Dear Ms Arnold,

Application Ref: BH2014/02589: Outline application with appearance matters reserved for the construction of 100no one, two, three, four and five bed dwellings set over one and two storeys with associated garages, car parking, internal estate roads, pedestrian footways and linkages, public open spaces and landscaping. Creation of new vehicular access from Ovingdean Road, junction improvements and other associated works.

Land South of Ovingdean Road, The Paddock, The Vale, Brighton

I am writing as Chair of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (Sussex) to express our objection to this application. CPRE Sussex Countryside Trust is the working title of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Sussex branch CIO, registered charity number 1156568 and exists to promote the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England by encouraging the sustainable use of land and other natural resources in town and country.

Summary of Objections

CPRE Sussex objects to this application for three reasons:

• a) the application is contrary in principle to adopted and emerging planning policies;
• b) visual and landscape impact; and
• c) biodiversity impact.

The proposed development is not identified for development in either the relevant current development plan (the saved policies of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan 1995) or the relevant emerging development plan (the Brighton & Hove City Plan). The principle of the proposed development is contrary to Policies NC5 and NC6 of the Local Plan and Policy SA4 of the City Plan. As explained below, the application site is not land with “the least environmental or amenity value”, which local plans should allocate for development in accordance with paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The recently-published Urban Fringe Assessment recognises that the development of the application site would have a negative landscape impact and potentially significant negative biodiversity impact. It concludes that only a small part (less than half, and for 45 dwellings rather than the 100 proposed) of the application site is potentially suitable for development, and even that could have some adverse consequences. In fact, development of the area suggested would, we believe, inevitably result in significant negative impacts on biodiversity, including nationally scarce species.

The application site is part of the lower slopes of Balsdean Hill. It is physically (but not visually or topographically) separated from the main western slope and summit of Balsdean Hill by Falmer Road. Balsdean Hill to the east of Falmer Road lies within the designated South Downs National Park. The application site was also proposed for inclusion with the National Park by the then Countryside Agency, confirming its landscape quality and clear association with the sweep of downland to the east side of Falmer Road.

It was only excluded from the National Park on the decision of the Inspector that conducted the Public Inquiries into the Designation Order, as confirmed by the Secretary of State, because part of the land to the west of Falmer Road includes the playing fields of Longhill School and the physical separation from the main Balsdean Hill by Falmer Road. In fact, the application site is not on the playing fields, but on the horse paddocks on the northern part of this area of land, which the Countryside Agency considered to be of National Park quality and so, in the absence of a statement to the contrary it can be reasonably assumed, did the Inspector.

The application site is clearly within the setting of the National Park and, in the view of CPRE Sussex, would cause unacceptable harm to that setting and would not conserve or enhance the visual and landscape quality and character of the National Park. Accordingly, we consider that the application is contrary to Policies NC7 and NC8 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Policy SA5 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan.

In addition, the former Planning Minister, Nick Boles MP, recently confirmed that the duty upon local authorities and other public bodies to have regard to the purposes of National Park designation in the exercise of their functions applies to development proposals that are situated outside national parks, but which might have an impact on the setting of, and implementation of, the statutory purposes of these protected areas.

The application site is of biodiversity interest as being lowland calcareous grassland, a “habitat of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity”, and as hosting Red Star-thistle, the Hornet Robber Fly and four other species “of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity”, both under section 41 (England) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Under this Act, every public authority must have regard to the conservation of these habitats and species in the exercising of their functions (including the determination of planning applications).

Brighton & Hove’s Sustainability Action Plan and the Brighton & Hove Local Biodiversity Action Plan both seek to conserve and enhance the City’s areas of chalk grassland. Red Star- thistle is classified as “Critically Endangered” in the Vascular Plants List for Great Britain 2006 (i.e. facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future) and is highlighted for specific conservation in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan, as is the Hornet Robber Fly.

