BMSDC JLP Preferred Options - Habitats Regulations Assessment - June 2019

Support

Representation ID: 17092

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Keith Richardson

I believe that the document prepared by Babergh for all of Chelmondiston is protective of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which we live and has been thoughtfully created to maintain our quality of life.
The new development limits enable the hamlet to be sustainable for education an older age support.

Object

Representation ID: 18460

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr John Kitson

HRA simply proposes mitigation contributions towards the management of the Orwell Habitat sites (RAMS report).

Proposed development in Sproughton is the biggest in the JLP but it is also in the landscape forming the main recreational/nature walks to the west of Ipswich.

The recommended option can be achieved by SANG's. As recommended in the Babergh Green Infrastructure Strategy (2012) creating Country Park areas in Sproughton to retain the best of the landscape and improve walks will keep ramblers etc local instead of visiting the Orwell Habitat sites.

The HRA also fails to consider properly the adverse impact of water pollution because they have not recognised that the Sproughton sites are hydraulically connected with the Orwell Habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 18842

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Powell

The purpose of this document is to analyse the potential impacts of policies within the new JLP on European designated nature protection areas to fulfil requirements under NPPF to protect these areas from development. In this respect the report supports a general policy to take money from developers to create better managements and facilities for the increased number of residents to visit the protected Habitat Sites particularly those along the Orwell. That policy however in doing so dissolves the policies and protections relevant to local habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 19008

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Working Group

the report supports a general policy to take money from developers to create better managements and facilities for the increased number of residents to visit the protected Habitat Sites particularly those along the Orwell. That policy however in doing so dissolves the policies and protections relevant to local habitats. If you feel that this is the correct thing to do then despite some identified issues in the report this supports that view.

if you feel there should be more consideration for local Habitats and nature areas, a balanced view, or something other than financial payments to exclude responsibility for local nature, or something in-between the following shortcomings in the report have been identified (see attached)

Other sites with Protected Species
Water Quality Impact
Recreational Impact of Residential Development

Object

Representation ID: 19099

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Sproughton Parish Council

The report supports a general policy to take money from developers to create better managements and facilities for the increased number of residents to visit the protected Habitat Sites particularly those along the Orwell. That policy however in doing so dissolves the policies and protections relevant to local habitats

Support

Representation ID: 19355

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England agrees that it is currently too early for the HRA to provide a conclusion that the plan
will not lead to any adverse effects on European sites. We note that the screening of the Preferred
Options has identified a number of potential impacts upon Habitats Sites which could arise as a
result of the components of the Local Plan, Natural England welcomes recommendations for
strengthening of policy wording and identification of key themes and their incorporation into the
policy document.

Object

Representation ID: 19485

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Annette Powell

The Habitats Regs Assessment. The Assessment report simply proposes mitigation contributions towards the management of the Orwell Habitat sites (RAMS Report). In relation to footfall impacts it fails to consider the recommended option of both NPPF and NE to consider avoidance.

Object

Representation ID: 19486

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Annette Powell

The Habitats Regs. Assessment also fails to consider properly the adverse impact of water pollution because it appears that they have not recognised that the Sproughton sites are hydraulically connected with the Orwell Habitats. Most, if not all, their SUD’s proposals culminate in Attenuation Basins feeding into the River Gipping.

Object

Representation ID: 19871

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Rhona Jermyn

The report supports a general policy to take money from developers to create better managements and facilities for the increased number of residents to visit the protected Habitat Sites particularly those along the Orwell. That policy however in doing so dissolves the policies and protections relevant to local habitats. If you feel that this is the correct thing to do then despite some identified issues in the report this supports that view.

if you feel there should be more consideration for local Habitats and nature areas, a balanced view, or something other than financial payments to exclude responsibility for local nature, or something in-between the following shortcomings in the report have been identified (see attached)

Other sites with Protected Species
Water Quality Impact
Recreational Impact of Residential Development