Objective 6. Natural environment

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5626

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Ms Caroline Pick

Representation Summary:

CPRE Leicestershire supports this policy.

Full text:

CPRE Leicestershire supports this policy.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6294

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Richard Beer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The proposed development at Burnmill Farm put the Ridgeline at risk and the coniferous tree screen planted by the farmer is incompatible with the local environment and should be replaced before any development is allowed.

Full text:

The proposed development at Burnmill Farm put the Ridgeline at risk and the coniferous tree screen planted by the farmer is incompatible with the local environment and should be replaced before any development is allowed.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6479

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

The contents of the Harborough Local Plan Proposed Submission do not appear to be trying to comply with this objective.

Full text:

LRWT agree with the contents of this objective. However, the Harborough Local Plan Proposed Submission does not appear to be trying to comply with this objective - it should aim for net gains of biodiversity and all of the aspirations in objective 6. The rest of the Harborough Local Plan Proposed Submission does not appear to be sufficient to live up to the wording on objective 6; it appears to be aiming for 'not net loss' which is not sufficient for a District that is 'relatively poor in biodiversity and geodiversity terms' (from Harborough the Open Spaces Strategy 2016 to 2021). See paragraphs 114 and 117 of the NPPF.

The Harborough Local Plan should be 'planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure', (NPPF paragraph 114). To do this they should be aiming for a net gain in biodiversity - creating habitats. Existing habitats should also be managed appropriately. They should also 'identify and map components of the local ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them and areas identified by local partnerships for habitat restoration or creation; promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations, linked to national and local targets, and identify suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity in the plan; aim to prevent harm to geological conservation interests' (NPPF paragraph 117). This is not just mapping what you have but looking at habitat networks and corridors, planning should include habitat mapping and habitat permeability modelling. This should all be actively promoted in the Local Plan, also biodiversity should be monitored to comply with the NPPF.