Risks To Thousands of Acres of Protected Land

[Chiltern Chris]

Hi,

I agree that size isn't everything. When undertaking an EIA one of the primary issues regarding compensation habitats is its relationship to both the habitat destroyed and how it functions with the habitat that remains. This is particularly important to the ecological value and sustainability of the compensation habitat e.g. water vole populations are more likely to be sustainable if they are linked to about 6 other meta populations to allow for migration and gene mixing. It's therefore pretty risky undertaking water vole compensation unless you know how the compensation habitat fits in with the other local colonies. So it's how the habitats and species actually function which is just as important as size.

You also used the word mitigation and in EIAs you must be very specific about what that means. The term mitigation is used to mean an action which makes the proposal less bad e.g. undertaking tree works outside the bird-breeding season. Compensation is the replacement of something that has been destroyed and enhancement provides betterment compared to what existed before the development. PPS9, the Government's policy statement on nature conservation has as one of its key principles, that if a development creates significant harm to nature conservation that the planning authority should seek ecological compensation, (this is one of the reasons why significance criteria are so important in EIAs). If there is damage being done due to a development you should always challenge the planners regarding how significant it is and what compensation measures they have considered.

EIAs themselves are not required for all large developments e.g. there is a proposal to install a tidal barrage across the river Lee in London. This will have a significant environmental impact but no EIA is required, as it does not fall under the planning legislation or EIA Regulations.

Finally, as far as the Environment Agency is concerned, they are very different from other 'developers' because they have a legal duty to conserve Biodiversity. In this case 'conserve' means to protect, enhance or restore species of habitats (as defined in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006). As a whole, their overall operations, including flood defence work must not create any net loss of biodiversity and they have a government target (Defra High Level Target 4) of increasing BAP habitat by 200ha per year, half of which must be saltmarsh or mudflat. This is part of the reason for the Ribble compensation works and large saltmarsh creation on the Humber estuary at Alkborough http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...oug_1478245h_2. So as you say, the EA are far more likely to provide enhancement compared to normal developers.

Cheers, Chris

[almostnormal]

actually, i know what you mean. there's some serious problems with a couple of the big wind farm developments becasue they aren't obliged, like EA are, to do as much. i know when they built the new manchester runway they had to do some pretty impressive relocation and habitat creation for the great crested newts on site. if they do build on this area of green belt will they not need to do ecological surveys as part of the planning application? i thought that was standard, although i'll admit planning is not my best subject!

[brainfarmer]

im not sure how relevant this is but it does give an insight into the ever increasing need for more housing:- evan davis 'the price of property' on bbc radio 4 (sorry cant do links) the programme has a listen again feature.

[Chiltern Chris]

Originally Posted by almostnormal

if they do build on this area of green belt will they not need to do ecological surveys as part of the planning application? i thought that was standard, although i'll admit planning is not my best subject!

Hi,

If you're interested, the developments which require an EIA are described in Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999 No. 293 schedule 1 and 2 Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 293. As Regulations go, the schedules aren't too difficult to read ...... or maybe I'm sad and need to get out more (definitely true).
There are a number of other Regulations involved but this gives you the general idea of what does and doesn't require EIA.

Chris

PS Manchester airport runway extension ultimately involved the permanent severing of the environmental corridor along the river Bollin - that was a bit of a setback , but we won at Heathrow by making BAA put the rivers around the outside of the airport in open channels. Until recently the linear nature of rivers weren't recognised by our government but due to the European Habitats Directive we now had to include them in our planning decisions

[almostnormal]

Originally Posted by Chiltern Chris

PS Manchester airport runway extension ultimately involved the permanent severing of the environmental corridor along the river Bollin - that was a bit of a setback , but we won at Heathrow by making BAA put the rivers around the outside of the airport in open channels. Until recently the linear nature of rivers weren't recognised by our government but due to the European Habitats Directive we now had to include them in our planning decisions

well that's a result then, if a little late for manchester. thanks for the link, its quite interesting stuff. i didn't realise there were as many holes in the system. there a few in the forestry EIA criteria as well.

it'll all come in useful when i'm climbing the ladder to policy and eventually company-wide domination.