Planning 4 Biodiversity

transcript

Planning for Biodiversity:

Maximising the evidence

opportunity.

Alister Scott MRTPI

“It is a capital mistake to

theorise before you have data” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Scandal in Bohemia

Planning Challenge(s)

• Uncertainty

• Conflicting values

• Demographic change

• Economic growth

• Housing need

• Employment land

• Infrastructure

• Climate change

• Species decline

• Reduced diversity of natural and built assets

• Political football

• Scapegoats

Biodiversity Challenge

• < 33% of Development Plans have strategic approach to planning for biodiversity.

• > 33% of Dev Plans have no evidence of biodiversity being a core determinant of spatial strategy.

• NPPF’s polic(ies) for biodiversity at a landscape scale has not been widely embedded in Dev Plans (Natures voice, 2015)

Research evidence

Policy

Delivery

Closing Evidence-

Policy - Delivery Gap

(adapted from Waters, 2012 )

Talk Outline

1. Exposing Built vs Natural

Environment Divide

2. Whose Biodiversity policy do

we want: NPPF vs NEWP vs ?

3. Seizing new opportunities

Ecosystem Science meets

Spatial Planning

4. Hooks and Case Studies

5. Discussion

6. Questions

Exposing the divide

Natural Environment lens

1. Incentives

2. Natural Environment White Paper

3. Habitat and Landscape Scale

4. DEFRA

5. Ecosystem Approach

6. Classifying and Valuing

7. National Ecosystem Assessment

8. Catchment management Plans

9. Nature Improvement Areas

10. Local Nature Partnerships

Built Environment lens

1. Control

2. National Planning Policy Framework

3. Local scale

4. DCLG

5. Spatial Planning

6. Zoning and Ordering

7. Cost Benefit Assessments

8. Development Plans

9. Enterprise Zones

10. Local Enterprise Partnerships

Whose biodiversity polic(ies)

do we want?

Department of Communities and Local Government HM Government

In pursuit of integration:

Legal Duties

• NERC 2006 Act Section 40 to have

regard, in the exercise of their functions,

to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.

• NEWP 2011 White Paper

• Biodiversity 2020 2011

But Defra Biodiversity 2020

• better wildlife habitats – quality goals for

priority habitat/SSSIs

• more, bigger and less fragmented areas

for wildlife –

• restoration of 15% of degraded

ecosystems – climate change mitigation

and adaptation

• establishing a Marine Protected Area

network

• Marine plans in place by 2022

• improvement in status of our wildlife and

prevention of further human induced

extinctions of known threatened species

• significantly more people engaged in

biodiversity issues, aware of its value

and taking positive action

Integration 2 NPPF/NPPG

6 The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.

But : NPPF

17 Every effort should

be made objectively to

identify and then meet

the housing, business

and other development

needs of an area, and

respond positively to

wider opportunities for

growth.

• Priority growth lanes

Although NPPF

• 109 The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:– protecting and enhancing

valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;

– recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;

– minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, …….. including by establishing coherent ecological networks

NPPG: Biodiversity

• Movable feast of policy priorities and updates

• Regularly changed.

• Role of ecological networks

• Role of LNPs

• Proportionality of ecological surveys

• Enhancement of biodiversity

• Reduced role for GI

• Local planning authorities ….should seek opportunities to work collaboratively with other partners, including Local Nature Partnerships, to develop and deliver a strategic approach to protecting and improving the natural environment based on local priorities and evidence.

• Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 8-008-20140306

ALERC’s role

• A Local Record Centre can be an effective mechanism for facilitating access to environmental information which may be held across many public and voluntary organisations. Such centres provide a one-stop information source, often serving a specific county or grouping of local authorities. Their main function is to collate, manage and disseminate biodiversity information but they may also hold other types of environmental data and can also advise on evidence gathering.

• NPPG Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 8-010-20140306

The Value of Nature

• “In many cases nature is ignored or trumped by other economic or social priorities, or seen as a barrier to growth to be overcome.

• Ecosystem services and natural capital help re-frame nature as an asset to society that delivers many benefits”.

