Draft Northern Area Plan 2016 RSPB Northern Ireland response √ support for issue or policy X objection, omission (text emboldened) C concern 1. INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT 1.1. Plan Aim and Guiding Principles. The RSPB in Northern Ireland welcomes the Plan Aim and Guiding Principles. In √ particular we strongly support the objectives: • to promote sustainable development in accordance with the RDS • to identify land for housing…with preference for sites within the urban areas • to promote the integration of public transport etc, and • to protect and enhance the character, quality and biodiversity of natural and man- made environments. All policies should therefore reflect the equal contributions of environmental, social and economic concerns and we hope this will be mirrored in policy implementation. Importantly, the balance between the three cornerstones of sustainable development should not be seen as a trade-off, but rather the opportunity to ensure policies which are mutually beneficial to the environment, society and the economy. 1.2. Strategic Environmental Appraisal (SEA) The RSPB welcomes the publication of a Strategic Environmental Appraisal for the Northern Area Plan 2016. We believe that the Environmental Report produced for the Northern Area Plan is a substantial improvement on the BMAP Environmental Report. √ However, the RSPB believes that Planning Service has still not tackled all biodiversity X considerations adequately in the SEA for the Northern Area Plan. Further details are provided in the separate SEA response document, attached. 2. STRATEGY & FRAMEWORK 2.1. Housing HOU2-3 The RSPB strongly supports the plan, monitor and manage strategy for housing, √ including policy HOU2. We are also pleased to see that policy HOU3 includes the requirement that natural features on site should be incorporated into the scheme. Unfortunately, our observations of many sites already under construction do not lead us to believe that this is always being carried out in practice. There is little in the way of vegetation retention, open space creation or biodiversity enhancement, for example nest box provision for swifts/swallows/house martins or bats. PPS7 policy QD1, particularly points (b) and (c) requiring integration of landscape features, appears to be translated to a certain extent through the Key Site Requirements (KSRs) in the district proposals. We commend the use of KSRs to highlight the need for √ wildlife surveys, landscape management plans and the retention of trees and hedgerows. The delivery of KSRs must be reinforced by the use of planning conditions or agreements to ensure no net loss of biodiversity. X 2.2. Retail, services and offices RSO1 The RSPB supports this proposal in its aim to reduce car usage. √ 2.3. Tourism As the manager of two nature reserves (Lough Foyle, parts of Rathlin Island) in the Plan area, the RSPB is keen to see a tourism strategy which will promote sustainable tourism and recognise the need to protect and enhance the very landscapes and wildlife that form the basis of the industry. TOU1 We agree that tourism infrastructure cannot be permitted where it would detract √ from the conservation and visual qualities of that area. Any exceptions would have to be developments of at least an equivalent level to the designation in place i.e. only internationally important developments could be considered near the World Heritage Site. TOU3 Tourist accommodation, as well as integrating visually into the landscape, should not result in environmental degradation, either through direct habitat loss or indirectly through, for example, septic tanks leaking into groundwater. We therefore recommend X that this policy should include a fourth restriction, namely ‘the scheme does not result in damage to the biodiversity of the local area’. TOU4 Camping and caravan sites could be encouraged to manage their sites with √ conservation objectives in mind as, for example, suggested by the David Bellamy Conservation Awards www.davidbellamyconservation.org.uk. 2.4. Environment & Conservation ENV 1 The RSPB is very pleased that this policy has been included in the draft Area Plan. √ This policy reflects the need under Regulation 32 of the Conservation (Nature Habitats etc) Regulations (NI) 1995 to encourage the management of features of importance for wildlife. With the delayed publication of PPS14 Sustainable Development in the Countryside, this policy will also help to determine decisions on single dwellings in the countryside. We do however suggest that reference is made to the Countryside Assessment, where X priority species and habitats are described in more detail. ENV2 We approve of the proposals for LLPAs and are pleased that some of our √ recommendations have been included. Two minor improvements could be made to the supporting text. X • Access should only be provided to river corridors where this will not impact adversely on flora and fauna. For example, pedestrian and dog-walking access along both sides of a riverbank could deter otters. • Protection