Initial Consultation document

Comment

Representation ID: 92080

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

The policy could include a reference to MP2 to make it clear that damage must avoided to any of the features on the list of planning constraints listed under MP2.

Support

Representation ID: 92081

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes this proposal to protect core river valleys, particularly with regard to the River Wensum and Nar.

Support

Representation ID: 92083

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England strongly supports this policy and the opportunities it presents to deliver net gain through the creation of new habitats, green infrastructure etc.

Support

Representation ID: 92084

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England agrees that good restoration design and sufficiently financed aftercare are crucial to deliver long term benefits.

Comment

Representation ID: 92086

Received: 13/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

'Geological' should be added to the possible list of after-uses in the first sentence.

Object

Representation ID: 92089

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Agree this site is unsuitable for the reasons given in relation to the designated sites,

Object

Representation ID: 92090

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Agree this site is unsuitable for the reasons given in relation to the designated sites,

Object

Representation ID: 92094

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

The site is also unsuitable due to potential hydrological and dust deposition impacts on the adjacent Swannington Upgate Common SSSI.

Support

Representation ID: 92095

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Agree, though please refer to our separate comments regarding the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

Annex 1: Natural England's comments on the Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment of the M&WLPR, dated May 2018

A recent judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-323/17 People Over Wind v Coillte Teoranta) has provided authoritative interpretation relating to the use of mitigation measures at the screening stage of a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The judgment concluded that it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on a European site. However, when determining whether the plan or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site at appropriate assessment, a competent authority may take account of those avoidance and mitigation measures.
The Local Planning Authority, as competent authority for the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, should consider this judgment when undertaking the HRA screening under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and may wish to take its own legal advice on the implications of the judgment.
This means that for any sites where avoidance and mitigation measures have been identified to protect designated Natura 2000 sites such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) or Ramsar sites, the sites should not be screened out for likely significant effect but carried forward to Appropriate Assessment, at which point any mitigation measures, eg not de-watering, conditions to control dust or lighting etc, can be assessed in detail and taken into account.
Our specific comments on various individual allocations included in the initial consultation are intended to reflect this ruling. That is, where measures have been identified specifically to protect a Natura 2000 site, then these allocations should be screened in to Appropriate Assessment. At this stage the effectiveness of any proposed avoidance and mitigation measures and all the evidence should be examined to reach a conclusion of likely significant effect, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and to ascertain whether an adverse effect on the integrity of the site can be ruled out.
Note that any proposal which may affect a Natura 2000 designated site must go through a project level HRA in addition to this strategic plan-level HRA. This should be identified for each relevant allocation and reflected in the policy wording, including what avoidance and mitigation measures would be necessary. This can be at a 'high' level, e.g. work would take place outside the bird breeding season to avoid disturbance to nesting birds. However, more detail would be expected in the HRA at planning application stage.
The future conclusions and recommendations of the HRA will need to be incorporated into later revisions of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) report, and be reflected in the allocations and policies of the M&WLPR.

Object

Representation ID: 92099

Received: 10/08/2018

Respondent: Natural England

Please refer to our separate comments regarding the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), and why we do not agree that this site can be screened in as suitable at present.

Annex 1: Natural England's comments on the Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment of the M&WLPR, dated May 2018

A recent judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-323/17 People Over Wind v Coillte Teoranta) has provided authoritative interpretation relating to the use of mitigation measures at the screening stage of a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The judgment concluded that it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on a European site. However, when determining whether the plan or project will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site at appropriate assessment, a competent authority may take account of those avoidance and mitigation measures.
The Local Planning Authority, as competent authority for the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, should consider this judgment when undertaking the HRA screening under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and may wish to take its own legal advice on the implications of the judgment.
This means that for any sites where avoidance and mitigation measures have been identified to protect designated Natura 2000 sites such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Areas of Protection (SPAs) or Ramsar sites, the sites should not be screened out for likely significant effect but carried forward to Appropriate Assessment, at which point any mitigation measures, eg not de-watering, conditions to control dust or lighting etc, can be assessed in detail and taken into account.
Our specific comments on various individual allocations included in the initial consultation are intended to reflect this ruling. That is, where measures have been identified specifically to protect a Natura 2000 site, then these allocations should be screened in to Appropriate Assessment. At this stage the effectiveness of any proposed avoidance and mitigation measures and all the evidence should be examined to reach a conclusion of likely significant effect, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and to ascertain whether an adverse effect on the integrity of the site can be ruled out.
Note that any proposal which may affect a Natura 2000 designated site must go through a project level HRA in addition to this strategic plan-level HRA. This should be identified for each relevant allocation and reflected in the policy wording, including what avoidance and mitigation measures would be necessary. This can be at a 'high' level, e.g. work would take place outside the bird breeding season to avoid disturbance to nesting birds. However, more detail would be expected in the HRA at planning application stage.
The future conclusions and recommendations of the HRA will need to be incorporated into later revisions of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) report, and be reflected in the allocations and policies of the M&WLPR.