MM48.

There is not one item within MM48 that should be entered into the JLP

With reference to the sections of MM48 see the contradictions to the NPPF below:

1a) Contradicts NPPF Para. 188. The modification refers to “intensive livestock and poultry farming” which at “intensive” thresholds stated in MM80 would already be covered by IPPC regulations

1b) Contradicts NPPF Para. 188

1c) Contradicts NPPF Para. 16b. 16d. Already covered by NNPF Para 154a and therefore unnecessary to single out one industry in particular. Covered by MM61 with much less ambiguity and much more precision therefore this is unnecessary

1d) Contradicts NPPF Para. 188

1e) Contradicts NPPF Para. 188

1f) Already covered by NPPF Para 130, 131, 132 and therefore unnecessary to single out one industry in particular.

1g) Already covered by NPPF Para 85, 111 & 113 and therefore unnecessary to single out one industry in particular. Negates the application of NPPF Para. 55

2) Contradicts NPPF Para. 16b, 16d. 84, 119, 120b

3) Contradicts NNPF Para. 188

4) Contradicts NPPF Para 80a

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 and ambiguous evidence.
c) Effective –it is 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.

Removal of 1 - G and 2, 3, and 4

Paragraphs 1 and A contradicts NPPF para 188. The modification specifically refers to intensive livestock and poultry farming, however, intensive thresholds stated in MM80 are already covered by IPPC regulations.

This policy is not required. If it exists at all it should at least pretend to be positive.

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.

Some direct consultation with the industries you are trying to target would be a start...

With reference to the sections of MM48 see the contradictions to the NPPF below:
1a) Contradicts NPPF Para. 188. The modification refers to “intensive livestock and poultry farming” which at “intensive” thresholds stated in MM80 would already be covered by IPPC regulations
1b) Contradicts NPPF Para. 188
1c) Contradicts NPPF Para. 16b. 16d. Already covered by NNPF Para 154a and therefore unnecessary to single out one industry in particular. Covered by MM61 with much less ambiguity and much more precision therefore this is unnecessary
1d) Contradicts NPPF Para. 188
1e) Contradicts NPPF Para. 188
1f) Already covered by NPPF Para 130, 131, 132 and therefore unnecessary to single out one industry in particular.
1g) Already covered by NPPF Para 85, 111 & 113 and therefore unnecessary to single out one industry in particular. Negates the application of NPPF Para. 55
2) Contradicts NPPF Para. 16b, 16d. 84, 119, 120b
3) Contradicts NNPF Para. 188
4) Contradicts NPPF Para 80a 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 and ambiguous evidence.
c) Effective –it is 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.

These contradictions were not difficult to find... I am sure there are others!

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.

LP14 Intensive Livestock and Farming Policy new - Support

The Parish Council welcomes the addition of this policy and fully supports it. The Council feels this will enable the development of intensive poultry units to be brought forward in sustainable locations that do not harm or overwhelm the communities which neighbour them.

This policy is unnecessary – just delete it

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 discernible value elsewhere.

Stradbroke Parish Council strongly supports this new policy. The policy will ensure that all new Intensive Poultry Units do not cause cumulative harm to rural communities and ensures that the impacts of these units is properly assessed. The policy will ensure that all granted permissions are sustainable and cause limited harm to neighbouring communities.

This policy is unnecessary – just delete it

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 discernible value elsewhere.

Omit Policy LP14, all and any protections are already provided by the planning system, Environmental Impact Assessment and separate permitting regimes.

Local Plans are required to be proceed on the basis of an ‘Evidence base’ as detailed in Planning Policy Guidance:

Authorities preparing local plans should assess future needs and opportunities for their area, explore and identify options for addressing these, and then set out a preferred approach (except where this has already been dealt with through a spatial development strategy). This involves gathering evidence, carrying out a Sustainability Appraisal to inform the preparation of local plans and effective engagement and consultation with local communities, businesses and other interested parties. Paragraph: 034 Reference ID: 61-034-20190315.

Local planning authorities must make available each of the proposed submission documents that they intend to submit to the Planning Inspectorate for examination to enable representations to come forward that can be considered at examination, under regulation 19 of the the Local Plan Regulations. Paragraph: 034 Reference ID: 61-034-20190315

No such evidence base relating to Policy LP14 Intensive Livestock and Poultry Farming has been published or consulted upon via the Core Document Library nor was it present in the 2020 Regulation 19 draft. The policy reads as a restrictive as opposed to development plan policy – supporting and siting development in sustainable locations.

The NPPF is also clear at paragraph 188. that; The focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. Equally, where a planning decision has been made on a particular development, the planning issues should not be revisited through the permitting regimes operated by pollution control authorities.

