Yes

ID sylw: 107522

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Davidsons Homes

Asiant : Cerda Planning Ltd

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 43c, specifically in relation to the need for new development to deliver new open spaces. However, the guidance for new open spaces should be provided now, to enable GI strategies to be applied to Design Codes and a broader site by site assessment as to infrastructure delivery, site yield and overall site viability and thus deliverability.
We support a broad range approach to open space typologies, including in relation to food production via community orchards and allotments and access to existing footpath links to wider existing open space such as the Welcombe Hills.

Other

ID sylw: 107665

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cala Homes (Cotswolds)

Asiant : Lichfields (London)

Cala is generally supportive of the requirement for development proposals to achieve a minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, but suggests any higher target beyond the minimum provision must be clearly justified.
Cala however raises concern over the following statement: “As work on the SWLP progresses we will explore evidence to see a higher percentage of BNG above the statutory 10% requirement to achieve greater biodiversity benefits.” Planning Practice Guidance (PPG ID: 74-006) explicitly states that, “Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified.
Whilst Cala is supportive of a policy that advocates for a minimum of 10% net gain, allowing potential for sites to achieve a higher BNG where this is feasible, Cala would like to see clear justification, backed up by appropriate evidence, including that the approach taken will be viable, before the Council considers introducing any higher mandatory targets.

No

ID sylw: 107757

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Strategic Land

Asiant : Savills

We object to the consideration in draft Policy Direction 38 to seek a higher percentage of biodiversity net gain (‘BNG’) than the mandatory 10%. If a higher percentage is sought, then the policy should be supported by evidence base to ensure that the policy is justified in line with NPPF paragraph 36. Consideration should also be given to the implications that a higher BNG would have on the viability of sites and their ability to be delivered efficiently. The provision of on-site BNG above 10% will have implications on site yields and is likely to lead to more sites requiring allocation to meet the significant development needs of South Warwickshire.

Other

ID sylw: 107856

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The Environment Act 2021 stipulates developments must provide a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10%. Our client affirms there is no need for a policy in SWLP Part 1 which duplicates this statutory requirement. It would be sufficient and consistent with the NPPF to state that a net gain will be sought in accordance with latest statutory requirements. These may change over the plan period.

If the Councils seek to specify a requirement greater than 10% this will need to be fully supported by the latest evidence to ensure the policy is justified. This evidence is currently unavailable. This approach could result in negative effects with regards to SA Objectives 9 (Housing) and 13 (Economy) due to impacts on costs and viability. This should have been recognised in the SA. It potentially requires more land to deliver the BNG, meaning sites need to be larger. It is considered the Council should not establish standards which go beyond the statutory requirements.

Any biodiversity policy should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The policy direction recognises this, which is supported. The test is whether 10% is delivered, not the method. As set out in the Environment Act, gains can be provided through enhancing biodiversity on site, a combination of on and off-site delivery (with the latter on land owned by the developer outside of the red line boundary, or through the purchase of off-site biodiversity units), or, alternatively, biodiversity credits can be purchased. The way in which ‘net gains’ are calculated must be carefully considered and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms of the delivery.

Other

ID sylw: 107886

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Asiant : Turley

Careful consideration should be given to increasing the requirement for BNG above 10% and the implication this will likely have for delivery and viability.
142 Policy 38 should also recognise that landowners and developers may have access to additional land within the LPA or elsewhere, where they can provide for any additional offsite mitigation required. Offsite mitigation should not be limited to those sites identified through the LNRS.
Taylor Wimpey welcome the opportunity to comment further on any environmental net gain policy. Again, consideration should be given to how any additional requirements would impact site deliverability/viability, and sufficient evidence provided to demonstrate and justify the need to go above and beyond national standards.

