No

Representation ID: 102964

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Nick Evans

There is no point in having a policy to protect sites if your planning enforcement team are not able to hold developers to account for failing to meet agreed mitigation / planning conditions.

No

Representation ID: 102982

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Bailey

Given the Ecological Emergency, the Local Plan should require very large-scale conversion of farmland for Rewilding. Existing farmland can be made more efficient for food production by switching to arable and using greenhouses. This is critical.

No

Representation ID: 103045

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jem Brown

This policy is not strong enough in its protection of our distinctive habitats and wildlife. It is very disappointing to see the ditching of the Wildbelt land - it is not clear how the LNRS will safeguard sites in recovery. Many of the developments outlined in this plan are sited on Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) or potential LWS or near to SSSIs. The plan needs to, and has the opportunity, to be on the side of nature - for the benefit of all.

Yes

Representation ID: 103049

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Bailey

The Local Plan should mandate widespread Rewilding, to tackle the Ecological Emergency.

Yes

Representation ID: 103360

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Stevens

Too many protected species in the Clopton Quarter-bordering a Nature Reserve is not the right place for new housing

Other

Representation ID: 103674

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Nicholas

More needs to be done to protect where we live. HS2 has negativily impacted on ancient woodland and wildlife. I have fewer wildlife in my garden and walking routes are blocked by construction and heavy machinery.

Yes

Representation ID: 103711

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Must be protected alongside greenbelt land for retention of biodiversity.

Yes

Representation ID: 103771

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

By prioritising sustainable, non-Green Belt sites, housing can be delivered responsibly—without destroying the countryside, harming biodiversity, or overwhelming local services.

Other

Representation ID: 103837

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Claire Jones

This doesn’t go far enough. All green space should be made to be nature friendly - verges to be turned over to meadow, more tree planting, etc

Yes

Representation ID: 103915

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

Agree - including PLWSs such as floodplain of rivers

Yes

Representation ID: 103951

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Amarjit Gill

We should protect areas where wildlife thrives and aim to create more local nature reserves to prevent further development

Yes

Representation ID: 104030

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Potter

The reports do not identify sites well. Thought should be given to previous Agricultural incentives which are long term habitats such as field margins. The BW site would remove the Sky Lark habitat created with public money via incentives on the south of the site. As described on the land owners website. Sky Larks have Red conservation Status in the UK, the reports miss this example and as such I expect these habitats have been over looked.

No

Representation ID: 104037

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Camille Newton

The policy doesn't provide detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, a large number of the allocations are next to and covering designated Local Wildlife Sites and potential Local Wildlife Sites, these should be adequately assessed to ascertain their current County Value. Additionally some of these important sites will need protection from proposed development with buffer zones.

No

Representation ID: 104158

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Clare Kimpton

There doesn’t seem to be enough detail given on how local wild life will be protected particularly their corridors of travel

Yes

Representation ID: 104258

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

The policy direction is good, though more detail is needed on the strategy for achieving the principles of ‘more, bigger, better, and joined up’. This should be expanded on, with reference to the idea of wildlife corridors.

Yes

Representation ID: 104347

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Rachel Pope

Please note the diversity of wildlife within SG06 (as outlined at www.ombparish.org.uk/the-green-belt). This area really supports this important principle and is one of the reasons why it should not be taken forward as an area for development.

Yes

Representation ID: 104654

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Consider more than protection. Development provides opportunities for creating such sites.
Offset practices, currently a favourite of developers, must be discouraged. Biodiversity must be protected locally.

Yes

Representation ID: 104667

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ruth McCormack

n/a

Yes

Representation ID: 104820

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

This is fine.

No

Representation ID: 104825

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Susan Hood

Policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 104831

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

agree, for all to visit and see

Yes

Representation ID: 104954

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Fern Arnold

Yes Protection of sites is so important. Although we do have some great green areas, Wildlife trust land and National Trust, etc we need to protect these areas and add more. All new developments and redevelopment needs green spaces and Wildlife corridors included. Space for Nature, swift boxes, holes in fences for hedgehogs.

Yes

Representation ID: 105006

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Susan Ingleby

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 105009

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: H Crook

to safeguard our environment we need to protect our areas of nature.
Climate change and development is already damaging wildlife, and habitats and the whole ecosystem. If our eco-system is damaged our own populations health and welfare is damaged.
The UK , and especially west midlands is already nature-depleted, and so areas must be protected.
All mature trees and hedgerows and grasslands must be protected as will take decades to be grown from new plantings.
New plantings (as mitigation) usually fail as are not watered in dry weather. SO must protect what we already have.

No

Representation ID: 105302

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

No. The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 106662

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Property and Development Group

Agent: Framptons

The proposed policy direction is consistent with the NPPF and provides an appropriate approach to protecting and enhancing existing ecological assets across South Warwickshire.

Other

Representation ID: 106770

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: ms louisa graham

New developments will produce further noise and smell with impacts on wildlife and air quality for residents of extended development.

There will be an adverse impact on protected trees and hedges.

Other

Representation ID: 107174

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

“The Policy will cover … Local Wildlife Sites, including potential, and in certain instances rejected ones.”

The subsequent policies need to maintain a distinction between adopted and rejected sites (depending on the reason for rejection) to ensure a distinction is maintained between the two in the hierarchy. Without this, the importance of adopted sites would be diminished if both allocated and unallocated sites were treated as carrying the same weight.

“… Sites not yet subject to formal designation but known to make a positive contribution to biodiversity and/or geodiversity”

Policy needs to be very clear about what making a contribution would look like in the absence of a formal allocation – lack of definition could make it difficult to establish what weight to give this aspect when decisions are made at application stage.

Other

Representation ID: 107277

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Overall, the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board agrees with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 36.
However, with regards to irreplaceable habitats, the Board recommends that the following habitats should be explicitly classed as irreplaceable habitat, in line with Policy CE8 (Nature recovery and biodiversity) of the CNL Management Plan:70
i.
ancient and veteran trees;
ii.
ancient woodland (continually wooded since 1600);
iii.
ancient unimproved grassland (surviving since 1945);
iv.
ancient hedgerows (present since before the Enclosure Acts, passed mainly between 1720 and 1840).
We acknowledge that (iii) and (iv) are not included in the list of irreplaceable habitats in the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024.71 However, the list in the Regulations is not definitive and discussions with Defra are ongoing, at a national level, to try and secure the inclusion of these habitats within the Regulations. In the meantime, we consider that it would be good practice to align with Policy CE8 of the CNL Management Plan.

Other

Representation ID: 107340

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon District Social Inclusion Partnership

Accessible green and blue spaces are well understood to have therapeutic capacity in health and wellbeing terms and we believe that these should be protected and accessible and we agree with Draft Policy Direction-36,37,38,39, 40 and 42.