No

ID sylw: 106435

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Porterbrook Mid Leasing Company

Asiant : Planning Prospects

Porterbrook supports the draft policy in principle but the policy must include flexibility so that its criterion are only applicable to relevant types of large scale renewable energy generation and storage and where necessary for certain development sites. This is because some proposals for large scale renewable energy generation will be contained within previously developed sites and will not impact upon open countryside or result in adverse impacts on the local environment, landscape character, local amenity or local communities, and as such should not be required to provide wider community benefits by way of mitigation. Similarly, it would not be appropriate in all instances for all land around every renewable energy facility that is currently not used for agriculture to deliver carbon sequestration benefits and to protect local ecosystems, habitat or enhance biodiversity over and above the statutory requirements that would already be applied to relevant development in any event. Generally speaking, parts A. And B. Of the draft policy are supported and should be encouraged in accordance with sustainable development principles which underpin planning policy in any event. Part C. However will not apply to all proposals for large scale renewable energy generation and storage as in some instances the energy generated will be needed by those proposing the energy generation and storage in the first instance. In such circumstances, there should be no requirement for profit sharing or community ownership etc. As this will not be possible and would represent a planning policy burden that is unnecessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, not directy related to the development proposed and would not be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development proposed. For similar reasons, the wording after ‘cessation’ should be removed from part D. Of the draft policy as in some instances any large scale renewable energy generation and storage proposals would comprise an ancillary use to a wider principal use at a site and therefore there would not always be a requirement to restore the site to an original or alternative use.

Yes

ID sylw: 106436

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Porterbrook Mid Leasing Company

Asiant : Planning Prospects

Porterbrook supports the identification of the long Marston rail innovation centre as major investment site (mis.3). With over 15km of sidings and a unique 3.5km test track loop, as well as 24-hour site security, the long Marston rail innovation centre supports owners and operators managing rail rolling stock of all types. It has a long history of supporting the delivery and introduction of new trains and rail technology onto the national railway and offers both passenger and freight operators the space to test in a live environment, connected to the mainline and supported by an experienced workforce. There is no other circular test rail track of this type in existence in the uk meaning Porterbrook has the unique opportunity to provide and improve the long Marston rail innovation centre facility in support of the UK’s railway. In short, the rail innovation centre at long Marston is an invaluable local and national asset for the railway to test and trial new technologies prior to their introduction to the operational network. Since taking over the operation of the rail innovation centre site in 2021, as a tenant Porterbrook invested over £13 million to modernise and enhance the facilities there. It has since acquired the site (in March 2024) and is investing further and significantly to support its modernisation and improved operation. This will include further significant investment to upgrade and electrify the test track loop, which was granted planning permission by Stratford-on-Avon district council in September 2024 and which Porterbrook is currently delivering. This additional investment will take the total invested by Porterbrook in the rail innovation centre to £75 million. Further investment and improvements are anticipated, and it is against this positive backdrop that the identification of the site as a major investment site (MIS.3) to safeguard the rail innovation centre for rail-based employment and research and development opportunities for intensification of the site is supported. Similarly, draft policy direction 14, which sets out to protect the MIS’ for employment uses and form the main focus for new employment development during the plan period, is also supported.

No

ID sylw: 106437

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Porterbrook Mid Leasing Company

Asiant : Planning Prospects

The draft policy direction requires all development proposals to achieve a minimum of 10% BNG (or any higher percentage mandated through local or national policy / legislation) unless a development is exempt. This duplicates the general biodiversity gain condition requirement (as set out in schedule 7a of the town and country planning act 1990 (as amended). In England it is mandatory (under schedule 7a of the town and country planning act 1990 (as inserted by schedule 14 of the environment act 2021) that developers must deliver a BNG of 10% unless the development meets one of the listed exemption criteria. This means that development (that is not exempt) will result in more of better-quality natural habitat than there was before the development. However, the draft SWLP policy direction 38 goes on to say that as work on the local plan progresses, the councils will explore evidence to seek a higher percentage of BNG above the statutory 10% requirement to achieve greater biodiversity benefits. The current requirement for a minimum of 10% BNG is already a significant barrier for some development proposals to achieve, and in some cases makes development unfeasible and unviable. With this in mind it would not be justified or effective for policy to require a higher percentage of BNG where the existing policy (and legislation) already enables a higher percentage where possible. In conclusion, Porterbrook considers that it is unnecessary for policy to require a higher % provision over and above the statutory requirement because the statutory requirement, and indeed the draft policy direction, already includes a minimum 10% net gain requirement and therefore allows a higher percentage of net gain in habitat provision where possible.

