Nutrient Neutrality

Part III of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and its Implications on Nature

Fri, 02 May 2025 13:18:09 GMT

Under existing laws, such as the Habitats Regulations (the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, developers are required to undertake project specific assessments and mitigation strategies to assess and diminish their potential impacts on the natural environment. The Government suggests these processes can delay development until sufficient mitigation becomes available, creating barriers to building crucial homes and infrastructure.

Part III of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will offer an alternative approach for developers by establishing the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) and associated Environmental Delivery Plans (EDPs). Rather than implementing site-specific mitigation measures, the Bill will enable developers to pay into the central NRF via a one-off levy, funding large-scale conservation projects managed by Natural England or other designated delivery bodies. EDPs are created and managed by Natural England to outline the conservation measures that should be taken to address developments impact on a protected site or species. Before being implemented, the EDPs will undergo an ‘overall improvement test’ to assess whether the strategic approach is sufficient to outweigh the negative effects of developments.

The Government claims this process will enable Natural England and partners to quickly deliver nature restoration at a large scale whilst expediting development, however, the Bill has been heavily criticised by industry professionals, political figures, and environmental organisations such as The Wildlife Trusts and The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. A group of 40 leading conservationists, former Government advisors, and leading economists have written to every MP in England asking them to write to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to request that Part III of the bill is paused. The letter states that the Bill is not a tool for nature recovery, enabling developers to ‘buy out’ their legal obligations to nature, which in turn, threatens crucial protections and risks irreversible damage to ecosystems. The letter states that “the Government’s rhetoric — that wildlife laws are delaying house building — is simply false”, going on to argue that developmental delays are mostly caused by under resourced planning authorities, infrastructure bottlenecks, and industry-led viability constraints. The authors argue that strategic licensing systems (such as the popular District Level Licensing for newts) are legally robust, evidence based, effectively protect species, and streamline development.

Part III of the Bill has been criticised for the following reasons:

· Whilst being reliant on the NRF levy to fund its own administration, Natural England will both write the conservation plans and assess their efficacy, with no independent examination, which is a clear conflict of interest. Moreover, the entire success of the Bill relies on Natural England’s ability to develop, deliver, and police effective EDPs, which presents a significant challenge for the organisation.

· The overall improvement test is vague and legally weak, leaving it open to manipulation and allowing environmental protections to be easily dismissed. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Housing will have the discretion of determining whether the test is met, creating a loophole where political decision making can be prioritised over strategic actions backed by ecological and scientific reasoning.

· The Bill ignores fundamental principles of effective ecological governance:

a. The Polluter Pays Principal, which dictates that the costs of environmental damage should be borne by those causing it. This is instead replaced by a simple levy across all developments.

b. The Mitigation Hierarchy, which employs developers to first avoid causing harm, before minimising, then restoring, and as a last resort, offsetting environmental degradation. The NRF ignores this process, allowing developers to simply pay into the levy to offset damages.

c. The Precautionary Principal, which dictates that a lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

· Rather than being set to cover the real cost of ecological damage, the levies are viability based, being adjusted downwards according to development viability. This means that when economic pressures arise, nature will be set to lose out.

Lepus view

The government’s determination to ‘deliver the undeliverable’ (1.5 million homes in five years) is leading them into controversy as they seek to turbocharge the development process, seemingly at the cost of protecting, enhancing and restoring ecological integrity. Biodiversity levels are already woefully low in the UK, compared with other countries. It is apparent that the PIB is in sharp contrast to other government policy which seeks to deliver net zero, appreciate the climate change crisis and biodiversity crisis.

Lepus believes the proposed approach lacks transparency and is dangerously close to unleashing a level of unplanned development growth that has not been seen since the agricultural revolution and post-war development levels that were necessary to re-build the country.

Whilst at the forefront of the LURA 2023, the government has committed ensuring any reform to biodiversity management and protection will not be compromised in the face of other legislative reform, the PIB appears to run the risk of doing exactly the opposite.

There is much, much more thought and consideration required before the government introduces an Act that could lead to the loss of crucial safeguards that have, and continue to, protect nature in the United Kingdom. Not to forget that the NRF approach will put increasing strain on the already under-funded Natural England.

It is healthy to review and check if systems are fit for purpose. This must take place first rather than to adopt a slash and burn approach which leaves no room for reversal. The government would be wise to pause Part III of PIB whilst they can better answer some of these performance questions.

Recreational Disturbance Training for Natural England

Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:16:50 GMT

RECREATIONAL DISTURBANCE TRAINING FOR NATURAL ENGLAND

Natural England provides advice to applicants and statutory decision makers on the potential impacts of development proposals on the natural environment. A key part of their statutory remit concerns impacts to national and international designated sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsars which are often impacted by recreational activities causing recreational disturbance.

Recreational disturbance refers to someone taking part in a recreational activity that causes a change in behaviour of wildlife, damage to habitat or physical harm or death of wildlife.

In this capacity, the Natural England East Midlands Area Team sought bespoke training on recreational disturbance in order to aid their casework handling. Lepus has worked closely with the team to deliver a comprehensive training plan which included a morning session of classroom-based learning, followed by a site walkover and Q&A session.

All attendees took part in a site visit to Sherwood Forest (SSSI and SAC) which allowed for the practical application of key learnings with commentary covering topics discussed in the classroom-based session.

Supplementary training materials were provided to aid with the continued application of key learnings, allowing the team to quickly identify potential disturbance impacts from different types of development and suggest ways of mitigating impacts where applicable.

Lepus is available to deliver training in recreational disturbance for your organisation and can deliver a package which is tailored to your organisations specific needs, or locality.

Please contact enquiries@lepusconsulting.com to discuss

Team Away Day: Foraging and Botany in Notgrove

Thu, 16 Jan 2025 15:46:11 GMT

TEAM AWAY DAY: FORAGING AND BOTANY IN NOTGROVE

In our ongoing mission to foster environmental education and sustainable practices, our environmental consultancy team recently participated in a foraging course held in the picturesque Cotswold village of Notgrove.

