Object

Representation ID: 7148

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

We object to this not only because it is inconsistent with the Environment Act and national policy requirements of 10%, but also because of the impacts on viability and housing delivery. The on-site provision of 15% BNG is likely to result in a reduced site density, and therefore impact viability and could be argued to be at odds with the policy on density which encourages making best use of land. Off-site provision, whilst perhaps not limiting density on the subject site, will also impact on scheme viability through the associated costs of purchasing credits. The purchase price is varied and uncertain (and not insignificant) so this in turn creates uncertainty for developers when purchasing sites. In both cases, housing delivery and affordability will suffer since the increased costs will render many schemes much less viable.

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: 7185

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

No evidence has been provided to demonstrate the county is in need of enhanced biodiversity gains above the 10% Environment Act requirements.

The Council’s evidence base for introducing higher bng standards is the ‘Rutland County Biodiversity Assessment Non Technical Biodiversity Report’. There is no evidence set out in this report, or any comment, that the existing ecological position is any worse than the national situation.

Persimmon Homes are also of the view that the impact of increasing the bng requirement to 15% on viability has not been fully considered by the Council.

Net gain is site specific and there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that applying 15% across all sites is achievable. Additional viability evidence and testing needs to be prepared on a range of sites, including allocated sites, to enable a full understanding of the impacts of this policy and if it is achievable.

Furthermore, in terms of sites allocated in the local plan, there is no evidence to demonstrate the requirement for 15% bng has been taken into account in the Housing Site Assessment Report.

The wording of Criteria d) of this policy requires ‘any off-site habitats created or enhanced are well located to maximise opportunities for local nature recovery.’ This policy also needs to recognise for some sites the use of national credits may be required.

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.

Biodiversity credits are set out in the second paragraph on page 179 (Now 181 in the Reg 19 Plan). Add in extra criteria to policy EN3:
e) (Now f) in the Reg 19 Plan) Where developers are unable to use on-site or off-site units to deliver Biodiversity Net Gain, then they must buy statutory biodiversity credits. This must be a last resort and developers must include evidence in their Biodiversity Gain Plan that they have considered on-site BNG and the reasons why this is not possible, and evidence that insufficient off-site options are available.
Add in at beginning of para:

‘If developers cannot achieve on-site or off-site biodiversity net gain, they must buy statutory biodiversity credits. This must be a last resort. Buying statutory credits means that as well as, or instead of, creating and enhancing biodiversity on or off a development site, developers can make a financial contribution which counts towards their BNG. This contribution will be used to fund biodiversity enhancements across England. Buying statutory credits is a last resort option for developers who are unable to use on-site or off-site units to deliver BNG.’

Object

Representation ID: 7196

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

AH object to the policy requirement of a minimum of 15% BNG. The National requirement for BNG is 10%, as recognised by the policy text. AH consider that requiring any BNG to exceed a level of 10% will have a negative effect upon the viability of development in Rutland. With regard to housing development, 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.

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: 7301

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton and Tinwell Joint Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

We were disappointed to see this survey had been carried out at what is in fact a very high level, without adequate attention to detail. Moreover, its purpose seems to have primarily been to identify possible new development sites, rather than in looking at how nature recovery might be taken forward in the county, in reflection of the need to tackle the twin crises in biodiversity and climate change.

Comments noted. Disagree regarding securing off-site BNG for a longer time period 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. Work is currently ongoing to prepare a LNRS which will map and target actions in locations where they are most needed in order to reverse the decline of biodiversity. The LNRS, together with other supporting documents, will then be used to inform the preparation of the Local Plan and will guide policy requirements, such as in relation to Biodiversity Net Gain under Policy EN3.

Object

Representation ID: 7320

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

Avant consider that it is important that the Council do not seek to deviate from the Government policy position in advance of the latest policy and guidance being finalised, and that any benchmark should not be set above the 10% biodiversity net gain position, as set out in the Environment Act. Developers and landowners incur significant costs with meeting the 10% provision and it is important to ensure that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery.

In addition, it should be noted that large and complex sites where the development is phased, should not be obligated to deliver 10% BNG on each phase, as the guidance is clear that the 10% BNG requirement must be delivered at the end of the development.

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: 7324

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

Robust, local justification, not just viability testing, would be required to justify a 15% (rather than the 10% required by the Environment Act) BNG.

Comments noted and agreed. 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: 7372

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

It is considered therefore that, in line with the provisions of NPPF paragraph 185b and the Environment Act 2021, the new Local Plan should support a requirement for 10% net gain on all sites.

Policy EN3 of the draft Local Plan is, in contrast, proposing a requirement for 15% biodiversity net gain (a
significant increase above the forthcoming national requirements) on all development sites. The Council
has published a Biodiversity Assessment (May 2023) as part of the evidence base for this policy, however
this confirms that ‘Suggested wording for a new BNG policy is given below: “Development will only be
permitted for major developments where a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10% is demonstrated and
secured in perpetuity (for at least 30 years)…’.

