MM47.

Policy could read:

Intensive Livestock Farming

Strong rural economies are essential in creating and sustaining vibrant rural places and communities. Intensive livestock farming is a large component of the agricultural industry in Babergh and Mid Suffolk.

This policy seeks to support this specific agricultural sector wherever it is considered appropriate whilst ensuring significant consideration is given to environmental protection as well as the wellbeing of people and the impacts on natural and cultural resources although we acknowledge that it should not exist in the first place as the level of scrutiny on large scale agriculture is already incredibly high at both planning by the existing NPPF, and operational level by a multitude of statutory bodies that are well informed on the checks and measures required.

Intensive agricultural units provide essential food into the UK food supply chain at affordable prices; provide employment for individuals in rural areas when employment is scarce; provide sustainable sources of income for farming businesses and families in Babergh and Mid Suffolk that have recently faced enormous financial challenges due to legislation changes in agriculture; are ideally located due to Babergh and Mid Suffolk’s cereal production capacity and milling facilities. Consequently there is need to exercise particular care to avoid creating even greater hurdles to the UK food supply chain, rural employment opportunity and long established rural activities in rural areas.

Importantly, an individual intensive livestock development is acceptable to all but a very vocal minority, and the cumulative impacts resulting from similar developments nearby will already have been taken into account in many different ways.

This policy is unnecessary and therefore should not be entered into the JLP and no further action should be taken.

The modification to the JLP contradicts NPPF Para. 81, 82, 83, 84

This modification to the JLP is not ‘sound’ as it is not:

a) Positively prepared – the modification provides a strategy to prevent development of "intensive livestock and poultry farming” in Babergh and Mid Suffolk and is inconsistent with achieving sustainable development.
b) Justified – The strategy is inappropriate and provides no reasonable alternatives, and is based on speculatory, subjective evidence and uses ambiguous wording allowing for greater scope to prevent development in the future.
c) Effective –it is only effective in that it would allow scope for all new “intensive livestock and poultry farming” proposals to be refused or held up in the planning process due to the ambiguous wording.
d) Consistent with national policy – please see my notes above on how this modification to the JLP contradicts, negates or is already satisfied by the NPPF.

This modification is a thinly veiled foothold for future attack, with the submission of the undoubtably more damaging SPD to follow, on the wider rural economy and UK farming, and the prosperity/survival of many businesses within Babergh and Mid Suffolk and therefore should not be entered into the JLP.

Strong rural economies are essential in creating and sustaining vibrant rural places and communities. Livestock and poultry farming are a large component of the agricultural industry in Babergh and Mid Suffolk and this policy seeks to support this sector wherever it is considered appropriate whilst ensuring significant consideration is given to environmental protection as well as the wellbeing of people and the impacts on natural and cultural resources, as outlined in existing environmental legislation and national policy. Agricultural and livestock units safeguard UK food security, whilst providing much needed employment opportunities in rural areas.

This modification speaks to findings from the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Rural Business and the Rural Powerhouse in that ‘a prevailing mindset exists amongst local authorities that rural areas should be preserved in aspic.’ The APPG concluded that this mindset is dangerous as it does not recognize the economic growth needed to sustain rural communities. The ambiguous wording of the modification supports the APPG’s findings in failing to recognize the importance of these sectors for employment. Furthermore, it may stifle productivity through not recognizing and supporting other industries operating in rural areas, such as those associated with livestock production.

This policy is not required at all.

This policy appears unnecessary. Intensive livestock facilities and poultry farms already face substantial hurdles when seeking planning permission through the EIA process. They are also required to comply with licensing requirements from the Environment Agency and other industry bodies.

The proposal, as worded, appears to be an attempt to duplicate the requirements put on these agricultural activities by existing regimes (in direct contradiction of NPPF para 188).

