the degree to which Planning Policy Statement 9 on Biodiversity and Geological. Conservation has ... was collected from
PLANNING POLICY AND BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS
REPORT ON PHASE I RESEARCH
DESK STUDY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PPS9 IN DELIVERING THE POLICY OF NO NET LOSS
BY
JO WITHERS WILDLIFE, LANDSCAPE AND RURAL DIRECTORATE DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
February 2012
1
Jo Withers is a policy advisor and researcher in the Wildlife, Landscape and Rural Directorate of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She currently works on Green Infrastructure Policy and manages the Department’s Landscape Research Programme. Prior to this she worked in the Biodiversity Programme where amongst other roles, she was project officer of the Planning Policy and Biodiversity Research Project. Jo can be contacted at Defra Zone 1/09 Temple Quay House The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6EB Telephone 07771 808160 E-mail
[email protected]
2
Contents
1. Executive Summary and Headline Findings 2. Aims and objectives 3. Methodology and techniques 4. Policy context 5. PPS9 and its context in the planning system 6. Recent policy developments 7. Findings on the effectiveness of PPS9 and its delivery 8. Wider findings 9. Conclusions References
Appendices A. Key Provisions of PPS9 B. List of Abbreviations
3
1. Phase I - Executive Summary and Headline Findings Purpose This desk study provides an overview of the findings of published material that can be viewed as authoritative and objective on the degree to which Planning Policy Statement 9 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation has promoted and protected biodiversity interests and helped deliver a policy of no net loss. Method Data sources were identified that were relevant in that they were published after August 2005 and focussed on the interaction of planning and biodiversity policies in England. These sources were then sifted to identify those which could be considered to be well evidenced and presented their findings in an objective way and were authored by informed or authoritative commentators. Some additional supporting evidence has been taken from articles in professional or planning journals authored by respected commentators. The sifted sources were then analysed to identify key findings and common themes which are presented in this report. Headline findings Current planning policies in England set out in PPS9 aim to protect biodiversity and also, support and encourage provision for habitat restoration and creation. However, evidence from commentators suggests that current planning policies are failing to deliver those aspirations. Yet the policies themselves are generally well regarded. Commentators who have looked at the application of PPS9 policies within the planning system have found a number of reasons why this is the case. These include
Some Local Development Frameworks have biodiversity policies that are weaker than current national policy
There are tensions in the planning system resulting from inadequate ecological information being submitted with applications
Most local planning authorities do not have in house ecological advisors
Biodiversity is often seen as a low priority within the planning system and often lacks political and public support
Conditions and obligations designed to protect or enhance biodiversity are often not monitored or enforced
National policy is interpreted or applied differently by different planning authorities 4
Compensation is infrequently required and, where it is, is often poorly implemented
Some of the wider findings that go beyond the initial remit of this work comment on some aspects of PPS9 which are timely to highlight given the current focus on revisions to all national planning policies and also on issues that will need to be addressed in taking forward biodiversity offsets.
February 2012
5
2. Aims and Objectives This is Stage I of a three Stage research project into Planning Policy and Biodiversity Offsets. Its aim was to undertake a short desk study to provide an overview of the findings of published material that can be viewed as authoritative and objective on the degree to which Planning Policy Statement 9 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation has promoted and protected biodiversity interests and helped deliver a policy of no net loss.
