All Summaries

A Summary of Letters of Concern and Objections to Colchester City Council – From County/National Nature Organisations and Experts

Contents

1.      Natural England. 1

1.1        Representation to CBC Local Plan Consultation 202. 1

1.2        Representation to CBC Local Plan Consultation 2022. 3

2.      Essex Wildlife Trust 5

2.1        Essex Wildlife Trust Objection Letter 2019. 5

2.2        Essex Wildlife Trust Objection Letter 2021. 6

3.      Essex Field Club. 8

3.1        Combined Summary of Letters 1-3. 8

4.      Colchester Natural History Society. 15

5.      RSPB. 17

6.      Steven Falk. 18

7.      Butterfly Conservation. 20

7.1        Letter to Colchester Borough Council 20

7.2        Letter to Natural England. 20

1.    Natural England

1.1 Representation to CBC Local Plan Consultation 202

Referenced Letter: ‘[1-1] Natural England to CC (SC2 MM), 15-11-2021.pdf’

Letter Date: 15th November 2021

Addressed to: Karen Syrett, Colchester Council Planning

From: Tessa Lambert, Natural England Lead Adviser – Land Use Planning, West Anglia Area Team

Overview

The letter from Natural England to Karen Syrett of Colchester City Council raises concerns to the inclusion of Middlewick in the Local Plan and proposed modifications. It discusses the Colchester Local Plan Section 2, focusing on concerns regarding biodiversity and geodiversity particularly with respect to Middlewick Ranges.

Key Concerns and Recommendations

  1. General Observations:
    • Natural England acknowledges the Council’s efforts in addressing concerns in the main modifications of the Local Plan.
    • Quote: “Natural England’s concerns about text and policy wording in the submission draft Section 2 Local Plan have been addressed in the main modifications.”
  2. MM20 – Policy ENV1 Concerns:
    • Concerns about the wording of Part C of Policy ENV1, which relates to Biodiversity and Geodiversity.
    • The policy wording suggests less stringent expectations for developments adversely affecting biodiversity.
    • Quote: “It is a concern that the proposed wording for the policy indicates that the expectations in relation to mitigation and biodiversity net gain (BNG) for developments that have adverse effects on biodiversity are less stringent…”
  3. MM47 – Middlewick Ranges:
    • Middlewick Ranges is a Local Wildlife Site, and the Local Planning Authority must demonstrate adherence to statutory biodiversity duties.
    • Recent survey information highlights the site’s considerable significance for diverse invertebrate fauna.
    • Quote: “The site is designated as a Local Wildlife Site and, accordingly, the Local Planning Authority will need to demonstrate that it has had regard to its statutory duty to conserve biodiversity…”
  4. Consistency and Clarity in Policy Wording:
    • The need for consistent terminology and clear definitions in policy wording, especially regarding “compensation/mitigation land” and “net gain land.”
    • Quote: “There should be consistency in the terms used to describe this land and it should also be defined on the proposals map for clarity…”
  5. Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Expectations:
    • Clarification needed on whether BNG can be secured on “mitigation land” to avoid confusion between compensatory measures and BNG.
    • Quote: “As a result, it is not clear whether the BNG could be secured on the ‘mitigation land’ which would risk confusion between measures which are compensatory and those which are clearly BNG.”
  6. Precautionary Principle and Evidence for Habitat Translocation:
    • The Local Planning Authority must ensure there is sufficient evidence to support claims of successful habitat translocation.
    • Quote: “Without the evidence, there must be doubt that the relocated habitat… qualifies as ‘compensation’…”
  7. MM66 – Policy SS12b Concerns:
    • Recommendations for amending wording to ensure consideration of direct and in-combination impacts on adjacent Habitats sites.
    • Quote: “As these development proposals could include residential development, there is the potential for both direct impacts as well as in-combination impacts…”
  8. MM81 – Clarity in Policy Wording:
    • Suggestion for minor modification to improve clarity regarding the proximity of proposals to habitats sites.
    • Quote: “Proposals in close proximity to a habitats site must demonstrate through HRA screening that the scheme will not lead to likely significant effects to the integrity of the habitats site.”

Conclusion

Natural England’s letter provides detailed feedback on the Colchester Local Plan Section 2, emphasizing the need for clear, consistent policy wording and adherence to statutory biodiversity duties, particularly concerning the development of Middlewick Ranges. The letter highlights the importance of considering the latest ecological data and ensuring that Biodiversity Net Gain is appropriately applied and understood within the planning framework.

1.2 Representation to CBC Local Plan Consultation 2022

Letter Referenced: [1-2] ‘Natural England Middlewick Ranges 28 June 2022.vf.pdf’

Letter Date: 28th June 2022

Addressed to: Sandra Scott, Colchester Council Planning

From: Justin Tilley, Natural England Manager – West Anglia Team

Overview of the Letter

The letter from Natural England to Colchester City Council addresses concerns about the proposed housing allocation on the Middlewick Ranges site, emphasizing the importance of biodiversity considerations in the planning process.

Key Points of Concern

  1. Advice on Mitigation and Biodiversity Net Gain:
    • Advised on strengthening policy regarding mitigation and biodiversity net gain in their formal response (November 2021).
    • Quote: “We advised clarification and strengthening of your proposed policy on mitigation and application of biodiversity net gain…”
  2. Significance of Middlewick Ranges as a Local Wildlife Site:
    • Highlighted the site’s recognition as a Local Wildlife Site with diverse biodiversity interests.
    • Quote: “This site is recognised as a Local Wildlife Site that holds a variety of biodiversity interests.”
  3. Importance of Up-to-Date Ecological Data:
    • Stressed the need for current and complete ecological data to inform the planning process.
    • Quote: “The use of the most up to date and complete ecological data is essential…”
  4. New Survey Data from Third Parties:
    • Acknowledged additional survey data from Essex Field Club and Butterfly Conservation, indicating significant invertebrate diversity.
    • Quote: “This information was provided to your Authority in representations from Essex Field Club in Autumn 2021…”
  5. Underestimation of Habitat Value:
    • Noted that the full extent of lowland dry acid grassland habitat might not have been fully understood previously.
    • Quote: “It may be that the value of the area was not fully understood previously.”
  6. Policy Requirements for Biodiversity at Middlewick Ranges:
    • Emphasized that amended policy requires extensive considerations for biodiversity, and non-compliance should lead to refusal of consent.
    • Quote: “Natural England would expect full adherence with the proposed policy…”
  7. Challenge of Securing Development Consent:
    • Recognized the challenge of securing development consent given the extent and quality of habitat present.
    • Quote: “This rightly presents a significant challenge to securing development consent at the site.”
  8. Reservation of Right to Object:
    • Natural England reserves the right to object to any proposal that does not fully account for the site’s biodiversity and comply with statutory duties.
    • Quote: “We would reserve our right to object to any proposal at this site that did not fully take account of the specific biodiversity interest…”
  9. Continued Collaboration and Upholding Statutory Duties:
    • Expressed willingness to work with the Council and interested parties to address these matters and uphold statutory duties toward biodiversity.
    • Quote: “We would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with the Council and all interested parties…”

Conclusion

Natural England’s letter to Colchester City Council highlights the ecological significance of Middlewick Ranges and the necessity of incorporating comprehensive ecological data into the planning process. The letter underscores the challenges in developing the site while adhering to biodiversity commitments and statutory duties.

2.    Essex Wildlife Trust

2.1 Essex Wildlife Trust Objection Letter 2019

Letter Referenced: ‘[2-1] Essex Wildlife Trust ‘EWT response to public consultation 0719’ 19-07-2019.pdf’

Letter Date: 19 July 2019

Addressed to: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

From: Essex Wildlife Trust

Overview of Letter

This letter from Essex Wildlife Trust expresses strong objection to the proposed housing development at Middlewick Ranges, emphasizing its significance as a Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) and the detrimental impact the development would have on the area’s biodiversity.

Summary of Concerns

1. Significance of Middlewick Ranges

  • Middlewick Ranges is a vital LoWS in Colchester, comprising diverse habitats and species.
  • Middlewick Ranges hosts a wide range of invertebrates, including several rare and threatened species, particularly notable within the Hymenoptera group.
  • Key species include the digger wasp Cerceris quadricincta, the UK BAP digger wasp Cerceris quinquefasciata, cuckoo-wasp Hedychrum niemelai, and the Small Blue Carpenter bee Ceratina cyanea.
  • The area may support hazel dormice, a European Protected Species, necessitating surveys and careful management. Other protected species in the area include bats, common lizard, grass snake, slow worm, badger, and various breeding birds.
  • Quote: “Middlewick Ranges is one of the most important and valuable Local Wildlife Sites in the Colchester borough.”

