Object

Representation ID: 2412

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

We are concerned that the policy simply repeats national policy and therefore is potentially not required.

The new policy refers to future development proposals being in line with 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.

It is positive to see that the Council seek on-site biodiversity net gain where possible, and that the policy has flexibility to allow for off-site measures to be considered in specific circumstances.

The supporting text of the policy should be amended to provide greater clarity and certainty as to the local authority expectations of the ongoing management of the site and BNG.

We are concerned that the costs used in Table 8.3 of the January 2024 Viability Assessment by HDH Planning and Development Ltd are from 2017 which is now becoming dated. These should be refreshed ahead of the Regulation 19 document.

Support

Representation ID: 2497

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: The Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Christ in Oxford of the Foundation of King Henry the Eighth

Agent: Savills

Our Client fully supports this Policy that seeks to use national standards to achieve biodiversity net gain. As shown on the plans accompanying this representation, our Client has set aside part of the site to provide new habitats that will provide a policy-compliant level of net gain.

Object

Representation ID: 2504

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Planning and Design Group

Concerned over the use of the “at least”. As defined by the Environment Act 2021, recently published legislation requiring a 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG) from major development (Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021)) was a result of widespread consultation and input from various professional bodies. This was to understand what was realistic in terms of deliverability and availability for biodiversity net gain.
If requirements for BNG are made higher than the 10% identified in this very recent piece of legislation, there’s a strong risk that development will become unviable or other important deliverables (such as policy levels of affordable housing) will be impossible to deliver as part of the scheme.
The Council should note that the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states: “Plan-makers should not 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 unless justified.”

Object

Representation ID: 2533

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands

Agent: Savills

The policy does not explain what the ‘wider environmental gains’ and therefore is not in accordance with paragraph 16(d) of the NPPF which requires policies to be clearly written. It should be clarified in the policy that this is not in addition to the 10% BNG requirement.
DWH are unclear on mapping/identification of sites for the Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Areas Opportunity Areas have been decided. Paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF states ‘plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how the decision maker should react to development it is considered this should be clearly set out in the policy or within the appendix.
As part of any development on the site, wider biodiversity and green infrastructure improvements could potentially be made to connect the biodiversity and green infrastructure opportunity areas identified east of Swinehill Lane and north of the A607.

DWH consider that the policy stating that ‘all qualifying development proposals…must deliver at least 10% measurable biodiversity net gain’

Object

Representation ID: 2556

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr M J Dickinson

Agent: Robert Doughty Consultancy

Will potentially restrict the operation of farming land based on a map, the derivation of which is unknown.

Instead of providing evidence on BOM, Appendix 1 sets out how to use the map – it provides no information on how the maps were prepared, or how they can be justified.

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 – will landowners whose land is arbitrarily designated under the BOM exercise be pressured to give up their land for the provision of BNG? Or will development proposals be considered unfavourably if any offsite BNG provision does not include land identified in the BOM exercise?