natural and built environment€¦ · gi is covered in inf2 and climate change is covered in policy...

1

Natural and built environment Response Ref Number

Full Name of Respondent

Organisation Please add your comment Officer's Response

59/6 AF Cook N/A Landscape Characterisation exercise is fictionally juvenile: Bulkington Rolling Famlands is not Noddy's Toytown or Camberwick Green. Hartshill Uplands is Caldecote Hill and Tuttle Hill. This UK exercise expunges British culture and identity. It brings topography into line with geopolitical idealisms of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' ..if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed...

Landscape character assessment is a nationally recognised tool and the evidence base indeicates the need for a policy.

231/21 Arbury Estate Smiths Gore BP39 – Policy ENV1 is inappropriate because it simply repeats matters that are already subject to statutory protection. There seems little point in there being a planning policy which states that development proposals must take into account existing legislation.

Noted, amend policy accordingly.

231/22 Arbury Estate Smiths Gore BP40 – biodiversity offsetting may be appropriate subject to viability.

Noted.

231/23 Arbury Estate Smiths Gore BP41 – there is no need for such a restriction as land outside the existing urban area is protected by basic planning principles embodied in NPPF.

The criteria in the policy are local and take account of the local landscape character assessment. It does not therefore repeat national policy.

231/24 Arbury Estate Smiths Gore BP43 – the fifth bullet point of this policy does not appear to make sense.

Review appropriateness of bullet point in this policy

350 - Section C

Cllr Keith Kondakor

No. Need to maintain as much countryside as possible and avoid cutting up farmland with new roads.

Taking account of the development needs the Plan prioritises urban development, however some greenfield sites will be required. Often farmland has poor biodiversity value.

350 - Section C

Cllr Keith Kondakor

No. Most offsetting is a con. Noted however the response does not provide any justification of the view.

350 - Section C

Cllr Keith Kondakor

Yes Noted

350 - Section C

Cllr Keith Kondakor

Need more effort to protect ridge & furrow. We are also losing too many hedgerows and trees.

The provisions of the policy enable the protection of ridge and furrow.

350 - Cllr Keith No written response provided. N/A

2

Response Ref Number



Section C Kondakor

350 - Section C

Cllr Keith Kondakor

Need more effort to protect ridge & furrow. We already have some local listed buildings that need carrying over. We also must not allow the likes of the Fox & Crane and Co-op Hall to be repeated.

Options for protecting ridge and furrow will be investigated further. The local list can highlight buildings and assets of local value however there is no statutory proection offered to these designations.

351/39 D. Baylis The Bedworth Society

Good in terms of aspiration, but the test of ‘adequacy’ will be in delivery, i.e. how far these principles are being put into practice in the creation of the new housing developments, ensuring that ‘development can fit into the landscape and create a distinct sense of place without causing detrimental harm to the landscape’ (10.20). Concerned about Hospital Lane development (Locality 4, Bedworth North and West, SHS3). Apart from the protection for ‘biodiversity interests on the eastern edge of the site’, the Plan is disturbingly vague and evasive. There is an extended hedgerow along Hospital Lane, on western side that it should not to be difficult to show has been in place since 1850 (appears on an 1841 map). So qualifies as a ‘priority habitat site’ due for protection. Retain trees and other features of the landscape on the site in line with Policy ENV2. From the outline given in SHS3 we conclude the delivery of policies INF2, ENV1 and ENV2 would be minimal, indeed derisory. Designation of this site as ‘restore and create’ (Map 7) is puzzling - surely conservation is the issue? Call for some major rethinking before the next stage.

Further details will be provided in the next stage of the Plan, however the specifics will be dealt with at the planning application stage. Further biodiversity work is being undertaken, this should provide further informaiton about the hedgerow bordering the site.


Yes, but danger of misuse, so in practice the offsetting is not carried through in any real sense. Hospital Lane example is a case in point.

Further clarification to be sought from respondent.

3

Response Ref Number




Query whether this suggests a carte blanche for development. Want to endorse Policy ENV2 – Landscape Character Policy, and watch closely to see how it works in practice.

Noted


Depends on who decides what the hierarchy is, and on their agenda.

The policy sets out the hierarchy.


The main feature is to set up an urban character areas study to establish norms for design quality and sustainability, learning from the acknowledged mistakes of the past. This is admirable, but there is a glaring omission. It does not suggest involving from the beginning those local people who already have a ‘strong sense of place’, for whom these ‘defining characteristics’ are part of everyday life. It is a classic example of seeking to reinvent the wheel. Nuneaton Civic Society, the George Eliot Fellowship, the Coton Heritage Centre, the flourishing Bedworth Society, which in its heritage centre holds regular exhibitions that explore these very matters, already has such information. The Plan puts much emphasis on ‘connectedness’, but Council planners work in a separate compartment, and show little knowledge of or interest in what is happening in their communities. The ‘suitable way’ forward has to involve the local people at every stage.

Further work is required on the development of the urban character assessments. This will be done in conjunction with the stakeholders referred to.


Baffled by the lack of connectedness. Engaging with the local community at the end of a list gives the impression of an afterthought. The President of the Bedworth Society identifed the 'Local List of Heritage Assets’ for Bedworth in 2006 and the results were submitted to the Council. Receipt never acknowledged and to date it has never been referred to or acted on. We support virtually

Further work is required on the development of the urban character assessments and the local list. This will be done in conjunction with the stakeholder referred to. Reference to George Eliot is contained in the spatial portrait. The relevance of additional references will be considered. It is considered that the policy enables protection of

4

Response Ref Number



everything else in ENV4 but our experience of being ignored by Council planners, who prefer to work in a separate compartment, we find even more painful. The appropriate way to protect heritage assets is to work together. In the past the Griff was a conservation area. Argue there is a case for this status to be reinstated. Griff House was the childhood home of George Eliot, and the association brings in an increasing number of national and international visitors. Whitbread are funding the restoration of the outbuildings, and the George Eliot Fellowship will be establishing there a visitors’ centre as a focus for a more powerful statement of the Borough’s connection with this great figure of world literature. Also, the area has the Griff Quarry, one of the two Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the Borough.

assets of historic value within the Borough, including Listed buildings associated with George Eliot.