This policy also contradicts NPPF paras 81-84 as it appears to deliberately hinder specific parts of the rural economy without adding any discernable value elsewhere.

p115 LP14
+MM48 p116 LP14 Policy
The level of detail to consider the adverse impact of rural farming in open countryside by odour, light, dust, to consider cumulative impacts, traffic impacts, water pollution, adverse landscape and traffic impacts, etc.. is very detailed and we cannot understand why a similar or higher level of concern is not demonstrated in the policy conditions applied to commercial development near significant residential areas which can have a similar if not significantly worse odour, light , dust, pollution, adverse landscape, traffic and cumulative impacts along with significant noise impacts often at night. Although this policy seems effective it is disproportionately so with respect to policy conditions for commercial development which appears by comparison weak, vague and easily challengeable.

Stradbroke Parish Council strongly supports the wording of this supporting text, particularly the reference to cumulative impacts of similar developments which could have a detrimental impact on a community.

Anglian Water supports the introduction of a new policy relating to intensive livestock and poultry farming. We would welcome further engagement regarding the production of the supplementary planning document that will provide further detailed information in relation to how the policy will be applied, particularly in terms of impacts on water resources.

We welcome the inclusion of the new LP14 and this associated supporting text for Intensive Livestock and Poultry Farming. We manage environmental permits for such sites where applicable and are involved in helping to manage noise and odour complaints etc, to ensure operational sites comply with their permissions and standards. This section of the Plan will aid the LPA in determining applications for such proposals whilst ensuring due regard to sensitive environmental issues are taken into account

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 22 March 2023 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.


Modifications Schedule

Natural England has reviewed the proposed modifications within the Modifications Schedule (March 2023) and has the following comments to make.

MM20 – Policy SP05 Employment Land
This policy outlines the potential environmental constraints for development at the Brantham site and the former Sproughton Sugar Beet Factory. Natural England advises that opportunities for significant environmental enhancements should be considered at all potential development sites and that biodiversity net gain will become a requirement for this type of development in November 2023.

MM21 – Policy SP06 Retail and Town Centre Uses
The plan states that “The towns in Babergh and Mid Suffolk have an important function serving district-wide catchments in the provision of shopping, employment and leisure opportunities”. Natural England believes that the multi-functional nature of green infrastructure (GI) makes it integral to this policy. Research has shown how urban green space provides many valuable services, all of which can contribute towards health and wellbeing and economic growth. A summary of the benefits can be found here . Natural England believes that urban greenspace should be protected and enhanced where possible. Therefore, we advise that wording within this policy reflects the importance of green infrastructure within the town centres and local centres in Babergh and Mid Suffolk.

MM23 – Policy SP08 Strategic Infrastructure Provision
As discussed above, GI is multifunctional and has many far reaching benefits. It is Natural England’s advice that delivery of strategic GI is included within this policy.

MM24 and AM36 – paragraphs 12.13 – 12.19
Natural England welcomes the inclusion of our Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANGS) guidance and the commitment to cross boundary mitigation for protected habitats sites under the Suffolk Coast Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS).

MM26 – Policy SP09 Enhancement and Management of the Environment
Natural England welcomes the recognition that networks of GI should be conserved and enhanced. We also welcome the stipulation that development consisting of over 50 dwellings will be required to demonstrate well-designed open space/green infrastructure, proportionate to its scale. However, Natural England advises that sites below 50 dwelling should also be providing suitable and proportionate GI, although we recognise this is not required by the Suffolk Coast RAMS. Furthermore, it is important that the quality of on-site green space is considered as well as the quantity. You may wish to refer to Natural England’s GI framework and standards to determine what ‘good’ GI might look like.

This policy states that biodiversity enhancement achieved through biodiversity net gain should ensure that the network of habitats and green infrastructure is more resilient to current and future pressures. Natural England welcomes this clarification and advises that you may wish to reference specific strategic documents, such as forthcoming Local Nature Recovery Strategies, that will help to target the provision of biodiversity net gain to achieve maximum benefits.

Natural England also welcomes the commitment in this policy to review planning policies should air quality monitoring results show an adverse impact on the integrity of protected habitats sites.

MM27 & AM39 – Policy SP10 Climate Change
This policy, and the supporting text, outlines approaches to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including biodiversity net gain. As discussed above, Natural England advises that the multi-functionality of GI makes it ideal for helping to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Your policies should reflect this and ensure that development takes account of it.

