8 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

My comments on the SPD are below

SPD wording: 8.2.7 Whilst the Local Plan does not specify a target for BNG, the Council are taking a pro-active and masterplan led approach to encouraging new developments to achieve a net gain for biodiversity of at least 10%.

NPPF 174 states that net gain is a requirement of planning. The Env Bill sets this level at a 10% uplift in ecological units. Under NPPF each LPA can set the net gain bar as high as it wants, it is not dependent on the Environment Bill to legitimise this figure. If you state ‘the council are encouraging 10%’ developers will ignore it and revert back to 0.000001% as net gain, until the Env Bill supporting legislation is enacted. Be more definitive here. Suggest change to:

Suggested change to: 8.2.7 The local plan and NPPF state that net gain is a requirement of planning, which must be determined by utilising the Natural England Biodiversity Metric. In accordance with the Environment Act 2021, the council will require development to reach a minimum 10% uplift in habitat units to achieve biodiversity net gain.

Minor changes/clarifications suggested below:

8.2.14 Where it is apparent that the baseline habitat value of the site has been negatively affected prior to assessment, the Council will require an assessment of the site based on the habitat condition prior to any intervention (i.e. removal of vegetation). This could be based on previous aerial photography and environmental records. Any negative habitat modification after January 2020 will refer to the worst case scenario habitat baseline at that date – in accordance with the Environment Act.

8.2.15 A habitat baseline plan should be produced using the UK Habitat Classification[40] . This may be produced using information from the PEA Report or EcIA Report. This should clearly show the habitat types and area and length of any habitat type or habitat parcel. A reference number for each habitat parcel should cross reference to the metric. Baseline maps showing linear features e.g., hedgerows, rivers and streams should be provided in spatially accurate digital drawings. All habitat types selected must be justified with survey evidence i.e. species lists, relative abundances, community descriptions and photographs. These must correlate with UK Habitat Community descriptions. For the avoidance of doubt, National Vegetation Communities MG1, MG6 and MG10 must be recorded as other neutral grassland, in accordance with UK Habitat Community descriptions. All condition assessments must be supported by condition assessment sheets for each habitat parcel and justified with survey evidence. Unrealistic condition scores in the time available, flagged by the submitted metric, will not be accepted. Habitat enhancement will only be permitted within the same habitat type, e.g. grassland to better quality grassland (improving low value habitats to medium value habitat and above should always be recorded as habitat creation).

8.2.17 A BNG plan (or proposed habitats plan) should be provided that clearly cross references to the individual lines of the metric habitat calculations. It can be based on the site layout plan, illustrative masterplan, strategic masterplan or green infrastructure parameter plan depending on the nature of the planning application.

• Utilise domestic scale features to support wildlife, such as integrated bat and bird boxes/bricks and invertebrate boxes[42]

All these changes will improve the functionality of the SPD.

Sport England supports the content of section 8.4 of the SPD in relation to requiring provision to made for outdoor sport in new development through developer contributions or on-site provision. The reference in paragraph 8.4.28 to considering financial contributions in lieu of on-site provision where the full amount of required open space cannot realistically be delivered on-site is welcomed as this scenario is likely to apply to most residential developments when outdoor sports provision is considered. The reference to using the Council’s evidence base and consultation with bodies such as Sport England to inform such decisions is welcomed as this will help ensure that such decisions are fully informed by the most up-to-date evidence and advice.

Outdoor Sports Facilities
Support is offered for reference being made to the Council updating its Playing Pitch Strategy & Action Plan 2018 and this being used to inform new playing pitch provision as the Council’s most up-to-date evidence base for outdoor sport should be used for informing provision that will be made by new development. This would accord with Government policy in paragraph 98 of the NPPF.
The reference in paragraph 8.4.20 to the use of Sport England’s Playing Pitch Calculator for estimating the demand that will be generated from new development is welcomed as this would provide a robust tool for estimating demand if used in conjunction with the Playing Pitch Strategy & Action Plan.
However, I would make the following comments:
• The use of the Fields in Trust standards for playing pitches and other outdoor sports is not consistent with the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy & Action Plan’s guidance which does not advocate the use of these standards. This should be considered as developers may be confused about whether they need to follow the advice in the Playing Pitch Strategy & Action Plan’s as advocated in paragraph 8.4.6 or apply the standards as advocated in paragraph 8.4.7. The removal of playing pitches and other outdoor sports from the open space standards section would address this.
• While the use of Sport England’s Playing Pitch Calculator is welcomed, the team data used in the calculator derives from the 2018 Playing Pitch Strategy which is now out of date. Furthermore, applicants do not have access to the calculator. It will therefore be important that the Council reviews its Playing Pitch Strategy as soon as possible to ensure that the most up-to-date team data is used plus familiarises itself with how to use the calculator so that advice on the calculator outputs can be provided to developers. Sport England would be willing to provide advice and support to the Council in this regard.
• For accuracy, in paragraph 8.4.6, reference should be made to the Playing Pitch Strategy & Action Plan setting out outdoor sport needs across the district and will be used to inform new outdoor sports facility provision. This is requested to recognise that the scope of the Playing Pitch Strategy extends beyond playing pitches to cover all of the principal outdoor sports;

Preston Parish Council supports the strategies on biodiversity and mitigation as it is vital that the natural environment is protected as much as possible.