680/14 D. Lowe Warwickshire County Council

10.3 - within the paragraphs quoted from the NPPF consider adding: 10.x The NPPF states that planning decisions should be based on up to date information. It is strongly recommended that this information is provided as part of any development proposal. Where sufficient information has not been provided developments are likely to be refused. 10.9 - Welcome opportunity to comment on or assist with the production of the Technical Paper ‘Biodiversity and Geodiversity’ referred to in this para. 10.16 - Biodiversity Offsetting – Suggest reference is made to the Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy (CSWAPO, 2013) as Annex A of this document will outline how Biodiversity Offsetting will be implemented within the sub-region. Suggest adding to paragraph

See 133/37. Consider making reference to sub-regional GI strategy and Warwickshire Biological record centre.

5

Response Ref Number



10.16 and deleting the last sentance to read: "Biodiversity offsetting is a way of delivering biodiversity net gains in a measureable way, where the potential to avoid any damage and mitigate any damage has been fully considered and is unavoidable. Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull are one of six areas currently piloting the biodiversity offsetting approach. Biodiversity offsetting metrics have been prepared by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy (CSWAPO, 2013) details how Biodiversity Offsetting will be implemented within the sub-region." 10.17 - Include the Warwickshire Biological Record Centre (WBRC) in the first bullet to substantiate the suggestion that decisions will be considered on up to date environmental information. The WBRC is the nationally recognised ecological data resource for the sub-region where protected, priority and locally important species records are collated and managed. This resource is managed by Warwickshire County Council.


Suggest amending the words within the Ecological Network section’s fifth bullet: "Ensure a net gain in biodiversity by firstly avoiding any adverse impacts, or, where this is not possible, compensate for these impacts on site, or as a last resort mitigate for any residual impacts."

Add reference to compensation


Suggest adding reference to the Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy (CSWAPO, 2013) as this document looks to compliment local studies at a sub-regional level. Suggest: 10.x – The Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy (CSWAPO, 2013) also details mechanisms to

Referencing the document would be dependent on Council adoption of the document.

6

Response Ref Number



identify, protect, promote, enhance and monitor landscape green infrastructure assets and enhancement zones at a sub-regional, and in some instances, a local level. By the referencing this report it can be used when considering applications. Should NBBC officers continue to support the delivery of this sub-regional strategy then it will assist with targeting funding, additional to those gained through planning, to borough assets and assist with the delivery of the NBBC Green Infrastructure Plan. The Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy is also intended to enable the monitoring of GI assets that can be reported through local authority annual monitoring reports. 10.26 – We would suggest that the Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy (CSWAPO, 2013) is referenced as a delivery mechanism. Suggest amending the second bullet: "Use the Landscape Designations Study and Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy as evidence to ensure that this policy is implemented."


Suggest adding reference to the Sub-Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy (CSWAPO, 2013) within the Policy ENV2.

See 680/16


10.32 - Welcome the inclusion of Green Infrastructure into this policy, but add references to enhancing or creating features would be encouraged to assist with climate change adaption plus green infrastructure concerns.

GI is covered in INF2 and climate change is covered in policy CLIM3.

540/5 Dr Alan Srbljanin

N/A The management of our historic built environment is a disgrace. Any visitor to Nuneaton will be astonished to see catalogued in pictures across all the walls of the Town Hall a litany of destruction of all that has been lost. We cannot

Noted

7

Response Ref Number



and should rightly not keep buildings in aspic but it would appear that history suggests it is easier to demolish rather than think creatively - in planning or regeneration terms - about possible alternative uses. Whilst old buildings are often expensive to bring up to date for new uses it seems striking the efforts many towns across the UK take to protect their built environment - including buildings that do not fall into any listed status. Are there no lessons that NBBC can learn. Several buildings are at risk as we speak. NBBC should be proactive in defending our cultural and built heritage and developing action plans to safeguard buildings at threat. One of the merits of old buildings are the quality of the build, reflected in design and construction materials, all of which make them expensive to refurbish in the first place. Where the case for demolition is made NBBC should be far more critical about design criteria for replacement buildings to ensure that, in appropriately designated areas, we see buildings of quality and merit constructed. In this way demolition does not inexorably lead to a relentless diminution in the quality of the building stock in the Borough.

540/6 Dr Alan Srbljanin

N/A NBBC seem to show little appreciation of the material benefits of mature trees which improve our quality of life, directly through their impact on air quality but equally for their impact on the street scene.Their presence helps define place as much as the buildings that occupy our streets. Felling of any mature tree should be recognised as a loss of a significant material asset. Where felling is

The GI strategy promotes the planting of trees in Nuneaotn and Bedworth town centres. Protection of existing trees and hedgerows are covered in ENV2 Landscape character.

8

Response Ref Number



required a replacement strategy should be mandatory

672/4 G. Mitchell AR Cartwright Ltd

The policy is inappropriate in the context of determining planning applications which would require development proposals to enhance ecology and biodiversity. Penultimate and final bullets under Ecological Network are contrary to NPPF paras 7, 8 and 118 requiring a balance to be undertaken in assessing the three themes of sustainable development in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Delete these bullets.

Review policy to ensure in line with NPPF and amend if required

241/9 I. Dickinson Canal & River Trust

The canal network within the Borough is a rich source of biodiversity, and as such we support this policy, which should help to secure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity interest of the canal network. It may be appropriate to specifically include reference to canal corridors as ecological networks and biodiversity features which should be considered under this policy.

Agree there should be some reference in the Plan. Consideration will need to be given to the most appropitate place for this.

