Object

Representation ID: 119

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

This proposal is too woolly - it needs to be tightened up so development proposals cannot take advantage of 'should' elements. Furthermore, mitigations should not rely on one piece of evidence but cross checked with other reliable evidence. Whose remit is it to monitor the developers commitments and what action would be taken if these were not met. We are all familiar with unscrupulous developers who take it upon themselves to remove protected flora.

Support

Representation ID: 376

Received: 05/04/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

New Policy 4 – Biodiversity Opportunity and Delivering Measurable Net Gains - This policy is welcomed by Stamford Civic Society..

Object

Representation ID: 685

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Jelson Homes Ltd

On-site BNG provision needs to be balanced against housing delivery in sustainable locations.

Support

Representation ID: 849

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: BDW Cambridgeshire .

Agent: Carter Jonas

No changes are requested to Policy EN3, but the promoted development at South West Bourne should be allocated in order to deliver additional green infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 1113

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Suggest the first sentence of paragraph 2 be amended to allow some element of flexibility.
Clarification is needed on what is expected in terms of the delivery of wider environmental net gains.
In terms of planning application submissions, criteria points c, d and e should encouraged rather than mandatory.

Support

Representation ID: 1176

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Barberry Grantham Limited

no objection to providing BNG on site but do not agree that there should be a requirement to deliver more than the statutory 10% requirement

Support

Representation ID: 1285

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Concerned that the policy simply repeats legislation and therefore is not required.

Reference is made to development proposals being in line with other documents that are prepared outside of the Local Plan process which is a concern and needs to be addressed more accurately within the Regulation 19 document. We are also concerned that the Local Nature Recovery Strategy is embedded into the policy wording even though this is not yet completed and question whether this would be an effective policy when considered against the test of soundness in the NPPF.

Whilst the Council seek on-site net gain where possible, and that the policy has flexibility to allow for off-site measures to be considered in specific circumstances, this position is not reflective of legislation which allows for developers to either provide BNG on-site or offset off-site. As above we question whether this policy is necessary and consider the Council should instead follow national legislation.

Support

Representation ID: 1303

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

The introduction of a policy to assist in the delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain is warmly welcomed as is the Biodiversity Opportunity and Green Infrastructure Mapping which highlights the existing ecological network and indicates where the best opportunities lie for improvement in the extent, condition and overall connectivity of the network.

Appendix 1 of the Local Plan Review (Principles for Development within Biodiversity Opportunity Areas), to which Policy 4 refers, includes two distinct categories of ‘opportunity for creation’. However, the associated mapping does not make any distinction between the two categories.

Support

Representation ID: 1309

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: East Mercia Rivers Trust

We are facing an ecological crisis and this policy & needs adequate SKDC scrutiny on developers BNG proposals. Assessment of developments should not just be site-based but include the impacts they pose on the immediate surrounding environment.

Support

Representation ID: 1361

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Concerned that the policy simply repeats national policy and therefore is potentially not required, however it is positive to see the Council being proactive in ensuring that Biodiversity is achieved through developments.

Reference is made to development proposals being in line with other documents that are prepared outside of the Local Plan process which is a concern and needs to be addressed more accurately within the Regulation 19 document. We are also concerned that the Local
Nature Recovery Strategy is embedded into the policy wording even though this is not yet completed and question whether this would be an effective policy when considered against the test of soundness in the NPPF.
is positive to see that the Council seek on-site net gain where possible, but the policy has flexibility to allow for off-site measures to be considered in specific circumstances. It is important that any Local Plan policy incorporates flexibility and how this might be achieved through a combination of on-site and off-site measures where appropriate.

Support

Representation ID: 1383

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

We suggest strengthening the policy by setting a BNG minimum of above 10%, and by adding an urban greening factor metric where appropriate. We welcome the integration of offsite provision with habitat opportunity areas and the LNRS.

Support

Representation ID: 1468

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Zoe Lane

I’d like to see clearer directives on how biodiversity net-gain, or at least mitigation, should be achieved onsite - for example by implementation of hedgehog highways as standard in new developments.