3. Methodology and techniques This work was commissioned as a short desk study of available (published) grey information on the degree to which current planning policies in England compensate for significant biodiversity harm and help deliver a policy of „no net loss‟. The methodology adopted for this research was internal desk research. Building on the references and linked resources identified in the „Scoping Study for the design and use of biodiversity offsets in an English context‟ produced for Defra in 2009, data was collected from existing resources via reputable online internet search tools – Planning Resource portal; Bing (Microsoft), Google and Google Scholar, Infoseek, Nature Network and the RIC portal. These free web based services find papers, theses, books, preprints, abstracts and technical reports from a broad range of sources. Over 150 data sources were originally identified that were relevant in that they were published after August 2005 and focussed on the interaction of planning and biodiversity policies in England. These can from a variety of sources including academia, public bodies, local government, business, NGOs, environmental or ecological consultants, planners and lawyers. These sources were then sifted to identify those which could be considered to be well evidenced and presented their findings in an objective way and were authored by informed or authoritative commentators. Some additional supporting evidence has been taken from articles in professional or planning journals authored by respected commentators. The sifted sources were then analysed to identify key findings and common themes which are presented in this report. Originally this Stage I work was intended to be completed in advance of the Stage II work undertaken by David Tyldesley Associates covering an in depth study of the effectiveness of PPS9 through scrutiny of a random sample of planning applications from a stratified sample of English planning authorities. In the event only the data searches, which revealed more source material than had been envisaged, were completed prior to work on Stage II commencing. Analysis and presentation of the findings were carried out in parallel with Stage II. In looking at the data sources, a number of interesting findings were identified which fall outside the original remit for this work but have been included for sake of 6
completeness. In some cases, these additional wider conclusions have added relevance because of policy developments in both planning and biodiversity policy during the period the work was being undertaken. The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Miss Hannah Machin, a Masters student from the University of West of England who helped finalise this report. Findings have been presented thematically rather than in a ranked order. The inclusion of a finding represents a common or recurrent theme in a number of sources. Where a source is quoted as an exemplar it has been chosen because it is representative of the findings on that theme.
4. Policy Context The UK became the first country to produce a national biodiversity action plan following the Convention on Biodiversity signed in Rio de Janiero in 1992. In 2001 EU Heads of State and Government made a commitment at the EU‟s Spring Summit in Gothenburg to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The international biodiversity target to achieve a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 was set under the Convention of Biological Diversity and adopted by the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. Action to address biodiversity loss has evolved into an approach which is commonly referred to as„no net loss‟. At the time this research project was commissioned, current policies for planning and biodiversity in England were contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) published in August 2005. It states inter alia that “planning, construction, development, and regeneration should have minimal impacts on biodiversity and enhance it wherever possible”. Key principles included the aim “planning decisions should prevent harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests” and that “If .... significant harm cannot be prevented, adequately mitigated against or compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”. PPS9 was welcomed at the time of publication because of its endorsement of an approach which included enhancing biodiversity and building in beneficial biodiversity to development proposals. It has been suggested that some local planning authorities have used PPS9 to promote policies of net gain locally whilst others have failed to adequately protect biodiversity from significant harm arising from development pressures. In addition, every local authority has a statutory obligation under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 “in exercising its functions, (to) have regard , so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.
7
5. PPS 9 and its status in the planning system In England, the planning system is „plan led‟. Local Planning authorities are required to prepare a local plan called a Local Development Framework which is a portfolio of plans and policies. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act requires that planning applications are determined in accordance with the local plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 19 of the 2004 Act requires local planning authorities to have regard to policy and advice issued by the Secretary of State when setting out their policies for the development of and use of land in their area. Local planning authorities are free to depart from national policy and guidance where they feel that is appropriate because of local circumstances if they set out their reasons for so doing. However, it is expected that local plans will be broadly consistent with national planning policies. Local planning authorities have been advised in the past by the Department for Communities and Local Government that national policies do not need to be repeated in local plans but will apply unless the plan states otherwise. Planning policy statements issued by the Secretary of State can be a material issue when individual planning applications are considered. Where planning policy is a material factor it will be considered alongside other material considerations to inform the decision. It will be a matter for the local planning authority to decide how much weight to give to any material consideration, including planning policy issued by the Secretary of State, in the circumstances of a particular case. Planning Policy Statement 9 on Biodiversity and Geological Conservation is planning policy issued by the Secretary of State under Section 19 of the 2004 Act. The key provisions of PPS 9 are set out in Appendix A. An accompanying Circular „Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system‟1 and good practice guide Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice expand on the policies and provide explanatory text2.
6. Recent Policy Developments Since this work was originally commissioned in autumn 2010, there have been a number of policy developments both in terms of biodiversity policy and the planning system. The UK, in common with other Member States, failed to meet the target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010.
