Q-B9: Should the plan include a policy requiring the safeguarding of sites of national importance, sites of local importance, and other non-designated sites known to make a positive contribution to biodiversity or geodiversity; unless the benefits of the
The concept of Environmental Net Gain should be preferred to Biodiversity Net Gain as it includes air quality and water quality as well as biodiversity. Carbon offsetting must go beyond tree planting, for example, committing to retrofitting existing houses to make them more energy efficient. Definitions of offsetting need to be absolutely clear to prevent greenwashing.
There doesn’t seem to be a way to do this, but I think that green spaces should be part and parcel of new developments to allow people access to the outdoors particularly as gardens in new developments are often pathetically small especially once a shed and a trampoline have been added. And yet I know of several allotments sites that have been built on. It is not enough to re-locate these sites on the outskirts of settlements - this just means green space is pushed further away from the new development. Allotments allow for access to nature, opportunities for wildlife friendly areas, and for a more sustainable approach to food. Are you aware of the following information from the National Allotments Association? https://www.nsalg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/21st-Century-Allotments-in-New-Developments.pdf
Comment: B2 Yes. The Vale of Evesham Control Zone seeks to control the number of additional HGV movements within the area resulting from development, thereby reducing the impact on local communities. Clearly it has failed to that that and only concentrate HGV traffic on existing road based solutions based on the A46 Trunk Road. It excluded rail and by current standards is not sustainable. Unless it is reworded to include rail freight including terminals, it should be deleted.
Q- B.5 Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire. Option B5a: Explore and pursue an integrated Environmental Net Gain Policy. I am disappointed to see such a low minimum target for proposed biodiversity net gain. Other councils such as Greater Cambridgeshire have been more ambitious requiring 20% Biodiversity net gain. This would be more in keeping with mitigating our environmental state of emergency Q B.6 Should the South Warwickshire Local Plan introduce Wildbelt designations? Yes, absolutely but this should not push development to the North of South Warwickshire, instead all areas have wild belt designations. Q B8.1 Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefit of development? Yes. The country needs to have capacity to feed the nation so such land should be held forthis but each area needs to be assessed on all aspects and a recognition that lower quality farming land should not automatically be pushed into development. Q- B8.2 When considering climate change, biodiversity and economic wellbeing, are there any rural land uses or locations that should be prioritised over others? Yes, we need additional protection and buffers on the river Avon, Leam and their tributaries, Local Wildlife Sites and PLWS’s, Local Nature Reserves, SSSIs, Ancient woodland, Local Green Spaces, Ecosites etc. Councils need to reassess their Potential Local Wildlife Sites as a matter of urgency, as particularly in the south there are huge gaps in this very important evidence base and this information should be used in the plans as well as information on protected species. Brownfield sites and areas with poor biodiversity should be prioritised for development Q B 9 Should the plan include a policy requiring the safeguarding of sites of national importance, sites of local importance, and other non-designated sites known to make a positive contribution to biodiversity or geodiversity; unless the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the need to protect the site. Where possible conserve and enhance these sites. Yes. In order to meet national requirements and targets set out in the 25 year Environment Plan, COP15 biodiversity framework targets, and the Governments commitment to have 30% more land In nature recovery by 2030, and Councils NERC duties there clearly needs to be a specific policy protecting biodiversity and importantly other non-designated sites such as Potential Local Wildlife Sites, Nature Reserves and Ecosites. It is also very important to include a policy on enhancing these sites, the words ‘unless clearly outweighs..’ should be removed as this waters down the requirement, and will greatly affect the Councils ability to achieve the Government and COP targets. BQ. 10. Please add any comments you wish to make about a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire The biodiversity and environmental assessments for Henley presented in the current consultation documents are inadequate and have not identified a number of considerable environmental areas of conservation and protected species, along with a lack of understanding about the geology of the Henley area which leaves it open to flood related issues which are unlikely to be fully addressed by developers. In Henley the infrastructure in general including the sewer provision is not able to meet the needs of large scale development in the area.
