Comment

Representation ID: 22066

Received: 16/03/2020

Respondent: Norfolk Wildlife Trust

Policy 3 – Environmental Protection and Enhancement
We support the reference in paragraph 186 to the likely future requirement for mandatory biodiversity net gain as a result of the Environment Bill currently being considered by Parliament. In addition to biodiversity net gain, there is a requirement to develop Nature Recovery Networks (NRNs), which will likely require further amendments to the submission plan. We highlight and direct the Council to recently published guidance by Natural England on NRNs, the Nature Networks Evidence Handbook , which highlights the important role Local Plans can play in helping deliver them successfully.

We note with concern the reference to the 2017 Interim Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) in paragraph 187. It suggests the development mitigates impacts on sites protected by the Habitats Regulations. Whilst mitigation has a role in the HRA process and can be considered at the Appropriate Assessment stage, the overall target of the HRA process is to ensure that adverse effects on European Sites is avoided.

Whilst we recognise that significant changes may need to be made to the policy wording in response to the outcome of the Environment Bill, in order to ensure that the plan objectives to protect and enhance the natural environment can be delivered, we recommend the following changes are made to the text of Policy 3:

Policy 3, paragraph 5 ‘...development should deliver biodiversity net gain wherever possible proportional to the scale of the development, as set out in the DEFRA biodiversity net gain metric’. This is in order to ensure that the policy meets the plan objectives to secure net gains for wildlife and offers clear guidance to developers on the proportional contributions expected from all development, in line with the requirements of the NPPF.

Policy 3, paragraph 7 ‘All housing development is required to avoid mitigate impacts on sites protected under the Habitats Regulations Directive’. We presume this refers specifically to the indirect impacts of recreational pressure from new housing on European Sites, but this is unclear in the policy text and we recommend the wording is changed to clarify the wider legal requirement applying to development that may affect European Sites. The legal need is set out in the UK Habitat Regulations, originally derived from the European Habitat Directive.

In addition, the last sentence in the fourth paragraph is too ambiguous and risks misinterpretation of developers’ obligations regarding protection of the various difference wildlife designations. We strongly recommend that this wording is expanded to highlight the requirements regarding development and legally protected European Sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ramsar sites, as well as local designations including County Wildlife Sites, Local Nature Reserves, Roadside Nature Reserves and ancient woodland. Clear policy wording should be included to demonstrate how the plan will ensure that the natural environment will be protected and enhanced.