Object

Representation ID: 4551

Received: 27/11/2023

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

The LP must go beyond minimum requirements for BNG and be an example of best practice and should:
• Require development projects to deliver 20 per cent BNG
• Give consideration to the quantum of other investment sources (public and private) which will be needed in order to meet these targets.
• Require BNG units to be maintained for a minimum of 50 years, not just the 30 set out in the Environment Act:
- this is particularly important for woodland creation, as it takes many decades for new woods to reach maturity and their full ecological potential.
- deliver a rich mix of habitats including native woodland, informed by LNRSes.
- habitat creation funded through other mechanisms (such as public funds) should also be maintained in the long term.

Comments noted. Support and comments noted. Since the Reg 18 Plan was published Government guidance set out in the PPG on BNG has been updated. As a result, the policy is to be changed from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Disagree regarding securing off-site BNG for 50 years as this would go further than the TCP Act which requires any habitat enhancement to be maintained for at least 30 years after the development is completed. It would not be appropriate to include consideration of funding sources for meeting the BNG target in the policy although details of funding arrangements for any off-setting schemes would be set out in the SPD. The text accompanying the policy already makes reference to Nature Recovery Plans (reword to ‘the Local Nature Recovery Plan.’)

Support

Representation ID: 4564

Received: 01/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Corby

Any offsite provision should not be permitted - Rutland only.

Support noted. The text accompanying Policy EN3 makes it clear that on-site mitigation is the preferred option but, that off-site will be considered where it offers the best outcome for biodiversity and is in reasonably close proximity to the application site (likely, therefore, to be within Rutland but this is not guaranteed).

Support

Representation ID: 4605

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

Totally agree

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 4637

Received: 05/12/2023

Respondent: Whissendine Parish Council

Whissendine Parish Council was pleased to see a high on-site target for biodiversity.

Support noted. However, Since the Reg 18 Plan was published Government guidance set out in the PPG on BNG has been updated. Comment noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Support

Representation ID: 4715

Received: 10/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Tim Collins

While this policy is welcomed. I am concerned that part of the wording ‘to include where possible’ is not robust enough and will be used by developers as a ‘get out clause’ or excuse not to include a variety of the listed measures. I believe a more robust wording is required along the lines of ‘should normally include’

It is also important that the provision of integrated bird boxes, i.e. swift bricks, should be stated to be in accordance with best-practice guidance such as the new British Standard for Integral Nest Boxes. Note that swift nestboxes/bricks can be used by most bird hole nesting species that used buildings and so provide a universal
solution.

As Common Swifts are social birds and often nest in loose colonies the guidance should also specify the provision of at least two swift bricks per home (on average) for each development (with pro rata increases for commercial developments). The ‘on average’ caveat is important as it allows developers to locate integral nest boxes in clusters, such as a gable end facing a public open space, so delivering both an ecological advantage and allowing residents an opportunity to see swifts and other species during the breeding season.

In addition, the guidance should also cover the need to assess for the potential presence of existing nest sites for swifts (and other building-dependent bird species) where there are redevelopment proposals requiring planning permission, as these species, and Common Swifts in particular, return each year to the same nest site. The guidance should make clear that wherever possible these should be protected in situ, or where it is not possible to retain them following development mitigation should be provided at a rate of at least 2 integral nest bricks for each lost nest.

Comments noted. Disagree. ‘Where possible’ acknowledges that certain mitigation measures may not be appropriate in relation to certain developments and sites. Details of location and types of nest boxes are details that would be included in the SPD. The presence of existing nest sites would form part of the assessment of the biodiversity value of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 4852

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: ANCER SPA Ltd

The policy text admits that the Government requirement for Bio-diversity Net Gain is only 10%, but the Council has aspirations for 20% and have settled on a seemingly arbitrary 15% in Policy EN3.
We consider that requiring any BNG to exceed a level of 10% will have a negative effect upon the viability of development in Rutland, particularly for sites where employment uses are required. We therefore OBJECT to the proposed policy EN3 that BNG for a development should be at least 15%.

Comment noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 4999

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

The requirement for developments to achieve a 15% BNG exceeds the requirements of the Environment Act without justification.

Even if justified, RCC must consider other implications. Many sites would be unable to deliver this on-site without a significant reduction to their capacity, or alternatively, credits would need to be purchased. RCC should consider whether there is infrastructure in place to support that, or whether such requirements would render development proposals unviable. In that regard, the position within the Whole Plan Viability Assessment that the delivery of a 15% BNG is a “modest” cost is unjustified.

