Ms C Milton Planning and Regeneration Services Borough of Poole Civic Centre Poole Dorset BH15 2RU By and post 15 March 2010

Transcription

1 Ms C Milton Planning and Regeneration Services Borough of Poole Civic Centre Poole Dorset BH15 2RU By and post 15 March 2010 Dear Ms Milton Application number: 00/008824/084/P Location: Land south of Wallisdown Road, Talbot Village, Poole, Dorset Proposal: Development of land to provide 450 student units with ancillary facilities and 3,500sq m of academic floorspace (2.88ha), 378 new housing units (11.42ha) public open space including a buffer strip, pedestrian and cycle links and vehicular access from Boundary Road, Gillett Road, Purchase Road and Cutler Close. Improvement works to heathland (15.64ha) including changing use of existing grazing areas (10.7ha) for nature conservation purposes, creation of swales/reedbeds, installation of fire hydrants and creation of fire access to heath and erection of cat proof fence. To include associated infrastructure and landscaping. Thank you for consulting the RSPB on this application. We have considered the documents associated with this proposal on the Borough of Poole website, particularly: Revised Concept Master Plan, dated October 2002 Addendum to the Environmental Statement (May 2000), updated May 2005, dated November 2009, Non technical summary Management Statement, dated October 2009 Appropriate Assessment, dated March 2009 We have also considered Natural England s letter to the Council dated 5 March 2010, in which they object to the proposal.

2 The application site lies adjacent to the Bourne Valley SSSI, which is also one of the component SSSIs of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (jointly the European sites ) and Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site. It is our view that the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the heathland interest features of these sites. Before granting planning consent, the competent authority should undertake an appropriate assessment (AA) of the implications of the proposal on the European sites in light of their conservation objectives. The conservation objectives are to maintain, and where not in favourable condition, to restore the heathland and other habitats and species interest features. An appropriate assessment report prepared by Baker Consultants supports the application. It is our opinion that the AA is deficient in a number of aspects, and that these deficiencies have influenced the AA s findings. We refute the conclusion of the AA that the proposed development will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dorset Heathlands SPA and Dorset Heaths SAC. The RSPB therefore OBJECTS to this application for outline planning permission. The reasons for arriving at this position are set out in detail in the Appendix 1. I hope you find these comments helpful, if you require any further information or clarification, please contact me. Yours sincerely Renny Henderson Conservation Officer cc James Dawkins RSPB Nick Squirrell Natural England Nicki Brunt Dorset Wildlife Trust

3 Appendix 1 RSPB Comments on Outline Planning Application 00/08824/084/P Land south of Wallisdown Road, Talbot Village, Poole, Dorset This Appendix sets out the detailed reasons for the RSPB s objection to this outline planning application. Introduction Extensive research has demonstrated that residential development adjacent to lowland heathland can harm its wildlife value. The range of potential effects include disturbance from people and their pets (notably dogs), predation by cats, accidental and deliberate fires, loss of vegetation, soil erosion and compaction via trampling, soil enrichment resulting from dog faeces and the introduction of invasive or damaging plants and animals from adjacent residential development. These impacts are well documented, as enshrined, for example, in the Bern Convention Standing Committee Recommendation 67 adopted on the conservation of heathlands in Dorset UK in 1998 and the subsequent DETR report on Conservation of Heathlands in Dorset. Relevant research up to 2005 is summarised in Natural England Research Report No.623, A literature review of urban effects on lowland heaths and their wildlife. English Nature Research Report 1. A number of recent public inquiries have considered in detail the urbanising effects of residential development to nearby heathlands. Decisions up until January 2005 are summarised in English Nature Research Report No.622, Urban impacts on Dorset heaths A review of authoritative planning and related decisions 2. On 1 January 2007, the Dorset Heathlands Interim Planning Framework was adopted by the Borough of Poole as well as East Dorset District Council, Bournemouth Borough Council, Christchurch Borough Council, Purbeck District Council and Dorset County Council. This jointly developed and adopted strategy establishes a mechanism across south-east Dorset to support the determination of housing applications between 400m and 5km of international heathland sites 3. 1 Underhill-Day, J.C A literature review of urban effects on lowland heaths and their wildlife. English Nature Research Report No.623. English Nature, 2005 ( ) The IPF is being extended for a further 2 years, a public consultation on the extension has recently closed.

