INTRODUCTION - Defra, UK - Science SearchDefra SP1318BBetter understanding of the current soil...

Cranfield Soil and AgriFood Institute

05 May 2023November 2015

Defra SP1318BBetter understanding of the current soil protection landscape

Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................42. COMPILING A LIST OF LAND USES UNDER INVESTIGATION............................53. COMPILING THE LAND USE STATISTICS.............................................................6

3.1. Sampling design..................................................................................................63.1.1. England, Scotland and Wales......................................................................6

3.1.2. Northern Ireland...........................................................................................73.2. Interpretation method..........................................................................................7

3.3. Estimated areas of the total area for each land use under investigation...........203.3.1. England......................................................................................................20

3.3.2. Wales.........................................................................................................213.3.3. Scotland.....................................................................................................22

3.3.4. Northern Ireland.........................................................................................233.4. Mask points removed prior to interpretation......................................................24

3.4.1. England......................................................................................................243.4.2. Wales.........................................................................................................25

3.4.3. Scotland.....................................................................................................253.4.4. Northern Ireland.........................................................................................25

3.5. Classification of interpreted mask points...........................................................263.6. Image interpretation accuracy assessment.......................................................26

4. IDENTIFYING THE LEGISLATION THAT COVERS THESE LAND USES AND HOW MUCH PROTECTION IS OFFERED TO SOILS...................................................30

4.1. Methodology to identify relevant legislation.......................................................304.2. Identifying soil protection legislation that applies to land uses under investigation.................................................................................................................324.3. How much protection is offered to soils.............................................................35

4.3.1. Agricultural – non SPS...............................................................................374.3.2. Allotments...................................................................................................39

4.3.3. Cutting peat................................................................................................394.3.4. Cutting turf..................................................................................................39

4.3.5. Derelict land...............................................................................................404.3.6. Footpaths...................................................................................................40

4.3.7. Gardens (domestic)....................................................................................404.3.8. Gardens/public parks.................................................................................40

4.3.9. Golf courses...............................................................................................414.3.10. Horse pastures.......................................................................................41

4.3.11. Horse race courses.................................................................................414.3.12. Landfill sites............................................................................................41

4.3.13. Military land.............................................................................................41

1

4.3.14. Recreation areas....................................................................................41

4.3.15. Recreation - sports.................................................................................424.3.16. Urban green space.................................................................................42

4.3.17. Verges road/rail/riparian.........................................................................424.3.18. Camping/Caravan sites..........................................................................43

4.3.19. Quarries..................................................................................................435. DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................536. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................577. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................588. APPENDICES..........................................................................................................59

List of TablesTable 1. Examples of land uses associated with soil degradation processes, but possibly not covered by soil protection legislation (- = unlikely effect; ? = unknown effect; + = possible effect; ++ = likely effect).......................................................................................4Table 2. Total number of sample points at 300 m and 1,200 m spacing in England, Scotland and Wales...........................................................................................................5Table 3. Number of sample points at 300 m and 1,200 m spacing with the mask applied in England, Scotland and Wales........................................................................................6Table 4. Land use class descriptions..............................................................................10Table 5. Estimated areas and proportions of the total area for each land use class identified in England.........................................................................................................19Table 6. Estimated areas and proportions of the total area for each land use class identified in Wales............................................................................................................20Table 7. Estimated areas and proportions of the total area for each land use class identified in Scotland........................................................................................................21Table 8. Estimated areas and proportions of the total area for each land use class identified in Northern Ireland............................................................................................22Table 9. Number of sample points removed by mask prior to interpretation in England. 23Table 10. Number of sample points removed by mask prior to interpretation in Wales. .24Table 11. Number of sample points removed by mask prior to interpretation in Scotland.........................................................................................................................................24Table 12. Number of sample points removed by mask prior to interpretation in Northern Ireland..............................................................................................................................24Table 13. Number of points and estimated area for points interpreted within the Mask class.................................................................................................................................25Table 14: Image interpretation accuracy assessment.....................................................28Table 15. Land use search terms used for legislation search. N.B. Land uses categories are based on Table 1 and Table 4...................................................................................29Table 16. Search terms for soil degradation processes to be used in identifying soil protection legislation........................................................................................................29Table 17. Legislation types omitted from the final results list..........................................30Table 18. Number of references in the legislation that potentially apply to each land use and soil degradation process (sourced from www.legislation.gov.uk).............................32Table 19. Systematic review proforma applied to the identified relevant national legislation (after Denyer and Tranfield, 2008)..................................................................33Table 20. Summary of relevant legislation details and assessment................................43Table 21. Aggregated spatial extent of land uses in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (based on Tables 5-8)...........................................................................52

2

Table 22 Summary of the most effective level of soil protection legislation across each land use within England (E), Wales (W), Scotland (S) and Northern Ireland (NI)...........53Table 23. Number of legislative items with direct or indirect effect on soil protection by land use...........................................................................................................................55Table 24 Number of legislation items with direct or indirect on soil protection by soil degradation process........................................................................................................55

List of FiguresFigure 1. Example of turf cutting........................................................................................7Figure 2. Example of horse pasture...................................................................................7Figure 3. Dates of the imagery used in the aerial photographic analysis for England, Wales and Scotland (An alternative data source was used for Northern Ireland).............9Figure 4. The number of legislative articles identified to have an indirect or direct effect on soil degradation processes / soil protection within the context of each land use........35

3

1. INTRODUCTION

There is a need for a better understanding of the current soil protection landscape and identification as to where there may be opportunities for better protection. Different land uses are periodically highlighted for which existing legislation (whether for soil, water, air, etc.) does not lead to sufficient protection of the soils. Examples include horse pastures, golf courses and turf cutting. The policy questions to be addressed are:

Which land uses do not currently have sufficient soil protection? For the purpose of the study, ‘sufficient’ is taken to mean legislation that has a direct or indirect effect on soil degradation processes / soil protection. Where legislation is considered to have an effect on soil degradation/protection, the impact of that legislation can be categorised into ‘low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘high’.

How much soil (area) in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (with a separate assessment for each country) is not already adequately protected by legislation?

The objectives of this study are to:

Compile a list of land uses to be investigated. This focuses on land use types which are known either to be damaging / risky to soil or to not be covered by larger existing policies such as the Single Payment Scheme (replaced with the Basic Payment Scheme in January 2015). The list of land uses was agreed with Defra and the Welsh Government at the Project Inception Meeting (05/01/2015).

Devise a methodology for compiling land use statistics for each of these land uses

Report on these statistics (with separate data provided for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).

Identify which legislation covers these land uses (in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) and how much protection is offered to soils (in relation to all identified soil threats).

4

2. COMPILING A LIST OF LAND USES UNDER INVESTIGATION

Preliminary research has indicated a number of land uses that might be associated with soil degradation processes1, but which are not covered by larger existing soil protection policies such as the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) (Table 1). In this report, reference is made to land under SPS rather than its replacement BPS (the Basic Payment Scheme) because the present analysis used data that predates the introduction of the BPS in January 2015. Additional commentary on Table 1 is given in Appendix 1. From this initial list, the number of land uses has been expanded further during the compilation of land use statistics phase of the project (section 3.2; Table 4). The additional categories have been added as they exemplify variations in land management that may have soil protection implications.

Table 1. Examples of land uses associated with soil degradation processes, but possibly not covered by soil protection legislation (-= unlikely effect; ? = unknown effect; + = possible effect; ++ = likely effect)

Soil protection issuesLand Use* S

oil erosion

Com

paction

Loss of OM

C

Loss of biodiversity

Soil

contamination

e.g. acidification

Sealing

Off-site im

pacts associated w

ith soil condition e.g.

water quality

Agricultural land not claiming SPS

+ + + + ? + +

Military land + ++ (localised) + + ? + +

Horse pastures + + ? ? - + +

Golf courses

+(during construction)

+ (localised) ? + + + +

Turf cutting +(wind) + + ++ + + +Urban areas

+ (during construction) ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++

Communal parks and gardens

- + (localised) - + - + +

Gardens (domestic) - - - ? ? + +

Allotments - + - ? ? + +Recreation areas (including forest bike trails; 4by4 courses)

++ ++ ++ ++ - + ++

Recreation - + + + + + ?

1 Taken from EC Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection (2006): Soil erosion (water and wind); organic matter decline; compaction; salinisation; landslides; contamination; and soil sealing.

5

– sports groundsHorse race courses - + - ? - + ?