Comment noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 5029

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management

Any increase in the requirement over and above 10% will inevitably have an impact on the amount of developable land available to meet the County’s development needs. With regard to housing development, it is noted that a key element of national planning policy remains the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), December 2023, paragraph 60). Any requirement for in excess of 10% BNG will reduce the County’s ability respond to this requirement of national policy.

Comment noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 5092

Received: 30/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Tony Harwood

I think Rutland Council could make a real statement on the environment and go beyond committing to 15% net env. gain and push it up to 25% at least. The benefits of this would be obvious especially with climate change and the UK's general lack of biodiversity. Rutland could set an example, be the Costa Rica of all the UK's councils.

Comments noted. Since the Reg 18 Plan was published Government guidance set out in the PPG on BNG has been updated. Therefore resulting in a change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Support

Representation ID: 5110

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

NE welcomes this policy and the comprehensive guidance it includes. We welcome the target of 15% BNG and also note that 20% BNG has shown to be viable within Rutland. We advise that any target should be achievable and evidence based. We welcome links and reference to Local Nature Recovery Strategy, the Rutland County Biodiversity Assessment, and the Green Infrastructure policy. There should be a clear strategy for BNG delivery within allocated sites for development.

Support noted. Since the Reg 18 Plan was published Government guidance set out in the PPG on BNG has been updated. As a result, the BNG is to be changed from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 5210

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

In general BNG feels like an opportunity for developers to promise but not deliver. I would prefer to see RCC demand a levy in most cases to be put into a ring-fenced fund for future environment protection. Or a similar scheme to act as a mitigation against environmental harm and biodiversity loss. Once its gone, it will be hard to replace.

Comments noted. There is a mandatory requirement for new (qualifying) developments to provide at least a 10% BNG and the process for this is set out in legislation. It would not, therefore, be feasible for the council to deviate from this requirement and procedures, such as by instead requiring a levy. Developers are legally bound to comply with the legislation on BNG.

Object

Representation ID: 5254

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Heidelberg Materials UK

The requirement for 15% BNG conflicts with national requirement of 10% as stipulated by Government. Policy EN3 also conflicts with Policy MIN9. Policy MIN9 does not stipulate a % in the policy wording but in the supporting text refers to 10%. To provide consistency suggest Policy EN3 is amended to require at least 10%.

Comments noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Agree that there must be consistency between Policies EN3 and MIN9.

Support

Representation ID: 5453

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

But if 20% biodiversity Net Gain is viable and deliverable on sites in Rutland then this should be the minimum required. b) Habitat mapping should use Phase 1 habitat survey methodology in order to relate to the RCC Biodiversity Assessment. d) 'well located' is too vague - the site needs to be near the development site, and where any boundaries or adjacent land uses do not compromise the habitat creation/enhancement. e) 30 years is insufficient time for created or enhanced habitats to gain sufficient biodiversity value or carbon sequestration, especially with woodlands - 50 years should be the minimum.

Comments noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Criteria b): Disagree. Mapping would be carried out in accordance with the latest Government guidance which (at the time that the Reg 18 Plan was produced) is listed in the text accompanying the policy as part of the required Biodiversity Gain Plan.
Criteria d): Disagree. The text accompanying Policy EN3 makes it clear that on-site mitigation is the preferred option but, that off-site will be considered where it offers the best outcome for biodiversity and is in reasonably close proximity to the application site.
Criteria e): Disagree regarding securing off-site BNG for 50 years as this would go further than the TCP Act which requires any habitat enhancement to be maintained for at least 30 years after the development is completed.

Object

Representation ID: 5587

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

15% BNG will adversely impact on the viability, and deliverability of schemes;
Landowners will be dis-incentivised to bring land forward, and will wait out policy change;
There is no empirical evidence of the consequences of a 15% BNG requirement yet - however, from experience of 10% BNG schemes, it will reduce all of the densities by at least a third thus there will be significant knock-on implications for the quantum of housing delivered on all of the housing figures and allocations in the emerging Local Plan - more sites will be needed, including at least all the current Reserve Sites.

