Public reports pack PDF 633 KB - Breckland Council

BRECKLAND COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMITTEE - 11-03-2013impact the designated features. The HRA should also include an assessment of water supply forthe development and any measures that may need to be put in place to ensure that there will notbe an adverse effect on the designated site.The proposal does not appear to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes or havesignificant impacts on the conservation of soils, nor is the proposal EIA development.No objections regarding protected species, advice that permission could be granted (subject toother constraints) and that the authority should consider requesting enhancements.NATURAL ENGLANDNatural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that thenatural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and futuregenerations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.Natural England has previously commented on this proposal and made comments to theauthority in our letter dated 12 February 2013.The advice provided in our previous response applies equally to this amendment although wemade no objection to the original proposal.The proposed amendments to the original application relate largely to design, and are unlikely tohave significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal.Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the naturalenvironment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and RuralCommunities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.NORFOLK WILDLIFE TRUSTAlthough some elements have been removed from the proposals that were put forward underapplication number 3PL/2012/0265, no further information has been submitted, as regardsimpacts on biodiversity and the ecological assessment (dated July 2011) is the same aspreviously submitted with no updating since that time.As a result we stand by the comments that we made for the previous application:"It is not clear from the information provided, whether elements of this application are beingtreated as a retrospective application. In our view, there needs to be an assessment by the localauthority as to whether these works should have been subject to planning permission. If it isdecided that these works should have been subject to planning permission the decisionsregarding impacts on biodiversity need to have regard to the ecological value of the land beforeworks took place and not to the value as described in the ecological assessment that wassupplied with the application. This is because it is apparent from information supplied by othersthat damage to wildlife habitats as a result of works on the site had taken place before theassessment was carried out."In addition, to the above we fully support the views of the Tree and Countryside Officer withregard to Regulation 61 of the Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.19/2We have commented on this proposal previously, before the current amendments and thesecomments are additional to those made at that time, regarding the need for the planning authorityDC131_new33