4 The Interim Planning Framework (IPF) was established to address the affects of residential development within this 400m to 5km zone. It does not apply to developments within 400m of heathland, for which Natural England advise that additional residential development is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon the designated site, either alone or in combination with other developments save in exceptional circumstances (IPF, paragraph 2.4). It continues the implication of this is that in most cases it will not be possible for a local planning authority undertaking an appropriate assessment of a proposal for residential development to be certain that any adverse effects could be avoided or alleviated. Additionally, the IPF background paper (October 2006) states at paragraph 3.2 that within 400m of the designated site boundary Natural England considers that it is not possible for the planning authority to be certain that any adverse effects could be avoided or alleviated, and that development resulting in increased numbers of residential units or residential occupancy should be prevented within this zone, save in exceptional circumstances (emphasis added). It is a principle of the IPF given the range of urban effects on heathlands, that it is not possible to conclude that the net addition of a single dwelling within 5km would not have an adverse effect on integrity in combination with other developments, without adequate mitigation. There is, in our view, a clear risk of harm arising from the proposal to the adjacent designated heathlands. Key aspects of the mitigation measures proposed remain either unproven or untested. The dwellings would be inhabited over many decades but there is no certainty that the mitigation would be effective over the lifetime of the development and therefore it is not possible to exclude the risk that the proposal will have an adverse effect on the SPA and SAC. Having carefully considered the application, we do not accept the suggestion that the proposal represents the exceptional circumstances noted within the IPF, which would permit residential development within 400m. It is our opinion that the exceptional circumstances indicated by the IPF in paragraph 3.2 relate to the characteristics of some forms of residential use/occupancy not the provision of mitigation exceptional or otherwise. Natural England has produced an advice note in this regard, Residential Applications within 400m of internationally designated heathland sites in south east Dorset: appropriate uses, July 2007, which identifies the circumstances that residential development may be feasible within 400m. Applications are to be determined on a case by case basis: proposals that may be acceptable include uses within Use Class C2 including hospitals and nursing homes, albeit strict conditions will still apply to occupancy and pet ownership and an appropriate assessment may still be required upon Natural England s advice.

5 Potential impacts on sites and species of nature conservation importance We have considered documents on the Borough of Poole website relating to this proposal. In particular, the Revised Concept Masterplan dated October 2002, Environmental Statement Addendum dated November 2009 (both prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP)) and the appropriate assessment (AA) dated March 2009 prepared by Baker Consultants. We have also considered NLP s letters to the Council dated 17 November 2009 and 5 February 2010 to the Council. We have serious concerns over the content of the AA, in particular the confidence placed in the proposed mitigation measures. Critically we do not agree with the conclusion drawn in Section 9 that there will be no adverse effect on the designated heathlands. Furthermore, the AA does not assess the synergistic effects of the various individual impacts of the scheme or the in combination effects of this proposal with other current plans or projects, which is required by the habitats regulations 4. There are a number of specific ecological risks associated with the proposal, namely: The designated heathlands immediately adjacent to the site are of high importance for heathland wildlife, including the Annex 1 bird species, nightjar and Dartford warbler. Surveys carried out in identified three breeding pairs of Dartford Warbler within the Bourne Valley SSSI, a component of the Dorset Heathlands SPA, and during 2008, there were reports of nightjar churring 6. Populations of these birds could in our view be adversely affected by the proposal, as a result of: o Large-scale residential development with the permanent presence of the houses/units, associated infrastructure, noise, lighting, etc. o Additional recreational pressures, particularly related to dog walking. o Risk of domestic cat predation on the adjacent heathlands. o Increased risk of accidental fires and arson. o Increased risk of rubbish dumping and the introduction of invasive plants to the surrounding heathlands. 4 Statutory Instrument 1994 No.2716, The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations Surveys undertaken as part of the national 2006 Dartford warbler survey. 6 We agree and support Natural England s position on the status of Dartford warbler and nightjar at Talbot Heath, as expressed in their letter of 5 March 2010

