B&MSDC Supplementary Planning Documents Consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 23599

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Babergh Mid Suffolk SPD Consultation – Biodiversity and Trees
Thank you for consulting Suffolk County Council (SCC) on the draft SPD – Biodiversity and Trees
Where amendments to the plan are suggested added text will be in italics and deleted text will be in strikethrough.
Please see comments below from the Suffolk County Council planning department. I have spoken briefly with Babergh Mid Suffolk Ecologist Matthew King about these comments (through the Suffolk Wide Biodiversity Net Gain BNG working group). Upon reviewing the document, SCC has some concerns that the driving factors behind biodiversity and BNG within the planning system under the requirements of the Environment Act 2021 have been slightly misrepresented.
Please note that the majority of comments are related to distinguishing between the concept of “biodiversity” and the requirements of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) within the planning system. SCC has interpreted the purpose of this document is to identify how BNG will be implemented, however, SCC considers that currently its focus is on the promotion of “wider biodiversity” to the public.
Introduction:
In the first introductory paragraph, SCC would note that including protozoa in the list is a little unusual. Protozoa are single-celled organisms within the Protista family, which includes algae and other organisms, and they belong to the Monera kingdom. They are a specific species and not a more general category of life, such as animals. SCC recommend this is amended for clarity.
The introduction gives a very nice description of what biodiversity is but is not strictly accurate in planning terms. SCC would suggest splitting this into two sections: one on general “biodiversity” and another clarifying what falls under BNG in planning terms (requirements and processes under the Environment Act 2021). For example, having a good biodiversity habitat may result in good air quality, but “BNG” within the planning process does not directly address air quality (it is a habitats-based exercise which may/hopefully result in wider beneficial impacts on air quality).
SCC would suggest including a more technical definition in this introductory paragraph. A more accurate definition of BNG would be:
"Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is an approach to development and land management that aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was before."
The introduction section mentions COP15 agreements and the State of Nature report. While not inaccurate, these are not the direct drivers for BNG requirements in planning. The Environment Act 2021 is the main driving force behind these changes. SCC suggest focusing on the Environment Act as the primary influence on planning legislation (or focus on this after setting out how we got to this point, i.e., State of Nature and COP agreements).
Policy and Guidance:
This section lists relevant policies and guidance but does not highlight the requirements from the Environment Act. The Environment Act 2021 should be emphasised as the national requirement, sitting above local policy at the national level. Mentioning the Planning Practice Guidance for BNG would also be useful.
Biodiversity Mitigation Hierarchy:
This section likely includes all the necessary information but is unclear. The BNG Planning Practice Guidance outlines the required documents for submission. For example, a "Biodiversity Statement" includes ecological assessments and the baseline metric, while the “BNG plan” includes the HMMP (Habitats and Management and Monitoring Plan) with specific information. The section reads as if the ecological assessment is the most important element, with other documents secondary.
SCC recommend structuring this section according to the validation list for BNG, mirroring document names. For example, stating that a “BNG metric” or a “biodiversity statement including x, y, z” is required, followed by an explanation of what it includes and its purpose (this is all available in the PPG for BNG).
Council Assessment of BNG Calculation:
This section states that the council will encourage applicants to deliver at least 20% BNG where possible "for the reasons set out below." However, these reasons are more ambitions and goals rather than evidence-based justifications for 20%. SCC recommends clearly separating legal minimum requirements (10%) from ambitions.
Delivering BNG Off-Site:
It could be useful to clarify the differences between "local off-site credits" and the "national credit scheme." Local off-site credits can be identified by developers upon submission and secured through a Section 106 agreement. The national credit scheme can only be used as a last resort, requiring local authority approval.
It might help to explain that the national credit scheme is essentially a tariff with no management and monitoring responsibilities and is priced to reflect this - and that “onsite” and “local off-site” BNG delivery is encouraged where possible.
LNRS (Local Nature Recovery Strategy):
The SPD document states that the LNRS will inform “how” and “where” BNG should be delivered. This is not entirely accurate. The LNRS is a spatial mapping exercise that maps existing habitats and may suggest locations and types of habitats for connectivity, but it does not detail how to implement them. In the absence of the LNRS, developers should use the "Suffolk list of priority habitats" alongside protected sites to inform mitigation locations. The LNRS and the metric serve different purposes and are not substitutes for each other (the metric can inform some of the points, but they are not interchangeable).
Biodiversity Measures in Householder Applications:
Householder developments are exempt from BNG, as mentioned in this SPD. Again, SCC would suggest further clarity through the separation of what can be done to generally help “biodiversity” and what must be done under BNG and the Environment Act.

