ITEM 18
ITEM 18
WILDLIFE AND DEVELOPMENT; SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
Report of Chief Environment and Development Officer
(Budget Book Pages 100 and 103 refer)
INTRODUCTION
1.
When considering development proposals wildlife is a significant material consideration. The
presence of both protected species and sites is something which needs to be given due regard
from the outset of a development proposal. This places a burden on the applicant to
understand the issues and provide sufficient information and for the Council to be able to
resolve the application quickly whilst taking account of the wildlife interest.
2.
Whilst the perception of wildlife is that it is something which occurs within nature reserves
the reality is that habitats and species of importance can occur almost anywhere. The most
striking example in a South Hams context is the presence of bats, which have the highest level
of protection in Europe and yet can occur very widely within existing buildings. In a case
such as this Development Control has a very active and potentially positive role to play in
species conservation.
3.
In light of the important role Development Control can play in species and habitat
conservation the production of Supplementary Planning Guidance is considered expedient.
This is particularly because of the difficulty of identifying wildlife issues and then being able
to deal with them in a clear and appropriate way once they are identified. In many cases the
presence of wildlife on a site is one of the most problematic issues to be dealt with by
Development Control.
4.
The Environment Policy Development Group considered the Supplementary Planning
Guidance on 10th January 2002. The minutes are as follows:
‘Consideration was given to a report aimed at resolving difficulties faced by applicants over
understanding wildlife issues when submitting development proposals. It was emphasised
that protecting wildlife on a development site without unduly disrupting legitimate
development activity was considered by officers to be one of the most contentious
development control issues’.
During discussion, particular reference was made to: (a)
a concern that there did not appear to exist any current protection for endangered
species in Totnes. A Member called for an audit of all such habitats to be undertaken
in Totnes as soon as possible ;
(b)
the difficulties involved with framing a policy that gave sufficient protection within
planning policy over common as well as rare wildlife;
(c)
the need to create a policy protecting wildlife in newly created wildlife reserves;
(d)
the strength of this SPG policy in terms of providing guidelines relating equally to
large and small sites;
(e)
the possibility of including a bio-diversity plan within the community strategy;
(f)
the value of efforts made be elected Members towards identifying sites relevant to
this SPG.
The Environment Policy Development Group endorsed the contents of this report and that the
comments of this Group be incorporated into the guidance, prior to submission to Council in
order to authorise release for public consultation.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
5.
The primary legislation dealing with species and site protection is contained within the
following:



Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
Habitats Regulations 1994
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
6.
Controls under these various Acts are complex and a summary is given both in the emerging
Local Plan and on Page 2 of the attached draft Supplementary Planning Guidance Note
(Appendix 1).
7.
Planning Policy Guidance 9 (Nature Conservation) sets the framework for addressing wildlife
during the Development Control process. Some of the key statements emphasising the
importance of the issue are given on Page 1 of the SPG at Appendix 1.
8.
Information on wildlife and nature conservation is dealt with within two sections of the
emerging Local Plan; in the Planning for Sustainable Development chapter (paras G3.82 –
G3.85) and within the Environment Chapter (paras G4.27 – G4.53).
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
9.
The primary aim of producing this Supplementary Planning Guidance note is to elaborate on
policies being brought forward in the Local Plan. Where the Local Plan Policies provide
clarity over what is expected, the aim of the SPG note is to detail how the Council expects
developers to reach that end result.
10.
The draft SPG note is presented without illustrations in Appendix 1. Final production would
need detailed formatting with illustrations in line with other SPG’s adopted by Council. It is
proposed that the document, if approved by Council, will be placed for public inspection and
will be circulated to those with a direct interest including Developers, Parish Councils and
wildlife organisations for their comments.
BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
11.
Costs for production of previous SPG have been in the region of £400 for printing. Options
for minimising this, through electronic circulation and minimising print runs, will be
investigated during the final drafting of the SPG. Consideration also needs to be given to the
longer term costs of implemting and monitoring the measure set out in the SPG. These costs
are, however, inherent in the implementation of the parent Local Plan policies and need to be
seen in the context of delivery of the Local Plan as a whole.