Local Policies - Housing
It is noted that substantial changes are proposed to many of the Local Policies within the plan, especially those relating to new development. It appears that much of the wording regarding consideration of ecological impacts has been removed. Natural England advises that your authority should be confident that these policies provide enough environmental protection.

MM45 – Policy LP15 Tourism and Leisure
Natural England welcomes the inclusion of the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy within this policy.

MM47 & MM48 – New Policy LP14 Intensive Livestock and Poultry Farming and supporting text
Natural England welcomes the inclusion within the supporting text of the consideration of environmental protection regarding these developments, including cumulative impacts with other nearby similar developments. In addition, we welcome the requirement to demonstrate that there will be no significant effects upon sensitive environmental receptors through approved emission modelling. Natural England would advise that this includes appropriate interpretation of the modelling results with respect to ecological receptors.

MM50 – Policy LP16 Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Natural England welcomes the inclusion of the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy. We also welcome the suggestion of developing links to existing GI networks. You may also wish to consider how the plan can contribute to work that will be identified within the forthcoming Local Nature Recovery Strategy, as well as the documents being worked on by the council as mentioned in new paragraph 15.18.

This policy states that development should identify and pursue opportunities for measurable net gains, and states a minimum of 10% increase for biodiversity. You may wish to consider if a higher percentage increase can be achieved for certain types of development. It is noted that the supporting text for this policy includes reference to the latest published version of the Natural England Biodiversity Metric. It should be noted that once biodiversity net gain becomes mandatory in, developments should use the Secretary of State’s metric.

MM64 – removal of policy LP30 Designated Open Spaces
Natural England understands that this policy has been removed as it will form part of the upcoming Part 2 Plan. To aid you in developing this part 2 plan, Natural England would advise you to reference Natural England’s Green Infrastructure framework and standards. This includes a mapping tool which will help in identifying areas with currently poor provision of GI and target areas for new open space provision.

MM69 & MM68 – LP29 Safe, Sustainable and Active Transport and supporting text
Natural England welcomes reference in the supporting text to the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan and County Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan. We would advise you to also consider how safe, sustainable active transport can be made accessible to all.

MM70 – Policy LP30 Managing Infrastructure Provision
The text for this policy states that “The provision of infrastructure is fundamental to maintaining quality of life, economic prosperity and the environmental assets of the districts”. As outlined previously, Natural England believes that GI, as well as blue infrastructure, is integral in achieving this. As such, we advise that consideration of these should be included within this policy.

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) policy
It is noted that BNG is discussed throughout the plan. You may consider it appropriate to bring all of these comments together into a specific BNG policy. Natural England would advise that this policy include:
• The percentage of biodiversity net gain to apply across the plan
• The approach to on-site and off-site delivery
• How losses and gains will be measured

Natural England would be happy to liaise with you in the creation of this policy should you deem it appropriate at this stage of plan creation.


Habitat Regulations Assessment including Appropriate Assessment, April 2023.

It is acknowledged in the ‘Explanatory Note from the Inspectors’ that during the examination stage, significant concerns were raised regarding the robustness of the housing site selection process, soundness of the site allocations and the spatial strategy. Given that the area’s housing requirement figure is already provided for, the housing site allocations have been removed from the plan and will be assessed in Part 2 of the JLP to follow in due course.

Natural England recognises that removing the housing allocations at this stage will enable the local plan process to keep progressing. We advise that a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) will also need to be completed for Part 2 of the plan and Natural England will again need to be consulted on these documents.

Natural England notes that your authority has undertaken an SA and HRA to review the main modifications made for the proposed Part 1 of the JLP with the HRA proceeding to an appropriate assessment in accordance with regulation 63 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended). Natural England is a statutory consultee on the appropriate assessment stage of the HRA process, and a competent authority should have regard to Natural England’s advice.

Your appropriate assessment concludes that your authority is able to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of any of the sites in question.
Having considered your assessment, and the measures proposed to mitigate for any adverse effects, Natural England’s advice is that your assessment is not sufficiently rigorous or robust to justify this conclusion and therefore it is not possible to ascertain that the proposal will not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the sites in question.

