Publication

Section 11.3.1 of the HRA sets out the outstanding matters needing resolution before the HRA could potentially conclude that the GNLP would not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of multiple European Sites. The Water Cycle Study and GIRAMS study should be completed in order to allow for the HRA to be updated, including allowing sufficient time for consultees and stakeholders to fully review their contents and offer comments.

The HRA is incomplete and makes recommendations for the further work necessary before a conclusion of no adverse effect can be made. Therefore at this stage there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that adverse effects on European Sites can be avoided and therefore the GNLP does not comply with the Habitats Regulations.

Visitor Pressure -
Section 4.10.7 of the HRA refers to the measures set out in the GIRAMS report, but the GIRAMS report is still in draft form awaiting sign-off from its commissioning body, therefore its full recommendations cannot be incorporated into the GNLP policy text. Additionally, there is no certainty yet regarding the body which would collect and administer any developer contributions needed to fund the monitoring and mitigation actions necessary to demonstrate no adverse effect.

Water Quality -
Sections 4.10.15-4.10.19 of the HRA sets out likely multiple threats to European Sites from water pollution from new allocations reliant on WRCs at Reepham, Foulsham and Freethorpe, whilst section 10.2.3 notes uncertainties regarding the WRC at Whitlingham which serves the whole of Norwich.

We raised concerns regarding the evidence base on this matter at the previous consultation stage and are disappointed to see that this issue remains unresolved at the Regulation 19 consultation stage. The plan is reliant on the completion of the Water Cycle Study by Anglian Water to provide sufficient evidence to robustly prove that the sewage water output from all the proposed allocations is capable of being treated at WRCs to a sufficient level to avoid adverse effects on the River Wensum SAC and the Broads SAC. At present that evidence is not available and so further work is needed before the HRA can be revised.

The plan has failed to produce sufficient evidence that additional demands on water treatment capacity could be met in order to avoid adverse impacts on the River Wensum SAC and the Broads SAC. Therefore the plan fails to comply with the Habitats Regulations and is not legally compliant.
Whilst we recognise that the WCS is not being produced by the GNLP team, we have serious concerns that, as part of the evidence base for the GNLP, the WCS is incomplete and that it highlights significant constraints to sewage water treatment capacity across a significant proportion of the proposed allocations. Table 6-4 of the WCS illustrates that the majority of proposed allocations are listed as either amber or red for foul sewer connection capacity, with eight allocations totalling over a 1000 dwellings being listed as red, which the WCS classifies as requiring changes to the discharge permit which are beyond the limits of what can be achieved with conventional treatment, with alternative solutions needing to be sought. As such, there are multiple allocations in the draft plan which do not appear to be deliverable due to adverse effects on European Sites due to Water Recycling Centres being unable to treat their sewage output. Our concerns are reinforced by the statement in the HRA that ‘completion of the Water Cycle Study is necessary to be clearer about any impacts on European Sites’.

The plan makes reference to the NWL as key infrastructure but it is not clear which allocations or other plan objectives are reliant on delivery of the NWL. We seek clarification from the GNLP team which housing and employment allocations (if any) are dependent on the delivery of the NWL to meet their own delivery. If any allocations are dependent on delivery of the NWL then we recommend they are reviewed to evaluate if their delivery would be compromised by the NWL failing to the delivered.

The inclusion of reference to the Norwich Western Link in the plan text indicates that the growth promoted through allocations is in part dependent on the delivery of the NWL within the plan period.

We have significant concerns regarding the impacts of the Western Link road proposal on wildlife, including the loss of multiple County Wildlife Sites, and impacts to the River Wensum SAC. However, recent independent surveys has also identified a previously unknown ‘super-colony’ of barbastelle bats directly on the proposed route which is likely to be the country’s largest breeding colony. A recent position statement issued by the Bat Conservation Trust summarises the key concerns regarding this proposal - https://www.bats.org.uk/our-work/biodiversity-policy-advocacy/position-statements-1/bcts-position-statement-on-the-proposed-norwich-distributor-road-western-link

Given the significance of the size of the colony and the strict legal protection afforded to bats and their roost sites under the Wildlife & Countryside Act and the Habitats Regulations, we do not believe that the NWL is deliverable. Therefore, if there are elements of the GNLP that are dependent on the NWL, these will also be undeliverable.