No

ID sylw: 106438

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Porterbrook Mid Leasing Company

Asiant : Planning Prospects

The draft policy direction sets out that Environmental Net Gain (ENG) is an approach to development that leaves the environment in a measurably better state than prior to development. It looks holistically across all ecosystem services, beyond just biodiversity, including air quality, water quality, climate resilience, etc. And addresses these in tandem to ensure an overall net gain in ecosystem services. It sets out that the broader scope, compared to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) alone, provides additional benefits for both the environment and people. The policy will require development proposals to contribute positively to the natural environment by enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services. The direction says that further work is required to develop a comprehensive ENG framework, but an initial focus on BNG and carbon sequestration will provide a solid foundation. Additionally, Porterbrook’s response to draft policy 38 (BNG) highlights that the current requirement for a minimum of 10% BNG is already a significant barrier for some development proposals to achieve, and in some cases makes development unfeasible and unviable. With this in mind it would not be justified or effective for the swlp to require a further policy requirement in the form of an ENG percentage. In conclusion, whilst further work is noted before a comprehensive ENG framework can be confirmed and developed, the draft policy direction, in seeking to deliver measurable improvements in biodiversity and ecosystem services (including carbon sequestration) is duplicating other policy requirements around BNG, air quality, water quality, climate resilience etc. And in doing so is adding another, and unnecessary, policy layer (or burden) which duplicates requirements that are already covered by other national and (draft) local policy, and legislation. As such it is not justified or effective

No

ID sylw: 106439

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Porterbrook Mid Leasing Company

Asiant : Planning Prospects

Draft policy direction 40 sets out to ensure that existing and new green and blue infrastructure (GBI) is considered and integrated into scheme design from the outset. It says that the functionality, accessibility and quality of existing open space should be reviewed and increased wherever this is possible and suggests that one mechanism to ensure that GBI is delivered is to produce a ‘greening factor’ for an area. It explains that a greening factor is a planning tool used to improve the provision of green infrastructure in an area. When applied to a development site, it provides a threshold for the total area of a site which is expected to be covered by an element of GBI. It is proposed that the GBI policy will provide a green factor for development across the south Warwickshire region and will provide direction in line with: • different greening factors will be calculated for major residential development, minor residential development and commercial development. This is to take into account of the significant pressure major residential development places on existing GBI • the delivery of a greening factor on a site must be based on a baseline assessment of existing GBI, demonstrating that high value assets have been retained and enhanced where appropriate. This must be supported by the submission of a long-term maintenance plan for major developments. The draft policy direction suggests that a site’s BNG contribution will also count towards the overall greening factor of a site and ecological enhancements will be expected to be delivered in line with findings of the listed evidence-based documents and designations. Whilst further work is noted, and required, to develop any greening factor framework, the draft policy direction seeks to deliver an additional policy layer (and burden) and duplicates other policy requirements, including around BNG (in particular). As such, at the very least, flexibility is necessary to deliver any GBI policy requirement as it will not be necessary or justified for all development.
Proposals (including major investment sites for example – which may include policy support for expansion and intensification but whose expansion and intensification would require use of land that is currently ‘green’ or ‘blue’). Additionally, Porterbrook’s response to draft policy 38 (BNG) highlights that the current requirement for a minimum of 10% BNG is already a significant barrier for some development proposals to achieve, and in some cases makes development unfeasible and unviable. With this in mind it would not be justified or effective for the swlp to require a further policy requirement in the form of a GBI policy. In conclusion, the suggested GBI policy direction represents an unnecessary duplication of local (draft) and national policy, and legislation. As such it is not justified or effective.

No

ID sylw: 106440

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Porterbrook Mid Leasing Company

Asiant : Planning Prospects

Draft policy direction 42 sets out that the councils will resist the loss of trees of value apart from where the tree is dead, dying or dangerous (i.e. where it is good arboricultural practice to remove). The draft policy direction includes a presumption in favour of retaining and enhancing existing trees, woodland and hedgerow cover on site and sets out that development will be expected to increase tree canopy cover, supported by a tree canopy assessment in line with guidance that is to be developed. Whilst it is noted that the draft guidance, that will support the suggested policy (direction), is a work in progress, the draft policy direction seeks to deliver an additional policy layer (or burden) and duplicates other policy requirements (around BNG in particular) and indeed duplicates arboricultural best-practice in any event. At the very least, flexibility is required for any policy to be effective, recognising that increasing tree canopy cover (for example) will not be necessary or justified in all developments proposals. Additionally, Porterbrook’s response to draft policy 38 (BNG) highlights that the current requirement for a minimum of 10% BNG is already a significant barrier for some development proposals to achieve, and in some cases makes development unfeasible and unviable. With this in mind it would not be justified or effective for the swlp to include a further policy requirement in the form of a tree canopy assessment (for example) where this is already required by policy in any event. In conclusion, the draft policy direction is duplicating requirements that are already included in other national and (draft) local policy, and legislation. As such it is not justified or effective.