Object

Representation ID: 1469

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Ms Joanna Plant

The policy (at the top of page 97) acknowledges that the requirement for developments to deliver at least 10% measurable BNG only applies to qualifying developments. It might be helpful to repeat this at para 3 – “All [Add: qualifying] development proposals must provide clear and robust evidence…etc”, and in the penultimate paragraph “[Add: All qualifying] proposals which do not demonstrate that the post development biodiversity value will exceed the predevelopment value of the onsite habitat by a 10% net gain, will be refused”. Including a list of exempt developments would add clarity to the application of this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 1508

Received: 17/04/2024

Respondent: National Trust

This positive new area of policy is noted, which acts to reinforce locally the relevant requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain.

Support

Representation ID: 1612

Received: 18/04/2024

Respondent: Pegasus Planning Group

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

The policy as drafted is supported, with it being consistent with the legislative requirement for all eligible development sites to deliver at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain. It is noted that the Whole Plan Viability Assessment has tested the viability of increasing the requirement above 10%. Although commentary is not provided on whether a higher requirement is likely to be set out in policy, the Council is cautioned that such an increase will not only have viability implications but also other impacts which will need to be carefully considered. This includes impacts on the number of homes that sites are able to deliver, which would mean additional allocations may be needed to deliver the target growth requirement.

Support

Representation ID: 1780

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

HBF welcomes the policy on BNG and clarity provided in the recognition of the role of BNG mitigation hierarchy. HBF is pleased to see that the Council has acknowledged that on-site BNG may not always be the best solution and that there may be occasions where off-site BNG offers greater benefits. It is HBF’s opinion that 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.
HBF would also encourage the Council to ensure the Local Plan fully considers and evidence how BNG should inform the site selection process.

Object

Representation ID: 1806

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

The inclusion of this policy is welcome. We would however suggest that amendments are made following secondary legislation and recently published guidance (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain).

- Suggest change for paragraph 4 to “Statutory Biodiversity Metric” as opposed to “Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric”.
- Provides suggested change to paragraph 5 to reflect the publication of the biodiversity net gain hierarchy.
- Provides suggested rewording paragraph 6 following secondary legislation and recent published guidance.
- suggest changes are made to paragraph 7 relating to the determination of planning applications based in a biodiversity net gain.
- Paragraph 8 should be amended to reflect secondary legislation by explaining that only significant on-site enchantments need to be secured and managed for 30 years

Support

Representation ID: 1850

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster and Norwich Hub Ltd

Agent: Godfrey-Payton & Co

These new policies and Appendices are supported.

Support

Representation ID: 1895

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council Corporate Property

Agent: Savills

New Policy 4 is welcomed to ensure that there is a clear approach to Biodiversity New Gain (BNG) in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Act 2021. Setting the policy at the requirement for a 10% post development biodiversity value to exceed the predevelopment value of the onsite habitat by a 10% net gain is considered to be a suitable application of the legislation.

Support

Representation ID: 1901

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Grantham Estates

Agent: Savills

New Policy 4 is welcomed to ensure that there is a clear approach to Biodiversity New Gain (BNG) in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Act 2021. Setting the policy at the requirement for a 10% post development biodiversity value to exceed the predevelopment value of the onsite habitat by a 10% net gain is considered to be a suitable application of the legislation.

Object

Representation ID: 1911

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Whilst we support the inclusion of new Policy EN4 it could be made clearer that going above the minimum measurable target of 10% would be preferable, the wording of paragraph 3 could suggest that major development would be the best place to aim for higher BNG more in the region of 20%.

Object

Representation ID: 1928

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Whilst we understand that canals and other related infrastructure are not natural resources, they are managed resources, as will many of the other spaces within this category. We therefore suggest that “Opportunity for Enhancement” would be a better reflection of the aims of this part of the plan.

The Trust may be able to assist in meeting Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements by providing off-site biodiversity units. This would be subject to operational, management and commercial considerations. It would support the Council off-site locations as set out in Appendix 2 and Policy EN3: Green Infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 1943

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & Barratt Developments PLC

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

The proposal to exhaust all on-site opportunities before considering off-site provision of biodiversity net gain is not supported. It is not always the best approach to deliver biodiversity enhancements on site; this can create pockets of enhancement that are less beneficial to biodiversity than focusing these enhancements in strategic locations. This means on site improvements or improvements close to the site may be less beneficial than focusing enhancements within an important corridor for example.