2. Impact of Development on Middlewick Ranges

  • Development would lead to significant biodiversity loss, affecting invertebrate populations and habitats.
  • LoWS like Middlewick Ranges are crucial for biodiversity, acting as core habitats and ecological connectors.
  • The Trust stresses that these sites, though not currently statutorily protected, are essential for nature’s recovery and should be prioritized in spatial planning.
  • Quote: “The loss of a large part of this open grassland foraging habitat to development will have a detrimental impact on both invertebrate population size and species diversity.”

3. Implications for Birch Brook Wood LoWS

  • Although not within the development footprint, the development would increase anthropogenic pressures on Birch Brook Wood, impacting its biodiversity.
  • Potential impacts include increased disturbance, light pollution, littering, and habitat degradation due to higher human and pet activity.
  • Quote: “While the proposed development of Middlewick Ranges will not damage Birch Brook Wood LoWS directly, the considerable increase in anthropogenic pressures as a result of the new housing will likely have a serious detrimental impact on the quality of the habitat.”
  • Non-Compliance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
  • The proposed development fails to align with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidelines, particularly in protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity, and achieving sustainable development.
  • Quote: “The proposals do not conform with the guidelines in paragraph 170; the development does not protect and enhance a valued landscape and site of biodiversity value.”

Conclusion

Essex Wildlife Trust emphasizes the importance of Middlewick Ranges for both wildlife and the local community. The proposed housing development is seen as unsustainable, contradicting planning policies and leading to significant biodiversity loss. The Trust urges reconsideration of the site’s inclusion in the Local Plan, advocating for its preservation and suggesting alternative, environmentally sustainable uses.

Key Quote

“It is our contention that the loss of a large part of Middlewick Ranges LoWS to development will result in a significant reduction in biodiversity and therefore cannot be considered sustainable. The ecological value of Middlewick Ranges LoWS must be recognised and protected if Colchester Borough Council’s new local plan is to deliver an overall biodiversity net gain.”

2.2 Essex Wildlife Trust Objection Letter 2021

Referenced Letter: ‘[2-2] Essex Wildlife Trust (SC2 MM Consultation) 14-11-2021.pdf’

Letter Date: 14 November 2021

Addressed to: Planning Policy, Colchester Borough Council

From: Essex Wildlife Trust

Overview of Letter

This letter from Essex Wildlife Trust details objections to the allocation of Middlewick Ranges as a housing area in Colchester’s Section 2 Local Plan Main Modifications. The Trust argues that the proposed modifications fail to meet certain soundness criteria outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Summary of Concerns

1. Lack of Justification

  • Colchester Borough Council (CBC) has not provided sufficient reasons for allocating a highly sensitive ecological habitat for housing.
  • The Trust asserts that the current housing supply exceeds the need, negating the necessity for such development.
  • Quote: “Given that Colchester BC has been delivering new housing in excess of housing need, there are clearly no wholly exceptional reasons to justify the allocation of a significantly important and highly sensitive designated ecological habitat for housing.”

2. Inconsistency with National Policy

  • The modifications to Middlewick Ranges’ policy do not align with NPPF guidelines and Colchester BC’s Policy ENV1.
  • NPPF guidelines emphasize protecting and enhancing natural environments and biodiversity, which the proposed modifications fail to meet.
  • Quote: “The policy is not sustainable, given that the proposals will result in the destruction of rare and threatened lowland dry acid grassland, which is classified as a habitat of very high distinctiveness.”

3. Lack of Clarity and Misapplication of Mitigation Hierarchy

  • The modifications lack clarity and fail to adhere to the mitigation hierarchy, which is central to national planning policy on environmental impacts.
  • Quote: “The wording of the Main Modifications lacks clarity due to the conflation of the terms mitigation and compensation. These are quite distinct terms and are applied differently.”

4. Misapplication of Biodiversity Net Gain

  • The proposed modifications incorrectly apply the principles of Biodiversity Net Gain.
  • The Defra Metric indicates that habitats of Very High Distinctiveness, like Middlewick Ranges, require bespoke compensation outside of net gain calculations.
  • Quote: “It is also important to note that the Defra Metric states that to achieve good condition when recreating lowland dry acid grassland will take 30 years.”

Conclusion

Essex Wildlife Trust firmly states that the proposed modifications for Middlewick Ranges are unsustainable and do not comply with NPPF guidelines. The plan is deemed unsound due to its lack of clarity, misapplication of biodiversity net gain, and unjustified allocation of a sensitive ecological habitat for housing. The Trust reiterates the need for sustainable development that aligns with national policies and properly addresses ecological impacts.

Key Quote

“We reiterate that this is patently not sustainable and does not conform to the guidelines in the NPPF. The Main Modifications pertaining to Middlewick Ranges lack clarity, have misapplied Biodiversity Net Gain, and are unjustified. This renders the plan unsound.”

3.    Essex Field Club

Introduction

The following document presents bullet-pointed summaries of the three objection letters submitted by Essex Field Club to Colchester Borough Council during their consultation phase – against the proposed housing allocation on Middlewick Ranges. They are written by Peter Harvey, Past President of Essex Field Club and follow an initial representation submitted on 03/08/2017 which emphasised that the Local Wildlife Site actually warrants SSSI designation.

These are ‘broad-brush’ summaries only and the Essex Field Club letters should be referred and deferred to for technical detail; however, these summaries provide a potentially helpful overview.

The three PDF letters written by Peter Harvey representing Essex Field Club are named as follows:

1. Letter 1: ‘[3-1] Essex Field Club further representation 05-04-2021.pdf’

2. Letter 2: ‘[3-2] Essex Field Club additional representation 05-04-2021.pdf’

3. Letter 3: ‘[3-3] Essex Field Club representation to modifications 12-04-2021.pdf’

3.1 Combined Summary of Letters 1-3

A broad summary of the key points contained in all three letters from Essex Field Club to Colchester Borough Council.

Letter Date: 5th April 2021 (Letters 1 and 2); 12th April 2021 (Letter 3)

Addressed to: Colchester Borough Council

From: Peter Harvey, Past President of Essex Field Club

Headline Summary:

The proposed housing development on Middlewick Ranges, as outlined in the Colchester Borough Local Plan, is in direct conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other environmental legislations, given its significant ecological value and the potential adverse impacts on biodiversity.

Detailed Summary

  1. Inconsistency with National and Local Planning Policies:
    • Contradiction with NPPF: The Essex Field Club (EFC) letter highlights that the allocation of Middlewick Ranges for housing directly conflicts with NPPF guidelines, which emphasize the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes and biodiversity (NPPF, Paragraphs 170 and 175).
    • Failure to Meet CLP 1 Requirements: The EFC asserts that the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges does not comply with the requirements of the Colchester Local Plan (CLP) 1, indicating a lack of soundness in the plan.
  2. Ecological Significance and Potential SSSI Status:
    • High Conservation Value: The EFC letter states that Middlewick Ranges is a Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) of exceptional nature conservation importance, hosting diverse flora and fauna, including several scarce plants and a range of rare, scarce, and characteristic invertebrates.
    • SSSI Qualification Potential: The EFC suggests that the site would qualify as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) based on specialist surveys adhering to Natural England invertebrate survey guidelines. The presence of invertebrate species assemblages in favourable SSSI condition, including the Near Threatened Nationally Rare pipunculid fly Tomosvaryella minima, underscores this potential.
  3. Flaws in Evidence Base and Decision-Making:
    • Inadequate Ecological Surveys: The EFC criticizes the evidence base provided by CBC for lacking comprehensive ecological surveys, particularly for invertebrates, failing to meet Natural England and Invertebrate Standard Advice for Essex guidelines.
    • Misguided Site Allocation: The EFC argues that the decision to include Middlewick Ranges appears to be based on land availability from the Ministry of Defence (MoD), rather than ecological value, suggesting a lack of objective site evaluation.
  4. Policy ENV1 and Biodiversity Concerns:
    • Non-Compliance with Policy ENV1: The EFC points out that the proposed development fails to conserve or enhance biodiversity value and does not minimize habitat fragmentation as required by Policy ENV1.
    • Inadequate Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Approach: The EFC notes that the use of a bespoke Biodiversity Metric and the approach to BNG do not adequately address the loss of irreplaceable habitats. The CIEEM principles state that BNG does not apply to irreplaceable habitats like Middlewick Ranges.
  5. Recommendations for Plan Revisions:
    • Requirement for Comprehensive Surveys: The EFC recommends that detailed specialist ecological surveys should be conducted prior to any development, in line with Natural England guidelines.
    • Environmental Impact Assessment Necessity: The EFC insists that a full Environmental Impact Assessment must accompany large development allocations, which is currently lacking.