Q- B.5 Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire. Option B5a: Explore and pursue an integrated Environmental Net Gain Policy. I am disappointed to see such a low minimum target for proposed biodiversity net gain. Other councils such as Greater Cambridgeshire have been more ambitious requiring 20% Biodiversity net gain. This would be more in keeping with mitigating our environmental state of emergency Q B.6 Should the South Warwickshire Local Plan introduce Wildbelt designations? Yes, absolutely but this should not push development to the North of South Warwickshire, instead all areas have wild belt designations. Q B8.1 Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefit of development? Yes. The country needs to have capacity to feed the nation so such land should be held for this but each area needs to be assessed on all aspects and a recognition that lower quality farming land should not automatically be pushed into development. Q B 9 Should the plan include a policy requiring the safeguarding of sites of national importance, sites of local importance, and other non-designated sites known to make a positive contribution to biodiversity or geodiversity; unless the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the need to protect the site. Where possible conserve and enhance these sites. Yes. In order to meet national requirements and targets set out in the 25 year Environment Plan, COP15 biodiversity framework targets, and the Governments commitment to have 30% more land In nature recovery by 2030, and Councils NERC duties there clearly needs to be a specific policy protecting biodiversity and importantly other non-designated sites such as Potential Local Wildlife Sites, Nature Reserves and Ecosites. It is also very important to include a policy on enhancing these sites, the words ‘unless clearly outweighs..’ should be removed as this waters down the requirement, and will greatly affect the Councils ability to achieve the Government and COP targets. BQ. 10. Please add any comments you wish to make about a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire The biodiversity and environmental assessments for Henley presented in the current consultation documents are inadequate and have not identified a number of considerable environmental areas of conservation and protected species, along with a lack of understanding about the geology of the Henley area which leaves it open to flood related issues which are unlikely to be fully addressed by developers. In Henley the infrastructure in general including the sewer provision is not able to meet the needs of large scale development in the area.
Issue B3: Special landscape areas: NE supports the concept of Special Natural Landscape Areas as applied to Stratford Upon Avon considered as an approach. We encourage you to be aware of the following NE documentation - An approach to landscape sensitivity (publishing.service.gov.uk). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/817928/landscape-sensitivity-assessment-2019.pdf We encourage the Plan to consider and be sensitive to the needs of any biodiversity, geodiversity sites within the area and to also ensure that other proximal non-designated sites for nature conservation (Tier 2 - e.g. Special Wildlife Sites etc.. ) are also recognised as important and potential stepping stones for biodiversity thus enabling migration between designated sites – as per the Lawton Principles (‘Making space for nature’: a review of England's wildlife sites published today - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/making-space-for-nature-a-review-of-englands-wildlife-sites-published-today Issue B4: Protecting the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its surrounding areas: The plan should refer to the major developments tests and define what the LPA consider to be major development. The major development test is NPPF paragraph 177 and it sets out the circumstances under which major development can be exceptionally permitted within an AONB. Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain: We support your use of Environmental Net Gain (Water, Air, Biodiversity, Carbon) however be aware of the Environment Act’s mandate towards Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) at a minimum of 10% over a 30 year agreement. Some Local Authorities have chosen to set higher BNG requirements (e.g. 20% over 30+ years). However, any increased targets within policy must be evidenced (in terms of viability). Allocations within the local plan area should have (as a minimum) survey data showing biodiversity baseline & indicate whether BNG to be on or off site. It is preferrable to insist that BNG is first and foremost carried out on site (or as close to where appropriate) in order to benefit the local communities connected to the site area. Strategic significance for nature should be established through LNRS/other biodiversity strategy and articulated (given weight) in plan policy. For more information please review - Biodiversity net gain - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/biodiversity-net-gain Issue B6: Wildbelt designations: NE is enthusiastic and supportive of the Plan using this concept in that it not only fits with the pending Local Nature Recover Strategies, Biodiversity Net Gain and Green Infrastructure Framework in addition to reinforcing the Lawton Principles. The Wildbelt will help connect and protect any wider protected statutory designated sites within the area. They also offer alternative places for informal recreation in providing wild places/experiences for local people close to home. We encourage appropriate managed people access were possible in order to enhance peoples wellbeing experiences. Issue B8: Agricultural Land: The plan should have a policy for the protection of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land or refer to the NPPF policy (i.e Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land: Land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification). Areas of poorer quality land (ALC grades 3b, 4, 5) should be preferred to areas of higher quality land (grades 1, 2 and 3a). The plan should recognise that development has an irreversible adverse impact on the finite national and local stock of BMV land. Avoiding loss of BMV land is the priority as mitigation is rarely possible. Retaining higher quality land enhances future options for sustainable food production and helps secure other important ecosystem services. In the longer term, protection of BMV land may also reduce pressure for intensification of other land. Any development should have a soil handling plan and sustainable soil management strategy based on detailed soils surveys. Issue B9: Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity assets: Designated sites must be protected from the impacts of development. Designated sites should be mapped. Designated sites and specific impact pathways can be identified via our Impact Risk Zones on Magic. https://magic.defra.gov.uk/ The Plan must have criteria-based policies to guide decisions on developments