Docstoc

Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Local Development .pdf

Document Sample
Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Local Development .pdf Powered By Docstoc
					Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

Local Development Framework – Core Strategy – Proposed Submission Document




Representations submitted but deemed Not Duly Made
Contents




PC Gower – Architectural Liaison Officer, Norfolk Constabulary

E Andrews, BNP Paribas Real Estate for Centrica plc

Mr I Dent, Walpole St Peter

Mr J Maiden – Hunstanton Environmental Landscape Programme

Mr & Mrs Howling, Terrington St Clement

Mr M Meadows – Natural England

Mr P Pearson – Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Mrs L Sumner, Walpole Cross Keys

G F Bambridge Ltd for the Trustees of the West Acre Estate
                                                                                                        Page 1 of 2




  Dave Allen

   From:            Dave Allen
   Sent:            26 January 2010 11:27
   To:              'gowers@norfolk.pnn.police.uk'
   Subject:         FW: King's Lynn and West NorfolkLocal Development Framework
   Importance: High
   Attachments: temp.rtf; Notes.rtf; Rep. Form.doc

 Hi Steve

 First an apology, we have just identified a problem with the e-mail account you addressed your message to
 and found your comment.

 Secondly, because of the formal stage of the Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document, comments
 need to address the “Soundness” or otherwise of document. This is why we encourage people to respond via
 http://consult.west-norfolk.gov.uk/portal where the requirements are set out and respondents are guided
 through the process. Can I ask you to look at that site, review your comments and resubmit accordingly?

 If you have a genuine difficulty in accessing the site we will take a “paper” response but this must still follow
 the required format. A formal form, notes and general letter of explanation are attached



 Dave Allen - Principal Planner (LDF)
 Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

 01553 616444


     Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary - SAVE PAPER!


Dear Alan Gomm,

                 King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Development Framework

Thank you for allowing me to comment on the Core Strategy-Proposed Submission
Document. Having carefully studied the document it was pleasing to see crime reduction and
he intention of providing a safer environment for the residents of West Norfolk being a
 onsistent thread that runs through the Strategy.

 would appreciate a clear desire from the Borough Council for future developments to work
owards achieving the Association of Chief Police Officers Secured By Design Award status.
This is a proven crime reduction initiative and would certainly underline the Borough
Councils commitment to reduce crime.

The best way in which to achieve crime reduction is by early consultation with applicants so
hat Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Principles (CPTED) are incorporated
 t the design stage. This is the key aim of Safer Places The Planning System and Crime
Prevention the companion to Planning Policy 1; In which it states “For many, there can be
no better place to start than their local police Architectural Liaison Officer or Crime
Prevention Design Advisor”. I would respectfully request that all residential developments
 f six dwellings or more make it clear in their application that this process has been adhered
o. This is beginning to be more the case in practice but I would appreciate it being made



 09/11/2010
                                                   Page 2 of 2



 lear for all applicants.

Yours sincerely

Steve GOWER (PC502)
Architectural Liaison/Crime Prevention Officer
Community Safety


 This e-mail carries a disclaimer

 Go here to view Norfolk Constabulary Disclaimer




 09/11/2010
                                                                                                   Page 1 of 1




 Dave Allen

  From:          Dave Allen
  Sent:          04 March 2010 16:51
  To:            'henrietta.ansah@bnpparibas.com'
  Subject:       LDF Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document
  Attachments: Email 2 of 3; Email 3 of 3; Email 1 of 3

I refer to your recent submission concerning the LDF Core Strategy.

The recent publication period forms part of the formal examination process and for this reason we had
previously announced all representations should be received by 5PM Wednesday 24 February. Unfortunately,
your response did not arrive until 5.31PM. I have asked my ICT colleagues to check this and they are
satisfied there was no fault or delay with our server and the message appears to have originated after 5PM – I
have attached a copy of your email so you may confirm the message header yourself.

Consequently, I have no alternative but declare your submission to be late and not duly made. The appointed
Inspector will be notified of this in due course.

That being said I do acknowledge your concern over a number of issues which you raise particularly your
contribution to local employment, and in as far as these issues relate to other matters being reviewed, we will
be mindful of your views as we deal with other comments submitted. I would also point out that the alignment
of the King’s Lynn development envelope will be considered during our work on the Site Specific Allocations
DPD and your comments on future allocations will be best addressed during that exercise. My colleague Neil
Campbell returns to the office tomorrow and can better advise you on that particular process


Dave Allen - Principal Planner (LDF)
Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
T: 01553 616444
M: 07827 536518
F: 01553 616652
E: dave.allen@west-norfolk.gov.uk
W: www.west-norfolk.gov.uk

View recent planning applications: http://online.west-norfolk.gov.uk/publicaccess
Submit a planning application on-line: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk




09/11/2010
LDF Team                                               Emma Andrews
Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk          Senior Director
Development Services                                   BNP Paribas Real Estate
King’s Court                                           90 Chancery Lane
Chapel Street                                          London WC2A 1EU
King’s Lynn
Norfolk                                                Tel:           020 7338 4845
PE30 1EX                                               Switchboard:   020 7338 4000
                                                       Fax:           020 7404 2028
FAO: David Allen                                       Email:         emma.andrews@bnpparibas.com



Our ref: EJF/APD/090924/E/003                          19 February 2010



Dear Sir

BOROUGH COUNCIL OF KING’S LYNN & WEST NORFOLK LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK – CORE STRATEGY ‘PROPOSED SUBMISSION’ CONSULTATION DOCUMENT

We are instructed by our client, Centrica plc, to submit representations to the above Document in
respect of King’s Lynn Power Station (‘Power Station’). This follows representations that we
submitted to the Core Strategy ‘Regulation 25’ Document on 6 April 2009. Representations have
also been made to Norfolk County Council’s ‘Waste Site Allocations Preferred Approach’
Document on 23 December 2009, which were amended on 18 February 2010.

We set out below background information on the Power Station, before setting out our
representations in a format that corresponds with the Document.

THE KING’S LYNN POWER STATION

Centrica plc secures and supplies gas and electricity for millions of homes and businesses across
the UK.

Centrica plc acquired the freehold of the Power Station site in January 2008. It is a 325MW
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) electricity generating station located on the Willows
Business Park, just to the south of King’s Lynn.

On 5 February 2009, Centrica plc was granted consent by the Department for Energy and Climate
Change (DECC) under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and Section 90(2) of the Town and
Country Planning Act for:

“the construction and operation of an 1,020 MW combined cycle gas turbine generating station at
King’s Lynn, Norfolk”.

The consent has 48 conditions attached. This development is moving ahead and our client expects
to discharge the attached conditions in early 2011.

We enclose a copy of the consent and a site location plan detailing Centrica’s holdings.
REPRESENTATIONS

The Core Strategy sets out the spatial planning framework for the development of the Borough up
to 2025 and will be the principal planning document in the emerging King’s Lynn and West Norfolk
Local Development Framework. Although the Core Strategy will be a strategic document, it will
contain general policies that will be used by the Council in determining applications.

It is with reference to Centrica’s holdings at King’s Lynn that we set out our representations to the
Document below.

■   ‘Core Strategy Diagram’

    The ‘Core Strategy Diagram’ at the rear of the Document illustrates the ‘spatial portrait’ of the
    settlement hierarchy. We acknowledge that this diagram is indicative, with David Allen in the
    Council’s Local Development Framework Team having verbally confirmed that the adopted
    Local Plan boundaries for the defined built-up areas will be amended through the emerging Site
    Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD).

    The King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan (adopted November 1998, saved 2007) locates
    the Power Station within the defined built-up area of King’s Lynn, as an ‘Employment Site
    under Construction at 1/1/1993’. The site is also designated within an area referenced as ‘Built
    Environment Type D’, subject to Policy 4/21, which requires new development to have regard
    for and be in harmony with the building characteristics of the locality.

    The Power Station is not specifically shown on the ‘Core Strategy Diagram’ or the two inset
    maps for King’s Lynn. Based only on these drawings, it is therefore unclear whether the Power
    Station is part of King’s Lynn.

    We request that the Power Station is shown on the ‘Core Strategy Diagram’ and also on one
    or both of the King’s Lynn inset maps, as part of the defined built-up area of King’s Lynn. We
    also request that the Power Station is safeguarded as an existing employment site and the
    wording of Policy 4/21 is retained (we discuss this further under Policy CS10 below).

    To reiterate, we consider it important to clearly show the Power Station as part of the defined
    built-up area of King’s Lynn to guide and ensure it is reflected in Site Allocations DPD. This
    reinforces our representations to the Core Strategy ‘Regulation 25’ Document in April 2009.

CHAPTER 5: SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR WEST NORFOLK

■   Policy CS01: Spatial Strategy

    This policy sets out the development priorities for the Borough over the plan period. It seeks to
    encourage economic growth and inward investment in sustainable locations, which will be co-
    ordinated using a settlement hierarchy.

    Policy CS01 also sets out individual strategies for each major settlement. Of particular
    relevance to King’s Lynn, the Council will “…promote King’s Lynn as the main centre including
    retail, leisure and culture and economic driver within the Borough, a significant ‘engine of
    growth’ and sub-regional centre in the East of England…” Also, the Council will “…make
    provision for new jobs within existing and new employment areas and also as part of central
    area regeneration…”

    In principle, we support the strategy for King’s Lynn, particularly the promotion of King’s Lynn
    as an economic driver within the Borough and a significant “engine of growth” in the East of
    England. Given that the strategy sets an overview of the development priorities and outlines
    broadly where development is planned, we request that the Council safeguards the existing




                                                                                                        2
    employment sites, including the Power Station, which falls under Class B2 (General Industrial)
    of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (GPDO) 1995 (as
    amended).

CHAPTER 6: POLICIES FOR PLACES

■   Policy CS03: King’s Lynn area

    Policy CS03 provides further detail on the overall development strategy for King’s Lynn. This
    policy states that “…it will continue to meet its obligations as a ‘Growth Point and ‘Key Centre
    for Development and Change’ and develop as a sub-regional centre…”

    The strategy for growth is to provide at least 3,000 new jobs in existing and new employment
    areas to the east and south of King’s Lynn by 2025 as part of a balanced mix of uses within
    areas of renewal and regeneration.

