Minutes:
The Committee endorsed the undernoted response as its submission to the above-mentioned consultation:
Council Response
Introduction
BelfastCity Council welcomes this opportunity to comment on revised Planning Policy Statement 2 – Natural Heritage. Protection of our natural heritage is in line with our Corporate Plan key theme – Better Care for Belfast’s Environment and as such we are pleased to see greater protection of natural heritage assets through the planning system.
This revision to PPS 2 is a welcome update considering the significant changes in the statutory framework that governs protection of our natural heritage assets. The revised PPS 2 will provide a valuable mechanism to ensure the protection of our biodiversity and aid Northern Ireland in the preparation for future EU targets and commitments.
The revised document aims to update the planning policy framework for the protection of designated sites and protected species to achieve a policy that is up to date and fit for purpose. In order to help achieve a document that will be as relevant and practical as possible the Council have covered the topics in the Department’s questions and highlighted a number of key issues in this response.
Biodiversity provides numerous ecosystem services such as water purification, carbon storage and flood protection. For example pollination by bees and other insects provide services boosting agricultural production worth at least $153 billion annually. Many of these services are under threat.
The recent Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report estimated the economic value of biodiversity and ecosystems between $21 trillion and up to $72 trillion per yr. By 2050 loss of biodiversity under a business as usual scenario could cost up to 7 per cent of global GDP. The study shows that the cost of sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services is lower than the cost of allowing biodiversity and the services it provides to decline.
The EU Communication ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ acknowledges that biodiversity loss is the most critical global environmental threat alongside climate change – and the two are inextricably linked. Consequently the EU has committed to a new vision and target for biodiversity ‘to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU by 2020 and restore them insofar as possible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. The previous EU 2010 biodiversity target to halt the loss of biodiversity was not met.
In Northern Ireland we have set targets to significantly reduce biodiversity loss by 2010 and to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2016. It is imperative that the economic benefit our natural heritage provides through these services is considered within the planning process.
The revised PPS 2 lacks justification and amplification for each policy, in each case relying on the Supplementary Planning Guidance. Whilst Belfast City Council welcomes the attempt to achieve concise and more streamlined Planning Policy Statements this should not be done at the expense of clarity and essential guidance. Consideration should be given to providing further expansion on the key elements of each policy.
Belfast City Council have identified some essential elements in the Supplementary Planning guidance that should be included in the revised Policy Statement, these have been identified in the following pages.
Section 1
The Statutory Framework should refer to the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.
Under Strategies there should be reference to the new EU long term 2050 vision and 2020 target. The 2020 biodiversity target is to ‘halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss’. Given the inclusion of ecosystem services and the target to prevent the degradation and restoration of these services, this should be incorporated within this Planning Policy Statement.
The NI Invasive Alien Species Strategy which is currently out for public consultation should also be referenced.
Under Section 2.0 Preparing Development Plans there should be specific reference to Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance (SLNCIs).
Under Section 4.0 Planning Policy after the point ‘The provisions of these policies will prevail unless there is other overriding policy or material considerations that outweigh them and justify a contrary decision.’ The Council would like to see inclusion of the statement from Supplementary Planning Guidance section 3.4.5 ‘the granting of planning permission does not obviate the holder of ensuring legal compliance with other legislative requirements’.
Policy NH1 – European and Ramsar Nature
Conservation Sites - International
There should be specific reference to the Habitat Regulations Assessment Process within the PPS rather than in the Supplementary Guidance.
The phrasing of the first paragraph ‘not normally’ may be misleading and ambiguous. We suggest that for clarity consideration is given to rewording this paragraph along the following lines.
Planning permission will only be granted for a development proposal that, either individually or in combination with existing and/or proposed plans or projects, is not likely to have a significant affect on a European Site.
And
Where a plan or project is likely to have a significant affect on a European site then planning permission will only be granted when it has been ascertained that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.
Further consideration should also be given to ensuring consistency with the statutory legislation in all instances particularly the EC Habitats Directive.
Policy NH2 – Species Protected by Law
To improve clarity we suggest rewording paragraph 1 in relation to European Protected Species. As the exceptional circumstances when planning approval would be given Belfast City Council would prefer that the phrase ‘not normally’ is exchanged for a more conclusive phrase such as that identified above.
Supplementary Guidance:
We welcome the inclusion of the statement in Section 3.1.4 that ‘it is a criminal offence to harm a statutorily protected species’. This should also be included within the Planning Policy Statement.
