Policy NE6: Designated biodiversity and geological sites

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 128

Received: 31/10/2016

Respondent: Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Change some wording within the policy to make it effective, objective and consistent with NPPF. At present the policy is not sound or effective because it will not deliver no net loss or where possible net gain in biodiversity.

Proposed change from:
'Development proposals on non-designated sites that include important habitats and species will be expected to meet parts (b) to (d) of this policy.'
to:
'Development proposals on non-designated sites of ecological value will be expected to achieve no net loss and where possible net gains in biodiversity.'

Full text:

Policy NE6: Designated biodiversity and geological sites

This is a minor objection to an otherwise endorsed policy and supporting text. Much of this policy and the supporting information is welcomed but greater clarity is required to explain what will be required to deliver no net loss and where possible net gain on non designated sites (as required by NPPF). Most of our biodiversity is contained on non designated sites which make up the majority of the district. NPPF seeks to conserve and enhance 'biodiversity' - not just that which occurs on designated sites, or only 'important' species and habitats (for which there is no accepted measure of what constitutes important). It is crucial that it is made clear that development will seek appropriate assessment of these non designated sites sufficient to ensure biodiversity is conserved and enhanced. The reference in the text to the Biodiversity Impact Calculator is wholly endorsed but it must be recognised that this tool is primarily intended to give an ecological value to non priority habitats. Application of the BIC to non designated sites will ensure that the post development ecological value equals or exceeds the original score, thus delivering the aims of NPPF. It must be made clear in the policy that it will be expected to be applied to all habitats of biodiversity value - not just those of important habitats or species. The phrase 'important habitats and species' will be too easily abused by unscrupulous applicants and their ecologists. It will be argued that only priority habitats and species are 'important' and therefore no other habitat will be taken into consideration. This is how ecological policies routinely fail at present and it is not what is intended in NPPF.

The supporting text referencing the calculator is in place but it needs to be triggered by a better worded policy addition. Therefore the following phrase should be changed from:

'Development proposals on non-designated sites that include important habitats and species will be expected to meet parts (b) to (d) of this policy.'

to:

'Development proposals on non-designated sites of ecological value will be expected to achieve no net loss and where possible net gains in biodiversity.'

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 129

Received: 31/10/2016

Respondent: Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Support for para. 11.48 of NE6 but proposed change:
- the phrase should be better tied to the NPPF intention to conserve and enhance biodiversity by the changes to the policy recommended in the previous HMWT submission.

Full text:

HMWT wholly endorse this wording supporting the policy:

11.48 Ecological surveys will be expected to involve an objective assessment of ecological value. Surveys should be consistent with BS42020 Biodiversity- Code of Practice for Planning and Development, or as superseded, and use the Biodiversity Impact Calculator[121], or as superseded, to assess ecological value. This methodology will ensure that appropriate mitigation or compensation is provided to meet the aims of national policy.'

However, the phrase should be better tied to the NPPF intention to conserve and enhance biodiversity by the changes to the policy recommended in the previous HMWT submission.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 130

Received: 31/10/2016

Respondent: Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Change text in 11.51 to be consistent with the North Herts Green Infrastructure Strategy. Change 10 m to 12 m of complimentary habitat.

Full text:

This supporting wording needs to be changed slightly to accord with the North Herts Green Infrastructure Strategy. This strategy, which is referenced earlier in this plan, stipulates a buffer of 12m rather than 10m of complimentary habitat to priority habitats. Therefore in the interests of consistency the wording should be changed to reflect this:

'11.51 Developments are required to demonstrate how existing wildlife habitats such as trees, hedgerows, woodlands and rivers will be retained, safeguarded and managed during and after development, including the provision of buffers where required. Where buffers are provided, these should be a minimum of 12 metres of complimentary habitat for all connective features for wildlife habitats or priority habitats.'

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 414

Received: 16/11/2016

Respondent: Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Support NE6:
- Suggest the wording be changed slightly to enable biodiversity value as assessed by the biodiversity calculator to be taken into consideration in achieving no net loss or net gains to biodiversity i.e. to conserve and enhance biodiversity in the terms of NPPF.
- Suggested change: 'Development proposals on non-designated sites that include habitats and species OF ECOLOGICAL VALUE will be expected to meet parts (b) to (d) of this policy.'

Full text:

HMWT support this policy but suggest the wording be changed slightly to enable biodiversity value as assessed by the biodiversity calculator to be taken into consideration in achieving no net loss or net gains to biodiversity i.e. to conserve and enhance biodiversity in the terms of NPPF. Suggested change:

'Development proposals on non-designated sites that include habitats and species OF ECOLOGICAL VALUE will be expected to meet parts (b) to (d) of this policy.'