Other

ID sylw: 107911

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: TERRA

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Paragraph 33 of the NPPF is clear that Local Plans should demonstrate how plans have
addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives, which includes
opportunities for net gains. Furthermore, Paragraph 187(d) of the NPPF states that
planning policies should contribute to and enhance the local and natural environment by
“minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity…”. However, the PPG is
clear that:
“Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10%
biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for
development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced
including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher
percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to
be given to how the policy will be implemented.” (PPG ID: 74-006)
2.114 Terra supports the inclusion of compensatory measures, including biodiversity offsetting
(i.e. BNG). Whilst it is recognised that the SWAs are at the early stages of plan-making, at
present, Terra is concerned that the SWAs may seek to make provision for a policy that
deviates from the requirement of a 10% BNG (as set out within the Environment Act 2021)
without providing sufficient justification. No evidence on this matter is proposed within the
documents listed in SWLP’s Technical Evidence ‘Future Work’ section to support the
SWLP, other than the ‘Site Delivery & Viability Studies’.
2.115 Whilst – in principle – the SWAs are within their right to deviate from the Environment Act
2021 where evidence justifies a higher requirement as per NPPF paragraph 32 and the PPG,
it is Terra’s position that there is currently no sufficient evidence to support this approach,
and as a result, the SWLP could be at risk of being found unsound. In addition, were the SWAs only able to justify a 10% BNG requirement – subject to
undertaking the necessary evidence-based work and viability assessment – the
Environment Act (2021) already requires developments to provide a 10% BNG. In this
regard, it would be unnecessary for the SWLP to set a specific BNG requirement through a
specific policy.
2.117 This is because the NPPF is clear that plans “should serve a clear purpose, avoiding
unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in
this Framework, where relevant)” (Para 16f). To this end, Terra considers that a policy that
duplicates the BNG requirements of the Environment Act 2021 would not ‘serve a clear
purpose’, nor avoid ‘unnecessary duplication’ as the decision taker would need to have
regard to the requirements of the Environment Act 2021 in any event.

No

ID sylw: 107923

Derbyniwyd: 16/06/2025

Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates Ltd

Asiant : Stantec

The preamble to Draft Policy Direction 38 correctly identifies that the Environment Act mandates that Local Planning Authorities may seek greater than 10% net gain for biodiversity, but only where there is justified local need.
Draft Policy Direction 38 then goes on to state that all development must achieve a minimum of 10% BNG.
However, it then goes on to state that “as work on the SWLP progresses we will explore evidence to seek a higher percentage of BNG above the statutory 10% requirement to achieve greater biodiversity benefits.”.
In this regard, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states:
Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for
development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher
percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented.
Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 74-006-20240214
In the context of the above, ‘local need for a higher percentage’ is considered to refer to areas where biodiversity is demonstrably in decline, thus requiring a greater percentage gain as compensatory mitigation. Similarly, viability evidence at the local level needs to be provided.
At present, the SWLP does neither of the above and accordingly any requirement for biodiversity net gain in excess of 10% is not justified.

Other

ID sylw: 107979

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The Environment Act 2021 stipulates developments must provide a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10%. Our client affirms there is no need for a policy in SWLP Part 1 which duplicates this statutory requirement. It would be sufficient and consistent with the NPPF to state that a net gain will be sought in accordance with latest statutory requirements. These may change over the plan period.

If the Councils seek to specify a requirement greater than 10% this will need to be fully supported by the latest evidence to ensure the policy is justified. This evidence is currently unavailable. This approach could result in negative effects with regards to SA Objectives 9 (Housing) and 13 (Economy) due to impacts on costs and viability. This should have been recognised in the SA. It potentially requires more land to deliver the BNG, meaning sites need to be larger. It is considered the Council should not establish standards which go beyond the statutory requirements.

Any biodiversity policy should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The policy direction recognises this, which is supported. The test is whether 10% is delivered, not the method. As set out in the Environment Act, gains can be provided through enhancing biodiversity on site, a combination of on and off-site delivery (with the latter on land owned by the developer outside of the red line boundary, or through the purchase of off-site biodiversity units), or, alternatively, biodiversity credits can be purchased. The way in which ‘net gains’ are calculated must be carefully considered and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms of the delivery.