• Scott 2014

The State of Nature (NEA

Ecosystem Science

Opportunity (NEAFO 2014)

Introducing the Ecosystem

Approach

Introducing Spatial Planning

• Working across

multiple scales and

sectors

• Evidence based

policy

• Plan led development

• Inclusive and

equitable

Eurocities 2004

Overcoming disintegration

Integrating NEAFO, NEWP

and NPPF

Built Environment Hooks

• Value Ecosystem Services (p109/114ff) – Green/Blue Infrastructure

– Ecological networks

– Biodiversity Impact Assessment

• Duty to Cooperate – Payments for ecosystem

services

– LNP /LEP

• Viability – Environmental limits

• Regulation – Environmental protection

– Designation

Value Ecosystem Services

109 The planning system

should contribute to and

enhance the natural and

local environment by:

• recognising the wider

benefits of ecosystem

services;

109-125: ecological

networks; landscape scale;

green infrastructure

Value Ecosystem Services

109 The planning system

should contribute to and

enhance the natural and

local environment by:

• recognising the wider

benefits of ecosystem

services;

Baseline Mapping

Opportunity Mapping

Assessing Trade Offs

Location determined by

Market values only:

+ timber

(i.e. ignoring

externalities)

Optimal land use case study: Where to plant Britain’s new forests

Cost benefit value:

- £66million p.a.

Source Bateman Church

and Fish 2014

Market values only:

+ timber

(i.e. ignoring

externalities)

Market + Non-Market

Values

+ timber

+ greenhouse gases

+ recreation

+ water quality improvement

+ biodiversity improvement

Optimal land use case study:

New forests

Cost benefit value:

- £66million p.a.

Cost benefit value:

+ £546million p.a.

Omitting non-market goods Including non-market

Duty to Cooperate “To engage constructively,

actively and on an ongoing

basis to maximise the effectiveness

of Local Plan preparation

in the context of strategic

cross boundary matters”.

Housing

• IDENTIFY Objectively

assessed housing need

• 5 year housing supply

• REVISE via constraints

or neighbours

Catchment

Management Source: Jim Davies

Env Agency

Incentives: Payments for

Ecosystem Services

Birmingham

Green Living

Spaces Plan 2014

Spatial Layers

1.aesthetics and mobility

2.flood risk

3.local climate

4.education

5.recreation

6.biodiversity

South Downs National

Park: Draft Policy

• The Authority will take a positive approach to sustainable development provided it does not cause irreversible harm to the natural environment and its ability to contribute natural goods and services, where it is not possible to mitigate for this impact. Proposals that accord with other relevant policies will be permitted where they:

a) Conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife

and cultural heritage.

b) Improve the National Park’s resilience to climate

change.

c) Sustainably manage land and water environments.

d) Conserve high quality soils.

e) Mitigate the risk of flooding.

f) Conserve high quality drinking water resources.

g) Reduce pollution.

h) Improve opportunities for peoples’ health and wellbeing.

i) Stimulate sustainable economic activity.

j) Provide more and better joined up ecological habitats.

k) Propose high quality sustainable design.

l) Increase ability to store carbon through new planting or

other means.

Monitoring (weak)

• Ecosystem service

baselines

• Indicators to

measure

progress

ALERC Evidence

• Capturing and mapping data of key ecosystem services

• Role of measuring flows (demand and supply) of ecosystem services (benefits and disbenefits)

• Policy interventions assessment

Discussion

• Learning different languages to achieve your goals

• Ecosystem services threat or opportunity ?

• Evidence based Policy vs policy based evidence

• Meaningful partnerships (LEPS + LNPs)?

• Rethink viability and duty to cooperate

Duty to Cooperate

Biodiversity

• NEWP meets NPPF • Objective assessment

of biodiversity needs

• Link in with

environmental limits

• Plans must conform

with a 5 year no net

Completing the Jigsaw

Alternative

scenarios

Duty to

Cooperate

Monitoring

indicators

Valuation

Evidence NEWP

Ecosystem

Approach

Guidance

Public

Participation

Local Plan

Development

Joined up planning

Lets be NEATER

Alister.scott@bcu.ac.uk

@bcualisterscott