Publication Draft

The Trust believes that there is insufficient evidence to justify the allocation of the sub-regional employment site near Coventry Airport (hereafter referred to as the Coventry Gateway scheme) in the Local Plan. We are concerned that:

a) There is limited up-to-date ecological information to determine the environmental impacts of the Coventry Gateway scheme and other alternatives within the Local Plan evidence base

b) The provisions of policy DS16 have not been assessed within the Habitat Regulations Assessment dated March 2014.

c) The Sustainability Appraisal report 2014 and its associated appendices omit a formal assessment of the Coventry Gateway scheme against the District's Sustainability Objectives and fails to conclude why the site is promoted in the plan over other reasonable alternatives.

1) Evidence Base
In our consultation response to the draft Local Plan 2012, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust recommended that:

'The evidence base for the natural environment will ... have to be reviewed and updated in order to inform the sustainability appraisal for this site and any other reasonable alternatives that come forward as part of [the] review process.'

However, according to the Habitat Biodiversity Audit data (HBA) for Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull (2012-2013), much of the habitat data for the land allocated for the Coventry Gateway scheme in Warwick District dates from 1997/98, with only a few small areas updated in 2006. The Gateway scheme was not included in the Warwick District Habitat Assessment 2008 and was not updated as part of the Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study - Landscape Assessment Update April 2014.

A planning application for the Coventry Gateway scheme was submitted in 2012. The application was accompanied by a detailed Environmental Statement (ES) which included up-to-date data on habitats, species and statutory and non-statutory wildlife sites within the proposed allocation, with the exception of Rock Farm potential Local Wildlife Site. Whilst this data may go some way to providing a baseline for the Coventry Gateway scheme, it is not included or summarised within the local plan evidence base and has not been referred to when assessing site allocations in the Sustainability Appraisal report 2014.

In paragraph 2.73 of the Local Plan Submission draft, the local authority broadly outlines the reasons for supporting the Coventry Gateway Scheme. The local authority quotes studies that have been undertaken to support the location of the allocation but these studies are not referred to in the local plan and it is not made clear if such studies are included within the local plan evidence base. Nor is it clear that these studies contain any wider sustainability assessment of the proposal and alternatives given the apparent focus on the economic merits of the proposal at the expense of any reference to environmental constraints and opportunities.

The Local Authority has not proposed alternative sub-regional site allocations as part of the local plan process, nor gathered associated environmental evidence to review the wider sustainability merits and constraints of such options.

We accept that it is unreasonable to require Warwick District to identify a range of alternative sub-regional employment sites alone when the review area for these sites will extend beyond the boundary of a single local authority area. We do believe however, that the local authority has a duty, under the Localism Act 2011, to work collaboratively with other local authorities in the Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area to collate evidence for other sub-regional options in order to ensure that the preferred option is justified in accordance with sustainability principles. As the responsible local authority for allocating the preferred sub-regional site, we believe it is necessary for the results of this cross-boundary assessment to be present in the evidence base of this local plan so that the Gateway allocation, as with all other proposed housing and employment sites in the plan, can be reviewed using the sustainability Appraisal process.

2) Habitat Regulations Assessment
The local authority has updated the Habitat Regulations Assessment of the local plan in accordance with article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive; the findings of which are presented in the Habitat Regulations Assessment- Screening Report 2014. The report screens the likelihood that policies in the plan could impact on Natura 2000 sites; however the policies reviewed in the report were those detailed within in the 2012 Preferred Option draft and not the current submission draft of the Local Plan.

Paragraph 3.3.1 of the Habitat Regulations Assessment - Screening report 2014 states that:

'As the local plan is in development, this assessment will report the Local Plan Preferred Options as of May 2012. A further addendum may need to be prepared should the local plan policies or site allocations be materially altered'

The Trust believes that since 2012, the provisions of policies surrounding the Gateway Scheme have materially changed from a generic 'exploration of the case for the proposal' in policy PO8 to a specific 'allocation of land' in policy DS16 of the 2014 submission draft. The implications of this change should therefore be subject to further screening and added as an addendum to the 2014 screening report.

3) Sustainability Appraisal
The Sustainability Appraisal Report 2014 does not assess the Coventry Gateway site allocation against Warwick District's Sustainability objectives nor does it provide any assessment of the proposal against reasonable alternatives.

Article 5.2 of the European Directive 2001/42/EC "on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment" states that:

"The environmental report shall include information that may reasonably be required taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment, the contents and level of detail in the plan or programme, [and] its stage in the decision-making process"

The Coventry Gateway scheme is a specific site allocation identified within the plan and is promoted by policy DS16. However, unlike all other specific housing and employment allocations, it is not reviewed or assessed within the Sustainability Appraisal report 2014.

The Directive further states that the report should contain information on:

"the likely significant effects on the environment, including on issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors. These effects should include secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects" (Annex I (f) and
footnote)

There appears to be no evidence about such effects within the local plan evidence base and no assessment of these effects against the District's sustainability objectives using the Sustainability Appraisal methodology employed for all other housing and employment allocations.

