CWT welcomes many of the Plan policies in principle such as those covering biodiversity and green infrastructure. We also welcome the reduction in the scale of Green Belt release compared with the earlier versions of the WLP.

CWT has significant concerns with the potential in-combination effects of the scale of development proposed in the Mersey Valley Corridor (a key green infrastructure opportunity area identified in the WLP) and South East Warrington. Warrington Waterfront (MD1), South East Warrington Urban Extension (MD2), Fiddlers Ferry (MD3), the South East Warrington Employment Area (MD6) and the Warrington Western Link (WWL) all have the potential to cause significant in-combination effects to a range of important ecological features throughout and beyond Warrington. Most notably this includes the internationally designated Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, it?s assemblages of qualifying bird species and the habitats and land that are functionally linked to the main site.

CWT has objected to the current proposals for HS2 (phase 2B) due to the disastrous impact that they would have on biodiversity. In our view the alignment and design of HS2 phase 2B will require a complete rethink if it is to comply with national policy and emerging legal duties concerning biodiversity set out in the Environment Bill.

Whilst CWT welcome relevant WLP policies in principle, there are places where the Plan wording could be strengthened to better reflect national policy. For example, Policy DC4 and other relevant policies could in our view more simply and precisely require all development to follow the harm avoidance, mitigation and compensation hierarchy set out in national policy (NPPF paragraph 180a). It also needs to be made clearer that, in line with emerging statutory duties, development proposals in all locations will be expected to deliver or contribute to a measurable net gain in biodiversity. These are important issues which should be addressed to make the Plan more effective. In light of the recent significant changes to national nature conservation legislation and policy, CWT recommend that new nature conservation policies in this draft Local Plan take into account the contents of the Environment Act which recently received Royal Assent, or risk being out of date very early in the proposed plan period. As per the NPPF (2021) Paragraph 22; strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from adoption. With the Environment Act having received Royal Assent and with little to no reference to its content around Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS), Nature Recovery Networks (NRN) and strengthened biodiversity duties on local authorities, WLP Policies DC3 and DC4 are unlikely to be fit for purpose for a 15 year period from adoption. CWT strongly recommend new supplementary planning guidance be drafted to help implement BNG measures. The Council will need to identify delivery partners, establish a mechanism to ensure that BNG is fully transparent and accountable and ensure that the Good Practice Principles and British Standards have been adhered to. CWT recently contributed to Cheshire East Council?s draft BNG SPD and would be keen to assist Warrington Council with this as well.

CWT is extremely disappointed that the list of key issues to be addressed fails to mention the ecological or climate emergencies. These are fundamental challenges affecting Warrington, with the impacts of climate change potentially more significant than elsewhere due to the proximity to the River Mersey. There is significant precedence of these issues being incorporated into the heart of neighbouring Local Policy, including the draft Wirral Local Plan, Greater Manchester?s ?Places for Everyone? and Cheshire West & Chester?s recently published draft Land Action Plan and their exclusion is extremely short-sighted. The list of key opportunities listed in paragraph 2.2.4 fails to include investment in the recovery of nature or investment in the green economy.

The text in the vision box itself is lacking in ambition as it fails to reflect the urgency of tackling the climate and ecological emergencies before 2038 or the need to achieve a substantial and widespread net gain in biodiversity.

There is no objective specifically to protect and enhance existing biodiversity assets and green infrastructure, provide a measurable and widespread biodiversity net gain or implement nature based solutions to climate change. Biodiversity and multi-functional Green Infrastructure (GI) are fundamental place making issues which should govern the location (as well as the design) of new development and also guide public, private and third sector investment.

The key diagram lacks key environmental assets and therefore in our opinion downplays their importance in the context of the WLP. For example, it could be changed to include designated sites of nature conservation or the strategic green links referred to in Policy DC3.

See detailed comments on the allocation policies. This may result in a reduction in the number of homes delivered across Warrington and therefore this section (and any subsequent sections) referencing the number of homes or areas of commercial/industrial floor space to be delivered should be revised in line with any revisions to specific allocations.