that could impact designated sites. For example, the plan policy could set out certain development restrictions within a certain buffer from a designated site. The plan should distinguish between international, national and local sites. It should identify and include policies to protect and enhance local wildlife sites and geological sites (which can have local site or SSSI status). The plan should make it clear how specific impacts from new development will be addressed, e.g. recreational disturbance from new housing. The plan should promote the protection and recovery of priority species and habitats. For information, Habitats and species of principal importance in England (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5705) lists priority species and habitats (i.e. those material to planning). Reference should also be made to the Natural Environment PPG (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/natural-environment). The plan should make explicit reference to geological conservation and the need to conserve, interpret, and manage geological sites and features in the wider environment in order to provide ongoing educational inspiration and learning. The plan should include a policy to protect ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees or other irreplaceable habitats. Ancient woodland is defined as an area that has been wooded continuously since at least 1600 AD. It includes ancient semi-natural woodland and plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS). For more information see Ancient woodland and veteran trees: protecting them from development (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences). Priority habitats, ecological networks and priority and/or legally protected species populations The Local Plan should be underpinned by up to date environmental evidence. This should include an assessment of existing and potential components of local ecological networks. This assessment should inform the Sustainability Appraisal, ensure that land of least environment value is chosen for development, and that the mitigation hierarchy is followed and inform opportunities for enhancement as well as development requirements for particular sites. Priority habitats and species are those listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, 2006 and UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP). Further information is available here: [ARCHIVED CONTENT] Natural England - Habitats and species of principal importance in England (nationalarchives.gov.uk). https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20140712055944/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/protectandmanage/habsandspeciesimportance.aspx Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) identify the local action needed to deliver UK targets for habitats and species. They also identify targets for other habitats and species of local importance and can provide a useful blueprint for biodiversity enhancement in any particular area. Protected species are those species protected under domestic or European law. Further information can be found here -Protected species and development: advice for local planning authorities - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) Sites containing watercourses, old buildings, significant hedgerows and substantial trees are possible habitats for protected species. Ecological networks are coherent systems of natural habitats organised across whole landscapes so as to maintain ecological functions. A key principle is to maintain connectivity - to enable free movement and dispersal of wildlife e.g. badger routes, river corridors for the migration of fish and staging posts for migratory birds. Local ecological networks will form a key part of the wider Nature Recovery Network proposed in the 25 Year Environment Plan. Where development is proposed, opportunities should be explored to contribute to the enhancement of ecological networks. Planning positively for ecological networks will also contribute towards a strategic approach for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of green infrastructure, as identified in paragraph 171 of the NPPF. Page 4 of 6 Where a plan area contains irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees, there should be appropriate policies to ensure their protection. Natural England and the Forestry Commission have produced standing advice on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees - Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: advice for making planning decisions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-ancient-trees-and-veteran-trees-advice-for-making-planning-decisions
Q-B3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Special Landscape Areas currently only exist within Stratford-on-Avon District and were introduced int eh currently adopted Core Strategy (2016), as a result of information provided in the Special Landscape Area Study (2012). Such designation has no basis in national guidance or policy and are not included in Natural England's approach. Rather, paragraph 174 of the NPPF and others seek to conserve and enhance the local environment, ensure that policies take into account landscape implications arising from development, consider landscape and visual impacts, and protect 'valued landscapes'. Any landscape policy should reflect the content of national guidance, rather than continuing with or introducing additional policies and designations that have no policy basis, as they are not necessary, are not consistent with national policy and are not justified. Q-B4: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option B4a: Maintain the current policy approach, without the use of a buffer Paragraph 176 of the NPPF requires 'great weight' to be given to conserving and enhancing 'landscape and scenic beauty' in, inter alia, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It also requires "…development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas." The requirement for development within the 'setting' of AONBs to be sensitively located and designed renders the provision of a policy on this matter unnecessary. National policy guidance seeks to protect AONBs and their setting, and a policy on this matter would be repetitive and is unnecessary. Q-B8.1: Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefit of development? Para 174 b) of the NPPF states that "planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by … recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside … including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land…" In addition, PPG paragraph 001 Ref ID 8-001-20190721 states that the quality of farmland should be utilised to inform choices about its future use within the planning system. If a specific policy is to be proposed for the emerging Local Plan then it should be fully evidenced by information to demonstrate that it is justified and does not unduly prevent sustainable development from coming forward in accordance with relevant considerations regarding the NPPF and Development Plan.