Conclusion

  • Unsustainability of Development: The EFC concludes that the proposed allocation for housing development is unsustainable and will result in significant biodiversity loss.
  • Need for Removal from Local Plan: The EFC advocates for the removal of Middlewick Ranges from the Local Plan Housing Allocation to ensure compliance with NPPF and to protect its ecological integrity.

In summary, the detailed analysis based on the EFC letters strongly argues against the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan for housing development. The letters provide a comprehensive critique, highlighting conflicts with national planning policies, significant ecological value, and the adverse impacts development would have on biodiversity. The EFC advocates for the protection of Middlewick Ranges and its removal from the Local Plan to comply with the NPPF and other relevant environmental legislation.

  • Letter 1: ‘Essex Field Club Further Representation’

 

Letter Referenced: ‘[3-1] Essex Field Club Further Representation 05-04-2021.pdf’

Date of Letter: 5th April 2021

Overview of Letter

This is the initial letter in response to the Local Plan consultation raising serious concerns about the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in Colchester Borough Council’s Local Plan; and the SC2 Modifications.

This includes concerns about Matter 6: South Colchester (Policies SC1 to SC3), and details a strong objection against the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges as a housing site.

Objection Grounds

  1. Inconsistency with National Policy and Local Context:
    • Concerns over the justification of Middlewick Ranges allocation based on national guidance and local context.
    • Claim: Allocation does not meet the requirements of Colchester Local Plan (CLP) 1.
    • Reference: Essex Field Club’s Representation ID: 6273 (03/08/2017).
  2. Evidence Base Challenge:
    • Strong opposition to the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) in the housing allocation.
    • Highlight: Middlewick Ranges holds exceptionally high conservation importance, including rare invertebrates.
    • Doubt expressed on its qualification as an SSSI pending specialized surveys.
    • Quote: “We have little doubt that it would qualify as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) if subject to specialist surveys…”
  3. Biodiversity and Conservation Significance:
    • Recognition of Middlewick Ranges as the most important site in Colchester for invertebrates.
    • High value for spiders and likely other groups in the northern grassland area.
    • Quote: “Middlewick Ranges is the most important site in the Colchester local authority area for almost all groups where data are available.”
  4. Inadequate Assessment by CBC:
    • Lack of objective process to quantify the natural capital value and avoidance of high ecological value areas.
    • Concerns over the decision-making process influenced by land availability from the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
    • Quote: “We question what consideration CBC has given to the choice of alternative sites that would cause less harm as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.”
  5. Impact of Development on Biodiversity:
    • Lack of assessment on habitat loss impact and regional metapopulations.
    • Concerns about increased amenity use and its negative impact on acid grassland.
    • Quote: “We also do not see any assessment in the evidence base of the likely impacts of adjacent housing and greatly increased amenity use…”
  6. Challenges to Stantec Ecological Evidence Base Report:
    • Stantec report’s inadequacy and failure to provide a comprehensive ecological evaluation.
    • Concerns over outdated data and non-compliance with CIEEM guidance.
    • Quote: “The Stantec report needs to be evaluated against the perspective provided by the Midland Ecology Middlewick Ranges Ecological Evaluation report February 2021…”
  7. Environmental Impact Assessment Necessity:
    • Argument for the necessity of an Environmental Impact Assessment for large development allocations.
    • CBC’s failure to fulfil NERC Act (2006) duties in decision-making.
    • Quote: “All large development allocations must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment, which has not been undertaken…”

Conclusion

  • Essex Field Club concludes that the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan for housing allocation is unjustifiable, potentially violates national planning policies, and fails to safeguard crucial biodiversity and ecological integrity.
  • They assert the necessity of recognizing and protecting the ecological value of Middlewick Ranges to ensure overall biodiversity net gain in Colchester’s new Local Plan.
  • Letter 2: ‘Essex Field Club additional representation’

Letter Referenced: ‘[3-2] Essex Field Club additional representations 05-04-2021.pdf’

Letter Date: 5th April 2021

Overview of Letter

Essex Field Club’s second objection letter to Middlewick Ranges’ Inclusion in Colchester Borough Council’s Local Plan raises additional points and concerns – Including new records and informationand referring to theSection 2 Examination of the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017-2033; including Main Matter 6: South Colchester (Policies SC1 to SC3).

This objection is made on various grounds including inadequate public consultation, modification of policies, an inadequate and flawed evidence base including serious deficiencies in the crucial invertebrate data.

Objection Grounds

  1. Inadequate Public Consultation:
    • Objection to last-minute documents provided by Colchester Borough Council (CBC), lacking prior public consultation.
    • Quote: “This is…related to Representation Statement: Main Matter 6 – South Colchester…not been subject to any prior public consultation.”
  2. Modification of Policy ENV1:
    • Concern over the watering down of the Env1 Irreplaceable habitat policy, which may justify the proposed housing allocation of Middlewick Ranges.
    • Quote: “The Env1 Irreplaceable habitat text now waters down policy by deleting the text…to a situation where proposals…will not be permitted unless there are wholly exceptional reasons…”
  3. Questioning CBC’s Evidence Base:
    • Strong dispute of CBC’s claims regarding the evidence base supporting Middlewick Ranges allocation.
    • Assertion of Middlewick Ranges’ potential SSSI status and significant invertebrate assemblages.
    • Quote: “We strongly dispute claims…that (1.1) The allocation was supported by an evidence base proportionate to that stage of plan-making.”
  4. Challenges to Proposed Masterplan:
    • Rejection of CBC’s and EECOS’s claims that the masterplan process minimizes habitat loss.
    • Dispute of the appropriateness of a bespoke metric favoring development allocation.
    • Quote: “We cannot agree with (3.3.7) the Council’s client-led Ecologist or EECOS…that the scope and content of the ecological evidence are satisfactory.”
  5. Inadequacy of Invertebrate Surveys:
    • Criticism of lack of invertebrate surveys required to evaluate Middlewick Ranges’ ecological importance.
    • Quote: “The evidence base simply does not begin to address the invertebrate surveys required to properly identify the national importance of the invertebrate fauna of the LoWS…”
  6. Implications of Proposed Policy Changes:
    • Objection to significant policy changes under the guise of minor modifications.
    • Concern over the lack of public consultation on these proposed changes.
    • Quote: “There are many more far from minor changes proposed to the wording which undermine the supposed commitment by CBC to deliver sustainable development…”

Conclusion

  • Essex Field Club strongly objects to the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan, highlighting significant ecological concerns and disputing CBC’s justification and process.
  • They argue that these actions contradict CBC’s commitment to sustainable development and biodiversity net gain, and call for the removal of Middlewick LoWS from the housing allocation.

Quote: “It appears that there is unlikely to be any Statement of Common Ground…unless CBC remove Middlewick LoWS from the allocation for housing.”

  • Letter 3: ‘Essex Field Club Representation to Modifications’

Letter Referenced: ‘[3-3] Essex Field Club Representation to Modifications 12-11-2021.pdf’

Letter Date: 12th April 2021

Overview of Letter

This is the third letter which sets out Essex Field Club’s main objections to Middlewick Ranges’ Inclusion in Colchester City Council Local Plan and the SC2 Modifications to this. This letter tackles the concerns and objections by Essex Field Club echoing that of many other organisations and concerned naturalists, regarding the allocation of 1000 residential units on Middlewick Ranges in Local Plan Housing.

One of the key concerns is that the proposals are not compliant with environmental legislation and planning law such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and would destroy one of the best sites for acid grassland invertebrates in the county.