1
„Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system‟ (ODPM Circular 06/200, Defra Circular 01/2005). http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circularbiodiversity 2 Good Practice Guide http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningbiodiversity
8
Following global agreement at the Nagoya Summit of the CBB in Nagoya in October 2011, the EU has set a new target to halt biodiversity loss within the EU by 2020. Of the six targets published in the new EU Biodiversity Strategy (2011)3 two are particularly pertinent to planning policy: “1. To halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status 2. By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems” To achieve these targets a development management and a policy approach is required by the planning sector to ensure that all planning, development and construction activities give due weight to biodiversity considerations, and resources should be Mobilised to promote the development and use of innovative financing mechanisms - including market based instruments. Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes, incentives to attract private sector investment in green infrastructure and the potential of biodiversity offsets will be looked into as a way of achieving a „no net loss‟ approach (EU Biodiversity Strategy, p.9). The new EU targets are based on the international strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020.4 The international vision is for a world where “by 2050 biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering essentials for all people”. The plan highlights the importance of safeguarding and restoring biodiversity, suggesting that national planning processes must be instrumental in promoting the importance of biodiversity to meet social and economic objectives. The Lawton Review (2010)5 commissioned by the last Government asserts that biodiversity in the UK is still declining and suggests that an „ecological network‟ of biologically diverse sites is required to restore nature. The report‟s main conclusions are that current site designations are too small and too disconnected. Instead larger sites need to be created linked by natural corridors. Lawton also stresses the need to proactively plan to enhance the coherence and connectivity of existing ecological networks. The England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS)6 published by the new Coalition Government is an ambitious biodiversity strategy for England which builds on the 3
EU Biodiversity Strategy (2011) „Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020‟.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5b1%5d.pdf 4 The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 – 2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf 5 Making Space for Nature http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf 6 England Biodiversity Strategy http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/08/19/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020/
9
findings in Lawton and the commitments in its Natural Environment White Paper. It provides a comprehensive picture of how government intends to implement its international and EU commitments. It sets out the strategic direction for biodiversity policy for the next decade on land and contains a priority action to establish and evaluate a new, voluntary approach to biodiversity offsets so that the Government can decide whether to support greater use of biodiversity offsetting in England. On the planning front, the last Government signalled its intention to produce a single planning policy statement on the natural environment and produced a revised draft PPS (incorporating the existing PPS9, PPS 7 and PPG 17) „Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment‟7 in 2009 which went out to public consultation just before the last General Election. The new Coalition Government came in with a commitment to review national planning policy in order to improve what it perceives to be a slow and complex system which has impeded economic growth. The Growth Review (2011)8 seeks to rebuild the economy and current planning arrangements are being re-designed and consolidated (policy statements, circulars and policy guidance documents) into a single National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)9. The intention is that the NPPF will be significantly shorter than the sum of the policy guidance it replaces. The NPPF will be localist in approach (The Localism Act10 includes an important role for local authorities in neighbourhood planning), less complex and will have a „presumption in favour of sustainable development‟ providing a positive framework for approving planning proposals except where this would clearly compromise sustainable development principles. The NPPF was consulted on during 2011 and is likely to be published in the first quarter of 2012. It is expected that once the NPPF is published existing planning policy statements and guidance, including PPS9, will be revoked.
7. Findings on the effectiveness of PPS9 and its delivery Application of the PPS9 principles Despite the strong principles in PPS9 (and other related policies) evidence suggests that are not delivering the expected results in practice because they are not being applied robustly. The major strength of PPS9 was seen to be its Key Principles – stating clearly and unambiguously what was expected of local authorities with regard to biodiversity and geodiversity in relation to development control issues and Local Development Frameworks (WCL, Natural Environment PPS Consultation response, p 8).
