Policy EN1 - Protection of Sites, Habitats and Species

Object

Representation ID: 4528

Received: 23/11/2023

Respondent: Mr Mike Cheetham

I am writing in connection with the designation of a large part of my rear garden as a Candidate Wildlife Site. There is no logic to the area designated as it does not follow any boundary or geographical feature. It also includes a large part of my rear lawn but not an area of wildflower planting or woodland which should surely be more relevant to wildlife.

I understand from speaking to one of your team that the designation has been in place for many years.

I would request that the area be sensibly defined or the destination removed

Support

Representation ID: 4553

Received: 27/11/2023

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

Protection of valued habitats must be at the heart of the LP. In particular, irreplaceable habitats, including ancient and veteran trees, must be protected from loss and damage. To achieve this, the LP should:
• Give weight to the relevant LNRS, as it is refined, which should identify ancient woodland sites, to ensure that development is not allocated in close proximity to ancient woodland.
• For veteran trees, the LP should encourage them to be recorded on the Ancient Tree Inventory, and to consider locations where it might be suitable to place a Tree Preservation Order on any ancient, veteran or notable trees recorded. In addition, the LP should encourage a buffer zone to exceed the minimum distances stipulated in planning advice.
• For non-ancient and veteran trees, adopt the Bristol Tree Replacement Standard with respect to felling and specify replacement trees be planted no more than 12 times the distance of the original tree’s trunk diameter, to correspond with root extent area.

Support

Representation ID: 4562

Received: 01/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Corby

100% support this. RCC should not accept any mitigation from Profit Driven Developers. Rutland is Biodiversity poor, and given our rurality, we need to be doing everything possible to enhance and improve our Countryside for future generations.

Support

Representation ID: 4603

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

The more protection the better

Support

Representation ID: 4784

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Cara Holland

With the planned housing development off Brooke Rd I’d like to flag the importance and value of the hedge line leading up to the crossing, both to wildlife and to the environment. The removal of any of this hedge line by the developers would adversely affect, directly or indirectly other habitats or features of biodiversity/geodiversity importance or value

Object

Representation ID: 5107

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

NE suggests that the wording in points 1 and 2 regarding the hierarchy of designations could be clearer. The policy should reflect a hierarchy of protection related to their international, national or local sites status. For point 1 it may be clearer to refer to Habitat Sites to reflect the term used in the NPPF when describing areas previously known as European sites.
Point 2 should refer only to SSSIs and National Nature Reserves – it is not necessary to include internationally Important sites again as these are included in point 1.
Natural England welcomes the Biodiversity Assessment May 2023.

Object

Representation ID: 5208

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Re points 1 & 2: There should be no exceptions. Designated sites must always be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 5237

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Liz Taylor

You have included Quarry Farm as an area for development rather than existing sites that could be used . The loss of wildlife, biodiversity and habitat will be appalling. Nothing said by the developer will do anything to mitigate this, they will have no interest once the houses are built. This is Stamford’s mini nature reserve and should remain so.

Support

Representation ID: 5451

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

But 3 d) needs to include traditional orchards (UK BAP Priority Habitat), and Blue and Green Corridors and Stepping Stones.
Traditional orchards are under pressure from land development as many are in walled gardens and on level ground, and so attractive for housing and other buildings.
Point 5. Mitigation should be the very last resort since new planting will not achieve the biodiversity or carbon sequestration value of the original habitat for very many years, possibly more than the 30years considered to be 'perpetuity'.

Object

Representation ID: 5589

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Marian Markham

Through assessment of the biodiversity above and below ground at a site is key to setting a baseline. This policy does not sufficiently define how the baseline is undertaken.

Policy must include that no development will take place on Irreplaceable Habitats as defined by Natural England and to include unimproved "waxcap grasslands" which are present in Rutland but currently not well surveyed or mapped due to lack of experts. These take >100 years to develop but are immediately destroyed by ploughing / disturbance of the soils and can not be translocated or created elsewhere in our lifetime!

Support

Representation ID: 5709

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Braunston parish council support the wording of policy EN1 but in practice the policy is not adhered to. Development seems a priority.

Object

Representation ID: 5753

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Rachel Butler

The policy is welcomed however it needs strengthening by detailing habitat types within the county, specifically Calcareous Grassland and Neutral Grassland reflecting the current Biodiversity Action Plan

Support

Representation ID: 5854

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

As a complement to the Local Plan RCC should map and safeguard “wildlife corridors and stepping stones”, building on those identified in Neighbourhood Plans and from neighbouring local planning authorities, as well as “areas of habitat management, enhancement, restoration and creation”, as required in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 5875

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: NGO East Mercia Rivers Trust

The inclusion of priority grasslands is welcomed but these should be specified in the text as calcareous and neutral grassland, which are locally and nationally important. Reference to the Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan is absent and should be included in order to upscale ecological restoration and connection of priority habitats and species.

Support

Representation ID: 5919

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rob Cooke

As well as any direct impact, the consequential impact should also be considered, for example increased volumes of traffic impacting on protected roadside verges alongside narrow country lanes, and the impact of associated street lighting and light pollution on nocturnal biodiversity.

Support

Representation ID: 5988

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

Polices must be adhered to regarding housing and other development

Object

Representation ID: 6060

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

In isolation these policies provide some protection to rural environment, but more detail is required on how they will be applied and enforced? There is a major conflict however between these policies and the development proposed in "Call for Sites" and "Future development opportunity at SGB"? This leaves to the inevitable conclusion that these policies are not deliverable and will not pass scrutiny at later stages?
Building more dwellings close to protected sensitive sites, in rural areas devoid of infrastructure, will contravene these policies. Which takes priority when this happens? Environment must always be priority, but this needs to stated!