The National Planning Policy Framework promotes the creation, protection, enhancement and management of ecological networks, particularly in Nature Improvement Areas, a Government Scheme to protect wildlife habitats and the environmental, economic and social benefits they bring. The South Downs Way Ahead Nature Improvement Area includes the application site as a “linear corridor and stepping stone”, thus confirming its current and potential ecological value.

The Brighton & Hove and Lewes Downs Biosphere has very recently been awarded World Biosphere site status by UNESCO, the first function of which is “looking after nature and managing a high quality environment that provides for our own needs......and well-being”.

The development of this site would result in the loss of lowland calcareous grassland and its associated biodiversity value and the loss of the Red Star-thistle, Hornet Robber Fly and four other NERC Section 41 species, and habitat for a range of other species. It would therefore be contrary to the Brighton & Hove Sustainability Action Plan, the Brighton & Hove Local Biodiversity Action Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP10 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan, Policy QD17 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and the recently-awarded UNESCO Biosphere status.

The “in principle” planning policy context

The relevant current development plan comprises the saved policies of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan, adopted in June 2005. The site is not allocated for development in the Plan and is shown on the Proposals Map as being outside the boundary of the built-up area and subject to Policies NC6, NC7 and NC8. It is also subject to Policy NC5.

Policy NC6 “Development in the countryside/downland” states that “Development will not be permitted outside the built up area boundary as defined on the Proposals Map. Exceptions will only be made where there will be no significant adverse impact on the countryside/downland and at least one of the following criteria apply”.

Those criteria are: “the proposal is specifically identified as a site allocation elsewhere in this Plan......; a countryside location can be justified......; in appropriate cases and where enhancements to the countryside/downland will result, proposals for quiet, informal recreation......; or the proposal is for the change of use of existing buildings......”. None of these criteria are applicable to this proposal and consequently the development should not be permitted.

The site also lies within the urban fringe (not defined on the Proposals Map but defined in paragraph 7.22 as being “usually areas within 2km of the built up area”, as this site is). Policy NC5 “Urban Fringe” is therefore also relevant. This policy allows development proposals within the urban fringe that comply with Policy NC6 and other respective policies in the development plan only if a number of additional criteria are satisfied. However, as explained above, this proposal does not comply with Policy NC6, and is therefore also contrary to Policy NC5. (We do not agree with, the applicants’ contention in the Planning Statement submitted with the application that the urban fringe designation cannot be afforded any real weight in planning decisions. The urban fringe is given weight by virtue of saved adopted Policy NC5). We consider Policies NC7 and NC8 later in this objection.

The Brighton & Hove City Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State in June 2013. The Inspector has yet to submit her final report and her initial conclusions include a concern over the Plan’s proposed housing supply and that the Council should undertake a more rigorous analysis of urban fringe sites to determine whether there is greater potential for the delivery of new housing from this source. Nevertheless, CPRE Sussex believes that significant weight should still be attached to Policies SA4, SA5 and CP10 of this Plan, given their accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

The application site is not identified for housing in the Plan. It is, however, identified as an “urban fringe site” on the map on page 111 of the Plan, on Map 13 of the Policies Map and as UF Site 42 in Appendix 2 (Maps) of the Housing Delivery Technical Paper. In the assessment of this site in Appendix 2 of the Technical Paper the application site is coded “4”; “not suitable for housing”, with Planning Constraints/Considerations identified as “Open site adjacent to National Park”. The Council’s revised Assessment confirms that the impact on the National Park is the key reason for retaining it as part of the urban fringe.

The site is subject to Policy SA4 “Urban Fringe”, which states “The council will promote and support the careful use and management of land within the urban fringe to achieve the following objectives:

• 1. The protection and enhancement of the wider landscape role of land within the urban fringe, the setting of the South Downs National Park and the protection of strategic views into and out of the city.....
• 3. The promotion of the urban fringe as part of the city’s green network and encouraging opportunities for multi-functional uses such as, appropriate recreation and cultural experience, new allotments and local food production and biodiversity conservation and enhancements (see CP10 Biodiversity).

