From: Kate Cole
Sent: 23 March 2018 14:34
To: Jeremy Patterson
Subject: RE: Newhaven - LW/799/CM (EIA)
Hi
Jeremy
·
The potential impacts of air quality on the SNCI have not been
considered within the RPS report. An increase in fine particulates within the
shingle beach could influence the species composition found there. It is
understood that the EA are considering AQ impacts, and it is hoped that any
permits will satisfactorily address impacts on the SNCI.
·
Cumulative effects can result from individually insignificant
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time or
concentrated in a location. Cumulative effects are particularly important as
many ecological features are already exposed to background levels of threat or
pressure and may be close to critical thresholds where further impact could
cause irreversible decline. Effects can also make habitats and species more
vulnerable or sensitive to change. Different types of actions can cause
cumulative impacts and effects: additive/incremental (multiple
activities/projects, each with potentially insignificant effects, added
together to give rise to a significant effect due to their proximity in time
and space) and associated/connected (e.g. where a development activity enables
another development, e.g. phased development as part of separate planning
applications. Associated developments may include different aspects of a
project which may be authorised under different consent processes. It is
important to assess impacts of the 'project' as a whole and not ignore impacts
that fall under a separate consent process.).
·
The enhancement measures referred to in 7.2 of the EcIA are
those that have been agreed for the Port permission. The current applicant
should also seek opportunities to enhance biodiversity. If no enhancements can
be provided on site, improvements could be made to the wider SNCI e.g. through
enhancement of Mill Creek. Removal of litter and the maintenance and/or
improvement of water quality within the creek would have significant benefits
for birds, fish and invertebrates using the creek. There is also the potential
to make a contribution to the Sussex Local Wildlife Site initiative.
Kind
regards
Kate
From: Jeremy Patterson
Sent: 14 March 2018 12:49
To: Development Control (DMW)
Cc: Kate Cole
Subject: FW: Newhaven - LW/799/CM (EIA)
Hi,
Please can you process this onto Mgov and the website?
Kate – could I have any comments from you by the end of next
week?
Thanks.
Jeremy
Patterson
Principal Planning Officer
Planning Policy and Development Management
01273 481626
Jeremy.patterson@eastsussex.gov.uk
Please note that we have now
introduced charges for pre-application advice, the details of which are
available on our website.
From: Mike Davies [mailto:davies.planning@btinternet.com]
Sent: 13 March 2018 16:06
To: Jeremy Patterson
Cc: Richard Ford; Gregor Mutch; Oliver Brown; Sam Watson; Dominic
Woodfield; Kathryn Barker
Subject: Newhaven - LW/799/CM (EIA)
Jeremy
Although you have not asked me for comments on the County Ecologist’s response to consultation which was posted on the application website, I passed the document to both Brett’s ecological and air quality consultants.
The ecological consultant, Bioscan has prepared a joint response by way of a letter addressed to me and, on behalf of Brett, I hereby formally submit it as part of the application papers.
Kind regards
Mike
Mike Davies
Davies Planning
21 The Fairway
Herne Bay
Kent
CT6 7TW
Tel 01 227 364951
Mobile 07802 289333