BMSDC JLP Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal - June 2019

Showing comments 1 to 18 of 18

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 16235

Received: 28/07/2019

Respondent: David Howorth

Representation:

Comment 6 - The Sustainability Appraisal Report appears to have something of an optimistic bias in it's assessments.

Full text:

Comment (1)

LP10 doesn't seem to meet the requirements. 'Plan for the needs of those wishing to build their own homes' would seem to require the council to allocate some land for the purpose. Setting up a register achieves nothing towards the goal, it simply serves as a record of the unmet demand. I believe Cherwell District Council is a good examplar.

The council is not required just to establish a register. It is also required to grant planning permission for an equivalent number of building plots within three years of the end of each year of register entries. The first such deadline is 30 Oct 2019 and the council must have granted permission on plots equal to the number of names on the register by October 2016 by such date. By October 2021, the council must have granted permission for at least 164 such plots, according to the figure given. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/self-build-and-custom-housebuilding#land-duties
for further detail.

To be clear, I think that para 13.65 is wrong to state that the policy is in conformity with the NPPF and is open to challenge. In October this year, the council will be open to legal challenge unless it has met its obligations and granted sufficient planning permissions for building plots.


Comment (2)

LP23 states: 'All new development is required to minimise its dependence on fossil fuels'. How is its dependence to be measured? The obvious minimum is zero. i.e. the development should not consume any fossil fuels on site. No gas or oil burners. Minimisation of pollution would also rule out wood burners. The dependence is then on the contract for the supply of renewable electricity. Is that what the policy means?
If so, why not say it?


Comment (3)

Furthermore, there is a serious deficiency in the proposed policy LP23.
It appears to be based on the policies expressed in the Green Building Council Policy Playbook, which is designed to encourage a uniform set of criteria across the country. However the local plan omits a vital part of the rule that appears as LP23-2a, which says:

"2. All new residential development is required to:
a. Achieve reductions in CO 2 emissions of 19% below for the Target Emissions Rate of the 2013 Edition of 2010 Building Regulations (Part L);"

The model GBC clause in fact states:

"A 19% reduction on the Dwelling Emission Rate (DER) against the Target Emission Rate (TER) based on the 2013 Edition of the 2010 Building Regulations (Part L) whilst meeting the TER solely from energy efficiency measures as defined within the SAP calculation model."

The second half of the rule is absolutely essential as is expanded in the note below it in the GBC guide:

"For absolute clarity, the reference to ‘solely energy efficiency measures’ refers to DER against the TER (i.e. the current requirements of Part L 2013) not to the 19% improvement factor."

The whole point of this rule is to ensure that buildings achieve the savings by fabric efficiency means (e.g. by more insulation) and not by simply 'bolting on' some renewable energy generation as has sometimes occurred in developments in the past.

My personal opinion is that the rule does not go far enough, but achieving uniformity on these matters with other councils is a desirable goal, so I would support full implementation of the GBC guideline.


Comment (4)

Policy LP25 states:

"2. The local planning authority will use planning obligations attached to planning consents for energy development schemes to ensure the site is restored when energy generation ceases or becomes non-functioning for a period of three months."

The period of three months seems to me to be unreasonably short. I am not an expert in the area but it seems plausible to me that the lead time for the replacement of specialised parts in some types of generation system might well exceed three months in unfavourable circumstances (an imported part subject to a sudden restriction of trading conditions, for example). Some schemes, such as flow-of-river hydroelectricity, might experience gaps of longer than three months in generation capability, due to reduced flow in the river in the example.

I see little downside in extending the period to six months or even a year. Some words to prevent vexatious exploitation of the 'letter of the law' might also be worthwhile.


Comment (5)

The description of Building Regulations in the glossary is incorrect.
The regulations are *not* set by the Approved Documents. The Approved Documents merely illustrate one or more ways of complying with the regulations, which are established by the Building Act of 1984 and subsequent legislation.


Comment (6)

The Sustainability Appraisal Report appears to have something of an optimistic bias in it's assessments. To give examples from Table 77, which is the land I know best:

The site is said to be '690m from Stowlodge Centre GP'. There is no publically accessible GP service at Stow Lodge that I'm aware of. The nearest GP service is Stowhealth which is 2 km away. The footpath going west is mentioned, but the fact there is no footpath going east towards all the services that are mentioned is not! Consequently a '0'
assessment is perhaps optimistic.

I'm not sure how distances of 'over 2000m' to employement is viewed as an unknown impact. Similarly, why is the threatened withdrawal of the bus service not mentioned, since this is a sustainability criterion?

The site is given a positive rating for 'Site is at very low risk from surface water flooding' but in reality part of the site is frequently flooded after rain. (as is the road in front, due to a blockage of the ditch).