7
Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment Consultation document http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1498981.pdf 8 The Plan for Growth http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf 9 Draft National Planning Policy Framework http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951747.pdf 10 The Localism Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents/enacted/data.htm
10
Planning Authorities must have regard to the details in the key national principles when making decisions on both strategic planning and planning applications. “Quoting PPS9, when you believe the policy or application contradicts its advice, is a powerful tool when participating in consultation” („Take Action for Wildlife‟, 2010). The report of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee 11, 2008 found that government policies to protect biodiversity were failing in England. In the committee report, MPs concluded that Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9) has failed to get about the necessary step-change for biodiversity protection. In the Committee evidence sessions, Dr Brotherton giving evidence on behalf of Natural England stated that “ a good start would be to properly apply the policies that are already there. PPS9 makes some quite good provision for biodiversity, both its protection and its enhancement, and that would be a good start.” HoC Env Audit p.40
7.2 Adopted Local Development Framework/Local Plan policies may not reflect the requirements of PPS9 The Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE) in their „Framework for Biodiversity‟ (2005)12 produced a guide to integrating biodiversity into LDFs, and Lee (2010) in a survey of local planners found that planners underlined the importance of getting involved in plan preparation. However, Atley and Morad (2010)13 revealed in their research serious problems hampering the local planning authorities‟ efforts to incorporate whole-landscape scale planning into LDFs. Adequacy of ecological information Commentators suggest that pre-application discussions between the applicant and LPA are not the norm and that all too often there is insufficient ecological information submitted in the planning process including inadequate evidence from the EIA or ecological assessment. A problem is often ensuring that sufficient survey information is submitted to enable informed debate on what the likely impacts may be (Plymouth CC). Once it has the necessary information on a site, Plymouth‟s experience is that
11
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/743/743.pdf
12
ALGE (2005) „Framework for Biodiversity: Integrating Biodiversity into Local Development Frameworks‟. (Published byThe Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE) November 2005. Author Mike Oxford). 13
Atley, T and Morad, M (2009) „Mind the gap:the UKs new planning system, landscape conservation and biodiversity‟. International Journal of Environmental Studies. Vol 66, issue 6, 2009.
11
detailed discussions about which enhancements should be integrated into a scheme are relatively easily won14. Similarly consultants report often being contacted by clients who say they were not aware that a biodiversity assessment was required, and that planning applications have been refused or delayed due to insufficient information being submitted. They always recommend that in order to help avoid unnecessary delays to planning applications, clients should always undertake a biodiversity assessment before submitting a planning application (Calumma Ecological Services15). Barber et al (2008) argue that failures in achieving biodiversity benefit, “often occur due to process inconsistencies and incompatibilities during or between the various phases: feasibility; design; planning; project management; and aftercare” (2008:1). Availability of ecological expertise within LPAs The level of local authority resources and knowledge has been raised as a possible barrier to prioritising biodiversity and PPS9 policy. Some councils have dedicated ecologists, but most have no in-house expertise. In 2005 Adam Ingleby, the project manager for the London Wildlife Trust's design for biodiversity programme noted that Westminster City Council is the busiest planning department in Europe but does not have an ecologist. A survey of planning departments in the North West carried out at Liverpool John Moores revealed that projects that were successful in protecting wildlife were often attributable to one member of staff with ecological knowledge. "When these people leave the authority they are not always replaced by someone with equal knowledge," David Alexander, senior planning lecturer at Liverpool John Moores points out that many counties have an ecological unit that district councils can call on for advice and information, but whether they do this is another matter, he notes (Planning, 2 September, 2005). MacPherson (2009) argued that ecologists need to get involved more often, particularly in the pre-application phase, and there should be better education for planners in LPAs on biodiversity. Protecting and enhancing the environment can be especially complex due to seasonal constraints, changing construction programmes, and potentially intricate connections to other biota (Barber et al, 2008:2). The Planning Officers Society (POS)16 have advised that dropping the requirement for LPAs to consult national agencies, e.g. Natural England, on planning applications where there is already local specialist input, to prevent duplicating their advice. 14
Alistair MacPherson, Plymouth CC presentation at UK Biodiversity partnership Conference 2009, University of York, 7-8 October 2009. www.keystone-group.co.uk/biodiversity/presentations/macpherson.pdf 15
