Policy DM7 Environmental Net Gain

Support

Representation ID: 9264

Received: 27/07/2022

Respondent: Mrs Alison Myers

The threshold requiring net gain is set too low - especially for non - residential uses. All commercial developments should secure appropriate landscaping which contributes to the environment and local landscape character.

Comment

Representation ID: 9401

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership

We welcome this policy and the inclusion of Net Environmental Gain in addition to Net Biodiversity Gain. We highlight the fact that the Borough Council has signed up to the Arc Environment Principles, and therefore the target must be 20% BNG not 10%.
Planning applications must demonstrate the proposed BNG through a calculation based on the latest adopted version of the Defra Biodiversity Metric, while it is suggested that an appropriate mechanism (e.g. the Econometric tool) is used to demonstrate Environmental Net Gain. terminology must be completely clear and ensure that NEG is considered over and above BNG.

Comment

Representation ID: 9407

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership

We welcome this policy and the inclusion of an Environmental Net Gain requirement over and above BNG. Terminology must be clear, and ensure that this is understood. Furthermore, by signing up to the Arc Environmental Principles, a commitment of 20% BNG is essential.
BNG proposals must be demonstrated through a calculation based on the Defra Metric (latest version). ENG must also be demonstrated in any supporting statement using an endorsed methodology (e.g. the Econometric).

Object

Representation ID: 9442

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Prologis

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Please see attached report.

Comment

Representation ID: 9499

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: The Forest of Marston Vale Trust

We support the principle of of this policy, and moving from biodiversity net gain to a more holistic environmental net gain approach and policy requirement. Consideration should be given as to how environmental net gain is calculated, and we suggest that the Council investigate emerging tools such as the 'Ecometric' and ENCA.

In addition, it would be helpful to provide clarity and guidance on the interaction between policies, notably the interaction with the 30% tree cover requirement within the Forest of Marston Vale. Both policy requirements should be satisfied by development, without any trading off between these different environmental policies.

Comment

Representation ID: 9542

Received: 13/07/2022

Respondent: Ravensden Parish Council

Policy DM7 - Biodiversity Net Gain- will require major development to provide a minimum of 10% net gain. Within Ravensden, small scale development frequently leads to the loss of tree, hedge or shrubbery habitats of value for wildlife. The Parish Council would welcome a broader policy which requires all development to make a contribution to the natural environment, to avoid environmental loss. New trees and the planting of native species would enhance biodiversity and help to retain and enhance local character.
Protection of established and veteran trees needs to be given greater emphasis within the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 9648

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Thakeham

Thakeham welcomes the inclusion of an environmental net gain policy. Thakeham seeks to deliver biodiversity net gain across all our sites and from 2025 20% biodiversity net gain (an increase on the government’s mandated 10% minimum), and our developments in Bedford would be no different.

Comment

Representation ID: 9721

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Cloud Wing UK Ltd

Agent: Avison Young

Cloud Wing is supportive of the principle of Policy DM7. However, it has concerns that the wording of part iii) is inconsistent with national policy and requirements of the Environment Act which clearly allow biodiversity net gains to be delivered through a combination of on-site measures and off-site compensation. Part iii) of policy should be amended to reflect national policy and legislation and simply state “iii) through compensation off-site”.

Comment

Representation ID: 9747

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Kevin Levvit

8. I could not find any proposals in the plan to conserve the wildlife that inhabits the proposed areas in the rural parts of the Plan – locally there are foxes, badgers, muntjac and fallow deer as well as a large wild bird population. With the green spaces being turned into further concrete jungles, where in the plan does it state where the displaced animals are to reside?

Support

Representation ID: 9775

Received: 22/07/2022

Respondent: Environment Agency

We generally support policy DM7 Environmental Net Gain. We welcome the references to natural capital and the requirement for wider environmental net gains to be demonstrated as part of an environmental net gain plan. We also note the references to the OxCam LNCP and the Environmental Principles.

We have made some further observations and suggested amendments for the Council to consider below, to strengthen/clarify the policy or supporting text.