The site is Greenfield but the impact is unknown. How can this be; surely greenfield sites are avoided where brownfield sites etc are available, so this is a negative aspect.

The transport assessment is rated '0' for access to Stowmarket and positive for network capacity issues, despite the lack of a footpath to Stowmarket and the threatened withdrawal of the bus service to Stowmarket. No indication is given of how any network capacity issues might be mitigated, making the positive assertion mysterious. Surely it should be unknown unless specific plans exist, in which case they should be attached.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 16239

Received: 31/07/2019

Respondent: Forestry Commission

Representation:

Thank you for consulting the Forestry Commission. As a Non Ministerial Government Department, we provide no opinion supporting or objecting to a policy, an application or site allocation. Rather we provide information on the potential impact that a proposed development would have on ancient woodland. Having reviewed the Sustainability Appraisal Environmental Report, June 2019, I am happy to confirm that the Environmental Report complies with the Government's 'Standing Advice' on the importance and protection of ancient woodland.

Full text:

Thank you for consulting the Forestry Commission. As a Non Ministerial Government Department, we provide no opinion supporting or objecting to a policy, an application or site allocation. Rather we provide information on the potential impact that a proposed development would have on ancient woodland. Having reviewed the Sustainability Appraisal Environmental Report, June 2019, I am happy to confirm that the Environmental Report complies with the Government's 'Standing Advice' on the importance and protection of ancient woodland.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 17134

Received: 25/09/2019

Respondent: AONB Team

Representation:

The SA does not reference either the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Stour Valley Management Plan 2016 -2021 or the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2018-2023.
Under the landscape/townscape SA Framework objective there is no criteria to assess impacts on the Dedham Vale or the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONBs

It is not clear how the impacts on the nationally designated landscapes or their settings have been assessed even at a high level to support residential allocations in or with their setting.

Full text:

Under the list of List of Relevant Plans and Programmes in the Sustainability Appraisal under the section called Sub National Plans (Landscape) there is no reference to either the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Stour Valley Management Plan 2016 -2021 or the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2018-2023. It is not clear if or how these statutory Management Plan have influenced decision making in the emerging Joint Babergh Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (Preferred Options).
The 2010-2015 Dedham Vale Management Plan is referenced under the List of Relevant Plans and Programmes under Biodiversity, but this is obsolete and has been superseded by the 2016-2023 plan. This should be amended
Objective 13 in the SA Framework is ‘To conserve and enhance the quality of and local distinctiveness of landscapes and townscapes. Four criteria have also been identified against which potential site allocations have been assessed. None of the criteria test if the proposed site allocations are located in a nationally designated landscape or it’s setting and where they are how the proposed allocations will impact on them. The plan is proposing the potential allocation of 394 new dwellings and 3.3. ha of B1 land within or within the setting to the AONBs. Some of these dwellings are considered major allocations within or within the setting of the Dedham Vale or the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the proposed AONB extension areas and Project Areas to the AONBs. It is not clear how impacts on these areas have been taken into account or assessed in the decision-making process to support the decision to allocate sites. Further justification is needed.
We consider that the SA should be revised to include a new criterion to enable a high-level assessment of impacts arising from the site allocations proposed in the emerging Local Plan on the AONBs, their setting, the Projects Areas and/or proposed AONB extensions areas. This should be done prior to their allocation. Revising the SA as recommended would help ensure that you as the LPAs meet you Duty of Regard obligations under Section 85 the Crow Act 2000.
Following re-assessment, to continue to support the proposed allocations in the emerging Joint Local Plan in or with the setting of the AONBs, the LPAs must be satisfied that, there will be no adverse impacts on the natural beauty of the nationally designated landscapes or their setting, and that their allocation contributes positively to the purposes of designation.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 17348

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Alan Walmsley

Representation:

This report is obviously a desk exercise, based on a formulaic approach governed by legislative guidance. As such, it is a tick box exercise which is completely pointless and merely signs off the JLP without examining it in any depth. It is very obvious that the plans have major issues within them, not the least being that some of the policies conflict with each other. Others are not policies at all, but re-statements of the obvious. Other policies display a complete lack of understanding of the major industries of the area.

Full text:

This report is obviously a desk exercise, based on a formulaic approach governed by legislative guidance. As such, it is a tick box exercise which is completely pointless and merely signs off the JLP without examining it in any depth. It is very obvious that the plans have major issues within them, not the least being that some of the policies conflict with each other. Others are not policies at all, but re-statements of the obvious. Other policies display a complete lack of understanding of the major industries of the area.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 17526

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Amber REI Holdings Ltd

Representation:

SP01
“No alternative options are put forward at this stage, as there is no evidence to suggest that the housing requirement should be set at any level other than the
local housing need figure”. The current JLP minimum housing requirements does not accord with the standard method and therefore should be revised.