The Notgrove Estate offered the perfect backdrop for this hands-on learning experience. With its diverse ecosystems, the area is rich in flora and fungi, making it an ideal location for understanding the abundance of edible plants and mushrooms that can be foraged throughout the year. The course was hosted by Wild Food UK who run courses across the country, at varying times of year with the aim of encouraging peoples connection to nature.

Our day began with a warm welcome and an informative introduction to Wild Food UK and the foraging experience that lay ahead. We were briefed on the countryside codes, with particular emphasis on the Foraging Code, which highlights the ethical and responsible practices necessary for sustainable foraging.

The group then set off on a walk around the Notgrove Estate’s expansive grounds. Led by an expert foraging instructor, we were taught how to identify a variety of edible plants and mushrooms. Each plant we identified had its own history of being used in cooking, medicine, and folklore and it was fascinating to learn.

The day concluded with a wild food meal that included a selection of foraged dishes prepared by our instructor, each showcasing the plants and fungi we had gathered during our walk.

In addition to the hands-on experience, each participant was sent a comprehensive set of course notes a few days after the course. This included links to articles and resources related to the plants and mushrooms we encountered during the day, providing us with an opportunity to continue our learning journey.

For our consultancy team, the foraging course was an invaluable experience. It deepened our understanding of local ecosystems, and enhanced our awareness of the biodiversity that surrounds us, reinforcing the importance of sustainable practices in all aspects of environmental work. We left Notgrove with not only a greater appreciation for the natural world but also the tools to integrate foraging and sustainable food practices into our personal and professional lives.

Natural England publishes report on SANG and SAMM provision

Tue, 21 May 2024 15:59:07 GMT

COMPILATION AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE LEADING TO SANG AND SAMM PROVISION

Natural England has published a report which provides a review of methods and evidence published about recreational impacts on European protected sites and the solutions for their mitigation. This report was produced by the team at Lepus Consulting who worked closely with Natural England to deliver this study.

Development, and specifically housing growth, has the potential to increase public recreation and disturbance pressures at some of the most ecologically sensitive sites across the country. European and Ramsar sites are designated for a number of qualifying habitats and species of international importance and are particularly vulnerable to recreational pressure.

Currently, the impacts of these pressures are addressed at European designated sites through the adoption of mitigating actions referred to as strategic solutions. The aim is to divert recreational pressure to an alternative location by providing Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and/or to address recreational impacts on site through the adoption of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) measures. SANG and SAMM often work in parallel with one another.

The study reviews 16 Local Planning Authority case studies, to produce a series of recommendations designed to ensure a process of best practice is followed for identifying, designing, and securing recreational mitigation. These include: maintenance of a robust and periodically updated evidence base, an established ZOI, a partnership approach, communication with site users, a consistent and comprehensive monitoring strategy and linking mitigation solutions with wider initiatives such as Green Infrastructure, Local Nature Recovery Networks and Biodiversity Net Gain amongst others.

To read the full article please visit the Natural England website:

https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6015060338802688

Small Consultancy of the Year Award

Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:58:11 GMT

CIEEM 2023 SMALL CONSULTANCY OF THE YEAR AWARD NOMINEES

Following being shortlisted by the CIEEM panel for the 2023 Small Consultancy of the Year Award, the Lepus Team attended the awards ceremony at the Birmingham Botanical Gardens for an evening hosted by CIEEM.

After listening to some incredibly innovative work being carried out across the country by fellow practitioners, and some engaging discussion about BNG opportunities within the UK, we were awarded 'commended' in our field.

This award recognises consultancies which deliver high quality ecological services and are an exemplar employer and advocate for the profession. To be chosen by the panel and awarded a commended position is a real testament to the hard work of our team over the year.

Roll on 2024!

Environmental Outcomes Reports

Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:34:46 GMT

ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES REPORTS - AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) will see that existing EU-generated Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) are transformed into new, government-created Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs).

Part 6 of the LURB is currently awaiting royal assent which will likely be granted later this year. Regulations and piloting will then take place in 2024, and the bill likely rolled out in 2025.

The main aim of this Bill is to make environmental assessment more efficient, whilst ensuring overall environmental protection is not reduced. Plans and projects will have to report against a set of given environmental outcomes with supporting indicators.

Why move away from EIAs and SEAs?

Environmental assessment has become too broad
Significant amounts of documentation under current regime (becomes impenetrable and disengages local communities)
Significant variance in indicators and datasets within assessments
Current environmental assessment regime contains inherent element of uncertainty
Lack of access to robust and consistent data
Lack of monitoring and forecasting impacts or mitigation

What makes EORs more efficient than previously used EIAs and SEAs?

Scoping will report proportionally against outcomes and be submitted as part of the EOR to save time with the local authority scoping process.
Scoping reports will assess alternatives earlier to reduce confusion and will follow a more outcome-based approach.
They will include an assessment of how matters raised can be monitored and mitigated

There are, however, concerns around EORs and the potential for them to become more of a burden rather than an improvement to the original system. There are a number of things that should be considered before the Bill is rolled out in full force, such as:

Can we implement adaptive management to allow mitigation to be adjusted in response to greater certainty on effects following implementation?
If EORs are not able to address cumulative effects of climate change, what measures will be in place to ensure this issue is picked up elsewhere?
How will monitoring across local councils and development bodies be better resourced?

Some of these questions arose in a webinar on EORs hosted by the Planning Advisory Service. It is promising that questions are being asked, as this encourages solutions to be actively sought. Hopefully, when the Bill comes into effect, we will see positive environmental outcomes and assessments will be more efficient than under the old regime.

The Lepus team consists of highly experienced SA practitioners and as such we have taken a keen interest in these developments and have contributed to the governments consultations in order to shape the emerging legislation.