Development within the urban fringe will not be permitted except where:

• a) a site has been allocated for development in a development plan document; or
• b) a countryside location can be justified;
• c) the proposal has regard to the downland landscape setting of the city;
• d) all adverse impacts of development are minimised and appropriately compensated for; and
• e) where appropriate, the proposal helps to achieve the policy objectives set out above.”

Neither the policy nor the supporting text make it clear whether c), d) and e) of the policy are circumstances in which development in the urban fringe will be permitted in their own right but a reasonable interpretation is that the only circumstances in which development will be permitted in the urban fringe are a) or b) and only then if criteria c), d) and e) are satisfied. If that interpretation is correct, then the proposed development is not on a site allocated for development nor can a countryside location be justified. Accordingly, this application is contrary to Policy SA4.

(In the study of urban fringe sites for potential additional housing commissioned by the Council following the Inspector’s initial conclusions on the submitted City Plan, published in June 2014 (the Brighton & Hove Urban Fringe Assessment), the study’s authors conclude that only the north-western part of Site 42 has housing potential (for a possible 45 dwellings compared to the 100 proposed), and that even then there could be adverse impacts. In fact, there are very strong biodiversity reasons why the north-west part of the field should remain as open grazing land as we explain later in this objection. However, this report has not, at this time, been adopted by the Council and is not “policy”).

It is clear, therefore, that the proposed development the subject of this application would be contrary to adopted saved, and submitted, planning policies intended to protect the countryside/downland/urban fringe around the city from unjustified and damaging development. The Council’s Urban Fringe Assessment considers that the substantial part of Site 42, and more than half of the application site, is unsuitable for development, due to adverse impacts on landscape, biodiversity and open space, and recommends a maximum of only 45 on the north-western part of the site (less than half of the 100 proposed).

The Inspector considers that the full objectively assessed need for housing for the City in the period to 2030 is 20,000 new dwellings. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires Local Plans to meet objectively assessed needs (there is no reference in this paragraph to “full”) “unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted”.

Footnote 9 to this paragraph gives examples of such specific policies, which include that in paragraph 115: “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks”. Although the application site does not lie within the designated South Downs National Park, it is within its setting and actually lies between three closely adjacent areas of the National Park; Beacon Hill and Mount Pleasant Nature Reserves close by to the west and the wider National Park directly adjacent to the east (see “Visual and Landscape Impact” below), which is an important consideration (as recently confirmed by the former Minister for Planning, Nick Boles MP – also see below).

Critically, a development does not have to be within a National Park to have an impact on its landscape and scenic beauty and thereby be subject to the national planning policy for such areas set out in paragraph 115 (a point that the Inspector appears not to have recognised in the reference in her initial conclusions to urban fringe sites not being subject to nationally recognised designations, such as would indicate that development may be restricted, and not recognised either by the applicants in their Planning Statement).

In addition, paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework states “Plans should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value, where consistent with other policies in this Framework”.

Our views of the impact that the development of this site would have on the South Downs National Park and the biodiversity interest of the site are set out below, but in summary it is our view that the development of the application site would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the National Park and biodiversity, and that it should therefore not be considered for development to meet objectively assessed needs.

Visual and Landscape Impact

The site is part of the lower slopes of Balsdean Hill. It is physically (but not visually or topographically) separated from the main western slope and summit of Balsdean Hill by Falmer Road. The site lies outside the designated South Downs National Park. It was originally proposed for inclusion within the Park in the Designation Order by the then Countryside Agency, but was the subject of an objection at the first National Park Public Inquiry on the grounds that the land was not within the AONB and contained school pitches which were not accessible to the public and were related to the urban population.