SP02
In its current form, the policy does not allow for variation in provision in line with requirements set out within neighbourhood plans, nor was this option tested as an alternative. This option should be tested through the SA
and subsequently included within the JLP Policy, in order to meet objective 4 of the SA

SP03
Settlement hierarchy does not include provision for
previously development land to come forward for development outside of settlement boundaries. This in inconsistent with the SA’s statement that PDL in the first instance is a common theme throughout the plan’s environmental policies. This should be reflected in the strategic policies in order for it to be effective.

PDL
The SA states that “The development of previously developed land in the first instance is a common theme throughout the Plan’s environmental policies.” the current wording of certain policies are not sufficiently flexible to allow for the redevelopment of PDL outside of designated settlement boundaries. It is therefore clear that the Plan as currently drafted fails to achieve ‘PDL in the first instance’ and should be amended in line with the suggestions in this Representation to achieve this.

LP20
LP20 makes no reference to the setting of heritage assets as correctly identified in SA objective 12. As suggested above, the policy should be amended to reflect this and to acknowledge that there are scenarios where existing development has a significant detrimental effect on a designated heritage asset and therefore alternative development proposals which improve this will be supported.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 17799

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Dr John Caesar

Representation:

In Annex E, for example site ALT20 (p197) and other sites for Needham Market, there is an issue with a statement that "Needham Market has a good relationship to the wider transport network courtesy of the train station and A14". This is inaccurate, as there is limited clearance access under the railway, the road itself is not of a standard for high traffic volumes, and it floods frequently.

It is also disappointing that site ALT20 has still been included as an alternative site since access through the flood zone has already been deemed unsuitable.

Full text:

In Annex E, for example site ALT20 (p197) and other sites for Needham Market, there is an issue with a statement regarding transport access to the A14 from Needham Market: "Needham Market has a good relationship to the wider transport network courtesy of the train station and A14". This is inaccurate, as there is limited clearance access under the railway, the road itself is not of a standard for high traffic volumes, and it floods frequently.

It is also disappointing that site ALT20 has still been included as an alternative site since access through the flood zone has already been deemed unsuitable and there remain issues concerning the site sustainability.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 17859

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Stradbroke Parish Council

Representation:

see attached.

Full text:

see attached.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 17909

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kathy & Ray Barry

Representation:

Information made available for the consultation is not only unprofessional but misleading, almost to the point of deceiving. The Sustainability report is 1700 pages politically correct "Cods Wallop" that does not even cover within the assessment matrix material issues which should be taken into consideration.
The Sustainability matrix does not take into account two very material and important issues when looking at potential sites. The SA report only takes into consideration potential flooding on proposed site and not any risk created to others. Access to proposed sites is the potential difference between sustainable well being for existing residents or a living hell as a result of traffic congestion and the consequent environment impact.

The plan suggests the old SHELAA site SS020 is included within the proposal but on an alternative basis as site ALT14, I am at a loss to establish this from the published documents. Inclusion of this site is absolutely bonkers.

The Sudbury and Great Cornard Surface Water Management Plan your consultants had access to, make it abundantly clear this site is within the CRITICAL DRAINAGE AREA. Food risk to the are a would not only require full betterment but also huge engineering works to ensure no deviation of flood flow path.

The preferred site LA042 or old SHELAA site SS0242 is now proposed to accommodate 500 new properties. No one at the LPA has taken on board what BMT are telling you!

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 17999

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr And Mrs Britnell

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

SA objectives 3.1 and 3.2
It is highly questionable whether the proposed allocation is within 1km of a main employment area.
The ports of Felixstowe and Harwich may be within a 1km radius of the site but access by road is considerably further by road via the B1456 to join the national highway which is heavily congested at peak times. Local employment opportunities are limited and accordingly the SA should record the impacts as ‘uncertain / unknown’ rather than ‘positive’.

SA Objective 12.1
Our clients do not consider the SA adequately considers the harm that would be caused to the significance of a designated heritage asset and its setting. This should be reflected in the scoring and the impacts adjusted from
‘uncertain’ to ‘negative’.

Our clients would also point out that due its age, their property has shallow foundations and the construction activities associated with any new development in
the immediate vicinity could lead to vibration issues. There are correspondingly practical reasons why and new development should be located away from the
farmhouse.

SA Objective 13.1
In our clients opinion the status conferred to the AONB and the contribution that the adjoining countryside makes to its character and appreciation has not been adequately considered by the SA. They therefore disagree with the assessment findings. The landscape within the area would be sensitive to change and the effect of any development would be permanent, long-term, and have a ‘negative’ rather than a ‘positive’ impact.