• The policy sets out the requirements for ENG and BNG for major development (e.g. 10 or more dwellings). Is the Council aware that Defra hasn’t ruled out BNG for smaller sites in latest consultation e.g. use of a small sites metric?

• The Policy requires a minimum of 10% BNG (although this is not yet mandatory) but the Council should consider whether they want to go beyond the 10% BNG outlined in the Environment Bill. The resultant policy should not encourage a race to the bottom when only 10% is delivered, when more than 10% can be achieved for the long-term benefit of people and wildlife in the district.

• It should also state that Biodiversity net gain should be submitted using the Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.0 or its successor (version 3.1 is being consulted on), but that ways of measuring Environmental Net Gain are currently being developed at a national level. The Defra BNG Metric requires each of the various habitat types within a development site to be enhanced by a minimum of 10%. The metric does not allow for the minimum 10% requirement to be an ‘averaged’ figure with some habitats being enhanced by more than 10% and some by less than 10%. The policy wording needs to reflect the metric requirements. The supporting text needs to make clear that whilst enhancement of habitat types by more than the minimum 10% will be very much encouraged, that cannot occur at the expense of another habitat type on site being enhanced by a minimum of 10%.

• We are pleased to see that the policy follows the mitigation hierarchy. It should be made clear that BNG is in addition to the standard requirements of the mitigation hierarchy i.e., avoid harm where possible, mitigate for the effects or compensate (paragraph 180 of NPPF).

• Suggest the policy references the need for a long-term monitoring and management plan of biodiversity net gain sites, whether within the development area or off site. Also should state that for the net gain sites to become established and effective, 30 years is a suggested period for monitoring/maintenance.

Comment

Representation ID: 9820

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Pertenhall & Swineshead Parish Council

Policy DM7 Environmental Net Gain – Relates to “major development” – unlikely to apply here.

Comment

Representation ID: 9851

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Wilden Parish Council

• Policy NE-1. We agree with a policy of Environmental Net Gain but this is incompatible with your support of a railway line that requires stations being demolished and rebuilt, new concrete multi-storey car-parks and new roads constructed, and extra miles of Bedfordshire countryside being dug up for railway tracks.
• A truly ‘Green Infrastructure policy’ is supported provided that it includes proposals to protect our natural resources. In particular this should include protection for the high-quality agricultural land within Wilden parish.

• We support Policy DM7, an attempt to improve Bio-Diversity net gain, but this should also include protection for older trees, not protected by TPOs, and existing hedges and shrubbery from uprooting and removal. These are important wildlife breeding sites. New planning permissions should include a requirement for the planting of native trees and shrubs in order to build up a true ‘Bio-Diversity’ policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 9868

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: CPRE Bedfordshire

Natural environment policies
34. Policy NE1 –Environmental Net Gain is welcomed but there remains unclear to us how the delivery of biodiversity net gain will work in practice.
Water & Sewage Supplies
35. Bedford Borough already has very serious water supply issues as recognised by the Environment Agency but nowhere in this Local Plan does BBC consider this issue.
36. It appears from other investigations undertaken by CPRE Bedfordshire, that Anglia Water has plans to alleviate the problem by diverting water from North Lincolnshire, which currently has a surplus, into the rivers of Bedfordshire. A highly undesirable action, as moving water from a river system with one ecosystem to another different one can cause very significant environmental problems. It would appear that no one in North Lincolnshire has been consulted on the matter.
37. CPRE Bedfordshire has serious questions about these matters;
• Which water area will receive water supplies in the very likely event of a water shortage due to Climate Change – North Lincolnshire or Bedfordshire?
• What happens if North Lincolnshire wishes to develop its industrial base?
• Isn’t this the reverse of the Governments much trumpeted “Levelling Up” process?
38. The Sewage System in Bedford Borough is also creaking at the seams and in need of massive investment just to keep the current housing stock properly serviced without polluting our River Great Ouse even further. Local Plan 2040 is silent about how this massive number of new homes will receive an environmentally sustainable sewage system.