Key Points of Objection

  1. Inconsistency with National Policy:
    • Claim: Inclusion of Middlewick Ranges is not consistent with NPPF.
    • Specific Policy Concern: Policy SC2, referenced as MM37 in the Local Plan.
    • Additional References: MM35, 38, 39, 40, 43, 46, 47.
    • Quote: “We do not believe that the inclusion of the Middlewick Ranges Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) in the Local Plan Housing Allocation is consistent with national policy…”
  2. Ecological Significance and SSSI Potential:
    • 2021 surveys from just 4 field meetings identified 548 invertebrate species, indicating SSSI condition.
    • Discovery of rare species, including the Near Threatened pipunculid fly which is the only confirmed record in Britain that the national scheme organiser has for the last 50 years.
    • Based on these initial data only, Natural England’s Chief Scientist Directorate states the site has merit in being considered as an extension of the existing SSSI
    • Quote: “Natural England’s Chief Scientist Directorate invertebrate specialist has now looked at these 2021 data and states the site has merit in being considered as an extension of the existing SSSI…”
  3. Flawed Evidence Base:
    • Criticism of the evidence provided by Colchester Borough Council (CBC).
    • The northern area of the site also holds high ecological value.
    • Inadequate survey methodology for a site of this size and value.
    • Quote: “…these results have only scratched the surface, emphasising the flawed evidence base currently provided by CBC.”
  4. Policy ENV1 and NPPF Compliance:
    • Claim: Development contradicts ENV1 and NPPF regarding habitat loss.
    • Quote: “It is abundantly clear that invertebrate survey undertaken by competent, professional, independent specialists would find that development on any part of the Middlewick Ranges LoWS could not pass the tests contained in ENV1 or the NPPF…”
  5. Biodiversity Net Gain Misapplication:
    • Argument against the application of Biodiversity Net Gain to Middlewick.
    • CIEEM principles and Defra Metric suggest special treatment for habitats of Very High Distinctiveness.
    • Quote: “CIEEM Good practice principles for development states that Biodiversity Net Gain does not apply to irreplaceable habitat…”
  6. Recommendations for Revising Local Plan:
    • Insistence on independent ecological advice for assessments.
    • Requirement for full ecological surveys as part of any planning application.
    • Emphasis on no development without confirmation of suitable habitat creation.
    • Quote: “…no development can commence on Middlewick Ranges (SC2) until a team of independent ecologists are satisfied that the new acid grassland mitigation habitat has established to a satisfactory level…”

Conclusion

  • Essex Field Club strongly opposes the allocation of Middlewick Ranges for housing development due to its ecological importance and incompatibility with national environmental policies.
  • The club stresses the need for an independent, comprehensive ecological assessment and warns of legal challenges if the allocation proceeds.

This summary encapsulates Essex Field Club’s detailed and technical objection, emphasizing the ecological value of Middlewick Ranges and the legal implications of its inclusion in the Local Plan.

4.    Colchester Natural History Society

Letter Date: 11th December 2023

Addressed to: Colchester City Council

From: Dougal Urquhart, Chair, Colchester Natural History Society

Overview of Letter

This statement from the Colchester Natural History Society, an organization with a long-standing history of wildlife monitoring, strongly advocates for the removal of Middlewick Ranges Local Wildlife Site from the Local Plan. The Society emphasizes the site’s rich biodiversity and criticizes the inadequacy of the Stantec Report that informed the Council’s decision.

Summary of Concerns

1. Critique of Stantec Report

  • The Stantec Report is deemed inadequate and misleading, failing to accurately represent the biodiversity of Middlewick Ranges.
  • The report has been criticized by the Midland Ecology Evaluation Report for its lack of detail on species and downplaying the site’s richness.
  • Quote: “The wholly inadequate Stantec Report of November 2020 misinformed the Council with its lack of actual species detail and downplaying the richness of the site for wildlife.”

2. Society’s Wildlife Surveys and Findings

  • Members conducted extensive surveys, discovering 1480 invertebrate species, including 167 species with a conservation status.
  • Found nationally rare and red data book species, highlighting the site’s ecological importance.
  • Quote: “As well as finding nationally rare species and red data book species, there are 15 section 41 priority species of principal importance – doubling the number from two years ago.”

3. Habitat Quality and Importance

  • Middlewick Ranges is identified as one of the most important acid grassland sites in Essex for invertebrates.
  • The site’s current status exceeds that of many existing SSSIs in the county.
  • Quote: “This makes Middlewick Ranges one of the most important acid grassland sites in the whole of Essex, especially for invertebrates – and richer than many current SSSI’s in the county.”

4. Local Plan and Environmental Policy

  • The Society urges adherence to Colchester City Council’s commitment to protect and enhance local biodiversity.
  • Emphasizes the incompatibility of the proposed development with ENV1 policy and Habitat of Principal Importance designation.
  • Quote: “Colchester City Council has made a commitment in their Local Plan Environmental Policy ENV1, ‘…to conserve and enhance Colchester’s natural and historic environment, and to safeguard the Borough’s biodiversity and landscape character.'”

Conclusion

  • The Colchester Natural History Society strongly opposes the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan, citing significant ecological value and the Council’s own environmental commitments.
  • They highlight the need for the Council to consider the forthcoming Local Nature Recovery Strategy in their planning decisions. The Society underscores the irreplaceable nature of the habitat and the inadequacy of proposed mitigation measures.

 “The Society insists Middlewick Ranges Local Wildlife Site is taken out of the Local Plan to protect the incredibly rich biodiversity of the site.”

5.    RSPB

Letter Referenced: ‘[5] RSPB letter_Middlewick Ranges 11-12-23.pdf’

Letter Date: 11 December 2023

Addressed to: Officers Karen Syrett, Simon Cairns, Sandra Scott CC Councillors at  Colchester City Council

From: Mark Nowers, Conservation Team, Kent & Essex, RSPB

Overview of Letter

This letter from the RSPB’s Conservation Team addresses concerns about the housing allocation for Middlewick Ranges in the Colchester City Local Plan. It specifically critiques the Ecological Evidence Base report by Stantec, highlighting its reliance on a non-comparable case study from the Minsmere reserve in Suffolk and outlining principles for responsible planning.

Summary of Concerns

1. Critique of the Stantec Report’s Use of Minsmere Case Study

  • Stantec’s report is based on a case study from Minsmere, which the RSPB asserts is not analogous to Middlewick Ranges.
  • Emphasizes that the habitat conditions at Minsmere differ significantly from Middlewick.
  • Quote: “The RSPB wish to advise the Council that the Minsmere case study presented in the Stantec report is not comparable or analogous to the proposed compensation site for Middlewick Ranges and we do not consider that any mitigation/compensation would be suitably bespoke, deliverable or effective.”

2. Principles of Ecological Mitigation and Compensation

  • Highlights the mitigation hierarchy: avoiding damage, mitigating adverse impacts, and compensating when other options are not possible.
  • Stresses that mitigation or compensation must be bespoke, deliverable, and effective.
  • Quote: “Underpinning the latter are the fundamental principles that any mitigation or compensation must be bespoke, deliverable and effective.”

3. Inadequacy of Proposed Mitigation Measures

  • Argues that proposed mitigation measures for Middlewick are not adequate due to differing soil conditions and the unique ecosystem present.
  • The Minsmere project aimed to create habitat on low-biodiversity farmland, unlike the sensitive ecosystems at Middlewick.
  • Quote: “It was not a replacement for sensitive ecosystems such as acid grassland supporting an outstanding invertebrate assemblage of over 1,400+ species known to exist at Middlewick.”

4. Guidelines for Responsible Planning

  • Cites the ‘Planning Naturally’ report, emphasizing principles for good spatial planning, such as enhancing the natural environment and basing plans on robust scientific evidence.
  • Urges the Council to consider environmental impacts rigorously and explore less damaging alternatives.
  • Quote: “- Plans should contribute to sustainable development by enhancing the natural environment and ensuring that social and economic development takes place within environmental limits.”

Conclusion

  • The RSPB urges Colchester City Council to reconsider the housing allocation for Middlewick Ranges, pointing out the inadequacy of the proposed mitigation measures and the need for planning decisions that are environmentally sustainable and evidence-based.
  • The letter emphasizes the unique ecological value of Middlewick Ranges and the importance of adhering to established planning principles and emerging Local Nature Recovery Strategies.

