‘Dorset Protocol’ - an innovative approach to European Protected Species - planning 2014

Dorset Biodiversity Protocol June 2014

Phil Sterling, MCIEEM Natural Environment Manager

Natural Environment Team

2.5 FTE Ecologists 1 FTE Landscape Officer

Income target 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2010 / 11

2011 / 12

2012 / 13

2013 / 14

2014 / 15

Background to establishment of the Dorset Biodiversity Protocol • 2005 DWT produce a report on effectiveness of its planning work. Key findings:  DWT responded to over 200 cases per year.  DWT’s comments not acknowledged in 30% of cases with advice adopted in some form in only 58% of cases.  Lack of any means of securing ecological enhancements.

• 2006 / 07 English Nature submit statutory objections to planning applications it considers should be supported by a bat check.

• 2007 / 08 Dorset Bat Protocol developed and adopted by 6 LPAs. • 2010 / 11 Dorset Biodiversity Protocol developed and adopted by participating LPAs.

Dorset Biodiversity Protocol (mostly pre‐application) Summary of Planning Protocol Steps Registration clerk requests:  A standard biodiversity assessment for all development sites over 0.1ha  A standard bat check on all properties with an enclosed roof void  A standard bat and barn owl check on all barns and derelict buildings in rural areas Applicant / consultant submits to DCC NET:  A standard format Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) for all positive bat checks and all development sites over 0.1ha  Natural Environment Team reviews/approves BMP and issues Certificate of Approval once satisfied  BMP + Certificate are submitted with planning application Case officer ensures:  BMP is made condition of any planning permission  No further consultation undertaken with NE, local wildlife trust etc

Results for bats – 2013 and combined data since 2008

Mitigation Secured:

Measures

2013

Combined Total

Total number of bat boxes / bat tubes erected

107

558

Bat roosts retained and enhanced

25

98

Bat roosts replaced (like for like basis)

17

104

Number of properties with new bat boxes

65

New roost in roof void created (enhancement)

1

5

New crevice roost created (enhancement)

1

6

Total Biodiversity Mitigation Plans approved

89

771

Results for other wildlife – 2013 and combined data since 2008 Mitigation Measures Secured:

2013

Barn owl boxes: Other bird boxes:

Combined Total 5

22

108

449

Swallow boxes 24

106

House martin boxes

22

Swift boxes 8

37

House sparrow terraces 15

44

Tawny owl or little owl boxes

4

Wren

4

Reptile hibernacula

7

30

Log piles

5

27

>15

25

Artificial otter holt

2

3

Hedgehog box

2

15

New native hedgerows (sites)

5

20

Native woodland and scrub planting (sites)

5

29

>24

69

Grassland creation and enhancements (sites)

7

19

Pond creation and enhancement (sites)

3 & 1 new pond

10 & 7 new ponds

Dormouse boxes

Native fruit trees

Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework •In cases where full mitigation of losses or effects is not possible, or is uncertain, applicants are encouraged to avoid residual losses via offsite compensation – typically as a financial contribution calculated using the Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework •DBCF based on Defra metrics – area x risk x spatial x time •Compensation payments via s.106 or voluntary, depending on scale •Compensation funding contributions are identified in BMP by consultant •Compensation can be delivered by enhancement of land within control of applicant •Compensation for significant biodiversity losses is negotiated case‐by‐case

Precautionary Principle vs Proportionality

Worst Case Scenario Approach And Over-Mitigation

Benefits of the Protocol approach

• Speeds up planning process – appears efficient and effective • Cost to applicant of basic checks collapsed locally • Meets 2/3rds statutory tests on EPS • Captures many small EPS cases which would go unmitigated • Provides simple checklist of deliverables • Is adaptable for EPS, other wildlife and habitats, and now covers biodiversity compensation as well as voluntarily‐offered enhancement • Is auditable and can adapt to results • Is self‐funding for DCC, and costs the district LPAs nothing

But What if … … In Addition

Natural England Low Impact Class (EPS) Licences

Applies to: • seven common(ish) species of bats; • Low risk proposals; • Enables ‘registered’ consultants to ‘slip stream’ the process; • Reduced paper work and delay (e.g.10 days instead of 30 days)

In Conclusion