Impact of Housing Development and Roads on Stone Curlew - The Way Forward
Meeting: 30/11/2010 - Cabinet (Item 127)
Report of the Executive Member for the Planning, Health & Housing Portfolio (Paul Claussen).
- Stone Curlew Appendix A Shadwell decision, item 127 PDF 93 KB
- Stone Curlew Appendix B Winchester House decision, item 127 PDF 282 KB
The Executive Member for the Environmental Wellbeing & Communications Portfolio declared a personal & prejudicial interest as a landowner in the Stone Curlew zone and left the room whilst this item was being discussed.
The report set out the current position in terms of the research and understanding of the issues relating to the effects of development on Stone Curlew.
In order to ensure that the Breckland Core Strategy satisfied the requirements of the Habitats regulations, Breckland Council, Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council had introduced a 1,500m buffer zone with an accompanying policy to ensure that the document aspirations of the Core Strategy could be taken forward without resulting in harm to the Special Protection Area (SPA).
The seven options were highlighted and Option 1 of the report was recommended as it was the most cost effective and least risk way forward. It was felt that Breckland Council should not shoulder the responsibility alone on this matter.
The Chairman agreed that option 1 should be further explored and be taken forward collectively before any monies were spent. A Member felt that this option did not take the Council any further in terms of mitigation issues. He further felt that if such issues could be agreed in the early stages other members of the consortium would more than likely contribute.
The Overview & Scrutiny Chairman felt that part of the evidence that the Council would need to gather was the way in which landowners managed the land. He did applaud the fact that the potential to look favourably on agricultural and employments developments was being looked in to.
The Development Services Manager said that he would talk with both the Chief Executive and the Deputy Chief Executive to determine the most appropriate way forward.
Members were happy to support the funding.
Capita Symonds had concluded that Breckland Council initiated high level discussion with adjoining authorities to jointly fund and commission Option 1 of the report. Should this approach not progress in a timely manner, the Council solely commission and fund option 1 of the report to inform (a) a review of the Core Strategy, and (b) aid the Development Management process.
1) a further examination of the existing data be commissioned in respect of building classes (Appendix 2, Table 1, option 1 of the report) in respect of the future approach towards development within 1,500m of Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) supporting Stone Curlew; subject to
2) a Chief Officer Group being convened from all the affected authorities to discuss whether a clear joint pathway could be found with the aim that all those local authorities that include Special Protection Areas contribute to further Stone Curlew research on a pro-rata basis.
The above approach was consistent with the advice and recommendations of both Natural England and the Government Office (East). A broad working split of proportions for discussion would be Breckland 35%, Forest Heath 35%, St Edmundsbury 20% and Kings Lynn 10%.