Intensive livestock, inclusive of poultry sites, operate under an environmental permit; Given the Environment Agency Best available techniques: environmental permits which poultry sites operate under, Policy LP14 appears to be in direct conflict with paragraph 188 of the NPPF is isolating specific development, already subject to separate permitting regimes. Moreover, the content of Policy LP14 is redundant given the planning applications and Environmental Impact Assessment such applications require. Accordingly, the policy ‘doubles up’ on planning, environmental and permitting matters. On this basis it is unclear why the existing wording of Policy LP14 would make it to adoption.

This policy is unnecessary, just delete it and stop trying to damage the country's ability to feed itself.

This policy seems ridiculous. It's as if this policy is set out to completely destroy the agricultural building industry. I'd live to know why so many jobs (including my own) are being put at risk. I like being able to put food on my families table and keep a roof over their heads. Chicken is one of the only food sources this country has a chance at being sustainable in, I think it would be a good idea to keep it that way now we've left the EU. For that we need to keep up with demand.

This policy has no need to be in place and should be removed

Completely 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 discernible value elsewhere.

This policy is unnecessary It should be deleted.

This policy is unnecessary. It should be deleted.

Well personally I feel if it’s even necessary and as such it might as well just be removed.

This to me doesn’t read soundly. Personally I find it to be littered with contradictions to the NPPF, to site a few examples paragraphs 188, 16a-d, 84, 119, 120b and 80a.

Rubbish policy... Just delete it

. This policy is not sound and is riddled with contradictions to the NPPF. Specifically paragraphs 188, 16a-d, 84, 119, 120b, 80a…

paragraphs 188, 16a-d, 84, 119, 120b, 80a seem particularly superfluous.

The additional duplication and complexity will make it increasingly difficult for farmers to gain permissions( replacing older units is better environmentally, sustainable and better for livestock welfare) which is important to maintain control of food security.
Keeping production within the uk is of the upmost importance to ensure quality, consumers expect this and are increasingly aware.
Electrification and heating of modern units is moving towards sustainable future.

Just keep the original plan it's worked for years with no real issue!

How is this country ment to be able to feed itself if we bring in the new policy. More houses are popping up everywhere with a forever increase in population. Without more farms being built/expanded we will rely on more importation of food to feed the uk.
Also workers in the industry need work to support their family's but making it harder to get planning means little to no work for these people, so much research goes into these planning applications to have as little impact on the environment as possible!

This policy is unnecessary – I believe it should be scrapped.

This policy is not sound and is riddled with contradictions to the NPPF. Specifically paragraphs 188, 16a-d, 84, 119, 120b, 80a…
It appears to deliberately hinder specific parts of the rural economy without adding any discernible value elsewhere.

The policy seems unnecessary as it is well away from the local amenities. I actually attended one of the local planning meetings and found it staggering that nobody from the local planning had actually been out to see the site. Any real issues could then be discussed, amended and resolved!

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 discernible value elsewhere.

Suggest the following modification to clause c) given that the impact on water resources is not limited to the Hartismere supply network - however this could be referenced in the supporting text.

c. consider and address the impact on water resources and the capacity of the water supply infrastructure network

Anglian Water welcomes the insertion of the new policy with regard to new livestock and poultry farming units and supports the policy requirements relating to addressing impacts on water resources and managing waste so as not to impact on surface and ground water. However, we consider that the policy should clarify that this will apply to both new businesses and expansion of existing businesses. We suggest that criterion 1.c) is amended to reflect the limitations on water supply for non-domestic purposes across water resource zones in the Anglian Water region, in addition to the Hartismere supply network.

Ensuring satisfactory pollution prevention measures and that such proposals are constructed and operated to the appropriate standards and regulations is important, and we welcome this new Policy LP14 - Intensive Livestock and Poultry Farming.

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 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.

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.

To bring the policy in line with the requirements of the NPPF, SCC suggests the following revised wording to replace part g:
g. The provision of safe and suitable access for all users, including the proportionate mitigation of any unacceptable impacts on highway safety resulting from a significant increase in traffic movements, including HGVs

MM48: New Policy LP14
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF requires policies to be clearly written and unambiguous. SCC considers this policy to be both unclear and ambiguous and therefore unsound on the basis that it does not comply with national policy.
In accordance with paragraph 111 of the NPPF, SCC, as Highway Authority, has the duty to determine whether development would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts of the development on the road network would be severe. It is unclear from the policy, as it currently stands, how the Highway Authority should interpret it. There is no clear definition of “unacceptable increases of traffic” or “adequate highway capacity”.
To bring the policy in line with the requirements of the NPPF, SCC suggests the following revised wording to replace part g:
g. The provision of safe and suitable access for all users, including the proportionate mitigation of any unacceptable impacts on highway safety resulting from a significant increase in traffic movements, including HGVs