We welcome the inclusion of the statement in Section 3.4.5 of the supplementary guidance that ‘the granting of planning permission does not obviate the holder of ensuring legal compliance with other legislative requirements’. This should also be included in the Planning Policy Statement.
Within the Planning Policy Statement a differentiation is made between European Protected Species and Other Protected species, however, within the Supplementary Guidance these have been amalgamated (Page 23 of SPG). We believe that the separation of European Protected Species and Other Protected Species is preferable given the very different legislative basis for their protection.
In addition Section 3.4.2 states Planning authorities should consult with NIEA before granting permission and consideration should be given to attaching appropriate planning conditions under which the developer would take steps to secure the long-term protection of the species. For European protected species we suggest that NIEA must be consulted.
While we strongly welcome the use of appropriate planning conditions to secure the long-term protection of the species, we feel that there should be specific reference to the mechanisms to ensure this such as the use of Article 40 agreements. We also consider that planning conditions must be monitored on a more rigorous basis, especially where designated sites and species are concerned.
We strongly welcome the inclusion of pre application discussions.
Within Section 3.4.4 it would be useful to list the European protected species.
Policy NH3 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – National
As mentioned above the inclusion of the word normally does not seem to be required given that the exceptional circumstances are stated. Consideration should be given to offering more clarity by changing the phrasing here, or offer guidance within the Policy Statement by providing some justification and amplification.
Supplementary Guidance:
Section 4.2.2 states ‘Planning authorities may seek advice from NIEA’. We suggest that NIEA must be consulted where there is a possibility of a planning application affecting a National site.
Section 4.2.4 states that ‘benefits for the proposal which outweigh the value of the site need to be of national importance and of a long-term interest, sufficient to override the value of the site’.
How will the value of a site be measured?
Have short term and long term economic interest been defined?
It should be noted that for sites such as ancient woodland or peatland it may take hundreds or indeed thousands of years for sites to establish or recover. Cognisance of these timeframes should be taken during the decision making process.
Policy NH 4 – Sites of Nature Conservation Importance – Local
We welcome the inclusion of this policy and the protection it affords to Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance. The future role of local development plans in the designation of SLNCIs and policies for these sites must be considered.
Supplementary Guidance:
The criteria for these sites in Section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 is the same as for National sites. We consider these inappropriate for local sites. For example ‘the integrity of the site, including the value of the site to the habitat network’ is inappropriate given the nature of Local Nature Reserves which are sites ‘provided by District Councils for nature conservation which are particularly appropriate for educational, recreational or public information services’. Consideration should be given to amending theses paragraphs accordingly.
It would be more appropriate to include criteria relating to the usage of these sites for example significant impacts on the site’s amenity or educational uses.
Section 5.2.5 states that ‘benefits for the proposal which outweigh the value of the site need to be of local importance and of a long-term interest, sufficient to override the value of the site’.
Clarification is need as to how the value of a site will be measured and what the definition and assessment of short term and long term economic interests will be.
The types of development that will be considered as appropriate could be outlined.
Planning authorities should not only consult with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency but also the relevant Local Authorities.
Policy NH5 – Species, Habitats or Features
of Natural Heritage Importance
We particularly welcome the inclusion of this policy and support the inclusion of priority habitats and species, ancient and long?established woodland, features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna, features of earth science conservation importance and rare or threatened native species within this policy. We do however consider that river corridors should also be included within NH5.
We are concerned at the wording ‘known’ in the first paragraph. While we accept the statement in 6.1.2 that ‘the planning authority does not have, and cannot reasonably be expected to have, total knowledge of the potential natural heritage significance of every site’ There is a dearth of data for priority habitats and species across NI as identified in the 2009 Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group Report on the Delivery of the NI Biodiversity Strategy.
Supplementary Guidance:
Section 6.9.7 While we welcome that opportunities will be taken to secure new planting or sowing within development proposals, these should be appropriate to the site and NIEA should be consulted.
We strongly encourage the inclusion of Sites of Local Nature Conservation Importance under Policy NH5.
Other Issues
Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are mentioned ion Section 1.5.1 of the supplementary guidance. While this is welcomed it is noted it has not been referenced in any of the policies. Will IAS be considered a material consideration? Planning can play a major role in relation to IAS, for example in terms of the creation of ‘pathways’ which facilitate their spread such as roads and waterways. Given that IAS are estimated to cost GB approximately £2 billion per year. We strongly urge that the impacts of IAS are considered more fully in determining planning decisions.
While Belfast City Council welcomes this Planning Policy Statement we believe that Planning authorities will require training in relation to priority habitats and species and that monitoring of planning conditions is essential to ensure the protection of biodiversity.”