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 415

Received: 16/11/2016

Respondent: Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Support NE6:
-HMWT supports this policy but recommends a clause requiring appropriate ecological survey and assessment when there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of the presence of protected species should be inserted. This is in accordance with ODPM circular 06/05 para 99.
-Suggested addition,'Where there is a reasonable likelihood that a protected species will be negatively affected by a development proposal, an appropriate ecological survey to nationally accepted standards by a suitably qualified individual will be expected. The survey should set out how negative impacts upon the protected species will be avoided, mitigated or compensated in accordance with their legal protection.

Full text:

HMWT supports this policy but recommends that a clause requiring appropriate ecological survey and assessment when there is a 'reasonable likelihood' of the presence of protected species should be inserted. This is in accordance with ODPM circular 06/05 para 99.

Suggested addition: 'Where there is a reasonable likelihood that a protected species will be negatively affected by a development proposal, an appropriate ecological survey to nationally accepted standards by a suitably qualified individual will be expected. The survey should set out how negative impacts upon the protected species will be avoided, mitigated or compensated in accordance with their legal protection.

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 1615

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: HNL Sustainable Places, Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Support NE6: Suggest placing 10m buffer zone in policy

Full text:

we support this policy. you may wish to consider emphasising the need for a 10 metre buffer zone in the policy text itself in line with the supporting text 11.51

Support

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 3571

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Environment Bank

Representation Summary:

Support paragraph 11.48: Biodiversity - assessment and offsetting to deliver compensation

Full text:

Environment Bank welcomes the opportunity to briefly respond to the Consultation for North Hertfordshire District Council's Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft. We support Policies SP12: Green infrastructure, biodiversity and landscape, SP14, SP18 and SP19, along with points 4.76, 4.185, 11.38, 11.39 and 11.48, and their requirements for No Net Loss / Net Gain of biodiversity, metric assessments of biodiversity impacts and offsetting to deliver compensation.

About us:
Environment Bank is a private company working to broker biodiversity compensation agreements - offsets - for developers and landowners. We act as impartial advisers to Local Planning Authorities and are experts in biodiversity impact assessment and No Net Loss (NNL) strategies. We have partnerships and support relationships with over 25 LPAs across 15 counties - providing advice on local policies, planning guidance and strategies, together with support in implementation and individual planning cases. We have seen biodiversity No Net Loss, Net Gain and offset policies be adopted in Local Plans across the country.

Working on individual developments on behalf of developers and planning authorities we calculate the biodiversity impacts and enhancements of development proposals using approved Government metrics, determining residual biodiversity losses, if any, and proposing offset solutions. Our ecological experts then match a developer's compensation requirement with sites put forward by landowners and conservationists who undertake biodiversity enhancements on their land to generate conservation credits available as compensation. Offset schemes must be the right type of site, of the right size, in the right place, at the right time, for the right cost. Credits are sold in exchange for the creation or enhancement of habitats, generating biodiversity gain. Thereafter, legal and fiscal systems assure planning authorities that such compensation measures have been arranged independently and delivery will be overseen and guaranteed in the long-term, providing net biodiversity gain across a district.

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 4193

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Support NE6:
-commend document 'Blackhorse Farm, Baldock Guidance Note on Corn Buntings
-support net gain for biodiversity where mitigation and compensation measures delivered
-Paragraph a,bullet point 3 should read:
"priority species and habitats", instead of "National Planning Policy Framework sites".

Paragraph c, section i should read:
"demonstrating how existing wildlife habitats supporting priority species will be retained,.."

Paragraph c, section ii should read:
"providing a buffer of complimentary habitat for all connective features of wildlife habitats, priority habitats and species"

Support d) and reiterate paragraph 4.19 of the BSG Ecology Guidance Note which is of particular relevance to site BA1

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 5505

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Natural England - East of England Region

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to NE6: Policy should make reference to adverse effects being avoided

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 6127

Received: 21/11/2016

Respondent: Rumball Sedgwick

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to NE6: Adds nothing local to policy set out in the NPPF

Full text:

See attached

Object

Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

Representation ID: 6307

Received: 30/11/2016

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to NE6: Term "National Planning Policy Framework sites" is unclear, concerns over use of Biodiversity Offsetting Calculator, however application of policies should ensure there is no net loss to biodiversity

Full text:

See attached