4 responses from Sir / Madam , Natural England
1. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 19 Dec 2017 09:13:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes
Policy Reference
AS04 - Natural Environment
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not consistent with national policy
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated and received by Natural England on 02 November 2017.
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 have reviewed the Publication version of the DPD and the accompanying documents and have the following comments to make.
There are still some outstanding issues which could make the plan unsound. However, we feel that these issues could be overcome with minor changes to wording in both the DPD and HRA.
DPD Policy AS04 Natural Environment
As the AONB DPD is advancing ahead of both LPA local plans, we think this policy could be strengthened by including reference to the mitigation hierarchy and Habitats Regulations Assessment. Currently the policy contains no wording about the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites and areas or that development proposals resulting in significant harm or adversely affecting a European site or SSSI should not normally be permitted (NPPF, paragraph 118).
Given that European/Ramsar designations account for nearly 50% of the AONB area, we advise that explicit reference is made to the Habitats Regulations within this policy, as well as the policy justification.
Adding this wording will make the policy requirements for developments clear.
Ancient Woodland – Soundness Issue
We have previously raised concerns about the section in policy AS04 about ancient woodland and these have not been addressed. The policy still suggests that ancient woodland and veteran trees can be replaced. Ancient woodland and veteran trees cannot be replaced and the current wording of the policy does not make this clear and is therefore not wholly consistent with national planning policy.
Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable resource of great importance for its wildlife, its history and the contribution it makes to our diverse landscapes. Local authorities have a vital role in ensuring its conservation, in particular through the planning system. NPPF (Para. 118) states:
‘Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.’
You should refuse planning permission for developments - unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the:
- loss or deterioration of ancient woodland
- loss of veteran trees
You should also consider:
- conserving and enhancing biodiversity
- reducing the level of impact on ancient woodland and veteran trees - see [Avoid impacts, reduce impacts, and compensate as a last resort] (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences#avoid-impacts-reduce-impacts-and-compensate-as-a-last-resort)
In order to ensure this policy is sound (with regard to national policy) Natural England advises that the policy is reworded to make clear that ancient woodlands and trees cannot be replaced with new planting. If the planning authority decides to grant planning permission in line with the National Planning Policy Framework, it should seek appropriate mitigation or compensation from the developer. As ancient woodland and veteran trees are irreplaceable, discussions on compensation should not form part of the assessment of the merits of the development proposal.
Information about ancient woodland can be found in Natural England’s standing advice https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences
Landscape Capacity Approach
Natural England supports the overall landscape capacity approach used in creating this DPD and in particular policy AS01 and the sites which have been allocated. We feel that the approach to protecting key areas of landscape in this way is sound and supports and protects the AONB landscape designation.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, recommendations published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 19 Dec 2017 09:19:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes
Appendices, maps or other
Other - misc
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not justified
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated and received by Natural England on 02 November 2017.
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 have reviewed the Publication version of the DPD and the accompanying documents and have the following comments to make.
There are still some outstanding issues which could make the plan unsound. However, we feel that these issues could be overcome with minor changes to wording in both the DPD and HRA.
In-combination Impacts – Soundness Issue
We have previously agreed with your conclusions, in relation to recreational disturbance on Morecambe Bay, that whilst the site allocations are unlikely to produce a likely significant effect alone, in-combination impacts need to be assessed and addressed. However, the HRA now concludes no likelihood of significant effects in-combination and we do not agree with this conclusion.
At Para 8.2.6 in the HRA, it states all proposed dwellings in the DPD ‘are within the 3.5 km distance identified as the average distance that visitors to Morecambe Bay who were on a day-trip/short visit from home travelled.’ Whilst individual proposed housing numbers are small, collectively they will make an impact and if other development within a set distance to the designated site is expected to contribute to future measures (through Lancaster/ South Lakeland Local Plan), then development within the AONB should too (if it falls within the zone of influence).
Therefore all AONB development within the 3.5km zone needs to provide mitigation against recreational disturbance in the same way as development in Lancaster and South Lakeland. And it is important that there is reference within the DPD to the emerging mitigation strategies for Morecombe Bay to ensure compliance with the outcomes of the HRA and to ensure consistency with neighbouring approaches.