241/10 I. Dickinson Canal & River Trust

The Canal & River Trust would comment that ‘the built environment of the waterways represents a unique working heritage of industrial architecture, archaeology and engineering structures, and is a valuable part of the national heritage, as well as an integral part of regional and sub-regional cultural heritage and local distinctiveness. Inland waterways possess all the ‘heritage values’ as defined by English Heritage’ (TCPA Policy Advice Note: Inland Waterways: Unlocking the potential and securing the future of inland waterways through the planning system (2009)). The canal network within the Borough should therefore be acknowledged as a non-designated heritage asset

Policy to be reviewed to assess whether more detail is required. Canals will be considered as part of this.

9

Response Ref Number



which makes a significant contribution to the distinctive local character of the Borough. The Canal & River Trust would suggest that the canal network within the Borough represents a significant non-designated heritage asset which makes a significant contribution to the distinctive local character of the Borough, and as such merits specific reference within Policy ENV 4

44/2 Justin Milward

Woodland Trust We are pleased to support the 2nd bullet point under the Ecological Network heading of Policy ENV1 protecting irreplaceable habitats like ancient woodland. However our comment below includes one suggested addition to Policy ENV1 text Absolute protection for ancient woodland, and also ancient trees, is required in accordance with national policy. Every ancient wood is a unique habitat that has evolved over centuries, with a complex interdependency of geology, soils, hydrology, flora and fauna. This requires absolute protection in accordance with national policy as set out below. Ancient woodland, together with ancient/veteran trees, represents an irreplaceable semi-natural habitat that still does not benefit from full statutory protection: for instance 84% of ancient woodland in the West Midlands has no statutory protection. With Nuneaton & Bedworth showing a below average ancient woodland resource at 1.6% of land area compared to a Great Britain average of 2.40%, it is vital that this valuable natural resource is absolutely protected. It is particularly important that there is no further avoidable loss of ancient trees through development pressure, mismanagement or poor practice. The Ancient Tree Forum (ATF) and the

The policy will be reviewed in line with the NPPF. Absolute protection is not promoted by the NPPF.

10

Response Ref Number



Woodland Trust would like to see all such trees recognised as historical, cultural and wildlife monuments scheduled under TPOs and highlighted in plans so they are properly valued in planning decision-making. There is also a need for policies ensuring good management of ancient trees, the development of a succession of future ancient trees through new street tree planting and new wood pasture creation, and to raise awareness and understanding of the value and importance of ancient trees. The Ancient Tree Hunt (http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/) is designed specifically for this purpose and has already identified ancient trees in the Borough, such as the various ancient trees in Bedworth Cemetery (grid ref: SP 358 869). Government policy is increasingly supportive of absolute protection of both ancient woodland and ancient trees. The new National Policy Planning Framework clearly states: “…planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland…" (DCLG, March 2012, para 118). However this NPPF wording should be considered in conjunction with other stronger national policies on ancient trees (and ancient woodland) - - The Government’s policy document ‘Keepers of Time – A statement of Policy for England’s Ancient & Native Woodland’ (Defra/Forestry Commission, 2005, p.11) recommends: ‘Take steps to avoid losses of ancient woodland and of ancient or veteran trees’. - The Government’s Independent Panel on Forestry states: ‘Government should reconfirm the

11

Response Ref Number



policy approach set out in the Open Habitats Policy and Ancient Woodland Policy (Keepers of Time – A statement of policy for England’s ancient and native woodland).....Reflect the value of ancient woodlands, trees of special interest, for example veteran trees, and other priority habitats in Local Plans, and refuse planning permission for developments that would have an adverse impact on them.’ (Defra, Final Report, July 2012). This has been endorsed by the response in the recent Government Forestry Policy Statement (Defra Jan 2013): ‘We recognise the value of our native and ancient woodland and the importance of restoring open habitats as well as the need to restore plantations on ancient woodland sites. We, therefore, confirm our commitment to the policies set out in both the Open Habitats Policy and Keepers of Time, our statement of policy for England’s ancient and native woodland'. - The West Midlands Forestry Framework (Growing our future, May 2010, Forestry Commission) Objective EB5 seeks: ‘To increase contributions and commitment to wildlife gain with regard to woodland, urban trees, hedges, traditional orchards, parkland & wood pasture, ancient and notable trees.’ An example of good Local Authority policy on ancient/veteran trees is provided by North Somerset Council Core Strategy Adopted April 2012 - ‘Policy CS4: Nature conservation North Somerset contains outstanding wildlife habitats and species. These include limestone grasslands, traditional orchards, wetlands, rhynes, commons, hedgerows, ancient woodlands and the Severn Estuary. Key species include rare

12

Response Ref Number



horseshoe bats, otters, wildfowl and wading birds, slow-worms and water voles. The biodiversity of North Somerset will be maintained and enhanced by:... 3) seeking to protect, connect and enhance important habitats, particularly designated sites, ancient woodlands and veteran trees’. The Plan for Stafford Borough - Pre-submission publication: Jan 2013 states in Policy N5 that: ‘New developments will be required to include appropriate tree planting, to retain and integrate healthy, mature trees and hedgerows, and replace any trees that need to be removed. Development will not be permitted that would directly or indirectly damage existing mature or ancient woodland, veteran trees or ancient or species-rich hedgerows’ We therefore would like to see the 2nd bullet point under the Ecological Network heading of Policy ENV1 amended (upper case text) to include ancient trees: '…priority habitat sites (such as ancient woodland, ANCIENT TREES and hedgerows….'.

337/1 Karl Mayer Woodlands Action Group

Even though I am not going to pick out specific sites in the options, I will point out that all of them on greenfield sites will be impacted by losses to the environment which to me is crazy, especially when it's the done thing to teach children about saving it.

The Plan contains policies to protect, mitigate or offset biodiversity and habitat losses. The Council is also undertaking an ecological assessment to determine the impact on habitats/species/geology, which will provide recommendations for mitigation measures. Public Footpaths will be protected. The Green Infrastructure Plan seeks to enhance and/or create recreational spaces and routes.