For example, the listed measures (e.g., integrated bat boxes, bird boxes) would not count towards BNG under the Environment Act. They contribute to general habitat regeneration but cannot be used to satisfy BNG requirements. It is important to refer to BNG as described under the Environment Act to avoid misleading developers into thinking these measures will score for BNG when they will not, even if they may help with “biodiversity.”
Design Approach:
This section describes information typically included in a "Biodiversity Statement." It should be made clear that a BNG statement is required upon submission, listing the necessary documents (assessment, metric, etc.). The 20% ambition is mentioned again. It should be made clear that this is an ambition and not the statutory minimum (10%). SCC suggest this ambition is presented separately, perhaps discussing how 20% is more achievable in rural locations over urban ones and rural locations where BNG will be able to accommodate greater enhancements than 20% should be sought.
Any suggestion that all development should aim to reach 20% should be supported by sufficient evidence. The SPD should set out justification for why jumping from 10 to 20% is preferred over, for example 12% or 15%.
SCC notes that the JLP Part 1, Policy LP16 - Biodiversity & Geodiversity, part e) has a requirement for a minimum 10% gains. SCC recommends the SPD aligns with adopted policy.
Determination:
The driving force for BNG requirements is the Environment Act, not BS42020:2023, which serves as quality guidance for environmental reports. Some of the planning conditions for BNG are mandatory pre-commencement requirements under the Environment Act, not optional as implied. Householder biodiversity measures, if conditioned, must have a clear justification and mechanism for enforcement. The difference between BNG as an ecological theory and a legal requirement should be made clear.
Application Process:
SCC recommends that the description of biodiversity aligns with its definition in planning to avoid confusion. Mentioning international agreements (e.g., protecting a third of the planet by 2030) is not as relevant as the Environment Act 2021, which directly influences BNG-related policy and legislation and dictates what we have to do as planners and developers.

Comment

Representation ID: 23600

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Babergh Mid Suffolk SPD Consultation – Housing
Thank you for consulting Suffolk County Council (SCC) on the draft SPD – Housing. Where amendments to the plan are suggested added text will be in italics and deleted text will be in strikethrough.

Adult Social Care
Regarding Section 2.7 on the delivery of affordable housing and specialist housing schemes, it is positive to see the inclusion of specialist and supported housing within affordable housing.
Paragraph 5.1.3 states that communal areas should be avoided in order to avoid service charges, and in most circumstances maisonettes will be preferable to flats.

SCC believes that consideration is needed for exceptions under some circumstances for the inclusion of communal spaces within specialist and supported housing. Flats may also be appropriate, dependent on the intended use and needs of individuals.
Policy LP24 part i) states: Provide at least 50% of dwellings which meet the requirements for accessible and adaptable dwellings under Part M4(2) of Building Regulations.

SCC supports this, dwellings built to adapt to and accommodate the needs of the occupier over their lifetime can facilitate choice, help meet the needs of an ageing population and improve quality of life.