For more information on EORs please contact our technical team at enquiries@lepusconsulting.com . Our team can provide advice on the likely transition times for the new legislation, alongside specialist advice targeted to your requirements.

Lepus Nominated for Small Consultancy of the Year Award

Wed, 17 May 2023 15:59:14 GMT

The Lepus team is excited to announce we have been shortlisted by the CIEEM panel for the Small Consultancy of the Year Award. This award recognises consultancies that deliver high quality ecological services whilst being an exemplar employer and advocate for the profession, so to be chosen by the panel is a real testament to the hard work of our team over the year.

We look forward to attending the awards ceremony on Wednesday 28th June at The Birmingham Botanical Gardens!

Reform of UK Environmental Policy

Neil.Davidson@Lepusconsulting.com (Neil Davidson) — Thu, 09 Feb 2023 16:53:26 GMT

REFORM OF UK ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, THE UK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (EIP) AND THE OFFICE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (OEP).

The government continues to modify UK policy and legislation in the wake of Brexit. This week the UK Government rejected amendments that would have offered some assurances of the continuation to nature protection laws that have been derived from European legislation.

On Wednesday the Government voted against amendments tabled for the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill that sought to protect environmental rules from powers contained in the the bill. It therefore persists with its 'reform' (chiefly removal) of European environmental protection and management legislation without having first established which UK-designed successor approaches and legislation will ensure that the claims of the government are met; Michael Gove says that changes will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.

This is a very delicate and rather important matter as most environmental professionals, economists, land use planners and resource strategists are hoping to address the growing Climate Change and Biodiversity crises. EU membership often prompted the UK government to do more than it was willing to do in terms climate change, environmental and ecology protection. Even if the UK was the first nation to have its own Climate Change Act (2008), an Act which is widely credited with having contributed to reducing the country’s gross greenhouse gas emissions by 26% between 2010 and 2019, while the economy grew by 17% in the same period.

Adaptation and modification of existing practices where improvements can be yielded is a worthwhile exercise. Needless to say, this reform process is a case of making sure that the government don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

On a related matter, the OEP has provided a review of progress with the UK's EIP: the 25 Year Environment Plan. It reveals a mixed bag of performance metrics, with much room for improvement. Let's hope then that the government know what they are doing as they continue with these bold changes.

For more information please see the CIEEM website:

https://lnkd.in/eMr5TKsC

https://lnkd.in/e6rQ2-k4

Environmental Outcomes Report - Initial Observations

Thu, 09 Feb 2023 16:43:07 GMT

The government has published updates and more detail about environmental outcomes reporting in Part 5 of the latest Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Of interest to me is the possibility that EOR will replace and reform existing environmental assessment legislation relating to EIA and SEA (as well as presumably sustainability appraisal).

I have skimmed through the Part 5 proposals and am under the clear impression that they appear to make much sense as a streamlining and progressive ambition. For anyone who feels sustainability appraisal is burdened

by the challenge to reconcile environmental, social and economic outcomes, will be pleased to see (as am I) the emphasis on environmental protection. LURB clause 118(2)(a) includes a clear and simple definition about the environmental protection with which EOR will concern itself: 'protection of the natural environment, cultural heritage and the landscape from the effects of human

activity'.

For the sceptics, in respect of any future EOR regulations that may be prepared, and so possibly include revocation of some existing environmental assessment legislation, LURB clause 122 is reassuringly helpful: 'The Secretary of State may make EOR regulations only if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in environmental law providing an overall level of environmental protection that is less than that provided by

environmental law at the time this Act is passed'.

EORs are intended to apply to plans and projects alike. It is not yet clear as to when an EOR will be required, see LURB Clause 119(2). Presumably, some kind of screening process will be used.

I will write more once I know more. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing what others think of the proposals. It is a humungous bill and has, no doubt, quite a way to go yet.

For more information, please see:

https://lnkd.in/eT8JT8w6

Implications of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LU&R) for Strategic Environmental Planning and Assessment

Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:48:23 GMT

Word cloud illustrating contemporary environmental issues and initiatives that are relevant to strategic environmental assessment and sustainable development.

Summary

This article discusses plan level environmental assessment. It is a snapshot review of the current Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment processes which are used to evaluate local plans in terms of sustainability performance. It welcomes the proposed government review of these processes and advocates improved approaches to the collection of baseline information so that ecosystem functions are not degraded, lost, or overlooked. Environmental assessment and planning should provide the opportunity to understand environmental systems better before preparing plans that introduce development based on housing number calculations that seemingly do little to factor in environmental considerations.

How might a new approach lead to improved environmental outcomes for land use planning in England?

Having spent some 17 years involved with the strategic environmental assessment process as well as the sustainability appraisal process associated with the preparation of local plans, I would say that a structural review of their effectiveness and current practises is long overdue.

Presently, the government wishes to reform both of these high level assessment processes as part of proposals laid out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.

The government has explained that it intends to run a series of consultative exercises in order to help inform the review of these strategic processes. A statement at the start of the bill reads, ‘the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law’.

Phew! That’s a relief. Or is it? One immediate question is how effective is current environmental law? And should we not be mindful of the fact that the law is simply a blunt tool that obligates action; environmental protection is far more than this. It is a blend of community actions, which include as a minimum, positive land management practices that balance food production with resilient ecosystems that support biodiversity and well-being, it is good communications, it is inspiring and helping everyone appreciate that the environment needs managing and protecting. The answer to this will no doubt be one of the starting points for the structural or ‘deep dive’ review of the processes.

The challenge, presumably, is how will the government address this apparent paradox? Committing on the one hand to ensure that there will be no reduction in environmental protection yet on the other hand seeking to remove current requirements to undertake environmental assessment. Solution? Conduct a deep dive analysis of present effectiveness and then make suggestions for change. So why has the government decided to put the horse before the cart? Discuss, 20 marks, 2000 words.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advocates a combined approach to preparing sustainability appraisal and strategic environmental assessment of local plans. PPG states that ‘Strategic environmental assessment considers only the environmental effects of a plan, whereas sustainability appraisal considers the plan’s wider economic and social effects in addition to its potential environmental impacts. Sustainability appraisal should meet all of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, so a separate strategic environmental assessment should not be required’.