We advise that the following additional work on the assessment is required to enable it to be sufficiently rigorous and robust. Natural England should be re-consulted once this additional work has been undertaken and the appropriate assessment has been revised.

Natural England offers the following specific advice on the HRA:

2.2 Identifying Habitats sites, their Conservation Objectives and Qualifying Features
‘Table 3. Habitats sites within 20 km of Babergh and Mid Suffolk’ appears to not scope in relevant European sites in relation to recreational disturbance as an impact pathway. Given the evidence identified in Footprint Ecology’s ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy for Ipswich Borough, Babergh District, Mid Suffolk District and East Suffolk Councils – Technical Report’ (2019) as commissioned by Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council to assess and mitigate recreational disturbance caused by new housing development, all European sites within 13km of your LPA boundaries should be scoped into the HRA. We therefore advise that there is a likely significant effect as a result of recreational disturbance on the Deben Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the Sandlings SPA which have been scoped out at the screening stage of this HRA. These sites should be taken to the appropriate assessment stage when considering potential effects from recreational disturbance as a result of new residential and tourism development resulting from this plan.

2.3 Screening and Impact Pathways
Loss of Functionally Linked land
Please note that new development resulting from this plan within close proximity to European sites which might affect “functionally linked land” may require project level HRAs and associated survey work to ensure that development does not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant European site.

Water quality
Section 2.3.12 states that “Wastewater treatment within the districts is currently handled by Anglian Water and they are aiming to produce a Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) in 2024 to ensure that a long-term strategy is in place for the safe disposal of wastewater. A Draft Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan (DWMP) has been produced by Anglian Water in the intermediary period, which does not raise any issues for the ‘Part 1’ Plan.” Evidence should be provided within this HRA to explain why this conclusion has been reached. To determine that there is sufficient capacity to deal with the planned additional development.

Furthermore, Section 2.3.14 states that “Water pollution, such as contaminated surface run-off, will not be capable of resulting in impacts outside of the districts boundary as there are no catchments outside the districts which will be able to be affected by surface water runoff. Therefore, Likely Significant Effects could only affect the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site, Redgrave & South Lopham Fens Ramsar site and Waveney & Lt Ouse Valley Fens SAC”. It should be noted however that the Deben Estuary SPA and Ramsar, the Alde-Ore (& Butley) SAC, SPA and Ramsar and Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes SAC, SPA and Ramsar protected sites appear to be hydrologically connected to the Plan boundary by waterways and these therefore need to be taken into consideration.

Section 2.3.20 states that “Anglian Water 2022 Water Resources Management Plan indicates that there would be no significant negative effects predicted on water efficiency for the areas managed within Babergh and Mid Suffolk districts. However, the Anglian Water 2022 Water Resources Management Plan indicates that drought is currently an issue and is being addressed via a new Potable Water Transfer system.” A definition of what is meant by water efficiency in this context should be provided and how this relates to European sites. We advise that your LPA satisfies itself that its development is not causing, adding to or making it more difficult to remove an adverse effect risk from abstraction. Your authority could achieve this by:
- Asking the water company to tell you which abstractions it plans to supply their growth in the HRA
- Checking if these could effect Habitat sites as part of your plan’s evidence base

Currently there is not enough detail to identify whether there will be any likely significant effects.

Water Quantity - Reduced Water Resources
Section 2.3.21 states that Essex and Suffolk Water’s Water Resources Management Plan (2019), and Drought Plan (2022) “provide measures to avoid impacts on Redgrave and South Lopham Fens Ramsar site & Waveney & Lt Ouse Valley Fens SAC”. Moreover, 2.3.22 states that “As a result, the Wortham borehole (for potable supply) had to be located outside the impact risk zone for Redgrave and South Lopham Fens Ramsar and additional water needed for Category 1 demand is sourced from other boreholes. It is therefore considered that there will be no Likely Significant Effect on these Habitats sites from water abstraction.” It is not clear whether this plan will result in any increased demand from the Wortham Borehole? This information is required to justify the conclusion of no likely significant effects.

Air Quality
Section 2.3.40 does not conclude whether the impacts of Air Quality are likely to cause significant effects on the European sites and therefore it cannot be ascertained at present, whether this needs to be screened into the appropriate assessment.

