It’s becoming quite a battle to find one’s way onto the East Northants Council’s planning part of their website, and an increasing struggle to navigate through the comments to find what one might be looking for.
But these are my latest comments on the planning proposal to build a large set of broiler houses 7 miles from where I live.
Previous blogs: (see my blogs here, here, here, here, here and here) and Tim Reed’s guest blog which was on the more general issues surrounding the quality of data available to inform these decisions.
Comments further to my objection to planning proposal 17/01328/FUL | Erection of 10 No. poultry buildings and associated infrastructure (as set out in Table 1 of Design and Access Statement Oct 2017) and upgrading works to access track – application accompanied by Environmental Statement (EIA) | Land North East Of Westwood AD Plant Bedford Road Rushden Northamptonshire.
- Access to the East Northants Council planning website
I have made several attempts to review information during the past two weeks and the system has been down, previous links no longer work, my password generated an incomprehensible error message, there is still no deadline for comments indicated and all-in-all the system is a massive barrier to public responses – a bit of a drawback since that is what it is there to elicit.
- Agent correspondence (ecologist) dated 1 November on website (document undated)
Great crested newt
The consultant confirms that ‘A full data search was not undertaken for this extended phase 1 habitat survey. This is a departure from best practice. ‘. It is – it is a very poor job in my opinion. The consultant tries to justify this by writing ‘However, because of the small scale of the proposals and the limited risk of impacts in the immediate surroundings and away from the site, it was not considered necessary to obtain data on species and locally protected sites outside of the site boundaries.’ – this is simply nonsense. The purpose of the exercise is to assess the risk of impacts not to assume that they are low right from the beginning. The consultants go on to say ‘No constraints were such that they affect the overall conclusions and recommendations made in the report’ – this is nonsense. Assessing the impacts properly is what is needed – best practice is what is required and the consultants admit that they did not follow best practice – end of argument.
Dormice
Best practice was not followed in the original work and the consultants now concede there is good reason to suspect that Dormice might be present within 1km of this site. This requires better investigation than has been carried out.
Clearly, the work done to date cannot rule out whether Dormice are present in the hedgerows around the site all year round – no-one has looked to see. This requires better investigation than has been carried out.
If Dormice are present then this is a matter that would require consideration by the planning authorities, and that is true whether or not their presence is year-round or whether the hedges are used as corridors between separated woodlands in the area. This requires better investigation than has been carried out.
The consultants have not provided any assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the suitability of the hedgerows for Dormice other than that they wouldn’t be completely destroyed. The impacts of the proposed development would be to increase disturbance from traffic, noise and lighting. This requires better investigation than has been carried out.
Bats
The consultants rely on the fact that the trees which have suitable locations for bat roosts will remain in situ were the proposed development to go ahead. They do not assess properly the impacts of the development on the suitability of the potential roosts for bats post-development with increased disturbance, lighting and noise. This requires better investigation than has been carried out.
The consultants appear to concede that the area next to the small wood is suitable for bats to feed. They rely on the fact that the wood will not be completely destroyed to suggest that there may be no impact. This ignores the increased disturbance, lighting and noise. This requires better investigation than has been carried out.
Bat boxes will be completely useless if the area is highly disturbed.
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area for birds
The consultants have no answer to this point.
Natural England has updated its advice and told East Northants Council to take account of this issue.
A local resident has submitted observations of the presence of relevant species, Lapwing and Golden Plover, on the site itself.
I’m no lawyer, but if you do not take account of this issue fully then I suggest ENC would be open to judicial review on any permission you gave to this development having been informed of the issue, having been told by NE to consider it properly and having had an observations from a local resident of the presence of relevant species, Lapwing and Golden Plover, on the site.
The Phase 1 habitat survey does not meet professional guidelines and is not fit for purpose
The consultants are waffling here. The survey was carried out on one day in adverse weather conditions at a time of year which could not lead to the identification of those species present only in the summer nor those present only in winter. It’s wholly inadequate.
- Natural England comments
I cannot see anything in the responses from the applicant’s agent that addresses these comments of Natural England:
‘The consultation documents provided do not include information to demonstrate that the requirements of Regulations 61 and 62 of the Habitats Regulations have been considered, ie the consultation does not include a Habitats Regulations Assessment. In advising your authority on the requirements relating to Habitats Regulations Assessment, it is Natural England’s advice that the proposal is not necessary for the management of the European site and that your authority should therefore determine whether the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on any European site, proceeding to the Appropriate Assessment stage where significant effects cannot be ruled out. Natural England advises that there is currently not enough information to determine whether the likelihood of significant effects can be ruled out, but provides the following recommendations for obtaining further information (and undertaking a Habitats Regulations Assessment if such effects cannot be ruled out):
- air quality assessment for all stages of the operation
- survey and/assessment of the site as potential functionally linked land’
Dr Mark Avery
28 November 2018
[registration_form]
I fully sympathise with your observations of the ENC Planning Portal. I have yet to come across any LPA Planning Portal which is remotely useable by the public (and I have used a few – but not ENC’s). I’ve always suspected that such portals are deliberately designed to discourage public use – I argue semi-seriously it was part of the Coalition Government’s push to ‘speed-up planning’ in favour of the developer (the assumption now being officially in favour of the developer) and against the currently deliberately demonised and tarred ‘NIMBYs’. Disappointedly, in my experience, portals for Public Inquiries are no better:-(
Good luck with this campaign Mark. I’m glad to see that air quality and functionally linked land forms part of the NE vocabulary. I hope NE colleagues further north take note and apply these principles to the burning moors of the North East Peak and how this might affect the welfare of those people more at risk of flooding as a result.