5/40 L. Webster Ideally yes, but if not then it should be spread more thinly right across the Borough and in particular to fill the gaps between Nuneaton,

See response 228/1

13

Response Ref Number



Bedworth and Bulkington rather than tacking bits on to the exterior and making it more of a development sprawl

5/39 L. Webster I do not understand what you mean by Biodiversity offsetting and your glossary does not enlighten me!

Consider improving explanation in glossary.

5/41 L. Webster It is hard to set down a policy - each development would need to be looked at individually to see if it fits well with the local area. How can a housing development ever "avoid a significant increase in the level of activity in the landscape?"

The policy recognises that there are diffeent landscape character areas each with their own characteristics that should be taken into account. Review and amend policy.

5/42 L. Webster Not really sure how this works Para 10.31 outlines the approach.

5/43 L. Webster Yes - though the task is made easier as we do not have many!

Noted

5/38 L. Webster I sincerely hope so. NB in your text you fail to recognise the fact that housing areas with good size gardens contribute to biodiversity. In my area (Higham lane) the wildlife in our open spaces also uses gardens and there is a rich variety of birds and animals which are protected by local homeowners. This is clearly true of other areas

Noted

670/3 M. Ash Natural England Local Authorities involved in the Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Biodiversity Offsetting pilot are working together with Defra and Natural England to pilot biodiversity offsetting in this area. Following the pilot, Government may decide to introduce a national offsetting approach, which could have implications for specific local offsetting approaches such as the one set out in this draft policy. A key principle of biodiversity offsetting articulated in paragraph 10.16 states that biodiversity offsetting should only be considered "where the potential to avoid...and mitigate any damage has been fully considered and is unavoidable" (p80).

Noted, amend policy as suggested

14

Response Ref Number



This is in accordance with NPPF para 152. Advise adding to the "Biodiversity Mitigation" policy as follows: “This policy will: ... Require developers to use the Biodiversity Offsetting Metrics to replace any loss of habitats due to their development where the potential to avoid and mitigate any damage has been fully considered and is unavoidable ...” Suggest adding a cross-reference to the Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull Green Infrastructure (GI) Strategy.

665/11 M. Kondakor Nuneaton & District Friends of the Earth

All actions must be taken to protect and enhance biodiversity. Developments should have plenty of suitable trees. These can provide shade, wildlife habitats, food and reduce flooding

Noted

671/1 Midlands Land Portfolio Ltd

Northern Trust Company Ltd

The policy may not enable the support for windfall sites making the emerging plan ineffective at maximising a sustainble range of housing choice, it is therefore not consistent with the NPPF.

This policy seeks to restrict windfall development outside the urban area. Policy DEV3 supports windfall development in the urban area. The Plan makes provision for sufficient sites to meet the housing target. There is no expected need for windfall sites outside the urban area.

612/35 Mr D Parker and Miss H Parker

N/A Reasons For Comments 1. The problem is that some residents do not always realise, or want to realise how important the natural environment is. Especially in relation to: Food production, and the need to produce enough food to feed a large population, Health and Well-Being:- Both of the people and of the area in which they live. 2. Any policy which is designed to protect the biodiversity and geodiversity of an area is likely to run into difficulties with the residents that live in

The biodiversity and geodiversity policy and Green Infrastructure policy recognises the value of protecting wildlife and the need for access to nature in terms of health and well-being. The GI policy makes provision for allotments.

15

Response Ref Number



the area. There is too much ignorance amongst certain parts of human society as to the importance of the natural environment in which they live. There is no understanding of what it would be like to live in areas that does not have any trees, plants, or wildlife.


N/A Reasons For Comments A concerted effort to considerably increase the number of trees and plants in the Borough would: 1. Help reduce carbon emissions 2. Improve air quality 3. Increase the habitat availability for wildlife 4. Provide employment in the maintenance of these areas 5. Provide areas for walking, cycling and horse riding 6. Provide an educational resource

Noted


N/A Reasons For Comments No development should be permitted on Green Belt or farm land. Once this land is developed it can never be brought back into use if we ever need to increase food production. This leaves us open to reliance on food imports and increases the risk of disease entering the country from unregulated countries. The farmland that we have is vital if we are to become more self-sufficient and reduce the need to rely on expensive food imports. For Example: Showells Farm has the potential to be developed to increase the level of food production of the area. It also has the space to diversify. A farm

The plan directs development to existing urban areas. The Council has assessed through the SHLAA the potential for sites in the urban area for development. There are not sufficient sites to meet development targets and so greenfield sites are needed. Agricultural land is one of the considerations that have been taken into account in selecting strategic sites for allocation. See site selection background papers for further details.

16

Response Ref Number



shop would enable people to buy fresh, organic produce on their doorstep, and reduce the need to travel into the town centre. The farmer would also benefit by having an increase in income.


N/A Reasons For Comments A landscape strategy is needed: 1. To ensure that no farmland or Green Belt is ever developed or built on. 2. To ensure that we have sufficient farmland to meet our food production needs. 3. To ensure that native wildlife and plants have a safe haven without a fear of persecution or destruction.

The NPPF allows for the review of Green Belt land through the development of the Borough Plan. Policy ENV2 contains a landscape strategy and hierarchy for use when designing sites and determining applications outside the urban area. See previous comments related to 612/1, section 10 natural environment.


N/A Reasons For Comments 1. Residents who live and work in the area are the best judges of what impact any development will have on the character and distinctiveness of the landscape. After all they have to live in it. They will already know what impact on their lives any development will have. 2. Improving the character of an area will not necessarily change of attitudes of the people who live there. These residents will have deep-seated values and norms that will be difficult or impossible to change.

1. The views of local residents are taken into account through an engagement strategy outlined in the SCI. However the Council is required to prepare an evidence based Borough Plan in line with the NPPF. 2.Noted.