    In principle, we support the overall development strategy for King’s Lynn, as set out in Policy
    CS03. However, we consider that the policy does not detail how existing jobs will be retained in
    this area. We therefore request further clarification from the Council. We also request here
    that the Council safeguards existing employment sites, including the Power Station, which falls
    under Class B2 (General Industrial) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
    Development) Order (GPDO) 1995 (as amended).

CHAPTER 7: AREA WIDE POLICIES

■   Policy CS10: Economy

    This policy seeks to develop the local economy in a sustainable manner, including the
    generation of job growth in the local economy in order to deliver the Borough’s regional target
    of 5,000 additional jobs by 2021.

    To achieve this aim the policy states that 66 hectares of employment land will be allocated
    between 2010 and 2025. At least 75% of employment land will be located in King’s Lynn, in line
    with the spatial strategy, Policy CS01.

    Further, this policy states that in the employment areas indicated on the adopted Local Plan
    Proposals Map, only high quality development which generates employment will be permitted.

    Policy CS10 also places emphasis on the retention of land or premises currently or last used
    for employment purposes as a means to developing the local economy and details that
    infrastructure networks in some areas will need to be expanded and improved to facilitate the
    planned growth.

    The supporting paragraph states that the total land allocated will exceed the amount forecasted
    so it is important to recognise the need to maintain an appropriate supply of land (para 7.3.18).
    The supporting text also states “…the Employment Land Study identifies that the key issue is to
    take steps to assist in the delivery of existing sites so that they are genuinely available and able
    to come forward for development, particularly in King’s Lynn” (para 7.3.19).

    We support the approach to develop the local economy by retaining existing employment land
    and to focus employment development in King’s Lynn. We also support in principle that
    employment areas should benefit from high quality development.

    However, we request that the King’s Lynn Power Station is designated as an employment site
    on the Proposals Map. This request accords with the recommendations set out in the
    Employment Land Study.




                                                                                                       3
■   Policy CS11: Transport

    The Council seeks to work with partner organisations, including the Highways Agency and
    Norfolk County Council, to deliver a sustainable transport network which improves connectivity
    within and beyond the Borough, and reinforce the role of King’s Lynn as a regional transport
    node.

    Priority is to be given to improving the strategic networks serving passenger and freight
    movements and including the introduction of measures to reduce congestion and improve
    reliability and safety of travel including with A47 (T).

    We support the Council’s proposal to review the transport strategy for the Borough and that
    one of the Council’s priorities is to improve the A47 (T) junction. The A47 is the main road into
    King’s Lynn from the west and provides a linkage with Low Road, where the King’s Lynn Power
    Station is accessed. As such, we request that Centrica plc is consulted during the review of
    the transport strategy.

Centrica plc reserves the right to supplement or amend these representations if necessary. We
would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of our representations and advise as to the next
stages of the Core Strategy and the Site Allocations DPD.

If you require further information or would like to discuss the above in more detail, please do not
hesitate to contact either Emma Andrews or Andrew Deller at the above office.

Yours faithfully




BNP Paribas Real Estate

Enc: Consent for the construction and operation of the Power Station
     OS Red Line Plan




                                                                                                      4
King's Lynn Power Station, Willows Business Park, Saddlebow, King's Lynn




              © Crown Copyright 2009. All rights reserved. Licence number 100020449. Plotted Scale - 1:5000
      Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk
   Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document (DPD)
  Representation Form for the Proposed Submission Document
In completing this representation form, you are providing a formal consultation response under
Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations
2008 as amended, with regard to the Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document.
This form has two parts:            Part A – Personal details
                                    Part B – Your representation(s). Please fill in Part B for each
                                    representation you wish to make i.e. individual representations will
                                    need to be made for each policy, paragraph and page number referred
                                    to. Your representation will need to relate to the specified ‘tests of
                                    soundness’ (see page 4).
Consultation period Wednesday 13 January 2010 to Wednesday 24 February 2010.
Completed representation forms must be returned to the Council by 5pm on Wednesday 24
February 2010.
You are encouraged to submit your representations online using our e-consultation system
see http://consult.west-norfolk.gov.uk/portal. Alternatively please complete this form and email to:
ldf@west-norfolk.gov.uk or post to: LDF Section, Development Services, Borough Council of Kings
Lynn & West Norfolk, King’s Court, Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, PE30 1EX

Part A: Personal Details (only complete once)
Please provide contact details so that the Council and the Programme Officer can contact you with
regard to your consultation response during the examination period.

                                    Personal Details                  Agents Details (if applicable)
                      Name                                            Emma Andrews

                   Job title                                          Senior Director
              (where relevant)

           Organisation Centrica plc                                  BNP Paribas Real Estate
              (where relevant)
        Address Line 1 c/o Agent                                      90 Chancery Lane

        Address Line 2

                       Town                                           London

                Postcode                                              WC2A 1EU

         Telephone No.                                                020 7338 4845

         Email Address                                                emma.andrews@bnpparibas.com

         Reference No.                     Do Not Complete                      Do Not Complete
          (for official use only)


Number of representations enclosed                 1
You only need to complete this page once. If you wish to make more than one representation,
attach additional copies of Part B to this part of the representation form


                                                                                                       Page 1 of 8
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                         Rep Ref No:
                                                                                          For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                          BNP Paribas Real Estate



Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
  Section No.             Chapter 5                    Policy No.           Policy CS01       Figure No.
                          Chapter 6                                         Policy CS03
                          Chapter 7                                         Policy CS10
                          Chapter 7                                         Policy CS11

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                              Yes                                  No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                       Page 2 of 8
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
a) Do you consider                   Legally Compliant
   the Core Strategy                 Sound
   to be:                            Unsound

b) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                   Justified
   Unsound, please identify which test of                                 Effective
   soundness your representation relates to                               Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                                 Page 3 of 8
Question 2: (Continued)

c) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
   be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
   DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.


It is considered that the Core Strategy does not include the following:

              Identify and safeguard Centrica’s Kings Lynn Power Station as nationally and locally
              significant infrastructure;
              Identify and safeguard Centrica’s Kings Lynn Power Station as an employment site
              in the written statement; and
              Identify Centrica’s Kings Lynn Power Station site as an employment site in the
              proposals map


In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Development Frameworks (PPS 12),
Core strategies must be justifiable through being a) founded on a robust and credible evidence
base; and b) the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
The plan should be based on research and fact finding. The Council’s most recent Employment
Land Study identified that it was necessary to take steps to assist in the delivery of existing sites
so that they are genuinely available and able to come forward for development, particularly in the
King’s Lynn area.


Therefore it is considered that Centrica’s Kings Lynn Power Station site should have been
considered and appropriately identified in the Core Strategy as an employment site. In order to
firstly, overcome the shortfall in designated employment land in the borough; secondly, to provide
an employment ‘status’ and ‘designation’ to the site; and thirdly, to safeguard the employment site.




                                                                                             Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8
Question 2: (Continued)

d) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
   sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
   Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
   change 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.

Centrica plc secures and supplies gas and electricity for millions of homes and businesses across
the UK. The King’s Lynn power station consists of a 325MW Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
(CCGT) electricity generating station located on the Willows Business Park, just to the south of
King’s Lynn. It is therefore considered that the site is nationally significant infrastructure, that
supports the immediate locality, town, region and the UK.


Infrastructure can be identified as a basic physical and organisational structure that is necessary
for the communities and services and facilities that they require to function. It is also wholly
integral for the national economy to thrive.

Infrastructure is one of the government’s priorities which will be The Government’s policies which
will be set out in National Policy Statements (NPSs). Twelve National Policy Statements are being
prepared by the relevant Government departments, based on existing government policy.

The core elements of the statements relate to:

  •    Setting out the Government’s objectives for the development of nationally significant
      infrastructure in a particular sector will be, and how this will contribute to sustainable
      development.
  •    Indicate how the Government’s objectives for the infrastructure sector has been integrated
      with other Government policies

On 5 February 2009, Centrica plc was granted consent by the Department for Energy and Climate
Change (DECC) under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and Section 90(2) of the Town and
Country Planning Act for the construction and operation of an 1,020 MW combined cycle gas
turbine generating station at King’s Lynn, Norfolk.


It is considered that the government continue to support the scheme, and since planning consent
was granted, Ed Miliband, Department for Energy and Climate Change has released six draft
planning policy statements which will support and expand the UK’s capacity for energy generation.
These planning statements will also assist in delivering the Government‘s clear strategy for
delivering energy plants, and that this will be reflected in planning decisions.


Therefore, it is considered that the Borough Council should identify and safeguard Centrica’s
King’s Lynn Power Station site as nationally and locally significant infrastructure; and as an
employment site in the Core Strategy written statement and proposals map. These changes would
ensure that the Core Strategy Document is sound and has regard to PPS 12.



                                                                                           Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8
Question 3: Further Representations

a) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


b) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


The site is of national significance in terms of the infrastructure, power, energy and associated
employment that it provides, therefore it is considered that Centrica should participate at the oral
examination.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……………………BNP Paribas Real Estate…………………………………
Dated………………………………24 February 2010………..




                                                                                            Page 8 of 8
                                                                                                 Page 1 of 1




 Dave Allen

  From:          Dave Allen
  Sent:          04 March 2010 16:51
  To:            'adrianjohn.maiden2@homecall.co.uk'
  Subject:       LDF Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document
  Attachments: Rep. Form

I refer to your recent submission concerning the LDF Core Strategy.

The recent publication period forms part of the formal examination process and for this reason we had
previously announced all representations should be received by 5PM Wednesday 24 February. Unfortunately,
your response did not arrive until 11.45PM. I have asked my ICT colleagues to check this and they are
satisfied there was no fault or delay with our server and the message appears to have originated after 5PM – I
have attached a copy of your email so you may confirm the message header yourself.