SA Objectives 16.1 and 16.2
The SA correctly records the impact of the proposed development as ‘negative’ (Objective 16.1) and reflects this point within the associated closing commentary for Site LA075. Our clients would however reiterate that Shotley Street is not a sustainable location for additional development other than a modest quantum that is
commensurate with the size of the village and continue to have concerns in relation to the capacity of the B1456 to serve further housing given the commitments that
exist at HMS Ganges.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 18002

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

Stowemarket/Hadleigh WRC

Full text:

Page 13 - wastewater
In reference to the Waste Water Recycling comments on page 13 – new (2018) figures show both Stowmarket and Hadleigh are at around 91% of capacity, and development will need to be discussed with Anglian water to ensure wastewater treatment capacity will be available in a timely manner. Growth must be phased in line with water company provision of capacity and development must not be occupied until capacity is available. ‘Water company upgrades/improvements’ are not always needed to provide additional capacity; for example the company may be able to carry out management options, so this phrase could be changed to one more general to just say that ‘ensuring growth is phased in line with water company provision of wastewater treatment capacity’.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 18003

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

Page 13 – climate change and energy section
This climate change and energy section references drought. The plan area is considered one of the driest regions in the UK and based on climate change predictions and Anglian Water’s forecasting there is an increased likelihood of drought and increased stress on current and future water supplies. There should therefore be more emphasis on water efficiency, impacts that increased likelihood of drought will have on WFD objectives and the area’s protected sites.

Full text:

Page 13 – climate change and energy section
This climate change and energy section references drought. The plan area is considered one of the driest regions in the UK and based on climate change predictions and Anglian Water’s forecasting there is an increased likelihood of drought and increased stress on current and future water supplies. There should therefore be more emphasis on water efficiency, impacts that increased likelihood of drought will have on WFD objectives and the area’s protected sites.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 18006

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

Paragraph 5.5.2 acknowledges water efficiency and reduction in water consumption during the operational phase of building. This could be further enhanced by acknowledging the need during the construction phase too.

Full text:

Paragraph 5.5.2 acknowledges water efficiency and reduction in water consumption during the operational phase of building. This could be further enhanced by acknowledging the need during the construction phase too.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 18573

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Endurance Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation:

These representations (in attachment) identify a number of discrepancies as to how draft Policy LA036 has been assessed. The Sustainabilty Appraisal should be updated in light of the matters raised in these representations.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 18961

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr E. Bauly & Mr B. Bauly

Agent: Evolution Town Planning

Representation:

Support from the landowner for the allocation of site LA074. Rejection of claims in the Sustainability Appraisal that the development will harm the landscape and will be constrained by flood risk.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 19034

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: M Scott Properties Ltd

Agent: Strutt and Parker

Representation:

There are elements within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) which do not accurately
reflect Site LA055 and have consequently led to an inaccurate assessment.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 19241

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Babergh Green Party

Representation:

We note that on p. 64, Table 28, Sustainability Assessment Framework for Assessing the Plan’s Site Options shows that ‘Reducing contribution to Climate Change’ is now the revised Objective #9.
In view of comments made throughout these representations, we recommend that this is restyled as Objective #1.
We also found this document, written as it is in a very small point size, difficult to read and absorb and respectfully request that the final Sustainability Appraisal is produced in a more easily readable format.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 19280

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Hopkins Homes Ltd and Hopkins and Moore (Developments) Ltd (the 'Hopkins Group)'

Representation:

SA assessment of LA095 - While we support the Sustainability Appraisal’s assessment of the site, the full representation addresses those elements which received either a '-' or '?' rating in terms of their sustainability impact. In summary, we support the conclusions within the Sustainability Appraisal regarding the site, and trust the above consideration of elements which received a ‘-‘ or ‘?’ in terms of their Sustainability Impact in the SA can be updated in light of this additional points of clarification, and will inform the drafting of more detailed policy wording at the Regulation 19 stage, if required.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Preferred Options - Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment 2019

Representation ID: 19358

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Hopkins Homes Ltd and Hopkins and Moore (Developments) Ltd (the 'Hopkins Group)'

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Representation:

The SA assessment of Site ALT13 is erroneous and does not justify rejection of the site for residential development. Indeed our detailed representations (see separate report), conclude that Site ALT13 is a more sustainable option for a residential site allocation, and one that would follow the pattern of the settlement in the Gipping Valley and result in significantly less visual impact and adverse affects on the character of the landscape, when compared to the proposed site allocation – Site LA012.
We therefore strongly recommend the inclusion of the land east of Bramford Road, Sproughton (Site ALT13) as an allocation for residential development of up to 50 dwellings – either in addition to the existing proposed allocation Site LA012, or instead of this allocation.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.