The Countryside Agency responded that “The objection are at Longhill School includes paddocks and an informal recreation ground. Visually, they are part of the wider sweep of downland leading to Balsdean Hill”. The Agency had previously explained their approach to assessing urban fringe land at the Inquiry, summarised in the Inspector’s Report (IR1 7.441): “When assessing urban fringe land, the Agency’s approach considers matters such as the way the land reads as part of the wider downland landscape; the extent to which the urban edge impacts on the landscape and whether the use of the land is more urban than rural. At the margins of the PSDNP, the boundary is necessarily assessed on a detailed basis but within the context of a wider landscape sweep.”

The Inspector stated “...by and large I support the Agency’s approach to the inclusion or otherwise of urban fringe land” (IR1 7.446). He also accepted that “The objection land at Longhill School is part of the lower slopes of Balsdean Hill” but continued, However, given that it is mainly used for formal sports and is separated from the wider Downs by Falmer Road, on balance I consider that it should be excluded from the PSDNP” (IR1 7.593). In his report on the re-opened Inquiry, he confirmed the deletion. The Secretary of State, in the decision letter, accepted the Inspector’s recommendation to exclude the school (para 62).

It is clear, therefore, that in landscape terms the site is clearly part of the Downs (Balsdean Hill) and was excluded from the National Park only because of the formal playing fields and the physical (rather than visual) separation by Falmer Road. However, only the southern third of this area of land excluded from the National Park is used as playing fields: the other two- thirds is currently in use as horse paddocks, and it is on this part of this land that the development the subject of this application is proposed, not the school playing fields.

The Countryside Agency considered these paddocks to be of National Park quality and, in the absence of any statement to the contrary, it can be assumed that the Inspector did too. Although not within the designated National Park, this land south of Ovingdean Road is clearly within its setting.

Although the site was excluded from the previous Sussex Downs AONB, the City Council has recognised the intrinsic beauty of areas around the city such as this area of land and has sought to protect them: Paragraph 7.28 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan states: “In most places, landscape change is relatively subtle rather than abrupt. In Brighton & Hove, there is little difference to be seen between the downland countryside within the AONB and that which falls outside”.

Paragraph 7.29 of the Plan states “The planning authority is concerned that the AONB and thus the protection it affords, does not cover all areas of exceptional landscape beauty. The concern does not just relate to the narrow gaps of countryside adjacent to the AONB but also to the larger areas, for example, the landscape quality of the coastal area of downland countryside at Ovingdean Valley and Roedean Bottom is felt to be equal to that defined as AONB. Indeed it is included within the National Park proposed Designation Order.

Countryside areas outside the AONB in Brighton & Hove are felt to be of exceptional quality. It is therefore felt that such areas should be afforded similar protection to other areas of exceptional landscape value which are included in the formally designated AONB. These areas have already enjoyed similar protection for many years by virtue of the policies in previous local plans.”

There is indeed little difference to be seen between the downland countryside within the protected landscape, now the South Downs National Park, and the application site. It too was included in the National Park Designation Order and can justifiably be said to be of exceptional quality.

Policy NC7 of the Local Plan “Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” states that “Development will not be permitted within or adjacent to the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Exceptions will only be made where:

• a. the proposal conserves and enhances the visual and landscape quality and character of the AONB and complies with Policy NC6 'Development in the countryside / downland' and other policies in the Development Plan; or
• b. it can be demonstrated that the development is in the national interest and that there are no alternative sites available elsewhere. The site lies adjacent to the former boundary of the former Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the east side of Falmer Road), which now forms the boundary of the South Downs National Park. Although the AONB designation has been revoked, the spirit and intention of Policy NC7 to protect a nationally important landscape remains relevant (indeed, a similar saved policy in the Chichester District Local Plan First Review – Policy RE4 – has been upheld at an appeal (APP/P3800/A/12/2173626) since the Sussex Downs AONB was de- designated). This approach is confirmed by paragraph 7.40 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

The proposal would not conserve or enhance the visual and landscape quality and character of the AONB/National Park and, as explained above, it does not comply with Policy NC6. This application is therefore also contrary to Policy NC7.