Road verges + + - - ? + +

3. COMPILING THE LAND USE STATISTICS

We investigated the availability of national data sets on land use. CORINE or LCM2007 are not expressed at an appropriate scale or resolution to discriminate the different land uses of interest. Where land use information does exist at the appropriate scale / resolution (e.g. GeoInformation datasets), the large volumes of data involved and associated costs make data handling and analysis beyond the feasibility / budget of the current project.

The remit provided for this section of the work is to provide estimates of land areas that might be at risk of soil degradation but are not currently governed by soil protection legislation. Exact spatial extents (i.e. geographical locations) for the different land uses is therefore not required; it being sufficient to provide an estimate of the scale or order of magnitude of a range of land use types of relevance. Therefore a census approach (i.e. mapping every parcel of land of each selected land use type) is not considered appropriate.

A number of existing data sources were explored to estimate the extent of the individual land uses identified in Table 1, such as golf courses (http://www.englishgolf-courses.co.uk/englishgolf directory/index.html); recreational areas (e.g. Fields in Trust http://www.fieldsintrust.org/ formerly the National Playing Fields Association); and horse race courses (http://www.britishhorseracing.com/race-info/racecourses/). However, these sources did not provide the relevant information required. Therefore, a LUCAS style survey design was adopted (i.e. an area frame point grid survey) in order to provide estimated areas of each land use type of interest. This method has been rigorously tested and implemented operationally across Europe (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal /page/portal/lucas/introduction). The application of the survey design to geographical areas rather than administrative units has been tested and reported on by Gallego and Bamps (2008).

3.1. Sampling design

An adaptation of the LUCAS sample design implemented by Gallego and Bamps (2008) was used to locate the sample points covering England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

3.1.1. England, Scotland and Wales

Gallego and Bamps (2008) used a 300 m sample point spacing which gives 2,547,428 points across England, Scotland and Wales. Within the timeframe available for the project it was not possible to interpret this number of points. Therefore a larger spacing was chosen for the sample by selecting every fourth point from the 300 m grid of points derived using the Gallego and Bamps’ (2008) method. This gives a 1,200 m spacing, generating 159,754 points across the three nations. Table 2 shows the national split of points for the two sample spacings.

Table 2. Total number of sample points at 300 m and 1,200 m spacing in England,

6

http://www.britishhorseracing.com/race-info/racecourses/

http://www.fieldsintrust.org/-

http://www.englishgolf-courses.co.uk/

http://www.englishgolf-courses.co.uk/

Scotland and WalesCountry No. of points: 300 m

spacingNo. of points: 1,200 m

spacingEngland 1,446,277 90,567Scotland 870,893 54,764Wales 230,258 14,423Total 2,547,428 159,754

A mask was applied to remove those points located on field parcels that were: under the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) or Less Favoured Area (LFA) initiatives,

and therefore assumed to be covered by existing soil protection legislation; located on water (as determined from the Land Cover map, 2007 data), and

therefore considered not at risk of soil degradation processes; located on woodland (as determined from the Land Cover map, 2007 data). This

was included in the mask because it was considered to be at very low risk of soil degradation processes. Whilst disruptive practices such as operation of haul roads and replanting operations were considered, these were assumed to cover such a small proportion of the area, over relatively short periods of time that they were excluded from the analysis (i.e. included in the mask).

sealed (as defined by the ‘man-made’ attribute value) based on Ordnance Survey MasterMap attribute values. Again, it was assumed that already sealed areas were not under risk of (further) soil degradation.

The physical mask was based on the Ordnance Survey MasterMap polygons and derived by associating the Rural Payments Agency (England), LNFD (Wales), RPA (Scotland) data and the Land Cover Map 2007 polygons to the MasterMap polygons. Those MasterMap polygons identified as ‘Man-made’ were subsequently added to the mask. Table 3 shows the number of sample points in each country after the mask was applied.

Table 3. Number of sample points at 300 m and 1,200 m spacing with the mask applied in England, Scotland and Wales

Country 300 m spacing 1,200 m spacingEngland 262,034 18,832Scotland 285,866 18,032Wales 31,565 2,015Total 579,465 38,879

3.1.2. Northern Ireland

The 1,200 m spacing sample design was applied to Northern Ireland giving a total of 2,607 points to be interpreted and 6,825 points within the masked area.

The definition of mask applied was different in Northern Ireland due to the accuracy of the land cover datasets available. The mask included claimed agricultural land, LFA, water features and buildings. However, roads and forest were not included in the mask but were interpreted from the imagery when a point was located on these features.

3.2. Interpretation method

The standard visual interpretation factors have been used to identify the land use categories at each sample point – colour, texture, pattern, shape, size, association, site, shadow (Figure 1). The allocation of a class was based on the identification of the feature at each point in the non-masked area of the sample. However, the context

7

around the point was also used to guide the identification of the class at each point, as the classification used is land use as opposed to a land cover classification and therefore supplementary information is often needed to positively identify the land use of a point location. For example, the identification of horse pasture requires evidence of some or all of the associated features that would be expected to be present in addition to a grass field e.g. stables, water trough, menage, fenced paddocks, etc. (Figure 2).

Points falling exactly on a boundary between features e.g. field/property boundaries have been allocated a class according to the interpreters’ discretion based on the land use in each of the neighbouring land parcels. Tall buildings exhibit relief displacement in the imagery causing the structure to lean, obscuring the land use under the leaning part of the building. Where this occurs at a sample point this has been identified as ‘Mask’.

Figure 1. Example of turf cutting

Figure 2. Example of horse pasture

8

The points in Great Britain that fell outside of the mask were displayed over 25 cm resolution aerial photography provided by Airbus Defence and Space Ltd., in a GIS. The dates of the imagery are shown in Figure 3. Where overlap occurred, the most recent imagery was used. For Northern Ireland, Bing imagery was used.

The viewing scale used for interpretation varied according to area of surrounding land around each point required to accurately identify the land use category of the point. On average, the viewing scale for most points was between 1:1,000 and 1:2,000. Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 raster maps were also available for cross referencing purposes.

The land use classification category of each point in turn was added as an attribute of the point. The attribute table query tools of the GIS were used to sum the number of points classified in each class to derive the national land use statistical estimates.

The interpretation of the imagery identified a number of additional land uses that do not appear in Table 1, but could be subject to soil degradation (Table 4). These were:

Camping caravan sitesCutting peat (as opposed to turfs)Derelict landFootpathsLandfill sitesQuarriesUrban green spaces (although urban areas were identified in Table 1)Other.

9

Figure 3. Dates of the imagery used in the aerial photographic analysis for England, Wales and Scotland (An alternative data source was used for Northern Ireland).

10

Table 4. Land use class descriptionsMask

The land use categories in the mask are: active SPS parcels LFA parcels water woodland sealed surfaces; and shadowed areas cast

by buildings and trees where it is not possible to determine the land use class within the shadow.

11

Agricultural – Non SPS

Land that shows evidence of agricultural management (e.g. tractor wheelings, evidence of grazing, growing crop, cultivation patterns) or enclosed land, often formed of small land parcels, adjacent to settlements/ farms where the vegetation indicates it is likely to be used for agriculture, although no active evidence of management is currently visible.

Allotments

Regular small plots, often evident as strips subdivided by different vegetable and salad crops. Allotments not currently in active use may be grassed over, but the outline of the plot is still evident. Small buildings (e.g. sheds, greenhouses, outbuildings) are often within the plot boundary. Allotments are commonly located within or on the edge of urban areas.

12

Camping/caravan sites

Commonly large grassed areas with tracks to provide access to caravan/camping pitches. Static caravans form long thin rectangles of regular size arranged in distinctive patterns around the track network. Small permanent buildings may be evident to provide service facilities.

Cutting peat

Purplish brown bare soil surfaces with a regular stripe pattern denoting the width of the cutting machinery. Where cut by hand the exposed cutting face will be less regular in form. Former cut areas that have been allowed to re-vegetate have been classified as ‘Other’ unless they have flooded or woodland has developed in which case they are classified as ‘Mask’.

13

Cutting turf

This can only reliably be identified when cutting is actively taking place. A completely bare soil surface is present within an otherwise even tone mid to dark green grass field. Turf cutting machinery may be visible within the field. The turf is cut in thin strips creating a slight crenulated effect at the ends of the cut area.

(the example image provided is not an interpreted site, as no sites where located on turf cutting)

Derelict land

Land that is enclosed, often in an urban setting, where evidence of past activity is present, but there is no sign of current use. Vegetation encroachment may be present over areas previously occupied by buildings/access areas.