Policy SP02 part 2) states: On sites of ten or more dwellings or 0.5ha or more, a contribution of 35% affordable housing will be required on greenfield sites. For brownfield sites a contribution of 25% affordable housing will be required.
SCC believes that consideration is needed regarding the amount of affordable housing that would meet the M4(2) standard with the majority meeting this requirement where possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 23601

Received: 19/06/2024

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Babergh Mid Suffolk SPD Consultation – Intensive Livestock and Poultry Farming
Thank you for consulting Suffolk County Council (SCC) on the draft SPD – Intensive livestock and poultry farming
Where amendments to the plan are suggested added text will be in italics and deleted text will be in strikethrough.
Within the document the policy context is clear, and the policies consider various factors such as air pollution, noise pollution, etc. The policies effectively address these issues. The Biodiversity net gain (BNG) section is accurate in its descriptions.
However, SCC would like to highlight that while cumulative impacts have been considered, the focus is mainly on the cumulative impacts of intensive farming operations when stacked on top of each other.
There are other cumulative impacts that could be highlighted for consideration. For example, the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan will highlight minerals developments, which will have similar considerations as intensive farming operations (noise, air quality, highway movements, etc.). It could be noted that cumulative impacts from other industries operating in a rural setting (such as mineral sites) should be considered when assessing cumulative impacts on the local area. Any operations or allocated facilities should be taken into account if they have the potential to cause cumulative impacts on the local area, especially if allocated through a local plan.
Although BNG is covered in a small section as a requirement, this could be expanded to show how intensive farming can work alongside the ambitions for BNG delivery. Farms will be a valuable asset for BNG delivery in the future if managed correctly. The importance of this is touched on in comments from our Farming Projects and Programme Manager.

while also aiming to increase biodiversity and reduce carbon emissions. It is important to note that
intensive farming is not necessarily detrimental to the environment, as there are economies of scale in terms of efficiency, emissions, and raising more animals on less land.
Increase Biodiversity and Reduce Carbon Emissions:
The primary goal should be to enhance biodiversity and reduce carbon emissions across farming operations.
Create Biodiverse Habitats:
Livestock areas can be transformed into mini wildlife sanctuaries. By creating biodiverse habitats within farming spaces, we can provide a home for local wildlife while maintaining farming operations. This approach can be mutually beneficial for both nature and livestock.
Reduce Carbon Footprint:
SCC would suggest exploring alternative energy sources, such as solar panels or wind turbines, to power farm operations and reduce carbon footprints.
Adopt Regenerative Farming Practices:
Implement regenerative farming practices that benefit crops and livestock, improve soil health, and enhance biodiversity. Methods that work with nature can create a more sustainable and diverse ecosystem on the farm.
Collaborate with Local Conservation Groups:
There are opportunities to collaborate with local conservation groups. Implementing wildlife corridors or creating buffer zones around the farm can support local biodiversity and demonstrate a commitment to the environment while benefiting farming practices.
Integrate Agroforestry:
Agroforestry can enhance biodiversity while sequestering carbon. Integrating trees and shrubs into the farming landscape can provide habitat for wildlife, improve soil health, and contribute to sustainability goals.
Encourage farmers to embrace innovative and sustainable practices that align with the goals of increasing biodiversity and reducing carbon emissions. Farmers should demonstrate a proactive approach to integrating environmental stewardship with farming operations.
Planning Process and Policy Considerations:
Intensive Farming and Biodiversity:
Ensure that the planning process considers the potential impact of intensive farming on biodiversity and the environment. Planning policies should align with the goal of promoting SCC’s biodiversity and net-zero targets.
Mitigation Measures:
Address the need to mitigate the potential impact of intensive livestock and poultry farming on local ecosystems and protected species, particularly regarding nitrates from animal waste runoff (NVZs). Planning could include guidance on incorporating measures to enhance biodiversity, such as creating wildlife habitats, preserving green spaces, and minimizing the disruption of natural habitats.
Net Zero Objectives:
Consider the role of intensive farming in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Provide guidance on promoting sustainable farming practices, reducing carbon emissions, and enhancing energy efficiency within intensive livestock and poultry operations to align with net-zero objectives.
Overall, intensive livestock and poultry farming should strike a balance between meeting the demand for food production, safeguarding biodiversity, and contributing to net-zero emissions. It is essential to review the specific details of the planning application to gain a comprehensive understanding and implement effective mitigation measures. Collaborating with developers and farmers to contribute to our targets of increased biodiversity and reduced emissions, while supporting food production and farmers, is crucial.
Landscape
SCC would suggest that the title of this SPD include the word “Farming” at the end, in order to be more aligned with JLP Policy LP14, i.e.;
“Intensive Livestock and Poultry Farming - Supplementary Planning Document”
SCC would recommend that the title of section 5.7 is expanded as below, to be more in line with the text from policy LP14:
“5.7 LP14 (1) [f] - serve to minimise visual and landscape impact and incorporate suitable landscaping proposals”
Paragraph 5.7.2 of the Draft SPD refers to JLP Policy LP17 – Landscape, pointing out that this policy provides (together with other policies) the guidance necessary to enable applicants to ensure that development proposals comply with landscape quality objectives.
Policy LP17 states in paragraph 15.23:
“Where development is visually prominent or is likely to significantly affect landscape character, production of a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) or Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (as appropriate) will be required. This should inform strategic landscape masterplans and/or landscape management plans detailing mitigation proposals if required.”
The reports/assessments section of the Draft SPD (paragraph 5.7.6) refers however to Landscape and Visual Appraisals (LVA) only, a simplified and less strenuous assessment than a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). LVAs are suitable for smaller and less complex developments. Larger or more sensitive developments, and particularly those requiring and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) need to include a full LVIA as part of the Environmental Statement (ES).
SCC would suggest that this is explained in this SPD.
For developments requiring an EIA, a number of photo montages from selected representative viewpoints should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in advance. They do not only help the representatives of the Local Planning Authority in their assessment of the proposal, but are also very important for public consultations.
SCC would suggest the following minor amendments to paragraph 5.7.4:
“5.7.4 Potential impacts include:
•
Increased scale of buildings and use of materials that are not characteristic of the rural landscape.
•
Visual impact of development and infrastructure where there was previously open countryside.
•
Loss of tranquillity and remoteness due to introduction of movement, light, sound.
•
Reduction in quality of landscape character, such as through key feature removal (hedgerow, trees, alteration of the natural topography).
•
Increased transport requiring road widening and visibility splays, therefore loss of characteristic rural lanes.
•
The incremental effects of development, including extensions to existing sites, erodes the landscape character features, including extensions to existing sites”
4