No

ID sylw: 108004

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: CEG Land Promotion III (UK) Limited

Asiant : Nexus Planning

CEG strongly encourage the SWLP to avoid seeking a higher percentage of BNG than the statutory 10% requirement required by the Environment Act 2021.
Any higher percentage required is likely to have implications on the viability of delivering jobs across South Warwickshire as where BNG cannot be met on site, this would lead to substantial costs to purchase habitat units from off-site providers or statutory biodiversity credits from the Government.
There are serious concerns with any policies which seek to increase the level of BNG to be provided given the likely impact this would have on the deliverability of the full extent of allocations, and/or the ability of residential allocations to viably deliver the required level of affordable housing and key infrastructure.
Planning Practice Guidance1 confirms that:
“Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented.”
Given the national microscope on the delivery of biodiversity net gain, there should be no requirement for any additional local policy requirements over and above that set out statutorily and therefore CEG recommend that the SWLP does not seek to require any greater than 10% BNG to be achieved.

Other

ID sylw: 108091

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Seven Homes

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The Environment Act 2021 stipulates developments must provide a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10%. Our client affirms there is no need for a policy in SWLP Part 1 which duplicates this statutory requirement. It would be sufficient and consistent with the NPPF to state that a net gain will be sought in accordance with latest statutory requirements. These may change over the plan period.

If the Councils seek to specify a requirement greater than 10% this will need to be fully supported by the latest evidence to ensure the policy is justified. This evidence is currently unavailable. This approach could result in negative effects with regards to SA Objectives 9 (Housing) and 13 (Economy) due to impacts on costs and viability. This should have been recognised in the SA. It potentially requires more land to deliver the BNG, meaning sites need to be larger. It is considered the Council should not establish standards which go beyond the statutory requirements.

Any biodiversity policy should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The policy direction recognises this, which is supported. The test is whether 10% is delivered, not the method. As set out in the Environment Act, gains can be provided through enhancing biodiversity on site, a combination of on and off-site delivery (with the latter on land owned by the developer outside of the red line boundary, or through the purchase of off-site biodiversity units), or, alternatively, biodiversity credits can be purchased. The way in which ‘net gains’ are calculated must be carefully considered and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms of the delivery.

Yes

ID sylw: 108177

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Homes (West Midlands)

Asiant : Cerda Planning

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 38. 10% BNG is a requirement which properly should be set out in policy.
Policy should go further and make clear that any voluntary commitment to delivering BNG beyond 10% is a significant benefit which should be put into a planning balance assessment at development management stage.

Other

ID sylw: 108198

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-38 Biodiversity Net Gain?
2.100 Paragraph 33 of the NPPF is clear that Local Plans should demonstrate how plans have addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives, which includes opportunities for net gains. Furthermore, Paragraph 187(d) of the NPPF states that planning policies should contribute to and enhance the local and natural environment by “minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity…”. However, the PPG is clear that: “Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented.” (PPG ID: 74-006) (Emphasis Added) 2.101 St Philips supports the inclusion of compensatory measures, including biodiversity offsetting (i.e. BNG). Whilst it is recognised that the SWAs are at the early stages of plan making, at present, St Philips is concerned that the SWAs may seek to make provision for a policy that deviates from the requirement of a 10% BNG (as set out within the Environment Act 2021) without providing sufficient justification. Indeed, no evidence on this matter is proposed within the evidence and other documents listed in SWLP’s Technical Evidence ‘Future Work’ section to support the SWLP, other than the ‘Site Delivery & Viability Studies’. 2.102 In addition, the NPPF is also clear that planning policies should have regard to the economic viability of sites (Para 72) and should not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan (Para 35). To this end, the SWLP will need to be supported by A Viability Assessment that cumulatively tests the impact of policy and infrastructure requirements on the viability of sites allocated in the SWLP. This should include any BNG requirements – either at the statutory 10% or higher. 2.103 Whilst – in principle – the SWAs are within their right to deviate from the Environment Act 2021 where evidence justifies a higher requirement as per NPPF paragraph 32 and the PPG, it is St Philips’ position that there is currently no sufficient evidence to support this approach, and as a result, the SWLP could be at risk of being found unsound. 2.104 In addition, were the SWAs only able to justify a 10% BNG requirement – subject to undertaking the necessary evidence-based work and viability assessment – the Environment Act (2021) already requires developments to provide a 10% BNG. In this regard, it would be unnecessary for the SWLP to set a specific BNG increase in percentage terms through policy. This is because the NPPF is clear that plans “should serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant)” (Para 16f). To this end, St Philips considers that a policy that duplicates the BNG requirements of the Environment Act 2021 would not ‘serve a clear purpose’, nor avoid ‘unnecessary duplication’ as the decision taker would need to have regard to the requirements of the Environment Act 2021 in any event.