Footpath

A narrow linear bare soil/worn vegetation feature used for foot or vehicular traffic and only identified if actually observed on the imagery. This category has been crossed referenced against the Public Rights of Way indicated on Ordnance

14

Survey mapping.

Garden domestic

Small plots around residential properties where the surface is unsealed. Sealed surfaces within gardens have been classified as ‘Mask’.

Gardens/Public park

Large areas managed as gardens, typically around large residential buildings e.g. stately homes, hotels, or garden areas from former stately homes that have been demolished but where the gardens have been maintained. This category also includes areas within and around urban areas managed as public parks often containing access routes, flower borders, shrubberies, a play area, a bandstand, etc.

Golf courses

Characteristic pattern of managed tees, fairways, greens, bunkers and rough. Large blocks of trees within a golf course have been identified as ‘Mask’ and rough out of bounds areas have been identified as ‘Other’ as neither of these areas are being explicitly managed as a golf course.

15

Horse pastures

Commonly small rectangular paddocks separated by fences (typically post and rail) often with several paddocks within a larger field parcel. Water troughs, jumps and horses may be visible in the paddocks. The grass is often close cropped giving a mixed soil and vegetation reflectance. Stables and a menage or trotting ring may be adjacent.

Horse race courses

Grass or all-weather surface track, commonly in an oval shape with one or more spurs. Rails at the track edge are evident. Associated buildings, stables, viewing rings and spectator areas are present. Within the track ring other land uses can be found e.g. golf courses, and these have been identified as those land uses when the point fell on those areas.

16

Landfill sites

Active sites show evidence of waste/spoil being unloaded into previous excavations where the extraction has obviously ceased. Restored sites show evidence of re-vegetation, access tracks, vents (depending on the nature of the fill material), contouring of the surface and drainage channels. Land restored to agriculture with evident agricultural management visible is identified as ‘Agricultural – Non SPS’.

Military land

Land falling within the boundary of a military site. Cross reference between Ordnance Survey mapping and the aerial photography is made to identify the boundary extent of the category. Many vegetation types and sealed surfaces can occur within the class.

17

Quarry

Areas of extraction and storage of spoil from the extraction process and characterised by an un-vegetated surface.

Recreation areas

Green, open space areas often within or at the edges of urban areas. These are characterised by mown grass but receive less active management compared to a public park. Bike trails, scrambling courses and similar activities are also included in this class.

Recreation sports

Managed green space for sports. Pitch markings, running tracks, cricket strips are evidence for actively managed sports activities on a site. The green spaces around fishing lakes and shooting areas have also been included in this category.

18

Urban green space

Managed green space as part of the urban environment. This includes green areas between properties and roads in housing areas, greenways between development areas, managed green space around commercial and industrial buildings, and cemeteries.

Verges – road/rail/riparian

Unsealed areas adjacent to linear infrastructure that receive low levels of management input

Other

All other land uses that are not identified separately by other categories in the classification. This includes open moorland, coastal fringe, fen, marsh, mountainous areas, unmanaged areas within field parcels, grass strip airfields, green space within prisons or solar farms.

19

It should be noted that the lack of national land use statistics means that no mapping can be derived from the process. Also, use of aerial photography imagery means the results represent only one point in time and may be out of date at the time of the interpretation (especially given the transitory nature of some of the land uses of interest), depending on the date of the imagery available.

3.3. Estimated areas of the total area for each land use under investigation

The estimated area of each land use has been calculated by multiplying the area that each point represents by the number of points interpreted as a particular land use class. The area represented by each point approximates an area of 1.44 km2 on the ground. The proportion has been calculated by dividing the total number of points in each class by the national total number of points.

The calculated areas are an estimate and are therefore subject to error. A 95% confidence interval has been calculated in each case to indicate the range of area within which it is expected the true area will fall 95% of the time. The method used to derive the confidence interval values was follows:

1. An approximate 10% random sample of points was taken from the total population of points for each nation. The number of points forming the sample for each nation were: England – 9,057, Scotland – 5,447; Wales – 1,442; Northern Ireland – 943.

2. The random sample was repeated 50 times, generating 50 unique sets of points.3. The mean number of points in each class across all of the samples was

calculated. 4. From this, the proportion (p) of each class was calculated with respect to the

total number of points sampled.5. The following formula was used to calculate the confidence interval (CI) of the

proportion of points:

Where:p is the proportion of each class and n is the total number of points in the sample. 1.96 is the z statistic for the 95% confidence level.

6. The confidence interval for each class proportion was applied to the proportion calculated for the whole population and converted into an area.

7. Where a negative lower limit is calculated this has been set to zero in the results displayed in the following sections.

Note: Some of the conditions/assumptions for the estimation of the confidence interval do not apply to this dataset.

3.3.1. England

Table 5. Estimated areas and proportions of the total area for each land use class identified in England

Land use category Estimated area (km2)

CI 95 Lower limit (km2)

CI 95 Upper limit (km2)

% of total area

Agricultural - Non SPS 5,700 5,149 6,251 4.37

20

Allotments 75 10 140 0.06Camping/Caravan sites 112 32 192 0.09Cutting Peat 12 0 37 0.01Cutting Turf 0 0 0 0.00Derelict land 81 15 146 0.06Footpath 72 13 131 0.06Garden domestic 4,192 3,720 4,664 3.21Garden/Park public 310 181 438 0.24Golf courses 745 541 948 0.57Horse pastures 1,152 902 1,402 0.88Horse Race Courses 33 0 74 0.03Landfill sites (active/restored)

32 0 71 0.02

Mask 107,134 106,108 108,161 82.14Military land 154 63 245 0.12Quarry 219 109 328 0.17Recreation areas 457 299 614 0.35Recreation - sports 531 359 703 0.41Urban green space 657 469 844 0.50Verges - Road/rail/riparian

1,509 1,224 1,794 1.16

Other 7,253 6,639 7,866 5.56Total 130,429 100.00

Table 5 shows that 82.14% of the estimated area of England is either covered by the SPS or is sealed, water or wooded (the ‘Mask’ class). The other land use classes contributing more 1% of the land area are agricultural land not identified as receiving the SPS (4.37%), domestic gardens (3.21%), other land use classes mainly found in upland area (5.56%) and verges alongside, roads, railways and riparian areas (1.16%). These classes combined account for 96.44% of the land area of England. Only one land use class was not identified in the point sample: Cutting turf. This practice is carried out but the total area is too small to be consistently sampled at the point sample distance used in this project.

A comparison of the estimated area of the mask from the point sample prior to interpretation and the measured area from the GIS data layer produced the following results:

1. Measured area of the mask: 103,250.67 km2

2. Estimated area of the mask: 103,308.03 km2

3. Difference: 57.36 km2 (0.04% of the total area of England)

3.3.2. Wales

Table 6. Estimated areas and proportions of the total area for each land use class identified in WalesLand use category Estimated

area (km2)CI 95 Lower

limit (km2)


% of total area

Agricultural - Non SPS 745 544 946 3.58

Allotments 3 0 17 0.01Camping/Caravan 29 0 70 0.14

21

sitesCutting Peat 0 0 0 0.00Cutting Turf 0 0 0 0.00Derelict land 10 0 37 0.05Footpath 4 0 21 0.02Garden domestic 251 137 365 1.21Garden/Park public 10 0 29 0.05Golf courses 66 9 124 0.32Horse pastures 130 47 212 0.62Horse Race Courses 3 0 16 0.01Landfill sites (active/restored) 10 0 32 0.05

Mask 18,529 18,195 18,862 89.16Military land 30 0 70 0.15Quarry 30 0 72 0.15Recreation areas 14 0 43 0.07Recreation - sports 27 0 66 0.13Urban green space 23 0 61 0.11Verges - Road/rail/riparian 144 55 233 0.69

Other 723 526 921 3.48Total 20,782 100.00

Table 6 shows that 89.2% of the estimated area of Wales is either covered by the SPS or is sealed, water or wooded (the ‘Mask’ class). Three other land use classes contribute 1% or more to the estimated area: agricultural – non SPS (3.6%), garden domestic (1.2%) and other land uses mainly found in the upland areas (3.5%). These classes combined account for 97.4% of the land area for Wales. Two land use classes were not measured as part of the point sample survey – cutting peat and cutting turf. Their absence from the result does not indicate that these classes do not exist in Wales, but their area will be very small in comparison to the total area of Wales.




