HRA Main document

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Background documents

Representation ID: 93815

Received: 06/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Jodie Caley

Representation:

Although AOS E is not an SPA or SAC, these areas cannot be viewed in isolation. If you treat these areas as independent islands of wildlife, you will remove the connectivity between the sites and the habitat in between.
We currently live within 250m of the proposed area of search, and we have nesting nightjars, goshawks, red kites and buzzards. We can see and hear them from our property.
We also have glow worms and slow worms, common lizards, adders and grass snakes. All of these animals are protected species. To remove the area that is proposed would destroy these animals and their habitat.
There may be distance between where AOS E lies and the nearest official SPA/SAC, but that doesn't mean there aren't protected species living within it.

There are a large number of protected species living within AOS E. Although it is not an SPA or SAC, this doesn't negate the fact that they are here, they exist, and to remove the habitat (in an area that is already ravaged by intensive agriculture) just so a Belgian company or an apathetic British government can make some more money is quite frankly an outrage.

Full text:

Although AOS E is not an SPA or SAC, these areas cannot be viewed in isolation. If you treat these areas as independent islands of wildlife, you will remove the connectivity between the sites and the habitat in between.
We currently live within 250m of the proposed area of search, and we have nesting nightjars, goshawks, red kites and buzzards. We can see and hear them from our property.
We also have glow worms and slow worms, common lizards, adders and grass snakes. All of these animals are protected species. To remove the area that is proposed would destroy these animals and their habitat.
There may be distance between where AOS E lies and the nearest official SPA/SAC, but that doesn't mean there aren't protected species living within it.

There are a large number of protected species living within AOS E. Although it is not an SPA or SAC, this doesn't negate the fact that they are here, they exist, and to remove the habitat (in an area that is already ravaged by intensive agriculture) just so a Belgian company or an apathetic British government can make some more money is quite frankly an outrage.

Support

Background documents

Representation ID: 98887

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Natural England

Representation:

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.

We are satisfied, and agree, with the findings of both of the above Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment documents, both are thorough and robust.

Otherwise, I'd just like to reiterate the remarks I made in response to the Initial Options stage, that you and your team are to be congratulated on the quality of the consultation documents that have been produced. Natural England considers that the M&WLPR undertaken to date has been detailed, comprehensive and written in accordance with current legislation and policy.

Full text:

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 17 September 2019 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.

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Preferred Options consultation of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan Review (M&WLPR) prepared by your authority, and have submitted a few comments on specific policies and proposed site allocations through the on-line consultation process, having reviewed the following documents:
* Main M&WLPR Preferred Options consultation document, dated July 2019;
* Draft Sustainability Appraisal (Part B) of the M&WLPR, dated June 2019; and
* Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment (Test of Likely Significant Effect)of M&WLPR, dated July 2019.

We are satisfied, and agree, with the findings of both of the above Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment documents, both are thorough and robust. My only comment in regard to the SA is that it would be good under Table 8.1 under SA6: To protect and enhance Norfolk's biodiversity and geodiversity, to include an indicator which demonstrates how the Local Plan is contributing to biodiversity net gain by recording the area of new habitats created following the restoration of allocated sites.

Otherwise, I'd just like to reiterate the remarks I made in response to the Initial Options stage, that you and your team are to be congratulated on the quality of the consultation documents that have been produced. Natural England considers that the M&WLPR undertaken to date has been detailed, comprehensive and written in accordance with current legislation and policy.

If you have any questions please contact me.