Support

Representation ID: 9952

Received: 25/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM7 (Environmental Net Gain) requires proposals for major development to secure a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain.
IM Land support the inclusion of the draft policy, which is considered to be consistent with National Policy (paragraph 174 (d) of the NPPF) which requires net gains for biodiversity to be provided, and the emerging Environment Act. It is also noted that the requirement within draft policy has been evidenced as being viable within the supporting Viability Assessment (April 2022), which demonstrates that it would not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan overall.
A desk-based review of the Site has been carried out and suggests that the majority of the habitat comprises arable field, which is likely to be of relatively low ecological value. As such, a 10% net biodiversity gain is achievable.

Comment

Representation ID: 9959

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Bedfordia Developments Ltd and L & Q Estates Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

The principle of seeking biodiversity net gain is
supported. We welcome flexibility in the wording of this policy which reflects the ability
to provide net gain offsite should it not be possible on site. The policy should be further
updated for the purchase of biodiversity net gain credits as a ‘last resort’, the conditions
for which should be defined. This would be consistent with the Environmental Bill.
As raised in our Regulation 18 consultation representations, the policy in the blue box
focuses primarily upon biodiversity net gain. However, it requires the following:
“Planning applications should demonstrate how net
biodiversity and net environmental gain will be achieved
through the product ion of a supporting statement that considers the contribution the proposal could make to the
borough ’s natural capital.”
In the pretext to the policy under point 6.62, the following sum example is provided:
Environment a l net gain = biodiversity net g in + natural capital gain
This appears inconsistent with the policy which suggests the approach is: environmental
net gain + biodiversity net gain = natural capital gain.
It is unclear what ’environmental net gain’ means in the context of this policy and if this
requires more than ecological net gain measures. Paragraph 8 of the NPPF already defines
the environmental objectives of sustainable development as protecting and enhancing our
natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving
biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and
mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
Environmental net gain could therefore encompass several features leading to confusion
in the interpretation and application of this policy and ultimately its soundness. This will
inevitably lead to issues for decision makers when trying to apply the policy to
developments.
If the Council’s ambition is to secure greater levels of green infrastructure or green
corridors to boost natural capital in the Borough, we would suggest this is best set out in
a separate strategic policy, which is informed by a Green Infrastructure Study to identify
areas of deficiency and opportunity. As this is a Borough-wide issue it requires a more
planned, joined-up approach underpinned by evidence to maximise opportunities to
improve the natural capital of the area, rather than relying on individual site appraisals
that risk a more piecemeal, uncoordinated approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 10033

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: The Southill Estate

Agent: Carter Jonas LLP

SUPPORT

Policy DM7(S) seeks to secure a minimum 10% net environmental gain, which is consistent with the Environment Act 2021. The national 10% biodiversity net gain requirement has not become law yet, but it is likely to be mandatory within the next year or so and would apply to those draft allocations in PSBLP that are adopted.

The Southill Estate owns two parcels of land that are identified as draft allocations in PSBLP: land at Abbey Field West of Elstow site for residential development (Policy HOU 5); and land at Pear Tree Farm Elstow for a science and innovation park (Policy EMP 5). The sites are in agricultural use. The policies for both allocations include requirements that could support net environmental gains as part of the promoted developments. For example, criteria vii of Policy HOU 5 requires an assessment of ecological impacts of the promoted development, and criteria i(d) requires the promoted development to identify opportunities to include green infrastructure and to connect to existing networks. Criteria xi of Policy EMP 5 requires the submission of a wildlife and habitat survey with mitigation and enhancement measures for the promoted development, criteria vii requires the promoted development to include a green corridor, and criteria vi requires a contribution to the Forest of Marston Vale through tree planting on the site.

It is considered that the draft allocations at Abbey Field West of Elstow and at Pear Tree Farm Elstow would contribute towards the delivery of environmental net gains. Policy DM7(S) is supported and no changes are required.