It is therefore not clear why the draft Policy deviates from this suggestion and there has been no supporting evidence or justification that has been provided to support this proposed alternative approach and significantly higher requirement.

It is considered that the Policy could include wording to support developments that go above the 10%
biodiversity net gain requirement, however a higher figure shouldn’t be the mandatory requirement for all
development proposals (as this is likely to have an effect on the viability of sites and their deliverability).

In addition, it is considered that the requirements for biodiversity net gain will be covered by the Environment
Act 2021 and secondary legislation. There is therefore risk that Policy EN3 contradicts with the provisions
of national policy. Accordingly, to ensure the soundness of the plan as it progresses to Regulation 19, it is
considered that Policy EN3 could be deleted.

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: 7386

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

Only if developers are targeted will they respond with adequate biodiversity schemes. Each development proposal should be required to achieve a biodiversity net gain which makes a meaningful contribution to the overall target. A Biodiversity gain of 15% from a very low level is meaningless without having an overall target level for the County to reach over the life of the Plan. An overall planned target level of biodiversity for Rutland is required. This would ensure the achievement of an overall healthy local ecosystem rather than unconnected spot improvements from an unknown base.

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. Developers are legally bound to comply with the legislation on BNG. Work is currently ongoing to prepare a Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) which will map and target actions in locations where they are most needed in order to reverse the decline of biodiversity. The LNRS, together with other supporting documents, will then be used to inform the preparation of the Local Plan and will guide policy requirements, such as in relation to Biodiversity Net Gain under Policy EN3.

Object

Representation ID: 7410

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes

Agent: Barmach Ltd

This Policy seeks to exceed the national requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain and thus poses an unreasonable burden on new development.

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: 7459

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Object to the current wording
It is our understanding that the thrust of this policy, as set out in the NPPF, is that the majority of developments that entail actual building work (as opposed, for example, to advertisements or certain change of use) will require a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 15%. Accordingly, we suggest the use of the word ‘major‘ in the preamble to this policy, is misleading and another example of where there are clear contradictions in the Plan.

Comments noted. Agree. Delete ‘major’ from opening sentence and substitute with ‘qualifying’

Object

Representation ID: 7481

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

There is clearly a conflict between theopening sentence of this policy and the second paragraph. The use of the words “major development” in the first paragraph is clearly incorrect and misleading because BNG requires virtually all new development to contribute towards the delivery of measurable net gains. The word “major” should be deleted from this opening statement.

i) The meaning of “qualifying developments” needs to be defined within this policy wording. It would seem that almost all developments are “qualifying “developments with very few exceptions.
ii) The policy states (page 178/231) “Funding for both on-site and off-site measures shall include a payment to the Council to cover the costs of independent review of Biodiversity Gain Plans and long-term monitoring.” Independent professional review by a competent authority of all Biodiversity Gains Plans is an essential requirement of this policy. Biodiversity Gains Plans submitted by applicants for development are not valid for planning determination until they have been independently professionally reported upon. Therefore, full details of the professional review process and its application are required to be an integrated component of this Local Plan and subject to public consultation.
It is essential that a comprehensive Supplementary Planning Document is available for consultation and implementation at the earliest possible time.

Comments noted. Agree. Delete ‘major’ from opening sentence and substitute with ‘qualifying’.
Add in definition of ‘qualifying’ in second para. Add in at end of second para on page 177: ‘The full list of exemptions is set out in the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024.’
As with most applications to discharge conditions, there is no statutory requirement to consult any statutory bodies (or the public) on the Biodiversity Gain Plan or to publicise its submission prior to its determination. It is, however, a public document. The competent authority considering the plan would be the local planning authority (RCC) although the council may decide to seek the view of a professional ecologist on the plan. Details of the review process would not, therefore, be required as part of the Local Plan or subject to public consultation. The council will consider providing further detailed guidance on Policy EN3 in the form of an SPD.

Object

Representation ID: 7557

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.

Delete – repeat of representation 6558.

Object

Representation ID: 7567

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Practice guidance from DLUHC and the Draft DEFRA BNG Guidance has been released during your consultation period.

Currently the BNG PPG has been published in draft form as such some details may change between now and the implementation date.

It should also be noted that the PPG is clear that there is no need for individual Local Plans to repeat national BNG guidance.

The Council should not deviate from the Government’s requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain as set out in the Environment Act. There are significant additional costs associated with biodiversity gain, which should be fully accounted for in the Council’s viability assessment. It is important that BNG does not prevent, delay or reduce housing delivery.

We suggest particular care is needed in terminology to ensure the BNG policy reflects the national policy and guidance. For example, on-site and off-site
biodiversity is referred to as units, and the statutory national credit system of last resort is referred to as credit.

