B&MSDC Supplementary Planning Documents Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 23583

Received: 18/06/2024

Respondent: Sudbury Area Green Belt Group

Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document - Consultation Response

Section 2.3(c) The NPPF para 180(c) next states “development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused etc”. The Council will be aware from its knowledge of the Stour Valley area, and the “Landscape Description” methodology, that our District has a complex geology, hydrology, landforms and gradients, with pockets of land not affected by modern agriculture, extending well beyond the perimeters of the AONB / National Landscape and Project Area. In this situation, there is more variety of irreplaceable habitats that can be readily found on a list, or a standard Habitat Classification, for instance spring flushes, wet woodland or fen that are fragmented or atypical.

RECOMMENDATION: The report should recognise that the greatest care is needed in not overlooking Irreplaceable Habitats, and I propose that any planning applications or Call for Sites, located on valley-sides of the Stour and tributaries, should be checked for features in the “Rolling Valley Farmlands” or “Rolling Estate Farmlands” landscape character type.

Section 2.8.4 States the policy is “ To encourage applicants to protect, conserve and restore/enhance locally relevant natural habitats and ecological features on their sites and to create new habitats, as part of a high-quality design.”, however the NPPF 2021 version has the significant amendment in para 180(d) which now requires opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around development, rather than simply making it optional.

Section 4. Biodiversity Mitigation Hierarchy and Biodiversity Net Gain

It will be essential for Babergh’s policy to accurately represent the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF). The Council has already been required by the Inspectorate to correct its departure from the “Mitigation Hierarchy”, and required to adhere to the NPPF wording.
The NPPF para 180 then gives the “hierarchy”: “if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”. I believe councillors should be made fully aware there is a conflict between the NPPF Hierarchy, and the version presented in Section 4.1 of this policy which is worded “Policy SP09 (3) sets out that all development that would have an impact on a Protected Habitats Site, will be required to embed mitigation measures to avoid adverse effect on integrity”. Thus councillors must surely be made aware that 4.1 etc and the accompanying diagram do not reflect the NPPF’s requirement of locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts, and are not a hierarchy, since they only require a “scheme design” with “acceptable results” and “appropriate conditions and obligations”. In reality there is no magic way to “to embed mitigation measures to avoid adverse effect on integrity”, such a phrase is merely cosmetic, and bodes ill for the future of buffer zones, corridors and other requirements of National Nature Recovery. The fact that Babergh has few SSSIs does not mean that fewer Nature Recovery efforts are needed.

Section 4.4 I must challenge the incorrect use of the wording “Avoidance: The first aim is to prevent adverse effects through good design. This can include alternative design choices, alterations to site layout, or selecting sites where biodiversity harm is minimised.” This is far from the same as the NPPF’s “locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts”.

It is wrong of the council to represent the NPPF requirement as shuffling the buildings round the site, and alternatively re-locating the habitats within the site, etc.

RECOMMENDATION: councillors should be made fully aware there is a conflict between the NPPF Hierarchy, and the version presented in 4.1 of this policy.

The NPPF para 180 does not use the term “mitigation hierarchy” and I believe its intention and spirit is clearly to prevent a dive to mere mitigation. Developers are increasingly proposing “mitigations” such as translocating species into small interior portions of estates. This is the method castigated by Natural England as “carpet-laying” ie fitting the green fragments around the blocks of houses etc.

RECOMMENDATION: the policy should include a warning against “mitigations” - many have a record of low success, such as translocations of reptiles, or plant communities, officer recommendations on planning applications should clearly identify such weak mitigations, and give them negative weight in balancing them against purported net gains.

Section 4.4b) has “Mitigation: When avoidance is not possible, efforts should focus on mitigating negative impacts”. Why would avoidance “not be possible”??? After all, developers often own many sites. I suggest since the NPPF options are considered a “hierarchy” then the first option - locating on an alternative site - should be the preferred course of action; otherwise I suppose it’s just “bad luck for wildlife” to be in the wrong place. That has the effect of negating the whole strategy and substituting “mitigations” that are only as good as the applicants’ glossy proposals.

The NPPF section “Habitats and Biodiversity” first has the requirement Para. 179 “To protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity, plans should: a) Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks etc”; I believe this Biodiversity and Trees policy must state that decisions will be dependent on the findings /draft of this mapping exercise, which the council and partners etc have commenced, albeit a draft map or list of the required “wildlife corridors, stepping-stones etc” has not yet been produced.