No

ID sylw: 108234

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Persimmon Homes (South Midlands)

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The Environment Act 2021 stipulates that developments must provide a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10%. Our client affirms that there is no need for a policy in the SWLP Part 1 which duplicates this statutory requirement; it would be sufficient and consistent with the NPPF to simply state that a net gain will be sought in accordance with the latest statutory requirements, which may change over the plan period.

If the Councils seek to specify a requirement within the Local Plan which is greater than 10%, as implied in the policy direction, this will need to be fully supported by the latest evidence to ensure the policy is justified, and this evidence is currently unavailable. This approach could result in negative effects with regards to SA Objectives 9 (Housing) and 13 (Economy) due to the impacts on costs and viability which could arise from a requirement in excess of 10%, and this should have been recognised in the SA. It also potentially requires more land to deliver the BNG, meaning that sites need to be larger. Taking these points into account, it is considered that the Council should not establish standards which go beyond the statutory requirements.

Any biodiversity policy should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The policy direction does recognise this, which is supported. The way in which ‘net gains’ are calculated must be given careful consideration and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms of the delivery of biodiversity enhancements.

No

ID sylw: 108252

Derbyniwyd: 22/06/2025

Ymatebydd: Sovereign Man Simon of the family Thomas

No. I am not satisfied with the councils’ intention to ‘explore opportunities’ for higher than the bare minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain.
Local evidence through planning applications shows that more than 10% BNG is achievable in Warwickshire, and the Plan states that they are aiming to link with local priorities, so a greater target should be delivered. A number of other Councils such as Cornwall Council have already got plans through Examination with 20% net gain.

Other

ID sylw: 108287

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Spitfire Homes

Asiant : Harris Lamb

We are generally supportive of requirements of Draft Policy Direction 38, however, it is noted that the Policy makes reference to the SWLP exploring evidence to seek higher percentage of BNG than the statutory 10% requirement. There is no national policy requirement for this. Any proposal of this nature must be viability tested.
BNG provision can have significant implications on the viability of development sites and their capacity. In order for Councils to seek greater than 10% BNG, robust viability evidence must be presented. It must be demonstrated that the Councils have an understanding of the ability and potential of housing allocations to deliver 15% BNG without adversely affecting their capacity or compromising any other planning obligations.

No

ID sylw: 108318

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: CEG Land Promotion III (UK) Limited and Mixed Farms

Asiant : Nexus Planning

CEG and Mixed Farms strongly encourage the SWLP to avoid seeking a higher percentage of BNG than the
statutory 10% requirement required by the Environment Act 2021.
Any higher percentage required is likely to have implications on the viability of delivering much needed homes
and jobs across South Warwickshire as where BNG cannot be met on site, this would lead to substantial costs to
purchase habitat units from off-site providers or statutory biodiversity credits from the Government.
There are serious concerns with any policies which seek to increase the level of BNG to be provided given the
likely impact this would have on the deliverability of the full extent of allocations, and/or the ability of residential
allocations to viably deliver the required level of affordable housing and key infrastructure.
Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph 006 Reference ID: 74-006-20240214) confirms that:
“Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either
on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies they will
need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher
percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the
policy will be implemented.”
Given the national microscope on the delivery of biodiversity net gain, there should be no requirement for any
additional local policy requirements over and above that set out statutorily and therefore CEG and Mixed Farms
recommend that the SWLP does not seek to require any greater than 10% BNG to be achieved.

No

ID sylw: 108344

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Caddick Land

Asiant : Stantec

The preamble to Draft Policy Direction 38 correctly identifies that the Environment Act mandates that Local Planning Authorities may seek greater than 10% net gain for biodiversity, but only where there is justified local need.

Draft Policy Direction 38 then goes on to state that all development must achieve a minimum of 10% BNG.

However, it then goes on to state that “as work on the SWLP progresses we will explore evidence to seek a higher percentage of BNG above the statutory 10% requirement to achieve greater biodiversity benefits.”.