The NPPF is explicit that previously developed land, treated as synonymous with brownfield, should be prioritised for development ?except where this would conflict with other policies in this Framework, including causing harm to designated sites of importance for biodiversity? (NPPF Para 119 ? footnote 47). As well as designated sites this clause refers to sites that: Form part of GI or ecological networks; form wildlife corridors and stepping stones; have been identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation; support protected and priority habitats and/or species; when developed will cause significant harm to biodiversity amongst a significant number of other considerations. The development of the Fiddlers Ferry site will cause harm to at least two locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity (Upper Mersey Estuary Local Wildlife Site and the St Helens Canal disused LWS) and may potentially cause harm to the internationally designated sites further downstream (Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar).

Brownfield sites of high environmental value can deliver alternative multi-functional GI benefits (as per NPPF Para 120b) and therefore an alternative strategy to the development of these sites should be investigated as a matter of priority.

In line with our detailed comments on the Fiddlers Ferry allocation, CWT do not believe that the current proposals will result in a ?major ecological resource?.

CWT broadly supports the densities sought in Policy DEV1 (clauses 5 and 6), as they will help to achieve an efficient use of land. However, in some cases lower densities are needed to protect and/or achieve a net gain in biodiversity.

CWT support the requirement in clause 6 of the Policy that existing allocated sites be protected for employment use as this should reduce the pressure for development elsewhere. However, CWT has concerns about the scale of employment development proposed (which appears to be largely justified on the assumption that past trends will continue) and the implications that this could have for tackling the climate and ecological emergencies.

CWT supports the statement in clause 2 of this policy that the Council will plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt.

CWT supports clause 11 as this seeks to deliver compensatory improvements to the Green Belt. However, to be fully effective, it needs to be amended.

In line with comments on the development of brownfield sites that would conflict with policies in the NPPF, including causing harm to designated sites of importance for biodiversity, CWT believe the Council has not correctly considered the requirement to make as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land (as per NPPF Policy 141).

CWT supports clause (7b) of the Policy which requires that development proposals in the town centre should enhance the public realm and environmental quality of the area.

In line with our previous comments on HS2, CWT object to clause (3g) of this policy.

In line with our previous comments on the Western Link, CWT object to clause (2d) of this policy. The Warrington Western Link (WWL) is likely to contribute to potentially significant standalone or, as discussed in detail later in this response, in-combination effects in the Mersey Valley. CWT strongly object to the development of the WWL as it likely to impact upon the Walton Locks LWS, Moore Nature Reserve LWS and habitats or land that is potentially functionally linked to the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site.

CWT supports the requirement in clause 4 of this Policy for infrastructure to be planned on the basis of site wide infrastructure strategies.

CWT supports the references to biodiversity, open space, green infrastructure and allotments in clause 5. CWT also support the requirement in clause 6 for viability assessments submitted by developers to be ?open book?.

CWT broadly support the policy subject to some minor amendments. CWT welcome clause 20 and recognise the importance Neighbourhood Planning can have to local
communities.

CWT broadly support the policy subject to some amendments. While we welcome the Council?s future consideration of an SPD that will map out the ecological network and set out the Council?s considerations and expectations when such sites are proposed for development, we feel that this Plan should still make reference to these important forthcoming biodiversity strategies.

The clause should apply to all green infrastructure, not just strategic GI.

We welcome the inclusion of clause 2(a) (the Mersey Valley) in the Green Infrastructure Opportunities. However, CWT are extremely concerned about the scale of development in this key GI opportunity area and feel it is contradictory to Policy DC3.

Whilst the constraints on development proposed in clause (5) are welcomed, it is important to note that some areas of green infrastructure should be primarily set aside for ecological or environmental considerations. They will contribute to vital ecosystem services for humans (for example flood control or pollination) but may not primarily contribute to considerations such as health and well-being, economic growth, sport, recreation and leisure. Other areas of green infrastructure may be crucial for quality of life but will have a lesser contribution to ecological functionality.