http://calummaecologicalservices.com/resources/conservation-policies-and-planning/43-planning-policystatement-9-pps9 16
The Planning Officers Society (POS) is the body representing the most senior planners in local government. www.planningofficers.org.uk
12
Biodiversity is not a high priority particularly when economic development is seen as more pressing In the current economic climate, conservation may not be viewed as a top priority, and there might be a lack of funds and processes to facilitate the policies suggested by PPS9, such as habitat restoration and creation partnerships (Lee, 2010). There is often a danger that features for wildlife are pushed to the bottom of the queue after more popular needs. "There is only a certain amount of money available and affordable housing usually comes top of the list," Simon Marsh, RSPB, Planning, 2 September 2005). This reflects a wider perception that the use of developer contributions for biodiversity enhancement adds to the costs of development or is less worthy than other types of requirements. A recent study by the RSPB which aimed to provide a clearer picture of what is actually happening in planning authorities, to explore the barriers to habitat restoration and creation, and to find out what could be done to aid delivery found that there may not always be public or political support for habitat restoration or creation and it is sometimes difficult balancing stakeholder expectations e.g. landowners can be an obstacle (land is less valuable if it is set aside for conservation) (Lee, 2010). Adequacy of post decision enforcement, monitoring, reporting and review. Published research suggests there can be a substantial gap between the promise of developers through planning obligations and its delivery. Latimer and Hill (2007) argue that this is due to the inadequacy of subsequent monitoring and enforcement. Mitigation is often initiated at the same time or even after the development has taken place leading to a temporal loss of ecological resources. Planning authorities often spend an inordinate amount of time prescribing mitigation requirements captured within Section 106 or similar agreements, only to fail in enforcing them once planning permission is granted (Briggs et al, 2009). There is generally a poor undertaking and enforcing of monitoring as well as a reluctance to strengthen the efficacy of measures. Treweek (1999:351) suggested that schemes were generally inadequate because no monitoring or follow-up was proposed or undertaken and because of a lack of enforcement by planning authorities and statutory agencies. Monitoring and review should be imposed as an automatic condition on consent that is subject to EIA procedures and where adverse impacts would need mitigation (Tyldesley, D, 2008). There is a feeling that enforcement of all planning conditions is a general problem and that this is not limited to biodiversity (Plymouth City Council). Consistency of policy approaches between LPAs 13
MacPherson (2009) argued that one of the barriers to delivering (net gains) for biodiversity is the inconsistent approach by LPAs, which often depends upon having an ecologist who “asks the right things”. These inconsistent approaches when dealing with the same elements of PPS9 by LPAs mean that developers “do not know what to expect or what to do”. This issue is closely linked to the one already identified above about lack of in house ecological expertise. Approaches to mitigation and compensation Commentators suggest that compensation measures are less applied than mitigation. Planners exhibit caution/reluctance in their approach to compensation and enhancement. Currently compensation for ecological impacts is often carried out poorly, if at all. At present it is the responsibility of the developer to mitigate and compensate for impacts on a site-by-site basis. With the exception of some recent compensation projects on Natura 2000, SPAs and SACs, planning permission nearly always requires developers only to mitigate their impacts, and not to compensate. The process generally results in tiny habitat patches, and poorly coordinated projects, if it even occurs at all (Briggs et al, 2009). Furthermore, the irreplaceable nature of some habitat types, such as ancient woodlands, needs to stressed more (Armstrong) as do the time spans required for creating/establishing any woodland, i.e. many semi natural woodlands will in effect be irreplaceable in the context of development timescales/the lifetime of a development.
8. Wider findings Climate change not given sufficient weight in PPS9 The growing awareness and concerns over the effects of climate change is reinforcing the view that ecosystems need to be conserved in a self-sustaining and resilient state such that their viability is maintained. Many commentators felt from the start that PPS9 was let down by its approach to climate change. There is only one reference to this threat in the document. "Over time, the distribution of habitats, species and geomorphological processes and features will be affected by climate change. Such change will need to be taken into account," it states. Simon Marsh, head of planning and regional policy at the RSPB, said “Climate change is the biggest threat to biodiversity so we are disappointed that this is not taken more seriously. I think that local planning authorities and regional bodies will struggle to understand how climate change will affect biodiversity. There is no clear advice on what to do about it" Planning, 2 September 2005 ". Similarly, in the same article in Planning, Liverpool John Moores University senior planning lecturer David Alexander suggested that there should have been a link to last year's (2004) ODPM best practice advice, „The Planning Response to Climate Change‟, and Ian Woodhurst from the CRPE argues that the planning system needs 14