No answer given
Issue B1: Areas of Restraint Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Q-B1 Option B1a We consider that Areas of Restraint are an effective policy tool for ensuring development is kept free of identified development parcels. This has been a long-standing policy commitment in Stratford and, for consistency, this should be applied to Warwick too. It would allow for a hierarchical approach, which is embedded in the NPPF, and as such would be consistent with national policy. The precise Areas of Restraint should be the subject of thorough evidence base testing and consulted upon as the SWLP advances. Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain Q-B5 a We consider that the work should be undertaken by the Council to explore and potentially pursue and integrated Environmental Net Gain Policy which will support natures recovery. We are aware of the governments Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 which seeks to halt and reverse the decline in nature – in the reaching of this goal, there should be a reduction in environmental pollution which would include noise, water quality, soil, carbon capture. One policy to deal with these elements seems sensible. As always though, any such policy would need to be evidence tested and thoroughly consulted upon. There would also need to be an awareness of the implications on viability – if overly onerous, the policy could act as a real dis-incentive for developers, who would seek instead, to build outside of South Warwickshire. Issue B8: Agricultural Land Q-B8.1 Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefits of development? Yes. We recognise the importance of BMV in considering development proposals. However, any such loss of BMV needs to be balanced with the competing – and highly important – need to deliver housing and other development. Any policy which restricts the loss of BMV would be inappropriate, and beyond the scope of the NPPF which would fail the tests of soundness. It is however appropriate to provide a policy which recognises the importance of BMV but allows for its loss where it is outweighed by the need for new development. Issue B9: Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity assets Q-B9: Should the plan include a policy requiring the safeguarding of sites of national importance, sites of local importance, and other non-designated sites? Yes – although SSSIs are protected by national policy. Paragraph 175 states that plans should distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, and on this basis such a policy should be included.
Issue B1: Areas of Restraint Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Q-B1 Option B1a We consider that Areas of Restraint are an effective policy tool for ensuring development is kept free of identified development parcels. This has been a long-standing policy commitment in Stratford and, for consistency, this should be applied to Warwick too. It would allow for a hierarchical approach, which is embedded in the NPPF, and as such would be consistent with national policy. The precise Areas of Restraint should be the subject of thorough evidence base testing and consulted upon as the SWLP advances. Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain Q-B5 a We consider that the work should be undertaken by the Council to explore and potentially pursue and integrated Environmental Net Gain Policy which will support natures recovery. We are aware of the governments Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 which seeks to halt and reverse the decline in nature – in the reaching of this goal, there should be a reduction in environmental pollution which would include noise, water quality, soil, carbon capture. One policy to deal with these elements seems sensible. As always though, any such policy would need to be evidence tested and thoroughly consulted upon. There would also need to be an awareness of the implications on viability – if overly onerous, the policy could act as a real dis-incentive for developers, who would seek instead, to build outside of South Warwickshire. Issue B8: Agricultural Land Q-B8.1 Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefits of development? Yes. We recognise the importance of BMV in considering development proposals. However, any such loss of BMV needs to be balanced with the competing – and highly important – need to deliver housing and other development. Any policy which restricts the loss of BMV would be inappropriate, and beyond the scope of the NPPF which would fail the tests of soundness. It is however appropriate to provide a policy which recognises the importance of BMV but allows for its loss where it is outweighed by the need for new development. Issue B9: Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity assets Q-B9: Should the plan include a policy requiring the safeguarding of sites of national importance, sites of local importance, and other non-designated sites? Yes – although SSSIs are protected by national policy. Paragraph 175 states that plans should distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, and on this basis such a policy should be included.
Issue B1: Areas of Restraint Areas of Restraint are potentially a mechanism for protecting areas that contribute positively to heritage assets or well preserved historic settlements. For example, where a settlement has a good medieval settlement form, the surrounding fields may contain further evidence of medieval settlement or associated field system, and therefore such policy protection is welcomed. However, Historic England considers that such a policy should be consistent across both Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick districts, and that clarification of the definition of areas that can be included should be encompassed within the SWLP. Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain Historic England would welcome an integrated Environmental Net Gain policy and considers that it could have a historic environment output as Ecosystem Services can include a cultural element. Opportunities for outcomes that benefit both natural and historic environments would increase the gain. For example, the opportunity for new development to conserve or enhance heritage assets or their setting through the delivery of the ambitions of an integrated Environmental Net Gain policy would be beneficial and where harm has been minimised, the remaining harm would be balanced through the positive delivery of this policy, to secure both natural and historic environment benefits. Historic England would be happy to provide further comments as the South Warwickshire Plan is progressed over the coming months. We should like to stress that the above opinion is based on the information provided by the Councils in their consultation. To avoid any doubt, this does not affect our obligation to provide further advice and, potentially, object to specific proposals, which may subsequently arise (either as a result of this consultation, or in later versions of the plan/guidance) where we consider that these would have an adverse impact upon the historic environment.