Clause (6) could be worded more clearly and more precisely linked to the mitigation hierarchy in national policy (under which compensation is a ?last resort?). The phrase ?should seek to? unnecessarily waters down the policy on net biodiversity gain.

The Mersey Valley also supports habitats (namely saltmarshes, mudflats and peatlands) that actively sequester and store significant amounts of carbon long term (in the order of centuries). The value of this key green infrastructure asset in terms of its natural capital and multiple functions cannot be understated.

The map title refers to "key GI links/opportunities" but the map itself only appears to show the ?strategic green links? listed in clause 2 of policy. This adds to the confusion about terminology referred to above.

The map title is a little confusing as it refers to GI assets but only shows those which are designated for their biodiversity importance (as opposed to other forms of green space). In addition there appears to be number of designated sites either missing or mislabelled (e.g. Mersey Estuary and Risley Moss SAC?s)

Biodiversity Net Gain must not replace or undermine the mitigation hierarchy. It must only be applied once the mitigation hierarchy has been fully followed. Additionally, Biodiversity Net Gain cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or statutory designated sites of nature conservation. Where, in wholly exceptional circumstances, and there are no other reasonable alternatives, having followed the mitigation hierarchy, it is concluded that destructive or damaging development has to go ahead, these features must be subject to a separate bespoke compensation procedure. To effectively contribute to nature?s recovery, delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain must be additional to existing mechanisms for nature conservation and enhancement.

Clause (1) in Policy DC4 should not set out the detail of how BNG will operate as we expect this to be set out in secondary legislation and recommend this is detailed in future supplementary planning documents (SPD). It is strongly recommend new supplementary planning guidance be drafted to help implement BNG measures.

Clause (2) fails in our view to set out a sufficiently comprehensive description of the Borough?s ecological assets, as it fails to mention for example priority habitats or species or stepping stones and restoration areas. Natural Improvement Areas (referred to in clause 2f) should be changed to ?Nature improvement Areas?. The first part of the clause is also incorrect as the Nature Improvement Areas are not shown on the Policies Map.

Support for clause (3) in principle. However a number of minor amendments are proposed.

CWT are concerned that clause 4 (in contrast to the NPPF - para 180b) fails to address in-combination effects from multiple developments. Biodiversity Net Gain does not apply to statutory sites or irreplaceable habitats and development affecting these important ecological features cannot therefore achieve a net gain in biodiversity. Additionally, as discussed previously, BNG can only be applied to some regionally and locally designated sites under specific circumstances.

Clause (7) should be mandating a more robust and standardised approach to the requirement for ecological assessment, applicable to all development with the potential to impact on biodiversity. We believe mandating standardised ecological assessments to support planning applications in this policy would bring about multiple benefits. Firstly, using these standardised terms would ensure that the content of ecological reports submitted to support development are standardised, robust, defensible and undertaken to a nationally accepted standard. This means the content of all reports should in effect be structured the same and therefore lead to less confusion about the scope and content of an undefined ?ecological appraisal?. In addition to added benefits this would bring for Warrington?s biodiversity, standardised ecological reporting would also lead to a more efficient review process for matters relating to nature conservation within the Council itself, again reducing the time spent clarifying the scope and content of ecological documents supporting planning applications.

This duty is now strengthened as part of the Environment Act.

CWT supports the references to natural and semi natural greenspace in Policy DC5 and the standards for this set out in table 7.

CWT welcomes the reference to biodiversity in clause (1c). However, CWT are concerned that biodiversity is only covered here in the context of open space and landscaping.

CWT considers that clause 6 of this policy should be strengthened.

CWT supports this policy, including its emphasis on use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and ?slowing the flow?. However, CWT do not support any development in undefended areas of the floodplain. Floodplains can support protected and priority habitats and species, and also support habitats that both store and sequester significant volumes of carbon.

For new development on greenfield sites CWT do not consider that the phrase ?is at least mimicked? in clause 12a) is very clear.

CWT is broadly content with policy ENV4 provided effective restoration and aftercare of sites is required (see comments policy ENV6).