But isn't this a bit messy? Why do we have two assessment processes that are, on the face of it, very similar? And if so, is such duplication effective?? Is it required??

And, if the sustainability appraisal can include all the requirements of the SEA process, why bother to have the Strategic Environmental Assessment regulations in the first place? Answer: The Strategic Environmental Assessment process applies to a much wider range of plans and programmes than simply local plans.

Sustainability Appraisal is a loosely defined, openly interpreted entity which, by association with the SEA requirements, has morphed into something of a monster since it first appeared in s.19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Legal battles about what exactly constitutes a reasonable alternative, and how they should be assessed, have arguably led SA practitioners to be extremely precautionary in order to minimise the risks of legal challenge. The government recognised a similar issue with Habitats Regulations Assessment in section 3.2 of the March 2022 Nature Recovery green paper: protected sites and species. SA reports can now run to hundreds of pages. But the real risk is that despite their voluminous presence, they are not diagnostic or effective enough at appraising effects because the SA is only ever as good as information that has been used to perform the assessment.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment process, on the other hand, is carefully set out by the way of procedure based in the original European Directive and now the UK regulations. The Strategic Environmental Assessment process defines a range of environmental topics that must be explored and evaluated as part of a wide range of sectoral plans or programmes which are deemed to have significant environmental effects. Used correctly, SEA has the potential to act as an influencing tool to maximise multifunctional environmental net gain.

The reality is that the sustainability appraisal process and the strategic environmental assessment processes, as applied to local plans, have never really been carefully thought out. The two pieces of legislation came in almost at the same time (2005 and 2004 respectively) under familiar conditions whereby Europe takes one approach and the UK Government takes another. Taken at face value, both have similarities, however the SEA Directive is more clearly defined and identifies quite clear requirements for the assessment process.

Practitioners will be well aware that a criticism of the sustainability appraisal process is that in attempting to appraise social, economic and environmental attributes it serves as a mechanism for trade-off that can facilitate development at the cost of environmental impacts. Occasionally, it works the other way around.

Another weakness is that the SA process only uses secondary data and has been described politely as ‘passive’ because it works only at the desktop level. Consequently, outputs are constrained by the quality of datasets and information.

Perhaps its greatest flaw of all is the way in which it seeks to analyse numerous small potential development sites as part of the reasonable alternatives process which is undertaken when a local plan is prepared. The Sustainability Appraisal often duplicates work that has already been undertaken by the planning policy team since the same or similar datasets are used. But it should be remembered that the SA team, if external, will be effectively reviewing the Council’s work and to do so, must ensure they are familiar with the data that has been used to undertake the appraisal and therefore why not produce an assessment as well? Add to this the consistency of appraisal method across a large number of sites and a benefit of the process emerges. This is one reason that SA reports become so large.

Anybody who has appeared at an Examination in Public to support a local planning authority through the hearing stages that deal with SA in the early part of an Examination will be familiar with the debates that take place around sites. It is literally a David and Goliath experience in which the SA process (David) will have evaluated a potential allocation (reasonable alternative) site in the SA process using desktop information whilst the site promoter may have 5-10 environmental reports relating to ecology, noise, water quality, transportation, landscape etc. At this point, the SA process makes polite overtures and bows out of the debate because we are simply not comparing apples with apples anymore. It is worth noting that such reports are all likely to include primary survey data and the price of the single site environmental reports together might possibly cost more that the entire SA!

In short: environmental baseline information is critical. The SA process is too high level much of the time. I would prefer to see a process of plan making that, from the outset, establishes which evidence is to be collected and what level of evidence will be acceptable, before any assessment work takes place.

It is through its alliance with the Strategic Environmental Assessment process, which requires that high level environmental protection is delivered along with transparency in the environmental assessment process, in other words consultation, that the sustainability appraisal is a useful tool to raise sustainability issues that might not otherwise be identified during plan making. It provides an opportunity for council members, officers, communities and developers alike to focus upon particular issues that they might not otherwise have considered. In other words, it avoids death by a thousand cuts. It hardly ever identifies or unearths a significant hitherto unheard of issue that no one was previously aware of.

A brief history of environmental law making

It is apparent, in the case of local plans, through the introduction of the sustainability appraisal process that the UK Government possibly never wanted to embrace the strategic environmental assessment process in the first place. Just as the UK Government did not wish to introduce the assessment of plans and programmes through the Habitats Directive. Even though it was quite clear in the Habitats Directive that there was a requirement to do so; the UK government only introduced the assessment of plans and programmes through the Habitats Directive having been obliged to do so via the European Court of Justice in 2005.

These matters all lie in the past. And we as a nation are no longer part of the European Union, we no longer benefit from the strategic insights that are gained through international cooperation on cross border matters in the same way that we once did. European legislative initiatives relating to environmental matters such as biodiversity, climate change, water quality and air quality to name a few of the examples that were relevant to spearheading environmental protection in the UK, are no longer something that we will be bound by nor can we rely on. We are instead in the hands of the UK Government; and they are calling the shots over this current review of environmental assessment of plans (and projects) as part of the LU&R Bill.

For decades, the UK has embraced environmental protection via legislative means. From the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act to the 2021 Environment Act, the country has a statute book designed to protect and enhance the environment.

The question about whether or not the legislation is effective in protecting the environment is a difficult one. To review legislation in isolation would be narrow- minded and unhelpful. After all, it should be remembered that the legal basis for environmental protection is to regulate matters and not leave important aspects of environmental protection down to simply best practice, goodwill and behavioural attitudes. Environmental protection is much more about understanding the environment in the first place and managing it to ensure that intrinsic ecosystem function qualities are not lost, or overlooked, become extinct, and that we understand environment systems.