Comment

Representation ID: 10055

Received: 28/07/2022

Respondent: Mr Richard Owen

An Environmental Net Gain is incompatible with your support of a railway line that requires stations being demolished and rebuilt, new concrete multi-storey car-parks and new roads constructed, and extra miles of Bedfordshire countryside being dug up for railway tracks, alongside increased air pollution in Bedford town centre caused by extra traffic to the Ashburnam Road station.
• Policy DM7 must include protection for older trees, existing hedges and shrubbery as important wildlife habitats. Planning permissions must reflect requirements for the planting of native trees and shrubs to support bio diversity.

Comment

Representation ID: 10274

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Central Bedfordshire Council

Natural Environment policies
13.6 CBC support the proposed new policy DM7 – Environmental Net Gain, which aims to increase overall Environmental Net Gain, over and above just Biodiversity Net Gain.
13.7 However, the supporting text alongside the policy references the Arc Environmental Principles, which all Local Authorities within the Central Area, including Bedford in June 2021, have signed up to. Whilst it is appreciated that the Government are no longer taking forward the Arc as previously anticipated, it is considered that the Environmental Principles are a robust foundation upon which to deliver environmental and biodiversity net gain.
13.8 It is therefore surprising that whilst proposed policy DM7 specifies a requirement to secure a minimum of 10% BNG in relation to major proposals, the policy or supporting text does not specifically make reference to the 20% ambition set out within the Arc Environmental Principles.
13.9 It is also noted that Policy DM7 does not apply to sites below 10 units or <0.5ha. As identified within our response to the consultation in September 2021, in relation to smaller development schemes that come forward, we would be interested to understand how will it be ensured that BNG and NEG will be addressed?

Support

Representation ID: 10294

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Roxton Parish Council

Section 6.67 – Environmental Net Gain:
RPC support the introduction of policy DM7; RPS request criterion (iii) should be expanded along the following lines:
(iv) Where off site measures are progressed then preference is to be given to suitable available site within 10miles of the development site first; followed by 20miles and thereafter in 10m increments. The applicant will be required to submit evidence justifying the distance of offsite enhancement measures.

Support

Representation ID: 10304

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Natural England

Policy DM7: Environmental Net Gain
Natural England welcomes the inclusion of a policy on environmental net gain, which helps to deliver the ambitions in the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan. We are pleased to see a strengthening of the wording around the enhancement or creation of off-site habitats where net gain cannot be delivered solely on-site, which now states “where it is not possible to deliver net gain solely on-site, there will be a requirement to enhance or create off site habitats”.

Object

Representation ID: 10312

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Cardington Parish Council

Agent: Cardington Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We do not consider that the Local Plan 2040 Submission Version addresses our concern, as expressed in our previous representations, that the impacts of further development on the health of rivers, watercourses, groundwater resources and the agricultural and natural ecosystems that depend on them, have not been adequately assessed.
We are re-presenting this concern because the world-wide climatic events this year, including the unprecedented heatwaves and drought in Europe, point to an acceleration in the advance of global climate change that would increase the vulnerability of natural water resources to the impacts of the water demands of development and accompanying infrastructure.
We are not looking to have the Local Plan 2040 thrown out at this stage. Rather, as we proposed in our last-round representation, that the situation regarding the Plan’s assessment of the possible impact of the development planned for on the future health of the natural water cycle is presented prominently in the relevant parts of the Plan.
The options as we see them for prominent statements within the Plan are;
1. that we have missed or misunderstood evidence presented in the supporting documents of the Plan that supports an assessment that the health of rivers, watercourses, groundwater resources and the agricultural and natural ecosystems that depend on them will be preserved or improved given the development proposed to 2040. If this is the case then the Plan should have a prominent statement that such an assessment has been carried out.
2. that an evidence-based assessment of the impact of the development proposed to 2040 on the health of rivers, watercourses, groundwater resources and the agricultural and natural ecosystems that depend on them is not available. In this case the Plan should have a prominent statement to this effect, together with a commitment to review the Plan’s development proposals in response to improved understanding of impacts on the natural water cycle, of the stresses on the water cycle of building development or of increasing stress due to accelerating climate change.
We trust that the Inspector will see the importance of adding clarity on this issue to the text of the Plan in signalling to its users and readers the extent to which this critical area of environmental impact is understood and how future change in both understanding and climate will be monitored as part of the Plan’s implementation.

