Policy CC11 - Carbon Sinks

Object

Representation ID: 4947

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Neal Ince

Clause a) should be removed. How can you protect carbon sinks and the wider environment if allocating a site for development is a reason/excuse to ignore them.
This should also mandate the use of brownfield sites before greenfield sites.

Support

Representation ID: 4959

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Williams

Grazing land is already a valuable carbon sink. Recent research has shown that solar farms reduce the amount of carbon sequestration in the soil due to the shading of the panels. This is why panels should go on roofs, over car parks and on walls, like the system installed at the M&S distribution centre at Castle Donnington.
We should not consider covering agricultural land with solar panels until all other possibilities have been utilised.

Support

Representation ID: 5074

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

a) should be removed as no carbon sink should be an allocated site.
Are there any peat soils in Rutland?
Should there be a semi colon between 'scrub' and 'open habitat' ? all the areas quoted from 'open habitat' are also carbon sinks since they are where photosynthesis occurs.
What should be included in the evaluation, recording and interpretation?

Support

Representation ID: 5094

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes this policy which will ensure that a nature-based solution is sought within a development proposal. We are also pleased to note that the policies reference net gain and the provision of wider benefits for biodiversity and health and wellbeing.

Object

Representation ID: 5152

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Surely any development that harms carbon sinks needs to replace those sinks elsewhere. Not just ‘weight’ or a presumption in favour / against.

Object

Representation ID: 5414

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

Does the preservation of farmland as a "Carbon Sink" overule Renewables development ?

Support

Representation ID: 5475

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Janet Taylor

Support as long as it recognised that grazing land is an important carbon sink, and should never be covered with PV panels.

Support

Representation ID: 5796

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sue Scarrott

I am very much in support of the principles but think that insufficient care will be taken about sites for development . Sadly, commercial interests will win e.g in Uppingham, a wonderful natural woodland habitat on Seaton Rd has been earmarked as a gypsy and traveller site.
RCC should insist on more brownfield sites being used.

Support

Representation ID: 5847

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Add sentence “There should be a presumption in favour of preserving carbon sinks in situ, especially for wetlands and woodland habitats. On land wetlands store the largest amount of carbon per unit area, followed by woodlands.”

There are very few, if any, peat soils in Rutland - only in garden centres! Replace with “Grassland, scrub, arable land and especially wetlands and woodlands, sequester and store carbon. Development on these habitats is a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Add examples of methodologies for evaluation such as life cycle assessment or material flow analysis.

Support

Representation ID: 5949

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

Grassland is a natural carbon sink and greenfield site development for housing and use of agricultural land for solar farms should be discouraged. Brownfield sites are available for both uses

There are no peat soils in Rutland and this reference should be removed, as it appears to be consultant "cut and paste"

Support

Representation ID: 6101

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Lewis

I support the overall policy aim, but condition (a) should be deleted. A site should not be allocated for development if it is a carbon sink (unless condition (b) is fulfilled).

Support

Representation ID: 6299

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Agree absolutely.

Object

Representation ID: 6480

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roderick Morgan

This is far too weak and will allow carbon sinks to be destroyed as part of development, with some minimal efforts at off-setting damage. Carbon sinks should be fully valued and sacrosanct when considering development. It's not clear how a site can be identified as suitable for development if it contains an effective carbon sink or other natural asset.

Support

Representation ID: 6853

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Polices welcomed and offer a level of protection for existing valuable carbon sinks, along with supporting nature-based solutions within new development proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 7175

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Persimmon Homes support the protection of Carbon Sinks. It was unclear from this policy and the evidence base which underpins how much of the land within the County (and its location), is classified as a ‘carbon sink’. It would be expected that a plan identifying the location of existing carbon sinks be incorporated within this Plan.

It was also unclear what the impacts of this policy would have on the viability of schemes as this has not been referred to or considered in the ‘Whole Plan Viability Report’ undertaken by HDH Planning and development Limited.

Object

Representation ID: 7551

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roderick Morgan

This is far too weak and will allow carbon sinks to be destroyed as part of development, with some minimal efforts at off-setting damage.

Carbon sinks should be fully valued and sacrosanct when considering development. It's not clear how a site can be identified as suitable for development if it contains an effective carbon sink or other natural asset.

Object

Representation ID: 7696

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

We strongly object to this policy as drafted. This policy needs to be reconsidered, it is too onerous and will impact on almost all major developments. There is no mention of the need to consider the scale of loss as there is in the Carbon Sequestration draft policy.
As currently drafted the loss of a single hedge, tree or shrub and all developments on agricultural land will be caught by this policy. In this context, the presumption in favour of preservation of carbon sinks in-situ is in direct conflict with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Support

Representation ID: 7735

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Anglian Water supports policies CC11 Carbon Sinks including no dig construction methods, CC12 Carbon Sequestration including nature-based solutions for water quality.

Object

Representation ID: 7826

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Is there a requirement for some form of Carbon Sink Net Gain approach? Otherwise, how can we actually know whether a development will result in adding or removing carbon?

Object

Representation ID: 7888

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

The land at Quarry Farm is a Natural Carbon Sink in direct contravention of this policy