No

Representation ID: 91862

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Hanno Kirner

Protecting existing green areas a priority

Yes

Representation ID: 91911

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Donna Goodwin

Research shows that developers aren’t implementing the ecological and biodiversity enhancements they originally claim to. Article reference: https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/lost-nature-report/ . Supporting the existing biodiversity, safeguarding and supporting areas of higher biodiversity already in existence is crucial

No

Representation ID: 92103

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Dee McGowan

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: 92151

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Patricia Scott

Why is there no reference to grey water systems? every new development should incorporate grey water systems to reduce the use of drinking water for such things as washing cars, watering gardens and flushing toilets.
Green space needs to be available for wildlife corridors to create connectivity between the diminishing populations of our wildlife. This draft policy seems to imply that green space is mostly about what it delivers for humans. What about the needs of our depleted natural environment?

Other

Representation ID: 92263

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Isobel McLauchlin

Safeguarding and supporting areas of high biodiversity that already exist is essential - I have read research (wildlifejustice.org- lost nature report) which shows that developers do not implement the ecological and biodiversity enhancements that they claim to.
We have to protect our green spaces.

Other

Representation ID: 92346

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr G Wyatt

Where developments require the loss of more mature trees/hedgerows, the mitigation is often of a poor level. Trees planted often die and are not replaced, etc., as observed in Radford Semele. the mitigation does not work. How can the management of replacement trees be enforced within the framework?

Yes

Representation ID: 92501

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree

Other

Representation ID: 92654

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

No comment

Yes

Representation ID: 92656

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Yates

A significant contribution (to be quantified by planners)should be part of the plan

Yes

Representation ID: 92686

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Phillip Johnson

I strongly agree on the need to properly manage the ecological environment. This should include habitats for wildlife, enhancing health and wellbeing outcomes in an area by providing space for recreation, and building resilience to a changing climate including flood control and preventing urban heat islands.

Yes

Representation ID: 92703

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Heidi Ambrose-Brown

n/a

Other

Representation ID: 92834

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Stacey

There is little evidence to show that developers keep promises to enhance landscapes after development. The only way we can ensure sustainable levels of biodiversity is to protect what we currently have.

Yes

Representation ID: 93012

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dominic Momcilovic

I support existing biodiversity which is high importance.

Other

Representation ID: 93206

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Martina Hunt

Supporting the existing biodiversity, safeguarding and supporting areas of higher diversity already in existence is crucial. Research shows that developers are not implementing the ecological and biodiversity enhancements they originally committed to and claimed to. Reference: https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/lost-nature-report/

Yes

Representation ID: 93329

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr geoff marston

no more to comment

Yes

Representation ID: 93392

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Haggarty

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 93479

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vivien Haggarty

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 93551

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

We agree with all these policy directions but they tend to be the last things that developers do and are either not done well or not at all so implementation needs to be monitored and the planning authority must ensure compliance. Planning approval should include penalties if developers do not do what they say they are going to do.

No

Representation ID: 93607

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr JAMES STEWART

I do not agree with this policy because protecting and enhancing existing biodiversity is far more effective than relying on promised enhancements that often go unfulfilled. Safeguarding areas with high biodiversity is crucial to maintaining ecological balance. Research shows that developers frequently fail to implement the biodiversity improvements they claim, with over 50% of “net-gain” commitments existing only on paper. This is a systemic issue and a regulatory failure. Instead of allowing further environmental harm, we must prioritize real conservation efforts. Source: Wild Justice Report

No

Representation ID: 93679

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Claire STEWART

I do not agree with this policy because protecting and enhancing existing biodiversity is far more effective than relying on promised enhancements that often go unfulfilled. Safeguarding areas with high biodiversity is crucial to maintaining ecological balance. Research shows that developers frequently fail to implement the biodiversity improvements they claim, with over 50% of “net-gain” commitments existing only on paper. This is a systemic issue and a regulatory failure. Instead of allowing further environmental harm, we must prioritize real conservation efforts. Source: Wild Justice Report

Yes

Representation ID: 93723

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Cllr David Armstrong

Yes, but note that green roofs clash with solar rooftop PV and rooftop PV should be the priority.

Yes

Representation ID: 93844

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Penny Gray

I'd support all this.

No

Representation ID: 94133

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Kelly

Supporting the existing biodiversity, safeguarding and supporting areas of
higher biodiversity already in existence is crucial. Research shows that developers aren’t implementing the ecological and biodiversity
enhancements they originally claim to. Article reference: https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/lost-nature-report/

Other

Representation ID: 94154

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Stafford Scott

Priority and thought should also be given to protecting areas of existing biodiversity. Developers often don’t fulfill the requirements so areas of important local nature and their surrounding wildlife corridors should be protected.

Other

Representation ID: 94162

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Holly Whittaker

Supporting the existing biodiversity, safeguarding and supporting areas of higher biodiversity already in existence is crucial. Research shows that developers aren't implementing the ecological and biodiversity enhancements they originally claim to. Article reference https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/lost-nature-report/

No

Representation ID: 94377

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Blandamer

It is crucial to support the existing biodiversity, safeguarding and supporting areas of higher biodiversity already in existence. Research shows that developers aren't implementing the biodiversity and ecological enhancements they originally claim to. Article reference: https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/lost-nature-report/
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: 94639

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Renny Wodynska

Plan states ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ will be tool to deliver biodiversity ambition /increased diversity of plant and animal life;there is nothing ambitious about current target of 10% net gain. This should be 20%. Other Councils have higher targets. I disagree with removal of Wildbelt Policy. Previous consultations state 80% of respondents supported Wildbelt Policy to designate land for nature recovery. LNRS are different from Wildbelt, latter would safeguard sites in recovery. LNRS is not a designation, and would NOT safeguard areas for nature.There is no updated Green/Blue infrastructure evidence base or detailed strategic policy looking at opportunities for wider corridors.

Other

Representation ID: 94955

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Ainsworth

Need to support the existing bio viversity, safeguarding and supporting areas already in existence is crucial.

Other

Representation ID: 95002

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

The manufacturing of the landscape and introduction of "green infrastructure" to replace assets that have been lost by development will result in additional maintenance costs that need to be carefully considered. Existing residents of the area should not see their council tax rise as a result of development in order to maintain those "green infrastructure" assets.

Other

Representation ID: 95078

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Grimes

As costs escalate with newer developments, the first to suffer with cost cuts will be the developers committments to ecology and biodiversity which is always the first to go. Developers guarantees are no longer worth the paper they are written on.