to "future proof" parts of the countryside against the effects of climate change. Areas need to be protected to ensure that species can extend into new areas as temperature and rainfall patterns change, he suggests. MacPherson (2009) purports that what is needed is to tie in biodiversity with climate change in terms of win-wins from planning gain. Planning policies for biodiversity should be better integrated with wider policies for the natural environment The Campaign to Protect Rural England lamented the lack of a holistic approach in PPS9. Senior rural policy officer Ian Woodhurst argued that PPS9 could have been linked with PPS7 on development in the countryside."The danger is that planning policy statements are looked at in isolation. So many factors affect landscape management so it is important for local authorities to have a wider view," he insisted (Planning, 2 September 2005). For example, there is no policy reference to green infrastructure within PPS9 which can provide for multi-functional uses i.e. wildlife, recreational and cultural experience, as well as delivering ecological services such as flood protection and microclimate control. Fortunately, there is an increasing emphasis on the conservation of biodiversity beyond the confines of protected sites, and the role of ecosystem services in sustainable development. Latimer (2009) argues that while the matrix approach adopted in the UK for environmental impact assessment has some value in providing a consistent national framework. In the case of ecological impact assessments it lacks sensitivity and focuses attention on notified sites and species, it therefore under-values those ecological resources at local scales. The focus should therefore be shifting from site-based conservation of habitats and species, to the maintenance of biodiversity and functioning ecosystems. This stems from the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity and is re-emphasised in the Government‟s 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy (Ch. 5) which recognises the importance of biodiversity and biogenetic conservation to self-maintaining natural systems and “ecosystem services (Latimer and Hill 2007), a focus of approach taken forward in the Lawton Review (2010) and EBS. Development ought to seek to avoid, mitigate or compensate environmental harm, not just harm to biodiversity. Potential of biodiversity offsets In considering the potential of biodiversity offsetting schemes, Latimer and Hill (2007) comment on critical natural capital and non-replaceable habitats. Conservation banks are limited to those habitats that can be created or manipulated to increase their conservation value in terms of their ecological function, habitats, or particular species of conservation concern. Losses cannot be accepted to habitats that are deemed, in realistic timescales, to be irreplaceable. Such habitats or ecosystems are termed critical natural capital, and thus it would not be possible to obtain or trade in credits for such resources. Examples in the UK of habitats deemed irreplaceable include those that have developed under very long time scales, e.g. ancient woodland or raised mires. Other habitats may be very difficult to replicate 15
because of environmental complexity, e.g. habitat mosaics on complex geology, or intricate relationships between physical and biological factors, e.g. springline communities, hibernation caves for bats.
Conclusions Current planning policies in England set out PPS9 aim to protect biodiversity and also, support and encourage provision for habitat restoration and creation. However, evidence from commentators suggests that current planning policies are failing to deliver those aspirations. Yet the policies themselves are generally well regarded. As this report details, commentators who have looked at the application of PPS9 policies within the planning system have found a number of reasons why this is the case. These include
Some Local Development Frameworks have biodiversity policies that are weaker than current national policy
There are tensions in the planning system resulting from inadequate ecological information being submitted with applications
Most local planning authorities do not have in house ecological advisors
Biodiversity is often seen as a low priority within the planning system and often lacks political and public support
Conditions and obligations designed to protect or enhance biodiversity are often not monitored or enforced
National policy is interpreted or applied differently by different planning authorities
Compensation infrequently required and, where it is, is often poorly implemented
Some of the wider findings that go beyond the initial remit of this work comment on some aspects of PPS9 which are timely to highlight given the current focus on revisions to all national planning policies and also on issues that will need to be addressed in taking forward biodiversity offsets.
16
References ALGE (2005) „Framework for Biodiversity: Integrating Biodiversity into Local Development Frameworks‟. (Author Mike Oxford. Published by The Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE). ALGE (2011) Biodiversity Toolkit [Online] Available at: www.biodiversityplanningtoolkit.com/default.asp Atley, T and Morad, M (2009) „Mind the gap:the UKs new planning system, landscape conservation and biodiversity‟. International Journal of Environmental Studies. Vol 66, issue 6, 2009. Avon Wildlife Trust (2011) „Take Action For Wildlife: GN2 May 2011‟ [Online] Available at: http://www.avonwildlifetrust.org.uk/planning/documents/GuidanceNote2.pdf
Barber, H, Hedges, P and Fermor, P (2008) „Maximising Biodiversity in Development Projects: Competition and Partnerships‟. Ecocity World Summit 2008 proceedings/Aston University.