Object

Representation ID: 1955

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes this policy however we advise that some amendments may be necessary following the secondary legislation and recently published guidance https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain:
In the third paragraph please note that now that BNG has become mandatory the metric will be known as the Statutory Biodiversity Metric.

It may be useful to explain that registered offsite biodiversity gains should be sited locally to the development impact (i.e. within the District or National Character Area).
Bullet point (e) i.e. statutory biodiversity credits.
We note that in the penultimate paragraph of the policy wording that the following sentence has been included “Proposals which do not demonstrate that the post development biodiversity value will exceed the predevelopment value of the onsite habitat by a 10% net gain will be refused.” We advise that you may need to rephrase this because the guidance (Biodiversity net gain - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) now recommends as follows:
“ … it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a planning application for a development subject to biodiversity net gain, to refuse an application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met.”

Support

Representation ID: 2082

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: The Crown Estate

Agent: Savills

TCE support the principle objectives of New Policy 4.

Object

Representation ID: 2126

Received: 24/05/2024

Respondent: Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

Supports the inclusion of policy focusing on biodiversity net gain, however, it feels that the content of the policy should be revisited following the publication of secondary legislation and associated planning guidance.

The GLNP supports the inclusion of paragraph 10.9, but feels that it needs to be updated following the commencement of mandatory biodiversity net gain. The paragraph should include the date from which the biodiversity net gain condition came into effect for major development and small sites.
The GLNP supports the inclusion of this paragraph 10.11, but suggest the following amendment for clarification.
“These maps identify known areas of high biodiversity value which make up the core of the District’s wider ecological network. It also identifies opportunities to enhance this network through improved habitat management and habitat creation”

Object

Representation ID: 2135

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership, Natural England and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

The inclusion of this policy is welcome. In light of secondary legislation and recently published guidance (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-net-gain) some amendments are required.
The inclusion of paragraph 10.9 is supported, but it is felt that it needs to be updated following the commencement of mandatory biodiversity net gain. The paragraph should include the date from which the biodiversity net gain condition came into effect for major development and small sites.
The inclusion of paragraph 10.11 is supported, but suggests adding ‘it also identifies opportunities to enhance this network’ after “These maps identify known areas of high biodiversity value which make up the core of the District’s wider ecological network” for clarification.
Paragraph 10.3 should make it clear that Biodiversity Opportunity and Green Infrastructure Mapping will be used to assign strategic significance in relation to biodiversity net gain, within the Statutory Biodiversity Metric. It should also make it clear that Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping will be incorporated within the LNRS.
While reference to the LNRS is welcome, it is again felt that further information should be included.

Object

Representation ID: 2213

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Mandy Potter, Mrs Teresa Crabb, Mrs T Richards and Mr D Bates

Agent: Robert Doughty Consultancy

We Object to the use of the Biodiversity Opportunity and Green Infrastructure Maps as the basis for operating policies until:
- The assessment used to justify designation of specific land as biodiversity opportunity areas is published and is subject to consultation with the public, the development industry, and, significantly, the current owners and users of the land.

- Appendix 1 should be reworded to provide an explanation, rather than act as an additional policy.

We Object to the inclusion of Policy 4 unless the mapping exercise that underpins the operation of the policy can be robustly justified through a rigorous public consultation exercise. Clarity should also be provided on the focus for delivery of offsite BNG.

Support

Representation ID: 2290

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Central Lincolnshire Local Plan team

We noticed that things have evolved since the drafting of New Policy 4: Biodiversity Opportunity and Delivering Measurable Net Gains, but as Govt advice and guidance continues to change there may be need for some further amendments to the new policy.

Support

Representation ID: 2358

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding Team

The MOD request that; when drafting policy and guidance which addresses green infrastructure, biodiversity, ecology, and Biodiversity Net Gain; South Kesteven District Council bear in mind that some forms of environmental improvement or enhancement may not be compatible with aviation safety. Where off-site provision is to provide BNG, the locations of both the host development and any other site should both/all be assessed against statutory safeguarding zones and the MOD should be consulted where any element falls within the marked statutory safeguarding zone.