Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Assessment Framework
Search form responses
Results for Sussex Wildlife Trust search
New searchAs mentioned previously, the Sussex Wildlife Trust believes that this DPD should require a higher level of BNG delivery of at least 20%. We would also like to see this delivery primarily targeted in the wildlife corridors and their buffers. Any delivery of SANGs should be separate to both the wildlife corridors and BNG delivery.
No uploaded files for public display
We strongly support the recognition of the two wildlife corridors in the BLD, along with the other environmental influences listed in paragraphs 2.27 – 2.31. We also agree with the conclusion in 2.32 that a 50 meter buffer is likely to be required in relation to Ham Brook and Lumley chalk streams. We are concerned that the natural influences in the area may make the level of development proposed in the DPD difficult to achieve, particularly given the large Brent Geese Secondary Support Area. We agree that the wider landscape and ecology designations in the area should be seen as an opportunity as they provide good access to nature for future residents, along with many wider benefits and fundamental ecosystem services. Overall, the designations offer the opportunity for a nature positive development that contributes to nature’s recovery and mitigates and adapts to climate change. This should be a clear requirement of any DPD policy.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
As mentioned previously, the Sussex Wildlife Trust believes that this DPD should require a higher level of BNG delivery of at least 20%. We would also like to see this delivery primarily targeted in the wildlife corridors and their buffers. Any delivery of SANGs should be separate to both the wildlife corridors and BNG delivery.
No uploaded files for public display
We note that all three of the scenarios are assessed as having ‘no impact on wildlife corridors. Potential to enhance wildlife corridors through BNG requirements’. This is welcomed, however it is not clear if the assessment of ‘no impact’ is purely down to there being no suggested land take/encroachment into the corridor or whether there has been an assessment of potential indirect impacts? Overall, a sufficiently wide and ecologically appropriate buffer could address most impacts, but this must be properly implemented given the vulnerability of chalk streams. As noted in previous questions, we are concerned about the ability of loss to the Brent Geese Secondary Support Area to be appropriately mitigated/compensated. The practicalities of this with Natural England should be assessed before a scenario is chosen.
No uploaded files for public display