KEY ISSUES
12.
Rather than summarise the SPG here the aim is to draw to Members attention those key
issues which will be either difficult to resolve or likely to have long-term impacts on
Developers or the Council. The following are drawn to Members attention.
ASCERTAINING THE PRESENCE OF WILDLIFE INTEREST
13. Whilst the Council is charged with treating both sites and species as a material consideration
there is no clarity on the length the Council should go to to ascertain whether there is wildlife
issues to be dealt with. Failure to identify an issue, or subsequently deal with it correctly,
could leave the Council open to challenge over the grant of a consent. Therefore there is a
clear requirement that the Council must act on the best information available to it from the
outset.
14.
Whilst it would be possible to discover a protected species on many types of development site
it is considered to be impractical to require an ecological survey for all of the 2000 or so
applications that are submitted within South Hams annually. In light of this the proposal
within the SPG is that certain types of application will require the submission of an ecological
survey at the outset.
15.
These are detailed in the SPG and include the following:a.
b.
c.
Sites on, or adjacent to, designated wildlife sites.
Sites on, or adjacent to, a site known to support a rare or protected species.
Conversion or works affecting the roof of Barns, Mills, Traditional properties and
Buildings in the open countryside and rural fringe.
d. Green Field development including proposals on or adjacent to Farmland, Woodland,
Hedgerows and Orchards.
e. Sites on, or adjacent to, the Coastline, Estuaries, Rivers or Wetlands.
f. Quarries, Caves, Bridges or Culverts.
g. Sites which require a statutory Environmental Impact Assessment.
16.
The requirement to submit an ecological survey with any of the above applications clearly
places a significant new burden on applicants. It also places additional responsibilities on the
Officer’s involved to ensure that they are correctly identifying the types of application.
17.
There is also an issue that at present there is only a limited number of ecologists working in
the area and that this in itself may present delays for the Developer being able to commission
a survey. This certainly highlights the need for them to consider any ecological issues early in
their proposals, and certainly well in advance of submitting the application.
COMPLEXITY OF ISSUES
18.
Members will have already seen Part One of the Local Plan Review 1995 – 2011; General
Policies. There is already a significant quantity of text and policy content on wildlife within
the Local Plan. The purpose of the SPG is to elaborate on this policy and to give clear
guidance to those wishing to undertake development as to what is expected of them in order to
identify whether they have a wildlife issue and then how to address it.
19.
The issues involved are complex and Members are asked to consider whether the SPG in this
format achieves the objective of giving clear guidance to potential developers. Some of the
information in the SPG, including that on protected sites, is already within the Local Plan. It
is included in the SPG to give a more complete picture but given that applicants should
already be referring to the Local Plan for the policies such information may be considered
superfluous.
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
20.
The sensitivity of wildlife is such that even minor disturbance can have significant long-term
impacts. Once the disturbance or damage has taken place it may be difficult, if not
impossible, to remedy it. Clearly if such a case were to happen then this would be a failing of
the Development Control system – it also has the potential to be an offence under the various
Wildlife Acts with implications for both the developer and indeed the Council itself.
21.
In light of this the principle proposed within the SPG is that where a development proposal is
likely to have an adverse effect on rare or protected species, or designated sites, approval will
not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that the effects have been decreased to an
acceptable level in line with the Local Plan policies.
22.
This is a strong test but is in line with the legislation. Again the underpinning factor here is
that there must have been sufficient information gathered and provided in order for a reasoned
decision to be made on the presence of species or sites and the likely impact the development
will have.
SUMMARY
23.
The purpose of producing the Supplementary Planning Guidance is to clarify how the Council
will expect wildlife to be dealt with through the Development Control process. The guidance
is based on national legislation and Structure Plan and Local Plan policies with the aim of
assisting developers in bringing forward quality development with wildlife conservation fully
incorporated.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council RESOLVES that the Wildlife and Development Supplementary Planning
Guidance note be approved and released for public consultation.
Ross Kennerley
Tree and Wildlife Officer
Ken Carter
Coast and Countryside Service Manager
Alan Robinson
Chief Environment and Development Officer
Council
14 February 2002