"an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with" (Annex I (h))

There are no alternatives identified for sub-regional employment sites in the Sustainability Appraisal and subsequently no supporting information for selecting the Gateway scheme in accordance with sustainability criteria.

"the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme" (Annex I (g))

Without an assessment of the Coventry Gateway scheme against the Sustainability objectives there is no option to consider any measures that may be required within the local plan to reduce and offset any adverse effects of the proposal.

In the absence of information for the above, the Trust firmly believes that the Sustainability Appraisal fails to provide the necessary justification for allocating land for the Coventry Gateway proposal within the local plan.

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust is supportive of the policy protection afforded to statutory and non-statutory wildlife sites and assets outlined in policy NE2.

We believe the policy is consistent with paragraph 113 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that it distinguishes between nationally and locally important sites and that it assigns a level of protection that is commensurate with the status of each site or feature. We are also pleased to note the reference to 'connectivity' and 'contribution to wider biodiversity objectives' in the policy wording. We believe this will help to ensure that the additional role these features play in supporting ecological networks is recognised when applying the provisions of the policy to planning applications.

The wording of the final paragraph of the policy is difficult to interpret. We assume that the recommendation for the ecological assessment is to ensure that the biodiversity value of the site or asset is effectively assessed. Furthermore, our understanding of the penultimate sentence is to ensure that any mitigation or compensation measures proposed uphold the value assigned to the site or asset in the ecological assessment. In this respect, we support the retention of the final paragraph but recommend that the wording is changed to avoid any misinterpretation of what the policy is trying to achieve.

Policy NE2 does not currently address the status or value of potential Local Wildlife Sites (pLWS). PLWS are features considered to be of up to county importance for wildlife but which have not been formally assessed using the Warwickshire Local Wildlife Site Criteria Assessment. PLWS can therefore be of equal importance to other designated Local Wildlife Sites but do not afford the same policy protection under the provisions of policy NE2.

The Trust believes it is best practice to undertake a LWS criteria assessment for any pLWS threatened by development so that the value of the asset is determined before a decision is made on the application. In this respect, the LWS criteria assessment should form part of the ecological assessment that is recommended in the final paragraph of policy NE2. However, final decisions on LWS notifications are, in accordance with the LWS criteria, made by the Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Local Sites Partnership and so these specific requirements for developments concerning pLWS will need to be clarified within the policy or supporting text.

The Trust believes that the Local Plan should set out Warwick District Council's position on the recovery of unconventional gas and oil reserves through the use of processes such as Fracking and Underground Coal Gasification.

The UK Government has outlined its in-principle support of utilising the UKs unconventional gas and oil reserves and has set up the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil (OUGO) to 'promote the safe, responsible, and environmentally sound recovery' of these resources. The Government's position will inevitably have consequences for wildlife and local communities as exploration of available resources is undertaken and once commercially viable proposals are established.

At present, the Trust is unaware of any proposals to extract shale gas using the more publicised use of Fracking. However this current lack of activity does not appear to preclude the risk that exploration may be proposed within the lifetime of the Local Plan. A more immediate issue for Warwick District is the less publicised Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), which differs from Fracking but still requires unconventional forms of recovery and could likewise have significant impacts on the district's wildlife and local communities.

As of the date of this consultation, a licence from the Coal Authority is being sought by Cluff Natural Resources to begin exploration of the coal reserves to the east of the district around Bubbenhall for the purposes of UCG. If this licence is granted, the threat of a planning application for exploratory investigations being submitted to Warwickshire County Council would seem increasingly likely. It is therefore important for Warwick District Council, as one of the affected authorities, to set out its position on the process and outline how it will work with the County Council to get the best possible outcome for people and wildlife in accordance with the strategic objectives of the local plan.

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust is broadly supportive of policy NE3 but believes that the current wording is not entirely compliant with the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Our principal concern is with the provisions of clause A, which requires development proposals to 'lead to no net loss of biodiversity, where appropriate'. This clause is inconsistent with paragraph 109 of the NPPF which requires the planning system to '[minimise] impacts on biodiversity and [provide] net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity'.

The principle of net gain for biodiversity is now firmly established in Government policy, though the Natural Environment White paper and Biodiversity 2020 - a Strategy for England's Wildlife and Ecosystem Services. The Government recognises that to halt the loss of biodiversity, there needs to be a shift towards creating more, bigger, better and joined places for nature and by establishing coherent ecological networks. We believe that the policy's current wording, which will in effect maintain the status quo in terms of biodiversity, will not be ambitious enough to achieve these ends.

Furthermore, we recognise that it was previously difficultly to demonstrate net gain in planning applications without substantial habitat enhancements which are difficult to justify as part of the planning application. However, the recent introduction of a biodiversity impact calculator from the Biodiversity Offsetting pilot scheme has now provided an alternative way of calculating relative loss and gains of biodiversity on site. This means that there is now a simplified, transparent and effective way of demonstrating biodiversity gain for all planning applications, whatever the size or scale.

As a reference to this 'approved ecological assessment' is already included in the policy wording, we see no reason as to why the principles of Government Policy and the NPPF cannot be upheld and that a net gain for biodiversity be firmly upheld as a policy requirement in NE3.