Built developments and mineral extraction can bring social benefits. However, if developments decrease biodiversity there could be a net loss of human well-being. Planning policy is devolved and this POSTnote sets out how the information on impacts of proposed developments on biodiversity is given to planners in England. It also summarises approaches to enhance biodiversity and avoid, mitigate and compensate for negative impacts.
The Report can be downloaded here.
Some of the key points are highlighted below, but the full report should be read for context:
Resources and Awareness of Local Authorities Awareness and implementation of the Biodiversity Duty varies considerably between Local Authorities. Local Authorities need to consider information in the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) report when making the planning decision. In 2011, about 40% of Local Authorities had an in house ecologist and there have been recent losses in biodiversity staff. In some areas, a team of Local Authority ecologists at a regional level provide expertise at the local level. However, in a sample of planning cases from 2007, in nearly half the cases the planning officer received neither internal nor external ecological advice. These cases had poorer outcomes for biodiversity. Often the measures recommended in the EcIA report are not included as planning conditions and obligations,and there is a lack of monitoring and enforcement. Natural England also no longer routinely advises on individual cases. Local Environmental Records centres are also essential to planning, as they manage biodiversity records. However, they are poorly used and resourced by local and central Government.
Poor Reporting of Impacts to Local Authorities and Public. There is no standard method for reporting biodiversity loss. Non-ecologists in the Local Authority might only read the non-technical summary of the EcIA report. However, over a quarter of EcIAs in a recent academic review did not state in this summary what residual biodiversity loss was expected. In addition, although EcIA reports are meant to be publically available, they are often hard to access. The Association of Local Environmental Records Centres state that EcIA survey data are generally not shared with them.
Implementing Avoidance and Mitigation Measures Alternative sites and project designs to avoid biodiversity loss are poorly considered. This may occur if ecologists are consulted too late. Developers do try to implement most of the recommended mitigation measures, but are hindered by the poor quality of mitigation proposals in some EcIA reports. Opinion varies as to what extent it is possible to mitigate on site for impacts before using compensation off site. A project to improve the skills of ecological consultants is being led by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, which is gaining chartered status. The EcIA guidelines are being updated and a British Standard for biodiversity and planning will be published in 2013.