Issue and Options 2023

selected

selected

selected

No

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

Yes

Yes

Nothing chosen

Yes. River and canal corridors need prioritisation, together with consideration of river catchment areas as a whole, for example Finham Brook and its tributaries upstream from Kenilworth Castle. The starting point for prioritisation of locations should begin with an analysis of the natural geography, not the development that has already taken place.

Yes

The introduction to this chapter includes powerful aspirations (Strengthening green and blue infrastructure and achieving a net increase in biodiversity) but the challenge will be to incorporate these into the plan. It is important to understand that enhancing biodiversity is not a bolt-on extra after everything else has been decided, but should be hard-wired into the plan from the start. The plan should seek to consolidate criteria for the four specially designated areas (Areas of Restraint, Vale of Evesham Control Zone, Special Landscape Areas and Cotswold AONB) and bring these together with the consideration of the greenbelt. The aim should be to develop a consistent plan-wide approach with policies that can be unambiguously implemented by planners to protect special landscapes and enhance biodiversity. The areas of restraint are an important component of the current SDC plan, but do not feature in the current Warwick Plan. They should be retained in the new plan, whilst extending these principles into appropriate areas in Warwick District. There is also a need for a consistent approach to designating these areas within the framework of the nationally mandated greenbelt. The current greenbelt designation concerns issues of openness, inappropriate development and traffic generation. The new plan should extend these policies (possibly through definitions in the Areas of Restraint) to include biodiversity enhancement. Any development in the greenbelt / area of restraint should only be permitted (in addition to the other conditions) if there is a measurable increase in biodiversity. The Vale of Evesham Control Zone applies currently only to the specified area in Stratford District. This should be retained in the new plan, whether or not neighbouring authorities decide to retain the same conditions in their review of their plans. Furthermore a review should be undertaken to determine whether similar areas may be identified within Warwick District with particular consideration of the river catchment areas with a view to developing blue corridors and enhancing water quality. While special landscape areas are ‘not encouraged’ in national policy they have clearly been important in Stratford District and should be retained. Furthermore, the plan should consider the designation of similar areas in Warwick District in consultation with Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and other relevant landowners. Committing to a Biodiversity net gain not only on all new developments but across the whole of the Local Plan area. This goes beyond tree planting and must include a multivariate approach with appropriate environmental stewardship in agriculture and properly planned open spaces to provide for recreation and community use. The concept of Environmental Net Gain should be preferred to Biodiversity Net Gain as it includes air quality and water quality as well as biodiversity. However, carbon offsetting is still a very contested policy, with some arguing that some forms of offsetting allow developers to avoid their obligations to the areas they are developing while blighting other areas where the offset is applied - for example planting non-native trees on high-grade agricultural land, sometimes many miles from the development site. Other types of offsetting, for example committing to retrofitting existing houses, make more sense. Definitions of offsetting need to be tightly drawn in the plan to prevent ‘greenwashing’. ‘Natural Capital’ is another concept of concern, as it tends to reduce the natural world to monetary values. If a value is assigned to, say, a woodland, there is a danger that a road that destroys the woodland may be ascribed a higher value, and therefore the woodland goes. Only if natural assets are ascribed a non-negotiably high value can areas rich in biodiversity be preserved. The plan should reference the lessons of the Economic Review of Biodiversity: the Dasgupta review (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/957292/Dasgupta_Review_-_Abridged_Version.pdf) before settling the policy in this area. Wildbelt designations should be introduced and prioritised. Advice should be sought from Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and other conservation organisations (like Plantlife) in order to identify appropriate areas for action. These should include but not be limited to current WWT reserves and also crucially focus on blue and green corridors to connect existing and planned reserves. These should be mapped out before any new roads or other transport routes are agreed. The Minerals Plan is the responsibility of the County Council and therefore outside the scope of the SWLP. The policy in the current WDC plan to prevent sterilisation of resources should be retained. In addition there is need for a policy to require developers extracting minerals (e.g. through quarrying) to restore and rewild areas within a specific time-frame where extraction has been completed. The current policies safeguarding sites of national importance in both the Stratford District Council Core Strategy (CS.6) and Warwick District Local Plan (NE2) should be reviewed for consistency, revised as necessary and retained. As far as possible the current EU directives such as the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive should be retained, even if the legislation supporting them is abolished by Parliament. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore nature and enhance biodiversity in South Warwickshire. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to make the changes which are essential to meet the ecological and climate crises.

Yes

Many offsetting schemes are dubious. Therefore any offsetting should be in the form of renewable energy production (such as solar panels on roofs) or reduction in energy use (retrofitting) in south Warwickshire.

The information provided on carbon sequestration is correct but there needs to be a separate section on Offsetting. Offsetting policies will be very important most especially to ensure that they are not abused by developers. There is no definition of Offsetting in the Glossary and this must be addressed. Carbon emission offsetting is quite a wide subject and takes a number of forms: Trees; Off-site renewable energy; Retrofit of existing properties off-site to reduce carbon; etc. Carbon emission offsetting is necessary for specific new build categories such as flats, office buildings, industrial buildings where on site renewable energy is not possible. Carbon emission offsetting should NOT be used for low rise new residential dwellings where all of the energy requirements must be matched by on site renewables.

1. Require 50% affordable homes for all developments of more than 10 homes. 2. Remove exemptions such as for student accommodation (if necessary the affordable homes have to be provided at another location within the district), and 3. Extend the provision of affordable housing by the District Councils.

selected

selected

selected

Require all new major developments to have a masterplan agreed in advance which must include suitable specialist needs for older people.