“We would not wish the work at Minsmere to be used to legitimise or justify the destruction of acid grassland or heathland (priority habitats) at Middlewick. The Minsmere case study was a strict habitat creation project with a conservation objective to create suitable habitat from farmland of low biodiversity value for breeding Stone Curlews (one of the UK’s rarest birds). It was not a replacement for sensitive ecosystems such as acid grassland supporting an outstanding invertebrate assemblage of over 1,400+ species known to exist at Middlewick. Fundamentally, the soil conditions at Minsmere are light, whilst those at the Middlewick compensation site are a heavy loamy clay, which are nutrient-rich and currently provide important habitats in their own right.”

6.    Steven Falk

Letter Referenced: ‘[6] Steven Falk Expert Statement 11-12-23’

Letter Date: 11 December 2023

Addressed to: Colchester City Council via Prof. Ted Benton

From: Steven Falk

Overview of Letter

This statement by Steven Falk, a seasoned professional naturalist and conservationist with over forty years’ experience of working with bees. He addresses the proposals for Middlewick Ranges in relation to the Evidence Base and the current Local Plan Allocation. Steven Falk emphasizes the ecological significance of Middlewick Ranges, particularly its acid grassland habitat, and criticizes the proposed methods of recreating this habitat elsewhere.

Summary of Concerns

1. Biodiversity Value of Middlewick Ranges

  • Acknowledges the high biodiversity value of Middlewick Ranges, especially for scarcer insects.
  • Highlights the rarity and historical loss of acid grassland sites in Essex.
  • Quote: “There can be no doubting the high value of Middlewick Ranges for biodiversity, especially scarcer insects.”

2. Critique of Grassland Recreation Methods

  • Expresses astonishment and concern over the claims that high-quality acid grassland can be recreated on unsuitable soils by adding sulfur.
  • Points out the complexity of acid grassland as an ecological community, not merely soil acidity.
  • Quote: “I am astonished and disturbed by the claims that high quality acid grassland can be recreated on unsuitable soils elsewhere simply by adding Sulphur.”

3. Misunderstanding of Acid Grassland Ecology

  • Emphasizes that acid grassland is a result of historic ecological processes, including unique soil profiles and plant, invertebrate, and fungal communities.
  • Argues that recreating such ancient and complex habitats is not feasible by simply modifying soil pH.
  • Quote: “To suggest that simply adding Sulphur can recreate an ancient soil profile, an ancient seed bank, or ancient (and isolated) plant, invertebrate and fungal communities, is one of the most controversial claims I’ve encountered during my many years working in nature conservation.”

Conclusion

  • Steven Falk strongly opposes the notion that acid grassland habitats, like those in Middlewick Ranges, can be artificially recreated through simplistic methods such as sulfur addition.
  • He calls for careful scrutiny of these claims and consultation with experts in grassland, plant, and insect ecology. Falk’s statement underlines the importance of preserving existing natural habitats, considering their intricate and longstanding ecological dynamics.

7.    Butterfly Conservation

7.1 Letter to Colchester Borough Council

Letter Referenced: ‘[7-1] Butterfly Conservation ‘CBC LP2 Policy SC2 Middlewick Ranges – further response – April 2021-SUBMISSION’

Letter Date: April 2021

Addressed to: Colchester Borough Council

From: Rob Smith, Butterfly Conservation Cambridgeshire & Essex branch

Overview of Letter

This representation statement by Rob Smith from the Butterfly Conservation Cambridgeshire & Essex branch discusses the ecological implications of the proposed site allocations in South Colchester (Policies SC1 to SC3) in the Colchester Borough Local Plan. Smith emphasizes the high ecological value of Middlewick Ranges and argues against its development based on detailed ecological assessments.

Summary of Concerns

1. Significance of Middlewick Ranges

  • Acknowledges Middlewick Ranges as the most important Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) in Colchester, especially for its invertebrate diversity.
  • Emphasizes the site’s local and national importance, particularly for its lowland acid grassland.
  • Quote: “The Middlewick Ranges is the most important registered Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) in the Colchester area. It has a very high level of ecological value, particularly its invertebrate interested which is well documented, and should be defended from development.”

2. Criticism of Site Allocation Process

  • Challenges the adequacy of ecological reports used in the masterplan and policy formation.
  • Expresses concern over the underestimation of the site’s ecological value and the potential catastrophic impact on wildlife.
  • Quote: “Fundamentally, we believe that the ecology reports are of insufficient detail to evaluate the areas under threat of development in the Masterplan (DIO Vision Document, December 2020).”

3. Inadequacy of Habitat and Invertebrate Assessments

  • Highlights discrepancies and oversight in habitat and invertebrate studies conducted for the site.
  • Calls for a full survey to address the oversight from the ‘walkover’ study and for greater consideration of the site’s biodiversity.
  • Quote: “We do not believe that the site or its management and the species present has changed significantly from the 2006 application or the 2015 LoWS Review until the present and that this area remains of high ecological importance.”

4. Concerns About Mitigation Proposals

  • Critiques the proposed mitigation measures for their potential negative impact on the site’s biodiversity and surrounding areas.
  • Questions the effectiveness of the sulfur deposition technique and its potential effects on aquatic life and nearby habitats.
  • Quote: “A key aspect of the mitigation proposals involves the deposition of element sulphur into the soil in an attempt to replicate the lost acid grassland. Aside from its success or otherwise, the lay of the mitigation land runs towards Birch Brook.”

Conclusion

  • Rob Smith strongly opposes the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan, citing its irreplaceable ecological value and the inadequacy of the proposed mitigation measures.
  • He urges for a re-evaluation of the site’s ecological importance and calls for more detailed and accurate environmental assessments to inform planning decisions. He emphasizes the need to protect the site’s biodiversity in line with Colchester Borough Council’s own policies and past decisions.

“Fundamentally, we believe that you cannot mitigate and compensate for rare undisturbed grassland. The existing acid grassland has evolved over centuries since before the Crimean War when it was acquired for the Army.”

7.2 Letter to Natural England

Letter Referenced: ‘[7-2] Butterfly Conservation ‘Middlewick Ranges – Natural England – 02 November 2023.pdf’

Date: 2nd November 2023

Addressed to: Justin Tilley, Natural England Area Manager (West Anglia)

From: Robert C. H. Smith, Butterfly Survey and Recording Officer for Essex; For and on behalf of Butterfly Conservation, Cambridgeshire and Essex branch

Overview of Letter

The letter expresses deepening concerns about the proposed development of Middlewick Ranges, particularly regarding the shift in the location of planned housing and its ecological implications.

Summary of Concerns

  1. Shift in Development Location:
    • The proposed location for 1,000 homes has moved to the main area of the firing range, previously identified as a significant area of acid grassland.
    • Quote: “This has previously been identified as the most substantive area of acid grassland at the site.”
  2. Ecological Impact of New Development Plan:
    • The new development plan includes areas critical for scarce and rare hymenoptera and other invertebrates, as well as significant Waxcap grassland.
    • Quote: “This built footprint will also include the butts and surrounding sparsely-vegetated areas that are a conspicuous nesting area for scarce and rare hymenoptera…”
  3. Expansion of Development Area:
    • The ‘Development Area’ has increased from 86ha to 107ha, extending towards Birch Brook Woodland Local Wildlife Site and potentially closer to Donyland Woods and the Roman River Valley SSSI.
    • There is worry about the incremental expansion of the development area, which could have significant ecological implications.
    • Quote: “The overall ‘Development Area’ has been increased from 86ha to 107ha…”

“This incremental creep is extremely concerning.”

  1. Protection of Endangered Species and Council’s Environmental Policy:
    • The presence of RDB1 Endangered species (e.g. Cerceris quadrincincta) necessitates protection, aligning with Colchester City Council’s commitment to conserving biodiversity.
    • Quote: “We are mindful of the need to protect sites with RDB1 Endangered species present…”
  2. Invertebrate Studies and Essex Field Club’s Surveys:
    • New invertebrate studies have been commissioned, and the Essex Field Club has provided updated species lists and SAT Assemblages, showing 8 invertebrate assemblages in Favourable condition.
    • Quote: “Already the data is showing 8 invertebrate assemblages in Favourable condition.”
  3. Request for Natural England’s Intervention:
    • The letter urges Natural England to reconsider its position on the site and to consider notifying Middlewick Ranges as an SSSI.
    • Quote: “We feel that Natural England has a significant part to play in the destiny of the wildlife landscape in the south-east of Colchester…”

Conclusion

The letter highlights significant ecological concerns regarding the proposed development of Middlewick Ranges, especially the shift in the development area and its potential impact on local wildlife and habitats. The authors seek intervention from Natural England and further advice on how to address these concerns effectively.

