Policy NE5 Biodiversity and Biodiversity Net Gain

Would suggest that a reference is made in the supporting text and that the policy itself could be expanded with the following wording:

Opportunities to conserve, protect, enhance and recover biodiversity and contribute to wildlife and habitats' connectivity will be undertaken, including the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations having regard to the LNRS to identify such opportunities.

Summary of advice
While we have raised some queries and recommended some further modifications to certain policies we do not find the Plan unsound on any grounds relating to our remit.
Natural England has reviewed the Proposed Submission Local Plan and accompanying appendices together with the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Our detailed comments on the policies and site allocations are provided as follows:
• Annex 1 - Chapter 2 – Vision and Strategic Objectives
• Annex 2 - Chapter 4 – Climate Change and the Natural Environment
• Annex 3 - Chapter 5 (Housing) and Chapter 6 – (Place-making, Health and Well-being)
• Annex 4 - Chapter 7 (Employment and Economy) and Chapter 8 (Transport and
Accessibility)
• Annex 5 - Chaper 10 – Strategic and Area Based Policies
Please note that we have not provided comments on all policies but those which have most influence on environmental issues. Natural England has no comment to make on the policies not covered in this response. Other than confirming that we have referred to it when considering our advice on specific policies and site allocations Natural England has no general comments to make on the SA.
Unfortunately due to unforeseen resourcing issues while we have reviewed the associated HRA we are not in a position to provide detailed comment on it as part of this response. We will rectify this as soon as possible and can confirm that we have seen nothing in it that raises any major concerns.
The Plan has many positive aspects including standalone policies on Green Infrastructure (GI) and
wildlife corridors and an incredibly extensive suite of natural environment policies more generally.
We are hugely appreciative of the opportunity that we were given to work with you on shaping key policies post-Regulation 18. However, we believe that the plan needs to go further in it’s recognition of coastal squeeze as a key issue for the district, should include policy hooks for the forthcoming Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) and make up to date references to both the Environment Act (2021) and the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP, 2023). Given how recent the publication of the EIP is we would be happy to discuss with your authority how this could best be achieved but
we believe given the wealth of natural capital within Chichester District it is vitally important that this latest iteration of the Local Plan is set in its full policy and legislative context.
We have suggested a significant number of amendments and additions to both policies and
supporting text throughout the Plan. In our view these could all be taken forward as minor modifications but if they were all acted upon they would leave the Plan much stronger and more coherent in delivering for the natural environment, one of the three central tenets of genuinely
sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021,
paragraph 8c).

See attachment for representations on paragraphs/policies.

The RSPB supports Policy NE5 in general regarding the clearly outlined list of sites requiring conservation, protection, enhancement, and restoration of biodiversity in the district.

However, the RSPB would like to see more ambitious targets for nature recovery through Biodiversity Net Gain. Advice to Defra from members of the Natural Capital Committee suggests that a level of net gain at or above 10% is necessary to give reasonable confidence in halting biodiversity losses. Therefore, 10% sits as an absolute minimum level of net gain for Defra to confidently expect to deliver genuine net gain, or at least no net loss, of biodiversity and thereby meet its policy objectives . Defra’s Biodiversity Net Gain Consultation Impact Assessment also highlights examples of an increase in the required percentage of net gain: ‘The Planning authority for Lichfield District requires a net gain of 20% on new development, and experience to date suggests that developers are able to meet this requirement and often achieve much greater levels of biodiversity net gain.’ The RSPB would therefore like to see the implementation of policy around Biodiversity Net Gain with a suggested minimum of 20% within Chichester district and around the county of Sussex, in order to gain a greater level of certainty for genuine net gain as a result of Biodiversity Net Gain policy and to see tangible net gain benefits for key priority species and habitats in the Borough.

