No

ID sylw: 108639

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 37 – Local Nature Recovery Strategy
10.2.
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: 108640

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 38 – Biodiversity Net Gain
10.3.
The Environment Act 2021 stipulates that developments must provide a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 10%. There is no need for a policy in the SWLP Part 1 which duplicates this statutory requirement; it would be sufficient and consistent with the NPPF to simply state that a net gain will be sought in accordance with the latest statutory requirements, which may change over the plan period.
10.4.
If the Councils seek to specify a requirement within the Local Plan which is greater than 10%, as implied in the policy direction, this will need to be fully supported by the latest evidence (including on plan viability) 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 the impacts on costs and viability which could arise from a requirement in excess of 10%
, and this should have been recognised in the SA. It also potentially requires more land to deliver the BNG, meaning that sites need to be larger. Taking these points into account, it is considered that the Council should not establish standards which go beyond the statutory requirements.
10.5.
Any biodiversity policy should be drafted to provide as much flexibility as possible. The policy direction does recognise this, which is supported. The test is whether the 10% is delivered, not the method by which it is delivered. 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 given careful consideration and a pragmatic view should be taken in terms of the delivery mechanism of biodiversity enhancements.

Other

ID sylw: 108641

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 39 – Environmental Net Gain
10.6.
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 considered to be unjustified.

Other

ID sylw: 108642

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 40 – Green and Blue Infrastructure
10.7.
This policy direction encourages green and blue infrastructure (GBI) and proposes a Greening Factor for South Warwickshire, through which GBI will be delivered. 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 a degree of support for this policy, as it refers to 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 meeting the Greening Factor. However, the need to impose a numerical Greening Factor which
must be met lacks justification, with such a requirement not being explicitly recommended within the evidence, raising questions as to whether it is needed. The Greening Factor requirement must be justified for the policy to be sound.
10.8.
The policy direction makes no reference to how and where green infrastructure can be delivered to meet the Greening Factor, and no clarity is provided on what the approach would be in a scenario 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.
10.9.
It is imperative for any Greening Factor threshold to be reasonable and for there to be a degree of flexibility, so that this policy tool does not risk rendering developments unviable, due to having to cede potentially substantial amounts of otherwise developable land for much-needed homes 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 have not been justified through the Reg 18 Plan, and if to be promoted through the Reg 19 version, should be subject to the plan viability exercise, as they have the policy has the potential to materially add to development costs, especially for non-residential uses.

Other

ID sylw: 108643

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 41 – Carbon Sinks and Sequestration
10.10.
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.
10.11.
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: 108644

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 42 – Trees, Hedges, and Woodland
10.12.
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.
10.13.
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.

Yes

ID sylw: 108645

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 43 – Parks, Gardens, Food Growing, Open Space, and Local Green Space
10.14.
Broad support is provided in principle for the protection and provision of different typologies of open space, with support for this found within the NPPF. However, Paragraph 103 stipulates that planning policies relating to open space must be underpinned by robust and up-to-date assessments of need, and such assessments have not been undertaken to date. This is acknowledged to by the Councils noting that technical evidence is lacking to determine thresholds for open space provision. There is still a considerable amount of work required ensure that the evidence exists to formulate a fully justified and sound policy.
10.15.
Where open space cannot be provided on-site, the Councils propose that a contribution will be requested to enhance or provide open space within 400 metres of the development. There may not always be scope for this, and thus this figure should only serve as guidance; the policy should read “within 400 metres of the development where possible”. 10.16.
The policy direction states that multi-use games areas (MUGAs) will be requested as part of all major development sites. In line with the definition in the glossary of the NPPF, a major residential development comprises 10 dwellings or more; a development of 10 dwellings is unlikely to generate the need for a new MUGA. Therefore, the policy should be amended to clarify that this requirement is only applicable to larger-scale major development (e.g. 100+ dwellings), providing that the evidence on need exists to justify this.

Other

ID sylw: 108646

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 44 – Outdoor Sports and Leisure
10.17.
As with Policy Direction 43, further evidence is required to justify the content and inclusion of this policy, in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, with the Playing Pitch Strategy still yet to be completed. The policy direction’s commitment that the need for sports and leisure facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the type of scheme and the site is supported, over what would be an unnecessary requirement for all major residential schemes to deliver such facilities, when the need many not exist to justify this.

Other

ID sylw: 108647

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 45 – Areas of Restraint
10.18.
Designated Areas of Restraint already exist within Stratford District; these seek to protect areas that make an important contribution to the character of a settlement. A study to review and identify Areas of Restraint, and whether they are needed as a policy designation, needs to be carried out to provide the evidence for a justified policy.
10.19.
If Areas of Restraint are retained/designated, the policy should be clearer that these would not restrict development, as stated in the supporting justification, and that residential development of an appropriate design and scale would be permissible within them, providing that they do not harm the Area of Restraint, and subject to compliance with other development plan policies.

No

ID sylw: 108648

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 46 – Protecting the Cotswold National Landscape
10.20.
NPPF §189 already requires 'great weight' to be given to conserving and enhancing 'landscape and scenic beauty' in National Landscapes. It also requires "…development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.” The requirement for development within the 'setting' of National Landscapes to be sensitively located and designed renders the provision of a policy on this matter, with a proposed buffer,
unnecessary. National policy guidance seeks to protect National Landscape and their setting, and a policy on this matter would be repetitive and unnecessary.