No

ID sylw: 103137

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bloor Homes

Asiant : Marrons

The principle of Draft Chapter 11 is supported, although the current draft policy directions are at this moment vague, and specific issues are raised with Draft Policy Directions as set out above.

Yes

ID sylw: 104390

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Stephen Norrie

I mostly support the policies in this chapter, though some need to be more ambitious. There are one or two points where climate adaptation issues needed to be taken more into account.

There is a feeling among local environmentalists - which I agree with - that there should be a more explicit recognition of issues around future food supply in the plan, given future flooding/drought risks and adaptation needs, though I do note policies on flooding and agricultural diversification.

No

ID sylw: 104792

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Dan Brock

I object to the A Biodiverse and Environmentally Resilient South Warwickshire section due to concerns about the potential impact of proposed developments on local biodiversity and environmental resilience. The plan lacks specific measures to protect existing habitats and species, and does not adequately address how green and blue infrastructure will be preserved or enhanced amid new developments. There is also insufficient emphasis on integrating carbon sinks and sequestration methods to mitigate climate change effects. Without clear strategies and commitments, the plan risks compromising the region's natural ecosystems and failing to achieve genuine environmental sustainability.

Yes

ID sylw: 104828

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Dunning

This is all very good.

Yes

ID sylw: 105047

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: H Crook

Please ensure trees and hedgerows are incorporated into any developments.
Do not allow any development on flood plains
Need more cycle routes

Other

ID sylw: 106956

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Woodland Trust

we would like to see the LP expand on these environmental principles in the following ways:
-Give weight to the relevant LNRS as it is refined. This should identify ancient woodland sites to ensure that development is not allocated in close proximity to ancient woodland.
-For AVTs, the LP should encourage their recording on the Ancient Tree Inventory2 as a matter of course and consider locations where it might be suitable to place a Tree Preservation Order on any ancient, veteran, or notable trees recorded.
-Adhere to appropriate buffering standards for ancient woodland and AVTs:
-Preserve a 50-metre buffer3 between new developments and ancient woodland. Still greater buffers may be needed for major engineering work or disruptive post construction activities.
-For AVTs, ensure a Root Protection Area that is 15 times the trunk’s diameter or extends five metres beyond the canopy, whichever is greater. ▪ Assess the nitrogen impact of ammonia-emitting developments on ancient woodland less than five kilometres distant.
-For non-AVTs, adopt the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard4with respect to felling and specify replacement trees be planted no more than 12 times the distance of the original tree’s trunk diameter, to correspond with root extent area.
-The LP should require all development projects to deliver 20 per cent BNG minimum
-The LP should require BNG units to be maintained for a minimum of 50 years, not just the 30 set out in the Environment Act.
-The LP should give strong weight to LNRSes for development site allocation at a local level.
Major developments should provide five UKISG-compliant trees per dwelling or per 1,000m2 of non-residential floorspace.
• Similarly, no one should be more than 300 metres from the nearest natural green space, with safe and accessible routes.
• Consideration should also be given to the Woodland Trust’s Access to Woodland Standard which aspires that everyone should have a small wood of at least two hectares in size within 500 metres of their home, and a larger wood of at least 20 hectares in size within four kilometres of where they live.
• A strong tree retention standard for responsible development must also be embraced, ensuring the preservation of trees and their ecological benefits.
In summary we consider that the Environmental Principles must be treated as a foundational component of the LP. As part of incorporating the principles, the LP must support the protection of sensitive natural assets, such as AVTs; be an exemplar of emerging BNG practice; and set high standards for the retention and provision of trees within developments.

Other

ID sylw: 107384

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

We are also very disappointed about the removal of the Wildbelt Policy.
11.1 states 80% of respondents supported the inclusion of a Wildbelt Policy to designate land specifically for nature recovery.
The plan removes the policy, contrary to previous consultation results.
Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) are also different from Wildbelt and Wildbelt would actually be for “safeguarding” sites in recovery. LNRS is not a designation, so it is unclear how LNRS alone would safeguard areas for nature. How will the Councils achieve the Environment Acts 30% of land in nature recovery by 2030 and solve the biodiversity and climate emergencies, without allocating actual land for protection and enhancement

The plan also hasn’t produced a detailed Green/Blue infrastructure evidence base that ambitiously allocates land for enhancement , before the housing allocations were made, and doesn’t include a detailed strategic policy looking at opportunities for wider corridors.

Yes

ID sylw: 107580

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford Society

The Society agrees that development must not be at the expense of the natural environment – its biodiversity, geodiversity or landscape. All should be protected and enhanced to produce a net gain. In the interests of their health and wellbeing, people need to have access to high-quality open spaces, including outdoor sports and leisure provision. From this, it is clear that Areas of Restraint need to be retained and added to with new designations. Furthermore, agricultural land should be protected from development, thus encouraging the production of locally produced food.

No

ID sylw: 108012

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jacqueline Murphy

The area SG21 is open countryside and is therefore home to an abundance of wildlife. On a daily basis we see deer, hares, pheasants, bats and many bird species. The wildlife would be greatly disturbed by such a vast space being developed. There would also be light and noise pollution. You are currently able to see the stars at night clearly due to the lack of light pollution. Housing or any other development would create litter problems. Sadly, there are regular animal carcasses as wildlife try to cross the roads around SG21.

Other

ID sylw: 108498

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sally Rees

Environmental and Biodiversity Concerns (Chapter 5)
• The Plan fails to assess the impact of large-scale developments on wildlife corridors, ancient woodlands, and local biodiversity.
• NPPF Paragraph 174 mandates that planning policies protect and enhance biodiversity, yet the Plan lacks meaningful commitments to this.
• Large housing estates contribute to higher pollution, habitat destruction, and increased flood risks.
Conclusion: The Plan must include stronger environmental protections and enforceable biodiversity commitments