MM20

In summary, the changes set out in the Main Modifications serve to increase the effectiveness and consequent soundness of the Local Plan.

Anglian Water notes the increase in housing numbers overall, the increased focus on urban Colchester to deliver more new homes and the deletion of one of the Garden Communities from the Plan. I have reviewed Anglian Water’s previous comments and also note that Anglian Water did not enter into a Statement of Common Ground with the Council. I note that no changes are proposed in relation to the Copford and Langham developments in connection with their wastewater infrastructure requirements.

Anglian Water broadly supports the Main Modifications. In addition to the retention of text covering wastewater infrastructure and environmental policy and the monitoring of policy in decisions and outcomes we specifically support the following changes:

ENV1
13.8. The inclusion of the requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain and its addition to Policy ENV1.
13.X. The clarification that in making decisions the Council will seek to encourage development proposals which improve the quality of the water environment.
Policy ENV1. Inclusion of the reference to the Anglian River Basin Management Plan.
ENV3 & CC1 -
Policy ENV3. Additional support for green infrastructure measures to protect and enhance water bodies as this supports the existing SuDS policies.
13.49, 13.50 AM23 and Policy CC1. Specific targets for increasing tree canopy cover as this nature based solutions are one element of Anglian Water’s own pathway to get to net zero by 2030.
PP1
Policy PP1. Clarification that proposals must also demonstrate adequate water supply network enhancements.
SC1
14.X. The inclusion of the ABRO site. Please see Anglian Water’s comments dated 27 October 2021.
SC2
14.60. The inclusion of the requirement that proposals for the Middlewick Ranges site make contributions towards the costs of delivering flood defence and management solutions in view of its location in the Critical Drainage Area.
SS2
14.137. Clarification through deletion that enhancements to wastewater treatment and sewerage infrastructure are not needed in Boxted to serve the Hill Farm development.
SS12c
14.206. Confirmation that all criteria must be meet by development proposals including adequate wastewater treatment and sewage infrastructure capacity.
DM11
15.49. Confirmation that sites will be required to have water and sewage infrastructure and be connected to the mains sewer system.
DM13
15.66. Inclusion of water efficiency as one of the ways in which the existing housing stock when it is extended or altered can help to address climate change given that water and wastewater provision uses energy
DM23
15.139. The update to the position on Critical Drainage Areas identified by ECC and the consequent need to ensure that surface water flooding is considered in developments in and near these locations including the use of SuDS to deliver betterment for the existing and new communities.
DM25
15.149 and 15.150. Full reference to the Water Cycle Study. 15.151. Inclusion of the reference on higher water efficiency standards and the consequent importance of Building Regulations for water body quality.

Natural England’s concerns about text and policy wording in the submission draft Section 2 Local Plan have been addressed in the main modifications. However, within the full schedule of main modifications, there are certain cases of text and policy wording that may require amendment for clarity. Our observations and recommended adjustments to the main modifications are set out below

MM20
Part C of the policy (ENV1) relates to the Biodiversity and Geodiversity merits of a proposal. Part C sets out the policy requirement for all proposals in the first section and the second section concerns proposals that would cause significant harm to designated sites, protected species, habitats and species of principle importance. It is a concern that the proposed wording for the policy indicates that the expectations in relation to mitigation and biodiversity net gain (BNG) for developments that have adverse effects on biodiversity are less stringent than for those developments that would not cause such adverse impacts. The key criteria to compare would be
criterion (v) of the first section and criterion (iii) of the second section. The fact that criterion (iii) seems to set a lower bar means that there is also an inconsistency between the proposed wording of the policy and the proposed modification to paragraph 13.8 (MM17) which states that: “As a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain is required…”. Also, the specific wording proposed for criterion (iii) would mean that either “satisfactory biodiversity net gain” or “mitigation” are required to meet the criterion rather than both being required.