Whilst the proposed policy targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy provision are a welcome improvement compared to previous planning requirements, we are concerned that they are missing an opportunity already taken by other local authorities to make a greater contribution to national climate change targets and increase certainty that the 2050 targets will be met. The Climate Change Committee have highlighted the need for short-term emissions cuts to help ensure that the 2050 target can be met and we recommend that the GNLP should set zero carbon targets for all new housing as seen in policy H5 of the recently adopted Reading Local Plan in order to gain the benefits as early as possible and ensure that the interim targets set in the Climate Change Act can be met. This would also match Norfolk County Council’s Environment Policy, presented and approved at Full Council in November 2019, which states that they ‘will work within the County at large to ensure it goes beyond the expectations of national government, as far as the national ‘net zero’ carbon target is concerned’.

We believe the targets set in the plan for energy efficiency and renewable energy provision do not meet the requirements of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act, which requires (Section 19) that ‘development plan documents must (taken as a whole) include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local planning authority’s area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change’.
We noted in our response to the previous consultation stage that the scientific evidence is clear that the effects of climate change on Norfolk’s wildlife will be significant, in addition to the pressures it already faces from habitat loss, fragmentation, disturbance and invasive species. A 2017 study (https://tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/nnns_transactions_2017_norfolk_biodiversity.pdf) highlighted the many species likely to be lost from Norfolk in response to a 2 degree temperature rise.

We would expect the plan to take every opportunity to ensure it contributes effectively to national carbon reduction targets, and note the interim targets for a 51% reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2025 and 57% by 2030 set in the 2008 Climate Change Act. Given the significant role the natural environment already plays in a range of ecosystem services including carbon capture, capturing air pollution, shading urban environments from overheating and reducing peak river flow and reducing flood risks, we are concerned that the vital contribution Norfolk’s wildlife plays in mitigating the effects of climate change is at risk if opportunities to move towards a zero carbon society are delayed unnecessarily. We recommend that every opportunity to set zero carbon targets into policy should be taken rather than delaying to future local plans.

We recommend that policy needs to be modified to ensure that the plan requires new growth to deliver a suite of green infrastructure measures that deliver climate change adaptation across the range of expected impacts, including flooding, urban overheating and air quality. Given that space in new development for new open space at ground level is always at a premium, and that the physical structure of development presents opportunities for green infrastructure in the urban environment where public open space isn’t possible, we strongly recommend that the plan includes an additional policy incentive to ensure that all new development in urban areas provides green infrastructure that can help the urban environment adapt to the changing climate. These include design features such as green roofs and walls, as well as biodiverse drainage features in the urban environment. These will provide multiple ecosystem services such as reducing heating, reducing rainwater runoff that would otherwise contribute to flooding and will improve air quality. This will also help link existing areas of wildlife value and increase their resilience to changes in climatic conditions. This is supported by section 4.5.1 of the 2018 National Adaptation Programme, which states that ‘multifunction green infrastructure innovations offer a way to combat resilience challenges and also address stresses of urban living to improve health and wellbeing’.

We recommend that the plan’s delivery of positive gains for climate change adaptation is secured through the inclusion of urban greening targets for all new development in Policy 3. Examples of similar approaches taken elsewhere in adopted local plans which demonstrate that this is a practical and deliverable policy change are policy AP12 of the Southampton City Centre Action Plan and the Urban Greening Factor in policy G5 of the draft London Plan. Such measures also align closely with the aspirations of the biodiversity net gain measure set out in Policy 3, which we support, and could be added as specific targets for the urban environment where opportunities to deliver a net gain for wildlife would otherwise be displaced to off-site provision some distance away from the development.

We do not believe that the plan provides sufficient support for climate change adaptation measures and therefore are concerned that it does not meet the requirements of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act and the NPPF.

Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the 2008 Planning Act requires the GNLP to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

Additionally, paragraph 149 of the NPPF states that ‘plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, coastal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating from rising temperatures’. Paragraph 156 of the draft GNLP also notes that the NPPF requires local plans to ‘support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts’ and to set out strategic policies which address climate change mitigation and adaptation.

A key focus of the climate change adaptation measures set out in Table 5 of the draft plan is supporting the further development of the green infrastructure network to provide mitigation for and adaptation to climate change. However, the focus of the GNLP’s approach to climate change adaptation appears to be the provision of green infrastructure to minimise flood risk, whilst other environmental impacts of climate change referred to in the NPPF such as overheating (referenced for example in the 2017 climate change risk assessment and the most recent 2018 National Adaptation Programme) do not appear to be addressed.

