Pre-Adoption Public Consultation Report

Local Development Plan 2030

Draft Plan Strategy Pre-Adoption Public Consultation Report October 2023 1

1. Introduction 1.1

The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) appointed the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) to conduct an Independent Examination (IE) of the Mid and East Antrim Council Local Development Plan (LDP) draft Plan Strategy.

1.2

The IE hearing sessions took place between 6 June and 11 August 2022, following which, the Commissioners prepared a Report for DfI setting out their consideration on the soundness of the draft Plan Strategy.

1.3

1.4

1.5

The PAC Report was sent to DfI on 28 February 2023, and on 30 June 2023 DfI then directed the Council to adopt the draft Plan Strategy with the modifications set out in their Direction.

Schedule 2 of the Direction outlined 55 modifications which were considered necessary to make the Plan sound. These modifications were a combination of the Council’s proposed modifications (January 2021), along with new modifications considered necessary following the conclusion of the IE process.

In line with the PAC Report, DfI has specified wording in the Direction, where necessary, to address the recommendations made within the PAC Report.

The Direction also stated that “the Council should ensure, in light of the modifications required to proceed to adoption, that updates to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and any other statutory assessment as necessary should be undertaken”.

1.6

The Council therefore undertook a screening of the modifications for Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment), documented through a Sustainability Appraisal Second Addendum; and updated its draft Habitats Regulation Assessment; Equality (Section 75) Screening Report; and Rural Needs Impact Assessment.

1.7

These four documents were subject to a period of public consultation between 4 August and 1 September 2023 to allow the public and relevant stakeholders to make comment on the updates to these four documents only.

1.8

These documents along with the PAC Report and DfI Direction were published and made available on the Council’s website on 3 August 2023.

1.9

Advertisements were placed in local newspapers on two consecutive weeks prior to this public consultation, as well as notice given in the Belfast Gazette.

1.10 Letters and emails were issued on 2 August 2023 to statutory consultees and other key consultees and stakeholders, as well as those who had previously engaged with the LDP process, either through making a representation or having asked to be included on the LDP Community Involvement Register in order to be kept up to date on the LDP process.

2

2.

Consultation responses and consideration Consultation Responses 2.6

MEA-DPSA-001 Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council noted the consultation and having reviewed the documentation, stated they had no comment to make.

Marine Division also provide further comments from two of their teams. Inland Fisheries noted the draft HRA and SA assessments and offered no comment on the draft Equality Screening Report or the Rural Needs Impact Assessment (RNIA). Marine Conservation Branch (MCB) also had no comment to make on the draft Equality Screening Report. They did however state that the Regional Seascape Character Assessment should be included in Table 1 in Appendix 1 of the RNIA.

2.7

MEA-DPSA-002 DAERA NIEA The Sustainability Appraisal – Second Addendum was referred to NIEA in its role as the Consultation Body under The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004, for its agreement on the Addendum’s conclusions that the modifications are not likely to have significant environmental effects and that no further Sustainability Appraisal is required.

In commenting on the SA, MCB recommended that Seascape be referred to in Sustainability Objective 13 within Table 2.1 as well as in MOD01 and MOD41 within Table 2.2. In relation to Section 2.9, they advised that aspects still need to be looked at and assessed prior to being screened out, in order to show the process of thinking and to check all mitigation is in place. In addition, they recommended that coastal flooding be included in MOD36.

2.8

In relation to the draft HRA, MCB advised on: alternative terminology for Skerries and Causeway SAC in Table 1; the screening ranges for several additional marine mammals; and the potential for direct impacts on Belfast Lough Open Water SPA within Table 2. They also advised that marine invasive non-native species need to be considered on page 14 of the SA, whilst in Section 7.3 on Tourism, they advised that marine litter, marine mammal disturbance and marine invasive non-native species should be considered.

2.9

MCB also made a further general comment advising on a number of plans, policies and legislation relevant to the marine area which should be considered throughout the plan process.

2.1

Two responses were received during the consultation period. One from Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, and the other from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) within the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA).

A copy of the responses is included as Appendix A of this report.

2.2

2.3

2.4

NIEA’s response stated they were broadly content with the draft HRA and the SA/SEA assessment and agreed with the conclusions.

They welcomed the acknowledgment that individual plans and projects may require further environmental assessment of their own.

2.5

Several individual departments within NIEA then also provided further comment. Natural Environment Division (NED) welcomed that the HRA will be revisited at Local Policies Plan stage and when zoning land. NED also welcomed the cumulative assessment undertaken and were largely content with the assessment of the policies, welcoming that the consideration of Policy NAT1 in all applications regardless of type, will provide mitigation with regard to Appropriate Assessment and protection of European Designated Sites.

3

Consideration 2.10

Council welcome that NIEA are broadly content with the SA/SEA and draft HRA assessments and agree with their conclusions.

