Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

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.'

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.

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.'

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.'

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.