Comment

Representation ID: 24896

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Ltd

Agent: Lichfields

Recommendations to clarify this policy:
1 In order to provide certainty the Wildlife Habitat Network mentioned in the table within Section A should be defined on the policies map.
2 Section B incorrectly refers to ‘functionally linked land’ as if it were part of the SPA in that it applies the likely significant effect test to functionally linked land. The correct test is whether the effects on functionally linked land will have a likely significant effect upon the SPA, not the functionally linked land. In order to be compliant with Habitat Regulations the text within the bracket – (or land functionally linked to the SPA) – must be deleted. The final paragraph of Section B further perpetuates this error and should be deleted in order to comply with the Habitats Regulations, 2017 (as amended). Section B is linked to Policy SP11. The proposed changes suggested for SP11 will modify the application of Section B of the policy.
3 Section C: There is no legal requirement for impacts upon SSSI to be assessed ‘in combination with other developments’ and this reference should be removed as it does not reflect the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Similarly there is no legal requirement to assess ‘broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs.’ The use of the phrase ‘at this site’ is ambiguous and should be removed.
4 Section D: The Wildlife Habitat Network needs to be defined in order to provide certainty for decision making. The policy does not allow sufficiently flexibility for mitigation and compensatory measures and should be reworded to reflect this.
5 Section I should not reference the Environment Bill, because there is no certainty as to the Bill’s final form or content.
6 Section J: There is no legal requirement to provide Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) within a development site as a matter of priority, nor is there any legal requirement for the need to justify why gain cannot be delivered on site. The policy should be reworded to allow for
offsite mitigation in all cases. There is also no legal requirement to provide BNG compensation ‘a preference for those in the immediate vicinity’ and this should also be removed.
7 Section K substantially repeats the previous sections and should be removed.
8 Section M is unclear and ambiguously worded. BNG is a tool for securing gain in biodiversity not ‘well-being’. It is also not clear how this policy will be implemented in
practice.
9 Section N: Ecological surveys should be carried out in manner that is also proportionate to the ecological features present on the site, not just the type and scale of the development.