The LU&R Bill proposes that the current environmental assessment processes are replaced with an Environmental Outcomes Reporting system (EOR). There is little more to be said about this at the present time, since the government have offered no insight as to what they mean by this. Some commentators have expressed the view that sustainability appraisal should simply be an audit that can be undertaken at the end of the plan making process. This absolutely is not how it should work purely because if changes are required the plan will most likely be like a house of cards at this point, with proposals baked into the process that are impossible to extract without significant re-working. Yet the suggestion that the sustainability appraisal is more of an audit than an assessment makes sense. So, why was it not left to function in this way? Who was it who thought merging SA with SEA was a good idea?

Perhaps this is what the government has in mind when it talks of Environmental Outcome Reporting. In which case, how will it be possible to demonstrate that a plan has optimised sustainability performance and minimised environmental impact in order to determine environmental outcomes? The answer I feel is to ensure that there is a robust environmental baseline that has been assembled for the plan making process. Primary collection of real-time data is important to evaluate with sufficient confidence and granularity the environmental impacts of plan proposals. Currently this is lacking and the long held response of ‘high level environmental protection’ sounds limp and over-used. High level environmental protection should really mean continuous, effective and well-funded monitoring streams to help inform, strategically, the state of the environment. This need not be especially expensive and the key is to perhaps ensure that monitoring plays a role so that once we have carefully conducted the place making plan, the proposals can be monitored to ensure the desired and predicted effects evolve as they were envisaged to.

From this point, the exact requisite primary data to be collected can be identified in order for a local plan to be prepared using robust information which, in turn, will facilitate a well-informed and accurate prediction of likely environmental outcomes.

In pursuing these changes, will the government finally drop the sustainability appraisal process which has on occasion so confused the SEA process and effectively promulgated the Tragedy of the Commons as it has regularly validated trade-offs between environmental and economic benefits? In this light, the SA process can surely never succeed as an effective tool for environmental protection.

Or will the government come to appreciate that the nature of its position as part of wider plan making team, like a pilot fish alongside a shark, means that the SA process can closely track local plan progress and provide appraisal information through iteration as the plan emerges? A position that means that the SA process can encourage a rigorous identification process for reasonable alternatives is pursued. And further still, bring together the wide range of environmental initiatives, that when dovetailed and delivered together through local plan policy, can transcend the silos of their own evolution to deliver multifunctional environmental benefits.

It is vital that any the environmental assessment process used to assess plans is started as early as possible in the plan making process. It cannot wait until the end of the plan making process, the traditional stage at which outcomes are clearer.

Whilst the consultations are yet to start, an emphasis on outcomes is helpful. Links to the 25 year environment plan, its goals and indicators should serve the government well. Nevertheless, the 25 YEP is a slippery creature; it is full of positive rhetoric and would benefit from a firmer commitment to action.

It is important that reformation of the environmental assessment processes doesn’t lose direction and be so hasty that it fails to recognise the progress that has been made to date with the challenge of delivering a truly environmentally sound, plan-led system in the UK.

I look forward to taking part in the proposed consultation activities and recorded my interest in liaising with the Department as it continues with the review of environmental assessment processes, and I will look forward to seeing how the LU&R Bill makes its way through the Houses of Parliament.

My wish list for reform of the environmental assessment processes:

Retain the requirement to evaluate the environmental impact of plans.
Develop well defined evidence baselines that are required to undertake assessment.
Improve the monitoring commitments to help ensure we have trend data for use in the environmental assessment process.
Introduce a requirement for environmental reports to be prepared by Chartered Environmental Consultants.
Introduce more consistency to the assessment process.

If you have any views or comments on this article, please use the following contact details. Thank you.

Neil Davidson CEnv MCIEEM CMLI

Director

10 ^th June 2022

Lepus Consulting Ltd

Eagle Tower

Montpellier Drive

Cheltenham

GL50 1TA

T: +44 (0) 1242 525 222

E: Neil.Davidson@Lepusconsulting.com

W: www.lepusconsulting.com

Remaining Neutral

Mon, 16 May 2022 11:08:39 GMT

Nutrient Neutrality

The issue of nutrient pollution at Habitats Sites (formerly known as European sites) and the requirement for new development to achieve nutrient neutrality has been an issue which Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) have been grappling with since 2019 in areas such as the Solent region, Herefordshire, Somerset, Cornwall and Kent.

In March 2022, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) issued nutrient pollution advice to a further 42 LPAs. In light of this advice, where a Habitats Site has been identified to have an ‘unfavourable conservation status’, any additional nutrient loads, such as from new development, may have an adverse effect. Therefore, in order to meet the requirements of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended), new development must consider adequate mitigation through an appropriate assessment, to achieve nutrient neutrality.

Alongside the DLUHC’s advice, Natural England provided LPAs a package of tools including maps of the affected catchments, details of the affected sites, a national Nutrient Neutrality Methodology, and site-specific evidence documents and nutrient calculators to assess the nutrient loads from development proposals. This includes revised advice and methods for calculating impacts for current LPAs. LPAs are now looking at how this advice can be taken into consideration in land use planning (including 5-year housing supply, planning policy requirements and strategic mitigation solutions) as well as in development management/control.

Lepus has experience of dealing with nutrient neutrality of land use plans through Habitats Regulations Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal, providing advice on policy wording and the scope and scale of development. For more information on this please contact Samantha Cheater on 01242 525222 or email her at samantha.cheater@lepusconsulting.com

Natural England project gets underway

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:15:15 GMT

A day out in Buckholt Wood

The team got out into the beautiful Buckholt Woods last week, as part of a project for Natural England to establish and evaluate current levels of recreational impact within the woodland.

