitigation measures identified as part of this. This is in addition to the requirement for a project level HRA to be undertaken at the planning application stage, should the site be allocated.

POLICY MS7: WANGFORD

Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response SWT counter-response

Number

utyto

operate?

Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with co 90459841 Mr James No No - This site is within the Suffolk Coast SCC has carried out an Appropriate Noted – no further comments Meyer, and Heaths Area of Outstanding Assessment of the Plan as a result Suffolk Natural Beauty (AONB) and is close of the People Versus Wind Decision Wildlife Trust to parts of the Minsmere- of the European Court of Justice. Walberswick SPA, Minsmere- The AA has also been subject to Walberswick Ramsar site, public consultation. Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SSSI, Suffolk Coast National Nature Reserve (NNR) and Wangford Marshes CWS. Parts of these designated sites also include Suffolk Wildlife Trust’s Hen Reedbeds reserve. The wider area is also known to support a range of protected and/or UK Priority species and UK Priority habitats. Extraction in this location has the potential to result in adverse impacts on the identified sites, species and habitats either through direct impacts (such as habitat loss) or indirect impacts Suffolk County Council Page 9

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

(such as changes to the local hydrological regime). All such potential impacts must be assessed prior to any allocation of this site, in particular the potential impacts on the SPA and Ramsar site must be assessed as part of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the Local Plan (including any hydrological impacts) and sites should not be allocated which would result in an adverse impact on these, or other, designated sites, or on protected or Priority species. Notwithstanding the above, it must be ensured that should any extraction be allocated in this location, that the site restoration plan maximises the area’s biodiversity value with particular emphasis on species for which local nature conservation sites are designated. We also support the comments made by the AONB Partnerships in relation to this site.

5. SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

SA COMMENTS Suffolk County Council Page 10

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response SWT counter-response

Number

utyto

operate?

Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with co 90762278 Mr James Yes No Yes As raised in our Preferred Options The SA in the assessment of sites SCC indicate that Table 4 on page 69 Meyer, Suffolk response, we query why a trigger draws upon the ecological input of could be updated to reflect the Wildlife Trust distance of 250m has been used in ‘Site Selection Reports’ in the first methodology of SCC site selection Section 3.2 Table 4 Objective 6 for instance rather that ‘proximity reports. We do consider this is assessing impacts on statutory testing’. This specialist technical input necessary given the assessment designated sites? Given that the from SCC ecologists was forthcoming method used appears to vary from reasons for designation of statutory for all sites (see Site Selection the use of Natural England’s Impact sites varies, Natural England’s Reports and correlation between Risk Zones. Impact Risk Zones (IRZ) should be these findings and that of site used to determine whether a appraisals in the SA). proposed development has the potential to result in an adverse The 250m distance included within impact on such a site. ‘Table 4: The Sustainability Framework for the assessment of site Use of Natural England’s Impact Risk options’ (page 69) for SO6 (to Zones in the assessment or sufficient conserve/enhance biodiversity or justification for the use of a blanket geodiversity) was initially included as 250m trigger distance. a precautionary distance; however the assessment of sites in the SA and the effects highlighted have since been expanded to factor in wider and more holistic effects relevant to specific protection objectives of designations, as undertaken by SCC ecologists.

Table 4 on page 69 of the SA could be updated to reflect the methodology of the SCC ‘Site Selection Reports’ if this is deemed necessary.

Suffolk County Council Page 11

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

6. HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

HRA COMMENTS

Reference Respondent Representation SCC Response SWT counter-response

Number

utyto

operate?

Legally Legally compliant? Sound? Compliance with co 90461583 Mr James No No No We have read the documents which SCC has revised the appropriate Noted – no further comments Meyer, Suffolk form the HRA for the draft Local Plan assessment and undertaken an Wildlife Trust and we note their conclusions, the aditional focussed consultation. documents do not appear to have been updated since the Preferred Options consultation in 2017. As set out in our response to the Preferred Options consultation, we do not consider that the approach taken in the HRA is sound, legally compliant or demonstrates a duty to co- operate, particularly in the way that proposed site allocations have been assessed. We consider that this makes the Local Plan unsound in its current form. The HRA does not appear to follow the prescribed steps required of such an assessment (screening for likely significant effect; Appropriate Assessment) and does not provide any assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed developments on the identified designated sites. Without such consideration being undertaken it is not possible determine whether the proposals, either alone or in- combination with other plans or projects (both within Suffolk and

Suffolk County Council Page 12

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

neighbouring counties), are likely to result in likely significant effects or adverse impacts on the integrity of the designated sites. It is not sufficient for the competent authority (in this case Suffolk County Council) to defer this level of assessment to the planning application stage. Also, in the absence of such assessment it is not possible to determine what mitigation measures are required to be secured as part of any site allocation policies. Without a robust HRA we do not consider that the Local Plan could be found “Sound” at examination and we therefore strongly recommend that further assessment is undertaken prior submission. Sites which are found to be likely to result in adverse impacts on the integrity of designated sites should not be adopted. We understand that the HRA is currently being revisited, however in the absence of this work being available our comments are based on the published consultation documents.

The HRA must be revisited to ensure that it complies with requirements of the relevant legislation and provides a robust assessment of the proposed plan. 102327696 James Meyer, Yes No No Whilst we acknowledge that the HRA The respondent acknowledges that We stand by our representation Suffolk Wildlife document states that the in- the in-combination effect has been requesting that a list of plans and Trust combination effects of other plans considered. There is no suggestion projects should be included to and projects have been considered from the respondent that adding demonstrate those that have been as part of the assessment, we further detailed information would considered as part of the remain of the opinion that the plans change the conclusions. assessment of in-combination and projects included as part of this effects. assessment should be identified

Suffolk County Council Page 13

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

within the report in order to 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 SCC considers that policy GP4 We stand by our representation that Suffolk Wildlife allocations at Barnham (3.2), secures all measures necessary to where measures are required to Trust Cavenham (3.3) and Wangford (3.5) avoid harm to a European site. avoid impacts upon a European all conclude no adverse impact on Details are not necessary at Local designated site, and they are known the integrity of the relevant plan stage; SCC is satisfied that all at Local Plan stage, these should be designated sites subject to controls measures are realistic and included within the relevant policy. on the extraction activities and achievable, and can be delivered restoration proposals for the through planning applications. SCC developments. For example, part of does not think that the Local Plan is the conclusion of no adverse impact contrary to NPPF. on integrity of the Breckland SPA from Barnham and Cavenham is based on restoring the sites to habitats that are better for stone curlews 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

Suffolk County Council Page 14

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

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”, 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 Paragraphs 3.2.17 and 3.3.11 Noted – no further comments Suffolk Wildlife assessment of likely impacts on demonstrate that the location of Trust stone curlew (the designation feature recent nest sites was known, and of the Breckland SPA relevant for considered, but this information was the proposed Barnham and not published as it may put nests at Cavenham allocations) has been risk of egg theft. The undertaken and what the recommendation by the respondent conclusions are. The assessment has already been carried out so no concludes that there is no adverse change is needed. impact on the integrity of the designated site, in part due to the relatively small scale of the two allocations when compared to the SPA as a whole. Whilst when

Suffolk County Council Page 15

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

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 We think that the HRA is consistent Noted – no further comments Suffolk Wildlife the Habitats Regulations with the latest CJEU ruling referred Trust Assessment (HRA) there have been to by the respondent a number of further EUECJ rulings relating to undertaking HRAs, in particular reference C-461/17 of 7th November 2018. We query 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.

Suffolk County Council Page 16

SMWLP Suffolk Wildlife Trust SOCG May 2019

Suffolk County Council Page 17