Proposed Main Modifications

HMWT are very supportive of the requirement to use the Biodiversity Impact Calculator to determine measurable net gain. However we feel that this requirement should be slightly amended to account for the evolving nature of the metric upon which this calculator is based i.e. the DEFRA metric. Rather than stipulate the BIC, a locally approved biodiversity impact assessment metric derived from the DEFRA metric should be stipulated. This will allow for periodic upgrades to the metric to be accounted for (in effect these happen very rarely but should be accounted for). To put this in perspective, since 2014 when it was produced there has been one upgrade from this calculator tool and another one is immanent - the new DEFRA metric is out to consultation at the moment. So HMWT propose the following alterations to the wording to ensure that this policy is future-proofed:

'11.xx Ecological surveys will be expected to involve an objective assessment of
ecological value. Surveys should be consistent with BS 42020 Biodiversity Code of Practice for Planning and Development, or as superseded, and use the locally approved Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator 1, as derived from the DEFRA metric, to assess ecological value. Net positive ecological unit scores will be required to demonstrate net gain.'

This will necessitate the slight change of the footnote for 1 like so;

'1 A locally approved Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator is a tool endorsed by the LPA and derived from the DEFRA biodiversity metric which is used to quantify the value of biodiversity before and after development. This enables the net impact of development to be quantified and informs the required avoidance, mitigation or compensation measures (either on or offsite) for a development to demonstrate net gain.'

The following phrase below it in the text can therefore be removed because it is no longer necessary (and it directs the reader to the wrong tool anyway) Remove -
'The current Biodiversity Impact Calculator is available on the Environment Bank website at : http://www.environmentbank.com/impact-calculator.php'

Other text that refers to the calculator will also have to be slightly amended to be consistent with these changes, i.e.:

'11.xx Where required to do so, development proposals will be expected to demonstrate net gain to biodiversity by using the locally approved Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator, derived from the DEFRA metric.'

At present the most up to date metric is the Warwickshire County Council Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator v19. This should be circulated to ecological consultants (available from their website) until the new DEFRA metric calculator is available. As the LPA is made aware of any subsequent updates to the DEFRA metric (HMWT is happy to provide this advice), these can then be circulated to ecologist acting for developers as required. This will result in a more flexible and resilient biodiversity policy going forward.

The requirement for integrated features for wildlife within development should be more boldly stated. These features are inexpensive, bring people closer to nature and ensure that development is permeable to wildlife. The urban environment is being shown to be an increasingly important refuge for our wildlife and features should be provided in development to reflect this. HMWT request that the following statement on integrated devices is amended to reflect this:

'Net gains can be delivered through the provision of soft landscaping, including trees, shrubs and other vegetation to support wildlife habitats as identified by the Hertfordshire Biodiversity Action Plan.z The provision of permanent integrated features for wildlife can also contribute to net gains, such as integrated bat and swift boxes or hedgehog holes in fences. These should be provided in all houses bordering open space or where appropriate to do so.'

Buffers of complimentary habitat should be applied to priority habitats and the inclusion in the text is very welcome. However I am not sure it should be applied to priority species. Species are mobile and so enforcing this might be impossible. It is reasonable to assume that the priority species would forage and shelter largely in the priority habitat and associated buffer and so protecting this should be sufficient to protect the priority species. Therefore I recommend that the policy is changed to;
'providing a buffer of complimentary habitat to all connective features of wildlife habitat and priority habitats.'

In order to give more precise direction for applicants and increase the effectiveness of the policies, removing some of the ambiguity from these statements will be helpful. Statements such as 'where possible' 'where required''where necessary' invite dispute and doubt through different interpretation. They can be made much more definitive and hence effective by changing the wording slightly. Therefore I would advise slightly altering the wording to retain the sentiment but improve the functionality.

Developments are required to demonstrate how existing wildlife habitats and priority habitats such as trees, hedgerows, woodlands and rivers will be retained, safeguarded and managed during and after development, including the provision of habitat buffers. Buffers of a minimum of 12m of complimentary habitat will be required to all connective features of wildlife habitat or priority habitats.

A management plan outlining mitigation measures will be required to sensitively manage any issues arising as a result of the development on biodiversity or geodiversity assets.

Development proposals will be expected to maximise opportunities for net gains, or contribute to improvements in biodiversity, which must be demonstrated by using a locally approved Biodiversity Impact Calculator based on the DEFRA metric (or as updated).

Net gains can be delivered through the provision of soft landscaping, including trees, shrubs and other vegetation to support wildlife habitats as identified by the Hertfordshire Biodiversity Action Plan.z Similarly, the provision of permanent integrated features for wildlife can contribute to net gains. The provision of integrated bat and bird boxes will be expected on all suitable buildings where development borders open space or priority habitat.

Herts and Middx Wildlife Trust has the following comments to make on the main modifications consultation.

'Policy NEx Biodiversity and Geological Sites

11.xx 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 Calculatorx , 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 and is commensurate to the scale and location of the development and the likely impact on biodiversity, the legal protection or other status of the site.

Footnote x
x The Biodiversity Impact Calculator is a tool used to quantify the value of biodiversity at any site and can form an evidence base on required mitigation for a development, the amount of residual biodiversity impact, and if necessary, the amount of require offsite compensation. The current Biodiversity Impact Calculator is available on the Environment Bank website at : http://www.environmentbank.com/impactcalculator.php'

HMWT strongly support the use of the calculator but there are 2 issues with this section. The Biodiversity Impact Calculator referred to has been superseded by another since the this policy was written. The most recent update is the Biodiversity Impact Assessment Metric v19 produced by Warwickshire County Council and based on the DEFRA metric (as the BIC is). With this in mind the text should be adapted to read

'11.xx 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 Assessment Calculator (Warwickshire County Council v19)x , 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 and is commensurate to the scale and location of the development and the likely impact on biodiversity, the legal protection or other status of the site.'

Alternatively and given that the DEFRA metric upon which both of these calculators are based is in the final stages of review it might be better to replace this wording with more flexible generic wording i.e.:

'11.xx 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 NHDC endorsed Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator (based on the DEFRA metric) to assess ecological value. This methodology will ensure that appropriate mitigation or compensation is provided to meet the aims of national policy and is commensurate to the scale and location of the development and the likely impact on biodiversity, the legal protection or other status of the site.'

The wording of the footnote should then be adapted to reflect this:

Footnote x
x The Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator is derived from the DEFRA metric and is a tool used to quantify the value of biodiversity at any site. It can form a measurable evidence base on required mitigation for a development, the amount of residual biodiversity impact, and if necessary, the amount of offsite compensation required. The current approved Biodiversity Impact Assessment Calculator is available from the Local Planning Authority on request.

This is a much more robust and future proof way of ensuring the appropriate and most up to date metric is used. I have attached a copy of the latest version with guidance notes which can be distributed to developers and their ecological consultants - until the next update has superseded it.

The other issue with the current wording - which references a web link to the BIC - is that this link does not take you to the real Biodiversity Impact Calculator but merely a massively simplified proxy version which is actually not helpful. If the footnote is adapted to reflect the comments above it will ensure that the correct and standard calculator is used and avoid confusion and inconsistency.