Table 7. Policies that have the Potential to Cause a Likely Significant Effect and their Impact Pathways
Further information is required as to why impact pathways for the policies identified in table 7 have been screened out. For example, it seems that air quality, water quantity water quality impacts on European sites could result from policies SP01, SP05, SP08 and LP01 without more information.

In relation to ‘SP01 - Housing Needs’, it is important to recognise that even though Part 1 does not allocate sites through a spatial strategy in Part 1, there will be target growth associated with Policy SP01 throughout the duration of the Plan and therefore it could have a likely significant effect through the impacts pathways identified in Table 7.

3.3. Habitats Screened in for Appropriate Assessment
Table 8. Habitats Sites, Impact Pathways and Examples of LSE Identified at Screening Stage
It is noted that under ‘Air Quality’ no Likely Significant Effect has been concluded. However, this “Mitigation has been embedded within Policy LP14 - Intensive Livestock and Poultry Farming. As a result, a Likely Significant Effect from water quantity can be ruled out.” This appears to be a typographical error and we assume it is meant to say “…from Air Quality can be ruled out”. According to the CJEU People Over Wind v Coillte Teoranta C-323/17 ruling, mitigation measures cannot be considered when conducting an HRA screening assessment to decide whether a plan or project is likely to result in Likely Significant Effects on a Habitats site. Therefore, Air Quality should be scoped into the Appropriate Assessment.

4.7 Air Quality
4.7.1. states that further monitoring has been recommended for Air Quality in section 4.14. This section appears to be missing and it is assumed that it should reference 14.12.13 instead.

Sections 4.12.13 - 4.12.16 discuss the Air Quality Monitoring Plan agreed with Natural England which was required to fill evidence gaps identified in the previous Habitats Regulations Assessment. As per the timelines agreed with Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council, Natural England was expecting that the Air Quality Monitoring report would be completed in July 2022 as per the ‘Air Quality Monitoring Plan – Assessment upon Protected Habitats within Babergh and Mid Suffolk Districts’ (May 2021) appended to the ‘Statement of Common Ground Between Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils and Natural England’ (June 2021). It was then expected that this information would be “submitted to a specialist ecologist for consideration of the data, who will then provide analysis of the findings and any necessary mitigation measures in relation to the Protected Habitats sites.” As this work was expected to be completed by the end of 2022, we consider that the results should have fed into the HRA for Part 1. If this information is not yet available as expected the results of the monitoring should be fed into the HRA for Part 2 of the Plan, given the timescale.

Site Improvement Plans and Conservation Objectives
Sections 4.9.5 and 4.10.4 of the appropriate assessment refer to disturbance having an effect on the Site Improvement Plans. Whilst it is positive that these are considered. The HRA and appropriate assessment should be focused on whether the plan will undermine the Conservation Objectives of the relevant European sites, when assessing each policy in these sections.

Disturbance
In section 4.11.13 and elsewhere in the HRA “disturbance” is referred to, but clarity is sought to define the different type of disturbance being discussed e.g. disturbance from construction or visitor disturbance, as this is currently not clear.

Protected Habitats Mitigation Zones
In section 4.11.7 there are multiple references to ‘Protected Habitats Mitigation Zones’. Please provide an explanation as to what these are. It might be beneficial to add this term to the Plans glossary.


Main Modifications Sustainability Appraisal’ (Final report, Prepared by LUC, dated February 2023)

We provide the follows advice in relation to the ‘Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan: Main Modifications Sustainability Appraisal’ (Final report, Prepared by LUC, dated February 2023).

As the Main Modifications Sustainability Appraisal Report relates to the Part 1 Plan only, with the appraisal of the housing site selection and spatial strategy to be provided as part of the consultation on Part 2, Natural England has only limited comments to provide at this stage and will provide further advice when we are consulted on Part 2.

Natural England advises that in relation to ‘Table 6.1: Proposed monitoring indicators’, Objective 11. ‘To conserve and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity’, the monitoring indicators could be strengthened by monitoring the number of hectares of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) developed/built on across the plan period.