Landscape Capacity Approach
Natural England supports the overall landscape capacity approach used in creating this DPD and in particular policy AS01 and the sites which have been allocated. We feel that the approach to protecting key areas of landscape in this way is sound and supports and protects the AONB landscape designation.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, recommendations published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 19 Dec 2017 09:26:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes
Policy Reference
AS23(A26/A27) - Station Yard, Arnside
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not justified
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated and received by Natural England on 02 November 2017.
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 have reviewed the Publication version of the DPD and the accompanying documents and have the following comments to make.
There are still some outstanding issues which could make the plan unsound. However, we feel that these issues could be overcome with minor changes to wording in both the DPD and HRA.
Policy AS23 Station House and Yard, Arnside & Policy AS25 Land at Sandside Road and Quarry Lane, Sandside – Soundness Issue
Regarding these two sites, we disagree with the reasoning of no likelihood of significant effects in the HRA. The HRA needs to be clear that a conclusion of no likelihood of significant effects can only be made because wording has been added to the policy requiring a project level HRA.
Landscape Capacity Approach
Natural England supports the overall landscape capacity approach used in creating this DPD and in particular policy AS07 and the sites which have been allocated. We feel that the approach to protecting key areas of landscape in this way is sound and supports and protects the AONB landscape designation.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
The DPD site allocation policy wording for both these sites also needs amending to say that a project level HRA will be required to assess impacts of the developments on the nearby designated sites. The project level HRA will need to include avoidance and mitigation measures necessary to conclude no likelihood of significant effects.
The current wording in the AONB DPD HRA says no likelihood of significant effects alone and both the DPD site allocation policies refer the developer back to the conclusion of the HRA for the AONB DPD. This is misleading and it needs to be clear, in both the HRA and DPD site allocation policy, that a project level HRA is required to assess and mitigate the impacts for both these site allocations.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, recommendations published and adopted.
Please notify me
4. Sir / Madam , Natural England : 19 Dec 2017 09:36:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show that you have read the guidance notes accompanying this consultation.
I have read the guidance notes
Policy Reference
AS25 (B35/B38/B81/B125) - Sandside Rd & Quarry Lane, Sandside
1.3 Do you consider the AONB DPD to be sound?
No
1.4 If NO please indicate the ground(s) on which you consider the DPD to be unsound
The DPD is not justified
1.5 Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as precise as possible.
If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the DPD or its compliance with the Duty to Cooperate, please also use this box to set out your comments.
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated and received by Natural England on 02 November 2017.
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 have reviewed the Publication version of the DPD and the accompanying documents and have the following comments to make.
There are still some outstanding issues which could make the plan unsound. However, we feel that these issues could be overcome with minor changes to wording in both the DPD and HRA.
Policy AS23 Station House and Yard, Arnside & Policy AS25 Land at Sandside Road and Quarry Lane, Sandside – Soundness Issue
Regarding these two sites, we disagree with the reasoning of no likelihood of significant effects in the HRA. The HRA needs to be clear that a conclusion of no likelihood of significant effects can only be made because wording has been added to the policy requiring a project level HRA.
Landscape Capacity Approach
Natural England supports the overall landscape capacity approach used in creating this DPD and in particular policy AS01 and the sites which have been allocated. We feel that the approach to protecting key areas of landscape in this way is sound and supports and protects the AONB landscape designation.
1.6 Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to resolve your objection and make the DPD legally compliant or sound, having regard to the matter(s) you have identified above. (Please note that any non-compliance with the Duty to Cooperate is incapable of modification at examination). You will need to say why this modification will make the DPD legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
The DPD site allocation policy wording for both these sites also needs amending to say that a project level HRA will be required to assess impacts of the developments on the nearby designated sites. The project level HRA will need to include avoidance and mitigation measures necessary to conclude no likelihood of significant effects.
The current wording in the AONB DPD HRA says no likelihood of significant effects alone and both the DPD site allocation policies refer the developer back to the conclusion of the HRA for the AONB DPD. This is misleading and it needs to be clear, in both the HRA and DPD site allocation policy, that a project level HRA is required to assess and mitigate the impacts for both these site allocations.
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, recommendations published and adopted.
Please notify me
