Below is a copy of the letter I sent to the BA Planning Committee yesterday. It follows a further planning application from Natural England in an attempt to avoid enforcement action for the illegal installation of two pilled barriers on Hoveton Great Broad in Sept 2020. If you read the application you won;t find any reference to the term infringement illegal or that this was without planning or permit. Of note, it doesn’t resolve the position that any deployment of barriers requires compliance with their own Environment Statement policy.
The planning application reference is BA/2021/0198/COND
Feel free to make your own response to the planing authority on this matter.
Dear Cally and members of the planning committee and Cllr Nigel Dixon
I trust you are well and had a good summer.
I see that Natural England have submitted a further application and some amendments on the Hoveton Great Broad application.
Initial application BA/2014/0248/FUL
Discharge of conditions BA/2016/0228/COND
Further conditions discharge and amendment BA/2021/0198/COND
The ongoing planning and permitting of the Hoveton Great Broad scheme continues to concern us and the possible social economic impacts and the planning application should be refused and the authority should enforce for putting in place development without consent actions. If this was the private sector acting with such clear intent, you would be all over them.
As matters stand, the BA/2014/0248/FUL condition 2 requires that the development must go ahead only in compliance with the Environmental Statement (ES). The ES says that the development will not go ahead if the fish element is significantly affected by the development. It is a fact of the development – even on the developers own evidence – that Fish will be excluded from the site where they spawn. The fish will therefore be significantly affected and the development cannot lawfully go ahead, whatever NE say in their fresh application.
You may be aware of the current EA permitting EPR process for the barriers and bio-manipulation is yet to be concluded. But this has exposed the clear position of EA Fisheries and their overwhelming objection to the barriers, which in the latest “Minded To” consultation is being overruled by senior management and further conditions are placed on the barriers subject to a monitoring plan and damage they may cause to fish spawning and recruitment across the wider Bure Catchment.
I view this condition 2 has fundamental, as for the past 6 years we felt the fishery had protection if evidence was such that the barriers would have on fish migration and spawning.
It seems to me that it requires a complete new updated Environment Assessment to replace the 2014 version, or the previous policy stated in 8.5.24 remains a lawful condition on this development.
This clearly has wide public interest, as identified in the national and local press as well as established environmental reports, ENDS etc.
I trust the Authority will discuss and approach this with the respect it deserves.
Regards
Kelvin Allen
Chair BASG 30th Sept 2021
