Comment

Representation ID: 1007

Received: 26/11/2024

Respondent: Shropshire Swift Group

The spirit of para 11:30 is welcome but could be clarified further.
NPPG 2019 Natural Environment para 023 refers to swift bricks - a universal nest brick for small birds and a better solution than boxes.
Please ensure suitable numbers and locations by providing a reference to best practice guidance eg BS42021

Object

Representation ID: 1084

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Barberry Summerhill Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Following the enactment of the Environment Act there is now a statutory requirement to achieve 10% biodiversity net gain through new developments. This is now a statutory requirement irrespective of the need to appear in a Development Plan policy. Notwithstanding the above, we note that policy DLP 32 sets out a requirement that all development shall deliver a minimum of 10% net gain. As this is now a statutory requirement under other legislation we do not consider this is necessary in the policy.

The policy also sets out that biodiversity net gain should be provided with a preference to deliver it on site but acknowledging there may be instances where an off-site contribution has to be made if it is not possible to accommodate it within the development boundary. Whilst every effort would be made to achieve the requisite 10% gain on site the ability to do so is entirely dependent on the nature of the habitat that is present on site and which would be lost through new development. The achievement of biodiversity net gain on site, or through an off-site contribution, has the potential to affect the deliverability of development sites. This is because if biodiversity net gain is to be achieved on site this could reduce the amount of land available for development. Conversely, if a financial contribution was required off site, this would need to be paid irrespective of whether any other developer contributions were sought by the Council. This could have a direct impact on scheme viability in that there would only be a set amount of money available to deliver biodiversity net gain which could be at the expense of meeting other developer contributions. An applicant cannot choose to not meet its statutory obligations to deliver biodiversity net gain. Furthermore, there is no viability clause in the legislation that says if delivery biodiversity net gain would cause development to become unviable then it is not required. Meeting and delivering biodiversity net gain will have to take priority due to its statutory nature. This requirement could, therefore, have implications for the payment of other developer contributions particularly where viability of development is marginal.

Barberry object to Policy DLP32 on the basis that it repeats in policy matters (the 10% requirement) that are dealt with by other legislation. Barberry contend that this should be deleted from the policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 1096

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Swifts Local Network: Swifts & Planning Group

DLP32 and 11.30 are welcome but currently not sound, not effective nor consistent with national policy, lack of detail.

"bird / bat boxes and bricks" in 11.30 is vague, 'bat bricks" is term for bat access bricks for existing buildings rather than "integrated bat boxes" (e.g. refer to products www.nhbs.com), external bird boxes not national policy, no guidance referenced.

In summary, please amend 11.30, e.g.
"bird / bat boxes integrated into the building fabric, such as swift bricks which are a universal nest brick for small bird species, installed in accordance with best-practice guidance such as BS 42021 or CIEEM."

Comment

Representation ID: 1122

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

'Local' in this context needs to be defined. As well, the incentive for urban developments to deliver on-site net gain needs to be clarified as 11.32 states that on-site biodiversity improvements will be vital to enhancing the liveability of urban areas. BNG should be delivered on-site with no incentives for BNG delivery off-site, to support the delivery of Local Nature Recovery Strategy priorities, objectives, and measures. Nature’s recovery is at the heart of urban regeneration because this is key to good environments and healthy, prosperous, climate resilient communities.

Object

Representation ID: 1123

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Biodiversity Net Gain is now mandatory, and all public authorities have a duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity and must “have regard” to relevant local nature recovery strategies in the process (NPPF December 2023). This priorities should be clearly reflected in the Dudley Council Local Plan, and it should be clearly stated that developments which will negatively impact greenspaces and nature's recovery will be rejected except under extraordinary circumstances, with such instances requiring a local site assessment. See further implications in the full comment given.

Object

Representation ID: 1145

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

However, the phrasing of the draft policy is somewhat confusing in circumstances where part 1 refers to all development, and part 1a refers to the location of the development within the LNRN, but not all development will be within the LNRN. This might be remedied by adding the words, “if located within the Local Nature Recovery Network” to the beginning of part 1a of the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1170

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: St Modwen Homes

Agent: RPS

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

St Modwen Homes wishes to reiterate its previous response to Policy DLP32. Whilst it is helpful that Policy DLP32 acknowledges (part 1a) that development is permissible in the Local Nature Recovery Network (LNRN) including in circumstances where it will deliver benefits appropriate to that relevant zone in which the development is located.
However, the phrasing of the draft policy is somewhat confusing in circumstance where part 1 refers to "all development", and part 1a refers to the "locations within the LNRN", but not "all development" will fall within the LNRN. The Council have failed to remedy this policy by adding the words, "if located within the Local Nature Recovery Network" to the beginning of part 1a of the Policy.
St Modwen Homes is engaged with the West Midlands Combined Authority ('WMCA') in their preparation of a draft Local Nature Recovery Strategy ('LNRS') in early 2025. The WMCA are preparing a plan to understand how and where it prioritises nature projects across the region. St Modwen Homes are engaged on the short listing process of priorities and measures identifying potential opportunities in respect of Coombswood and the potential nature-based solutions in order to demonstrate a strategic area for Biodiversity Net Gain compensation and habitat banks.
Part 5a and 8 of the Policy should allow for BNG to be delivered through measures outside Dudley where this is most appropriate and locally relevant. This might include, for example, schemes at or close to the edge of the Borough boundary where more important gains can be made through interventions with and within the neighbouring authority areas.
Draft Policy DLP32 is unsound because in fails the four tests of soundness as per NPPF paragraph 35 as it it not positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1309

