Other

ID sylw: 107972

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The policy direction broadly conforms with national policy requirements. Rainier Developments are supportive of the aspiration to encourage sustainable transport and reduce reliance on private vehicles. The policy needs to acknowledge that given the spatial spread and rural nature of much of South Warwickshire, use of the private car will still be the preferred (and, in some cases, only) option for many residents, in the short-to-medium term.

The Council should therefore ensure there are appropriate parking standards in place for new developments. Concurrently, the Council should seek to identify and support improvements to sustainable transport throughout the plan period, to reduce dependency on private vehicles to a greater degree in the decades ahead. Residents should have the opportunity to use efficient and reliable public transport and safely walk or cycle to destinations where possible, as acknowledged in the policy direction.

It is stated that proposals must demonstrate how they will incorporate or contribute to high-quality infrastructure that facilitate sustainable travel. Commentary with regards to infrastructure provision has already been provided in relation to Policy Direction 5, and similar considerations apply here. It is recommended that the policy provides some flexibility, clarifying which types of proposals should address this within submissions (i.e. major development, but not renewable schemes, where this is not applicable).

No

ID sylw: 107973

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Electric vehicle charging is already addressed within Warwick’s Parking Standards SPD and Stratford’s Part R – Air Quality SPD. Moreover, Policy Direction 31 already refers to charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is unclear as to why the Councils consider that a standalone Part 1 policy is required which duplicates existing adopted planning guidance and the preceding policy direction, and thus it is considered that this policy direction is repetitive and can be deleted. The Councils could consider referring to this in a more detailed Part 2 policy.

Other

ID sylw: 107974

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The content in this policy direction is supported. It is consistent with the NPPF, including Paragraphs 119 and 120, which highlight the importance of advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure. This is essential for economic growth, social wellbeing, and supporting rural villages, in line with Paragraphs 82 and 83 of the NPPF.

However, the name of the policy direction, ‘Smart Cities’, is perhaps inappropriate for South Warwickshire, which consists of large rural areas, many smaller settlements, and no cities. The Government’s Post Note on Smart Cities (no. 656, September 2021) defines ‘smart city’ projects as “digital technologies and data to improve places by providing citizens with social, economic, and environmental benefits”. As the name suggests, smart city technologies are mostly deployed in urban areas and would not be applicable to most of Stratford and Warwick districts. The policy direction itself makes no reference to the term ‘smart cities’, with no definition provided (leaving this open to interpretation), nor are technologies included which could be described as ‘smart’. Most of the focus is on high-speed broadband. The policy should be renamed to better reflect its content and local geography or revised with a greater emphasis on smart city technologies and applications, with a clear relevance to South Warwickshire, including its rural settlements; for example, by clarifying whether such technologies should be incorporated into developments of a certain nature and scale, across the district, or restricted to schemes within or on the edge of urban areas.

Other

ID sylw: 107976

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy direction is broadly supported, with Paragraphs 187 and 192 of the NPPF setting out the requirements to protect and enhance biodiversity. However, the policy direction suggests that the final policy will follow the principles outlined in the Lawton Report (Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network). This was published in September 2010. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF is clear that plans should be underpinned by the latest available evidence. Whilst this report is not strictly part of the evidence base, it is nonetheless clearly being used to shape the content and structure of the policy. By the time the SWLP Part 1 is adopted, it will be almost two decades since the publication of the Lawton Report. More recent reports and studies should be consulted to ensure that the policy reflects the latest thinking and most effective approaches to the protection and conservation of species.

No

ID sylw: 107978

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy will require proposals to support the principles of Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS). LNRS are a statutory requirement under the Environment Act 2021, and Councils are not obliged to duplicate this in a development plan policy. The justification for the policy provided by the Council is inadequate, and it is considered that the policy is unnecessary.

Other

ID sylw: 107979

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The Environment Act 2021 stipulates developments must provide a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10%. Our client affirms there is no need for a policy in SWLP Part 1 which duplicates this statutory requirement. It would be sufficient and consistent with the NPPF to state that a net gain will be sought in accordance with latest statutory requirements. These may change over the plan period.

If the Councils seek to specify a requirement greater than 10% this will need to be fully supported by the latest evidence to ensure the policy is justified. This evidence is currently unavailable. This approach could result in negative effects with regards to SA Objectives 9 (Housing) and 13 (Economy) due to impacts on costs and viability. This should have been recognised in the SA. It potentially requires more land to deliver the BNG, meaning sites need to be larger. It is considered the Council should not establish standards which go beyond the statutory requirements.

