Publication

Please clarify in the text which strategy is being referred to.

We recommend that the wording of point (3) of the policy needs to be amended as follows (or a similar form of wording used):

"On-site provision will link and contribute to the further development of an area-wide green infrastructure network, promoted through policies 3 and 4, which has now been in development in Greater Norwich for over a decade in accordance with the Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Strategy and delivery plans, and other documents such as the River Wensum Strategy. Where it is not possible to deliver quality GI on-site, which meets the needs of the inhabitants within, it is appropriate for individual developments alone, to deliver GI off-site nearby, or to financially contribute to the delivery of this, in order to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of sensitive Habitats sites."

It would be useful to add at the end of (3) that:

"Development is expected to avoid loss or severance of existing GI networks, and to contribute to the enhancement and extension of existing GI on-site in order to strengthen these networks."

Under Issue 3. Green Infrastructure (GI)- The text refers to:

"On-site provision will link and contribute to the further development of an area-wide green infrastructure network, promoted through policies 3 and 4, which has now been in development in Greater Norwich for over a decade in accordance with the Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Strategy and delivery plans, and other documents such as the River Wensum Strategy.

In relation to Issue 3 it is appropriate for developments to be required to deliver GI off-site, or to financially contribute to this, where it is not possible to deliver quality GI which meets the needs of the inhabitants within that site. GI provision is essential to divert and deflect the daily recreational visits away from the sensitive Habitats Sites, and their rare species, in order to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of these sites from all the individual developments alone.

It would be useful to state in (3) that development is expected to avoid loss or severance of existing GI networks, and to contribute to the enhancement and extension of existing GI on-site in order to strengthen these networks.

It is unclear if the above Green Infrastructure Strategy in (3) refers to The Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Strategy (dated November 2007) or the Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Study (produced in December 2020).

The Plan does not appear to have a clear overarching Green Infrastructure strategy, which (in light of all the proposed development) details how existing GI will be protected and enhanced, and new GI delivered. This is required to ensure a coherent GI network which contributes to the sustainable delivery of development.

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.

To comply with the NPPF, para 171, we recommend that Policy 4 is modified to include a strategic approach to the delivery of GI, and make the Plan sound.

Under the heading Other Strategic Infrastructure, i(n Policy 4), we recommend that the wording of the policy needs to be amended as follows (or a similar form of wording used):

"Improvements to existing strategic green infrastructure and the creation of new green infrastructure will be delivered in line with policy 3 and other relevant plans and strategies including XXX
*.”

* XX - the most relevant and current ones to be identified by the local authorities.

Neither Policy 4, nor the accompanying text (see below), provide any level of detail regarding the delivery of strategic Green Infrastructure (GI). Under para 112 GI has been identified as vital to supporting the delivery of development proposed in the Plan. In the NPPF, under 171, a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure should be taken.

para 224. We think this should reference the Greater Norwich Local Plan Infrastructure Needs Report (GNLPINR) rather than the Greater Norwich Local Plan Infrastructure Report (GNLPIR), which does not appear to exist. It states that this plan is supported by evidence contained in the GNLPINR, though in relation to Green Infrastructure (GI), the report only contains a map showing GI corridors, similar to Map 8A in the Plan.

para 226. GI is not mentioned once in the Appendix 1: Infrastructure Requirements referred to in this section, unlike all other forms of strategic infrastructure identified in the Plan.

The strategic and timely delivery of GI, both on-site and off-site, is essential to avoid or recreational impacts on sensitive habitats sites as identified in the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and Recreational impact Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy.

We consider that under (125) the final sentence should be amended as follows:

‘Growth will make the best of Greater Norwich’s distinct built, natural and historic assets whilst protecting and enhancing them.’

We maintain that this wording is important to include as it sets the tone for the Local Plan and signals the commitment of the local authorities to safeguard their natural assets.

For the Local Plan to deliver actual sustainable development and significantly address climate change, the vision needs to be better balanced. Otherwise, the vision as set out currently appears to be heavily focussed on growth at the expense of the other two pillars of sustainable development.

We suggested amended wording in our response, dated 16 March 2020 (our ref:307463) to the Reg 18 Consultation.