In this regard, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states:
"Plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for
development unless justified. To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher
percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented." Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 74-006-20240214

In the context of the above, ‘local need for a higher percentage’ is considered to refer to areas where biodiversity is demonstrably in decline, thus requiring a greater percentage gain as compensatory mitigation. Similarly, viability evidence at the local level needs to be provided.

At present, the SWLP does neither of the above and accordingly any requirement for biodiversity net gain in excess of 10% is not justified.

Other

ID sylw: 108375

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mackenzie Miller Homes

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

14.1 In Draft Policy Direction-38 the PO document highlights that all developments (unless
exempt) must achieve a minimum of 10% BNG. In this regard, Mackenzie Miller Homes
supports the inclusion of compensatory measures, including biodiversity offsetting (i.e.
BNG). Indeed, Paragraph 33 of the NPPF is clear that Local Plans should demonstrate how
plans have addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives, which
includes opportunities for net gains. Furthermore, Paragraph 180(d) of the NPPF states
that planning policies should contribute to and enhance the local and natural environment
by:
“minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by
establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future
pressures and incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as
swifts, bats and hedgehogs;”
14.2 However, the PPG is clear that:
14.3 “Plan-makers should be aware of the statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, but
they do not need to include policies which duplicate the detailed provisions of this
statutory framework…” (PPG ID: 74-006) (Emphasis Added)
14.4 In this respect, it is recognised that the Councils are at the early stages of plan-making and
Mackenzie Miller Homes would like to advise that it is not necessary to include the BNG
policy to avoid duplicating policies within the statutory framework for BNG.

Other

ID sylw: 108403

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Alscot Estate

Asiant : Jonathan Thompson Land & Consultancy Limited

The Estate fully supports retaining and enhancing the natural environment and we agree with the consultation document that “A healthy natural environment is of vital importance to people, places, the economy and nature itself. It provides important services such as food, fresh water, clean air, climate stabilisation and resilience, flood control, recreation, tourism and much more.”

We support Draft Policy Direction 38 which reflects the requirement in the Environment Act 2021 for development proposals to achieve a 10% biodiversity net gain, unless otherwise exempt. The Estate have experience in providing land for biodiversity offsetting and have helped combat biodiversity loss in Warwickshire. The 47 acre site in situ to offset biodiversity impact follows a 30 year minimum period to deliver biodiversity net gains through creating and enhancing habitats. Consequently, the Estate are able to offer biodiversity net gain credits to developers.

Other

ID sylw: 108411

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: The Kler Group

Asiant : Cerda Planning Ltd

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 38. 10% BNG is a requirement which properly should be set out in policy.

Policy should go further, and make clear that any voluntary commitment to delivering BNG beyond 10% is a significant benefit which should be put in to a planning balance assessment at development management stage.

Other

ID sylw: 108442

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr R Wilding

Asiant : Cerda Planning Ltd

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 38. 10% BNG is a requirement which properly should be set out in policy.

Policy should go further, and make clear that any voluntary commitment to delivering BNG beyond 10% is a significant benefit which should be put in to a planning balance assessment at development management stage.

No

ID sylw: 108468

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: The Bird Group

Asiant : Framptons

It is a statutory requirement to achieve a net gain in biodiversity of 10% and therefore we are generally supportive of the policy approach. However, the draft policy direction goes on to state that a higher percentage of BNG above the statutory 10% requirement is being explored.
Such an approach may unnecessarily burden development sites as the provision of net gains in biodiversity can impact on the viability of proposals and the capacity of sites. It is hence requested that the South Warwickshire authorities explore including viability evidence on how a higher BNG would affect the capacity of sites when balancing other technical and environmental considerations and planning obligations. Draft Policy Direction 38 has the potential to add additional development costs that must be factored into the Viability Assessment produced with the Pre-Submission SWLP.

Other

ID sylw: 108474

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Magdalen College, Oxford

Asiant : Savills

Magdalen College, Oxford supports the aim of this Direction to achieve a minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), which is consistent with national legislation. However, we are cautious about the proposal to seek out evidence that may support a requirement of above 10%.
The latest guidance was published by the Government in February 2024 and says, “… plan-makers should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified. To justify such policies, they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development. Consideration will also need to be given to how the policy will be implemented.”
The Government guidance sets a high bar for justifying such a policy. The area in question should be significantly worse than the country as a whole and the decline should be linked to new development rather than generic changes such as to farming practices or industrial pollution. For example, the State of Nature Report 2023 (State of Nature Partnership, 2023), identified the primary cause of decline as being ‘Intensive management of agricultural land, largely driven by policies and incentives since World War II, has been identified as the most significant factor driving species’ population change in the UK’.
Therefore, it seems unlikely that there is sufficient evidence available to justify a higher BNG requirement.