8.    Midland Ecology

Report: Middlewick Ranges Ecological Evaluation Report – Midland Ecology (2021)

Document Attachment: ‘[8] Midland Ecology – Middlewick Ranges Ecological Evaluation of Stantec Report (February 2021)’

Available Online: CBC-Colchester-Local-Plan-Section-2-hearing-statements-(Third-Party)-Matter 6 Tracy France.pdf (windows.net)

Overview

The Midland Ecology critique of the Stantec report reveals several critical deficiencies in the ecological assessment of Middlewick Ranges; this reveals that the Stantec report provided flawed information with significant omissions to the crucial Evidence Base on which the allocation of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan was largely decided.

The Stantec report and non-Defra Biodiversity Metric also potentially breach the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Codes of Conduct in a number of ways (see below).

This provides a very broad and rough summary of a detailed and technical report; the original Midland Ecology report should be referred and deferred to for any technical detail; however, this summary may provide a potentially helpful overview before reading the Midland Ecology report in full.

Inadequate Habitat Assessment

  1. Misclassification of Habitats:
    • Issue: The Stantec report categorizes significant areas as ‘poor semi-improved grassland’ with ‘Negligible’ conservation value, contradicting independent assessments.
    • Quote: “The report dismisses this area as ‘poor semi-improved grassland’.”
    • Potential CIEEM Violation: This misclassification breaches CIEEM’s requirement for accurate habitat classification (Code of Professional Conduct 3.1).
  2. Inappropriate Survey Timing and Methodology:
    • Issue: Surveys were conducted outside optimal periods and under unsuitable weather conditions.
    • Quote: “A walk-over survey was undertaken in June 2019 and was restricted to certain dates when the firing range was not in use. The dates coincided with poor weather (drizzle and cool conditions).”
    • Potential CIEEM Violation: Conducting surveys outside optimal periods and in unsuitable conditions violates CIEEM’s principle of using appropriate and adequate methods for ecological assessment (Code of Professional Conduct 3.2).

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and Mitigation Hierarchy

  1. Controversial Application of BNG:
    • Issue: The report’s approach to BNG is considered controversial and potentially unfit for purpose.
    • Quote: “The report’s approach to BNG is considered controversial and unfit for purpose.”
    • Potential CIEEM Violation: Over-reliance on BNG metrics without proper ecological assessment violates CIEEM’s guidelines on ensuring that BNG does not replace ecological expertise (Code of Professional Conduct 4.3).
  2. Misapplication of the Mitigation Hierarchy:
    • Issue: The report does not adequately apply the mitigation hierarchy.
    • Quote: “The report does not adequately apply the mitigation hierarchy.”
    • Potential CIEEM Violation: Inadequate application of the mitigation hierarchy breaches CIEEM’s standards for ecological impact assessment (Code of Professional Conduct 4.2).

Additional Points of Concern

  1. Lack of Comprehensive Data:
    • Issue: The report fails to provide a complete and accurate picture of the site’s biodiversity.
    • Quote: “The report lacks comprehensive data on the site’s biodiversity.”
    • Potential CIEEM Violation: This lack of comprehensive data violates CIEEM’s principle of thorough and accurate ecological assessment (Code of Professional Conduct 3.3).
  2. Inadequate Consideration of Species Diversity:
    • Issue: The report does not fully consider the diversity of species present on the site.
    • Quote: “The report does not fully consider the diversity of species present on the site.”
    • Potential CIEEM Violation: This oversight breaches CIEEM’s guidelines on considering the full range of ecological factors in an assessment (Code of Professional Conduct 3.4).

Conclusion

  • The Stantec report’s approach to habitat assessment and Biodiversity Net Gain calculations exhibits significant deficiencies.
  • These issues include inaccurate habitat classification, inadequate survey methods and timing, controversial application of BNG, misapplication of the mitigation hierarchy, lack of comprehensive data, and inadequate consideration of species diversity. This appears to fall short CIEEM’s Codes of Conduct in multiple ways.

These shortcomings undermine the report’s credibility and its suitability as a basis for including Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan.

9.    Richard Kilshaw CIEEM

9.1 Review of the Stantec Report

Document Attachment: ‘[9-1] Richard Kilshaw MM37 Attachment.pdf’

Overview of Document

The Stantec report, pivotal in the decision to include Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan, exhibits significant deficiencies. These shortcomings not only compromise the report’s ecological assessments but also appear to contravene the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Codes of Conduct.

Deficiencies in Habitat Assessment

  1. Misclassification and Undervaluation of Habitats:
    • The report categorizes significant areas as ‘poor semi-improved grassland’ with ‘Negligible’ conservation value, contradicting independent assessments that found diverse native flora and fauna. This is evident in the report’s statements like “plant species may have been overlooked” (Stantec 2020, Paragraph B.5.4) and the application of a ‘best fit’ category of MG1 grassland without supporting survey data (Stantec 2020, Paragraph D.3.13 et seq.).
    • Concerns wrt CIEEM Guidelines: This approach appears to breach CIEEM’s requirement for accurate habitat classification (CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct 3.1), mandating that work be based on sound, up-to-date information and appropriate techniques.
  2. Inadequate Survey Methods and Timing:
    • The report relies on limited walk-over surveys rather than comprehensive National Vegetation Classification (NVC) surveys. Additionally, surveys were conducted outside the optimal period, such as the Phase 1 habitat survey completed on March 16th, 2020 (Stantec 2020, Paragraph B.7.2), and during unsuitable weather conditions, limiting the accuracy of the findings.
    • Concerns wrt CIEEM Guidelines: Failing to use industry-standard methodologies and appropriate timing for habitat surveys contravenes CIEEM’s principle of using appropriate and adequate methods for ecological assessment (CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct 3.2).

Biodiversity Net Gain Calculations

  1. Controversial Application of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG):
    • The report’s approach to BNG is considered controversial and unfit for purpose by many ecologists and academics. It fails to support ecological expertise and assessment adequately, as indicated by the report’s reliance on BNG calculations despite acknowledged survey limitations.
    • Concerns wrt CIEEM Guidelines: Over-reliance on BNG metrics without proper ecological assessment violates CIEEM’s guidelines on ensuring that BNG does not replace ecological expertise (CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct 4.3).
  2. Misapplication of the Mitigation Hierarchy:
    • The report does not adequately apply the mitigation hierarchy, particularly in the context of avoiding habitat loss, which is the first stage of the hierarchy. This is evident in the report’s failure to consider alternative development sites that would cause less ecological harm.
    • Violation of CIEEM Guidelines: Inadequate application of the mitigation hierarchy breaches CIEEM’s standards for ecological impact assessment (CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct 4.2).

Conclusion

  • The Stantec report’s approach to habitat assessment and biodiversity net gain calculations exhibits significant deficiencies, failing to comply with CIEEM’s Codes of Conduct.
  • These issues include inaccurate habitat classification, inadequate survey methods and timing, controversial application of BNG, and misapplication of the mitigation hierarchy.

These shortcomings undermine the report’s credibility and its suitability as a basis for including Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan.

9.2 Review of use of Minsmere Case Study

Document Attachment: ‘[9-2] Richard Kilshaw MM47 objection 2of2.pdf’

Overview of Document

The Stantec report’s approach to mitigation and compensation for the loss of acid grassland habitat at Middlewick Ranges, particularly its reliance on the RSPB Minsmere Nature Reserve case study, exhibits significant deficiencies.

The document summarised and referenced here, scrutinises the heavy use of the Minsmere acid grassland creation study within the Stantec report, and its use to justify the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan – on the basis that these acid grassland habitats can simply be replaced.

Inappropriate Use of Case Study

  1. Misapplication of the RSPB Minsmere Case Study:
    • Issue: The Stantec report asserts the relevance of the RSPB Minsmere acid grassland creation scheme to Middlewick, despite clear differences in aims, conditions, and outcomes.
    • Quote: “The aims of the RSPB scheme were to create structural habitat for a range of bird species, NOT to re-create the complex, established semi-natural grassland habitats found at Middlewick.”
    • Concerns wrt CIEEM: This misapplication violates CIEEM’s principle of using relevant and appropriate case studies for ecological assessments (Code of Professional Conduct 3.5).
  2. Differences in Site Conditions and Management:
    • Issue: The conditions and management practices at RSPB Minsmere differ significantly from those at Middlewick, affecting the viability of the proposed compensatory habitat creation.
    • Quote: “The RSPB re-creation was undertaken on former heathland/acid grassland habitat… highly likely to have benefited from a residual seed bank.”
    • Concerns wrt CIEEM: Overlooking these differences breaches CIEEM’s guidelines on thorough and accurate ecological assessment (Code of Professional Conduct 3.3).