3. Difference: 18.61 km2 (0.09% of the total area of Wales)

3.3.3. Scotland

Table 7. Estimated areas and proportions of the total area for each land use class identified in ScotlandLand use category Estimated

area (km2)CI 95 Lower

limit (km2)


% of total area

Agricultural - Non SPS

2,526 2,166 2,886 3.20

Allotments 1 0 11 0.00Camping/Caravan sites

7 0 30 0.01

Cutting Peat 13 0 42 0.02Cutting Turf 0 0 0 0.00Derelict land 27 0 67 0.03

22

Footpath 20 0 52 0.03Garden domestic 500 335 665 0.63Garden/Park public 17 0 48 0.02Golf courses 192 90 293 0.24Horse pastures 124 44 203 0.16Horse Race Courses 1 0 13 0.00Landfill sites (active/restored)

16 0 46 0.02


336 202 469 0.43

Other 20,343 19,430 21,256 25.80Total 78,862 100.00

Table 7 shows that 68.9% of the estimated area of Scotland is either covered by the SPS or is sealed, water or wooded (the ‘Mask’ class). Two other land use classes contribute 1% or more to the estimated area: agricultural – non SPS (3.2%) and other land uses mainly found in the upland areas (25.8%). These classes combined account for 97.9% of the land area for Scotland. The higher proportion of other land uses is due to the large areas of moorland found in Scotland compared to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. One land use class was not measured as part of the point sample survey – cutting turf. The absence of this class from the result does not indicate that this class does not exist in Scotland but that its area will be very small in comparison to the total area of Scotland.




3. Difference: 73.80 km2 (0.09% of the total area of Scotland)


Table 8. Estimated areas and proportions of the total area for each land use class identified in Northern Ireland

Land use category Estimated area (km2)

CI 95 Lower limit (km2)


% of total area

Agricultural - Non SPS 605 425 786 4.45Allotments 1 0 7 0.01Camping/Caravan sites 4 0 19 0.03Cutting Peat 36 0 83 0.27Cutting Turf 0 0 0 0.00Derelict land 16 0 46 0.12Footpath 0 0 0 0.00Garden domestic 268 147 389 1.97Garden/Park public 6 0 25 0.04Golf courses 26 0 64 0.19

23

Horse pastures 26 0 60 0.19Horse Race Courses 0 0 0 0.00Landfill sites (active/restored)

1 0 12 0.01


160 67 253 1.18

Other 1,092 854 1,331 8.04Total 13,594 100.00

Table 8 shows that 82.51% of the estimated area of Northern Ireland is either covered by the SPS, LFACA status or is sealed, water or wooded (the ‘Mask’ class). Four other land use classes contribute 1% or more to the estimated area: agricultural – non SPS (4.45%), garden domestic (1.97%), other land uses mainly found in the upland areas (8.04%) and verges – road/rail/riparian (1.18%). These classes combined account for 98.15% of the land area for Northern Ireland. Three land use classes were not measured as part of the point sample survey – cutting turf, footpaths and horse race courses. Their absence from the result does not indicate that these classes do not exist in Northern Ireland but their area will be very small in comparison to the total area of Northern Ireland.




3. Difference: 5.21 km2 (0.04% of the total area of Northern Ireland)

3.4. Mask points removed prior to interpretation

The original sample point grid was analysed with a number of spatial layers defining land uses deemed to be within the masked category. This includes claimed agricultural land (SPS), less favoured areas (LFA), sealed surfaces, forest and water. Any sample points falling in the mask area were removed from the point layer used for interpretation. The following tables provide a breakdown of the categories forming the masked points. Note that some points may fall in more than one category due to the use of different spatial data layers to create the mask layer. For example, due to the data scale, some forest land may slightly overlap agricultural land. Therefore the mask point could be located in both.

3.4.1. England

Table 9. Number of sample points removed by mask prior to interpretation in England

Mask component Mask Sub-class Number of points

Estimated Area (Km2)

OS MasterMap - sealed surface 6,099 8,783Claimed agriculture/LFA (RPA) 60,289 86,824

24

LCM 2007 woodland and water classes

Broad leaved, mixed and yew woodland

6,425 9,253


Coniferous woodland 2,092 3,013


Freshwater 545 785


Salt water 21 30

Total masked points 75,471 108,688

3.4.2. Wales

Table 10. Number of sample points removed by mask prior to interpretation in Wales



OS MasterMap - sealed surface 609 877Claimed agriculture/LFA (RPA) 10,450 15,058LCM 2007 woodland and water classes


864 1,245




Freshwater 78 112


Salt water 2 3


3.4.3. Scotland

Table 11. Number of sample points removed by mask prior to interpretation in Scotland



OS MasterMap - sealed surface 969 1,395Claimed agriculture/LFA (RPA) 26,480 38,132LCM 2007 woodland and water classes


1,859 2,677




Freshwater 1,093 1,574


Salt water 14 20



Table 12. Number of sample points removed by mask prior to interpretation in Northern Ireland

Mask component Mask Sub- Number of Estimate

25

class points d Area (Km2)

OSNI – Buildings and Water features Buildings 116 167

Water 58 84Claimed agriculture/LFA (RPA) 6,655 9,592Total masked points 6,829 9,842

The Northern Ireland mask uses different criteria and data. The mask includes claimed agricultural land and Less Favoured Area Compensatory Allowance (LFACA), water features and buildings, but not roads or woodland. Road data was not included due to the accuracy of the area around the road edge and verge. As verges were an interpretation category it was deemed more accurate to manually interpret verges and roads (mask feature). Forest areas where not included in the mask as the Land Cover Map data for NI was only available in a lower resolution compared to GB, this meant the extent of woodland areas was poorly defined. These woodland areas where manually interpreted and classified as mask.

3.5. Classification of interpreted mask points

Additional points classified as ‘Mask’ were identified during the image interpretation. A separate interpretation was undertaken to identify the number of points falling into the following categories:

Sealed Woodland/small group of trees Water Shadow

Table 13 summarises the results obtained from this analysis.

Table 13. Number of points and estimated area for points interpreted within the Mask class

Mask category

CountryEngland Scotland Wales Northern Ireland

No. of points

Estimated Area (km2)

No. of points


No. of points


No. of points


Sealed 1426 2,054 165 238 138 199 368 530Woodland/ small groups of trees

959 1,381 700 1,008 296 427 574 827

Water 188 271 111 160 17 24 15 22Shadow 84 121 26 37 0 0 0 0

3.6. Image interpretation accuracy assessment

Approximately 2.3% (900) of the image points were re-interpreted by an interpreter other than the one who collected the original data, to obtain a measure of the accuracy of interpretation. The points were distributed across all four countries, maintaining the 2.3% sample in each case. Each re-interpretation was compared to the original interpretation to calculate the overall accuracy. The results were collated into a single overall

26

assessment of interpretation accuracy and are presented in in the form of a standard confusion matrix.

The overall accuracy was 79.6%. The expected accuracy for visual interpretation is 85% but due to the nature of the classification used in the project the expected accuracy was not achieved. This is explained by an analysis of the user and producer accuracies and individual class details within the confusion matrix highlights where differences of interpretation have occurred. These are reviewed below.

Class 1: Agricultural - non SPSDifferences of interpretation occurred with Class 15: Other. The most common locations where this occurred were in upland areas where more extensive grazing takes place. Determining whether agricultural management practices are evident at the point location can be open to interpretation and hence the interpretation differences found between these classes.

Class 10: Horse pastures was also confused with Class 1. Positive identification of horse pastures can be difficult because the appearance of the grass can be exactly the same as a field used for grazing other animals. Other contextual details such as wear patterns, type of fencing and proximity to stables are required to correctly identify horse pastures which were not identified in the re-interpretation in all cases.

Confusion between Class 13: Mask and Class 1 can be largely explained by points falling on trees or their shadows along a field boundary. A strict interpretation of these points would map them as Class 13 but in the sample of points taken for the accuracy assessment, seven of the re-interpreted points identified as Class 13 that were originally identified as Class 1.

Class 13: MaskClass 15: Other is the main class confused with Class 13. There are a number of reasons for this:

Determination of the proportion of tree cover required to classify the point as Class 13

Determination as to whether a surface is sealed, for example, in farm yard areas

Insufficient magnification of the point when interpreting to correctly identify the feature under the point

Use of a different date of imagery where there is overlap in image capture dates

Incorrect interpretation

Class 7: Garden domestic was also confused with mask. This confusion can arise, for example, due to the difficulty of determining whether the point has been located on a patio which would be counted as a sealed surface. In this instance the classification as class 7 is valid and demonstrates that not all of the classes are mutually exclusive from each other.