Kent Nature Partnership have also explored the option of promoting a 20% BNG target for the county with a Viability Assessment commissioned by Kent County Council. Results of the assessment show that a shift from 10% to 15% or 20% BNG as a requirement will not materially affect viability in the majority of instances when delivered onsite or offsite. The biggest cost in most cases is to get to a mandatory, minimum 10% BNG. The increase to 15% or 20% BNG in most cases costs much less and is generally negligible. Because the BNG costs are low when compared to other policy costs, in no cases are they likely to be what renders development unviable.

Examples of its application can also be found in other counties in the South East, such as Surrey Nature Partnership. Further information on the recommendation for 20% Biodiversity Net Gain in Surrey’s Local Authorities can be found on the Surrey Nature Partnership website . In addition, various Local Planning Authorities are currently pursuing a 20% BNG requirement in Local Plans, such as Guildford and Mole Valley in Surrey, and Worthing in Sussex.

Links to reports mentioned above can be found below:
Defra (2018) Biodiversity Net Gain Consultation Impact Assessment. Page 19. https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/net-gain/supporting_documents/181121%20%20Biodiversity%20Net%20Gain%20Consultation%20IA%20FINAL%20for%20publication.pdf
SQW (2022) Viability Assessment of Biodiversity Net Gain in Kent. https://kentnature.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Viability-Assessment-of-Biodiversity-Net-Gain-in-Kent-June-2022.pdf
Surrey Nature Partnership (2020) Recommendation for adoption of 20% minimum biodiversity net gain across Surrey’s planning sector: a Surrey Nature Partnership Position Statement. https://surreynaturepartnership.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/recommendation-for-20-bng-in-surrey_snp-november2020_final.pdf

Premier agree with the premise of Draft Policy NE5 and the acknowledge the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement is consistent with the Environment Bill 2021 which requires developments to achieve a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain from November 2023 (exact date TBC).
Premier recognise the unique qualities of the Chichester Marina’s location and rural countryside setting, and considers that the protection of the environmental and landscape quality is extremely important. Premier acts as the long-term manager and steward of the Site and seeks to actively and appropriately manage users and the environmental setting for the benefit of existing wildlife and in in the interests of protecting key tidal habits and enhancing biodiversity.
Premier suggests Draft Policy NE5 is amended to make specific reference to the completion of the ‘relevant Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.1 (or equivalent)’ as part of the Biodiversity Appraisal requirement in the interests of soundness to ensure the policy wording is effective and measurable, and also consistent with national policy in line with paragraph 35 (c and d) of the NPPF.

The inclusion of B and 3c referencing irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees, is welcome and appropriate. (For consistency, 3c should probably add ", ancient" before "and veteran trees".)

See attached representation.

See attachment.

This representation is made by SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Southern Ltd (SUEZ), who along
with SUEZ Recycling & Recovery UK Ltd forms part of the SUEZ group of companies within
the UK. This representation is made in response to the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039
Proposed Submission consultation.

SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Southern Ltd are the landowner of part of the land subject to the
draft strategic site allocation ‘Land East of Chichester’ identified in draft Policy A8.

Offsite provision and biodiversity credits should be resisted as it will not result in any biodiversity gain for the development site and could lead to a significant loss.

a. Where an adverse impact on biodiversity is unavoidable, and no other option is available, this will only be supported where it has been demonstrated that the impact has been minimised as far as possible and, as a last resort, appropriate compensation provided for any remaining adverse impacts;

There can be no compensation for any adverse impact on biodiversity. If that is the case planning permission should be refused at the outset.

Offsite provision and biodiversity credits should be resisted as it will not result in any bio diversity gain for the development site and could lead to a significant loss.

a. Where an adverse impact on biodiversity is unavoidable, and no other option is available, this will only be supported where it has been demonstrated that the impact has been minimised as far as possible and, as a last resort, appropriate compensation provided for any remaining adverse impacts;
There can be no compensation for any adverse impact on biodiversity. If that is the case planning permission should be refused at the outset.