of trees using TPOs should be automatic, as within Conservation Areas. ENV3 We support this policy, particularly the option to use Planning Agreements to √ support habitat management or enhancement. The policy should nevertheless be clarified further by defining the phrase ‘exceptionally, where development is permitted’ in the X supporting text, i.e. describe the grounds on which the priority for nature conservation could be overridden. Comments on individual SLNCIs are made under section 3 District Proposals, below. ENV4 This policy is welcomed and reflects a public concern evident from the number of √ telephone calls the RSPB receives about this subject every year. Unfortunately, unscrupulous developers remove trees and hedges before a planning application has been made in order to avoid compliance with such a policy. It is therefore necessary for the policy to state that the removal of trees, hedges or other features contributing to X landscape character prior to the submission of the application will be a material consideration in judging that application. ENV5 We applaud the inclusion of this policy for a Plan area where major rivers √ contribute so much to biodiversity and landscape value. 2.5. Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation The RDS rightly draws attention to the link between open space and wildlife, and quality of life and health benefits, as outlined in the RSPB’s recent publication ‘Natural Fit’. OSR1 The RSPB agrees that rights of way and permissive paths should be retained and √ improved where compatible with the local environment. 2.6. Public Services and Utilities PSU2 This policy is vital to ensure protection of our water resources, and we welcome its √ inclusion. SUDS can also contribute to biodiversity gains. We believe the Area Plan should draw attention to the statement in draft PPS15 that no X development will be allowed in floodplains. Flood defence We believe the Area Plan should consider flood defence options for the Plan area. Sea X level rise and climate change are predicted to increase the costs of flood defence, and put extra pressure on coastal and floodplain land uses, including wildlife habitats. At the very least sustainable defences should be planned, so as not to commit to future excessively costly flood management schemes. Statutory bodies in Great Britain now consider managed realignment in unpopulated rural areas where the rising costs of traditional hard flood defences have been questioned. The RSPB’s analysis shows that small strips of agricultural land, especially if of lower quality, are unlikely to be worth defending. The development plan must play a role in defining areas and policies for flood defence over the time span of the Plan. Wind farms Uplands within the Plan area are being, and will continue to be, targeted for wind farm development. The RSPB advocates the development of renewable energy in Northern Ireland, but we recognise that some locations are unsuitable for wind turbines as they could adversely impact priority species of conservation concern such as hen harrier or migrating birds. There is no PPS for renewable energy developments in Northern Ireland, and we would therefore like the Area Plan to consider areas suitable for such X development within the Plan area. 2.7. Minerals MIN1 (and COU15) The RSPB has not been convinced that the mining and burning of lignite is consistent with the UK’s climate change, air quality and sustainability commitments. We ask for a justification of the potential future use of this resource, set X against the carbon currently held in store in the deposit. MIN2 We agree that development that would have a significant adverse impact on the √ environment should not be permitted. The supporting text should also refer to the Government’s aim to reduce hydrocarbon use in the face of emissions legislation and X climate change targets. In the absence of a PPS for mineral development, and with no prospect of one in the near future, we believe that an opportunity has been missed to tackle the three issues mentioned in the Plan but not granted policies: that is sand and gravel removal from beaches, peat extraction and other workings. We request the inclusion of a policy to restrict or prevent the removal of sand and gravel X from beaches. As acknowledged in the text, this can be a very damaging activity and in extreme cases can lead to irreparable damage to the mineral resource. This could have serious implications both for biodiversity and the economy through loss of tourism revenue. Paragraph 10.4.3 indeed recognises that ‘there is a need to control the extraction of sand/gravel from within the coastal zone’. There should be a statement precluding any expansion of commercial peat extraction in X the Plan area. Under the EU Habitats Directive, the UK government has an international responsibility to protect the peat resource for future generations. Paragraph 10.4.5 states that other mineral extraction proposals will be determined in accordance with Policy Min 3 of the Rural Strategy.