We support this policy as far as it goes - To achieve these objectives the LPA will need to co-operate with , not fight against, rural farmers and landowners in the way explained elsewhere . A much more flexible approach needs to be taken to allow initiatives that maintain the economic viability of holdings AND provide green infrastructure enhancement. No recognition is given to those landowners, and their families who have done all these things voluntarily and philanthropically in the past. The

The County Council notes that these paragraphs provide a list of green infrastructure suggestions; however, it is also recommended that the policy make reference to the mitigation hierarchy, detailed below. The need to retain biodiversity is particularly important given the provisions within the Environmental Bill introducing mandatory net gain. The 'mitigation hierarchy' described in British Standard BS 42020:2013, involves the following step-wise process: • Avoidance – avoiding adverse effect

* The modification is welcomed and supported. However, I would have wished that council made a more robust evidence base on this area as there is a lack of understanding in how Green Infrastructure will be made, will more trees be required, if so where. Where are there opportunities to enhance biodiversity, and how will this be funded? * There is no mention of the provision of green infrastructure in the infrastructure delivery plan. Is the infrastructure delivery plan only applicable to the bui

"Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and the natural environment and creating a coherent network of Green Infrastructure" (See my comments on MM/32) The Plan acknowledges a need to use existing green infrastructure to contribute to the network of wildlife habitat. In Westgate retainment of the green space between new and exisiting housing would be planted with trees/shrubs to offset lost carbon sink, provide a public right of way, and a wildlife corridor. Its width should be sufficient (publi