Policy NC8 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan “Setting of the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” states “Development within the setting of the AONB will not be permitted if it would be unduly prominent in, or detract from views into, or out of the AONB......or would otherwise threaten public enjoyment of the AONB”.

Paragraph 7.41 of the Local Plan states “The natural beauty of the AONB landscape can be significantly harmed by inappropriate development within the AONB’s setting. The setting can be extensive by virtue of the impact on views from the AONB. This is particularly important in respect to the Downs where part of the beauty lies in the extensive views obtained ‘from the CPRE Sussex top’, which includes views of areas beyond the boundary.” Paragraph 7.43 explains that the policy will continue to apply after the designation of the South Downs National Park.

Balsdean Hill (which lies within the National Park) has bridleways from which there are views over the application site, with the whole of the east side of the site being particularly visible from the Park, being separated from it only by Falmer Road. The site is also very highly visible from the footpath on the South Downs National Park Mount Pleasant Nature Reserve. The application site also has a ridge down the centre and any houses built on this ridge would be highly visible from the National Park and Ovingdean Road. The application site is prominent in the foreground of the beautiful view towards the sea from the National Park. The Urban Fringe Sites Assessment Report notes “The gently sloping ground in a valley location is very visible from higher SDNP ground to the north and east”.

The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy NC8.

Policy SA5 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan “The South Downs” states: “......Proposals within the setting of the National Park must have regard to the impact on the National Park and the ability of the South Downs National Park to deliver its duty. Development within the setting of the National Park:

a. Must have due regard to its impact on the South Downs National Park, its setting and upon National Park purposes. Any adverse impacts must be minimised and appropriate mitigation or compensatory measures included. Such measures, including proposed enhancements, should have regard to landscape character and impact.

b. Should be consistent with National Park purposes and duty and must not significantly harm the National Park, its setting or prejudice National Park purposes..”

This proposed development would significantly harm the setting of the National Park and is therefore contrary to Policy SA5.

The significance of development within the setting of National Parks harming the designated Park has been highlighted with a response by the former Planning Minister, Nick Boles MP, to a Parliamentary question on 10th April 2014. Simon Kirby MP asked the Secretary of State “what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the protections currently available under planning law for parcels of land which are subject to planning applications and which are close to National Parks.”

Nick Boles replied “The Government made clear in the National Planning Policy Framework that national parks have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty and that great weight should be placed on their conservation...... the planning guidance, which was published in March 2014 to support the framework......, which is a material consideration in planning decisions, explains that section 11 A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 requires authorities to ‘have regard' to the purpose of national parks ‘in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land’ in national parks.

The guidance is clear that the duty is relevant in considering development proposals that are situated outside national parks, but which might have an impact on the setting of, and implementation of, the statutory purposes of these protected areas. Through the Localism Act, the Government has strengthened the role of local plans to shape where development should or should not go. This would allow councils to protect the countryside close to national parks.”

In the June 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment Report the study’s authors consider that the development of Site 42 would have a negative landscape impact (prior to mitigation). CPRE Sussex considers that the development of the application site (the majority of Site 42) would, in fact, have a significant negative landscape impact, as explained above. The Urban Fringe Assessment Report proposes “mitigating” this impact by restricting development to the lower, north-western part of the site only. However, this application is for development right up to the eastern side (Falmer Road), so the landscape impact of the proposed development would not be mitigated in the way suggested by the Urban Fringe Assessment Report.

CPRE Sussex also considers that the site proforma for Site 42 in Appendix 4 of the Urban Fringe Assessment Report is inconsistent with Appendix 1 of the Report. Appendix 1 sets out “Assessment Assumptions” which include “Potential significant negative (--) effects on landscape character, or setting, will be recorded on potential development sites that possess the same landscape character as the neighbouring South Downs National Park’s Open Downland”.

As explained above, the land south of Ovingdean Road does have the same landscape character as the adjacent National Park’s “Open Downland”, being part of the lower slopes of Balsdean Hill. It is CPRE Sussex’s view that the special qualities of this landscape are not already screened or obscured by vegetation or topography nor compromised by urbanising influences, and that, therefore, the potential significant negative effects remain.