N/A Reasons For Comments No building can be fully protected by law. All the land in England is the property of either the Crown or the Church. For Example: If the Government decided to put a railway line straight through Astley Castle, or Arbury Hall,

The powers of compulsory purchase, etc. are used infrequently and so planning policies are required to guide planning related decisions that impact on historic assets.

17

Response Ref Number



which led to their demolition, there would be very little the Council could do to stop it. Especially if there is a strong economic case for building that railway line.

429 Mr David Marriott

N/A Disappointed with the Council not referencing historical natural environment policies/concepts, such as the Link Linear Scheme, Greentrack, and Green Map, although recognises these have been taken forward in new terminology and application, such as Green Infrastructure. Also disappointed that these were not picked up by consultants undertaking natural environment evidence base studies. Nonetheless, he finds it very gratifying to see a strong emphasis on the natural environment and to place it higher up the political agenda. States that enforcing byelaws, such as no fishing at Ensors Pool is key to the survival of the population of white clawed crayfish. From a biodiversity point of view, brownfields quite often have greater diversity than that of greenfield. States that we should not dismiss LWSs, as they have value to local people and this is what matters. The integration of balancing lakes and SUDs schemes is important for all developments and can have a secondary supporting benefit for open space, landscape and wildlife. It is important to ensure that the best bits of the countryside, landscape and ecological collateral are protected.

The Green Infrastructure study supercedes the documents referenced. Enforcing byelaws is outside the role of the Borough Plan

18

Response Ref Number



Locality 6 Weddington and St Nicolas takes the brunt of the proposed new development, which seems disproportionate. The growth and developments along the A5 and the MIRA expansion will make transport congestion problems a nightmare. Locality 7 Whitestone and Bulkington seem to have escaped any development. Is there a case to share some of the development? Locality 5 Camp Hill and Galley Common also seem to have escaped development. Without developing on Whittleford Park/Barpool Valley, The Shuntings and Whytell Pool, could this area share some of the overall development? Locality 1 Abbey and Wembrook development will eat into the buffer between Nuneaton and Bedworth. Locality 2 Arbury and Stockingford development will impact on the better landscape in the Borough and Ensor's Pool SAC. A smaller site may be more appropriate. Localities 3 and 4 Both localities have escaped with little housing or employment proposals. Maps The Preferred Options maps do not show the

19

Response Ref Number



extent of the former Green Map, which showed all sites, private and public, considered to be of ecological value. Could these details be incorporated onto the Green Infrastructure Map and Preferred Options Maps? Could you also show woodland planting zones on the Maps.

669/4 Mr Greg Mitchell

Nicholas Chamberlaine School Foundation

The penultimate and final bullet points under the heading Ecological Network are contrary to paragraphs 7, 8 and 118 of the NPPF. These bullet points should be deleted.

See 672/4.

379/2 Mr Robert Welsh

N/A Section 10 In Para. 10.1 you say your policies in this section will protect the natural environment from unsuitable development. How can you be promoting this concept when the wholesale destruction and removal of mature trees and hedgerows will be necessary in order to build these gigantic housing sites? No amount of Biodiversity Offsetting can compensate for the loss of habitat resulting in diminished food sources and breeding and roosting sites for birds, butterflies, bats, insects and small mammals, etc. You state in Para 10.7 that habitat provision on the west side of Nuneaton is good but there is practically no access to it. This is precisely why it is good because there is little chance of disturbance! As to Policy ENV1 requiring developers to use something called Biodiversity Offsetting Metrics to replace any loss of habitats due to development, the outcome of this can be seen in current building projects. There is a big rush to turf and plant very small shrubs in the front gardens to make houses look nice but the remainder of the site gets a few spindly saplings. When wildlife is gone, it is gone.

Mitigation measures factor in the age of the species lost as part of a proposal. Account has be taken of the biodiversity assets lost as part of the proposals in the Plan. To replace habitats and biodiversity the preference for biodiversity offsetting is to relocate on larger strategic sites.

20

Response Ref Number



58/12 Mr. S. Hallam N/A (Page 82 after 10.17) I do not agree

Noted

58/13 Mr. S. Hallam N/A (Page 82 after 10.17) I do not agree

Noted

58/14 Mr. S. Hallam N/A (Page 86 after pra 10.26) No

Noted

58/15 Mr. S. Hallam N/A (Page 87 after para. 10.33) No this is not a suitable way forward. This approach is not aspirational. It is not sufficient to allow development simply on the grounds it does not make the Borough worse. We need to improve the area, not stay as we are but bigger.

The policy and the wider plan seeks to improve design quality within the Borough

282/57 Mrs Carol Welsh

n/a When it comes to your POLICY ENV1, concentrating development in just a few areas will cause environmental chaos. No amount of small saplings planted for appeasement can ever be mitigation for the wholesale destruction and removal of mature trees and hedgerows. Large densities of new build cause loss of habitat resulting in diminished food sources and breeding and roosting sites for birds, butterflies, bats, insects, small mammals, etc. Once common birds such as starlings and house sparrows are now on the endangered “Red List” because of habitat destruction. Much smaller development sites could, hopefully, have less effect on wildlife and offer a lifeline for them to adapt. In SECTION 10, Para.10.7 you state that on the west side habitat provision is good but there is practically no access to it. That’s precisely why it is good – there is little chance it can be disturbed and desecrated!

Mitigation measures factor in the age of the species/habitat lost as part of a proposal (i.e. whether it is ancient woodland or a veteran tree). Account has be taken of the biodiversity assets lost as part of the proposals in the Plan. To replace habitats and biodiversity, the preference for biodiversity offsetting is to relocate on larger strategic sites.


n/a No written response provided. Noted. Officers cannot fully respond as no response is provided.

21

Response Ref Number













630/27 Mrs Janet Batterbee

N/A Good aspiration, but then undermined by taking Green Belt land for intensive housing, with particular reference to the proposed Hospital Lane site. How do you offset ancient trees and hedgerows and well-established communities of plants and animals?