Class 13 was confused with Class 19: Verges – road/rail/riparian. Confusion can

27

arise where the point is located on the boundary between the sealed and the unsealed surface. Different interpreters may arrive at a different conclusion when observing the point.

Several classes have very small numbers of observations, for example, Classes 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 20. Many of the reasons given above explain the differences of interpretation seen in these classes.

28

Table 14: Image interpretation accuracy assessment

29

Class IDs 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Grand Total

User accuracy

(%)1 105 2 1 1 9 1 24 2 3 1 149 70.52 1 1 2 50.05 1 1 100.06 0 100.07 57 5 3 1 66 86.48 2 1 1 4 50.09 11 11 100.0

10 2 11 1 1 15 73.311 2 2 100.012 1 1 0.013 7 1 1 14 2 99 24 3 14 1 166 59.614 3 3 100.015 10 2 1 7 1 376 2 3 1 2 405 92.816 1 1 1 3 1 7 14.317 1 1 1 2 9 1 15 60.018 1 2 4 3 1 11 27.319 3 2 26 31 83.920 2 2 100.021 2 7 9 77.8

Grand Total 127 1 5 1 75 7 12 22 2 1 112 4 437 10 12 9 49 5 9 900Producer accuracy

(%)82.7 100.0 20.0 0.0 76.0 28.6 91.7 50.0 100.0 0.0 88.4 75.0 86.0 10.0 75.0 33.3 53.1 40.0 77.8

Re-in

terp

reta

tion

Original Interpretation

4. IDENTIFYING THE LEGISLATION THAT COVERS THESE LAND USES AND HOW MUCH PROTECTION IS OFFERED TO SOILS.

4.1. Methodology to identify relevant legislation

The following section describes the methodology for identifying the soil protection legislation that currently covers the land uses under investigation. The term ‘soil’ was searched for within the keywords of all legislation held at www.legislation.gov.uk (Appendix 2; tab: All_Soil). ‘Land use’ search terms were generated based on the land use types given in Table 1 and updated to reflect the findings of the API work (Table 4). The terms used are listed in Table 15. Successful search terms were then applied to the ‘soil’ legislation identified. The application of this methodology ensures that all legislation pertaining specifically to soil protection for each land use is captured.

Table 15. Land use search terms used for legislation search. N.B. Land uses categories are based on Table 1 and Table 4.

Land use Search term(s)*1 Agricultural – non SPS ‘agriculture’ and ‘agricultural’2 Allotments ‘allotment’3 Cutting peat ‘peat’4 Cutting turf ‘turf’5 Derelict land ‘derelict’6 Footpath ‘footpath’7 Gardens domestic ‘garden’ and ‘domestic’8 Garden/public parks ‘park’ and ‘garden’9 Golf courses ‘golf’10 Horse pastures ‘horse and pasture’ and

‘horse’11 Horse race courses ‘race’12 Landfill sites ‘landfill’13 Mask N/A14 Military land ‘military’ and “ministry of

defence”15 Other N/A16 Recreation areas ‘bicycle’, ‘off-road’ and

‘recreation’17 Recreation –sports ‘sports’ and ‘stadium’18 Urban green space ‘urban’19 Verges –Road/rail/riparian ‘Verge’20 Camping/caravan sites ‘camp’ and ‘caravan’21 Quarry ‘quarry’*Where two search terms are listed, each term was searched for separately. This is not the case for Gardens (domestic) where both terms were applied in a single search.

To extract specific soil protection legislation, the soil degradation processes under investigation (outlined in Table 1) were applied as tertiary search terms (Table 16). Again, search terms were first generated and tested for the number of ‘hits’ generated. For example, searching ‘contaminate’ returned a number of hits in the legislation related to ‘soil’, but this did not include references to ‘contamination’, whilst applying the term ‘contamin’ did not pick up either term: instead it returned no hits.

30

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/

Table 16. Search terms for soil degradation processes to be used in identifying soil protection legislation.Soil degradation process Search term(s)

usedNotes

Soil erosion ‘erosion’Compaction ‘compaction’Loss of organic matter content

“organic matter” “” used to omit other phrases containing organic e.g. organic fertiliser

Loss of biodiversity ‘biodiversity’Soil contamination e.g. acidification

‘contamination’ and ‘contaminate’

Sealing ‘sealing’Off-site impacts associated with soil condition e.g. water quality

“water quality” and “water pollution”

“” used to omit other phrases containing water

N.B. For more accurate search results phrases were entered with “”. However, this did not make a difference with single word terms and so these were entered in ‘’.

At each stage of the search the details and number of legislation items were recorded. Welsh legislation returned two results for each item of legislation – one in English and one in Welsh. The Welsh language version was removed so that the legislation item was not counted twice in the results.

When two or more search terms were used for one land use and/or soil degradation process, legislation items were often duplicated. These duplications were removed by combining the results of both searches and using the ‘remove duplicates’ tool in MS Excel. The results were also ‘cleaned’ of ‘irrelevant’ legislation, where the search terms had been found, but the legislation was clearly not related to soil protection per se (Table 17).

Table 17. Legislation types omitted from the final results list.Legislation type Legislation example Search termOverseas territories legislation

The Virgin Islands Constitution Order 2007

‘Federation’ and ‘independence’

Legislation pertaining to fees

The Plant Protection Products (Fees and Charges) Regulations 2011

‘Fees’

Forestry legislation The Plant Health (Forestry) (Great Britain) Order 1989, The Forestry Land Byelaws (Northern Ireland) 2013

‘Forestry’

Merchant shipping legislation

The Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations 1997

Pension legislation The Pensions Increase (Federated Superannuation System for Universities) Regulations 1972

Drivers working time regulations in exceptional circumstances

The Community Drivers' Hours (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Temporary Exception) (No. 2)

31

Regulations 2001Cross compliance The Agriculture (Cross

compliance) Regulations 2009‘Compliance’

Taxation law Corporation Tax Act 2009 ‘Tax’

The remaining legislation included both national legislation such as the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, and local legislation such as The Central Bedfordshire Council (Woodside Link Houghton Regis) Development Consent Order 2014 and The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Cotswold Hills) Designation Order 1994. To meet the SP1318B project objectives, only national legislation was reviewed.

4.2. Identifying soil protection legislation that applies to land uses under investigation

Table 18 shows the number of references (or ‘hits’) found in the legislation at www.legislation.gov.uk that mention soil degradation processes in relation to each land use of interest. The results are also shown for each land use under investigation in Appendix 2 (Excel spreadsheet). The legislation associated with each land use is shown in individual tabs in the spreadsheet.

32


Table 18. Number of references in the legislation that potentially apply to each land use and soil degradation process (sourced from www.legislation.gov.uk).No. Land use Soil Erosion Compaction Organic

matterBiodiversity Contamination Water quality Sealing

1 Agriculture 520 32 4 94 13 116 42 2262 Allotments 29 3 0 0 0 3 3 123 Peat cutting 75 17 3 15 6 36 10 344 Turf cutting 26 2 1 2 1 6 1 85 Derelict land 13 1 0 0 1 2 2 56 Footpath 121 17 2 0 3 26 16 167 Gardens (domestic) 40 2 2 10 1 19 4 19

8 Communal parks and gardens 328 39 4 14 9 75 28 107

9 Golf courses 10 6 0 2 1 5 0 110 Horse pastures 106 3 0 8 0 0 0 811 Horse race courses 44 10 0 6 2 20 1 1612 Landfill sites 73 10 3 10 2 44 6 3214 Military 33 2 1 1 2 10 2 1416 Recreation areas 59 3 1 13 1 23 4 3217 Recreation 71 10 2 9 2 24 5 2718 Urban areas 92 16 2 21 4 46 11 3019 Road verges 82 4 0 8 2 24 12 620 Camping/Caravan sites 59 13 0 0 1 21 2 2821 Quarry 75 11 0 9 1 34 8 29

33


For each land use, each item of national legislation identified by the searches was looked at in turn. This was undertaken by accessing www.legislation.gov.uk in Google Chrome, bringing up the appropriate legislation, selecting ‘open whole instrument’ from the opening options list and using the ‘find’ function to search within the legislative item. The relevance of each legislation item to soil protection was assessed using a systematic review based on the criteria shown in Table 19. The key terms identified to be present (i.e. selected land uses (Table 4) and soil degradation process (Table 1)) were searched for within the text to ascertain the relevance of the reference and suitability to soil protection. Not all terms were found to be relevant. For example the term ‘seal’ was often found in place of the intended search term ‘sealing’, making most ‘sealing’ ‘hits’ irrelevant. Where the land use/soil degradation process was listed as part of an ‘interpretation’ of another legislative term, then this new term was also searched for in-text. For example, organic matter was listed as part of the ‘organic manure’ definition, and therefore ‘organic manure’ was also searched for within that legislative item.