Q-B3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire A consistent approach should be applied across the Local Plan Area in order for the Local Plan to provide a clear basis for determining planning applications. There is no national requirement for Strategic Landscape Areas to be in place. There is an opportunity for the evidence base to include Landscape Character Assessments for the whole Local Plan area as an alternative. Q-B5: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option B5a: Explore and pursue an integrated Environmental Net Gain Policy Any policy or policies relating to the operation and securing of environmental net gain need to be fully evidenced and the implications of such policies on local plan viability need to understood. Crest Nicholson reserves the right to comment on the suitability of this as an approach once more information is made available. Q-B6: Should the South Warwickshire Local Plan introduce Wildbelt designations? “Wildbelt” is not a recognised land use defined in the NPPF which Local Plans need to accommodate. Crest Nicholson requests that clarification is provided on whether the intention is that such ‘Wildbelt’ sites would be allocated, with the approval of a willing landowner, in order to also deliver offsite BNG, carbon offsetting and other mitigation requirements that are not able to be accommodated on development sites. Q-B8.1: Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefit of development? As set out in footnote 58 of the NPPF ‘where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality’. As such any such policy should refer specifically to ‘significant’ development. It is however questioned whether this policy needs to be included given that the approach to development on agricultural land is already included in the NPPF. It is contended that the Local Plan should not include any provisions relating to development on agricultural land that go over and above those included within the NPPF.
Q-B2 We would agree that there is little merit in this policy being retained if it requires a collaborative approach with neighbouring authorities who are minded to not carry the designation forward. Q-B10 Whilst we agree that biodiversity is a key element and should be a consideration for any form of development, it should not result in schemes becoming unviable or hindering the District in being able to meet the inherent need to development for any use that is required.
Q-B3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire (Special Landscape Areas) Bellway support Option B3a: Introduce Special Landscape Areas across all of South Warwickshire Bellway considers that it would be beneficial to review existing SLAs and identify any additional SLAs in Warwick District to ensure consistency. Housing growth should then be directed to settlements that are not within a SLA, such as Long Itchington. Q-B5: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire (Environmental Net Gain) Bellway supports option B5c: None of these Bellway consider that Environmental Net Gain (ENG) should not be pursued and the SWLP should leave national policy to steer future development and environmental objectives. Should a policy be required then ‘Option B5a: Explore and pursue an integrated Environmental Net Gain Policy’ is the preferred option. However, significant work would be required by the Councils to demonstrate that ENG is achievable and will not impact on the efficient delivery of sites or their viability. ENG is something that should be agreed on a site by site basis. Policy should only ‘encourage’ ENG rather than require a specific percentage or for every site to comply. Q-B6: Should the South Warwickshire Local Plan introduce Wildbelt designations? No – there is no evidence of need for this additional requirement in the SWLP. Wildbelt” is not a recognised land use defined in the NPPF which Local Plans need to accommodate. Q-B7: Do you agree that it is appropriate to highlight links to the Minerals Plan, avoiding the unnecessary duplication of policy within the SWLP? Agree – Bellway consider that detailed minerals requirements should be left to Minerals Plan but a policy in the SWLP should reference that a balance is required when it comes to safeguarding minerals and identifying enough land to build the significant number of homes that are needed. Q-B8.1: Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefit of development? No – Bellway consider that a strong test is being proposed by the Councils if the loss of agricultural land needs to be ‘clearly outweighed by the benefit of development’. This is not the test in the NPPF (paragraph 174) or the PPG (Reference ID: 8-001-20190721). National policy states that policies only need to “take account of the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land” (NPPF paragraph 174) and try to direct growth to lower quality land (NPPF footnote 58). Most of SWLP area is grade 3 land or higher. The SWLP needs to balance directing growth to lower quality land but also making sure that the most sustainable and suitable sites / settlements are identified. Q-B9: Should the plan include a policy requiring the safeguarding of sites of national importance, sites of local importance, and other non-designated sites known to make a positive contribution to biodiversity or geodiversity; unless the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the need to protect the site. Where possible conserve and enhance these sites. No – Bellway consider that this would duplicate national policy. Any policy drafted should allow developments to propose appropriate measures to mitigate any assessed impacts.
Q-B5 – Please select the environmental net gain option that is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Whilst we have no particular difficulty with the inclusion of environmental net gain policy within the SWLP, it is noted that the Draft Plan’s supporting text advises that there is “much work to be done to explore environmental net gain further”. In order for the SWLP to include the policy on environmental net gain its implications need to be fully understood, in terms of both the site selection and development control process. Its requirements would need to be factored into the viability work being undertaken in the plan in order to establish what impact it would have on the deliverability of allocations and the masterplanning process generally. Q-B6 – Should the South Warwickshire Local Plan introduce wild belt designations? The wild belting approach means that land would be specifically designated for environmental enhancement. The wild belts would be designated areas of land that are currently of low biodiversity value where works could be undertaken to support nature’s recovery, including creating new habitats or bringing nature back. It is questioned how this is deliverable, given that the land is likely to be in private ownership. Whilst a policy could be put in place there can be no mechanisms to require a landowner to maintain or manage their land in a particular way. Whilst we have no specific concerns of the concept, it is undeliverable as we understand it and as such it is not a realistic objective of the plan.
Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain. Q-B5: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option B5a – Explore and pursue an integrated Environmental Net Gain Policy Option B5b – Explore environmental net gain through separate policies Option B5c – None of these 8.1 Catesby Estates states that Option B5c is appropriate in relation to Environmental Net Gain. Catesby Estates appreciates and acknowledges the requirement of the Environmental Act, for 10% biodiversity net gain, however cannot support either Option B5a or B5b as it is unclear how either option would work in practice. Clarity is required to understand how Air Quality, Water Quality and Carbon Capture can feed into the environmental net gain concept, and further evidence is required to show how this would work in practice, but also from a viability perspective. As a result, Catesby Estates reserves the right to comment on any future policy later in the plan making process. Issue B8: Agricultural Land QB8.1: Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefit of development? 8.2 Catesby Estates recognises the need to retain the highest quality agricultural land. However, this must be balanced against other needs across South Warwickshire, including the need to provide sufficient market and affordable homes.
The last section is about a biodiverse and environmentally resilient S Warks. Here there is a biggish chunk on the Cotswold AONB with commitments to protect and comply with the AONB Management Plan (and the NPPF). There is also a tiny bit on dark skies. We should, obviously support this. Generally, this section is strong and will be important to us as we try to protect our important habitats.
Q-B5 – Please select the environmental net gain option that is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Whilst we have no particular difficulty with the inclusion of environmental net gain policy within the SWLP, it is noted that the Draft Plan’s supporting text advises that there is “much work to be done to explore environmental net gain further”. In order for the SWLP to include the policy on environmental net gain its implications need to be fully understood, in terms of both the site selection and development control process. Its requirements would need to be factored into the viability work being undertaken in the plan in order to establish what impact it would have on the deliverability of allocations and the masterplanning process generally. Q-B6 – Should the South Warwickshire Local Plan introduce wild belt designations? The wild belting approach means that land would be specifically designated for environmental enhancement. The wild belts would be designated areas of land that are currently of low biodiversity value where works could be undertaken to support nature’s recovery, including creating new habitats or bringing nature back. It is questioned how this is deliverable, given that the land is likely to be in private ownership. Whilst a policy could be put in place there can be no mechanisms to require a landowner to maintain or manage their land in a particular way. Whilst we have no specific concerns of the concept, it is undeliverable as we understand it and as such it is not a realistic objective of the plan.
Q-B5 – Please select the environmental net gain option that is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Whilst we have no particular difficulty with the inclusion of environmental net gain policy within the SWLP, it is noted that the Draft Plan’s supporting text advises that there is “much work to be done to explore environmental net gain further”. In order for the SWLP to include the policy of environmental net gain, its implications need to be fully understood, in terms of both the site selection and development control process. Its requirements would need to be factored into the viability work being undertaken in the plan in order to establish what impact it would have on the deliverability of allocations and the masterplanning process generally. Q-B6 – Should the South Warwickshire Local Plan introduce wild belt designations? The wild belting approach means that land would be specifically designated for environmental enhancement. The wild belts would be designated areas of land which are currently of low biodiversity value where works could be undertaken to support nature’s recovery, including creating new habitats or bringing nature back. It is questioned how this is deliverable, given that the land is likely to be in private ownership. Whilst a policy could be put in place there can be no mechanisms to require a landowner to maintain or manage their land in a particular way. Whilst we have no specific concerns of the concept, it undeliverable as we understand it and as such it is not a realistic objective of the plan.