Consequently, I have no alternative but declare your submission to be late and not duly made. The appointed
Inspector will be notified of this in due course.

That being said I do acknowledge you raise concern over a number of issues addressing the work of the
Hunstanton Southern Seafront and Town Centre Scheme led by colleagues in Regeneration Services and I
will pass your views on to them

Dave Allen - Principal Planner (LDF)
Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
T: 01553 616444
M: 07827 536518
F: 01553 616652
E: dave.allen@west-norfolk.gov.uk
W: www.west-norfolk.gov.uk

View recent planning applications: http://online.west-norfolk.gov.uk/publicaccess
Submit a planning application on-line: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk




09/11/2010
Castle Point Borough Council                                                                 Page 1 of 8




 Dave Allen

 From:            Lord Invermore [adrianjohn.maiden2@homecall.co.uk]
 Sent:            24 February 2010 23:44
 To:              ldf@west-norfolk.gov.uk
 Subject:         Rep. Form
 Attachments: header.htm



       Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk 
     Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document (DPD) 
        Representation Form for the Proposed Submission
                           Document 
 In completing this representation form, you are providing a formal consultation response
 under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development)
 (England) Regulations 2008 as amended, with regard to the Core Strategy Proposed
 Submission Document. 
 This form has two              Part A – Personal details 
 parts:                         Part B – Your representation(s). Please fill in Part B for each
                                representation you wish to make i.e. individual representations will
                                need to be made for each policy, paragraph and page number
                                referred to. Your representation will need to relate to the specified
                                ‘tests of soundness’ (see page 4). 
 Consultation period Wednesday 13 January 2010 to Wednesday 24 February 2010.
 Completed representation forms must be returned to the Council by 5pm on
 Wednesday 24 February 2010. 
  
 You are encouraged to submit your representations online using our e-
 consultation system see http://consult.west-norfolk.gov.uk/portal. Alternatively please
 complete this form and email to: ldf@west-norfolk.gov.uk or post to: LDF Section,
 Development Services, Borough Council of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk, King’s Court,
 Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, PE30 1EX 
  
  
 Part A: Personal Details (only complete once) 
 Please provide contact details so that the Council and the Programme Officer can contact
 you with regard to your consultation response during the examination period. 
  
                            Personal Details                              Agents Details (if applicable) 
                  Name  John Maiden                                         
                Job title   Chairman                                        
            (where relevant) 
         Organisation HELP                                                  
            (where relevant) 
       Address Line 1           Invermore House                             
       Address Line 2           Hunstanton Road                             
                Town            Heacham                                     
            Postcode            PE31 7JY                                    
       Telephone No.            01485 572195                                
       Email Address            adrianjohn.maiden2@homecall.co.uk           



09/11/2010
Castle Point Borough Council                                                                                        Page 2 of 8



         Reference No.                              Do Not Complete                              Do Not Complete 
           (for official use only) 

 Number of representations enclosed                                                           
  
                                                                  

  

  

  

  

  

  
 You only need to complete this page once. If you wish to make more than one
 representation, attach additional copies of Part B to this part of the representation form 
                                                                       
 Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                    Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                      For Official Use           
                                                                                      Only 

 Name/Name of                                       Hunstanton Environmental Landscape
 organisation 
                                                                Programme 
   
  
 Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers: 
  
      Section No.                     6             Policy No.                CS05       Figure No.                     
  
 You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which
 you wish to make a representation. 
  
                                                                           
 Question 1:                                                               
 Previous Representations 
                                                                                                                            
 a) Did you raise the matter that is the                                                                                    
 subject of your representation with the LPA
 earlier in the process of the preparation of                                 Yes     Yes                 No                
 the Core Strategy i.e. before it was
 approved for examination?                                                                                                  
  
 b) If yes,                                                                                      ? 
 please indicate the date of this submission
 or the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember
 exact information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find
 you previous representations.) 
  
 c) If no,  
 please explain briefly why you did not do so? 
  
                                                                       




09/11/2010
Castle Point Borough Council                                                     Page 3 of 8



                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
                                               
 Summary of the Tests of Soundness 
  
 Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 –
 4.47, 4.51 and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be
 sound a core strategy should be: 
  
 1) Justified 
 PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to
 be: 
    • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving: 
       o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in
            the area 
       o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts 
    • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives  
  
 2) Effective 
 PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means: 
    • Deliverable – embracing: 
    • Sound infrastructure delivery planning 
    • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery 
    • Delivery partners who are signed up to it 
    • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities 
    • Flexible 
    • Able to be monitored 
  
 3) National Policy 
 The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy.
 Where there is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and
 convincing reasoning to justify their approach. 
  
  
  




09/11/2010
Castle Point Borough Council                                                                    Page 4 of 8



     
     
     
     
     
     
 Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy 
     
                                                                                    Yes        No 
 a)      Do you consider Legally Compliant                                             
        the Core         Sound                                          
        Strategy to be: 
                         Unsound                                                       
     
 b)      If you consider the Core Strategy is                          Justified                 
        Unsound, please identify which test of
        soundness your representation relates                          Effective 
        to                                                             Consistent with      
                                                                       National Policy 
 (Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note
 you should complete a separate Form B for each test of
 soundness the Core Strategy fails.)
     
 
 
            
 
 
 Question 2: (Continued) 
     
 c)     Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is
        unsound. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal
        compliance or soundness of the DPD, please also use this box to set out your
        comments.  
     
    The references to a Masterplan are unsound because the Masterplan itself fails to
    comply with the Hunstanton Parish Plan, or the Borough Council’s own regeneration
    plans for the town as stated in the Election Manifesto, prior to the election in May 2007;
    reiterated in the publication: Your Council Summer 2007. In other words, the Masterplan
    was produced by external consultants, the BDP, on the basis of inaccurate information
    supplied by Borough Council Officers and Members. 
     
    EG The reinstatement of Hunstanton Pier, mentioned in both the above documents was
    replaced in the Masterplan by an enlarged Entertainment Centre on the Pier site, thereby
    making the unlawful encroachment onto Public Open Space even worse than it is
    already. The need to protect the trackbed of the Lynn to Hunstanton Railway seems to
    have been overlooked, in spite of lip service being paid to its importance in numerous
    reports over many years. 
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     




09/11/2010
Castle Point Borough Council   Page 5 of 8



      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
  

 




09/11/2010
Castle Point Borough Council                                                             Page 6 of 8



  

     Question 2: (Continued) 
      
     d)   Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally
          compliant or sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question
          above (Justified/ Effective/ Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to
          soundness. You will need to say why this change 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. 
      
       
     Surely, a prerequisite for any document of this kind is for it to be compliant with all
     legislation applicable to Local government, including the Human Rights Act. By this I
     mean the need for the local authority to carry out meaningful consultation with Local
     interest groups that represent a broad cross section of Local public opinion. In this
     context, I have to say that the consultation carried out be the Borough Council has
     discriminated against individuals and organisations (eg HELP and Hunstanton Civic
     Society) by excluding them from partnerships, including the Hunstanton Regeneration
     Group, in order to pursue a course of action, which does not have widespread support
     from the Local community. 
      
     The procedure itself is not user-friendly, because the documents are not easy to follow
     and contain jargon that is unfamiliar, even to intelligent members of society. There is little
     evidence of policies being changed in response to the consultation process and I suspect
     this may be because the general public is too baffled by the format of the published
     material to respond in significant numbers. 
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      




09/11/2010
Castle Point Borough Council   Page 7 of 8



     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
 




09/11/2010
Castle Point Borough Council                                                           Page 8 of 8



  

     Question 3: Further Representations 
      
     a) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate
        at the oral part of the examination?  
      
                         NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination 
                          
                         YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination 
                          
      
     b) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you
        consider this to be necessary: 
      
     I would appreciate the opportunity to provide examples to illustrate my argument and to
     respond to questions. 
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
     Representation Submission Acknowledgement 
      
     I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the
     Town and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as
     amended. I understand that my name (and organisation where applicable) and
     representation will be made publicly available during the public examination period of the
     Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a fair and transparent process. 

     I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for
     consideration Yes 
      
          
                                                                                  
     Signed AJ Maiden ……………………………Dated                    24th   February 2010
  




09/11/2010
                                                                                                   Page 1 of 1




 Dave Allen

  From:          Dave Allen
  Sent:          04 March 2010 16:50
  To:            'Michael.Meadows@naturalengland.org.uk'
  Subject:       LDF Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document
  Attachments: Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document - Natural England representations FAO
               Mr. Alan Gomm

I refer to your recent submission concerning the LDF Core Strategy.

The recent publication period forms part of the formal examination process and for this reason we had
previously announced all representations should be received by 5PM Wednesday 24 February. Unfortunately,
your response did not arrive until 7.16PM. I have asked my ICT colleagues to check this and they are
satisfied there was no fault or delay with our server and the delay appears to have originated before arrival at
our ISP – I have attached a copy of your email so you may confirm the message header yourself.

Consequently, I have no alternative but declare your submission to be late and not duly made. The appointed
Inspector will be notified of this in due course.

That being said I do acknowledge our concern over a number of issues which you raise and confirm that, in
as far as these issues relate to other matters being reviewed, we will be willing to continue our previous
discussions and endeavour to seek mutual agreement.