SCC suggest the following amendments to paragraph 5.7.8:
“5.7.8 The plan should include:
•
Hard landscape details, such as levels, surfaces, and boundaries boundary treatments.
•
Soft landscape proposals such as showing existing and new planting, such as Tree shelter belts, buffer zones and other mitigative planting in an appropriate scale (such as 1:200) and providing clear specifications (species, sizes, densities, total numbers, provenance, soil preparation, aftercare and management, including, but not limited to, watering and weed control).
•
Details of external materials, colours and finishes. These should be chosen with the surrounding landscape in mind and with reference to the local geology and seasonal changes.
•
Details of any ecological and biodiversity enhancements that are required (BNG) and integrated drainage solutions. Integrated drainage solutions should follow the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) hierarchy with respect to surface and water flows, taking account of the potentially higher nutrient and/or contaminant levels in the water content.
•
A separate lighting design should be submitted, that addresses landscape as well as ecology (wildlife) requirements.”
Transport
SCC notes that paragraph 5.8.5 refers to a “Transport Impact Assessment”. It would be clearer if this referred to a Transport Assessment or Statement, as alluded to within previous paragraphs.
SCC would encourage addition of reference made to Transport Assessments/Statements considering alternatives to private vehicles – such as the provision of busses for staff
While the focus is on motor vehicle movements, for the rurality reasons, a Transport Assessment would normally include some recognition of the role of sustainable transport. In some cases, the operators put on staff buses to reduce the non-HGV traffic impacts, and acknowledging that this work is often relatively low-paid, and employees may struggle to afford a private car.
This is the sort of mitigation that could be secured by S106 or conditions.
SCC welcome the inclusion of reference to our Suffolk Lorry Routing map1, as this has been recently updated.
General
Paragraph 5.3.11 Biodiversity net gain
It is suggested that this section could make direct reference to the Environment Act, and that BNG is not a “desirable” but is a legal requirement for development. We note the cross reference to the emerging Biodiversity and Trees SPD, and SCC have provided comments separately in relation to that consultation.