The degree of soil protection was determined by whether the legislation was judged to have ‘direct’, ‘indirect’ or ‘no’ effect on soil degradation processes / soil protection. For example, reference to a legal requirement to carry out an ‘environmental impact assessment’ in the legislation was deemed to have an indirect effect on soil protection (i.e. the legislation could be referring to soil (as part of the environment), but does not mention ‘soil‘ explicitly). An example of ‘no effect’ might be a reference to soil ownership rather than soil protection. Where legislation was considered to have some effect on soil degradation processes, the impact of that legislation on soil protection was categorised into ‘low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘high’.

Table 19. Systematic review proforma applied to the identified relevant national legislation (after Denyer and Tranfield, 2008).

Land Use Legislation Response

1. Does the land use and soil degradation process/es identified appear in the text?

2. What is the context of the land use reference?

3. Does the land use reference specifically relate to the soil protection / soil degradation process?

4. What is the context of the soil degradation process reference?

5. Does the context relate to soil protection? (If yes how does it)

6. What are the key protection measures associated with the land use?

7. How would you classify this legislation? (Indirect, direct or not applicable)

8. Would you consider the impact (if any) to be high, moderate or low?

Where legislative results within each land use and for each soil degradation process were related, the results were grouped. For example, in the case of soil contamination in domestic gardens, three items of Scottish legislation were found to cover this; The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011; The Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006; and The Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003. Instead of reporting these as 3 separate results, they were grouped to equal just one result, due to their similarity in

34


scope and content.

In the methodology applied, several assumptions have been made. First, legislation is dynamic, therefore, the legislation results represent just a snapshot of existing soil protection legislation according to www.legislation.gov.uk between May and June 2015. Second, www.legislation.gov.uk does not contain all current legislative changes as there is a delay in the information becoming available online. Third, not all legislation may be active. Repealed legislation is not always obvious online: it can be referred to in the title (e.g. as ‘repealed’) or can be discovered in the footnotes of the latest legislation when several identical legislative items are found. Finally, to meet the objectives of this report only specific soil protection has been identified, as opposed to more general land protection legislation. This may be particularly pertinent to the planning context, and all identified land uses may be affected by planning law. Even so, if the chosen search terms pertaining to soil degradation and protection appeared in planning laws, the current methodology would have identified this.

4.3. How much protection is offered to soils

The summarised results of the relevant legislation found are presented in Figure 4.

35



Figure 4. The number of legislative articles identified to have an indirect or direct effect on soil degradation processes / soil protection within the context of each land use.

36

4.3.1. Agricultural – non SPS

Legislation relating to soil protection covering all countries of the United Kingdom was found using the applied methodology (Table 20). However, not all degradation processes were covered by each country.

In England and Wales, legislation covers soil erosion, water quality and soil contamination. Two items of legislation offered protection against soil erosion; The Entry Level Agri-Environment Scheme (Pilot) (England) Regulations 2003 and The Set-Aside Regulations 1988 (which covers all UK countries). Both regulations were considered to offer direct soil protection, but to a moderate degree. In the case of The Entry Level Agri-Environment Scheme (Pilot) (England) Regulations 2003, soil erosion was specifically referred to, implying a direct effect on soil protection. Due to the monetary incentives offered, this legislation has the potential to have high impact, although it was classed as having a moderate impact, due to the voluntary nature of the scheme. The Set-Aside Regulations 1988 also explicitly made reference to soil erosion, and thus would have a direct effect, but with a moderate impact as the legislation only applies to set-aside land.

Water quality protection related to soil is provided by the Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (England and Wales) Regulations 1998. This legislation is considered to have an indirect effect on soil protection, as soil per se is not explicitly mentioned. However, the enforced monitoring of nitrate reducing practices will have some impact on soil protection. This is considered to have a moderate impact as nitrate is not the only water pollutant that is linked to soil degradation.

English and Welsh soils under agricultural (non SPS) land are protected from contamination by two pieces of legislation; The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 and The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) Regulations 2005, in addition to the other amendments listed in Table 20. Both items of legislation are considered to have an indirect effect and low impact on soil protection. This is because soil protection is only inferred, and the legislation deals with just one potential soil contamination source; the addition of waste to land.

In Scotland, legislation covers the greatest number of soil degradation processes; soil erosion, loss of organic matter, soil contamination, compaction, water quality and biodiversity. The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 is the only item of legislation found to protect against multiple soil degradation processes (i.e. compaction, erosion, loss of organic matter and contamination). This offers direct soil protection, with high impact, as it not only requires a soil water management plan to be generated for each field, but the costs of preparing these reports can be claimed back.

In addition to the soil protection covered by the Set-Aside Regulations 1988 (England and Wales), Scottish soils are further protected from erosion by The Rural Stewardship Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2001; The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008; The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010; The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013; and The Water Environment (Diffuse Pollution) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. All are considered to have a direct effect on soil protection. The Rural Stewardship Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2001 is considered to provide a low degree of protection as it only relates

37

to a specific sites (i.e. of archaeological and historical interest). The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 is considered to offer a high degree of protection, because it involves payment and thus has a greater likelihood of adoption. Furthermore, being part of a 5 year programme also means that monitoring is likely to take place, ensuring that the measures in place are effective in protecting soils from erosion. The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010 offers a low degree of protection as it is only relevant to SSSIs. These make up only a small percentage of agricultural land, and it is assumed that the SSSI designation means they are already well protected. The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013 offers a moderate degree of protection against soil erosion as it only applies to a small area of agricultural land (i.e. field margins with ditches and channels). Together with The Water Environment (Diffuse Pollution) (Scotland) Regulations 2008, this also protects against soil erosion caused by poaching. This legislation is considered to provide a low degree of protection to agricultural (non SPS) land as it is only relevant to livestock agriculture on or near wetland or riverine areas. Finally, in the Agriculture Improvement Scheme 1985 and The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989, Scottish soils are protected from soil erosion through grants for erosion mitigation works. This is considered to offer a moderate degree of protection as it is only relevant to water-course banks/channels and agricultural flood protection works.

Scottish soils are further protected from losses of organic matter (after The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008) by The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011 and subsequent amendments listed in Table 20. This is considered to have a direct effect on soil protection to a moderate degree. This is because whilst it covers one means of improving agricultural soil condition, other practices that could be used are not covered.

Soil is also protected from contamination by The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006; The Building Standards and Procedure Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 1999; and The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (including listed amendments in Table 20). All of these items are considered to have an indirect effect on soil protection, as soil is not explicitly referred to, and even then to a low degree. For example, the first two relate only to potential leakage from on-site fuel containers – hence the classification of ‘low’ impact of the legislation. In addition, they also do not cover fully all fuel storage scenarios. The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011 are also considered to have an indirect effect on soil protection, and to a low degree. This is also because it protects against just one potential source of contamination of soils, and not to a specific extent. For example, the exempted ‘dangerous substances’ are not defined.

Soil compaction is covered twice by The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 and subsequent amendments. The first is mentioned above in the form of the generation of a soil and water management plan. The second relevant aspect applies to the reversion of arable land to grassland and is considered to offer direct soil protection at a moderate level. This is a result of its specific focus.

Some water quality protection is provided by the Action Programme For Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008. This legislation is considered to have an indirect effect, as soil is not explicitly mentioned, however the enforced monitoring of nitrate reducing practices will have some effect on soils. This is considered to have a moderate impact as nitrate is not the only water pollutant that is linked to soil degradation.

38

Soil biodiversity was only found to be protected indirectly by The Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2004 and The Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005. These are considered to offer a low degree of protection, as it is only pertinent to livestock agricultural land, and a small potential threat to soil biodiversity.

In Northern Ireland, legislation covers soil erosion, water quality and contamination. As with England, Wales and Scotland, The Set-Aside Regulations 1988 covers protection against soil erosion directly, and to a moderate degree. Soil erosion is further covered by The Nitrates Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014. This too is considered to offer direct protection to a moderate degree, as whilst extensive, it does not include all agricultural crop types. Water quality is protected by two legislations; Action Programme For Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 and Phosphorus (Use in Agriculture) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. Both are considered to indirectly protect the soil. The Action Programme For Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 is considered to have a moderate impact as it only focuses on one pollutant. The Phosphorus (Use in Agriculture) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 is considered to have a high degree of soil protection. This is because phosphorus has a greater association with soil erosion and so would take more effect on control of eroded soil as a carrying of P. Northern Irish soils are only protected from soil contamination by one piece of legislation; The Diseases of Animals (Importation of Machinery and Vehicles) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012. This offers indirect protection to a low degree as it covers a minor source of contamination.

4.3.2. Allotments

Using the applied methodology, only two items of legislation contained the exact in-text references to soil degradation processes identified in the initial search. The Water Resources Act 1991 was the only legislation found to provide some degree of soil protection for allotments with regard to soil contamination and protecting water quality (Table 20).This protection was considered to be indirect as soil was only inferred by the necessity to protect water from pollution and contamination, specifically via the designation of nitrate sensitive areas (Table 20). This is considered to provide a low degree of protection, as soil degradation processes are not specifically addressed.

4.3.3. Cutting peat

Results suggest that in England and Wales no legislation exists to protect soil under peat cutting. However, the applied methodology did identify one item of legislation for Scotland. The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 offers protection to soil under the threat of erosion by peat-cutting. This legislation is deemed to offer direct protection as it specifically addresses erosion as a soil degradation process. The degree of protection offered has been classified as moderate as the legislation relies on claimants coming forward for payments, rather than identifying land that requires protection. Although there is no reference to soil erosion by peat cutting per se in Northern Ireland, commercial extraction of peat is subject to approval by DOE Planning and local government group (Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991), with turbary rights for domestic use applicable to the maximum of 0.1 ha. Exploitation of peat on designated sites is controlled under Article 32 of the Environment Order.

4.3.4. Cutting turf

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the

39

United Kingdom that specifically protects soil on land where turf cutting takes place.

4.3.5. Derelict land

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the United Kingdom that specifically protects soil on derelict land.

4.3.6. Footpaths

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the United Kingdom that specifically protects soil under footpaths.

4.3.7. Gardens (domestic)

Few pieces of legislation specifically referred to domestic gardens. However, using the applied methodology, two items of legislation were identified as having an effect on soil degradation processes / soil protection in gardens in general. These covered England, Wales and Scotland and specifically protected against soil contamination. No legislation was found for Northern Ireland, or for other degradation processes.

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 protects the soil against contamination originating from applied waste. This was considered to offer indirect protection, as it was inferred and not explicit. The impact is deemed to be low as it addresses just one source of contamination, the addition of excavated soil. The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (and earlier amendment legislation) (Table 20) also offers protection against soil contamination. Protection against contamination was considered to be indirect due to the inferred benefit to soils. Furthermore, this legislation was considered to have a low impact, as it also addresses just one source of contamination (the addition of waste products containing dangerous products to soil).

4.3.8. Gardens/public parks

Few pieces of legislation were found using the applied methodology pertaining to soil protection in communal parks and gardens. Only legislation concerning contamination was identified. This covered all countries in the UK.

In Wales, disease contamination was considered in the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order 2006. This sought to prevent contamination of wildlife parks by the containment, isolation, cleansing and disinfection of potentially infected items. This was considered to have an indirect effect on soil as it was not explicitly referred to in the context of contamination. Further, this would have a low impact as it covers just one potential contamination source.

In England and Wales, parks and gardens are protected from the addition of soil excavated from contaminated land. This was considered indirect legislation, as soil protection is not directly mentioned. Further, this would be considered to have low impact on soil contamination as it only addresses one source of contamination. Similar legislation was identified in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These differed from the legislation applicable to England and Wales in that soil excavated from contaminated land was permitted to be added as a means of ecological improvement. However this was only the case if dangerous substances were not present. The nature of these dangerous substances was not defined in the legislation. As with the England and Wales legislation, this was deemed to have an indirect effect on soil protection as it was not explicitly written for this purpose. This would also have a low impact due to the

40

fact that it addresses just one potential contamination source.

4.3.9. Golf courses

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the United Kingdom that specifically protects soil under golf courses.

4.3.10. Horse pastures

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the United Kingdom that specifically protects soil under horse pastures.

4.3.11. Horse race courses

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the United Kingdom that specifically protects soil under horse race courses.

4.3.12. Landfill sites

Using the applied methodology, legislation articles were found for both protecting soil from potential contamination and the effects of discharges from landfill sites on water quality. However, legislation was only found for Scotland and Northern Ireland (Table20).

Northern Ireland regulations seek to prevent contamination from landfill by testing ‘inert waste’ suspected of contamination (Table 20). This has an indirect effect on soil, as soil is not explicitly considered. This effect would also have a low impact on protecting against soil contamination as it only applies to one landfill type; an inert landfill.

Both Northern Ireland and Scotland regulate against potential soil contamination and impacts on water quality that could affect the soil (Table 20). Soil contamination is prevented by ensuring contaminated water and leachate is of a suitable condition prior to discharge. Potential water quality impacts are monitored for environmental change both pre and post the landfill’s operation. This soil protection against contamination and water quality is considered to be indirect, as soil is not explicitly referred to. However it is further considered to have a moderate impact as it is relevant to all types of landfill providing a wider scope of impact.

4.3.13. Military land

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the United Kingdom that specifically protects the soils on military land. One closely related piece of legislation was found that may actually go against soil protection as it exempts military land from the radioactive waste regulations specified in the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. This would make such land prone to contamination.

4.3.14. Recreation areas

No specific legislation was found for bicycle and off-road vehicle recreational facilities using the applied methodology. However under the term ‘recreation’, several legislative articles were found covering the entire United Kingdom.

In England and Wales, recreational land is protected from the addition of soil excavated from contaminated land. This was considered an indirect legislation, as soil

41

protection is not directly mentioned. Furthermore, this would be considered to have low impact on soil contamination overall, as it only addresses one source of contamination. Similar legislation was identified in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These differed from the legislation applicable to England and Wales in that soil excavated from contaminated land was permitted to be added as a means of ecological improvement. However, this was only the case if dangerous substances were not present. The nature of these dangerous substances was not defined in the legislation. As with the England and Wales legislation, this was deemed to have an indirect effect on soil protection legislation as it was not written explicitly for this purpose. This would also have a low impact due to the fact that it addresses only one potential contamination source.

4.3.15. Recreation - sports

Few pieces of legislation were found using the applied methodology pertaining to the protection against soil degradation processes in recreation grounds. Only legislation concerning contamination was identified. This covered all countries in the UK.

In England and Wales, sports grounds are protected from the addition of soil excavated from contaminated land. This was considered an indirect effect, as soil protection is not directly mentioned. Furthermore, this would be considered to have low impact on soil contamination as it only addresses one source of contamination. Similar legislation was identified for Scotland and Northern Ireland. These differed from the legislation applicable to England and Wales in that soil excavated from contaminated land was permitted to be added as a means of ecological improvement. However this was only the case if dangerous substances were not present. The nature of these dangerous substances was not defined in the legislation. As with the England and Wales, this legislation was deemed to have an indirect effect on soil protection as it was not written explicitly for this purpose. This would also have a low impact due to the fact that it addresses only one potential contamination source.

4.3.16. Urban green space

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the United Kingdom that specifically protects soil from degradation processes in urban green spaces.

4.3.17. Verges road/rail/riparian

Few pieces of legislation were found using the applied methodology pertaining to soil protection against degradation processes on verges. Only legislation concerning contamination was identified. This covered all countries in the UK.

In England and Wales, verges (not specified to refer specifically to roads) are protected from the addition of soil excavated from contaminated land. This was considered an indirect legislation, as soil protection is not directly mentioned. Further this would be considered to have low impact on the contamination of soil as it only addresses one source of contamination. Similar legislation was identified in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These differed from the legislation applicable to England and Wales in that soil excavated from contaminated land was permitted to be added as a means of ecological improvement. However this was only the case if dangerous substances were not present (and the nature of these dangerous substances was not defined in the legislation). As with the England and Wales legislation, this was deemed to have an indirect effect on soil protection as it was not explicitly written for this purpose. This would also have a low impact due to the fact that it addresses only one potential contamination source.