Gemma Cousins will contact you shortly to take these discussions forward

Dave Allen - Principal Planner (LDF)
Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
T: 01553 616444
M: 07827 536518
F: 01553 616652
E: dave.allen@west-norfolk.gov.uk
W: www.west-norfolk.gov.uk

View recent planning applications: http://online.west-norfolk.gov.uk/publicaccess
Submit a planning application on-line: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk




09/11/2010
        Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk
     Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document (DPD)
    Representation Form for the Proposed Submission Document
In completing this representation form, you are providing a formal consultation response under
Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations
2008 as amended, with regard to the Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document.
This form has two                Part A – Personal details
parts:                           Part B – Your representation(s). Please fill in Part B for each
                                 representation you wish to make i.e. individual representations will need to
                                 be made for each policy, paragraph and page number referred to. Your
                                 representation will need to relate to the specified ‘tests of soundness’ (see
                                 page 4).
Consultation period Wednesday 13 January 2010 to Wednesday 24 February 2010.
Completed representation forms must be returned to the Council by 5pm on Wednesday 24
February 2010.
You are encouraged to submit your representations online using our e-consultation system
see http://consult.west-norfolk.gov.uk/portal. Alternatively please complete this form and email to:
ldf@west-norfolk.gov.uk or post to: LDF Section, Development Services, Borough Council of Kings
Lynn & West Norfolk, King’s Court, Chapel Street, King’s Lynn, PE30 1EX

Part A: Personal Details (only complete once)
Please provide contact details so that the Council and the Programme Officer can contact you with
regard to your consultation response during the examination period.

                        Personal Details                                        Agents Details (if applicable)
                   Name Michael Meadows

                Job title Government & Conservation Adviser
           (where relevant)

        Organisation Natural England
           (where relevant)
     Address Line 1 Dragonfly House

     Address Line 2 2 Gilders Way

                    Town Norwich

             Postcode NR3 1UB

     Telephone No. 0300 060 1045

     Email Address Michael.meadows@naturalengland.org.uk

     Reference No.                           Do Not Complete                          Do Not Complete
       (for official use only)


Number of representations enclosed                   14
 




                                                                                                     Page 1 of 71 
 
 

Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                  Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                   For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                  4.2                   Policy No.                        Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes      √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                        Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                Page 2 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
a) Do you consider                   Legally Compliant
   the Core Strategy                 Sound
   to be:                            Unsound

b) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                   Justified
   Unsound, please identify which test of                                 Effective
   soundness your representation relates to                               Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 3 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

c) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
   be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
   DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

We are disappointed that many of the comments we made in our letter of 6 April 2009 on the
previous consultation stage appear not to have been incorporated into the proposed Submission
Document. We recognise that since the Regulation 25 consultation, a policy on sustainable
development (CS08) has been included in the Core Strategy. However, we do not believe that the
concept of sustainable development is embedded within the vision and policies set out in the Core
Strategy. PPS12 states:

     ‘The planning system has been substantially reformed to embed community responsive
     policy-making at its heart and to make contributing to the achievement of sustainable
     development a statutory objective. The new spatial planning system exists to deliver
     positive social, economic and environmental outcomes’

The concept of sustainability includes, but not exclusively; green infrastructure, low carbon homes
and construction techniques, protection and enhancement of biodiversity and landscape, and
alternative forms of transport.

While we recognise that many of the projects that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
are currently undertaking are working toward these goals, the Core Strategy is the key plan within
the Local Development Framework and we believe that the Vision of the Core Strategy sets to
tone for development in the Borough over the Plan Period, and it is therefore particularly important
that sustainability is embedded within this and each policy (where appropriate) of the Core
Strategy to set out how this will be considered and incorporated into planning decisions into the
future.

In addition, we do not agree with the conclusions of the Habitats Regulation Assessment with
respect to The Wash and the North Norfolk Coast SPAs and The Wash and North Norfolk Coast
SAC. As highlighted in the HRA, there is clear evidence for an existing impact from recreation
disturbance on interest features of these European sites. Therefore, promotion of additional
tourism to these sites, and increased housing allocation are likely to increase that pressure. The
HRA promotes the use of visitor management of various forms within the designated sites as a
means of mitigating these impacts. However, inclusion of high quality green infrastructure with
development would go some way to avoiding these impacts, by giving residents alternative places
that for some activities would be more attractive than travelling to the coast.




 

                                                                                         Page 4 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

d) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
   sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
   Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
   change 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.


Society p13

We suggest the second sentence in the preface text should be amended to “...people have good
quality housing and local facilities, including green infrastructure, we want to help...”.




                                                                                         Page 5 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

a) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


b) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ……………………………… Dated………24 February 2010………..


                                                                                           Page 6 of 71 
 
 

Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                  Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                   For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                4.3.1                   Policy No.                        Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes      √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                        Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                Page 7 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
e) Do you consider                   Legally Compliant
   the Core Strategy                 Sound
   to be:                            Unsound

f)    If you consider the Core Strategy is                                Justified
      Unsound, please identify which test of                              Effective
      soundness your representation relates to                            Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 8 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

g) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
   be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
   DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

We are disappointed that many of the comments we made in our letter of 6 April 2009 on the
previous consultation stage appear not to have been incorporated into the proposed Submission
Document. We recognise that since the Regulation 25 consultation, a policy on sustainable
development (CS08) has been included in the Core Strategy. However, we do not believe that the
concept of sustainable development is embedded within the vision and policies set out in the Core
Strategy. PPS12 states:
‘The planning system has been substantially reformed to embed community responsive policy-
making at its heart and to make contributing to the achievement of sustainable development a
statutory objective. The new spatial planning system exists to deliver positive social, economic
and environmental outcomes’
The concept of sustainability includes, but not exclusively; green infrastructure, low carbon homes
and construction techniques, protection and enhancement of biodiversity and landscape, and
alternative forms of transport.

In addition, a Key Principle of PPS9 is that “Plan policies and planning decisions should aim     to
maintain, and enhance, restore or add to biodiversity and geological conservation interests.      In
taking decisions, local planning authorities should ensure that appropriate weight is attached    to
designated sites of international, national and local importance; protected species; and          to
biodiversity and geological interests within the wider environment.”

In addition, we do not agree with the conclusions of the Habitats Regulation Assessment with
respect to The Wash and the North Norfolk Coast SPAs. As highlighted in the HRA, there is clear
evidence for an existing impact from recreation disturbance on interest features of these European
sites. Therefore, promotion of additional tourism to these sites, and increased housing allocation
are likely to increase that pressure. The HRA promotes the use of visitor management of various
forms within the designated sites as a means of mitigating these impacts. However, inclusion of
high quality green infrastructure with development would go some way to avoiding these impacts,
by giving residents alternative places that for some activities would be more attractive than
travelling to the coast. This would be particularly relevant in relation to King’s Lynn, given the
substantial housing development to be located here.




 




                                                                                        Page 9 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

h) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
   sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
   Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
   change 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.


Core Strategy Objectives

Economy p.14

The wording of the points in this section should include specific reference to sustainability to link
with the other sections. Otherwise it is difficult to see how the Vision for West Norfolk set out in
4.1, together with those listed under the ‘Society’ and ‘Environment’ sections will be achieved. We
suggest the following points could be re-worded:

“1. King’s Lynn’s reputation as a great place to live and work sustainably has spread...”.

“2. West Norfolk has a thriving sustainable economy...”.


Environment p15

We suggest the following points could be better re-worded:

“11. West Norfolk has undergone regeneration and growth that is well planned enhances and
complements its high quality...”.

“12. Communities benefit from green infrastructure including quality public spaces and
parks...”.

Towns and places p15

King’s Lynn We suggest the following bullet point is added under this section:

•   A good accessible network of multi functional areas of, and links to, green space.

Downham Market         p15 Second paragraph: We suggest the text is amended as follows
“Inadequacies in local service provision, including multi functional areas of green space, have
been resolved...”.




                                                                                         Page 10 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

c) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


d) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ……………………………… Dated………24 February 2010………..


                                                                                          Page 11 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                     6                  Policy No.           CS02          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 12 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
     e) Do you                       Legally Compliant
        consider the                 Sound
        Core Strategy                Unsound
        to be:

     f) If you consider the Core Strategy is                              Justified
        Unsound, please identify which test of                            Effective
        soundness your representation relates to                          Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 13 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

    g) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound.
       Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness
       of the DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council is aware that the neighbouring authority, Breckland
Council, commissioned a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) report to inform its Core
Strategy. The HRA report’s findings showed that stone curlews, which are one of the features for
which the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) was designated, are very sensitive to the built
environment. The conclusion of the HRA report, which Breckland Council has adopted, is that to
prevent an adverse effect on nesting stone curlews, a 1500m zone should be mapped around the
boundary of the SPA, where stone curlews have been recorded. Within this ‘constraints’ zone it
would be assumed that most new developments would result in a likely significant effect to the
SPA and should therefore be subject to an “appropriate assessment” under Regulation 48 of the
Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (usually referred to as the Habitats
Regulations). The HRA report also identified impacts from built development on woodlark and
nightjar.

Natural England welcomes Breckland Council’s very strong response to the HRA report, which we
consider will effectively protect the bird species for which the SPA is designated from the adverse
effects of development, although we appreciate that the decision to adopt this approach is not one
which has been taken by your Council. Notwithstanding Breckland Council’s response, we
recognise that applications to develop within the 1500m zone may still be consented if they can be
fully justified against Breckland Council’s CS criteria.

The Key Rural Service Centres of Hockwold cum Wilton, Feltwell and Methwold are in close
proximity of the SPA, and while we recognise that policy CS12 contains guidance in relation to
development that may impact the SPA, we believe that that this potential restriction on
development at these locations should be recognised within this Policy.




 




                                                                                       Page 14 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

    h) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant
       or sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/
       Effective/ Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to
       say why this change 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.


CS02 The Settlement Hierachy

Key Rural Service Centres

We suggest that the text is amended to include: “Hockwold cum Wilton, Feltwell and Methwold are
within 1500m of the Breckland SPA, and development that adversely impacts the SPA will not be
permitted.”




                                                                                        Page 15 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

i) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


j) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 16 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS03          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 17 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
     k) Do you                       Legally Compliant
        consider the                 Sound
        Core Strategy                Unsound
        to be:

     d) If you consider the Core Strategy is                              Justified
        Unsound, please identify which test of                            Effective
        soundness your representation relates to                          Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 18 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

    e) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound.
       Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness
       of the DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

Green infrastructure is defined as the sub-regional network of protected sites, nature reserves,
green spaces, and greenway linkages. By providing for multi-functional uses, a co-ordinated
network can provide the broadest range of ecosystem services and environmentally based social
benefits. These include embedding wildlife rich and varied habitats in urban and rural areas,
providing recreational spaces (with consequent health benefits), supporting education and
providing climate change adaptation measures.