Whilst supporting the further development of the green infrastructure network is welcomed, we do not believe that provision of flood risk adaptation through the green infrastructure network alone will provide sufficient climate change adaptation to meet the requirements of the P&CP Act and the NPPF.

The plan is reliant on the completion of the third-party GIRAMS report and incorporation of its recommendations into the policy text. Without this, there is no certainty that such funds will be collected and spent on the necessary measures to ensure that the adverse effect is avoided and therefore there would be no mechanism in the plan to prove that it can avoid adverse visitor pressure impacts on European Sites.

The GIRAMS report needs to be approved by the Norfolk Strategic Planning group, any recommended policy wording from the GIRAMS will need incorporating into the GNLP policy text and sufficient evidence will need to be given that the relevant fundholding and delivery body recommended in the draft GIRAMs will be established prior to adoption of the GNLP, so that delivery of all its recommendations so far as they apply to the GNLP area can be guaranteed.

We comment here because there does not appear to be the option to comment on the GIRAMS study in the Evidence Base section of the GNLP consultation website.

The plan fails to provide sufficient measures to ensure that adverse effects on European Sites from visitor pressure arising from new housing and tourist allocations would be avoided. Therefore the plan is not in compliance with the Habitats Regulations.
Whilst we support the inclusion in policy 3 of the plan of a requirement for visitor pressure to be addressed in planning applications, the draft plan lacks the certainty that the necessary measures are in place to avoid adverse effects on European Sites from visitor pressure.
The plan is reliant on a completed GIRAMS Strategy to provide the required framework for the collection of developer contributions, and the means for these funds to be spent on the monitoring and mitigation measures needed to ensure that adverse visitor pressure impacts are avoided.
At present the GIRAMS report is still in a draft form awaiting approval from the Norfolk Strategic Planning Group, and GNLP planning policy will need to be updated to reflect the recommendations made. There will also need to be certainty over the means by which developer contributions are to be collected and spent. We are also concerned that the draft GIRAMs report was only added to the evidence base for the GNLP Regulation 19 consultation approximately a week before the end of the consultation period.

We support the inclusion of points 6 and 8 to ensure that any potential impacts on our nearby Harford Bridge Marshes Reserve (and County Wildlife Site) are avoided.

Both woodland sites will need protection from direct proximity to development, as well as provision of additional on site green infrastructure in order to relieve disturbance pressure. The masterplan should also ensure that no built development is located within 100m of the ancient woodland, in line with recommendations made by the Woodland Trust (https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2019/06/planners-manual-for-ancient-woodland/). The masterplan should also ensure that appropriate funds are secured for the long term management of the ancient woodland to ensure that its wildlife value is safeguarded and any additional visitor pressure impacts from the new housing mitigated for.

This allocation is immediately adjacent to Paine’s Yard Wood, The Owlery & March Covert County Wildlife Site and has ancient woodland within the proposed allocation boundary. Both woodland sites will need protection from direct proximity to development, as well as provision of additional on site green infrastructure in order to relieve disturbance pressure. The masterplan should also ensure that no built development is located within 100m of the ancient woodland, in line with recommendations made by the Woodland Trust (https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2019/06/planners-manual-for-ancient-woodland/). The masterplan should also ensure that appropriate funds are secured for the long term management of the ancient woodland to ensure that its wildlife value is safeguarded and any additional visitor pressure impacts from the new housing mitigated for.

As the allocation will lead to additional visitor pressure on the CWS, we strongly recommend that the need to assess and provide mitigation for these impacts is added to the policy text, in line with similar approaches made in other allocations with potential impacts on nearby CWSs.

The site is adjacent to Frenze Beck County Wildlife Site, which forms a vital part of the local green infrastructure, which will also be vulnerable to additional impacts from the significant additional of residential development.

Given the proximity of the existing industrial area to the wood, and the sensitivity of ancient woodland to nearby development, we recommend that any allocations in this area include additional policy text specifically requiring the any applications to specifically address potential impacts on the CWS and ancient woodland from impacts including encroachment and light pollution. This area is also a key location for connectivity with other priority habitats in the south Norfolk claylands and net gain contributions could help link Hethel Wood with other nearby County Wildlife Sites and ancient woodland, improving their ecological value.

These allocations are adjacent to Hethel Wood CWS, an important ancient woodland site, likely to also be of importance for several bat species.