Lepus Broadens Horizons

Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:44:00 GMT

Lepus is delighted to have been appointed by the Broads Authority to support it with the strategic ecological appraisal of effects associated with four flagship plans: the Broads Plan, the Local Plan for the Broads, the Waterways Management Strategy and the Broads Sustainable Tourism Strategy. Working alongside Broads Authority team members, Lepus will be undertaking Habitats Regulations Assessments of each plan to help protect the integrity of the numerous internationally and nationally protected sites that are located in and around the Broads.

Clean Air Zones

katie.forrester@lepusconsulting.com (Katie Forrester) — Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:40:12 GMT

A Clean Air Zone (CAZ) is an area where targeted action is taken to improve air quality, in particular by discouraging the most polluting vehicles from entering the zone. The aim of a CAZ is to address all sources of pollution, including nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, and reduce public exposure to them using a range of measures tailored to the particular location.

A report carried out by The Royal College of Physicians assessed the impact air pollution was having on public health. The results of this study suggested that 40,000 people die prematurely each year in the UK due to poor air quality.

The Government have responded by publishing a document called The Clean Air Strategy. This is a key document in tackling air pollution, making our air healthier to breathe, protecting nature and boosting the economy. It requires local authorities to assess air quality in their region and make mandatory changes if they are above the regulated limit.

CAZs are implemented in areas where air pollution levels are dangerous to public health. Implementing these zones is key to improving air quality and supporting the transition to a low carbon future. In a CAZ, if your vehicle exceeds emission standards, you may have to pay a charge to drive it. High polluting vehicles such as busses, HGV’s and taxis will be amongst those to face charges to these zones.

The first of the proposed CAZ’s to be launched will be in Bath on the 15th March 2021, followed by Birmingham on 1st June 2021. More cities will implement CAZ’s later in 2021 and in 2022. You will only have to pay a charge for vehicles that do not meet emission standards when the first CAZ in Bath starts charging.

There are multiple options to explore when seeking support to reduce emissions and stop paying CAZ charges. The Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) offer a range of grants to help you choose cleaner vehicles. The Go Ultra Low Campaign has information about electric vehicles and also includes grants which you can apply for. The Clean Air Fund provides support to individuals and businesses. They offer local travel discounts, cycling to work schemes or vehicle upgrades. Your local authority may also be able to provide support to help you upgrade or replace your vehicle.

Lepus thinks that the introduction of Clean Air Zones will be extremely positive. We need cleaner air as soon as possible to ensure more people live healthier lives.

Impact of Covid-19 on the public sector and Local Plans

Tue, 19 May 2020 16:01:36 GMT

Covid-19 has brought about many changes to normal life in the UK. Restrictions as to why people may leave their homes has inevitably forced multitudes of people to work from home, many of which are doing so for the first time. This sudden change has affected day to days tasks and still leads to difficult situations. Although there are still may uncertainties as to how Local Authorities can progress with planning through this period, this article aims to summarise the key concerns of many planners in the UK and how best to prepare for the future.

On the 15th May 2020, the RTPI published a research paper ‘Pragmatic and Prepared for the Recovery: the planning profession’s rapid response to Covid-19.’ The paper discussed the findings of a survey carried out by more than one thousand RTPI members on how planning departments have been responding to issues arising due to the lockdown.

The RTPI survey identified that main concerns for public sector planners were:

the ability for all groups to comment on consultations;
being penalised for not meeting targets for decision times; and
the capacity to deliver new ways of working.

Government Responses

The English Government has published The Coronavirus Act 2020. As of 4th April 2020, two sets of regulations have been made under this Act, part of which enables Local Authorities to have the power to hold public meetings virtually using video or telephone conferencing.

The Planning Inspectorate has also produced guidance on how the body intends to carry out its duties. This guidance is under continuous review; however, the first fully digital hearing took place during the week commencing 11th May, with many more expected over the coming weeks.

The Welsh Government has produced the ‘Local Authorities (Coronavirus) (Meetings) (Wales) Regulations 2020’ which make temporary provisions for remote meetings and the publishing of electronic documents.

As of the 7th April 2020, Scotland passed emergency legislation within the Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill so that planning permissions due to elapse during the designated ‘emergency period’ were extended by one year.

In Northern Ireland, the Government has asked Local Authorities to adopt innovative approaches to carry out remote consultations and to work proactively with local communities and stakeholders.

Advice on Decision Making

Since social distancing measures were introduced in the UK on the 23rd March 2020, planning departments have been tasked with continuing decision making without face to face meetings. There are multiple ways in which different departments have strived to achieve this, with the delegation of decisions to officers, executives and senior committee members. Over two thirds of respondents to the RTPI survey wanted to see legislation to enable planning committees to make decisions without face to face meetings. Since the time of the survey, legislation to allow virtual planning committees to take place across the UK has been put in place.

Recent guidance includes ‘Local Government Association, Planning Advisory Service (2020) Planning and Covid-19’ and ‘Planning Officers Society (2020) DM Decision Making + COVID-19: How to manage committee decisions during the Coronavirus Emergency’ both of which provide advice on how to deliver effective digitalised planning committees.

As of the end of April 2020, approximately one third of LPAs had held, or were preparing to hold, virtual committee meetings.

Plan Making

Overall, the RTPI survey identified a desire to maintain the current momentum for Plan making. There is also a general desire to achieve compliance and avoid penalties, but the uncertain impact Covid-19 will have on communities is a worry for making planners.

There are questions as to whether the evidence base for Local Plans should reflect the ‘new landscape’ that is likely to follow. Other concerns include the cost implications of having to undertake reassessments following change, potential delays in the process having knock-on effects, implications to the housing delivery tests and how to use evidence that was gathered at the start of 2020. At this time, there is no clear guidance which would help combat these concerns.

Working Practices

These unprecedented times have resulted in a large number of people home working with little to no time to prepare. As a consequence, many people are finding that not all software or hardware is fit for purpose. When looking to the future and considering how home working may become more common place, it is important to consider how these constraints can be developed to ensure efficient working. This also highlight a potential issue with equality, and how people without access to computers or internet could be unfairly discriminated during these times.