6 Some of the proposed mitigation measures as described in the AA (section 7) risk harming the SPA including the installation/management of the fire access route and hydrants, fencing/access management measures and the identification of a preferred dog fouling area east of Mayford Road 7. The potential impacts of these aspects of the proposal are inadequately addressed in the AA. Of particular concern to us regarding the proposed mitigation measures are the pet proof fence and buffer space, these aspects are discussed below. Value of mitigation measures and their long-term dependability The applicant has not provided sufficient information on the proposed mitigation measures, particularly the pet proof fence and the public open space/buffer area, to enable any confidence to be placed in them. In order to rely on the proposed pet proof fence as a measure to avoid the effect of cats predating wildlife on the adjacent heathlands, it is necessary to have a very high level of confidence that it will be effective and in place for the entire lifetime of the dwellings. Throughout this time, the fence would need regular and frequent maintenance and replacement as necessary, and the land around it managed to allow such maintenance. We are concerned that the latter requirement will run counter to the needs of proper management of the habitat of the SPA. The RSPB is not aware of any situation in which pet proof fences have been shown to be effective over an extended period to contain/exclude domestic cats in an analogous situation. We do not accept the suggestion that the proposed Talbot Heath fence can be compared to those in operation at Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust s London Wetlands Centre (LWC), a privately owned nature reserve. It is in WWT s long-term, direct interest to maintain and monitor fences closely to ensure their successful operation at the LWC, nevertheless fences are known to have breached despite WWT s best endeavours 8. WWT utilise fencing to try to deter foxes accessing sensitive areas and around the captive collection, for which a special duty of care exists 9. 7 We agree and support Natural England s comments on these proposed mitigation measures, as expressed in their letter of 5 March John Arbon, Site and Facilities Manager, WWT London pers comm. 15 March Foxes have on several occasions breached fences, and cats are known to have accessed the captive collection compound, despite intensive ongoing monitoring and management. John Arbon, ibid.

7 In the Talbot Heath instance, a linear section (rather than a loop) of fence is being proposed to keep people, cats and dogs out of a site with open access and for which an intent to gain access may be inferred and for which ongoing active engagement in monitoring/maintenance by the developer is unknown. We do not believe that a pet proof fence can be relied on to the extent that they would need to be, to discount absolutely the risk of people, cats and dogs entering adjacent heathland for the long term. Uncertainties over effectiveness include: Fence design. Ability and mechanisms for maintaining the structure and the land that abuts it in the short, medium and long term, on which its effectiveness is dependent. Risk of vandalism. Future legal challenge to realize desire lines through removal of the structure to enable residents unrestricted access onto the surrounding heaths, particularly relating to open access legislation. Risk of future changes in management structure leading to a failure to maintain/replace the structure. Risk that any management fund proves inadequate to maintain the fence effectively over the long term, and risk of future diversion/collapse of management fund. Para of the Inspector s Report of the Public Inquiry into the Purbeck District Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft concluded, in relation to pet fences, that: The critical issue is whether or not the harmful effect could be adequately minimised by mitigation measures. Fencing would need to be of a high specification to effectively keep out people, cats and dogs. I doubt if the comprehensive fencing-off of Sandford Heath from its surroundings and from the public paths that cross it would be practicable. However, even if it were, and even if such structures and restriction were compatible with Green Belt policies and justified under the access provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, I believe that it could have an alienating effect that would make it difficult to win local support for promoting conservation objectives and to counter harmful vandalism and trespassing activity. We consider that the Inspector s comments above have direct relevance to the assessment of the suitability and practicality of a pet proof fence as a central mitigation measure for this application. The AA accepts that without mitigation there would be an adverse effect and relies on the pet proof fence to deliver a key component of this mitigation.