Any biodiversity policy should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The policy direction recognises this, which is supported. The test is whether 10% is delivered, not the method. As set out in the Environment Act, gains can be provided through enhancing biodiversity on site, a combination of on and off-site delivery (with the latter on land owned by the developer outside of the red line boundary, or through the purchase of off-site biodiversity units), or, alternatively, biodiversity credits can be purchased. The way in which ‘net gains’ are calculated must be carefully considered and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms of the delivery.

No

ID sylw: 107981

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This relates to securing a net gain in ecosystem services. At this stage, no framework for Environmental Net Gain (ENG) has been provided, and the concept is vague. Very limited detail is provided within the policy direction, which simply states that the focus of ENG will be BNG and carbon sequestration, both of which have their own standalone policy directions, and desired requirements for both do not need to be repeated here. This brings into question the necessity for an ENG policy, and substantial work is clearly needed to formulate a policy which is sound. Crucially, the evidence base does not currently demonstrate a need for this policy, as acknowledged by the Councils, thus it is unjustified.

Other

ID sylw: 107982

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy direction encourages green and blue infrastructure (GBI) and proposes delivery through a Greening Factor for South Warwickshire. Various Greening Factor requirements are to be calculated for different types of development, and BNG will contribute towards the Greening Factor of a site. The Warwickshire, Coventry & Solihull Sub- Regional Green Infrastructure Strategy (August 2024), which is part of the evidence base, provides some support for this policy. It refers to seizing opportunities to introduce landscaping, trees/woodland, green roofs, and allotments, all of which are listed in the policy direction as features which can contribute towards the Greening Factor. The policy is justified to an extent, in encouraging GBI. The need to impose a numerical Greening Factor lacks justification, as this is not explicitly recommended within the evidence. The Greening Factor requirement must be justified for the policy to be sound.

The policy direction makes no reference to how and where green infrastructure can be delivered to meet the Greening Factor. No clarity is provided on what the approach would be where the developer is unable to provide sufficient green and blue infrastructure on site. If this policy is taken forward, the Councils must confirm whether off-site provision would be acceptable, adopting a similar locational hierarchy to BNG, and whether financial contributions are an option. It is imperative for the Greening Factor threshold to be reasonable and to allow a degree of flexibility so that it does not risk rendering developments unviable due to ceding potentially substantial amounts of otherwise developable land to provide green infrastructure, which may be surplus to requirements. Proposals should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Overall, the policy direction and the Greening Factor seem poorly thought through and this needs to be carefully considered by the Councils moving forward.

Other

ID sylw: 107983

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy direction seeks to protect and enhance carbon sinks that are sequestering carbon above a certain threshold. The Councils are also considering requiring a net gain in carbon sequestration as part of developments. It is acknowledged that the Assessment of Carbon Sequestration and Habitat Baseline and Opportunities (March 2024) does suggest that the South Warwickshire authorities should consider setting a threshold, and that to maximise climate change resilience, environmental features that make contributions towards carbon sequestration should be protected.

However, this is likely to have a negative impact by potentially placing a constraint on development, particularly if the threshold is too low, as stated in the report (page 48), and the Councils should have regard to this. Moreover, it must be emphasised that the conclusions in the Assessment of Carbon Sequestration and Habitat Baseline and Opportunities (March 2024) do not recommend a policy requiring a net gain in carbon sequestration. At present, there is insufficient evidence to justify this policy, as suggested by the Councils in the policy direction itself, which does not propose a threshold due to the lack of green infrastructure evidence which exists to inform this.

Other

ID sylw: 107984

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

The policy direction states that there should be a presumption in favour of retaining existing trees and hedgerow on site. In the list of instances in which removal can be acceptable, the removal of low-quality trees and hedgerow which may be constraining development (i.e. those classified as Category C and Category U, which lack value and have a limited life expectancy) should be added, where this loss can be justified and compensatory planting provided. For example, removal may be necessary to create safe and suitable access into a site, or to make an efficient use of land, in line with the NPPF.

The Councils are also proposing that development will need to increase tree cover and be supported by a tree canopy assessment. The policy should recognise that there may be sites and types of development for which scope to increase tree cover is very limited, or not feasible at all. As such, whilst a policy encouraging proposals to include new tree planting is supported, this should not be mandatory.