Plantlife                            ESH0070

Written evidence submitted by Plantlife

Environmental sustainability and housing growth - Call for Evidence

 

Introduction


Summary

 

Questions

General

  1. What provisions will the National Policy Planning Framework, as revised under the Government’s proposals, make for protection and enhancement of the environment? Are these provisions likely to be adequate?

 

 

 

  1. What policy levers does the Government plan to use to ensure that local authorities deliver the development which the revised NPPF ‘standard method’ requires? Do the Government’s plans result in local planning authorities being penalized if delivery falls short? What policy levers will be available to local authorities to ensure that developments which have received planning approval are delivered in accordance with consents?

 

 

  1. To what extent is the current planning presumption in favour of sustainable development compatible with the environmental objective of the planning system? To what extent will the proposed ‘streamlining’ of the sustainable development presumption work to deliver developments which will meet this objective and be compatible with the Government’s environmental targets and obligations?

 

 

  1. How will the revised NPPF work to deliver the social and environmental objectives of the planning system? To what extent will it promote outcomes which deliver sustainable social and environmental benefits together, such as access to essential amenities, to public transport and to active travel routes?

-          Despite the intention of the BNG policy, the revised NPPF does not proactively contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity and the environment, or to meeting targets for nature’s recovery. This is a missed opportunity to deliver sustainable development and environmental enhancement hand-in-hand.

-          As mentioned in the previous question, the environmental objectives of sustainable development are often key to supporting the social and economic outcomes of the areas. Natural greenspaces services, particularly greenbelt land, provides immediate health and wellbeing benefits for the public, as well as long-term, cost-effective climate mitigation solutions, like flood control and urban cooling mentioned in Q1. A rich diversity of vascular plants, lichens and fungi is at the heart of healthy, resilient ecosystem services, playing a critical role in regulating air and water quality, water flow and ecosystem temperatures (e.g. cooling effect through shading). 

-          Species-rich grasslands that are appropriately managed, restored, or created within an urban setting can mitigate urban heat island effect. As well as providing shade for wildlife, biodiverse green spaces can significantly contribute to an ‘urban cooling effect’. Botanical gardens, as large, layered biodiverse urban greenspaces, can cool city air by nearly 2oc, compared to monotonous, tree-lined parks with only amenity grasslands. 

 

-          The requirement to produce Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs) as a keystone piece of legislation has great potential to achieving environmental objectives, while supporting communities to protect nature locally. Acting as a unifying mechanism, LNRS can guide various local actions, such as SFI and grassroot nature recovery projects. By aligning local actions with LNRS, these actions are not only effective individually but contribute to a more resilient and connected landscape. LNRS should inform spatial planning decisions at an area level and site level.

 

 

  1. What contribution can the NPPF make to meeting Government targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? What account does the NPPF take of advice from the Climate Change Committee on reducing the use of embodied carbon as well as operational carbon in the built environment?

 

  1. Will the Government's proposals affect the ability of local authorities to implement policies designed to protect the natural environment in their areas?

-          We are concerned about the added responsibility placed on local authorities by these new proposals. Many local authorities already face financial strains, with limited resources and experts to demonstrate or even identify areas that should be rejected from planning. A 2022 ALGE/ADEPT survey commissioned by Defra found that 26% of local planning authorities do not have any access to ecological expertise and that only 5% of respondents reported that their current ecological resource (including in-house and external sources) is adequate to scrutinise all applications that might affect biodiversity.

-                                                                                                                                                                                                   This year’s statutory BNG requirements have added further pressure to the responsible bodies. UK Government bodies recognise the under-resourced systems, with Natural England recommending council ecologists to be used ‘strategically’ (‘Use your ecologists strategically’ on BNG, Natural England urges councils). But with the additional requirements of NPPF and ambitious housing development goals, restricted but strategic use of expertise will not be sufficient.  As referenced in Q2. Further funding, guidance and experts are essential to ensure important but undervalued environmental assets are protected.

 

 

  1. What (if any) trends are observable in (a) delivery of environmental improvements (b) the purchase and trading of credits arising from the Environment Act requirement for developments to yield biodiversity net gain (BNG)? How are planning authorities using BNG in the planning process to deliver environmental improvements from housing development?

 

 

  1. How will the revised NPPF operate to promote the Nature Recovery Network and the implementation of local nature recovery strategies by responsible authorities?

-          The revised NPPF does not currently effectively promote the Nature Recovery Network and the implementation of Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs) by responsible authorities. The consultation document recognises that LNRSs are important existing and emerging documents. Currently, however, they do not have a strong enough connection to delivery mechanisms such as Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes and the land use planning system. There are also no proposals in the revised NPPF that would further strengthen the link between planning policy-making and planning decision-making and LNRSs.

-          The planning requirement that LPAs “take account” of LNRS priorities is too vague to guarantee the protection of high-priority LNRS sites from development. The ecological value of intact habitats cannot be meaningfully recreated elsewhere, and these sites must be protected in the planning framework.

-          There needs to be clear and robust delivery mechanisms to incentivise and ensure the use of the LNRS plans. Clear guidance is required outlining linkages between the LNRSs, other local strategies and the wider policy landscape (particularly Environmental Land Management, as farmers are a crucial stakeholder group). Without this, the LNRSs could present a missed opportunity at a pivotal time.

-          LNRSs should be better resourced to produce effective plans. Like a mycelium, the LNRS networks require resources to develop, strengthen and expand. The central role that the strategies could play in unifying action for nature across sectors should be recognised and prioritised for resourcing. Investing in and supporting the responsible authorities and the plans they produce is absolutely crucial to delivering important outcomes for nature recovery.

-          A strategic framework to improve equity and consistency. Responsible authorities vary significantly in terms of funding, resourcing, and access to (and quality of) biological data. Implementing measures to target and support LNRSs which are facing challenges, and facilitating consistency and join-up between regions should be strategic priorities for Defra and Natural England.

 

  1. What use can planning authorities make of the data analysis and modelling being developed under the National Land Data Framework to support planning decisions which lead to better environmental outcomes? How should the NPPF be integrated into the forthcoming Land Use Framework?3 

-          To successfully implement the environmental mechanism, like BNG and ELM, more robust and comprehensive taxonomic coverage is needed across datasets and supporting tools.

-          Species are the foundations of healthy habitats and ecosystems. The loss of species destabilises ecosystems and erodes the quality of the habitat, as well as the public goods and services they deliver. Currently, protected species lists for England focus on identifying of large animals, like birds and bats. However, many protected species list lack comprehensive and accurate representation of all taxonomic groups and their threatened species.

-          Fungi species make up an estimated 32% of all UK species, but to have zero representation in nationally important species lists, like EPS and IUCN red list. Due to lack of data, fungi are excluded from England’s species monitoring indicators. Further monitoring efforts are limited by a shortage of trained taxonomists with sufficient knowledge to contribute and expand these datasets, for example Natural England has only one fungi expert to represent the 15,000 species in England.

-          Fungi and other non-red listed groups are being missed out of LNRS plans e.g. the West of England LNRS which relies heavily on Red Lists to identify they species priorities. Species of plants and fungi are the foundation of all food chains, and action to benefit these groups should underpin action for nature’s recovery. 

-          Although they can vary in taxonomic representation, consulting with the local environmental conservation records should be common practice. LERCs often have the best understanding of local nature recovery opportunities and can direct contacts with most relevant experts, who may hold additional of the data of interest for the area to better. 

-          Fungi and lichen monitoring would be improved if more resources and funding were put into monitoring, to support existing and encourage new taxonomists into these underrepresented fields.

Limitations of UK Hab means important habitats maybe

-          Planning authorities rely on nationals and local protected habitat lists to determine their planning decisions. However, the significant discrepancies between the different lists of priority habitats and species means several important habitats are missed out.

-          Ineffective data flow and gaps between datasets has meant habitat lists, like the Priority Habitat Index, do not provide a comprehensive representation of important habitats. As a key resource for planning stakeholders, spatial maps like the Priority Habitat Inventory, should be update the data and definitions list of England’s habitats.

-          The UK HAB definitions for habitats focus on broader categories and miss defining key characteristics of unlisted threatened habitats, particularly for species-rich grassland. For example, only 1% of UK land is left of species-rich grasslands, which can hold up to 40 species in 1 cubic meter square. The identification and protection under UK HAB guidelines, rely on their other characteristics aligning with the limited grassland habitats identified in the list, such as ‘lowland meadows’ or ‘Calcareous grasslands’. Species-rich grasslands sites which do not fall into UK HAB criteria’s may be overlooked and irreplaceably destroyed, like low-botanical biodiversity but important fungal assemblages.

 

  1. What environmental regulatory arrangements within Defra’s remit which relate to the planning process are likely to be under review as potential inhibitors of growth? What effect on environmental protections would reform of these regulations be likely to have?

-          The Habitat Regulations and other environmental assessment regulations, including Habitat Regulations, Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environment Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, are most likely to be under review as potential inhibitors of growth. However, these regulations have been reviewed repeatedly in past decades and have repeatedly been found to facilitate, not inhibit, appropriate and sustainable development. However, the reviews have concluded that the implementation of these rules could be improved to support the effective application of these regulations.

-          The office of Environmental Protections (OEP’s) recent report on EIA and SEA regimes, as well as the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process under the Habitats Regulations, found they were all fit-for-purpose. The OEP concluded that existing environmental assessment regimes in England are not functioning as well as they should to support planning decision-makers to contribute to sustainable development, but that the root causes arise notless from the legislation itself and more but from shortcomings in the wider planning system that affect the way the legislation is implemented. 

-          There is strong evidence that Habitat Regulations are the most effective UK nature conservation laws and boost habitats and species, for example a greater proportion of protected land are home to higher numbers and more species of birds.[4] Reforms to these regulations would have knock-on effects to other environmental protections, such as costs to businesses and developers to change regulatory regime.

-          Existing nature protections are not sufficient to restore nature, but this is due to issues implementing the regulations rather than the regulations themselves. The Habitats Regulations should be retained, strengthened and better implemented to improve their effectiveness for nature, people, and those interacting with the regulatory regime.

-          To improve implementation of the regulations that preserves their rigour whilst allowing known and trusted rules to be effectively applied to enable swift development progress, we recommend:

    1. Increased funding and ecological expertise is urgently needed for all permission-granting competent authorities (e.g. Local Planning Authorities) and statutory nature conservation bodies in order to properly and confidently review and conclude environmental assessments and decisions. The Regulation 9 duty for relevant authorities to establish conservation measures to avoid deterioration of nature sites and to avoid disturbance to listed species must be fully funded and supported.
    2. The Government should improve implementation and enforcement of existing specific thresholds for risks of environmental harm that must not be exceeded in or around a protected site, such as levels of nutrient pollution on land, as a result of new developments (e.g., Water Framework Directive thresholds). In some cases, due to the amount of additional infrastructure needed to reach climate targets, thresholds may need to be raised, or additions made. For example, noise thresholds in the Southern North Sea SAC will be breached this summer unless a decibel limit for turbine piling is put in place. This would help to limit the number of inappropriate proposals that come forward and help reduce the need for costly assessment of plans that are clearly damaging.
    3. The mitigation hierarchy should be reinforced in law to support its early consideration and the highest standard of implementation to ensure nature’s recovery. Currently the mitigation hierarchy is present in guidance on appropriate assessment and in policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the National Policy Statements for Renewable Energy EN-3, but it should be strengthened by being made a legal requirement. Avoidance is the first step of the mitigation hierarchy, and its importance should be reinforced throughout guidance, directions and national policy.
    4. Improving the effectiveness and monitoring of mitigation options, including for species protected under the Habitats Regulations and for HRA, by analysing existing data to assess the effectiveness of previous mitigation measures, and where there is no data, supporting essential research to determine which mitigation measures are appropriate. Monitoring of mitigation measures should be carried out to ensure they are implemented as designed and maintained, supported by sufficient resources, and having the intended effect.
    5. The quality, availability and comparability of environmental data, including up to date monitoring on the condition of protected sites should be improved. Data collected through the environmental assessment process and through licenses issued to ecological consultants under the Habitats Regulations should be shared and made available and usable for other purposes in accordance with the FAIR data principles to improve the existing environmental evidence base, which can then be mobilised for future environment assessments, cumulative assessments, and inform best practice. There is a need for common environmental data standards, and a single platform with easy access for all sectors to Government-held environmental and ecological data, such as a National Environmental Observatory. Existing government-held data and resources, including Defra’s Magic Map (containing spatial data on habitats, species and landscapes), could provide a solid foundation for this data platform to grow. It would also signpost to other useful data sources, such as the species data platform run by the National Biodiversity Network Trust (NBN Atlas), data from Local Environmental Record Centres and information collected by Local Nature Partnerships and Local Nature Recovery Strategies. A cross-government data sharing platform for environmental assessments in which all applicants must place data collected post-consent was also recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission.

 

December 2024

[1] https://www.plantlife.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Grasslands-as-a-Carbon-Store.pdf

[2] https://www.plantlife.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Grasslands-as-a-Carbon-Store.pdf

[3] Jefferson, R.G., Curson, J., Drewitt, A., Cox, J., Taylor, I. and Howe, C. Appendix C – lowland grassland habitats. [online]. [Accessed 2 Dec.2024]

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01927-4