SPD wording 8.2.4: 12 metres of complimentary habitat should be provided around wildlife sites (locally designated sites and above), trees and hedgerows.

During the local plan process and subsequent hearings, NHDC made an amendment to SP12 to state 'non-designated sites that include important habitats and species'. This should be re-iterated in the SPD as there are sites of significant importance regarding biodiversity that are not currently designated sites. The policy within the local plan also included 'for all connective features' - this should also be incorporated into the SPD wording.

Suggested change 8.2.4: 12 metres of complimentary habitat should be provided around wildlife sites (both locally designated sites and above and non-designated sites that include important habitats and species), connective features, trees and hedgerows.

Our other concern regarding 8.2.4 is the word 'around'. This gives developers scope for including as minimal buffers as possible. It is imperative that where there are mature hedgerows which are of huge value to biodiversity, a 12m buffer is incorporated on either side. Likewise, in any site rich in wildlife - it is also imperative that 12m buffers are implemented on each side of a hedgerow and on each side of a wildlife corridor, such as a thin strip of woodland that joins one habitat to another or one woodland to another. This will help to ensure the 10% net gain. Therefore, this should be incorporated into the wording.

Suggested change 8.2.4: 12 metres of complimentary habitat should be provided around wildlife sites (locally designated sites and above and non-designated sites that include important habitats and species), connective features, trees and hedgerows. In wildlife rich areas, 12 metres of complimentary habitat should be provided on either side of hedgerows and all connective features.

Obviously Natural England state all ancient woodlands and ancient trees should have a minimum of 15 metres of complimentary habitat.

SPD wording 8.2.7: Whilst the Local Plan does not specify a target for BNG, the Council are taking a pro-active and masterplan led approach to encouraging new developments to achieve a net gain for biodiversity of at least 10%.

NPPF 174 states that net gain is a requirement of planning. The new environment bills sets this level at a 10% uplift; but under the NPPF, each local planning authority can set the net gain bar as high as it wants. By stating you are encouraging 10%, this again will give developers scope to totally ignore this and revert back to the minimum until the new bill is in place.

Suggested change 8.2.7: The NPPF state that net gain is a requirement of planning which must be determined by utilising the Natural England Biodiversity Metric. In accordance with the Environment Act 2021, the council requires all developments to reach a minimum 10% uplift to achieve biodiversity net gain.

Utilise domestic scale features to support biodiversity, such as integrated bat and bird boxes and swift bricks. Likewise, incorporate hedgehog holes within fencing.

My comments are in regards to Section 8, Natural Environment and are as follows:

I am greatly concerned by the wording of 8.2.4 in regards to buffers. I am well aware that developers will push for the minimal amount of buffers in any development. I think the wording should include non-designated sites that are biodiversity rich or contain important habitats/species as not all sites that have a large amount of species including protected species have been designated. As someone who has experience as a mammal recorder and been involved with protected species for a number of years, I believe it is important to be clear in regards to policies so that there are no loopholes.

Non-designated sites could be clarified by local groups, such as badger groups, bat groups as well as Herts Environmental Record Centre.

In regards to the buffers, wording should surely also include all connective features as this would cover treebelts that link one woodland habitat to another or an important wildlife habitat to the open countryside. Another concern that I have is in regards to the unclear wording around the 12m buffers. Again, I am more than aware that a developer will aim for as little as possible. Stating 12m around a hedgerow or woodland could be argued that this is a total, but where a site has a large number of species and wildlife corridors are of paramount importance, surely wording should state that in these cases a 12m buffer must be on each side of a hedgeline and on each side of a connective feature, so that everyone is clear as to the policy.

Our biodiversity is in serious decline and we need to give it all the help we can. It is important that North Herts removes any possible loopholes and makes clear on all policies that will benefit our wildlife and result in a net gain, in line with the NPPF. As the new environment bill is not yet in place, I would strongly recommend that North Herts includes in its wording that a minimum 10% net gain is necessary with all development sites in accordance with the NPPF and future bill.