Other

ID sylw: 108527

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bevan Family

Asiant : Stantec

The introduction to Draft Policy Direction 38 correctly acknowledges that the Environment Act permits Local Planning Authorities to aim for a biodiversity net gain of more than 10%, as long as there is a justified local need.
At present, the SWLP does not adequately address these issues, leading to a lack of justification for any requirement of biodiversity net gain that exceeds 10%.
6 As a result, The Bevan Family does not support the principle of this policy and emphasises that further justification is required for the implementation of this draft policy prior to the formal adoption of the SWLP.

No

ID sylw: 108555

Derbyniwyd: 29/06/2025

Ymatebydd: Hayfield Homes

There is a statutory requirement to deliver a minimum 10% net gain in biodiversity (BNG) and therefore the intention to require a minimum of 10% BNG is supported. However, reference to mandating a higher percentage of BNG above the statutory 10% requirement should be removed from Policy Direction 38. It is considered unduly onerous to require that developments in South Warwickshire deliver a higher level of BNG. Where the value of baseline habitats is high, mandating a higher BNG could render developments (including allocated sites) unviable, which would mean that much needed housing is not able to be delivered.

No

ID sylw: 108593

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Corbally Group (Harbury) Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The Environment Act 2021 stipulates that developments must provide a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10%. Our client affirms that there is no need for a policy in the SWLP Part 1 which duplicates this statutory requirement; it would be sufficient and consistent with the NPPF to simply state that a net gain will be sought in accordance with the latest statutory requirements, which may change over the plan period.

If the Councils seek to specify a requirement within the Local Plan which is greater than 10%, as implied in the policy direction, this will need to be fully supported by the latest evidence to ensure the policy is justified, and this evidence is currently unavailable. This approach could result in negative effects with regards to SA Objectives 9 (Housing) and 13 (Economy) due to the impacts on costs and viability which could arise from a requirement in excess of 10%, and this should have been recognised in the SA. It also potentially requires more land to deliver the BNG, meaning that sites need to be larger. Taking these points into account, it is considered that the Council should not establish standards which go beyond the statutory requirements.

Any biodiversity policy should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The policy direction does recognise this, which is supported. The way in which ‘net gains’ are calculated must be given careful consideration and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms of the delivery of biodiversity enhancements.

Other

ID sylw: 108640

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 38 – Biodiversity Net Gain
10.3.
The Environment Act 2021 stipulates that developments must provide a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10%. There is no need for a policy in the SWLP Part 1 which duplicates this statutory requirement; it would be sufficient and consistent with the NPPF to simply state that a net gain will be sought in accordance with the latest statutory requirements, which may change over the plan period.
10.4.
If the Councils seek to specify a requirement within the Local Plan which is greater than 10%, as implied in the policy direction, this will need to be fully supported by the latest evidence (including on plan viability) to ensure the policy is justified; this evidence is currently unavailable. This approach could result in negative effects with regards to SA Objectives 9 (Housing) and 13 (Economy) due to the impacts on costs and viability which could arise from a requirement in excess of 10%
, and this should have been recognised in the SA. It also potentially requires more land to deliver the BNG, meaning that sites need to be larger. Taking these points into account, it is considered that the Council should not establish standards which go beyond the statutory requirements.
10.5.
Any biodiversity policy should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The policy direction does recognise this, which is supported. The test is whether the 10% is delivered, not the method by which it is delivered. As set out in the Environment Act, gains can be provided through enhancing biodiversity on site, a combination of on and off-site delivery (with the latter on land owned by the developer outside of the red line boundary, or through the purchase of off-site biodiversity units), or, alternatively, biodiversity credits can be purchased. The way in which ‘net gains’ are calculated must be given careful consideration and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms of the delivery mechanism of biodiversity enhancements.