Addendum;
Cardington Parish Council’s comments relevant to this issue submitted to the last Local Plan 2040 consultation, 2021, were as follows;

1. Para 7. Development management policies. 7.30 – 7.40 Natural environment policies.
We do not think that the Environmental and Biodiversity Net Gain approach, as currently formulated, treats the protection and enhancement of water resources adequately. Any further development of housing and the employment and transport infrastructure accompanying it will add to demands for water supplies, management of waste water and affect the pattern of flow of surface water to rivers, water courses and groundwater reserves. The additional infrastructure needed to satisfy the demand for water supply and manage waste water will additionally have an impact on water resources, particularly so in our already water-stressed region.
Cardington Parish Council has raised the need for a proper assessment of water resource impacts in every Local Plan consultation since 2002. With the evidence of steadily increasing climate change impacts on this crucial natural resource this is probably the last chance we have of recognising the issue and managing our response.
We urge that Local Plan 2040 either;
i) includes a detailed and authoritative analysis of what the impact of 25500 additional homes would be on the health of rivers, watercourses, groundwater resources and the agricultural and natural ecosystems that depend on them would be or
ii) admits that such an analysis has not been carried out and that the impacts of local Plan 2040 on water resources are unknown.

2. Policy NE1 – Environmental net gain.
This policy is fundamentally flawed in that it proposes to deliver Environmental Net Gain on a site-by-site management basis on the unfounded assumption that the end result of 25500 houses in 2040 can be achieved with an Environmental Net Gain.
As the Policy admits, achieving Environmental Net Gain may mean enhancing or creating off-site habitats. Other important environmental issues, which should also be listed in the Policy such as maintaining or enhancing water permeability, managing surface run-off and treatment of waste water, are also likely to require off-site measures. Similarly, building and infrastructure development standards cannot be left to site-by-site decisions but must be specified as a result of analysing what standards are necessary for the total development target.
The Plan must offer evidence that 25500 houses can be achieved with Environmental Net Gain and the protection of crucial resources such as water, together with minimum standards, specified through Policy NE1, that every development must comply with in order to achieve this. If it does not do this, a site-by-site management process alone runs the risk of demonstrating, sometime before 2040, that Environmental Net Gain and protection of water resources can only be achieved within a housing target less than 25500.

Support

Representation ID: 10376

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Party Bedford Borough Council

• The protection of green spaces has never been more important, something the COVID pandemic has made abundantly clear. We are pleased that parks, green spaces, golf courses (such as in Great Denham), and other areas of important ecological significance as well as green corridors across the rural and urban areas are explicitly protected in policy.

Object

Representation ID: 10395

Received: 29/07/2022

Respondent: FCC Environment UK Ltd

Agent: Axis PED Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DM7 – Environmental Net Gain – This policy only applies to major planning applications, no detail is provided regarding smaller sites and minor developments. Natural England have published additional information regarding the requirements for small sites within their January 2022 consultation document. This confirmed that they intend to take forward the option of a simplified biodiversity metric for developments on small sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 10534

Received: 26/07/2022

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Draft Policy DM7 (Environmental Net Gain) requires proposals for major development to secure a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain.
IM Land support the inclusion of the draft policy, which is considered to be consistent with National Policy (paragraph 174 (d) of the NPPF) which requires net gains for biodiversity to be provided, and the emerging Environment Act. It is also noted that the requirement within draft policy has been evidenced as being viable within the supporting Viability Assessment (April 2022), which demonstrates that it would not undermine the deliverability of the Local Plan overall.
A desk-based review of the Site has been carried out and suggests that the majority of the habitat comprises arable field, which is likely to be of relatively low ecological value. As such, a 10% net biodiversity gain is achievable.