Comments noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 5592

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Marian Markham

This Policy must state that no development will be undertaken on any ancient ridge and furrow land. These are unimproved grassland areas and they are becoming increasingly rare due to changes in agricultural practice. Some ridge and furrow areas are SSSI such as Greetham Meadows (aka Merry's Meadows) but most are not. The unimproved, unploughed nature of ridge and furrow provides unique biodiversity, carbon sink, rainfall storage and an ancient landscape which must not be further lost and fragmented by redevelopment.

Comments noted. The impact of development proposals on habitats such as unimproved grassland would be assessed against Policy EN1.

Support

Representation ID: 5629

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs laura alcock

This is a good plan, although I agree with The Woodland Trust and Natural England that RCC should aim for 20%

Support noted. Since the Reg 18 Plan was published Government guidance set out in the PPG on BNG has been updated. The PPG states that plan-makers ‘should not seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of ten per cent biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development unless justified’. It adds: ‘To justify such policies they will need to be evidenced including as to local need for a higher percentage, local opportunities for a higher percentage and any impacts on viability for development.’ This means that any requirements above the mandatory 10% would need to be set out in policy in the Local Plan and the Local Plan deemed sound, i.e. viability tested and the BNG target checked against other policies in the plan.

As a result, change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Support

Representation ID: 5711

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

This must be enforced

Support noted. Policy EN3 includes a requirement that funding shall include a payment to the Council to cover the costs of independent review of Biodiversity Gain Plans and long-term monitoring.

Support

Representation ID: 5759

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Rachel Butler

Biodiversity Net Gain is critical for Rutland

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5859

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Off-site BNG should be encouraged to be in areas identified by RCC for habitat creation or ecological corridors or stepping stones.

If 20% BNG is seen as viable and deliverable this should be the minimum requirement - as mentioned in the Viability Report. Cambridgeshire Local Plan uses 20%.

On P.179 – Add for both the proposed development site and net gain site. Also add partnerships with wildlife groups or organisations.

Add a clause “Swift and bat boxes should normally be integrated into new buildings with the advice of a professional ecologist.”

Comments noted. Criteria b): Disagree. Mapping would be carried out in accordance with the latest Government guidance which (at the time that the Reg 18 Plan was produced) is listed in the text accompanying the policy as part of the required Biodiversity Gain Plan.
Criteria d): Disagree. The text accompanying Policy EN3 makes it clear that on-site mitigation is the preferred option but, that off-site will be considered where it offers the best outcome for biodiversity and is in reasonably close proximity to the application site. Reference is already made in the text accompanying Policy EN3 that proposals for biodiversity should be informed by strategies such as the LNRS and other documents. These will include such ecological features.

Comments noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Unclear where additional text is suggested to be added on page 179 but details relating to swift and bat boxes would be best set out in the SPD.

Object

Representation ID: 5877

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: NGO East Mercia Rivers Trust

RCC state 'The Local Plan Viability evidence suggests that up to 20% biodiversity New Gain is viable and deliverable on sites in Rutland.' Therefore the target of 15%, whilst above the required 10%, should be increased to 20% in view of current state of the natural habitat in Rutland and the declared Ecological Emergency, RCC need to show ambition.

Comments noted. BNG need to change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of Biodiversity Net Gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Support

Representation ID: 5921

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rob Cooke

The 'net gain' part is really important. Existing sites of wildlife value should not be trashed first to allow inclusion.

Support and comments noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6317

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Supported.
This is the important one: "On Site"
The proposed mitigation, compensation, and/or enhancement measures required to secure net gain for biodiversity are acceptable to the Council in terms of design and location, and are secured, on-site, for the lifetime of the development, or off-site for a minimum of 30 years, with appropriate funding mechanisms that are capable of being secured by condition and/or legal agreement.

Please do try and keep your word on this one from now on? It is so important.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6355

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Higher than nationally set levels of BNG will adversely impact on the capacity of sites allocated in the plan.
Has the evidence base looked at the impact of this policy on the NDA of allocated sites to ensure the quantum in each instance is still deliverable with this very high policy aspiration.

Comments noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Support

Representation ID: 6358

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Michael Priaulx

Policy EN3 and in particular the requirement for integrated bird boxes for urban species is welcome as these are excluded from the DEFRA Biodiversity Net Gain metric - however please state that these are swift bricks in accordance with best practice guidance such as BS 42021 or CIEEM as a minimum, to follow guidance from NPPG and NHBC Foundation and to be in line with other local authorities. House martin cups may be an alternative where recommended by an ecologist. Existing nest sites of building-dependent birds should be protected where possible or mitigated.

