Policy NB2: Biodiversity

Object

Representation ID: 4483

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The intention of Policy NB2 is recognised, however, the Government policy and guidance does not yet require 10% biodiversity net gain. Any policy should require a net gain in line with latest Government legislation, policy or guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 4486

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: St Modwen

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to Policy NB2 ‘Biodiversity’ on the basis that the proposed wording is not effectively or positively prepared.

NB2 identifies a clear preference for on-site delivery of biodiversity net gain (BNG), as opposed to the provision of BNG off-site. In relation to this point, it is highlighted that on-site BNG is not always the best option in relation to strengthening the district’s nature network. On-site provision can lead to small, isolated areas of BNG land, designed primarily to fitted within a development layout. However, an off-site scheme in a strategically valuable area has the potential to make a more substantive contribution to the wider nature network.

Park C of the policy seeks to secure habitat management in perpetuity unless it can be demonstrated this is not possible. It is noted that this requirements goes beyond the 30 year requirement set out in the Environment Act 2021. As such it is considered onerous and a requirement that will be unimplementable in many cases. The policy wording should be in accordance with the Environment Act.

It is requested that parts A and C of Policy NB2 be amended as follows:

'a. Delivery of the biodiversity net-gain on-site wherever possible, unless evidence identifies an ecologically preferable off-site solution which would deliver improved biodiversity net gains, ideally within a strategically or functionally favourable location. Delivery of biodiversity net gains should be in a manner consistent with national requirements, ensuring that existing habitats on site are maintained and enhanced as a priority. Where it is demonstrated that this cannot be achieved on site, the required level of off-site biodiversity net-gain must be provided. As a last resort, statutory biodiversity credits may be acceptable.

c. Securing of the habitat for at least 30 years. This will typically be achieved via a S106 agreement, planning conditions or a conservation covenant.'

Comment

Representation ID: 4516

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The intention of Policy NB2 is recognised, however, the Government policy and guidance does not yet require 10% biodiversity net gain. Any policy should require a net gain in line with latest Government legislation, policy or guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 4544

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The intention of Policy NB2 is recognised, however, the Government policy and guidance does not yet require 10% biodiversity net gain. Any policy should require a net gain in line with latest Government legislation, policy or guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 4570

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The intention of Policy NB2 is recognised, however, the Government policy and guidance does not yet require 10% biodiversity net gain. Any policy should require a net gain in line with latest Government legislation, policy or guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 4599

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

Taylor Wimpey is supportive of the need to address net losses to Biodiversity, through the provision of enhancement to deliver an overall net gain. The Council’s policy requirement to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, reflects that of the Environment Act and is not objected to.

Comment

Representation ID: 4626

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Four Ashes Road LTD

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The intention of Policy NB2 is recognised, however, the Government policy and guidance does not yet require 10% biodiversity net gain. Any policy should require a net gain in line with latest Government legislation, policy or guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 4640

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: CWC Group - Clowes Developments

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We object to the wording of Policy NB2 states that 10% Biodiversity Net Gain is required for all major developments.

The Environment Act (2021) requires a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10% to be achieved by new development. However until this requirement is formally enacted through secondary legislation, the chosen target would need to be appropriately evidenced. The consideration of any biodiversity targets adopted through the Local Plan process would need to be justified, including in relation to viability testing.

Comment

Representation ID: 4651

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Woodland Trust

The plan should require developments to deliver 20% BNG and consideration should be given to the quantum of other investment sources (public and private) needed to meet these targets. The plan should require BNG units to be maintained for a minimum of 50 years, not just the 30 set out in the Environment Act, which is particularly important for woodland creation. A rich mix of habitats should be required including native woodland creation. Habitat creation funded through other mechanisms (public funds) should also be maintained in the long term.

Comment

Representation ID: 4683

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Keon Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The intention of Policy NB2 is recognised, however, the Government policy and guidance does not yet require 10% biodiversity net gain. Any policy should require a net gain in line with latest Government legislation, policy or guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 4724

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Lovell Homes

Agent: Evolve Planning & Design

The intention of Policy NB2 is recognised. Any policy should require a net gain in line with latest Government legislation, policy or guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 4832

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Avison Young

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy should be amended to make it clear that the 10% net gain will only apply following the introduction of the Environment Act.

Parts A and C appear to be inconsistent with the Environment Act which does not refer to securing habitat "in perpetuity", and seeks to prematurely introduce a level of detail and prescription pending the secondary legislation concerning managing net gain.

Comment

Representation ID: 4970

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Policy NB2 states that 10% Biodiversity Net Gain is required for all major developments. It is considered that our clients land (site reference 500) will be able to demonstrate at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain if it were released from the Green Belt and allocated for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 4992

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Barratt West Midlands

Agent: Savills

Policy NB2 states that 10% Biodiversity Net Gain is required for all major developments. It is considered that our clients land (site reference 549 and 550) will be able to demonstrate at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain if it were released from the Green Belt and allocated for development.