The Borough Council has produced a Green Infrastructure Strategy for the Borough, and we
welcome the commitment to enhance the green infrastructure provision in and around King’s Lynn
in accordance with this strategy.

However, we do not agree with the conclusions of the Habitats Regulation Assessment with
respect to The Wash and the North Norfolk Coast SPAs. As highlighted in the HRA, there is clear
evidence for an existing impact from recreation disturbance on interest features of these European
sites. Therefore, promotion of additional tourism to these sites, and increased housing allocation
are likely to increase that pressure. The HRA promotes the use of visitor management of various
forms within the designated sites as a means of mitigating these impacts. However, inclusion of
high quality green infrastructure with development would go some way to avoiding these impacts,
by giving residents alternative places that for some activities would be more attractive than
travelling to the coast. This would be particularly relevant in relation to King’s Lynn, given the
substantial housing development to be located here.




                                                                                      Page 19 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

i)   Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
     sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
     Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
     change 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.


Meetings have been held between Natural England, your authority and local residents about the
Waterfront Regeneration Area and Marina proposal in King’s Lynn, which would result in the loss
of Hardings Pits Doorstep Green, an existing and valued open green space. Your council agreed
to provide alternative green space elsewhere in the vicinity.

We suggest this commitment should be reflected in the wording of this policy as follows:

     •   “the Waterfront Regeneration Area, which will combine to provide a mix of housing;
         employment sites; educational facilities; local services and accessible multi functional
         areas of, and links to, green space; and the”

We also suggest that the seventh paragraph be amended as follows:

“Open spaces, recreational facilities and accessible multi functional green infrastructure will
be provided within and around the town to serve the needs of the existing residents and meet the
needs of the growing population.”




                                                                                          Page 20 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

f) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


g) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 21 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS04          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 22 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
j)    Do you consider                Legally Compliant
      the Core Strategy              Sound
      to be:                         Unsound

k)    If you consider the Core Strategy is                                Justified
      Unsound, please identify which test of                              Effective
      soundness your representation relates to                            Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 23 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

l)   Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
     be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
     DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

We welcome the commitment that green infrastructure will be enhanced in accordance with the
Green Infrastructure Study.




 

                                                                                       Page 24 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

m) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
   sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
   Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
   change 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.




                                                                                        Page 25 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

h) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


i) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 26 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS05          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 27 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
n) Do you consider                   Legally Compliant
   the Core Strategy                 Sound
   to be:                            Unsound

o) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                   Justified
   Unsound, please identify which test of                                 Effective
   soundness your representation relates to                               Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 28 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

p) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
   be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
   DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

We welcome the commitment that green infrastructure will be enhanced in accordance with the
Green Infrastructure Study and the reference to supporting sustainable tourist facilities. We
suggest that this policy could be strengthened with respect to the Norfolk Coast AONB.




 


                                                                                     Page 29 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

q) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
   sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
   Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
   change 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.

We suggest that this policy could be strengthened with respect to the Norfolk Coast AONB by the
amendment of the second bullet point to:

“Strengthen the town’s role as a visitor destination. Support will be given to additional sustainable
tourist facilities and leisure development which extends the season by providing diverse year-
round activities and are sympathetic to its relationship with the Norfolk Coast AONB, and
respect, conserve and enhance the valuable natural assets of the town and AONB.”




                                                                                         Page 30 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

j) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


k) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 31 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS06          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 32 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
r)    Do you consider                Legally Compliant
      the Core Strategy              Sound
      to be:                         Unsound

s)    If you consider the Core Strategy is                                Justified
      Unsound, please identify which test of                              Effective
      soundness your representation relates to                            Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 33 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

t)   Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
     be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
     DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

Natural England welcomes the commitment to protect the countryside for its intrinsic character and
beauty. However, in our previous representations, we advised that developments within the
AONB require a different approach given the statutory protection afforded to this area, and that a
dedicated Policy may be appropriate. There is no specific reference to the AONB in this Policy, or
CS12 Environmental Assets. This policy should clearly state how proposed development within
the AONB will be treated.




 


                                                                                       Page 34 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

u) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
   sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
   Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
   change 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.


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




                                                                                         Page 35 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

l) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


m) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 36 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS08          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 37 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
v)    Do you consider                Legally Compliant
      the Core Strategy              Sound
      to be:                         Unsound

w) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                   Justified
   Unsound, please identify which test of                                 Effective
   soundness your representation relates to                               Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 38 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

x)   Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
     be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
     DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.


Natural England support the inclusion of the policy on Sustainable development. We have made
representations on other policies recommending that the concept of sustainability be embedded
throughout the Core Strategy. However, we believe that this policy will provide clarity to
developers and others on what the Council require in terms of sustainable development.




 


                                                                                       Page 39 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

y)   Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
     sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
     Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
     change 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.




                                                                                          Page 40 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

n) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


o) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 41 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS10          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 42 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
z)    Do you consider                Legally Compliant
      the Core Strategy              Sound
      to be:                         Unsound

aa) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                  Justified
    Unsound, please identify which test of                                Effective
    soundness your representation relates to                              Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 43 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

bb) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
    be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
    DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

Natural England welcomes the commitment to develop the local economy in a sustainable
manner.




 

                                                                                      Page 44 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

cc) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
    sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
    Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
    change 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.




                                                                                         Page 45 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

p) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


q) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 46 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS11          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 47 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
dd) Do you consider                  Legally Compliant
    the Core Strategy                Sound
    to be:                           Unsound

ee) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                  Justified
    Unsound, please identify which test of                                Effective
    soundness your representation relates to                              Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 48 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

ff) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
    be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
    DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

We welcome the approach to deliver a sustainable transport network within the borough,
particularly measures which promote public transport and alternative modes of transport. We
suggest making reference to green infrastructure corridors and multifunctional links in both the
final bullet point at the bottom of the first column on p55 and under the heading Dealing with
transport issues in new development.




 


                                                                                      Page 49 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

gg) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
    sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
    Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
    change 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.


We suggest making reference to green infrastructure corridors and multifunctional links in both the
final bullet point at the bottom of the first column on p55 and under the heading Dealing with
transport issues in new development.




                                                                                         Page 50 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

r) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


s) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 51 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.            7.5          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 52 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
hh) Do you consider                  Legally Compliant
    the Core Strategy                Sound
    to be:                           Unsound

ii)   If you consider the Core Strategy is                                Justified
      Unsound, please identify which test of                              Effective
      soundness your representation relates to                            Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 53 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

jj)   Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
      be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
      DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.

Natural England welcomes the list provided in 7.5.1 on the many and varied natural assets within
the Borough.

We agree with the statement in 7.5.9 that housing provision will increase recreational use that
could lead to disturbance. To this we would also add an increased risk from promotion of tourism
and access. We also agree that significant adverse impacts in, on particular The Wash and the
North Norfolk Coast SPAs, are unlikely alone. However, as highlighted in the HRA, there is clear
evidence for an existing impact from recreation disturbance on interest features of these European
sites. Therefore, promotion of additional tourism to these sites, and increased housing allocation
are likely to increase that pressure. Therefore, Natural England believe that it is essential that
high quality green infrastructure is included within development to avoid impacts on European
sites, with a recognition that this in itself would not be fully effective in avoiding those impacts.
The HRA promotes the use of visitor management of various forms within the designated sites as
a means of mitigating impacts. The Core Strategy currently does not provide a mechanism by
which such mitigation would be targeted, provided and maintained.

We also believe that paragraphs 7.5.8 – 7.5.11 lack clarity with regard to the Breckland SPA. The
Breckland Council Core Strategy HRA showed that stone curlews, which are one of the features
for which the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) was designated, are very sensitive to the
built environment. The HRA was unable to identify the mechanism of this impact, and therefore it
is not possible to conclude that the impact is a result of recreation pressure alone, as implied by
7.5.9 & 7.5.10. The conclusion of the HRA report, which Breckland Council has adopted, is that to
prevent an adverse effect on nesting stone curlews, a 1500m zone should be mapped around the
boundary of the SPA, where stone curlews have been recorded. Within this ‘constraints’ zone it
would be assumed that most new developments would result in a likely significant effect to the
SPA and should therefore be subject to an “appropriate assessment” under Regulation 48 of the
Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (usually referred to as the Habitats
Regulations). The HRA report also identified an impact from built development on woodlark and
nightjar. The habitat requirements of these three species are different, and therefore 7.5.11 should
provide greater clarity on the purpose of the 400m zone.




 




                                                                                         Page 54 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

kk) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
    sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
    Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
    change 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.


We suggest that the supporting text to CS12 is amended as follows:

“7.5.9 The Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Breckland Council Core Strategy identified a
significant adverse impact on stone curlew to a distance of 1500m from built development, and
significant adverse impact on woodlark and nightjar to a distance of 400m from built development.
In addition, the Council recognise that, in combination with other plans or projects, the promotion
of tourism and additional housing growth in the Borough as a result of this Core Strategy is likely
to impact on Breckland, The Wash and the North Norfolk Coast SPAs through increased
recreation pressure.

“7.5.10 Therefore built development within 1500m of sites supporting or capable of supporting
stone curlew within the Breckland SPA will not be supported.

“7.5.11 For development within 400m of sites supporting or capable of supporting woodlark
and nightjar within the Breckland SPA, a project level HRA ...

“7.5.14 The Council is committed to ensuring sustainable levels of recreation in and around the
Breckland, The Wash and the North Norfolk Coast SPAs. Therefore, the Council will seek
opportunities to include green infrastructure within new development, and will work with
partners to develop measures to avoid or mitigate increased visitor pressure at these sites.”




                                                                                         Page 55 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

t) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


u) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 56 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS12          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 57 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
ll)   Do you consider                Legally Compliant
      the Core Strategy              Sound
      to be:                         Unsound

mm) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                  Justified
   Unsound, please identify which test of                                 Effective
   soundness your representation relates to                               Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 58 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

nn) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
    be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
    DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.