2.11

Sustainability Appraisal (SA) - In relation to MCB’s comments on the SA, Council would respond as follows in the order of the issues raised. Firstly, addressing their recommendation to include ‘Seascape’ into Sustainability Objective 13. Council would highlight that although the title of SO 13 currently reads “The objective for sustainable development is to maintain and enhance landscape character”, the full text of SO 13 states “International and national policies seek to conserve the natural character and landscape of the coast and countryside and protect them from excessive, inappropriate or obtrusive development. This objective seeks to maintain the character and distinctiveness of the area’s landscapes and seascapes and to protect and enhance open spaces and the setting of prominent features, settlements and transport corridors”. This clearly demonstrates that ‘seascape’ is included in the Sustainability Objective and has been considered throughout the appraisal of the draft Plan Strategy. At the next stage of the LDP process, the Local Policies Plan, Council may consult again with the Consultation Body on the scope and content of the Sustainability Appraisal, if considered appropriate. It is considered that any potential review of the title(s) of the Sustainability Objective(s) is more appropriate at that stage than at this late stage in the draft Plan Strategy SA process.

2.12

In response to the comments on Section 2.9, Council is content that all aspects of all policies have been assessed though the SA Report. Paragraph 2.9 refers to the process of screening the modifications to the draft Plan Strategy - not a screening of the policy in its entirety. A summary of the assessment of each modification is included in the right-hand column of Table 2.2. It has concluded that all modifications are ‘minor’ and do not substantively alter the effects previously identified and described in the original sustainability appraisal.

2.13

The comments made on MOD01, MOD36 and MOD41 are noted but are considered to fall outside the scope of the public consultation on the SA Report Second Addendum. The public consultation was an opportunity for comments to be made on the sustainability implications of the modifications and not an opportunity to seek further modifications to the draft Plan Strategy. Nevertheless, the draft Plan Strategy has been through independent examination and has been found sound and legally compliant subject to the modifications specified in the report. The Marine Division had an opportunity to comment on the contents of the draft Plan Strategy throughout this process. The Department for Infrastructure has directed the Council under section 12(1)(b) to adopt the plan with the modifications specified in the Direction. That direction does not include the suggested additions made by the Marine Division in its representation. The plan is sound and legally compliant without the suggested modifications.

2.14

Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment (dHRA) - In relation to MCB’s comments on the dHRA, Council would again respond as follows in the order of the issues raised. Firstly MCB advised on alternative terminology for Skerries and Causeway ‘SAC’ in Table 1. It is acknowledged that the word ‘SAC’ was left off the end of this title due to a typographical error. This terminology has now been corrected in the final HRA.

2.15

MCB also advised on the screening ranges for several additional marine mammals. In light of this comment, the screening for marine mammals has been reviewed. This resulted in one additional site, 'Inner Hebrides and the Minches’ being assessed for potential impacts. The HRA has been updated accordingly to reflect this.

2.16

MCB’s comment on the potential direct impacts on Belfast Lough Open Water SPA within Table 2 is acknowledged. Table 2 has 4

now been updated in the final HRA to reflect 'direct impacts' on Belfast Lough Open Water SPA. 2.17

MCB also advised that marine invasive non-native species need to be considered on page 14 of the draft HRA. It is considered that the existing narrative is inclusive of the marine environment and therefore no further change is considered necessary.

2.18

Lastly, in relation to Section 7.3 on Tourism, MCB advised that marine litter, marine mammal disturbance and marine invasive non-native species should be considered. In so far as they are relevant, these matters have been considered in the assessment of impact. The assessment sets out that, with relevant mitigation taken into account, there will be no residual adverse impacts either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Council would also highlight that disturbance to mobile species, as was included as a potential impact, is inclusive of marine mammals. In light of the comment in relation to marine invasive non-native species, impacts from marine invasive non-native species have now been added to Section 7.3.

2.19

Rural Needs Impact Assessment – In response to the Marine Conservation Branch (MCB) comment that the Regional Seascape Character Assessment should be included in Table 1 in Appendix 1 of the RNIA, Council would highlight that Table 1 is a table assessing the PAC’s recommended amendments and the modifications directed by DfI. The comments made by MCB do not relate to the exercise undertaken in this table.

2.20

General Comment - In relation to the additional general comment advising Council of a number of plans, policies and legislation relevant to the marine area which should be considered throughout the plan process, Council can confirm that these documents, where relevant, were considered in various assessments throughout the process to date.

3.

Conclusion

3.1

The overall response rate to this consultation was extremely low compared to the number of responses received at other stages of the Local Development Plan process. However, this is a reflection of the limited scope of the consultation and the fact that relevant stakeholders have already had numerous opportunities to express their views on the contents of the draft Plan Strategy prior to this stage.

3.2

The Council has considered the two representations received during the consultation period and is satisfied that the assessments of the modifications directed by DfI have not raised any issues of concern in relation to the content of the four statutory documents.

However, the HRA has been updated to reflect some the comments raised by Marine Conservation Branch (MCB), as outlined in the previous section of this report. The final version of the HRA and the other statutory documents will now be published alongside the adopted Plan Strategy.

5

Appendix A – Consultation Responses

6

7

8

9

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council Planning Office Silverwood Business Park 190 Raceview Road Ballymena BT42 4HZ T: 028 2563 3500 E: planning@midandeastantrim.gov.uk W: www.midandeastantrim.gov.uk

Chapter Introduction

1

10