Although the proposed policy on hydrocarbon development (set out in clause 3) broadly accords with current government policy, we have concerns about the potential impact of this form of development. CWT strongly supports the protection for the Borough?s peat resources which is provided for in clause 7 of this Policy.

Clause 1 could be strengthened.

CWT supports paragraphs 9.6.6. and 9.6.7 as they recognise the scope which often exists for mineral and waste sites to be restored to enhance biodiversity. However, we feel that this should be more clearly set out in the policy itself.

CWT supports the need to decarbonise energy production in an appropriate way but is concerned about the potential impacts that some proposals for low carbon energy development can have on wildlife.

CWT broadly supports this policy, including its provisions relating to air quality impacts on the Manchester Mosses Special Area of Conservation (SAC). However, it is considered that the policy could be strengthened.

CWT are concerned that not all the allocation policies specifically require approval of a Development Framework by the Council. It is unclear why some policies specify that the Development Frameworks must be prepared by the landowners. Issues such as landownership changes or different landowners having conflicting intentions could present future unknown variables across these strategic sites.

1. While we welcome the significant reduction in scale of this allocation, the site is in close proximity to two Local Wildlife Sites (LWS); Walton Locks LWS and Moore Nature Reserve LWS. The development of the reduced Warrington Waterfront allocation still has the potential to impact on these locally important sites for biodiversity. 2. CWT disagree that any residual risk of functionally linked habitat loss is now removed as a result of the reduced scope of the allocation, as concluded in the updated WLP Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). 3. Due to the proximity of the Warrington Waterfront allocation site to the proposed Fiddlers Ferry (MD3) allocation and the Warrington Western Link we believe that any ecological impacts arising as a result of any of these proposed schemes should be assessed in-combination, in line with good practice guidance from CIEEM. 4. Allocation of this site conflicts with WLP Policy DC3 and NPPF Para 175 as the site sits within the Mersey Valley Corridor, a key Green Infrastructure Opportunity Area. 5. Securing a measurable biodiversity net gain for this site, in line with WLP Policies DC3 and DC4 and NPPF Paragraphs 174d and 179b, may not be possible due to the current high value of the site and the potential requirement to deliver mitigation/compensation for the loss of functionally linked habitat of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar qualifying bird species. 6. The land at Warrington Waterfront may potentially be important for hedgehog (NERC S41 species) and the populations of breeding and wintering birds it supports including BoCC red listed birds such as skylark, song thrush and herring gull.

1. The site incorporates part of the Grappenhall Heys LWS. 2. The site is immediately adjacent an area of ancient woodland associated with the Dingle and Fords Rough LWS, an irreplaceable habitat as per the NPPF para 180c, which could potentially be significantly affected by loss or deterioration as a result of the proposed scheme. 3. As highlighted in the updated WLP HRA, this site has potential to be considered as functionally linked to the Mersey Estuary European designated sites as it could potentially support a significant population of lapwing (a species within the qualifying assemblage). 4.Due to the proximity of the allocation site to the proposed South East Warrington Employment Area (MD6) allocation we believe that any ecological impacts arising as a result of any of these proposed schemes should be assessed in-combination, in line with good practice guidance from CIEEM.5. Lapwing are also a BoCC red listed species in rapid decline that require highly specialised farmland habitats to successfully breed, yet their presence and the potential for them to suffer potentially nationally significant impacts has not been considered, or has been assumed to be mitigatable without any evidence to base this assumption on. These highly specialised species require highly specialised mitigation, generic habitat
creation such as tree planting or hedgerow laying will not suffice to mitigate significant residual negative effects. In practice it is highly unlikely that, as suggested in the updated WLP HRA, developers would be open to retaining any key areas of improved grassland or arable land within their developments. There is also no mention of this, or Lapwing in general, in the ?South East Warrington Urban Extension: A Deliverable Proposition? supporting document. This is unacceptable and the proposed allocation must be revised to
demonstrate, rather than assume, compliance with the NPPF, particularly in regard to protected and priority species such as Lapwing and other important environmental assets. 7. While securing a measurable biodiversity net gain for this site, in line with WLP Policies DC3 and DC4 and NPPF Paragraphs 174d and 179b, may be possible; the potential requirement to deliver mitigation/compensation for the loss of functionally linked habitat of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar qualifying bird species may make achieving a measurable BNG more difficult. 8. Other examples of potential priority habitats including semi-natural woodland, several ponds and hedgerows are also located within the allocation. The mitigation hierarchy should be applied to comply with Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above) and all these areas should be excluded from the allocation in order to avoid harm to biodiversity. 9. The land at SEWUE may potentially be important for hedgehogs, bats and badgers and the populations of breeding and wintering birds it supports including BoCC red listed birds such as curlew, lapwing, lesser redpoll, skylark and yellowhammer. Curlew are classed as globally near threatened and are possibly the UK?s most important bird conservation priority10. In order to comply with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in WLP Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above), measures will be required to avoid and mitigate the impacts on these important species.