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This proposed policy duplicates existing national policy and legislative requirements. This policy should be reviewed by the Council in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 16 of the Framework, which requires polices to serve a clear purpose and avoid duplication. It is considered that the policy is unnecessary, given the mandatory requirements set out in national legislation, and therefore the Council should delete this proposed policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1324

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DLP32: Nature Recovery Network and Biodiversity Net Gain is considered unsound by the Home Builders Federation (HBF) due to a lack of alignment with national policy, insufficient justification, and ineffective implementation.

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Implementation: The Environment Act 2021 mandates BNG, which applies to large sites from February 2024 and small sites from April 2024. HBF stresses that the policy must fully reflect this legislation, national policy, and DEFRA guidance. The local plan should avoid repeating BNG guidance and should align with national standards.

10% BNG Requirement: HBF supports the Government's mandatory 10% BNG and advocates for clarity in the policy, suggesting it should explicitly state "10%" rather than "at least 10%" to provide certainty for developers. Any higher BNG requirements should be evidenced and assessed for viability.

Viability Considerations: The costs of BNG must be clearly included in the whole plan viability assessment, and HBF warns that costs related to BNG, both financial and land-related, should not hinder housing delivery. They highlight uncertainties around off-site credits and the need to monitor emerging costs.

Phased Development: For large, phased sites, BNG must be delivered at the end of the project, which may affect individual phases' BNG performance. HBF suggests clearer guidance on how BNG should be handled for phased developments.

BNG and Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS): The plan should be adaptable to future LNRS developments. HBF recommends that the plan be regularly reviewed as the LNRS progresses to ensure alignment with both documents.

Environmental Hierarchies: HBF calls for clearer differentiation between the mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, mitigation, compensation for harm to habitats) and the BNG hierarchy (on-site, off-site, and statutory credits), to avoid confusion in the policy's implementation.

Impact on Housing Density: BNG requirements will reduce available land for housing, potentially affecting housing densities. HBF suggests that larger or additional sites may be required to accommodate both housing and BNG needs.

Overall, HBF stresses that the policy needs to better reflect national legislation and guidance, ensure adequate flexibility, and carefully consider the financial and logistical impacts of BNG on development.

Object

Representation ID: 1380

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Charles Church Homes

Number of people: 2

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This proposed policy duplicates existing national policy and legislative requirements. This policy should be reviewed by the Council in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 16 of the Framework, which requires polices to serve a clear purpose and avoid duplication. It is considered that the policy is unnecessary, given the mandatory requirements set out in national legislation, and therefore the Council should delete this proposed policy.

Support

Representation ID: 1405

Received: 21/11/2024

Respondent: National Trust

We are supportive of the revised approach to this policy whereby all development is required to deliver the objectives of the LNRS through the BNG requirements.
The National Trust is engaged in Local Nature Recovery Strategies and would be keen to discuss how National Trust land and initiatives, such as 8 Hills Regional Park, could contribute towards achieving the objectives of BNG and nature recovery.


We are supportive of the requirement for all development to deliver a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity value.

Object

Representation ID: 1448

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Claremont Planning Consultancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

**Summary:**

The proposed policy duplicates existing national policy and legislative requirements, making it unnecessary. According to Paragraph 16 of the Framework, policies should serve a clear purpose and avoid duplication. Given that the requirements are already covered by national legislation, it is recommended that the Council delete this proposed policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 1481

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Advocates for canals to be recognized as part of the local Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), playing a crucial role in species recovery strategies. Urge continued engagement in BNG policy development, aiming for canals to be considered as offsetting sites for biodiversity loss.

Object

Representation ID: 1614

Received: 12/12/2024

Respondent: Worcester Lane Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Following the enactment of the Environment Act there is now a statutory requirement to achieve 10% biodiversity net gain
through new developments. This is now a statutory requirement so there is no need for it to be included in a policy.
Notwithstanding the above, we note that policy DLP 32 sets out a requirement that all development shall deliver a minimum of
10% net gain.
In light of the statutory requirement for BNG as covered by other legislation WL do not consider the policy needs to stipulate
this. As such, we object to it not required. Rather than delete the requirement entirely could the policy be reworded to say that
delivery of BNG is required in accordance with the provisions of the Environment Act.