The report also fails to identify landscape impact or harm to the setting of the South Downs National Park as “Key Constraints” in Appendix 3. Landscape impact and impact on the setting of the National Park are most certainly “key constraints”, and by failing to take these into account, the report is flawed in its conclusion regarding the land south of Ovingdean Road.

Biodiversity Impact

The land south of Ovingdean Road is a rare chalk (calcareous) grassland habitat. According to The Wildlife Trusts, 80% of our chalk grassland in the UK has been lost over the last 60 years. Only an estimated 4% of the South Downs National Park is chalk grassland, where it is one of the priority habitats (“State of the South Downs” 2012).

Lowland calcareous grassland is a “habitat of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity” under section 41 (England) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Under this Act, the Secretary of State must take “reasonably practicable” steps to further CPRE the conservation of such habitats and every public authority must have regard to their conservation in the exercising of their functions.

Brighton & Hove’s Sustainability Action Plan aims to “Improve the cities [sic] chalk grassland and increase the biodiversity value of other green spaces within and around the urban area.” The Brighton & Hove Local Biodiversity Action Plan sets targets for lowland calcareous grassland, including “Maintain the current extent (299) ha of lowland calcareous grassland in Brighton and Hove” and “Achieve favourable or recovering condition for 100 ha......of lowland calcareous grassland by 2017”. The Action Plan indicates the site as a linear corridor or stepping stone, thus confirming that the site has importance as a wildlife corridor.

In addition to the calcareous grassland, the site contains the internationally threatened Red Star-thistle, a “species of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity” under section 41 (England) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Under this Act, the Secretary of State must take “reasonably practicable” steps to further the conservation of such species and every public authority must have regard to its conservation in the exercising of its functions (which, of course, include determining planning applications). Red Star-thistle is also classified as “Critically Endangered” in the Vascular Plants List for Great Britain 2006 (plants classified as “Critically Endangered” are considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future).

The north-western part of Site 42 contains the largest population of Red Star-thistle on the site and is therefore the most sensitive in terms of this species. Nevertheless, as explained above, it is this part of Site 42 that the June 2014 Urban Fringe Assessment Report suggests is suitable for development. The Report recognises that the development of the application site would have a potentially significant negative impact on biodiversity before mitigation and considers that it may continue to do so post mitigation, although it suggests that any development would need to incorporate mitigation for impacts on Red Star-thistle.

However, the Brighton & Hove Local Biodiversity Action Plan states “Because Red Star-thistle is normally an annual and its seeds are relatively shortlived, it can quickly disappear from grassland if grazing pressure is relaxed......The plant is therefore reliant on a continuity of heavy grazing at the same locality, without agricultural improvement, for its survival”. It is hard to see how a housing development can incorporate the heavy grazing needed to ensure the survival of this critically endangered plant. Indeed, the mitigation measures proposed in the application are, in our view, clearly inadequate.

The lower north-western side of the site is also home to the Hornet Robberfly, another NERC Section 41 species that requires, according to the Brighton & Hove Local Biodiversity Action Plan, a specific habitat that includes a ready supply of livestock dung. The Local Biodiversity Action Plan notes that there is a national conservation objective to maintain populations in England and Wales, and the Plan affirms that it is under severe threat in the City.

The Plan states “Assess and ensure the conservation of the habitat of the known breeding site” and “Strengthen the Brighton and Hove population by increasing the availability of suitable breeding sites”. In fact, outside this site and Racehill Valley, there are no other records for the species in the City. Accordingly, the land south of Ovingdean Road is particularly important for this species too. Site 42 also supports a range of other NERC Section 41 species; the cinnabar moth, slow worm, common lizard and herring gull, as well as a number of other species.