1. This site incorporates part of the Upper Mersey Estuary LWS and the St Helens Canal (disused) LWS. 2.The site is immediately adjacent to Widnes Warth Saltmarsh LWS and the Upper Mersey Estuary Intertidal Areas and Mudflats LWS (designated in Halton) and in close proximity to Norton Marsh and Upper Moss Side Fields LWS and Moore Nature Reserve LWS. The FFPS allocation has the potential to impact on these locally important sites for biodiversity and therefore these sites must be buffered substantially within the allocation footprint to minimise these potential residual effects. These sites, including the vast swathes of saltmarsh and mudflats in close proximity to the site are also highly likely to be functionally linked to the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar. The allocation may also impact upon the internationally, and nationally designated sites downstream of the proposed development site, namely: the Mersey Estuary SPA, Ramsar and SSSI. This would therefore also contradict NPPF para. 180b as the deterioration or loss of functionally linked land would likely have a significant effect on the status of the Mersey Estuary SSSI. 3. As highlighted in the updated WLP HRA, this site (and many of the immediately adjacent habitats such as saltmarsh and mudflats) have significant potential to be considered as functionally linked to the Mersey Estuary European designated sites as they potentially support a significant population of a number of qualifying species. This is further strengthened by the findings of the recently published Natural England Commissioned Report NECR36111, which shows the site to be of moderate potential or where significant numbers of water birds are visiting. CWT recommend the MD3 HRA policy wording changes suggested previously are incorporated to ensure this allocation will definitely be assessed through a project specific HRA in line with proposed local and national planning policies (outlined above). 4.It is highly likely that the current low levels of disturbance is a key reason for high species diversity (and in particular the notable assemblages of Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar qualifying bird species) at the Fiddlers Ferry site. Waterbirds are known to be highly sensitive to changes in the levels of disturbance, both during construction and operation of development schemes. The current proposals within the FFPS Regeneration Vision supporting document, include plans for a new visitor centre and the use of the lagoons for leisure (this appears to include sailing based on the indicative sketches). The increase in anthropogenic disturbance as a result of these proposals is highly likely to deter the use of the southern site (i.e. the lagoons and surrounding terrestrial habitat) by any Mersey Estuary SPA or Ramsar qualifying species (and many other protected and priority species), thereby resulting in a significant residual effect at an international scale. This is unacceptable and contradicts with WLP Policies DC3 and DC4 and NPPF (2021) Paragraphs 174a, 174d, 175, 179a, 179b, 180a and 180b. 6. Due to the proximity of the Fiddlers Ferry allocation site to the proposed Warrington Waterfront (MD1) allocation and the Warrington Western Link we believe that any ecological impacts arising as a result of any of these proposed schemes should be assessed in-combination, in line with good practice guidance from CIEEM. CWT recommend this is incorporated into the main text of Policy MD3 in line with WLP Policy DC4 and NPPF Paragraph 180a. 8. Securing a measurable biodiversity net gain for this site, in line with WLP Policies DC3 and DC4 and NPPF Paragraphs 174d and 179b, may not be possible due to the current high value of the site and the likely
requirement to deliver mitigation/compensation for the loss of functionally linked habitat of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar qualifying bird species alongside net-gain commitments. Based on an estimate of current habitats (open mosaic habitat on previously developed land, saltmarsh and reservoirs), CWT believe the current baseline value of the Fiddlers Ferry Phase 2 site could be in the region of 1,400 BNG units. Even if the reservoirs are retained, based on a very conservative estimate of ?10,000 per BNG unit (which is unlikely to be achievable), the site could cost in the region of ?10,000,000 to offset. 9. Other examples of priority habitats including open mosaic habitat on previously developed land, open water, reedbeds, saltmarsh, unimproved neutral grassland, native hedgerows, swamp and semi-natural woodland also located within the allocation. The mitigation hierarchy should be applied to comply with Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above) and all these areas should be excluded from the allocation in order to avoid harm to biodiversity. 10. The land at Fiddlers Ferry has also been confirmed to support, or likely supports, protected and /or notable invertebrates, fish, amphibians (including great crested newt), reptiles, breeding and overwintering birds including Mersey Estuary SPA qualifying species shelduck, redshank, teal and lapwing, roosting and foraging / commuting bats, otter, water vole, badger and other mammals. In order to comply with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in WLP Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above), measures will be required to avoid and mitigate the impacts on these important species.