Comments noted. These details would be best set out in the SPD that will accompany the policy.

Support

Representation ID: 6437

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

This policy should be applied to the land which has lain fallow at St George’s Barracks

Support noted. The requirements of Policy EN3 would apply to any development proposals at St George’s Barracks and the site may also be considered as appropriate for off-site BNG for other nearby proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 6558

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roderick Morgan

Yes absolutely - but the targets are meaningless. 15% gain over what? Rutland (like England as a whole) is a biodiversity desert, so 15% is trivial. Please set absolute targets against a fully restored ecosystem. Not some notional % increase.
Biodiversity mitigations are nearly always wholly inadequate and unsustainable, compared to what has been destroyed/sacrificed - so this is not acceptable.

Comments noted. The requirements of the policy follow national legislation and planning guidance, all of which set out the strict procedures for measuring and planning the BNG. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for the council to deviate from these requirements and procedures.

Object

Representation ID: 6613

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Within Policy EN3 there is duplication of legislation which could be removed to the benefit of the Local Plan. Within the policy, reference is made to having BNG in place for a minimum of a 30-year period, which is a point covered by primary and secondary legislation and does not need to be reiterated. The policy also seeks to impose a 15% BNG rather than the 10% set within primary legislation which is deemed by Government to be the acceptable level that developments should seek to deliver as a minimum. The policy should make reference to the legislation minimum first.

Comments noted. The updated PPG advises that plan-makers can complement the statutory framework for BNG by using a locally-specific policy that sets out any local priorities and strategies that can be taken into account in delivering BNG. At present, these are set out in the text accompanying Policy EN3 but, with the development of the LNRS, this could be used to inform the wording of the policy. Add additional criteria after c) ‘ d) The Biodiversity Gain Plan will detail how the biodiversity gains align with, and deliver the objectives of the LNRS, and how they take account of other national, regional and local biodiversity strategies, such as the Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan.'

Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 6860

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

LRWT welcomes this policy along with the comprehensive guidance included.
The requirement to achieve at least 15% net gain is somewhat positive, in that this is beyond the statutory requirement of 10%, however it is disappointing that the authority’s own viability evidence base shows that up to 20% uplift is viable and deliverable on sites within Rutland.

There is serious concern with the environmental sector that a 10% gain figure is insufficient to contribute towards the recovery of nature in a meaning way. Instead, the Wildlife Trusts and other eNGO’s are calling for a minimum of 20% gain, a figure that is evidently shown to
be deliverable and achievable in Rutland.
Both The Wildlife Trusts and the UN have identified the need for 30% of land to be protected for the effective recovery of nature. We strongly believe that the authority has a distinct opportunity to show genuine leadership on this vital agenda by providing bolder, more ambitious targets such as this.

It is strongly recommended that long-term management of off-site BNG be secured in perpetuity (as stated for on-site delivery), rather than for 30 years to support nature’s recovery. (Please note the typo “…biodiversity New Gain…” on the last line of the policy web version)

Support and comments noted. Comments noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Disagree regarding securing off-site BNG in perpetuity as this goes further than the TCP Act which requires any habitat enhancement to be maintained for at least 30 years after the development is completed.
Typo noted on page 178.

Support

Representation ID: 6914

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

The Estate SUPPORTS this approach to Biodiversity Net Gain, whereby there is evidence to justify the higher
percentage of BNG requested above the 10% required by the Environment Act 2021. It is however recognised
that a site by site approach may be more appropriate than a blanket percentage figure where seeking in excess
of the mandatory 10%.

Furthermore, the Estate COMMENTS that there should be a consideration of reference to whether there is the
ability for some sites and parts of the District to accommodate additional levels of BNG, above and beyond requirements, in order to be used to offset other schemes which do not meet their BNG requirements.

Support noted. As the requirement for BNG is set out in legislation it would not be possible for a site-by-site approach to be adopted in the Local Plan. It is likely that, as the LNRS progresses, then priorities may be set whereby specific allocated sites for development could include biodiversity enhancements to support other developments meet their net gain objectives in the line with the LNRS.

Support

Representation ID: 6977

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

Support that the plan seeks to improve biodiversity.

Support noted.