HBF would encourage Rutland to ensure the Local Plan fully considers BNG as part of the site selection process. This should include understanding the BNG
requirement, including undertaking an assessment of the baseline to support the allocation. Understand the BNG costs and viability for the site and considering how
this may impact other policy requirements such as affordable housing, other s106 or CIL contributions.

There is need for the policy wording and/or supporting text to be clearer about the differentiation between
the mitigation hierarchy and the BNG hierarchy.

The requirement of the policy do not reflect
the national 10% BNG legislation requirements, policy or guidance. Similarly wording of the BNG legislation means that a final BNG plan can only be submitted after planning permission is granted.

Comments noted. Amendments made to refer to ‘units’ in the wording of Policy EN3. Extra criteria regarding credits to be added to policy and additional text on credits. Mitigation hierarchy is covered in part a) of the policy.

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: 7625

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We support this policy and welcome the aim that biodiversity net gain should be at least 15% which is greater than the mandatory 10%. This will have a positive impact on the biodiversity within Rutland.

Support noted. However, a proposed 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: 7707

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

It is unclear from consultation document why the Council is proposing a 15% net gain policy in the context of the national mandatory requirement for 10% which is due to be implemented in January 2024. This is likely to create a further hurdle to the delivery of brownfield sites and impact on the provision of affordable housing on sites where there are viability issues.
This policy is not necessary, a single ecology policy should be prepared and this should cross reference to the national mandatory requirement for 10% net gain.

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: 7766

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Nick Hamilton

The current requirements for developers with regard to biodiversity needs to be massively bolstered within the local plan to conserve our diminishing flora and fauna.

Support noted. Policies EN2 and EN3 both seek to ensure that new development contributes towards enhanced biodiversity alongside a number of supporting documents, including the Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 7770

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Requiring BNG above 10% does not meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF and in particular a greater than 10% requirement is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. A 10% requirement should also be maintained in order to ensure that the requirement is ‘fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development’ (para 57, NPPF). In addition, the Council may find that some development sites, especially smaller brownfield sites and regeneration opportunities, may find it difficult to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain onsite.

Since the publication of the Preferred Options consultation the government have published a draft PPG regarding biodiversity net gain, which amongst other things details under what circumstance a Council may seek a higher percentage BNG than the statutory minimum of 10%. This confirms Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 74-005-2023 that ‘Plan-makers may seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development.


The Council should therefore not require a BNG of greater than the 10% and should amend the policy accordingly as the requirement is not justified by biodiversity or viability evidence.

Recommendation:
• Amend policy to only require a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain.
• The council should reconsider the policy in relation to the new guidance and largely delete most of it.

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: 7805

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

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

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7845

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Alicia Kearns

Policy EN3 on Biodiversity Net Gain should also be revised and made clearer to ensure that Rutland’s ecosystems are protected from over development.

Comments noted. Policy EN3 reflects the legislation and government guidance on BNG.

Object

Representation ID: 7895

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

There is a conflict between the first two paragraphs. The use of the words “major development” in the
first paragraph is incorrect and misleading because BNG requires virtually all new development to contribute
towards the delivery of measurable net gains. Therefore, the word “major” should be deleted from this
opening statement.

The meaning of “qualifying developments” needs to be defined within this policy wording. It would seem that almost all developments are “qualifying“ developments with very few exceptions.


Independent professional review by a competent authority of all Biodiversity Gains Plans is an essential requirement
of this policy. Biodiversity Gains Plans submitted by applicants for development are not valid for planning
determination until they have been independently professionally reported upon. Therefore, full details of the
professional review process and its application are required to be an integrated component of this Local Plan and subject to public consultation.

The statutory implementation date for this policy is November 2023. Therefore, it is essential that a comprehensive Supplementary Planning Document is available for consultation and implementation at the earliest possible time. This Regulation 18 Local Plan should include this SPD for consultation.

Comments noted. Agree. Delete ‘major’ from opening sentence and substitute with ‘qualifying’.
Add in definition of ‘qualifying’ in second para. Add in at end of second para on page 177: ‘The full list of exemptions is set out in the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024.’
As with most applications to discharge conditions, there is no statutory requirement to consult any statutory bodies (or the public) on the Biodiversity Gain Plan or to publicise its submission prior to its determination. It is, however, a public document. The competent authority considering the plan would be the local planning authority (RCC) although the council may decide to seek the view of a professional ecologist on the plan. Details of the review process would not, therefore, be required as part of the Local Plan or subject to public consultation. The council will consider providing further detailed guidance on Policy EN3 in the form of an SPD which will be subject to public consultation in accordance with the Council’s SCI.

Support

Representation ID: 7943

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

EN3 Biodiversity Net Gain – Support

Support noted.