Other

Representation ID: 95246

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

Broadly agree but not entirely. Comments as lodged against DPD38 apply.
It would be no consolation for the community living next door to the appalling pollution from the waste site in Staffordshire if the operators were able to buy permits for another totally different and remote location thereby being allowed to carry on depositing waste.
(This example has an alternative connotation now that the site operator has entered financial liquidation)

Other

Representation ID: 95345

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Tallen

Surely a better solution would be addressing the cause of carbon emissions, i.e. number of cars in an area etc rather than putting a sticking plaster over it which 'carbon sequestration' feels like? Better public transport and incentives for people to use it would be more effective?

No

Representation ID: 95471

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cuff

It is unclear how this will deliver wider connecting corridors which are more substantial than the proposed small scale on-site improvements. The councils should update their Green/Blue Infrastructure evidence base, in line with the NPPF and in time to influence chosen housing sites in the Local Plan.

No

Representation ID: 95530

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Freeman

It is unclear how this will deliver wider connecting corridors which are more substantial
than the proposed small scale on-site improvements. The councils should update their
Green/Blue Infrastructure evidence base, in line with the NPPF and in time to inuence chosen
housing sites in the Local Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 95966

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Yes

No

Representation ID: 96087

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Kashap

No. It is unclear how this will deliver wider connecting corridors which are more substantial than the proposed small scale on-site improvements. The councils should update their Green/Blue Infrastructure evidence base, in line with the NPPF and in time to influence chosen housing sites in the Local Plan.

No

Representation ID: 96127

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Collier

It is unclear how this will deliver wider connecting corridors which are more substantial than the proposed small scale on-site improvements. The councils should update their Green/Blue Infrastructure evidence base, in line with the NPPF and in time to influence chosen housing sites in the Local Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 96362

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

Southam Town, District and County elected representatives support this Policy Direction.

Yes

Representation ID: 96511

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

Words used seem to suggest this is a future intention.

No

Representation ID: 96627

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

Need to take in to account wider connecting corridors. Not isolate widlife in small area.

Other

Representation ID: 96874

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

The proposed development in site BW could not contribute positively to the natural environment which in this case consists of 329ha of agricultural land, hedges and trees. It is already a habitat for a variety of animals and plants as well as agricultural crops totally within the Green Belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 97077

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

This approach is agreed by Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’).

Yes

Representation ID: 97103

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Yes

No

Representation ID: 97184

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sir Thomas White’s Charity and The King Henry VIII Endowed Trust, Warwick

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Whilst paragraph 187 of the Framework requires planning policies and decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment there is currently no requirement, or indeed reference, to Environmental Net Gain at a national level.
The Draft Policy Direction provides no justification for the inclusion of an ENG policy, nor any information about how such a policy would function in practice. There are no other examples of adopted Local Plan policies requiring ENG or any well-developed metric for measuring ENG. It is likely to harm viability, duplicate BNG requirements, cause longer lead-in times and the uncertainty could delay the deliverability of sites. As such this policy direction should be removed from the emerging Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 97212

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

Other

Representation ID: 97409

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

Godwin Developments note the policy direction suggested in Direct Policy 39 however it is strongly advised that further work in undertaken to justify the inclusion of such a policy. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is supportive text within the NPPF (Para 187) it is also noted that this is an emerging area of policy which has limited coverage in other local plans.

Other

Representation ID: 97455

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Turner

You aim to have a policy of environmental net gain, without any commitment. Not good enough!

Yes

Representation ID: 97738

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Such a policy is fine but development on site BW of 6700 houses cannot contribute positively to the natural environment consisting of open fields, hedges and trees.

Yes

Representation ID: 97932

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

no comment

Yes

Representation ID: 98411

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Newbould

na

No

Representation ID: 98510

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Flynn

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Whilst paragraph 187 of the Framework requires planning policies and decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment there is currently no requirement, or indeed reference, to Environmental Net Gain at a national level.
The Draft Policy Direction provides no justification for the inclusion of an ENG policy, nor any information about how such a policy would function in practice. There are no other examples of adopted Local Plan policies requiring ENG or any well-developed metric for measuring ENG. It is likely to harm viability, duplicate BNG requirements, cause longer lead-in times and the uncertainty could delay the deliverability of sites. As such this policy direction should be removed from the emerging Plan.

No

Representation ID: 98695

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ginny White

I don't think Policy 39 goes far enough. Our wildlife is under huge pressure already and the proposed small scale on-site improvements are not enough to provide the wider ranging connecting corridors to support and nurture local species. I would like to see the Green/Blue infrastructure evidence base updated in line with the NPPF in time to influence chosen housing sites in the Local Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 98975

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswold District Council

Support - will you also consider soils as the ENG framework is developed.

Yes

Representation ID: 99129

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

This emerging policy feels like work in early progress. Research needs to be done on other authorities that have introduced similar policies. It will be important to avoid overlap with DPD 38 (BNG) so as not to increase the burden on developers through duplication. A clear definition of how ENG goes above and beyond BNG is important as is how ENG will be measured.

Yes

Representation ID: 99664

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

yes

No

Representation ID: 99740

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Stone -Johnston

While Environmental Net Gain (ENG) expands the scope beyond biodiversity, its effectiveness remains questionable. The holistic approach, though comprehensive, risks oversimplifying the complexities of ecosystems by focusing on broad metrics like air and water quality without fully addressing the root causes of environmental degradation. In practice, these broad measures may fail to produce meaningful improvements in local ecosystems, particularly in the short term. Additionally, ENG’s reliance on carbon sequestration as a starting point can overshadow more pressing concerns, such as habitat destruction and species loss, which need urgent attention before long-term solutions can be fully realized.

No

Representation ID: 99931

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Simpson

It is unclear how this will deliver wider connecting corridors which are more substantial than the proposed small scale on-site improvements. The councils should update their Green/Blue Infrastructure evidence base, in line with the NPPF and in time to influence chosen housing sites in the Local Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 99949

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Coulsting

I believe the Draft Policy Direction –39- Environmental Net Gain is a postive policy

Yes

Representation ID: 100421

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

I absolutely agree with the approach laid out

Other

Representation ID: 100477

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Carbon sequestration is not the answer to increased carbon footprint. Improving access to public transport and building the infrastructure for rail and other alternatives must be considered.