CPRE Sussex therefore disagrees with the statements in paragraphs 7.54 and 10.57 of the Planning Statement submitted with the application that the land “has limited potential for habitats and species of biodiversity value” and “The horse grazed amenity grassland currently offers limited opportunities for wildlife and biodiversity”. We consider that the proposed development of this site, whether for the 100 homes proposed in this application or the 45 the Urban Fringe Assessment Report suggests, would inevitably result in significant negative impacts on biodiversity, including nationally scarce species.

The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the importance of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Paragraph 9 explains that “Pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the....natural...environment...... including......moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature” (in accordance with the Natural Environment White Paper “The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature” 2011).

Paragraph 109 of the Framework states that “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:...... minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures......”.

Paragraph 114 of the Framework requires local planning authorities plan positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure.

Paragraph 117 requires planning policies to:

• identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation;
• promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks......;

Paragraph 118 requires local planning authorities, when determining planning applications, to aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying a number of principles, including:

• “if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided......then planning permission should be refused”.

It appears to CPRE Sussex that the significant harm the proposed development would cause to the biodiversity value of the site cannot be avoided.

Paragraph 157 requires Local Plans to support Nature Improvement Areas where they have been identified. The Brighton and Hove City Plan seeks to comply with this requirement through Policy CP10 “Biodiversity”:

“The council will develop programmes and strategies which aim to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity and promote improved access to it through the following:

1. Working with neighbouring local authorities, contribute to the delivery of biodiversity improvements within the South Downs Way Ahead Nature Improvement Area, which incorporates parts of the urban area, the urban fringe, the seafront and surrounding downland. Within the NIA, a strategic approach to nature conservation enhancement will be taken, with the objectives of:

•  linking and repairing habitats and nature conservation sites to achieve landscape scale improvements to biodiversity;
• conserving, restoring, recreating and managing priority habitats and protecting a and recovering priority species populations to contribute to Local Biodiversity Action Plan targets;
• enabling people to have improved access to and understanding of local habitats and species; and
• ensuring development delivers measurable biodiversity improvements.

The South Downs Way Ahead Nature Improvement Area includes the Brighton and Hove Green Network, of which the application site is part, being identified as “Open Space Natural Semi Natural”. The site is identified as a "linear corridor and stepping stone" in the Nature Improvement Area, thus confirming its ecological value and potential (in connecting designated areas of nature conservation significance), which should be conserved and enhanced.

Policy QD17 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan presumes in favour of development proposals affecting nature conservation features outside protected sites provided:

• “a. the proposal can be subject to conditions that prevent damaging impacts on those features; or
• b. the impact is minimised and as many existing features as possible are protected and enhanced and compensating and equivalent features are provided for any that are lost or damaged.”

Neither of these circumstances apply to the proposed development and so it gains no support from this Policy.

Policy QD18 of the Local Plan states that “Permission will not be granted for any development, including changes of use, that would be liable to cause demonstrable harm to such species and their habitats” (“Such species” include those protected under national legislation, such as the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act). Paragraph 7.10 of the Local Plan states that “Planning permission will not be granted for proposals that are likely to hinder the achievement of such [Local Biodiversity Action Plan] targets”.

On June 11th 2014 the Brighton & Hove and Lewes Downs Biosphere was awarded World Biosphere site status by UNESCO. UNESCO Biospheres have three functions, of which the first is “looking after nature and managing a high quality environment that provides for our own needs......and well-being”. The application site is identified as “wildflower grassland” on the interactive map of the Biosphere.

The development of this site would result in the loss of lowland calcareous grassland and its associated biodiversity value, the loss of habitat for the Red Star-thistle, Hornet Robber Fly and four other NERC Section 41 species, and habitat for a range of other species. It would therefore be contrary to the Brighton & Hove Sustainability Action Plan, the Brighton & Hove Local Biodiversity Action Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CP10 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan, Policy QD18 and paragraph 7.10 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan and the recently-awarded UNESCO Biosphere status.

Yours Sincerely,

David Johnson

Chair, Campaign to Protect Rural England (Sussex)