The biodiversity offsetting takes account of the age of habitats but it is noted that ancient woodland cannot be offset. Where feasible important assets will be retained on site.


N/A If I have understood this question correctly, it could be re-worded to say "should we bother with a Plan at all?" Of course it should be restricted, it is a very odd question.

Noted


N/A Another odd question because it depends on who makes the decision and against what criteria. Hospital Lane site is valued by the people who live here, but clearly its value has not been recognised by the Plan authors who described it

Noted

22

Response Ref Number



in derogatory terms that we do not recognise.

361/37 N. Small Stagecoach UK Bus

Development should be concentrated in areas which are currently well served by public transport or which could relatively easily be served by public transport through the extension of existing services.

See responses 23/1, 152/1, 350E/9, point 1 (A & S), 430/1, points 2 & 3 (A & S).

374/11 Paul Gethins Environment Agency

It is recommended that the following be added to the policy: "No development will be permitted that has a detrimental impact to BAP species and to their habitat without adequate mitigation." The inclusion of the above policy will afford BAP species additional protection, which is required as they re-populate and expand their territory. It is highlighted that white claw crayfish are BAP specific and are not locally designated or afforded any statutory protection

The amendment suggested is not positively worded. The policy currently includes reference to mitigation which is considered more appropriate. White Clawed Crayfish in Ensors Pool are statutorily protected under European Designation, Special Area of Conservation, and under the national designation Site of Special Scientific Interest.


Although we support the sub-regional approach to biodiversity offsetting, we would strongly recommend that any detrimental impacts to biodiversity are offset by initiatives within close proximity of the development.

Noted


It is recommended the insertion of an additional policy – Policy ENV5 Water Quality and the Protection of Groundwater. Regeneration, especially on brownfield sites and in former coal mining areas, enables the identification and clean-up of contaminated land and the installation of long-term protection measures for all surface and ground water receptors, where warranted.

Consider including policy as suggested

23

Response Ref Number



It is only feasible when specific site allocations and development plans have been established that EA can we provide more detailed advice on local investigations, measures and permits required. The EA expects any developer and/or consultant to follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11 - Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (2004) when dealing with land affected by contamination. Nuneaton & Bedworth’s unitary boundary covers a very diverse geology, including Triassic Sherwood Sandstone, classified as Major Aquifer by the Environment Agency, Carboniferous Coal Measures strata (Minor Aquifer) and Mercia Mudstone (Non Aquifer). EA have a duty to protect the various groundwater resources in all these areas and may have to restrict or condition some types of development. However, next to being a water resource in its own right, it should also be appreciated that groundwater maintains the wider water environment, providing important base flow to streams, ponds, springs and wetlands, and conditions or objections might well have to be issued to protect any of those receptors too. Many of the sites that will come up for future (re)development will have had former contaminative uses and therefore it would be a requirement that the risk to groundwater of any significant contamination to be considered by means of a desk study, site investigation and subsequent conceptual model and risk assessment, where necessary leading to suitable

24

Response Ref Number



remedial action and related method statement. Refer to EA guidance on Requirements for Land Contamination (2005). Specfically the assessment will need to determine whether development can continue, what mitigation may be required and cover agreement over foundation design. The Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice (GP3) is referenced as EA policy to follow.


We welcome measures that support the brownfield first approach as previously advocated in PPS3, however we feel that it would be beneficial for the local plan to include a specific policy to continue to support this approach. We also support proposals to restore and enhance blue and green corridors which have biodiversity, amenity and flood risk management benefits.

Policy DEV3 and DEV4 prioritises development in urban areas. Comments regarding blue and green corridors noted.


In line with the Warwickshore Sub-Regional water cycle study it is recommended the following policies be included within the Plan: "Developers shall undertake thorough risk assessments of the impact of their proposals on surface and groundwater systems and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures where necessary prior to the determination of planning applications. Minimise levels of pollution or contamination to air, land, soil or water and avoid unacceptable development and potentially contaminative uses within source protection zone 1 areas to safeguard water resources and ensure water quality. Where development poses such a risk there will be a presumption against development."

Pollution is currently covered in ENV3. Consider further inclusion of policies suggested.

280/4 R. A. Bust Coal Authority As previously identified, the Nuneaton and The comments appear to be a suitable

25

Response Ref Number



Bedworth Borough Council area contains surface coal resources. These resources have been subject to mining activities in the past, which has left a legacy. The surface coal resources and resulting legacy of past mining activity form a swathe running broadly north to south through the centre of the Borough. Given this legacy of past coal mining activity, unstable land is therefore a locally distinctive issue in Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough which needs to be acknowledged in the Borough Plan. Whilst The Coal Authority is pleased to note that the coal mining heritage of the Borough is acknowledged in the Spatial Portrait and Key Issues, we consider that the issue of mining legacy and unstable land needs to be appropriately identified in the Borough Plan. The Coal Authority therefore considers that Policy ENV3 should also identify that ground conditions and issues of unstable land (and contaminated land, if also a locally significant issue) need to be considered and addressed as part of new development proposals, in line with the requirements of paragraphs 120-121 of the NPPF. Such a local policy is necessary to support the Council’s Development Management team in continuing to require the submission of Coal Mining Risk Assessments in support of planning applications for development within the defined Development High Risk Areas. Reason – To ensure that the legacy of past coal mining activity and any resulting issues of land instability are afforded due consideration as part of new development proposals, in line with the

recommendation to be included in the plan however further consideration needs to given on where in the plan it is included.

26

Response Ref Number



requirements of paragraphs 120-121 of the NPPF.

599g/1 R. Baker & D. Baker

Bedworth Heath Action Group

The biodiversity policy ENV1 is an excellent idea and has shown its worth by the identification of irreplaceable ancient priority habitats within SHS3 development area. The renewed focus of the Forest of Arden Enhancement Zone would be invaluable in retaining these valuable and irreplaceable habitats and would serve to enhance the effects of the policy ENV1 in protecting these habitats.