Natural England has no further comments to make in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal.

To be effective and consistent, the word ‘should’ ought to be replaced with ‘must’ –see (3) in MM48 Page 89:
3 Where an individual intensive livestock or poultry development is considered
acceptable, the cumulative impacts resulting from similar developments nearby must also be taken into account.

In general, I support the proposed main modifications.
The following comments represent my views in relation to some of the proposed
main modifications (MM20, MM47, MM48, MM49 and MM57), where I feel that the
policy wording could be revised to more effectively meet the Joint Local Plan’s
strategic objectives, particularly in light of new evidence concerning the expansion of
the intensive poultry industry.
1) Summary of New Evidence
1.1 Poultry meat production growth
Cranswick Plc has indicated its intension to increase the volume capacity of the
poultry meat processing factory located on Eye Airfield through recent press
announcements:
“Cranswick said broad investment plans were firmly on track with "several substantial
projects in progress which will enhance the capability of and add capacity to several
of our flagship production facilities as well as driving through further operating
efficiencies". (Business Live 2/2/23)
The factory at Eye is regarded by Cranswick as a ‘flagship production facility’.
Proposed expansion of the factory is substantiated by a recent application to the LPA
on 24th April 2023, for a Screening Opinion:
DC/23/01969 | Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion request for
proposed production building facility and mill building | Eye Airfield Business Park
Eye
An expansion of the poultry meat factory’s processing capabilities, in conjunction
with Cranswick’s stated objective to produce meat to the ‘Better Chicken
Commitment’ standards for intensive broiler units (stocking levels per square metre
lower compared to the Red Tractor scheme) means that the company will need to
increase the number of intensive poultry units in its supply chain in order to grow the
requisite number of birds for processing at the factory.
1.2 Impact on water resources
The operation of intensive poultry units requires extremely high water useage.
Essex & Suffolk Water (ESW) recently made its position very clear in an ongoing
planning application within the Hartismere Water Resources Zone
(DC/21/06824 | Planning Application - Erection of 6no poultry houses with associated
admin blocks, feed bins and ancillary development. (EIA Development)):
See attachment: Appendix A – Letter from William Robinson (Water Resources &
Supply Strategy Manager) to Philip Isbell (Chief Planning Officer, BMSDC) dated 6th
February 2023.
In summary, ESW objected to the planning application for the following reasons:
• The development is likely to result in an increase in mains water use which
will require an increase in groundwater abstraction to levels likely to be
unsustainable as confirmed through our AMP7 WINEP groundwater
abstraction sustainability investigations and documented in our dWRMP24;
• in the absence of supply headroom in our Hartismere water resource zone,
new non-domestic water demand would lead to us exceeding the annual
licensed quantities on our abstraction licences; and
• based on current programmes, new supply schemes will not be operational
until 2032 at which point the moratorium will be lifted.
In order to overcome the objection, ESW requested a Grampian condition to ensure
that the development could prove to be water neutral; this would entail the
construction of a grey water reuse storage reservoir to be filled by a combination of:
• Rainwater harvesting
• Diversion of land drainage flows
• A new groundwater or surface water abstraction
The Environment Agency has confirmed that it will not grant abstraction licences
(required for more than 20,000 litres per day) due to current water stress levels in the
Hartismere Water Resources Zone (see attachment: Appendix B – letter from the
Environment Agency to the LPA, dated 1/2/23).
The groundwater abstraction in ESW’s proposed Grampian condition refers to
unlicenced extraction of water (up to 20,000 litres per day).
If this approach to overcoming ESW’s moratorium on ‘new non-domestic supplies’ in
the Hartismere Water Resources Zone is adopted for other planning applications for
more intensive poultry units in the period to 2032, then the potential for harm caused
by the cumulative impact is likely to be very high.
An increase in unlicenced groundwater abstraction could lead to extreme use of
groundwater resources causing serious issues including (not exclusively) ecological
environment deterioration, land subsidence, vegetation degradation, reduction of
water in streams, rivers and lakes and deterioration of water quality.
2) Comments on Proposed Main Modifications in Light of New Evidence
2.1 MM20 Page 50 Policy Paragraph SP05
6. Any application for non-domestic proposals requiring heavy water usage across