Q-B1: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option B1b: Remove Areas of Restraint designations 2.83. A disjointed approach between the two local authority areas should be avoided wherever possible. Of the options presented therefore, the Respondent would favour removal of existing areas of restraint, with open areas of land that serve to preserve the structure and character of settlements protected through more generic heritage and/or landscape policies. Q-B3: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option B3c: Discard Special Landscape Areas and bolster general landscape policy 2.84. A disjointed approach between the two local authority areas should be avoided wherever possible. Given that Special Landscape Areas are now a somewhat outdated concept the Respondent considers, in the interests of consistency across the plan area, that Special Landscape Areas should be discarded (rather than seek to establish such areas across the whole of South Warwickshire). Q-B4: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option B4a: Maintain the current policy approach, without the use of a buffer 2.85. Creating a buffer around the Cotswold AONB is superfluous to national planning policy that requires development within the setting of AONBs to be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise impacts. The Respondent therefore considers Option B4a, which seeks to maintain the current policy approach without use of a buffer to be sufficient in this case. Q-B5: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option B5c: None of these 2.86. Environmental Net Gain is an entirely new concept with no tried and tested approach to its delivery. It is therefore currently unknown how Environmental Net Gain would work in practice. The Respondent therefore reserves their right to make comment once more detailed information is available. SWLP Issues and Options Q-B6: Should the South Warwickshire Local Plan introduce Wildbelt designations? 2.87. No. Wildbelt is a highly aspirational concept with no statutory or national planning policy basis. Unlike other designations there is no tried and tested method for the identification or delivery of Wildbelt. It is therefore unclear upon what basis the Council would seek to justify such designations particularly in light of the absence of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS), which is understood from the Consultation Document to be many years away. The Respondent therefore reserves their right to make comment once more detailed information is made available. Q-B8.1: Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefit of development? 2.88. No. Agricultural Land quality is only one of a number of factors that is taken into account when considering whether a site should be developed or not. While Paragraph 174b of the NPPF recognises the benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land this is expanded on in Footnote 58 on Page 50 of the NPPF which requires consideration of the issue only where ‘significant development’ of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary. In such instances, the Footnote considers that poorer quality land should be ‘preferred’ to that of a higher quality. However, this does not mean that it is mandatory to avoid the development of best and most versatile agricultural land. It is therefore highly inadvisable to promote a policy that looks to avoid the development of or seeks the retention of best agricultural land as suggested.
Issue B1: Areas of Restraint: The current greenbelt designation concerns openness, inappropriate development, and traffic generation, but the new plan should also include biodiversity enhancement. Any development in the greenbelt / area of restraint should only be permitted if there is a measurable increase in biodiversity, in addition to the other conditions. Planners must develop unambiguous and consistent policies to protect special landscapes and enhance biodiversity. Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain: The concept of Environmental Net Gain should be preferred to Biodiversity Net Gain as it includes air quality and water quality as well as biodiversity. Carbon offsetting must go beyond tree planting, for example, committing to retrofitting existing houses to make them more energy efficient. Definitions of offsetting need to be absolutely clear to prevent greenwashing.
Q-B3: It is Hayfield’s strong view that Special Landscape Areas should be discarded within the SWLP, to bring it in line with the approach of the existing Warwick Local Plan. Q-B4: Hayfield strongly consider that the current policy approach with regards to the Cotswold AONB should be maintained, without the use of a buffer. The inclusion of a buffer around the periphery of the Cotswold AONB would not be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), as is required of Local Plans. An AONB relates to land that is protected to conserve and enhance its natural beauty. It would therefore not be appropriate or justified for undesignated land to be afforded the same level of protection as an AONB. Q-B5: Hayfield consider that there is no justification for an Environmental Net Gain Policy requiring more onerous obligations to the minimum 10% net gain which will be required under the Environment Act. The delivery of a biodiversity net gain needs to be considered on a site-by-site basis, as the ability to deliver a net gain of greater than 10% will be dependent on the baseline habitat conditions. Pursuing more onerous environmental net gain requirements at the local level could jeopardise the delivery of South Warwickshire’s growth strategy and should therefore not be pursued. Q-B6: No, Hayfield consider that it would not be justified to designate areas of Wildbelt across the Local Plan Area. Wildbelt does not constitute a ‘protected area’ where development should be restricted within a plan area, as defined within the NPPF footnote 7. The Environment Act will in any event require all developments to deliver a minimum 10% net gain as of November 2023, which can be used to enhance wildlife habitats. The intentions of the Wildbelt designation can therefore be delivered through other means. Q-B8.1: No, Hayfield consider that a local policy relating to agricultural land is not necessary, as this is already provided for within the NPPF, and would result in repetition of national policy.
Issue – B5: Support Option 5a: Exploring and then possibly pursuing an integrated environmental net gain policy appears to be worthy of further investigation and development. Issue – B6: Support. The concept of wildbelt designations to aid nature recovery seems to be worthy of greater study. This may require cross boundary cooperation and RBC would be keen to be involved in this work to ensure, if the approach is deliverable, that we take a consistent approach. Duty to cooperate response: Biodiversity does not recognise administrative boundaries and authorities will need to collaborate to ensure that blue/green infrastructure is delivered in a coordinated way to maximise benefits for both boosting biodiversity and addressing climate change. As you know, Warwickshire County Council is leading on preparing Nature Recovery Network mapping, a strategic green infrastructure study update and delivering BNG. This topic may be able to be covered by a SOCG at sub-regional level.
Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain The requirement for sites to provide a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) will come into force in November 2023, as dictated by the Environment Act. Terra consider that there is no justification for an Environmental Net Gain Policy going above and beyond this. The delivery of a biodiversity net gain needs to be considered on a site-by-site basis, as the ability to deliver a net gain of greater than 10% will be dependent on the baseline habitat conditions. The Environment Act will ensure that every new site achieves a 10% minimum BNG, so there is no need to pursue any higher requirement than this.