Noted

599g/2 R. Baker & D. Baker

Bedworth Heath Action Group

The Arden Landscape Enhancement Zone set out in the Green Infrastructure Plan does not appear to be fully implemented in the Preferred Options document. With a goal of improving the Woodland and Hedgerow habitats acorss the Arden Landscape it is an important part of protecting and improving wildlife habitats within the Borough. Not only are some woodland and hedgerows in need of repair, but it can also been seen that a lack of normal maintenance is damaging many other hedgerow habitats. For example, there has been a recent trend for the hedgerows not to be cut. It is damaging to the hedgerows in the long term as it causes gapping at the bottom of the hedgerows and ultimately loss of habitat.

The green infrastructure projects included in the Plan specifically relate to the strategic site allocations. Policy ENV1 (biovidersity and geodiversity) protects the wildlife habitats. Hedgerow cutting is not a matter for the Borough Plan.

676/2 R. Torkildsen English Heritage The Historic Environment Background Paper is a thorough and credible piece of evidence. Welcomes the inclusion of its key findings and recommendations in the Plan, especially in section 10 and 11, Policy ENV4 -Valuing and Conserving the Historic Environment, Policy ENV2 - Landscape character and Policy ENV3 - Urban character and design quality.

Noted

676/5 R. Torkildsen English Heritage The Plan's proposed approach to 'protecting Noted

27

Response Ref Number



heritage assets that are not protected by law' is appropriate.

133/1 Richard Wheat

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Ensure policy includes a robust policy protection for non-statutory sites, which, in accordance with paragraph 113 of the NPPF, is commensurate with their status and role in the Borough's ecological network

The policy is in line with hierarchy in the NPPF

133/10 Richard Wheat


Include a policy to highlight that the Local Authority will seek to conserve, restore, create or enhance priority habitats and features listed in section 41 of the NERC Act and the LBAP as well as other features of ecological importance outside statutory and non-statutory sites.

It is considered that the policy already seeks to achieve this.



Recognise and acknowledge the Borough’s importance as a stronghold for the LBAP priority species Water Vole in the Borough Plan and work with Warwickshire Wildlife Trust to identify key areas where their protection and enhancement should be prioritised.

Noted. Amend policy to make reference to the LBAP.



Supportive of policy ENV 1 and welcomes approach set out in Preferred Option document for protecting and enhancing biodiversity within the Borough. Particularly pleased with the landscape approach taken in respect of nature conservation in accordance with Para 117 of the NPPF by planning for and conserving a resilient ecological network for the Borough

Noted.



The following is recommended in relation to policy ENV1: Halt and reverse the loss of Biodiversity: Recommend that the local authority begins the policy by setting out a firm commitment to ‘halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity throughout the Borough’. This principle underpins the purpose of

It is considered that the policy aligns with the requirements of para 109 of the NPPF.

28

Response Ref Number



planning for a coherent and resilient ecological network in the proceeding policy clauses and would ensure the policy is aligned with paragraph 109 of the NPPF.



The following is recommended in relation to policy ENV1: Policy protection Wildlife Sites The Trust supports the criteria based protection proposed for the hierarchy of international, national and local sites of wildlife importance. As is correctly identified in paragraphs 10.10-10.13, sites included in this criteria should include SAC’s, SSSI, LNRs, LWS and LGS, and these should be clearly referenced to the hierarchy to ensure that the protection each feature affords is commensurate with its status and importance in the ecological network. We consider this approach to be consistent with paragraph 113 of the NPPF.

Noted.



The following is recommended in relation to policy ENV1: It is important to recognise that not all key features of the ecological network are within designated sites and so other features of biodiversity importance will not be adequately protected by this approach alone. The Trust therefore recommends that the above criteria protection is extended to include proportionate protection for other features of biodiversity importance, such as wildlife corridors (i.e river and canal corridors, disused railways and hedgerows), stepping stones (non-designated nature reserves) and priority habitats and species listed in section 41 of the

It is considered that the policy covers the points raised.

29

Response Ref Number



Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) or the Local Biodiversity Action Plan LBAP. Consider this provides a comprehensive, robust and justified approach to protecting the Borough’s ecological network which accords with paragraphs 113, 114 (1) and 117(2 and 3) of the NPPF and section 40 of the NERC Act 2006.



The following is recommended in relation to policy ENV1: Ancient Woodlands Supports the criteria protection for irreplaceable habitats such as veteran trees and ancient woodlands within the policy which reflects paragraph 118(5) of the NPPF. However, we strongly recommend that wording of this policy clause also specifies the need for woodland extensions or suitable buffers around ancient woodlands/veteran trees to ensure that this protection is effective against both the direct and indirect impacts of future development.

Noted. An appropriate buffer will be considered further. Consideration to be given to including reference to vetran trees.



The following is recommended in relation to policy ENV1: Potential Local Wildlife Sites: The Trust recommends that the Borough Plan provides further clarity about the status of potential Local Wildlife Sites (pLWS), as the policy currently does not take account of their importance as part of the ecological network. Potential Local Wildlife Sites are sites that, from initial survey or historical records, are considered to be of county importance for nature conservation but have yet to be fully surveyed and assessed against the Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull

It is considered that pLWS should not have the same level of protection until it has be proven that they should be designated as such. Consider amending policy to require developers to undertake an independent assessment of pLWS and wider ecological matters. The presence of LWS has influenced the capacity calculations of the proposed development sites.

30

Response Ref Number



LWS Criteria Assessment. Any site listed as a pLWS should therefore be treated as a LWS when determining a planning application unless survey and assessment against the standardised criteria suggests otherwise. In accordance with the criteria protection detailed above, the presence of LWS could influence the capacity or density of development that could be achieved in a proposed development site. It is therefore important that the status of all pLWS is determined from the outset to ensure that the value of the feature and the impact on the ecological network overall is determined before a decision is made on the application. In this respect, we recommend that the supporting text for policy outlines the need to undertake a LWS criteria assessment of pLWSs to inform planning decisions. In the absence of a LWS survey and assessment, we recommend that the policy adopts the formal position that a pLWS is of LWS quality and should be determined as such in accordance with the policy recommendations outlined above.