Support

Representation ID: 6316

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Support

Object

Representation ID: 6399

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

Whilst I support a focus on these sites, the policy needs to state these sites will be protected and not developed

Support

Representation ID: 6435

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

I support this policy

Object

Representation ID: 6858

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

The policy is generally supported; however no mention is made to spatial mitigation – i.e. the need to mitigate for habitat/species losses in close to proximity to where they occur, or within existing nearby ecological networks within emerging Local Nature Recovery Strategies.
The inclusion of priority grasslands is welcomed but would be stronger by detailing the specific habitat types within the county, namely Calcareous Grassland and Neutral Grassland.
Reference to the Leicestershire and Rutland BAP is absent from the policy wordings and should be included in order to maximise opportunities for the restoration, enhancement and connection of priority habitats and species.
The undertaking and publication of the supporting evidence documents - Biodiversity Assessment (May 2023) and Rutland GBI Strategy is welcomed and are considered to be an important resource for planning nature’s recovery.

Object

Representation ID: 7370

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

In all instances, the policy approach broadly matches the provisions of Paragraph 186 of the NPPF (December 2023) and is therefore considered an acceptable approach.

It is however noted that the policy as currently drafted partly duplicates the provisions of other policies in the draft Local Plan, specifically those in relation to Biodiversity Net Gain (Policy EN3). Based on paragraph 16 of the NPPF (December 2023), the references to Biodiversity Net Gain in Policy EN1 are considered unnecessary duplication, alongside creating potential confusion and contradiction with the secondary legislation of the Environment Act 2021. It is therefore recommended that the references to Biodiversity Net Gain in this policy are deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 7414

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes

Agent: Barmach Ltd

Hereward Homes strongly object to the Proposals Map designation of land at Barrowden Road, Ketton/Geeston
as a Candidate Local Wildlife Site as shown on the accompanying map.

The Council has no survey data relating to this privately owned site and has not approached, nor has the consent
of the landowner to undertake any such survey works. This would appear to be a legacy proposal from the
previous Local Plan which has not been taken forward. The ‘RUTLAND COUNTY – BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT’ evidence base for the Local Plan states at section 2.1.1 that ‘There are two non-statutory Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) close to this Survey Area: the first, ‘Geeston Quarry LWS’ is situated approximately 290m south of the Survey Area, just the other side of the railway line.’ This is factually incorrect. The site is not a designated Local Wildlife Site. The evidence base which informs Policy EN1 is fundamentally flawed and the allocation as a Candidate/Potential Wildlife Site should therefore be removed to avoid the plan being found unsound. Furthermore, the site falls outside any of the defined Survey Areas in the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 7457

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

EN1 -Object in its current wording. This chapter is one where the policies are still couched as if there is a presumption in favour of development everywhere, even in areas designated such as Local Wildlife Sites and Local Nature Reserves. By their very nature the presumption here must be against development. The Parish Council believes this needs to be completely rewritten, to set out clearly and unequivocally the situations and measurable conditions that would have to be met for any development to be considered. As currently drafted, the Local Plan would make it difficult for development control to interpret and would likely be to put the Local Planning Authority at odds with the community which reasonably would expect such places to be protected as the overriding priority.

Object

Representation ID: 7472

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Only significant harm will allow development to be refused. How is this to be defined for determination purposes? Without clarification this statement in meaningless.

Clause 3 of policy EN1 needs to be re-written as a presumption against development with clearly defined and measurable conditions as to standards when development might be considered. The conditions need to be re-defined in such a way that there is clarity and no ambiguity as to how they will be interpreted by the Rutland community, by potential developers and by the Local Planning Authority.

Clause 4: The term “irreplaceable habitats” need to be properly defined. This policy needs to be re-written with a presumption against development with clearly defined and measurable conditions. The conditions need to be re-defined in such a way that there is clarity and no ambiguity as to how they will be interpreted by the Rutland Community, by potential developers and by the Local Planning Authority. More work is required on this clause.

Object

Representation ID: 7564

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF suggest that the policy is currently unclear and cumbersome. The reference to BNG midway through the policy, when there is also a separate BNG policy, is potentially confusing. In light of the new guidance on BNG that has recently been published, HBF strongly suggest the Council need to review this whole chapter to ensure it fully reflects all the new legislation, national policy and guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 7804

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We are unclear how Policy EN1 relates to Policy SC1 in the previous chapter.

However, we support the protection of habitats, biodiversity, blue and green infrastructure, and the natural environment in general.

Object

Representation ID: 7844

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Alicia Kearns

There is currently a presumption for development on areas of environmental importance, with only ‘significant harm’ allowing for planning refusal. Clause Three of Policy EN1 should be rewritten to make clear that there will be a presumption against development on areas of environmental, biodiversity and habitat priority sites.

Object

Representation ID: 7889

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

'Significant harm' is unclear. How is this to be defined for determination purposes?

This policy means there is a presumption of development on Local Wildlife Sites, UK priority habitats, locally important habitats and other landscape features, subject to undefined subjective conditions which cannot allow an agreed interpretation.

This clause 3 of policy EN1 needs to be re-written as a presumption against development with clearly defined and
measurable conditions as to standards when development might be considered.

Clause 4: This policy presents no basis for determination by Development Control and will therefore lead to subjective and unfounded determination results by the Local Planning Authority. This policy needs to be re-written with a presumption against development with clearly defined and measurable conditions as to
standards when development might be considered.

CPRE Rutland objects to this policy as currently drafted.

Object

Representation ID: 7941

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

Refer to Quarry Farm proposal in direct conflict with this stated Policy. Calcareous grassland SSSI on Gt North Road. Quarry Farm has acres of this rare habitat. Should also be considered for SSSI status, and protected as per LLLR Biodiversity Action Plan.