SUMMARY: this policy must surely state that decisions will be dependent on the findings of the council’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) mapping exercise, as referred to in Section 4.2.8 .

COMMENT: for this document to give so little prominence to LNRS, seems perverse and bodes ill for what the LNRS will achieve in reality. Equally, Section 4.2.8 appears excessively vague. If land mapped in the LNRS is merely intended to “inform how and where BNG should be delivered” etc then the whole effect of the LNRS in terms of planning will have been negligible, Surely in the LNRS map etc there should be a presumption against development, which seems to be the best way to give effect to the “avoidance” requirement in the Mitigation Hierarchy.

Section 4.9 Identification of all habitat types present at the site is a welcome new departure, but the stated confirmation by the council of the habitat type should not simply be a check that the applicant’s “paperwork is in order” - such a “desk-top” process would be too cursory with a risk of “rubber-stamping”.

RECOMMENDATION: the policy should include a requirement to check if the habitat is approaching CWS standard (eg if it’s Priority Habitat), and to apply the same protection that would be applied to a CWS.

COMMENT: It’s well known and notorious that there’s sufficient subjectivity in such BNG elements as connectivity, naturalness and scarcity, that BNG scores can readily be tweaked up and down considerably.

RECOMMENDATION: It appears that the whole process would be the better for a proactive survey of the District’s towns, which would make an initial identification and ranking of the quality of green areas, rather than the reactive response hitherto when a planning application is made. Though such a process could and should be made through Neighbourhood Planning, the years are already too many that have been available to do this eg in Sudbury-Chilton-Great Cornard, which should no longer be depended on to take any initiative.

Section 5 on the approach to what the Councils expect in developments.

The measures and intentions of Section 5 of the plan are very welcome, as they certainly reduce the many ways in which developers’ plans can disguise chalk as cheese. Such closing of loopholes is essential.

Section 5.6.3 “All of the Councils’ HRA Appropriate Assessments will be sent to Natural England for their formal consultation response on their conclusions before any decision can be issued.” However I propose, since it’s now notorious that Natural England have a standard reply that staff shortage prevents them from giving individual responses, and other wildlife organisations are similarly hard-pressed, there seems a clear need for a better system.

RECOMMENDATION: I re-iterate the proposal of commissioning a preliminary green proactive survey round each large population area where there is no Neighbourhood Plan, as well as the nascent Local Nature Recovery Strategy (or draft map). Sites could readily be ranked, pending fuller ecological surveys. Possibly Natural England / Wildlife Organisations could better respond to the findings of such a survey, than to individual planning applications. This would be a natural adjunct to the LNRS mapping process.

Section 5.11 in the plan is certainly welcome, and seems essential to good planning. The council and all parties should be held to these standards from this time forward, as even the publication of this draft represents an admission of what is necessary / essential.

RECOMMENDATION: the council should immediately resolve to make 5.11 a key part of the assessments of sites nominated in the recent Call For Sites; a survey of those sites should be undertaken to identify all biodiverse land, together with its scenic quality and de facto public use, its Connectivity and other Biodiversity Metric dimensions. Anything short of that will betray 5.11. The spirit of the “Mitigation Hierarchy” would demand that building on quality sites should not be “Allocated”.

RECOMMENDATION: To “local nature reserves” in 5.11.1 should be added County Wildlife Sites, and farmland which has not been cultivated between 1993 and 2023 which has regular de facto recreational use or a public footpath. All such farmland is required in law to have an Environmental Impact Assessment by Natural England as on suitable soils, scarce species will have established quite quickly.

Section 5.10 on the approach to trees in development

If mitigations on a development involve leaving a tree in a gap between houses, we must know that it will quickly grow to harm gutters, tiles etc and need unsuitable lopping. Also 5.10 needs to emphasise the long-established knowledge that scarce and rare invertebrates need particular flowering “weeds” close to the tree for part of their lifecycle, growth that is liable to be complained about as untidy or removed by residents. Equally, if mitigation requires Iong grass, we must be aware of the clamour by residents that the grass is an eyesore and harbours vermin, broken glass, needles etc. Also, a common proposal is to plant a tree screen, but the council has been told by a Planning Inspector, in respect of a Great Cornard site, that trees often fail eg if planted on hillsides.