Barber, H, Hedges, P and Fermor, P (2009) „Obstacles and Solutions to Maximising Biodiversity in Major Urban Development Schemes‟. Human Ecology International Conference, 2009 proceedings/Aston University. [Online] Available at: www.ukmaburbanforum.co.uk/.../obstacles_and_solutions_May09.pdf
Briggs, B.D.J., Hill, D.A. and Gillespie, R (1999) „Habitat Banking – how it could work in the UK‟. Journal for Nature Conservation, Vol 17, Issue 2, may 2009. Pp 112-122. [Online] Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7GJ6-4VPV8T61&_user=3626285&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_o rigin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1639857479&_rerunOrigin=sch olar.google&_acct=C000061004&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3626285&md5=65fce e89e78f650bd1ccc793d0db3018&searchtype=a
Calumna Ecological Services. 2011. Planning Policy Statement 9. [Online] Available at:http://calummaecologicalservices.com/resources/conservation-policies-and-planning/43planning-policy-statement-9-pps9
17
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. „The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011 – 2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets‟. Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Tenth meeting, Nagoya, Japan, 18-29 October 2010 [Online] Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/COP-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf CPRE Sussex (2007), „Policy Position Statement : Ancient Woodland – Sussex‟s Ancient Woodland at Risk: Policies and Actions to Ensure Protection‟. May 2007. http://www.cpresussex.org.uk/Resources/cpre-sussex-policies/cpre-sussex-policyancientwoodland.pdf DCLG. 2010. „Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment Consultation document‟. [Online] Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1498981.pdf
DCLG. 2011a. „Draft National Planning Policy Framework‟. [Online] Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951747.pdf
DCLG. 2011b. „Community Infrastructure Levy Consultation‟ [Online] Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1997385.pdf Defra (2005) „A Future Without Regrets: Protecting Our Natural Resources and Enhancing the Environment in Securing the Future - UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy‟. [Online] Available at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/ukstrategy/documents/Chap5.pdf [Accessed ? December 2011]. Defra (2006 ) „Local Wildlife and Geological Sites‟. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/localsites.pdf
Defra (2009) „Scoping Study on the Design and Use of Biodiversity Offsets in England‟. [Online] Available at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/BiodiversityOffs ets12May2009.pdf Defra (2011) „Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England‟s Wildlife and Ecosystems Services‟. [Online] Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/08/19/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020/ Dodd, A.M. (2007) „EU Habitats Directive and Habitats Compensation. Spatial Planning in England and implementing habitat conservation under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive‟. MSc dissertation for Oxford Brookes University.
Donatantonio, D (2008) „Biodiversity Policy Failures Lambasted‟. Planning, Nov 14, 2008.
English Heritage (2009) „The Protection and Management of World Heritage Sites in England: English Heritage Guidance Note to Circular for England on the Protection of World Heritage Sites‟.
18
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/protection-management-of-world-heritagesites-in-england/ehwhsplanningcircularguidance.pdf
European Commission (2011). Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Brussels.
HM Government. The Localism Act [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents/enacted/data.htm
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2008) Report „Halting Biodiversity Loss‟: Thirteenth Report of Session 07-08. [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/743/743.pdf
Latimer, W, and Hill, D. ((2007) „Mitigation banking: Securing no net loss to biodiversity? A UK Perspective‟. Planning Practice and Research. 2007. Vol 22. No. 2. pp155-175.
Latimer, W. (2009) „Assessment of Biodiversity at the local Scale for Environmental Impact Assessment and Land-use Planning‟. Planning Practice and Research. 2009. Vol 24, No 3. pp389-408.
Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborne, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Varley, J., & Wynne, G.R. (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England‟s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra. [Online] Available at: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf
Lee, R, (2010) „Delivering landscape-scale habitat restoration and creation through spatial planning‟. [Online] Available at: http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/Deliveringlandscape-scale-conservation-RSPB-survey.pdf. Report to RSPB.
MacPherson, A (Plymouth CC) presentation at UK Biodiversity Partnership Conference 2009, University of York, 7-8 October 2009. [Online] Available at: www.keystone-group.co.uk/biodiversity/presentations/macpherson.pdf
ODPM. (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. [Online] Available at: 19
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/143792.pdf ODPM/Defra. (2005) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system‟ (ODPM Circular 06/200, Defra Circular 01/2005). [Online] Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circularbiodiversity ODPM/Defra/English Nature (2006) Planning for Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: A Guide to Good Practice. [Online] Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningbiodiversity [ HM Treasury (2011) The Plan for Growth. [Online] Available at: http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2011budget_growth.pdf Treweek, J. (1999) „Ecological Impact Assessment‟. Blackwell Science, Oxford. in Briggs et. al., op.cit. Wildlife and Countryside Link. (2010) Consultation on a new Planning Policy Statement : Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment. A Response by Wildlife and Countryside Link. [Online] Available at: http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/2010/Link_response_natural_environment_PPS_01Jun10.pdf
20
Appendix A PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Key Provisions Introduction
Biodiversity is the variety of life in all its forms.