Unrealistic Timeframe and Impact Assessment

  1. Overly Optimistic Timeframe for Habitat Creation:
    • Issue: The report suggests a much shorter timeframe for habitat creation than what was observed at RSPB Minsmere.
    • Direct Quote: “The Stantec report suggests the creation can be achieved within 10 years and possibly within 5-7 years; the RSPB scheme was running for 13 years.”
    • Concerns wrt CIEEM: Proposing an unrealistic timeframe without adequate evidence violates the CIEEM principle of basing work on sound, up-to-date information (Code of Professional Conduct 3.1).
  2. Potential Environmental Impact on Adjacent Sites:
    • Issue: The proposed use of sulphur and herbicides in the compensatory re-creation could negatively impact nearby LWS and SSSIs.
    • Direct Quote: “What safeguards are in place to prevent this?”
    • Concerns wrt CIEEM: Failing to adequately assess and mitigate potential environmental impacts breaches CIEEM’s standards for ecological impact assessment (Code of Professional Conduct 4.2).

Inadequate Survey and Assessment

  1. Limitations in Habitat Surveys:
    • Issue: The surveys conducted by Stantec did not provide a comprehensive assessment of habitat types and species composition.
    • Direct Quote: “The significant limitations experienced during these surveys… make clear that this has not been achieved.”
    • Concerns wrt CIEEM: Inadequate surveying and assessment violate CIEEM’s guidelines on ensuring thorough ecological assessments (Code of Professional Conduct 3.3).

Conclusion

  • The Stantec report’s approach to mitigation and compensation for the loss of acid grassland habitat at Middlewick Ranges, particularly its reliance on the RSPB Minsmere case study, exhibits significant deficiencies.
  • These include inappropriate use of the case study, differences in site conditions and management, unrealistic timeframe for habitat creation, potential environmental impact on adjacent sites, and inadequate survey and assessment.

These shortcomings potentially violate CIEEM’s Codes of Conduct, undermining the report’s credibility and suitability as a basis for the proposed development at Middlewick Ranges.

10.                   Lawyers for Nature

The organisation and law firm Lawyers for Nature were contracted in order to provide some initial legal advice and interpret environmental law – with regard to Middlewick Ranges and the serious concerns raised by a number of nature conservation organisations regarding the allocation of 1000 houses on Middlewick within the Local Plan.

Documents

[10-1] Lawyers for Nature ‘LFNFullSubmissionasAttachment’

‘[10-2] Lawyers for Nature MM Lawyers for Nature Letter’

10.1        A Summary of Both Documents

Overview

Lawyers for Nature have raised significant concerns about the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Colchester Local Plan. Their objections focus on the ecological assessment’s deficiencies and potential contraventions of wildlife law.

Both of their documents outlining legal advice and concerns measured against current environmental law and legislation are summarised here in one combined overview.

Phase 1: High-Level Consultation Response

  1. Modification of Inspector’s Wording for Biodiversity and Masterplanning:
    • Emphasis on reinstating specific language in the Local Plan that was removed by the Inspector, particularly regarding biodiversity mitigation measures and habitat recreation.

Phase 2: Low-Level Incorporation of Objections

  1. Importance of Recording Objections:
    • Highlighting the necessity of documenting objections to the approach in the ecological report for Middlewick Ranges.
    • Acknowledging that while this may not change the Inspector’s decision, it is crucial for the record.

Key Concerns and Recommendations

  1. Deficiencies in Ecological Assessment:
    • The Stantec report, which underpins the suitability of Middlewick for development, is criticized for being severely deficient.
    • Quote: “The ecological report completed by Stantec (‘the Stantec report’) provided the basis for Middlewick’s suitability. The report, however, is severely deficient and cannot serve as a robust or credible evidence base.”
  2. Inadequate Compensation Measures:
    • The bespoke metric used for biodiversity net gain is deemed deficient and/or incorrectly applied.
    • Concerns about the speculative nature of the proposed sulphur deposition intervention for habitat creation.
    • Quote: “No adequate compensation measure for Middlewick Ranges has been identified; the bespoke metric is deficient and/or incorrectly applied.”
  3. Risks of Public Law Irrationality:
    • The decision to allocate Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan could be considered irrational due to the fundamental deficiencies in the ecological assessment.
    • Quote: “The deficient assessment and evidence base are likely to render the site allocation irrational as a matter of public law.”
  4. Contradiction with Policy ENV1:
    • The errors in the Stantec report are not compatible with the objectives of maximizing biodiversity or incorporating net gain, potentially conflicting with Policy ENV1.
    • Quote: “The text of policy ENV1 is arguably incompatible with Policy SC2, as the errors in the Stantec report, which underpins SC2, are not compatible with maximizing biodiversity or incorporating net gain.”
  5. Reinstatement of Para 14.63:
    • Advocating for the restoration of specific language in Para 14.63 of the Local Plan, which mandates completion of studies and mitigation measures before development begins.
    • Quote: “The language of Para 14.63 should, as a matter of planning policy and law, be reinstated in the Colchester Local Plan.”
  6. Comparison with Other Local Plans:
    • Highlighting differences between Colchester’s draft Local Plan and other Local Plans like West Oxfordshire, particularly in terms of biodiversity net gain and certainty of effect.
    • Quote: “West Oxfordshire District Council’s Local Plan includes a Core Policy 46 concerning Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity…”
  7. Legal and Planning Policy Implications:
    • Discussing the legal and planning policy implications of the deficiencies in the ecological assessment and the potential for litigation risk.
    • Quote: “It is trite law that Main Modifications to a Local Plan must relate to soundness and legality.”

Conclusion

  • Lawyers for Nature’s advice builds a strong case against the inclusion of Middlewick Ranges in the Local Plan, citing significant deficiencies in the ecological assessment and potential legal challenges.
  • They emphasize the need for a robust and credible evidence base and the reinstatement of specific language in the Local Plan to ensure compliance with biodiversity objectives and wildlife law.

10.2        Full Submission Attachment

Document Attachment: ‘[10-1] Lawyers for Nature LFNFullSubmissionasAttachment’

Overview of Letter

This letter from Lawyers for Nature critically examines the Colchester Local Plan, particularly focusing on the environmental risks associated with offsite habitat creation and the need for sound planning policy and law. It emphasizes the importance of reinstating specific language in the plan to ensure proper environmental management.

1. Importance of Specific Planning Policy Language

  • Advocates for reinstating the original wording in Para 14.63 of the Local Plan, emphasizing its role in managing environmental risks and habitat creation.
  • Discusses the removal of crucial text regarding the timing of biodiversity mitigation measures and habitat recreation.
  • Quote: “The following text was removed at Para 14.63: ‘all the studies to be completed and any mitigation measures i.e. compensatory habitat to be provided prior to the start of development.’”

2. Compliance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

  • Highlights the NPPF’s requirements for biodiversity net gains and minimizing impacts on biodiversity.
  • Compares Colchester’s draft Local Plan with other councils’ approaches to biodiversity and habitat protection.
  • Quote: “Paragraph 174(d) provides that planning policies and decisions should minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity.”

3. Concerns with Biodiversity Net Gain Calculations and Habitat Assessment

  • Criticizes the overestimation of habitat quality in mitigation areas and the underestimation of existing habitats in the Stantec report.
  • Questions the feasibility of recreating high distinctiveness habitats using the proposed methods.
  • Quote: “The results are easiest to see visually and numerically.”

4. Legal and Rationality Issues with Site Allocation

  • Raises concerns about the potential irrationality and litigation risks of proceeding with the Local Plan based on deficient ecological assessments.
  • Argues for the reinstatement of precautionary measures in the Local Plan to address these risks.
  • Quote: “Where an ecological assessment is fundamentally deficient, it is conceivable that no decision-maker could reasonably proceed with allocation unless suitable measures were put in place.”

Conclusion

Lawyers for Nature’s letter emphasizes the critical need for precise and precautionary language in planning policies to protect habitats, particularly in the case of Middlewick Ranges. The letter argues that the current approach in the Local Plan, as modified, fails to adequately safeguard biodiversity and may lead to irrational planning decisions. The organization urges the reinstatement of key provisions to ensure robust and credible ecological assessments guide development decisions.