Furthermore, there are many concerns regarding the physical and mental wellbeing of those home working. At present, there are many uncertainties due to Covid-19, including job security and childcare commitments, but long-term, key considerations need to be on access to open and natural spaces, and the quality of these spaces, as well as design and internal standards. These aspects may have increased significance in planning as the UK emerges from the Covid-19 lockdown.

Integrating Tools for Air Pollution Assessment

Mon, 18 May 2020 13:33:34 GMT

Air Quality Webinars: the AERIUS Tool

Laura and Samantha from the Lepus HRA team were invited to attend a series of webinars on 12th – 13th May discussing the Integrated Tools for Air Pollution Assessment (ITAPA) project led by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). The webinars discussed the potential for applying AERIUS, a tool for air quality assessment which has been successful in the Netherlands, for use in the UK.

The sessions were led by Susan Zappala, senior air pollution advisor at JNCC, and Mark Wilmot, AERIUS project manager currently working on behalf of the Dutch government.

The JNCC have worked closely with a range of stakeholders in the UK from public, private and non-governmental organisations who use tools for air pollution impact assessment and examined their requirements.

The ITAPA project identified a wide range of user needs covering four related overarching assessment types:

impact assessment of a point/linear source (typically a single source, permit application);
impact assessment for a multi-source assessment (typically a local strategic plan);
understanding effects of national policy measures; and
identifying measures to reduce impacts on sites, including scaling from local to national level.

In the UK there is a need for better quality data and modelling, and cost-benefit analysis has determined that an integrated tool utilising the open source software of a Dutch air pollution tool, AERIUS, may provide an effective means to achieve this. AERIUS seeks to integrate maps, data and calculation tools for air pollution ecosystem assessments into a single user-friendly interface.

This tool could allow testing of different mitigation alternatives for policy advisors and allow decision makers to assess whether a plan/project should or should not be permitted based on its modelled emission outputs.

Lepus are very interested in this tool and its potential application for HRA, in particular supporting the in-combination assessment and determining whether air pollution may have an adverse impact on the site integrity of Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites.

The project is currently seeking funding to allow the tool to be adapted for use in the UK and for thorough testing and quality assurance checks to be carried out.

Find out more about AERIUS here: https://www.aerius.nl/en

CIEEM 2020 Spring Conference

Wed, 11 Mar 2020 12:19:57 GMT

Last week our Habitats Regulations Assessment lead, Samantha Cheater, attended the CIEEM 2020 Spring Conference: Assessment and Mitigation of Air Quality Impacts on Biodiversity.

It is only in the last few years that the effects of atmospheric nitrogen deposition have become a high profile issue in Habitats Regulations Assessment, with legal challenges such as the ‘Wealden’ and ‘Dutch’ cases forcing air quality up the agenda. The conference explored the basis for robust impact assessment strategies as well as the effectiveness of transferable mitigation techniques to protect sensitive flora and fauna.

Dick Bal from the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality was amongst the speakers at the conference, covering lessons learned from recent case law as well as emerging methods for air quality assessment and best practice guidance.

Lepus will apply this knowledge to ensure that our HRA work continues to be robust, drawing on the most recent best practice and case law.

If you would like any advice on HRA please do not hesitate to contact Samantha at: samantha.cheater@lepusconsulting.com

UN Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework

Mon, 03 Feb 2020 11:24:45 GMT

The ‘Zero Draft’ of the United Nations Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework was released to the public this week. The Framework sets out new goals for governments to meet before 2030 and 2050, in order to provide better protection for the natural world in light of the climate crisis and mass extinction of species.

This early draft suggests a strong focus on addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss, with ambitious targets seeking to achieve benefits both for people and the planet.

The goals emphasize the importance of harmony between wildlife and people, through meeting the needs of humans whilst also ensuring the conservation of species, in order to create healthy and resilient ecosystems. One important aspect of the framework is the reference to increasing the use of traditional knowledge and the participation of indigenous people in informing the effective management of biodiversity conservation.

Proposed targets cover a range of important topics, including controlling the introduction of invasive species, reducing pollution from pesticides and plastic waste, maintaining genetic diversity and improving access to drinkable water.

If these goals are adopted, we would see a requirement for 30% of all land and sea to be protected for biodiversity, and doubling the proportion of people with access to green spaces. This would strive to reconnect people with nature, especially in urban areas, providing health benefits as well as combating the increasing rate of extinction and biodiversity loss.

Planning policy on both a local and global scale is required to take action to prevent continued biodiversity loss. The framework includes the need to “integrate biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts, ensuring by 2030 that biodiversity values are mainstreamed across all sectors and that biodiversity-inclusive strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments are comprehensively applied” .

The contents of this draft report will be the basis of discussions in February at the second Working Group meeting in China, and the Post-2020 Goals are expected to be finalised during the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) in October this year.

For the full Zero Draft, click here.

Fracking moratorium in England

Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:44:36 GMT

As of 4th November, the government has confirmed a moratorium on fracking in England and announced that it has ditched proposals to ease planning rules for the controversial activity, including the introduction of permitted development (PD) rights for fracking exploration schemes, reports Planning Magazine.

Fracking is the extraction of shale gas through the injection of a pressurized liquid into deep-rock formations to create cracks, releasing the gas reserves. This process currently takes place across the world including the United States and Canada, and is associated with negative effects on climate change since the process yields fossil fuels. Other effects of fracking include seismic disturbances.

The government's decision was based upon a report by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), which concluded that current technology cannot accurately predict the tremors associated with fracking.

The Infrastructure Act 2015 and strict limits on seismicity were introduced by the government as the exploration of shale gas reserves in England could only proceed if science proves that it is safe and sustainable.

Following the disturbance caused to residents local to Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site in Lancashire, that created a magnitude 2.9 earthquake, the government has announced a pause on fracking. In addition, the government has also confirmed that proposed plans for shale gas development will not be taken forward at this time.