Object

Representation ID: 5059

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Goldfinch TPS

Agent: Goldfinch TPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Green Infrastructure evidence being used by the Council is far too vague, provides a meaningless planning policy framework, is insufficiently robust, and fails to respond effectively to deliver requirements of green infrastructure guidance expected by paragraphs 174 (indent d), 175 and 179 of the Revised NPPF (2021). The Council is taking forward an unsound policy (based on highly questionable, vague, totally meaningless and insufficiently robust evidence) which conflicts with the tests of Soundness as reinforced in paragraphs 31 and 35 (indents b and d) of the Revised NPPF (2021).
position is perfectly clear, the Council is using insufficiently robust Nature Recovery Network Mapping or Open Space Strategy to inform critically important housing-led spatial planning policy considerations across the district. The Council is taking forward an unsound policy which conflicts with the tests of Soundness as reinforced in paragraphs 31 and 35 (indents b and d) of the Revised NPPF (2021).
By encouraging destruction to sensitive wildlife corridors by promoting huge levels of new housing development immediately alongside the sensitive South Staffordshire Railway walk natural green space corridor within the Lower Penn area of the district (and other wildlife corridors in other parts of the district), the Council is failing to promote the most sustainable patterns of development, in direct conflict with the ‘Sustainability’ tests of ‘Soundness’ as reinforced in paragraph 35 (indent d) of the Revised NPPF (2021).

Object

Representation ID: 5186

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Richborough Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Adopt a more flexible approach. Promote a pragmatic view in relation to biodiversity enhancements where there are clear landscape and habitat improvements rather than being wholly reliant on the output of a rigid calculator.
Reword part a) replacing ‘priority’ with ‘where possible’. It is questionable where sites are allocated for development that a goal of maintaining habitats is achievable.

Comment

Representation ID: 5314

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Miller Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy is not unsound but could be improved with the amendments suggested.

Miller wish to emphasise the importance of the policy requirements being drafted in line with the requirements of the Environmental Bill in respect of net gain.

Miller are committed do maximising environmental gains, but suggest a flexible approach to the delivery of the BNG within sites. In a comparable manner to open space discussed above, a pragmatic approach to BNG should be taken where improvements to biodiversity can be delivered in conjunction with open space provision, so as not to put unreasonable pressure on developable area and associated viability on sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 5345

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Pegasus Group

St Philips are supportive of the need to address net losses to Biodiversity, through the provision of enhancement to deliver and overall net gain. The Council’s policy requirement to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, reflects that of the Environment Act and is not
objected to. Indeed, it reflects one of the core principles of the NPPF to conserve and enhance the natural environment.
In delivering net gain, however, the policy needs to provide as much flexibility as possible. The key test of policy is whether the 10% BNG is being delivered, not necessarily the specific method by which it is delivered. It is important that the way in which these ‘net gains’ are calculated is given careful consideration and that a pragmatic view is taken in terms of biodiversity enhancements, where there are clear landscape and habitat improvements, rather than being wholly reliant on the output of rigid calculator, in particular where this would impede the delivery of much needed housing.
In this regard, certain aspects of the policy would benefit from clarification. Subsection a) for example, discusses ‘maintaining and enhancing existing habitats’ on development sites as a priority. It has to be questioned, however, that where sites are allocated for delivery,
whether such a goal is achievable. Certainly, it is good practice to retain where possible, hedgerows, mature trees, and other key ecological assets. However, for the policy to indicate that habitat protection on site is a priority, over matters such as high-quality urban
design, or delivery of any of a raft of other local plan policies, gives this specific element of policy delivery an undue prominence.
The policy would benefit from some limited re-wording (replace ‘as a priority’ with ‘where possible’ for example) to provide a more balanced and practical response to achieving the necessary 10% BNG delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 5364

Received: 20/12/2022

Respondent: Cameron Homes Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Cameron Homes acknowledges the aspirations of this policy however the Government policy and guidance does not yet require 10% biodiversity net gain. The policy should reflect the latest national legislation, policy or guidance with respect to biodiversity net gain.

Object

Representation ID: 5384

Received: 09/12/2022

Respondent: Persimmon Homes West Midlands

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Persimmon Homes are generally supportive of the need to address net losses to Biodiversity, through the provision of enhancement to deliver and overall net gain. The Council’s policy requirement to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain, reflects that of the Environment Act and is not objected to.
In delivering net gain, however, the policy needs to provide as much flexibility as possible. The key test of policy is whether the 10% BNG is being delivered, not necessarily the specific method by which it is delivered.
In this regard, certain aspects of the policy would benefit from clarification. Subsection a) for example, discusses ‘maintaining and enhance existing habitats’ on development sites as a priority. It has to be questioned, however, that where sites are allocated for delivery, whether such a goal is achievable. Certainly, it is good practice to retain where possible, hedgerows, mature trees and other key ecological assets. However, for the policy to indicate that habitat protection on site is a priority, over matters such as high-quality urban design, or delivery of any of a raft of other local plan policies, gives this specific element of policy delivery an undue prominence.
The policy would benefit from some limited re-wording (replace ‘as a priority’ with ‘where possible’ for example) to provide a more balanced and practical response to achieving the necessary 10% BNG delivery.
The policy is considered unsound, as it is neither justified nor consistent with national policy for the reasons set out above.

Object

Representation ID: 5404

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Rigby Estates LLP

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy requirements should be drafted in line with requirements of the Environment Bill. There should be a flexible approach to the delivery of BNG in a comparable manner to open space, biodiversity improvements can be delivered in conjunction with open space.