We endorse the use of the Green Infrastructure Management Plan and Econet map to ensure that
a network of green infrastructure is created and managed, with the resulting benefits. However, to
ensure its successful implementation, references to green infrastructure need to be made in other
CS policies, as stated in our other representations.

While other partner organisations will be instrumental in providing the network of green
infrastructure throughout the Borough, the emphasis is on the Borough Council to ensure that this
is implements. Our suggested wording below reflects this emphasis.

Natural England has submitted comments on the supporting text to Policy CS12 Environmental
Assets. Given these comment, we recommend that greater clarity is provided on how
development will be expected to preserve and enhance the natural environment, particularly in
relation to the Breckland, The Wash and the North Norfolk Coast SPAs.


 




                                                                                      Page 59 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

oo) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
    sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
    Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
    change 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.

We suggest the following amendments:

The addition of the following bullet point to the objectives of green infrastructure within the
Borough;

•     Contribute to avoiding significant adverse impacts on sites designated for their
nature conservation value.

In the last paragraph of the first column on p58; “The Council, working in partnership with
others, will support a range of initiatives...”

In the final paragraph on p58, replace with;

“The Council will require that an appropriate assessment is undertaken of all proposals for
development that are likely to have a significant effect on the Breckland Special Protection
Area (SPA) and will only permit development that will not adversely affect the integrity of
the SPA. In applying this policy the Council has defined a constraints zone that extends
1,500m from the edge of those parts of the SPA that support or are capable of supporting
stone curlews, within which:-

a. Permission may be granted for the re-use of existing buildings and for development
which will be completely masked from the SPA by existing development; alternatively
b. Permission may be granted for development provided it is demonstrated by an
appropriate assessment the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA.

Beyond the SPA, the Council will apply the policy set out above to afford protection to
other land supporting the qualifying features of the SPA, where they are known to exist or
where nesting attempts have been made.

Where it can be shown that proposals to mitigate the effects of development would avoid
or overcome an adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA or qualifying features, planning
permission may be granted provided the Local Planning Authority is satisfied those
proposals will be implemented.

The Council will consider the need for an appropriate assessment to determine the
implications of development on other interest features of the SPA (i.e. Nightjar and
Woodlark) on a case by case basis.”




                                                                                         Page 60 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

v) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


w) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 61 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS13          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 62 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
pp) Do you consider                  Legally Compliant
    the Core Strategy                Sound
    to be:                           Unsound

qq) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                  Justified
    Unsound, please identify which test of                                Effective
    soundness your representation relates to                              Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 63 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

rr) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
    be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
    DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.


Natural England welcomes the recognition and importance given to accessible open space for its
impacts on health and quality of life. However, we believe that this Policy should be expanded to
include green infrastructure, rather than open space. Green infrastructure is defined as the sub-
regional network of protected sites, nature reserves, green spaces, and greenway linkages. By
providing for multi-functional uses, a co-ordinated network can provide the broadest range of
ecosystem services and environmentally based social benefits. Therefore, in addition to the
benefits of open space highlighted in the Policy, multi-functional green infrastructure can
contribute to sustainability by embedding wildlife rich and varied habitats in urban and rural areas,
supporting education and providing climate change adaptation measures.

The Borough Council should ensure that an integrated network of green infrastructure is created
and managed as set out in Policy CS12 Environmental Assets.

Natural England believes that it is important that community infrastructure is an integral part of
new development, that this infrastructure is accessible to all members of the community, and that
the provision and maintenance of that infrastructure is secured into the future. Our suggested
wording below is taken from the Chelmsford Borough Council Core Strategy, which was adopted
in 2008.




 



                                                                                         Page 64 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

ss) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
    sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
    Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
    change 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.


We suggest an amendment such that the final bullet point on p62 reads:

•     Being within walking distance on accessible green infrastructure – to increase peoples
      quality of life, enable active and healthy lifestyles, supporting education and providing
      climate change adaptation measures.

We also suggest the additional paragraph for (ii):

“The Borough Council will ensure that new community facilities, including health
education, social, sports and leisure, parks, and green spaces, arts and cultural facilities,
are developed as an integral part of any proposals for major new development in
accordance with the requirements identified by the Borough Council and other agencies.
Such facilities will be accessible to all sections of the community, and will be secured by a
range of funding measures and planning contributions including standard charges and/or
standard formulae where necessary.”




                                                                                         Page 65 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

x) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


y) If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider this
   to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ………………………………                    Dated………24          February     2010………..


                                                                                          Page 66 of 71 
 
 
Part B: Your representation(s) (complete for each representation)                   Rep Ref No:  
                                                                                    For Official Use Only


Name/Name of organisation                                                   Natural England


Please identify the part of the Core Strategy to which this representation refers:
    Section No.                                        Policy No.           CS14          Figure No.

You must complete a separate Part B form for each section, policy, or figure on which you wish to
make a representation.


Question 1:
Previous Representations


a) Did you raise the matter that is the subject of
your representation with the LPA earlier in the
process of the preparation of the Core Strategy                             Yes       √                     No
i.e. before it was approved for examination?

b) If yes,                                                                         Regulation 25
please indicate the date of this submission or
the consultation stage. (If you can’t remember exact
information don’t worry, just a rough date will help us find you previous
representations.)

c) If no,
please explain briefly why you did not do so?




                                                                                                                 Page 67 of 71 
 
Summary of the Tests of Soundness

Soundness is explained in PPS12 (Planning Policy Statement 12) in paragraphs 4.36 – 4.47, 4.51
and 5.52 and the boxed text. Specifically paragraph 5.52 states that to be sound a core strategy
should be:

1) Justified
PPS12 provides that to be ‘justified’ a DPD (in this case ‘The Core Strategy’) needs to be:
   • founded on a robust and credible evidence base involving:
      o evidence of participation of the local community and others having a stake in the area
      o research/fact finding – the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts
   • the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives

2) Effective
PPS12 states that core strategies should be effective. This means:
   • Deliverable – embracing:
   • Sound infrastructure delivery planning
   • Having no regulatory or national planning barriers to delivery
   • Delivery partners who are signed up to it
   • Coherence with the strategies of neighbouring authorities
   • Flexible
   • Able to be monitored

3) National Policy
The DPD (In this case ‘The Core Strategy’) should be consistent with national policy. Where there
is a departure, The LPA (Local Planning Authority) must provide clear and convincing reasoning to
justify their approach.




Question 2: Soundness of the Core Strategy

                                                                                   Yes      No
tt) Do you consider                  Legally Compliant
    the Core Strategy                Sound
    to be:                           Unsound

uu) If you consider the Core Strategy is                                  Justified
    Unsound, please identify which test of                                Effective
    soundness your representation relates to                              Consistent with
                                                                          National Policy
(Please identify just one test for this representation. Please note you
should complete a separate Form B for each test of soundness the Core
Strategy fails.)




                                                                                             Page 68 of 71 
 
Question 2: (Continued)

vv) Please give details of why you consider the DPD is not legally compliant or is unsound. Please
    be as precise as possible. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the
    DPD, please also use this box to set out your comments.


We support this policy and the use of contributions from developers, and others, for the creation
and maintenance of the various types of green infrastructure listed in the policy. We suggest that
your council should provide a breakdown of the contributions required per household to fund each
element of infrastructure.

As noted in our comments on section 4.2, we do not agree with the conclusions of the HRA with
respect to recreational disturbance on The Wash and the North Norfolk Coast SPAs and The
Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC. As highlighted in the HRA, there is clear evidence for an
existing impact from recreation disturbance on interest features of these European sites.
Therefore, promotion of additional tourism to these sites, and increased housing allocation are
likely to increase that pressure. The footnote to Table 2 of the Core Strategy HRA identifies a
number of measures ‘to alleviate recreational disturbance of SPA bird species along the North
Norfolk Coast’. However, the Core Strategy does not identify how these measures would be
targeted, implemented or monitored. We are aware that North Norfolk District Council are
currently considering how this issue can be addressed for their Site Specific Proposals DPD, and
given that the North Norfolk Coast SPA and The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC are located in
both districts, we suggest that the Borough Council work closely with North Norfolk District Council
on this. We also suggest that developer contributions may be appropriate to support any additional
visitor management work required.




 


                                                                                        Page 69 of 71 
 
 

Question 2: (Continued)

ww) Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the DPD legally compliant or
    sound, having regard to the test you have identified in the question above (Justified/ Effective/
    Consistent with National Policy) where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this
    change 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.


We suggest the additional bullet point to those on p66:

    •   Visitor management activities required as mitigation for increase recreational
        disturbance within sites designated for their nature conservation value.




                                                                                         Page 70 of 71 
 
 

Question 3: Further Representations

z) If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate at the
   oral part of the examination?

                     NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

                     YES, I wish to participate at the oral examination


aa)    If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination please outline why you consider
   this to be necessary:


Falls within our statutory remit as the Government adviser on the natural environment.




Representation Submission Acknowledgement


I acknowledge that I am making a formal representation under Regulation 27 & 28 of the Town
and Country Planning (Local Development)(England) Regulations 2008 as amended. I understand
that my name (and organisation where applicable) and representation will be made publicly
available during the public examination period of the Core Strategy in order to ensure that it is a
fair and transparent process.

I agree with this statement and wish to submit the above representation for consideration




Signed……               ……………………………… Dated………24 February 2010……….. 


                                                                                         Page 71 of 71 
 
                                                                                                 Page 1 of 1




 Dave Allen

  From:          Dave Allen
  Sent:          04 March 2010 16:51
  To:            'Philip.Pearson@rspb.org.uk'
  Subject:       LDF Core Strategy Proposed Submission Document
  Attachments: RSPB response to King's Lynn and West Norfolk Core Strategy

I refer to your recent submission concerning the LDF Core Strategy.

