We strongly recommend that Policy 3 and the supporting text are substantially amended and expanded to address the points made in (5) above, together with more comprehensive details and measures including in relation to designated sites and protected landscapes, protected species, climate change adaptation, halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity, recreational disturbance on non-designated sites, Green Infrastructure (GI) networks and suitable alternative greenspace (SANGS).

Despite providing only an elementary level of information, many other Policies repeatedly refer to Maps 8A and 8B, stating that:

"Enhancements to the multi-functional green infrastructure network will be provided by development to contribute to the strategic network as set out in maps 8A and B and to linking local networks."

The Local Plan needs to provide a comprehensive strategic document, rather than Maps 8A and 8B, that sets out how the development proposals in the Plan will contribute to creating new GI, and protecting, expanding or enhancing existing GI, at site level, and across the Plan area, to form a cohesive GI network that delivers multiple benefits for people and the natural environment.

New development should provide environmental net gains in terms of both GI and biodiversity. Proposals should demonstrate how the development would contribute towards new GI opportunities or enhance the existing GI network as part of the development. New development must also secure ecological enhancements as part of its design and implementation, and should provide a biodiversity net gain that is proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposal, and contribute to establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient.

To ensure that the policy is compliant with both the NPPF and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘the Habitats Regulations’) we recommend that the following text is added to Policy 3:

"Any development that would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, will be subject to assessment under the Habitat Regulations at project application stage. If it cannot be ascertained that there would be no adverse effects on site integrity the project will have to be refused or pass the tests of regulation 62, in which case any necessary compensatory measures will need to be secured."

This amendment is also necessary due to the way in which mitigation measures for various designated sites (identified in the Plan’s Habitats Regulations Assessment), have been incorporated into the wording of the relevant policies in the Plan.

We objected to the policy and supporting text in our response to the Reg 18 Consultation (see our letter dated 16 March 2020 (our ref:307463)). We consider that the policy and supporting text are inadequate to protect, maintain, restore and enhance the natural environmental assets of the area. The policy will not ensure the delivery of Green Infrastructure of sufficient quality and quantity in the right locations (contrary to NPPF para 171), nor help the Plan to meet the sustainability criteria or adapt to climate change in a coherent and robust manner. It contains too much uncertainty and needs to explain the hierarchies of site protection and mitigation.

As currently worded, Policy 3:

• does not make it clear that there is a hierarchy of avoiding, mitigating and then compensating significant harm (NPPF para 171);
• does not contain criteria against which any proposed development affecting designated sites will be judged (NPPF para 175);
• does not make clear the distinctions between the hierarchy of designated sites and landscapes so that protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance (NPPF para 175 and para 172);
• does not make clear that the sustainable development presumption does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment is required (NPPF para 177); and
does not make explicit reference to either project level Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRAs), or potential compensatory measures, as being required in relation to those allocations which have likely significant effects on European habitats sites.

Previously we recommended using Policy 1: Addressing climate change and protecting environmental assets in the current Joint Core Strategy (2011) as a basis, since much of this policy is valid under the NNPF and relevant, and suggested looking at East Suffolk Council’s Local Plan Final Draft and Policy SCLP 10.1: Biodiversity and Geodiversity and the supporting text in general, for the approach that we endorse(https://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/assets/Planning/Suffolk-Coastal-Local-Plan/Final-Draft-Local-Plan/Final-Draft-Local-Plan.pdf). Their Local Plan was adopted subsequently in September 2020 with only some minor amendments made to Policy SCLP 10.1.