Issue B1: Areas of Restraint: The current greenbelt designation concerns openness, inappropriate development, and traffic generation, but the new plan should also include biodiversity enhancement. Any development in the greenbelt / area of restraint should only be permitted if there is a measurable increase in biodiversity, in addition to the other conditions. Planners must develop unambiguous and consistent policies to protect special landscapes and enhance biodiversity. Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain: The concept of Environmental Net Gain should be preferred to Biodiversity Net Gain as it includes air quality and water quality as well as biodiversity. Carbon offsetting must go beyond tree planting, for example, committing to retrofitting existing houses to make them more energy efficient. Definitions of offsetting need to be absolutely clear to prevent greenwashing.
Issue B1: Areas of Restraint: The current greenbelt designation concerns openness, inappropriate development, and traffic generation, but the new plan should also include biodiversity enhancement. Any development in the greenbelt / area of restraint should only be permitted if there is a measurable increase in biodiversity, in addition to the other conditions. Planners must develop unambiguous and consistent policies to protect special landscapes and enhance biodiversity. Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain: The concept of Environmental Net Gain should be preferred to Biodiversity Net Gain as it includes air quality and water quality as well as biodiversity. Carbon offsetting must go beyond tree planting, for example, committing to retrofitting existing houses to make them more energy efficient. Definitions of offsetting need to be absolutely clear to prevent greenwashing.
Issue B1: Areas of Restraint Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Q-B1 Option B1a We consider that Areas of Restraint are an affective policy tool for ensuring development is kept free of identified development parcels. This has been a long-standing policy commitment in Stratford and, for consistency, this should be applied to Warwick too. It would allow for a hierarchical approach, which is embedded in the NPPF, and as such would be consistent with national policy. The precise Areas of Restraint should be the subject of thorough evidence base testing and consulted upon as the SWLP advances. Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain Q-B5 a We consider that the work should be undertaken by the Council to explore and potentially pursue an integrated Environmental Net Gain Policy which will support nature’s recovery. We are aware of the governments Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 which seeks to halt and reverse the decline in nature – in the reaching of this goal, there should be a reduction in environmental pollution which would include noise, water quality, soil, carbon capture. One policy to deal with these elements seems sensible. As always though, any such policy would need to be evidence tested and thoroughly consulted upon. There would also need to be an awareness of the implications on viability – if overly onerous, the policy could act as a real dis-incentive for developers, who would seek instead, to build outside of South Warwickshire. Issue B8: Agricultural Land Q-B8.1 Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefits of development? Yes. We recognise the importance of BMV in considering development proposals. However, any such loss of BMV needs to be balanced with the competing – and highly important – need to deliver housing and other development. Any policy which restricts the loss of BMV would be inappropriate, and beyond the scope of the NPPF which would fail the tests of soundness. It is however appropriate to provide a policy which recognises the importance of BMV but allows for its loss where it is outweighed by the need for new development. Issue B9: Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity assets Q-B9: Should the plan include a policy requiring the safeguarding of sites of national importance, sites of local importance, and other non-designated sites? Yes – although SSSIs are protected by national policy. Paragraph 175 states that plans should distinguish between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites, and on this basis such a policy should be included.
Sites of national importance are protected by national planning policy. Duplication of that policy is not strictly necessary in the SWLP. However, L&Q Estates are supportive of a policy which seeks to require the safeguarding of such sites, unless the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the need to protect the site. A desk-based assessment and extended Phase 1 habitat survey has been undertaken for the Site, as summarised within the Vision Document accompanying these written representations. There are no statutory or non-statutory designated sites that would be significantly adversely affected by the development of land at Warwick Road, Kenilworth. Whilst there are known non-statutory sites within 1km of the Site, none of these are anticipated to be affected by the development proposals given the nature of and proposed scale of development. The Site comprises an arable field with areas of bare ground which are of negligible ecological importance. The field is bordered by intact, native, species-poor hedgerows with trees. These should be retained and protected within suitable buffers (3-5 metres), where possible. The features identified of highest ecological importance comprise a brook located beyond the south eastern boundary of the site, in addition to a pond in the south western corner of the Site. These features are surrounded by dense scrub and woodland areas. The masterplan allows for these to be retained and protected within suitable buffers, including an 8 metre wide buffer for the watercourse. It is also proposed to create new habitats on site with the provision of wildflower grassland areas, native woody tree planting, wetland areas, ponds and SuDS, in order to achieve net gains in biodiversity. On this basis, it is considered that biodiversity will be enhanced by the proposals and the development would not prejudice any protected species in accordance with the guidance contained within Paragraph 174 of the Framework.