10.3        Lawyers for Nature Letter

Document Attachment: ‘[10-2] Lawyers for Nature MM Lawyers for Nature Letter’

Overview of Letter

Lawyers for Nature’s response to the Colchester Local Plan consultation focuses on the soundness of the plan, particularly in relation to biodiversity and ecological assessments. They argue for reinstating specific language in Para 14.63 of the plan, which was removed in the Inspector’s Main Modifications. This language is crucial for ensuring environmental risk management and proper implementation of offsite habitat creation.

1. Importance of Reinstating Language in Para 14.63

  • Advocates for the reinstatement of specific language regarding the timing of biodiversity mitigation measures and habitat recreation.
  • Expresses concern over the removal of this language and its impact on the clarity, soundness, and legality of the plan.
  • Quote: “The following text was removed at Para 14.63: ‘all the studies to be completed and any mitigation measures i.e. compensatory habitat to be provided prior to the start of development.’”

2. Compliance with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

  • Highlights the NPPF’s requirements for biodiversity net gains and minimizing impacts on biodiversity.
  • Compares different local plans’ approaches to biodiversity and habitat protection, emphasizing the need for certainty in effect.
  • Quote: “Where Colchester requires the incorporation of beneficial features and net gain, West Oxfordshire stipulates that a developer must show that ‘measures can be provided for… that would… compensate for, the adverse effects likely to result from development.’”

3. Critique of Stantec Ecological Report

  • Questions the credibility and robustness of the Stantec ecological report underpinning Policy SC2.
  • Criticizes the report for its approach to compensation and reliance on untested interventions.
  • Quote: “The key feature of the Stantec report’s approach to compensation…is an intervention involving the deposition of sulphur into the soil in a parcel of land near Middlewick Ranges.”

4. Rationality and Legal Issues with Site Allocation

  • Raises concerns about the rationality of the site allocation process based on a deficient ecological assessment.
  • Argues that the inconsistencies and lack of robust evidence could render the site allocation irrational as a matter of public law.
  • Quote: “Where an ecological assessment is fundamentally deficient, it is conceivable that no decision-maker could reasonably proceed with allocation unless suitable measures were put in place.”

Conclusion

Lawyers for Nature’s letter stresses the importance of sound ecological assessments and clear planning policy to ensure the protection of biodiversity. They advocate for the reinstatement of specific language in the Local Plan to manage environmental risks effectively and argue that the current modifications pose significant legal and rationality risks. The letter calls for a more robust approach to biodiversity conservation in line with national policy and legal requirements.

11.                   Grange Road, Lawford – A Case Study in Planning Law

Overview of the Lawford Tye Case – And How it Relates to Middlewick

The Lawford Tye case and its relevance to the Middlewick Ranges situation highlight the critical role of thorough ecological documentation in planning decisions. This comparison underscores the necessity for planning departments to give due consideration to local naturalists’ records alongside commercial ecological reports.

The Lawford case serves as a potent reminder that reliance solely on commercial reports can lead to a form of confirmation bias, potentially overlooking valuable local insights. It raises a question for planning officers: Has the data from local recorders in the Middlewick Ranges case been adequately weighed against the findings of the commercial ecological consultant?

This comparison invites a re-evaluation of the balance and integrity of evidence considered in environmental planning and decision-making processes.

A Precedent in Local Planning Law

The Lawford Tye case sets a compelling precedent in local and county planning law, emphasising the obligation of planners to thoroughly consider all available evidence, including findings emerging after initial assessments. This case demonstrates that overlooking local naturalists’ data in favour of biased commercial reports can lead to flawed decisions.

It underscores the legal and ethical responsibility of planners to meticulously evaluate all sources of information, thereby ensuring informed, balanced decisions. This precedent reinforces the need for accountability in planning processes, holding planners responsible for integrating comprehensive ecological evidence in their decision-making.

11.1        Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision

‘[11-1] Grange Rd Lawford – Planning Inspectorate  Appeal Decision (case study)’

The Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision

Inquiry held 23–26 and 30 July 2019

Accompanied site visit made on 31 July 2019

by Helen Heward BSc Hons MRTPI

Decision date: 23rd October 2019

Appeal Reference: APP/P1560/W/18/3201067

Land off Grange Road, Lawford, CO11 2JB

Overview 1

(Reference: APP/P1560/W/18/3201067) focuses on several key issues, including the impact on European habitats, on-site biodiversity, and local ecology. The decision highlights the importance of considering both professional ecological reports and local naturalist records, acknowledging the potential bias in commercial consultants’ reports.

In this case, evidence from local recorders was crucial in identifying the presence of ecologically significant species, like the Lunar Yellow Underwing Moth, not adequately covered in the consultant’s report. This decision underscores the necessity of a comprehensive ecological assessment, incorporating diverse sources of information, to ensure the protection of rare and valuable species and habitats.

Overview 2
The appeal decision for the planning application at Land off Grange Road, Lawford, primarily hinged on ecological considerations. Local naturalists’ records played a pivotal role in this decision, highlighting the presence of significant species not adequately covered in the commercial consultant’s report.

The decision illustrates the importance of integrating diverse sources of ecological data, including local expertise, to protect valuable habitats and species. This comprehensive approach in ecological assessment was crucial for the dismissal of the application, emphasizing the value of rigorous and inclusive ecological reporting.


Summary
The appeal decision for the planning application at Land off Grange Road, Lawford, focuses on ecological concerns, particularly the impact on local biodiversity and the role of local naturalists in providing crucial data. The document highlights:

  1. On-site Biodiversity Concerns:
    • Recorded presence of species like Skylark and Lunar Yellow Underwing Moth, both ecologically significant.
    • Evidence from local naturalists revealed the presence of these species, challenging the consultant’s report.
  2. Importance of Local Naturalists’ Records:
    • Local recordings provided critical data on species not covered in the commercial report.
    • Emphasized the need for thorough and inclusive ecological assessments.
  3. Outcome Based on Ecological Factors:
    • The application was dismissed due to inadequate ecological reporting and the failure to consider local naturalists’ findings.
    • Highlighted the need for rigorous environmental scrutiny in planning decisions.

This decision underlines the importance of comprehensive and diverse ecological data in assessing the environmental impact of development projects.

11.2        Essex Naturalist: ‘An Essex case study: Lawford Tye  – species records add weight to planning decision’

‘[11-2] Naturalist2020 Lawford Planning Law Precedent (case study)’


Overview of Case Study

The case study of Lawford Tye, highlighted in “Essex Naturalist,” underscores the critical role of detailed wildlife recording and analysis in influencing planning decisions.

The study emphasizes how local action groups, like Lawford Tye Action Group, can effectively use biological data to challenge speculative development proposals. In this specific case, the group’s rigorous documentation of biodiversity, including UK Biodiversity Action Plan species and other wildlife, was pivotal in the planning inspector’s decision to dismiss a development appeal.

This instance demonstrates the potential impact of well-presented ecological data in planning inquiries, especially when it is supported by evidence from local naturalists and aligns with planning policies and laws.

Summary

Here’s a concise summary with key points and direct quotes from the Essex Naturalist case study on Lawford Tye:

  1. Background:
    • Lawford Tye Field, a grassland site, faced a development proposal for 110 houses.
    • Over 280 objections led to the refusal of the application by Tendring District Council (TDC).
  2. Public Inquiry:
    • The developers appealed, leading to a Public Inquiry.
    • Lawford Tye Action Group (LTAG) presented detailed wildlife surveys to the Inquiry.
  3. Key Findings:
    • LTAG’s surveys showed the presence of UK BAP species, influencing the Planning Inspector’s decision.
    • “Biodiversity Action Plan species (UK BAP species)… are important. These added weight to the Inspector’s decision to dismiss the developer’s Appeal” (direct quote).
  4. Outcome:
    • Appeal by developers dismissed, protecting Lawford Tye Field from development.
    • The case highlighted the effectiveness of well-documented ecological data in planning decisions.
  5. Importance for Future Cases:
    • This case underscores the value of biological records in planning and environmental protection.
    • It demonstrates that robust ecological data, when presented effectively, can significantly influence planning outcomes.

This summary captures the essence of the case study, emphasizing the importance of ecological recording and its impact on planning decisions.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *