It’s rare there’s ever any good news in the planning world for nature, but last week:
New planning rules in the #NPPF have at last given #AncientTrees and #AncientWoodland the highest possible protection from development! #StandUpForTrees pic.twitter.com/4yb17AVEEd— Woodland Trust (@WoodlandTrust) July 24, 2018
The revised NPPF comes into effect immediately. It is now such that:
175. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:
c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists;
Whereas previously:
planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss;
On compensation strategies, this LocalGov article Planning and Ecology offers a warning:
In recent months, we’ve seen a raft of new government guidance published...
Taken together, these factors imply an increase in the level of strategic planning the government wishes local authorities to undertake, to ensure that development delivers benefits to the environment. This is evident in paragraph 35, as well as 168d which states that: 'Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: minimising impacts and providing net gains for biodiversity.'
This, like much of the new legislation, bodes well for the environment when it comes to development and planning concerns; the new documents demonstrate an increased inclination towards supporting local authorities to deliver ‘net gains’ for biodiversity.
However, and while this is to be applauded, previous experience suggests that realizing these benefits in practice will prove a greater task.
The government Section 106 agreements currently in place, which require housing developers to deliver social benefits – such as low-cost housing – to local communities, offer an example. These agreements have proved less successful than anticipated, in large part due to inadequate enforcement and a lack of clear delineation.
In addition to this challenge, government pilot schemes have called attention to issues with some of the methodology designed to deliver benefits to the environment.
The eight pilot schemes set up to trial Biodiversity Offsetting from 2012-2014 highlighted some issues with realizing ‘net gains’ in practice. Reviews found that delivery of the offsetting measures was hindered by a lack of both experience and evidence.
