Agenda item

The PPM spoke to the Officers Report, and acknowledged that Nutrient Neutrality had significantly impacted the district and county with respect of planning applications. The guidance, introduced by Natural England, related to the protection of habitat regulations and aimed to curb the discharge of nitrates and phosphates into the Wensum and Broad’s water system, both of which are designated Conservation Areas. The Local Authority were obliged to ensure its actives did not have an adverse impact on the receiving water course, including through the granting of planning permission for additional overnight accommodation. At present, Anglian Water were licensed to discharge ‘dirty water’, into the Wensum and Broads Water systems, which was objected by Natural England, who considered the water courses to be in an unfavourable condition, largely due to nutrient enrichment. As a consequence the water lacked sufficient oxygen and had an adverse impact on wildlife, contrary to the habitat requirements. As this was Primary Legislation, any Local Plan or planning permissions granted which failed to address the issues outlined were considered to be unlawful.

With reference to the Local Plan, the PPM advised that with Nutrient Neutrality being a new policy, it was not currently referenced in the emerging Local Plan which would require significant revisions in order to be considered lawful and sound. It is current form it would fail to satisfy the expectation of the Planning Inspector.

The PPM considered several changes would be required to the emerging Local Plan. First, a review of the Habitat Regulations Assessment by the independent consultant. Second, to state within the Local Plan that no development may take place in the affected areas unless concerns related to Nutrient Neutrality were addressed and mitigated. Mitigation measures themselves would need to be outlined. Lastly, development viability, as there would be impacts on developers which may affect affordable housing schemes.

He anticipated this matter could take between 6-9 months to overcome, but that it was more likely to last in excess of year before a clear, sufficient understanding was made which would hold up against Local Plan evaluation.

Members Debate:

1. The Chairman advised that he had attended a Norfolk Strategic Planning Framework Meeting with County Cllrs, and other district Cllrs on the 14^th April, noting that Legal advice had been taken, and that no recommendation had come from the government which considered Planning Applications should be paused.

The PPM affirmed that Natural England were advisors, who advise the government and local authorities, and whilst they were not decision makers they were considered the competent authority. The threshold for the Habitat Regulations was stipulated as ‘beyond reasonable scientific doubt’ applying the precautionary principle, a high standard to overcome. He stated that various parts of the district may be more affected than other areas, and developers would need to consider mitigation of discharge of water waste including what interventions could be made at different stages. The PPM advised the Authority were anxious not to delay decision making for Planning Applications for any longer than was necessary. He advised this item was brought to the Working Party due to its impact on the Local Plan, and the subsequent delays anticipated.

2. Cllr S Seward thanked the PPM for his report, and acknowledged that the Local Plans of many local authorities would be affected. He considered it important that Planning Applications affected still be looked at by Officers so that when decisions could be made once again, they were done without additional delay.

The PPM stated that the Council were still accepting Planning Applications, which was not the case for other authorities. The intention remained to deal with each application and address all other issues up to the point of decision.

3. Cllr V Holliday asked what implications there would be for those areas of the district not affected by the Natural England guidance.

The PPM advised that there was a requirement for Local Authorities to have a 5 year housing land supply of housing growth but as around 2/3 of the district was affected by Nutrient Neutrality, this would have a significant impact. He commented, where a Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply, it must apply the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ to determine planning applications. This would provide a tilted balance that developers should receive planning permission for those areas of the district not affected by the advice unless the harmful impacts were considered very significant. The PPM advised that the Authority would be obliged to give permission in locations it might not otherwise want to, because it does not have a 5 year housing land supply.  The Council could consider the suspension of the presumption, because the circumstances were not of its making, and noted that much of the remaining area of the district not affected by Nutrient Neutrality was covered by the AONB, which would give good grounds to resist development, irrespective of the expectation for presumption. He anticipated plans would be brought forward by developers on land which had not been designated for planning permission.

4. Cllr J Rest asked that an all member briefing be organised, and where possible parish councils and developers be invited to aid their understanding. The PPM advised he would pass this request on the relevant managers.

5. Cllr N Pearce asked what could be done to alleviate the problem of ‘dirty water’ discharged by Anglian Water. The PPM advised, whilst he was not an expert, he understood that developers were not permitted to fund direct capital works for sewage treatment works. The Water Services Regulation Authority (OFWAT) had been requested nationally to look at changing this rule to permit developers to directly fund works. This may be one solution. In addition the Government were considering the re-opening or the current 5 year Investment programs to look at those areas which suffer with Nutrient Neutrality. Conversely, some of the sewage treatment works were not capable of improvements, therefore irrespective of funding they could not be made any better, but would continue to discharge water into water courses with phosphorous and nitrogen exceeding permitted levels. The PPM advised other considerations must be made either before the water reached the sewage works or after when it end up in the water course. This is where the nature-based solutions including recreating wetland habitats were gaining interest. Other polluters including farmers were also affected by this policy. The PPM advised this policy had been implemented in the West County previously and some learning into best practice had been made, which was encouraging.

6. The Chairman relayed to Members that Anglian Water would be in attendance for the upcoming Overview and Scrutiny Committee in May, where Members would be afforded the opportunity to raise questions.

7. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked the PPM if NNDC had raised a legal challenge to Natural England’s advice, and stated his belief that this issue hinged on Anglian Water being over capacity, commenting  that developers must take responsibility in developing schemes to address the problem before the water/waste is passed on to Anglian Water. The PPM commented that there was an appetite to submit a legal challenge across all Norfolk Authorities in a united way. More broadly, he advised that the responsibility over the water quality rested with us all, be that in the use of detergents, flushing of toilets etc. For larger sites, developers would likely be able to come up with mitigation strategies on site whereas small scale developers may have to look at off-site mitigation proposals, similar to the GIRAMS policy. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed his hope that developers would be more innovative to address issues.

Members noted the Officers recommendation for the potential implications of Nutrient Neutrality on the timeline for preparation and submission of the Local Plan.