Geological importance relates to sites designated for their geological and/or geomorphological importance.
Government’s Objectives
Planning, construction, development and regeneration should have minimal impacts on biodiversity and enhance it whenever possible.
Promotes sustainable development by ensuring that biodiversity is protected and enhanced as an integral part of social, environmental and economic development.
Diversity of England‟s wildlife is conserved, enhanced and protected by sustaining and wherever possible improving habitats, the physical processes on which they depend and the species they support.
Key Principles
Development plan policies and planning decisions should be based on up to date information about the environmental characteristics of an area.
Appropriate weight given in making planning decisions to designated sites of international, national and local importance, protected species and to biodiversity and geological interests in the wider environment
Plan policies should take a strategic approach to the conservation, enhancement and restoration of biodiversity and geology recognising the contributions that sites areas and features, both individually and in combination.
Plan policies should promote opportunities for incorporation of beneficial biodiversity and geological features within the design of development.
Proposals whose principal objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity or geological conservation should be permitted.
Appropriate compensation should be provided where proposals would result in significant harm to biodiversity and geological conservation interests, and which cannot be reasonably located on an alternative site which would result in less harm, and that significant harm cannot be negated by mitigation. 21
Where mitigation or compensation are not possible, consent should be refused. Regional Spatial Strategies
Identification of the distribution of priority habitats and species, internationally and nationally designated areas and broad areas for restoration and recreation.
Setting of biodiversity objectives, policies, targets for restoration and recreation of priority habitats and species and identification of monitoring indicators.
Address cross boundary issues.
Local Development Frameworks
Local policies should reflect and be consistent with national regional and local biodiversity priorities and objectives.
Frameworks should identify and make clear distinctions between the hierarchy of international, national, regional and locally designated sites.
Frameworks should identify areas and sites for the restoration or creation of priority habitats which contribute to regional targets and support through appropriate policies.
Sites of Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Value
Internationally designated sites are the most important and afforded protection through the Habitats Regulations.
Same protection should be applied as a matter of policy to potential SPAs, candidate Sacs and listed Ramsar sites.
SSSIs should be given a high degree of protection; development likely to have an adverse impact on a SSSI should only be consented exceptionally and where the benefits clearly outweigh the impacts.
Conditions and/or planning obligations should be used to mitigate harmful aspects of development or to ensure the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity or geological interests.
Criteria based policies established for locally and regionally important sites but distinguished from those applied to nationally important sites.
22
Ancient woodland, aged and veteran tress should be identified and loss avoided unless the need for and benefits off development in that location outweigh their loss.
Plan policies should conserve and where possible enhance habitats of principal importance.
Networks of natural habitats such as stepping stones should be protected from development and where possible strengthened or integrated within it.
Significant biodiversity or geological interests on previously developed land should be retained or incorporated into development.
Opportunities to build in beneficial biodiversity or geological features in and around developments should be maximised.
Species Protection
Species not covered by statutory protection and which have been identified as species of principal importance requiring conservation action should be protected from adverse effects of development. Permission should be refused where harm would result unless the need for and benefit of development clearly outweighs that harm.
23
Appendix B List of Abbreviations ALGE Association of Local Government Ecologists
BBOP Business, and Biodiversity Offsets Programme ?
CABE The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (Now the Design Council/CABE)
CIL Community Infrastructure Levy
CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England
EBS England Biodiversity Strategy
IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
IROPI Imperative reasons of overriding public interest
LDF Local Development Framework
LGA Local Government Association
LPA Local Planning Authority
NCI Natural Capital Initiative
NPS National Policy Statement 24
POS Planning Officers Society
PPS Planning Policy Statement
RIGS Regionally Important Geological/Geomorphological Sites
WCL – Wildlife and Countryside Link17
17
WCL is brings together over 30 voluntary organisations concerned with the conservation and protection of wildlife and the countryside. www.wcl.org.uk
25
