Support

Development Management Submission Document

Representation ID: 32750

Received: 18/07/2013

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

Support whole document

Overall we are satisfied that the above DPD adequately considers the impacts on the natural environment. We previously commented (on the Rochford District Development Management DPD Preferred Policy Options) on 27 February 2012 and note that whilst many important amendments have been made to this document following our advice, some of our previous recommendations were not taken into account. We have referred to these again below but would recommend that this response is read in conjunction with our previous response (our reference 43442).

Full text:

ROCHFORD DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SUBMISSION DOCUMENT

Thank you for your letter dated 3 June 2013, consulting Natural England on the Rochford Development Management Submission document.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

General Comments

Overall we are satisfied that the above DPD adequately considers the impacts on the natural environment. We previously commented (on the Rochford District Development Management DPD Preferred Policy Options) on 27 February 2012 and note that whilst many important amendments have been made to this document following our advice, some of our previous recommendations were not
taken into account. We have referred to these again below but would recommend that this response is read in conjunction with our previous response (our reference 43442).

1. Introduction

Natural England has no specific comments relating to the Introduction section.

2. Housing, Character of Place and Residential Amenity

Natural England welcomes the short, medium and long term visions for the district and is broadly in agreement with the policies presented in this section, including those relating to the design of new developments, light pollution and telecommunications. However, we advise you to refer to our previous response regarding recommendations for changes in wording within Objective 7 (previously 8), Draft Policy DM1 and Paragraph 2.39, Environmental Zone 1 (in relation to lighting). We note our changes have been incorporated into the Telecommunications section.

It is important to ensure that the retention of the green belt is not at the expense of areas that support wildlife within the town, including locally designated wildlife areas (local wildlife sites/county wildlife sites), brownfield sites and undesignated areas that provide both habitat for wildlife and ecological continuity. Gardens and allotments are also important, both in terms of increasing the biodiversity value
associated with new developments and improving the health and wellbeing of residents. We advise that these points should be reflected within the medium/long range vision.

3. The Green Belt and Countryside

We welcome the short, medium and long term visions, particularly in terms of protecting the openness and character of the greenbelt, green tourism and new strategies for improving access to the countryside. However, we find that, whilst protection for areas of nature conservation is frequently referred to in this section, enhancement is not. We consider that the section should be updated to
reflect the need for protection and enhancement, for example in the following sections:

Objective 1 should read as follows:
'Continue to protect and enhance biodiversity whilst protecting the openness and character of the District's Green Belt'.

In the Green Tourism section (page 46), we would recommend that a paragraph is added detailing how funds raised by green tourism may be used to protect and enhance sites of ecological importance.

We also recommend that further provisions are included in Draft Policy DM23, Conservation Areas and the Green Belt, to protect and enhance areas of biodiversity and geodiversity interest when defining what should be considered acceptable development.

Also note our comments in the previous section regarding brownfield sites and ecological linkages.

4. Environmental Issues

We broadly agree with the vision, objectives and policies in this section, including Policy DM27, Species and Habitat Protection, Policy DM25 Trees and Woodlands and Policy DM26, Other important landscape features. In our view the policies in this section are all well considered and sufficiently comprehensive.

We recommend that Point 3 in the short term vision should read:
'Local, national and international sites of nature conservation importance are protected and enhanced.' It is noted that enhancement is included as a medium term aim, but enhancement should actually be reflected in current, as well as in future decision making.

The vision

Natural England advises you to add a bullet on improving ecological connections between local and national sites and the wider countryside, which should build in detail over the short, medium and long term visions. This is in view of the aims of the NPPF to improve the network of wildlife areas within the UK, in accordance with the findings of 'Making Space for Nature' (2012) and the Natural Environment
white paper (2012).

We trust that the comments above are helpful. For any correspondence or queries relating to this consultation response please do not hesitate to contact me using the details below. For all other correspondence, please contact the Natural England consultations email address at consultations@naturalengland.org.uk