The recent publication period forms part of the formal examination process and for this reason we had
previously announced all representations should be received by 5PM Wednesday 24 February. Unfortunately,
your response did not arrive until 5.38PM. I have asked my ICT colleagues to check this and they are
satisfied there was no fault or delay with our server and the message appears to have originated after 5PM – I
have attached a copy of your email so you may confirm the message header yourself.

Consequently, I have no alternative but declare your submission to be late and not duly made. The appointed
Inspector will be notified of this in due course.

That being said I do acknowledge our concern over a number of issues which you raise and confirm that, in
as far as these issues relate to other matters being reviewed, we will be willing to continue our previous
discussions and endeavour to seek mutual agreement.

Gemma Cousins will contact you shortly to take these discussions forward


Dave Allen - Principal Planner (LDF)
Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk
T: 01553 616444
M: 07827 536518
F: 01553 616652
E: dave.allen@west-norfolk.gov.uk
W: www.west-norfolk.gov.uk

View recent planning applications: http://online.west-norfolk.gov.uk/publicaccess
Submit a planning application on-line: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk




09/11/2010
                                                                                                      RSPB Eastern England
                                                                                                         65, Stalham House
                                                                                                               Thorpe Road
                                                                                                                   Norwich
                                                                                                                    Norfolk
                                                                                                                  NR1 1UD

Mr A. Gomm
LDF Manager
Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk
King’s Court
Chapel Street
King’s Lynn
Norfolk
PE30 1EX.

24th February 2010

Dear Mr Gomm,

KING’S LYNN AND WEST NORFOLK LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: CORE STRATEGY –
PROPOSED SUBMISSION DOCUMENT.

Thank you for consulting the RSPB regarding the proposed submission Core Strategy for King’s Lynn and
West Norfolk. Our general comments are provided below, with more detailed comments provided in the
annex to this letter.

Lack of a thorough “strategic” Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)
Good strategic planning requires careful consideration of options that avoid ecological damage, which is the
main benefit of “strategic” Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The Core Strategy provides the
planning framework for the borough, specifying what the other Local Development Framework (LDF)
documents will be expected to deliver. Consequently, it is essential that those decisions are assessed
thoroughly at this stage. The recent assessment of the Breckland District Core Strategy clearly demonstrated
that this is possible.

We are concerned that the physical and spatial information presented in the Core Strategy has not been
adequately considered with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures to offset adverse effects to
Natura 2000 sites. The proposed policies physical and spatial parameters are clearly outlined in the Core
Strategy, along with the main growth centres, in Policies CS01, CS02, CS03, CS04, CS05, CS06, CS07, CS10
and CS11. Given the level of information available we believe that it is possible to know where mitigation is
required, and the measures required to avoid any adverse effects. Without indicating which mitigation
measures are suitable for particular locations it is not possible to conclude that any adverse effects will be
effectively mitigated. Any mitigation solutions identified must also be carefully evaluated and capable of
delivery through the planning system. For example, the text on p.55 of the HRA regarding the North
Norfolk Coast SPA states that the “…coastal competent authorities promoting visitor access will need to consider
the necessary measures required to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations” (emphasis added). At this
stage the areas where mitigation is required should be documented and appropriate mitigation measures for
the specific locations identified. The current text is vague in its content and does not provide certainty that
any mitigation measures can be delivered effectively.

Concerns over the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) conclusions
We are also seriously concerned by the HRA’s assertion that “…the indications are that the populations of many
of these species using the SPA are increasing, and have not adversely suffered from increasing visitor levels over recent
years” and the conclusion that impacts do not need to be assessed. Although some species have increased

                                                       Page 1 of 6
slightly in number over recent years there is evidence that many species have maintained stable numbers or
experienced population declines over the same period, as shown, for example, by data from the Wetland
Bird Surveys (WeBS) which monitors non-breeding waterbirds in the UK1,2,3 (please refer to Section 1 of the
annex for additional information). The HRA, therefore, needs to relate the trends in the distributions of the
individual bird species to the patterns of recreational disturbance. Only by undertaking such work is it
possible to be confident that changes in the level of recreational disturbance are not displacing birds from
parts of the SPA, which would constitute an adverse impact on the integrity of that site.

The need to establish baseline data on visitor numbers to the Borough’s Natura 2000 sites
The Core Strategy proposes 15840 new dwellings across the borough between 2001 and 2025 (Policy CS09,
p.42), a considerable population increase is proposed for King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. This, coupled with
the fact that the Wash SPA (the largest estuarine system and best site for waterbirds in the UK), North
Norfolk Coast SPA and Breckland SPA are visitor hotspots, could potentially result in increased recreational
disturbance on these SPAs. The Core Strategy also encourages increased tourist numbers and extending the
tourist season (Policy CS10, p.50), as well as making provision for Green Infrastructure (GI) and increased
access to the countryside (Policy CS08, p.37). Consequently, it is essential that visitor impacts to the SPAs are
adequately assessed to ensure that there will be no adverse effects as a result of the proposed policies in the
Core Strategy; this has not been done at present (please refer to Section 2 of the annex).

The need for a HRA of the Core Strategy submission document
The HRA concludes that: “In accordance with Regulation 85B(1) of the Habitats Regulations, the final Core
Strategy, as presented for Examination should be re-checked to ensure that it can be ascertained that the plan in its final
form is fully compliant, and that any potential adverse effects upon the integrity of any European site have been either
avoided or mitigated for.” This does not appear to have been undertaken, as the policy numbers within the
HRA do not correspond with the policy numbers in the Core Strategy submission document. Without a
revision of the HRA it is not possible to conclude safely that the proposed policies are sound and deliverable.

Core Strategy specific comments
Within Policy CS12 a considerable amount of text is devoted to stone-curlew within the Breckland SPA, but
this fails to recognise the two other Breckland SPA species: woodlark and nightjar. In order to protect
woodlark and nightjar from urban edge effects in Breckland SPA, a 400m constraint zone has been
established in Breckland District Council’s Core Strategy, which has also been adopted in Forest Heath
District Council’s Core Strategy. Section 7.5.11 mentions a 400m buffer but does not specify that this relates
to woodlark and nightjar. We recommend that Policy CS12 should incorporate wording on the 400m buffer
as outlined in Breckland District Council’s Core Strategy to ensure adequate protection for these species
given that there is no evidence to suggest that any suitable mitigation can be provided for these species.

The policies proposed for the borough should also protect the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SPAs from
adverse effects from development. These sites are likely to be particularly affected by the policies outlined in
the Core Strategy and warrant specific mention within the Policy, as well as the Breckland SPA. This should
ensure the Policy is not overly weighted towards the protection of the Breckland SPA at the expense of the
other SPAs in the borough.

Throughout the document the phrase “adverse impacts” is used when considering protection of Natura 2000
sites and their designated features. In order to conform to the terminology of the Habitats Regulations this
should be changed to “adverse effects.”




1 Holt C., Austin G., Calbrade N., Mellan H., Thewlis R., Hall C., Stroud D., Wotton S., & Musgrove A., 2009. Waterbirds in the UK

2007/08: The Wetland Bird Survey. Available at: http://www.bto.org/webs/news/AR07_08/index.htm
2 WeBs data for the 23 target species assessed in the Wash SPA can be viewed at:

http://www.bto.org/webs/alerts/alerts2008/Results/UK9008021/9008021.htm
3 WeBs data for the 23 target species assessed on the North Norfolk Coast SPA can be viewed at:

http://www.bto.org/webs/alerts/alerts2008/Results/UK9009031/9009031.htm

                                                              Page 2 of 6
Conclusions
The RSPB believes that there is significant uncertainty that the Core Strategy can be delivered. In order to
show that the policies are sound the RSPB considers that:
• A more rigorous HRA should be undertaken to provide a robust assessment of the Core Strategy’s
   potential impacts and hence its deliverability.
• The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) should be overlaid on a map identifying
   the SPAs, and the relevant buffer zones associated with the Breckland SPA. This would ensure that if
   sites within the SHLAA that may cause an adverse effect upon Natura 2000 sites are removed there
   would still be sufficient land available to accommodate the amount of development proposed in the
   Core Strategy.
• An assessment should be undertaken of the potential visitor impacts on Natura 2000 sites arising from
   development proposed within the Core Strategy. This information should be used to assess the likely
   impact of each proposed allocation in the future Site Specific Proposals document.

We wish to attend the Examination In Public of the Core Strategy, specifically sessions that address the
evidence-base, spatial strategy and environmental assets.

We trust that these comments are helpful. If you have any further queries on the issues discussed above,
please do not hesitate to contact me. We would be happy to meet to discuss our comments and to provide
further advice on the proposed plan.

Yours sincerely,




Philip Pearson (Dr)
Assistant Conservation Officer
RSPB Eastern England Regional Office




                                                 Page 3 of 6
Annex to the RSPB response to the Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk’s
                     Core Strategy and supporting documents.


1. Concerns over the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) conclusions
As highlighted in the cover letter, the RSPB disagrees with the assertion that “…the indications are that the
populations of many of these species using the SPA are increasing, and have not adversely suffered from increasing
visitor levels over recent years” and the conclusion that impacts do not need to be assessed. Within the Wash,
North Norfolk Coast and Breckland Special Protection Areas (SPAs) there are a number of species that have
been shown to be particularly susceptible to recreational disturbance.

For waterbirds, the total assemblage counts from the WeBS have shown a recent population decline: the total
assemblages (to the nearest 1,000) are:
         03-04 - 338/-
         04-05 - 370/-
         05-06 - 398/-
         06-07 - 380/-
         07-08 - 370/-
I have already provided links in the cover letter to the WeBS data on specific species and sites that could be
affected by the policies proposed in the Core Strategy. In order to address the issue of the impact of
recreational disturbance on waterbirds a thorough, spatially-based assessment is likely to be required. An
assessment using WeBS sector data may be suitable for assessing recreational impacts on SPA birds on the
Wash and North Norfolk Coast. This should be discussed with Natural England and the RSPB. Any
assessment would have to be undertaken by the British Trust for Ornithology who hold the necessary data.