The following is recommended in relation to policy ENV1: Mitigation Hierarchy: The Trust welcomes the local authority’s proposals to incorporate the mitigation hierarchy into the policy, in accordance with paragraph 118(1) of the NPPF, and is pleased to note the reference to the Warwickshire Biodiversity Offsetting pilot as a compensatory approach to avoid a net loss of biodiversity. However it is

Noted, amendments to be made to clarify this intention.

31

Response Ref Number



necessary to outline that biodiversity offsetting will only be pursued as a ‘last resort’ option once it has been demonstrated that the development is justified against the above policy criteria and once all available options to avoid and mitigate the impacts have been thoroughly explored. This will ensure that biodiversity offsetting does not become a default approach that undermines the remaining policy clauses.



The following is recommended in relation to policy ENV1: Net gain for biodiversity The Trust is pleased to see a commitment to enhancing the Borough’s ecological network in addition to protecting its key features. However in order for this to be effective, we believe that the policy should set out a clear criteria for how and when planning applications will be expected to contribute to the creation, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity assets. We recommend that, in accordance with paragraphs 114(1) and 118(4) of the NPPF, these criteria should be inclusive of: a. A commitment by the local authority to continue to review and designate high valued biodiversity assets as Local Wildlife Sites b. Promoting the integration of biodiversity in and around developments and open spaces, cross complying with other polices in the Local Plan c. Seeking the restoration and creation of new priority habitats within developments in accordance with national and local biodiversity targets d. Promoting features that aid the recovery of

Speak to WWT regarding suggested wording amendments.

32

Response Ref Number



priority, rare or notable species in the county. e. Approving applications where the primary purpose is to conserve, enhance or maintain biodiversity. f. Ensuring management agreements for all retained, restored or enhanced habitats are secured through planning conditions and obligations The Trust would be happy to explore other options to promote biodiversity gains and/ or discuss the wording of such a policy clause if required.



The following is recommended in relation to policy ENV1: Restoration Areas: Paragraph 117(2) requires local authorities to identify areas outlined for restoration and creation of biodiversity assets. This is, in part, included in the Borough Plan through linkages to the green infrastructure (GI) delivery areas and biodiversity themed projects identified in the Nuneaton and Bedworth Green Infrastructure Plan. Furthermore policy INF 2 seeks to protect key assets within these priority areas, and promotes future investment into GI which will benefit biodiversity in the long-term and so we believe there is also a need to support this landscape scale approach to restoration within the scope of policy ENV1. In this instance, the Trust would support policy wording which clearly references the strategic biodiversity importance of the Forest of Arden, the post-industrial discovery and urban waterways enhancement zones. Moreover, we would also recommend that additional policy criteria is

Consider amendments to policy following further discussion with WWT.

33

Response Ref Number



included for developments in these identified restoration areas so that there is added weight given to proposals that are consistent with and make a postive contribution to the biodiversity objectives for the area.For example these criteria could include: - Requiring all developments in an identified landscape area to optimise the contribution to biodiversity and green infrastructure objectives. - To permit development in the area where the principal aim is to conserve, restore, create or enhance biodiversity interests - To refuse development types that could compromise the biodiversity or green infrastructure value or the landscape area.

680/26 S. Collenette Warwickshire County Council

10.26 - Broaden the delivery mechanisms to include statutory and county council organisations to demonstrate the council's approach to partnership and the availability of expertise. Add 'English Heritage and Warwickshire County Council's Archaeological Information and Advice team' to the first bullet point: "Work with developers, English Heritage and Warwickshire County Council's Archaeological Information and Advice team amongst others to ensure that landscape character is taken into account when planning and designing new development".

Noted

680/27 S. Collenette Warwickshire County Council

10.48 - Include references to resources created by Warwickshire County Council's Archaeological Information and Advice team such as the Historic Towns Project which is part of the Extensive Urban Survey for Warwickshire. This will inform ongoing work on Urban Character. The Archaeological Information and Advice team also have an ongoing Flickr project to encourage local communities to identify locally important heritage

Noted

34

Response Ref Number



assets. Suggest adding to paragraph 10.48: To complete work on Urban Character Areas using resources such as Warwickshire County Council's Historic Towns Project amongst others, To engage local communities in the identification of locally important heritage assets using models like Warwickshire County Council's Imaging our Past social media Flickr project.

216/12 Bedworth Glebe Estate Company Ltd

BGEC recognises that the poorest landscapes create the opportunity for positive change and acknowledge the logic in seeking to direct development proposals to the ‘poorest’ quality landscape areas in the first instance. BGEC consider these areas would be suitable for accommodating the types of development generally associated with the urban fringe, such as facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. However BGEC stresses that Landscape Character Policy ENV2 should not be so restrictive as to require the restoration / reinstatement of all current or historic landscape features, especially hedgerows that are now so fragmented that they now have limited ecological significance. Emphasis should be placed on restoring and enhancing the main features of landscape or biodiversity importance and on the introduction of new (boundary) features that are appropriate for the locality and which can enhance the character and definition of the landscape.

The policy is not as restrictive as indicated in the response.

399 Davidson's Development Limited

Map 7 should acknowledge land off Church Lane and Weddington Road as housing land as per outline permission 030775, as well as land between 48-130 The Long Shoot, reference 031741. I request that Map 7 acknowledges the outline

Map 7 shows the landscape character areas, the purpose is not to identify permissions for development. This will be identified in the AMR.

35

Response Ref Number



planning permissions above.

natural and built environment€¦ · gi is covered in inf2 and climate change is covered in policy...

Documents