8 We do not consider that the fence can be relied upon as effective mitigation for the reasons outlined above, and that consequently there is a risk of an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated heathlands. Public open space/buffer space From NLP s letter of 5 February 2010 to the Council, we note the open space provision. This open space includes buffer space at the south of the application site adjacent to designated heathland. According to the figures given, open space varies between 4.17 ha and 6.07 ha, contingent on the relocation of a footpath, and of this the buffer space varies between 1.17 ha and 3.07 ha. We note from Natural England s letter of 5 March 2010 that they regard the diversion of the footpath as a separate process to the planning application and advise that the application should be determined based on the footpath remaining in place. On this basis, the buffer space available to users of the proposal is 1.17ha (assuming NLPs figures) lying within the pet proof fence. Convincing evidence as to the likely success of this small area of open space being capable of absorbing the likely pressures of additional residents is not presented. In the context of providing alternative greenspace as a mitigation measure, we consider this level of open space provision to be extremely low, and in the context of the scale of the proposal and the close proximity of the (larger) heathland, it is unlikely to be effective. Even with an effective fence in place, the likelihood must be that residents will travel to preferentially utilise the natural and larger area of heathland. The IPF Background Paper includes a description of the characteristics of open space that might contribute to the avoidance of harm on designated sites as a result of residential development in the 400m to 5km zone (paragraph 8.3). These recommendations do not directly apply to the proposal given it is within the 400m zone and outside the IPF, but are helpful. Bullet point 2 states: If new open space, or improved existing open space, is to function to divert pressure from existing heathlands, it should aim to provide a similar facility to existing heathlands. The size and character of alternative areas would be critical in determining whether they would be likely to be effective and therefore count as mitigation. For example, the length of a typical dog walk taken on heathlands (c.2.5 km) would need to be replicated.

9 We seriously doubt the ability of the proposed buffer space given its size (and shape) in providing effective mitigation and do not consider it can be given any weight. Indeed, we support Natural England s suggestion that its inadequacies may actually encourage residents into heathland visiting for dog walking 10. Wider Habitats Directive issues Site integrity Given the uncertainties over the mitigation measures, particularly the pet proof fence and the buffer space, but also the lack of assessment of the additional measures described in section 7 of the AA, we would remind the Council of statements made in Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological conservation - Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system. Under the section entitled Ascertaining the effect on site integrity, it states (paragraph 21): In the Waddenzee judgment {footnote 27}, the European Court of Justice ruled that a plan or project may be authorised only if a competent authority has made certain that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects. Competent national authorities must be convinced that there will not be an adverse affect and where doubt remains as to the absence of adverse affects, the plan or project must not be authorised, subject to the procedure outlined in Article 6(4) of the EC Habitats Directive regarding imperative reasons of overriding public interest {footnote 28}. (Emphasis added). As stated above, we consider doubts do remain over the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures and there is a risk of adverse affects on integrity. SANGS Work is currently underway on the Dorset Heathlands Joint Development Plan document (DPD), which will replace the IPF (which we understand is likely to expire, following the recent consultation, in December 2011). This work has included a search for sites for use as suitable alternative natural greenspace (SANGs). Sites for SANGs in urban areas are limited, but have strategic importance. The application site has been identified as a possible SANG by local authority officers working on the forthcoming DPD. 10 Natural England letter of 5 March 2010, paragraph 2, page 18.

10 The application site (as a whole) could offer an alternative location for public access, particularly dog walking, having a role in managing the effects of recreational and other impacts on Talbot Heath and hence contributing to the overall objectives of the IPF/DPD. Residential development of the application site would remove this opportunity. Relevant planning policy Policy H3 of the former Borough of Poole Local Plan relates to the application site. This allocated the site for residential and other development provided the development did not cause harm to the adjacent designated site. Policy PCS28 of the Borough of Poole Core Strategy (adopted February 2009) prohibits development which would be likely to lead to an adverse effect upon the integrity, directly or indirectly, of the Dorset Heaths International Designations which includes Dorset Heathlands SPA, Dorset Heaths SAC and Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site. We consider that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not harm the adjacent designated sites and therefore the application can be refused on the basis of Policies H3 and PCS28. RSPB 15 March 2010