1. This site incorporates the Radley Plantation and Pond LWS. This site must be excluded from the allocation to comply with WLP Policies DC3 and DC4 and NPPF (2021) Paragraphs 174a, 174d, 175, 179a, 179b and 180a. 3. Other examples of priority habitats including a traditional orchard, semi-natural woodland, neutral grassland, ponds and hedgerows are also located within the allocation. The mitigation hierarchy should be applied to comply with Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above) and all these areas should be excluded from the allocation in order to avoid harm to biodiversity. 4. The land at Peel Hall may potentially be important for hedgehog, water vole and the populations of breeding and wintering birds it supports including BoCC red listed birds such as skylark, yellow wagtail and lapwing. In order to comply with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in WLP Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above), measures will be required to avoid and mitigate the impacts on these important species.

1. Examples of priority habitats including semi-natural woodland, ponds and hedgerows are located within the allocation. The mitigation hierarchy should be applied to comply with Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above) and all these areas should be excluded from the allocation in order to avoid harm to biodiversity. 2. The Bridgewater Canal is located immediately adjacent the allocation. This is highly likely to support a variety of foraging and commuting protected and priority species including bats and otter. 3. The land at Thelwall Heys may potentially be important for the populations of breeding and wintering birds it supports including BoCC red listed birds such as skylark, yellowhammer and lapwing. In order to comply with the mitigation hierarchy as set out in WLP Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above), measures will be required to avoid and mitigate the impacts on these important species

1. Examples of priority habitats including semi-natural woodland, Bradley Brook, ponds and hedgerows are located within the allocation. The mitigation hierarchy should be applied to comply with Policy DC4 and national planning policies (outlined above) and all these areas should be excluded from the allocation in order to avoid harm to biodiversity. 2. Due to the proximity of the allocation site to the proposed South East Warrington Urban Extension (MD2) allocation we believe that any ecological impacts arising as a result of any of these proposed schemes should be assessed in-combination, in line with good practice guidance from CIEEM.

As per our previous specific comments on the main allocations, where any examples of priority habitats located within the allocation; the mitigation hierarchy should be applied to comply with Policy DC4 and national planning policies.

More specific and effective targets should be included for Policy DC4.

Warrington Waterfront (MD1), South East Warrington Urban Extension (MD2), Fiddlers Ferry (MD3), the South East Warrington Employment Area (MD6) and the Warrington Western Link (WWL) all have the potential to cause significant in-combination effects to a range of important ecological features throughout and beyond Warrington. Most notably this includes the internationally designated Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, it?s assemblages of qualifying bird species and the habitats and land that are functionally linked to the main site.