MM47
As this site (Middlewick Ranges) is not a nationally designated site, Natural England did not make any comment on its draft allocation as a growth area at the Regulation 19 stage. However, the site is designated as a Local Wildlife Site and, accordingly, the Local Planning Authority will need to demonstrate that it has had regard to its statutory duty to conserve biodiversity (under S40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006) when it develops the site’s masterplan and determines any planning application for the development of the site. Consideration will also need to be given to relevant National Planning Policy (particularly Paragraphs 174, 175, 179, and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework) and relevant Local Plan policy, including draft policy ENV1 referred to above. In this context, the Local Authority should give careful consideration to
survey information that has very recently come to light concerning the presence of a number of Section 41 invertebrate species at the site. It is noted that a large number of main modifications are proposed to the text in the preamble to the policy and to the wording of the policy itself, some of which relate to the impacts of the
development upon the site’s recognised biodiversity value and how those impacts will be identified, avoided, mitigated and compensated for. Proposed modifications to text and policy also identify the minimum expectation for biodiversity net gain. The modified text and policy refer variously to “compensation/mitigation land”, “mitigation land” and “net gain land”. It is understood that these references are to land immediately to the south of the growth area site that will host compensatory habitat created by the physical relocation of acid grassland moved from the ranges within the development site. There should be consistency in the terms used to describe this land and it should also be defined on the proposals map for clarity as its location is not apparent from the text in the preamble to the Policy. In addition, there is an inconsistency between the preamble and the policy on the expectation for BNG that the development will deliver. The preamble text at proposed modified paragraph 15.56 (MM37) states “the Council will be seeking a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain on the development site..”(our emphasis) whereas the modified policy text at criterion (vii) is less explicit. As a result, it is not clear whether the BNG could be secured on the “mitigation land” which would risk confusion between measures which are compensatory and those which are clearly BNG. In addition, the preamble text states “the Council will be seeking a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain on the development site, following the application of the mitigation hierarchy,…” (our emphasis). This text should also be included in the policy-wording so that it is clear (in line with the precautionary principle) that the mitigation hierarchy has been applied before any assessment of BNG is made. In view of the precautionary principle, the Local Planning Authority will also need to satisfy itself that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that acid grassland turf can be successfully translocated. Without the evidence, there must be doubt that the relocated habitat (both in terms of the habitat and the species it supports) qualifies as “compensation”, as required by the principles set out in paragraph 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Lastly, it should be noted that the Environment Bill now has royal assent so reference in the paragraph 15.58 to “emerging legislation (Environment Bill 2020)” could be updated.

MM66
This policy (SS12b) applies to proposals for development on the seaward and landward side of Coast Road, West Mersea and sets out the criteria that such proposals would need to comply with. Criterion (iii) relates to the consideration of effects on adjacent Habitats sites and references the Essex Coast RAMS. As worded in the main modification, this policy would require that development either has no likely significant effect on the adjacent Habitats Site or that it provides mitigation in accordance with the Essex Coast RAMS. As these development proposals could include residential development, there is the potential for both direct impacts as well as in-combination impacts and it is recommended that the modified wording is amended by the deletion of “or” and insertion in its place of the words “and, where appropriate,”.

MM81
Whilst noting that this main modification (to move the text from preamble to Policy) responds to one of our previous recommendations, a further minor modification might give more clarity to the meaning of the statement. This would be achieved by moving the second sentence to the end so that it would read as follows: Proposals in close proximity to a habitats site must demonstrate through HRA screening that the scheme will not lead to likely significant effects to the integrity of the habitats site. Where this cannot be ruled out a full appropriate assessment will be required to be undertaken. Additionally, any planning application within 400 metres of a habitats site must provide mechanisms to prevent
fly tipping, the introduction of invasive species and vandalism.

Policy Env1(D) Add the following words after “veteran trees”
“And Lowland Acid Grassland”

Policy ENV1(D) MM20
Lowland Acid Grassland should be recognized as an irreplaceable habitat.

See attachment for full representation