Agenda item

In accordance with the Rule No. 3.4.3, the following motions are to be considered

Motion One – Mandating Swift Bricks in New Developments

Motion Two – Protecting Areas of Significance for Nature

Motion One – Mandating Swift Bricks in New Developments

In accordance with Rule No. 3.4.3 Councillor E Oldham moved and Councillor C Penny seconded a motion to the following effect:

“This Council acknowledges the significant and ongoing decline in swift and other cavity-nesting bird populations across the UK, with four species known to use swift bricks now on the Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern. These species, including swifts and house martins, rely entirely on buildings for breeding and are rapidly losing nesting sites due to modern construction practices and insulation schemes that seal off access to traditional cavities.

Council therefore resolves to:

1.          Formally support the call to mandate swift bricks through an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and/or via changes to Building Regulations.

2.          Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the two local MP’s for Newark and Sherwood Forest, and relevant Ministers at DEFRA, urging the UK Government to:

-         Accept or table an amendment to the Bill requiring mandatory installation of swift bricks in all suitable new housing developments

-         Commit to updating Building Regulations to incorporate integral nest bricks for cavity-nesting birds as standard.

3.          Ask officers to explore the implications of mandating swift bricksacross all new HRA suitable properties and NSDC commercial buildings and report to Cabinet as soon as practicable.

4.          Ask Arkwood to consider committing to installing swift bricks across all suitable properties,complementing those planned for Lowfield Lane.

5.          Encourage developers within Newark and Sherwood District to install swift bricks in all suitable new residential developments and publish guidance on best practice placement.

6.          Support the Planning Policy team to continue exploring opportunitiesto embed swift bricks within local planning policy or supplementary planning guidance—such as in future iterations of the Newark Town Centre Design Code—and report back with options for their inclusion in upcoming Local Plan updates and biodiversity net gain assessments.”

The motion, on being put to the vote, was agreed unanimously.

Motion Two – Protecting Areas of Significance for Nature

In accordance with Rule No. 3.4.3 Councillor K Melton moved and Councillor M Spoors seconded a motion to the following effect:

“Newark and Sherwood District Council calls upon the Government to amend Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill before it becomes an Act of Parliament.

Developers must be required to demonstrate that their projects will not harm biodiversity or reduce the resilience of natural ecosystems, with financial offsets only used as a supplementary measure under strict regulatory oversight.

Furthermore, NSDC resolves to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to express our concerns regarding these changes in the following terms:

Re: Concerns Over the Nature Restoration Fund in Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill

I am writing on behalf of Newark and Sherwood District Council expressing our serious concerns regarding Part 3 of the Government’s Planning & Infrastructure Bill that involves proposals that will allow some developments to make payments into a Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) thereby disregarding existing, tried and tested legislation, currently affording protection to European Sites, sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and protected species.

Whilst we commend the initiative to establish a UK-wide NRF and its potential to support nature restoration efforts, we believe these changes present substantial risks to biodiversity, ecosystems, and the integrity of protected areas and protected species.

It is our view that Part 3 of the Bill needs substantial amendment before it becomes an Act of parliament. Specifically, we are concerned about:

•   The adequacy of financial offsets in fully mitigating environmental damage;

•   The potential for short-term solutions that fail to address the root causes of ecological degradation;

•   The weakening of protections afforded under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations;

•   With the potential removal of site ecological survey work, a subsequent degradation of the application of the ecological mitigation hierarchy;

•   The prioritisation of economic development over the long-term sustainability of  habitats and species.

We urge the Government to reconsider Part 3 of the P&I Bill and provide greater assurances that protected areas and protected species will continue to receive the highest level of legal protection.

Developers must be held accountable for demonstrating that their activities will not harm biodiversity or reduce the resilience of ecosystems, with financial offsets used only as a supplementary measure under rigorous control.

We are further concerned that the process proposed would be highly likely to remove biodiversity restoration to areas entirely separated from the areas which may be harmed and will, anyway, not be capable of restoration at anything close to a “Like for Like” level.

We look forward to your response and hope to see action taken to address these pressing concerns.”

The motion, on being put to the vote, was agreed unanimously.