Minutes:
The Planning Policy and Projects Manager (PPPM) explained that the Green Infrastructure Strategy (GIS) was a supporting document for the new Local Plan, underpinning its policies and objectives to 2040, as well as the actions of the Dover District Climate Change Action Plan. The Senior Natural Environment Officer (SNEO) presented the report and gave a presentation, advising Members that the GIS covered all the natural environment features of the district and identified the needs and opportunities across the district to protect, enhance and invest in green infrastructure. It also sought to ensure that there was a collaborative and integrated approach to planning for green infrastructure in new developments. Under the Environment Act 2021, there was a statutory duty on all Local Planning Authorities to achieve 10% net gain for biodiversity; this would be the subject of a supplementary planning document for the emerging Local Plan. It was proposed to take the GIS to Cabinet in the spring.
In response to Councillor N J Collor, the SNEO advised that the evidence base for the GIS had been prepared with Officers and experts and acknowledged that public engagement was needed. Councillor C A Vinson pointed out that if the document was due to go to Cabinet in March, with public consultation following that, the local elections in May would affect the publication of the adopted strategy. He was personally in favour of publishing the consultation document before the elections, but this was one of several issues that required discussions between now and May. Councillor S H Beer questioned the inclusion of improved health and wellbeing and sustainable places as outcomes of the GIS and Action Plan, arguing that these would involve a lot of work and be difficult to evidence. She suggested that it would be good to involve the towns and parishes.
Councillor N S Kenton lauded the scope of the GIS but considered some of the content to be rather vague and ‘woolly’. More detail would be needed before presenting the document to Cabinet and if things were to be moved on quickly. In response to comments, the SNEO clarified that measurement of biodiversity net gain was based on a Defra metric, and proximity to the development site was one of the criteria. If a developer was forced to go further afield or nationally, the cost to them would be much higher. The PPPM added that there was a legal requirement for 10% biodiversity net gain, and the developer would be required to fund management and monitoring costs for a minimum of 30 years. In respect of Council resources, the SNEO advised that it was important to identify whether and how an outcome could be taken forward before confirming any actions associated with its delivery.
The Head of Commercial Services confirmed that his team was doing what it could to ‘green’ the infrastructure for which it was responsible, such as not mowing grass verges. Councillor Kenton asked whether there was confidence that developers would cover the costs of biodiversity net gain over 30 years, suggesting that they should be made to pay upfront or residents would end up covering ongoing costs. The PPPM indicated that the supplementary planning document would probably need to cover such matters. Councillor Vinson commented that there was a lot of detail to be ironed out, including regarding consultation.
RESOLVED: That the report and presentation be noted.