the two Districts will be required to demonstrate that sufficient water capacity is
available through a Water Supply Management Statement in liaison with the relevant
water supply company. Any use of this nature in the Hartismere Water Resource Zone
(Mid Suffolk District) will be prohibited until confirmation of sufficient water capacity
by the relevant water supply company (currently anticipated from 2032).
To be more effective, this modification needs to specify that the Water Supply
Management Statement will be expected to include a cumulative impact analysis of
proposed alternative water sources…. (or similar).
2.2 MM47 Page 89 New policy supporting text
Importantly, whilst an individual intensive livestock and/or poultry development may
be acceptable, the cumulative impacts resulting from similar developments nearby
should also be taken into account.
To be effective and consistent, the word ‘should’ ought to be replaced with ‘must’ –
see (3) in MM48 Page 89:
3 Where an individual intensive livestock or poultry development is considered
acceptable, the cumulative impacts resulting from similar developments
nearby must also be taken into account.
2.3 MM48 Page 89 New Policy
To be effective point 4 needs to protect existing residential buildings or sensitive land
uses and should be amended to include the following text:
4 Proposals for residential buildings or other sensitive land uses within 400m of
established intensive livestock and/or poultry units will be subject to special
consideration. Likewise, proposals for intensive livestock and poultry units
within close proximity to existing residential buildings or sensitive land uses
will be subject to special consideration. Such proposals which would be
subject to significant adverse environmental impact will not be permitted.
2.4 MM49 Page 90 Policy Paragraph LP17
4. WATER
a. Comply with the relevant SCC Construction Surface Water Management Plan.
b. Demonstrate protection and where practicable enhancement of groundwater, surface
water features and must not lead to a deterioration in the quality of the environment to help
achieve the objectives254 of the Water Framework Directive.
To be effective this modification needs to address the cumulative impact of an
increase in groundwater abstraction, as evidenced in 1.2 ‘Impact on Water
Resources’ above and as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal (p2) as follows:
22: The NPPF sets out information about the purposes of local plan-making, stating
that plans should
• Be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between planmakers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure
providers and operators and statutory consultees;
23. In terms of sustainable social, environmental and economic development;
however significant adverse impacts in any of those areas should be avoided.
Also, as evidenced in the Sustainability Appraisal Table 1 Key Sustainability Issues
(p 4) as follows:
“Due to Babergh and Mid Suffolk having numerous rivers running through their areas
(eg the River Gipping and River Brett), there is a need to ensure that not only the
rivers are protected but that all water sources including groundwater are too. Many
areas in BMSDC are covered by Source Protection Zones.”
“Anglian Water provides for Babergh District and much of Mid Suffolk, whilst Essex
and Suffolk Water provides for parts of Mid Suffolk – both districts are prone to
drought. Due to water being imported from elsewhere in the country, there must be
effective and reliable water systems in place to reduce any harm associated with
droughts. There are particular areas under significant water stress, such as within
the Hartismere Water Resource Zone in north east Mid Suffolk. Here, there are
short- and medium- term potable water capacity issues resulting in restrictions upon
new non-domestic water supply until 2032. The likelihood of droughts may increase
as a result of climate change, and it should be noted that there is significant crossover between water resource availability and water quality.”
To be more effective, MM49 should include an additional sub-paragraph, such as:
c. Demonstrate in a Water Supply Management Statement, in liaison with the
relevant water supply company, that ground water abstraction (licenced or
otherwise), does not lead to a deterioration in the quality of the environment, taking
into account the cumulative impacts resulting from similar developments in the
district(s) … (or similar)
2.5 MM57 Page 104 Policy Paragraph LP25
Sustainable construction and design – this modification needs to include ‘non residential development’ in point 4 to be of relevance to new intensive livestock and
poultry building development, specifically to include plans to decommission and
demolish buildings when redundant and return the land to agricultural use in order to
minimise the potential for residential development in the countryside and to protect,
conserve and enhance the landscape and the environment.
Appendices A & B attached.