Until this point, the government has taken a somewhat laissez-faire attitude towards fracking, watching from a distance and apparently doing little to explore more fully the mooted strategic environmental impacts that have led the Scottish Government to follow a different, more environmentally sound, path. The Scottish Government's cautious, evidence-led approach to considering onshore unconventional oil and gas in Scotland saw the Scottish Parliament, in October 2017, vote in favour of not supporting onshore unconventional oil and gas development in Scotland. A position that embraced the precautionary principle and which also made appropriate use of the Strategic Environmental Assessment process to inform plan making at the point before environmental impacts occur, rather than waiting for adverse effects to take place before acting.

Lepus can help with strategic environmental assessment advice and supports the path taken by the Scottish Government in adopting an evidence-led and SEA approach.

For more information visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-ends-support-for-fracking

Article by Ellen Satchwell and Neil Davidson

The Environment Bill

Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:31:22 GMT

The Environment Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech on 14th October 2019. This indicates that the UK Government is committed to the objective for “this, to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than in which we inherited it”.

The Bill focuses on the key environmental issues of air quality, water, managing waste and provision for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) as well as introducing targets, plans and policies for improving the natural environment. It aims to provide long-term and legally binding objectives and introduce a more holistic approach to managing the use of land across the UK, seeking to tackle the biggest environmental priorities the country is currently facing including, but not limited to, climate change, air pollution, and the devastating impacts of single-use plastics on the natural world.

In order to achieve this, the Bill will establish the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which will seek to ensure that environmental law is able to be implemented and enforced properly. The OEP will constitute an independent regulator, able to hold the Government to account for its environmental responsibilities and inspect all policy, in order to ensure that the environment remains of the highest priority when decisions are made by both the Government and other public bodies.

An important aspect of this new Bill is the focus on BNG. In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019, “securing measurable net gains for biodiversity” is already a requirement for new developments in the UK. However, the creation of the new Environment Bill provides an opportunity to incorporate the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 2.0, or its successor, into law.

The second reading in the House of Commons was on 25th October; however, in light of the calling of a General Election and the dissolution of parliament, the Bill will make no further progress at present.

Lepus thinks that the Environment Bill is extremely important in order for the Government to take proper action in light of the global climate emergency. When parliament is sitting once again following the election, the Bill should be a high priority. This will be of particular relevance in helping to ensure the UK’s environmental protections are maintained and enhanced if the UK leaves the European Union.

Article by Laura Beveridge

Planning Policy Guidance and Green Infrastructure

Fri, 01 Nov 2019 16:31:22 GMT

Green Infrastructure (GI) planning can encompass a broad range of features and be considered at a wide range of geographic scales. As such, the term has been used when describing projects as diverse as local green space, street tree planting, the protection of designated sites, local food production, tree and woodland strategies and flood management schemes.

In planning policy terms, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) defines GI as, ‘A network of multi-functional green space, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities’. Other documents, such as Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Guidance (2011) provide a broader definition of GI, ‘Green Infrastructure is a strategically planned and delivered network comprising the broadest range of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering those ecological services and quality of life beneﬁts required by the communities it serves and needed to underpin sustainability.’

The NPPF looks to GI to support sustainable development in a number of ways. Paragraph 20 states that strategic policies should make ‘sufficient provision’ for green infrastructure and in paragraph 91 looks to GI to support local health and well being needs. Paragraph 150 states that GI can help in adapting to climate change. Paragraph 171 states, ‘Plans should…take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries’.

The Natural Environment Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) was published in July 2019 and supplements the information provided in the NPPF. In relation to GI, the PPG described its benefits and how it can be considered in the preparation of planning policy.

The PPG uses a broader definition than the NPPF and states that GI can include a range of spaces and assets, both publicly and privately owned, such parks, open spaces, woodlands, allotments and private gardens. The definition also includes, what is sometimes referred to as, ‘blue infrastructure’ such as water courses, ponds, lakes and sustainable drainage features.

GI is described in the PPG as a form of ‘natural capital’ that can provide a range of benefits, including ecosystem services such as enhanced wellbeing, outdoor recreation and access, enhanced biodiversity and landscapes, food and energy production, urban cooling, and the management of flood risk. This helpfully links the concepts of GI, natural capital and ecosystem services.

In planning terms, the PPG states that GI can help to achieve five planning goals:

• Building a strong, competitive economy;

• Achieving well-designed places;

• Promoting healthy and safe communities;

• Mitigating climate change, flooding and coastal change; and

• Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

The PPG recommends that strategic policies in relation to GI can identify the location of existing and proposed green infrastructure and set out the approach to its protection and enhancement. Green infrastructure strategies can be prepared to inform policies and facilitate the implementation of them. These strategies should be based on evidence and take account of existing assessments and identify any gaps in provision.

The assessment of gaps in GI provision, particularly in relation to the quantity and types of GI, is an emerging area in relation to national policy or guidance. The PPG states that the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) can be used when assessing GI provision and deficits. While this can be a useful (and currently the only widely used) standard, GI is a broader concept than that considered by ANGSt, and GI assets such as allotments, street trees, the water network, private gardens and other features are not readily encompassed by the standard. DEFRA is currently coordinating a new study to develop GI Standards, although, to date, the findings of the study have yet to be published.

The GI PPG broadly describes how the G Strategy can inform other plan policies, infrastructure delivery requirements and Community Infrastructure Levy schedules. The Guidance also states that cross boundary collaboration and liaison with stakeholders such as Local Nature Partnerships, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Local Enterprise Partnerships are important elements when developing GI strategies.

In relation to decision making, the PPG emphasises that GI opportunities and requirements need to be considered at the earliest stages, and as an integral part, of development proposals. Delivery and funding of GI can use planning conditions, obligations, or the Community Infrastructure Levy.

Article by Becky Gregory