Defra is currently running a consultation on biodiversity offsetting, ie a means where planning permission may be given subject to the loss of habitat being "offset" by improving the habitat elsewhere - for example, in theory - planning permission for quarrying and destroying a couple of caves being offset by planting some woodland elsewhere.

One of the questions asks whether "limestone pavement" should be excluded from offsetting (and whether there are other types of habitat which should be excluded)

The consultation runs to 7th Nov
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/biodiversity/biodiversity_offsetting

A bit like what happens already really where by the planning authority allow a site used by one or more protected species to be trashed and some numpty ecologist (paid for by the developers) comes up with some badly thought though and totally inadequate 'Mitigation'. Get fed up of seeing massive woodcrete bat boxes randomly nailed to 8ft high elder bushes like they will compensate for the loss of a Brown Long-eared bat maternity roost. :-\

Big Jim said:

A bit like what happens already really where by the planning authority allow a site used by one or more protected species to be trashed and some numpty ecologist (paid for by the developers) comes up with some badly thought though and totally inadequate 'Mitigation'. Get fed up of seeing massive woodcrete bat boxes randomly nailed to 8ft high elder bushes like they will compensate for the loss of a Brown Long-eared bat maternity roost. :-\

Click to expand...

Err, how does this relate??

May be the quarrying companies could off set loss of caves by donating compressors, drills, bang and scaff to digging projects  :ang:

I've put my ten pence worth into the consultation already as in newquay we are in the process of losing a variety of habitats to massive housing developments on prime agricultural land.  I've seen a huge increase in roadkill which I'm attributing to disturbance of habitat.  I've already been onto the County Council as they're already reneging on their promise to keep some "green spaces" in the new estates.  I also pointed out the increased flood risk of paving large areas which will affect habitats which are some distance removed from the original problem, ie the Gannel Estuary which is an environmentally sensitive area.  I don't deny that there is a need for new affordable housing but to destroy habitats that have taken hundreds or thousands of years to develop for the sake of progress is unacceptable to me, especially when it was recently estimated that at least 1.5 million homes could be built by utilising existing brownfield sites.

Regarding Kay's point, I think the swapping of one irreplaceable habitat for an artificially-created one does not compensate for the loss of the original.  Unfortunately, when it comes to granting planning applications, these considerations are very much down the list.  I had evidence of that when I was involved in opposing the destruction of a rare SSSI so a quarry could be reopened.  I've got a decent track record when it comes to these matters so if anyone ever thinks a bit of their precious natural resource needs protection I'm quite prepared to offer any help I can.

This has already been flagged up to the various Regional Council Conservation Officers by the BCA Conservation Officer and all regions are being urged to put in a formal response.  I know that both CNCC and DCA have already done this and copies of their submissions are with the BCA Conservation Officer.  I've no doubt that the other regional officers are already on the case and either have sent or will be sending a response by the deadline.

The responses so far from the regions are making the point already made earlier in this thread: that you can't wreck a limestone pavement or a cave and just replace it by planting a few trees elsewhere.  Limestone pavement is unlike any other habitat: different vegetation, etc. and each cave is unique in recording past geological events and also in having its own fauna - remove or destroy the limestone habitat and it cannot be "offset". 

I believe we are making the case that limestone habitat should be excluded from this scheme - but whether we can make a good enough case and whether this will stand against the grasping hands of the developers is another matter.

I'm not clever person who uses big words, but the limestone pavement is right up there with the most amazing things I've ever seen.

And most limestone pavements are protected by limestone pavement orders.

TheBitterEnd said:

And most limestone pavements are protected by limestone pavement orders.

Click to expand...

They are, but that does not give immunity from development.

It is possible to obtain planning permission for an area covered by an LPO. For example, the Yorkshire Dales National Park advice on when an environmental assessment is required to support a planning application says

"Limestone Pavement Order, Local Nature Reserves, RIGG, Local Wildlife Site, Open Upland, Important Hedgerow or other locally important site

Development affecting sites within any of these areas needs to be justified by exceptional circumstances of need which cannot be met in any other way, or where there are wider benefits which outweigh any harm that the development would do to the site. An evaluation prepared by suitably qualified ecologist of the impact of a proposed development and how any adverse impact could be off-set by mitigation measures. For guidance consult YDNPA Wildlife & Conservation staff."

One of the questions in the DEFRA consultation concerns whether Limestone pavements should be excluded from the proposals.

kay said:

TheBitterEnd said:

And most limestone pavements are protected by limestone pavement orders.

Click to expand...

They are, but that does not give immunity from development.

It is possible to obtain planning permission for an area covered by an LPO. For example, the Yorkshire Dales National Park advice on when an environmental assessment is required to support a planning application says

"Limestone Pavement Order, Local Nature Reserves, RIGG, Local Wildlife Site, Open Upland, Important Hedgerow or other locally important site

Development affecting sites within any of these areas needs to be justified by exceptional circumstances of need which cannot be met in any other way, or where there are wider benefits which outweigh any harm that the development would do to the site. An evaluation prepared by suitably qualified ecologist of the impact of a proposed development and how any adverse impact could be off-set by mitigation measures. For guidance consult YDNPA Wildlife & Conservation staff."

One of the questions in the DEFRA consultation concerns whether Limestone pavements should be excluded from the proposals.

Click to expand...

I suspect that most of us would agree that the exclusion should apply, BUT who decides the "suitably qualified ecologist"???

bograt said:

kay said:

One of the questions in the DEFRA consultation concerns whether Limestone pavements should be excluded from the proposals.

Click to expand...

I suspect that most of us would agree that the exclusion should apply, BUT who decides the "suitably qualified ecologist"???

Click to expand...

The fact that the question is being asked suggests that they may not be excluded. We have to hope that a sufficient number of those who reply to the consultation agree with us that they should.

And whilst we're on the theme:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-ancient-woodlands

Cheers

Gus

gus horsley said:

And whilst we're on the theme:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-ancient-woodlands

Click to expand...

Thanks for that link.

Just to provide some background ... the idea of asking developers to plant 100 trees for each tree felled sounds attractive. But ancient woodland if not just an assemblage of trees - it is the whole system, plants, invertebrates, mycorrhizal fungi  = known for a long time to be crucial in the growth of terrestrial orchids, but now found to be important to the growth of the majority of plants. It is extremely difficult to replicate the understorey growth in new planting and virtually impossible to alter the soil fauna and fungi.

When Osborne talks about "planting for the long term", he doesn't mean environmental damage for 40 years but a benefit for our children or grandchildren, he means 200 years.

Secondly, the proposal is for the new woodland to be provided up to an hour's drive away by car. This will mean no access to it for a big proportion of population, those who rely on public transport, or on someone else driving them to the area.