In our written representation to the Examination In Public of Forest Heath District Council’s Core strategy,4
we raised concerns over the declines in the woodlark and nightjar populations in the Breckland Special
Protection Area (SPA). There is no clear evidence to explain the decline, but it could be due, at least in part,
to the direct and indirect effects of development, roads and recreation within and in close proximity to the
SPA. Work on the Dorset Heathlands SPA and Thames Basin Heaths SPA has found these species to be
particular susceptible to recreational disturbance, with no evidence that mitigation for these impacts is
possible.

The available data clearly do not support the statement within the HRA that SPA bird populations are
increasing, and should prompt a revision of the HRA to confirm the conclusion that the Core Strategy will
not result in adverse effects on the SPAs. The revision should be based on sound, documented evidence,
which should be appropriately referenced – currently there is no reference list within the HRA.

2. Monitoring the influence of visitor numbers to Natura 2000 sites
We disagree strongly that the evidence produced in the HRA can conclude that there will be no adverse
effect to the Natura 2000 sites, as no assessment has been made of increased number of people within 10km
of the Wash, North Norfolk Coast and Breckland SPAs during the plan period. Without a clear
understanding of current visitor numbers and their distribution, it is not possible to assess the likely future
changes and thus conclude that the proposed Plan will have no adverse effects on Natura 2000 sites arising
from recreational disturbance. In order to identify any extra visitor pressure to these Natura 2000 sites
effectively a survey of visitor numbers should have been established as part of the initial assessment process
to provide a baseline from which the likely additional impact on visitor pressure to the Natura 2000 sites can
be assessed. The RSPB considers that the promise of post-construction monitoring of effects cannot be used
now to conclude that there will not be an adverse effect on international sites, as it cannot prevent such an
effect, merely report it – an approach contrary to the requirements of The Conservation (Natural Habitats,
&c.) Regulations (as amended).


4   Norden M., 2009. DPD Matter 2: Justification – the Evidence base.

                                                                Page 4 of 6
Even if baseline data enabled a conclusion that no adverse effects were expected, on-going monitoring
would still be needed to assess future visitor impacts and appropriate steps would need to be taken to
remove an adverse effect if an adverse effect was identified. Consideration would need to be given to the
speed with which mitigation measures could be implemented.

3. Managing the Breckland SPA requires a sub-regional approach
The RSPB advocate close working between the four Local Planning Authorities relevant to the Breckland
SPA to ensure more effective protection of the SPA. Such work would have the benefits of consistent
methodology, greater coverage and potentially lower costs to each Council and is likely to include joint
monitoring of the impact of the four LDFs upon the SPA features and/or further research work to improve
the evidence-base.

In the Appropriate Assessment Table 2 of the HRA, it is stated that “…policy wording or supporting text to
explain that the council is committed to ensuring sustainable levels of recreation in and around the Breckland SPA, and
work with partners including Natural England, RSPB and Forestry Commission to develop a strategy that sets out an
access management and monitoring programme that provides measures to prevent increasing visitor pressure” should
be included in the relevant policies. The council will need to have evidence that it will be possible to work
with Natural England, the Forestry Commission and RSPB to develop such a strategy. Without this certainty
there will be little weight to this point when considering mitigation, and we seek clarification of this point
from the council.

4. Stone-curlew breed outside of the Breckland SPA in west Norfolk
The RSPB is concerned by the prospect of any development proposals within the Grimston area and near
South Creake because of the use of these areas by stone-curlew. The RSPB considers that development in
these areas is likely to disturb a protected species of European importance and damage its habitat.

Stone-curlew is listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive, as a species requiring special conservation measures
concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. It is
also listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), giving it special protection
at all times: the Act makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb any bird so listed whilst it is
nest-building or at (or near) a nest with eggs or young, or to disturb the dependant young of such a bird.
Reckless damage, destruction or obstruction to a place used by species listed in Schedule 1 are also offences.

Stone-curlew are highly sensitive to the built environment, roads, “urban effects” (for example, lights and
noise) and human disturbance 5,6 with harmful effects found at distances of up to 2500m. Screening to reduce
the effects of development by vegetation has not been shown to reduce this effect. The findings of Footprint
Ecology’s work2 has encouraged Breckland District Council in its proposed Core Strategy and Development
Control Policy submission to place a 1500m development constraint buffer around the Breckland Special
Protection Area (SPA) to ensure no adverse effect upon the integrity of the SPA. We are pleased that the
Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk has chosen to adopt the same measure in their Core
Strategy.

In addition to the stone-curlew population in the Breckland SPA, monitoring of the west Norfolk area has
located a number of breeding stone-curlew within 1500m of both Grimston and South Creake. It is possible
that other birds exist in this area that simple may not have been identified due to lack of survey effort.
Although these populations of Stone-curlew lie outside of a protected site, Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive
protects birds, such as the stone-curlew, that are listed in Annex I to the Directive. Article 4(4) states that
“Member States shall strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats” for listed species. A recent judgment of
the European Court of Justice (C-418/04 Commission vs Ireland) states that Member States must make serious


5Day, T.C.F., 2003. The effects of disturbance from roads on stone curlews in southern England. PhD.
6Liley, D., Hoskin, R., Underhill-Day, J., & Tyldesley, D., 2008. Habitats Regulations Assessment: Breckland council Submission Core
Strategy and Development Control Policies. Footprint Ecology. At: http://www.breckland.gov.uk/habitats_regulation_assessment.pdf

                                                            Page 5 of 6
attempts to implement this provision: this requires the taking of all reasonable measures to avoid pollution
or deterioration of the species’ habitats (paras 179 and 190). In addition, as an Annex 1 species, article 4(1) of
the Birds Directive applies requiring member states to take special conservation measures affording these
birds additional protection throughout its European range. It is important that any developments proposed
within stone-curlew areas are suitably assessed for this species, and suggest that the council consider a
buffer approach around the populations outside the Breckland SPA.

5. Technical points for amendment in the HRA
In section 4.3 of the HRA, the list of plans and projects does not identify the documents that are being looked
at, and makes no reference to the East of England Plan. The list also includes the 1500m stone-curlew
constraint zone, which is a policy taken from documents such as Breckland District Council’s Core Strategy;
the documents should therefore be referred to but not the specific policy. If the stone-curlew 1500m buffer is
to be retained on the list then the 400m constraint zone policy for woodlark and nightjar also warrants
inclusion.




                                                    Page 6 of 6
                                                                                       Page 1 of 2




 Dave Allen

 From:          Dave Allen
 Sent:          24 February 2010 17:15
 To:            'rosecroft2005@hotmail.co.uk'
 Subject:       RE: Core Stategy Submission Document
 Importance: High
 Attachments: Rep. Form.doc; Notes.rtf

Mrs Sumner rang Brad 25 Feb to confirm receipt of e-mail but state she would await Site
Specific work and not pursue at present



I refer to your email concerning the above.

Work on the Core Strategy has now reached a formal stage in which the document must
meet specified requirements to satisfy the future Examination in Public. This means that
representations made now must be restricted to a test of “Soundness” i.e.

       Has the document been produced in a manner that is legally compliant?
       Is the content of the document justified, effective and consistent with national
       policy

The current document has evolved from our consideration of numerous comments received
from many individuals and organisations over recent years. These comments have
addressed issues raised from evidence gathered from commissioned studies, public
meetings, exhibitions and direct consultation with many stakeholders and statutory
partners. As a consequence, the document strives to balance these issues and guide
future decision making by both the Council and its partners.

Before the Examination in Public, the independent Inspector must assess all written
representations, both as direct contributions to the test of Soundness and also to assist in
determining which matters ought be carried forward into public debate at the hearing. This
means that representations must be made in a structured manner:

       Comments must be clearly separated into individual submissions to avoid any
       uncertainty and confusion arising from reference to multiple issues
       Each submission must identify the particular section of the document in question and,
       if objecting or seeking change, state which of the above tests it fails to meet (i.e. legal
       compliance, justification, effectiveness and/or consistency)
       An explanation must be included why this issue is at fault; this should be
       accompanied by documentary evidence to support this contention or clear reference
       to other published documents
       You should also offer an alternative form of words which would meet with your
       satisfaction based on the evidence you identify

I acknowledge this is a complex process but it is not one of our making and I would not
want to see your views excluded from the Inspector’s consideration as a result of any
failure to comply. For this reason I attach the form you should have used in your
submission; please complete and return it immediately if you want your comments to go
forward




09/11/2010
                                                                                                  Page 2 of 2




Dave Allen - Principal Planner (LDF)
Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk

01553 616444


    Please do not print this e-mail unless absolutely necessary - SAVE PAPER!


From: rosecroft2005@hotmail.co.uk [mailto:rosecroft2005@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: 24 February 2010 16:58
To: ldf@west-norfolk.gov.uk
Subject: Core Stategy Submission Document

Dear Sir,       my thoughts on the above document are that given that only 8% of new builds is being
proposed for Rural Villages ,that those sites that are presently outside of the boundary will also be given
some consideration too. My own SSA 56 site is in this situation but is a very important site as far as any new
development is concerned . I feel that this is a very relevent and important point to take into
consideration .Yours Faithfully Mrs Linda Sumner




09/11/2010
                                                                                                  Page 1 of 1




Dave Allen

 From:    rosecroft2005@hotmail.co.uk
 Sent:    24 February 2010 16:58
 To:      ldf@west-norfolk.gov.uk
 Subject: Core Stategy Submission Document


Dear Sir,       my thoughts on the above document are that given that only 8% of new builds is being
proposed for Rural Villages ,that those sites that are presently outside of the boundary will also be given
some consideration too. My own SSA 56 site is in this situation but is a very important site as far as any
new development is concerned . I feel that this is a very relevent and important point to take into
consideration .Yours Faithfully Mrs Linda Sumner




09/11/2010

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:46
posted:12/21/2012
language:Unknown
pages:122
zhaonedx zhaonedx http://
About