42

4.3.18. Camping/Caravan sites

Results suggest that, using the applied methodology, no legislation exists across the United Kingdom that specifically protects soils under camping/caravan sites.

4.3.19. Quarries

Only one piece of legislation was found using the applied methodology pertaining to soil protection against degradation processes on quarry land, and this was only relevant to Scotland. Results suggest that no legislation exists for England, Wales and Northern Ireland that specifically protects soil found in quarry sites.

In Scotland, quarry restoration can be undertaken using soil excavated from contaminated land, but only if the soil does not contain dangerous substances. The nature of these dangerous substances is not defined in the legislation. This was deemed to provide indirect soil protection as the legislation was not explicitly written for this purpose. This would also have a low impact due to the fact that it addresses only one potential contamination source, post quarry excavation.

43

Table 20. Summary of relevant legislation details and assessment.Land use Soil

degradation process

Legislation name Country Type of soil protection

Degree of soil protection

Detail

Agricultural –Non SPS

Erosion The Entry Level Agri-Environment Scheme (Pilot) (England) Regulations 2003

England Direct Moderate Points are awarded as part of a contribution to a grant for management of maize crops to reduce soil erosion and for the management of high erosion risk cultivated land.


Contamination The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007

England and Wales

Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from a contaminated site cannot be used for agricultural improvement.


Contamination The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 2) Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 3) Regulations 2005

England and Wales

Indirect Low Land excavated from contaminated sites can be applied to agricultural land for agricultural/ecological improvement if it does not contain dangerous substances.


Water quality Action Programme For Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (England and Wales) Regulations 1998; Action Programme For Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999; Action Programme For Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2008

England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland.

Indirect Moderate The department for the environment must be allowed onsite to monitor water pollution and the nitrate reducing practices implemented onsite.


Contamination The Diseases of Animals (Importation of Machinery and Vehicles) Order (Northern Ireland) 2012

Northern Ireland

Indirect Low No machinery/vehicle contaminated or with the potential to have carried/transmitted disease can enter the country unless it has been cleansed and disinfected prior to loading into its

44

Land use Soil degradation process



Detail

transport container.Agricultural –Non SPS

Erosion The Nitrates Action Programme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014

Northern Ireland

Direct Moderate Winter cover (in the form of stubble or sown cover) prescribed post-harvest in cereals (excluding maize), oil seeds or grains legumes (e.g. peas and beans).Residues of late harvested crops e.g. maize and potatoes to be left undisturbed until immediately prior to sowing next spring.In grass leys/arable rotation first crop to be sown as soon as possible post grass ploughing.


Water quality Phosphorus (Use in Agriculture) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006

Northern Ireland

Indirect High Land managers shall no knowingly or otherwise cause direct or indirect entry of chemical fertilisers into waterways/water contained in any underground strata.


Biodiversity The Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2004; The Less Favoured Area Support Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2005

Scotland Indirect Low Monitoring stocking density to protect vegetation growth, quality/species composition and prevent damage to sensitive habitats.


Compaction The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008; The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011

Scotland Direct Moderate In arable reversion to grassland, address areas of soil compaction before seed is sown.


Compaction, erosion, loss of organic matter, contamination

The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008

Scotland Direct High A soil water management plan for each field identifies measures to reduce risks. Payment is available for the generation of this plan.


Contamination The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006

Scotland Indirect Low Non-portable fuel storage containers must be designed and constructed to reduce

45




Detail

leakage and contain spillage at risk of contaminating ground water.


Contamination The Building Standards and Procedure Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 1999

Scotland Indirect Low Oil (fuel) storage >90 l constructed to minimise the risk of water supply contamination.


Contamination The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011; The Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006; The Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003

Scotland Indirect Low Land excavated from contaminated sites can be applied to agricultural land for agricultural/ecological improvement if it does not contain dangerous substances.


Erosion The Rural Stewardship Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2001

Scotland Direct Low Erosion damage must be repaired on sites of archaeological/historic interest.


Erosion The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010; The Rural Stewardship Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2001

Scotland Direct Low Payment is available as part of the eligible capital gains works bringing SSSI’s to a favourable condition for planting Marram grass into areas threatened with erosion.


Erosion The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008

Scotland Direct High A 5 year programme eligible for payment whereby areas/fields at risk of erosion have been identified through a specialist Diffuse Pollution Audit or Soil Water Management Plan have been converted from arable to grassland.


Erosion The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013; The Water Environment (Diffuse Pollution) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (relevant to poaching only)

Scotland

Scotland

Direct

Direct

Moderate

Low

Works carried out to construct and maintain surface drainage, ditches and to control bank erosion must not cause a significant increase in erosion.Prevention of significant erosion must be avoided by minimising poaching on any land within 5m of any river/ditch or wetland.

Agricultural – Organic matter The Waste Management Licensing Scotland Direct Moderate The addition of organic matter to the soil

46




Detail

Non SPS (Scotland) Regulations 2011; The Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006; The Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003

is one of the assessment criteria for ascertaining whether the addition of waste would be beneficial to agriculture.


Erosion The Set-Aside Regulations 1988 UK; England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.

Direct Moderate The application restriction for organic fertiliser application (not between the end of harvest and establishment of new crop) can be overruled (with authorisation) if the application of slurry or manure is necessary to prevent erosion.


Erosion The Agriculture Improvement Scheme 1985; The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989

UK; Scotland

Direct Moderate Specifically in Scotland a grant is given for erosion mitigation works on water-course banks/channels or agricultural flood protection work.

Allotments Contamination The Water Resources Act 1991 UK; England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.

Indirect Low Allotments >1/10th ha can be classified as ‘agricultural land’ and thus can be designated as a nitrate sensitive area.

Allotments Water quality The Water Resources Act 1991 UK; England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland.

Indirect Low Allotments >1/10th ha can be classified as ‘agricultural land’ and thus can be designated as a nitrate sensitive area.

Garden/ public park

Contamination The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) Regulations 2005; The

England and Wales

Indirect Low Soil excavated from contaminated sites cannot be applied to parks or gardens.

47




Detail

Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 2) Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 3) Regulations 2005

Garden/ public park

Contamination The Waste Management Licensing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003

Northern Ireland

Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to parks and gardens for the benefit of ecological improvement.

Garden/ public park


Scotland Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to parks and gardens for the benefit of ecological improvement.

Garden/ public park (parks only)

Contamination The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Wales) Order 2006

Wales Indirect Low Soil contamination from Foot-and-Mouth disease prevented by containment, isolation, cleansing and disinfection.

Garden domestic

Contamination The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007

England and Wales

Indirect Low Contaminated spoil cannot be applied to gardens.

Garden domestic


Northern Ireland

Indirect Low Soil excavated from contaminated sites can be applied to gardens when the waste does not include dangerous substances and it is for the benefit of ecological improvement.

Garden domestic

Contamination The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011; The Waste Management Licensing

Scotland Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to gardens for

48




Detail

Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006; The Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2003

the benefit of ecological improvement.

Landfill Contamination The Landfill (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2004

Northern Ireland

Indirect Low Where waste of a supposed ‘inert’ nature is suspected of being contaminated then it should be tested (e.g. for plastics, metals, asbestos, chemicals) to classify the suitable landfill type for its disposal.

Landfill Contamination The Landfill Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003

Northern Ireland

Indirect Moderate Landfill contaminated water and leachate is to be tested before discharge to ensure that it is up to standard.

Landfill Water quality The Landfill Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003

Northern Ireland

Indirect Low Groundwater around the landfill is monitored for environmental change both pre and post landfill operation.

Landfill Contamination The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003

Scotland Indirect Moderate Landfill contaminated water and leachate is to be tested before discharge to ensure that it is up to standard.

Landfill Water quality The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003

Scotland Indirect Low Groundwater around the landfill is monitored for environmental change both pre and post landfill operation.

Cutting peat Erosion The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008

Scotland Direct Moderate Aid payments for the implementation of management plans to: not carry out peat-cutting on lowland

raised bogs (£40 - £83 ha-1 yr-1) address impacts including peat-

cutting on erosion-sensitive upland and peat land sites (£0.70 ha-1 yr-1).

Quarry Contamination The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011

Scotland Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be used for the restoration of quarry sites.

Recreation Contamination The Environmental Permitting England Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated

49




Detail

areas (England and Wales) Regulations 2007; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 2) Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 3) Regulations 2005

and Wales

sites cannot be applied to recreation ground.

Recreation areas


Northern Ireland

Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to recreation land for the benefit of ecological improvement.

Recreation areas


Scotland Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to recreation land for the benefit of ecological improvement.

Recreation - sports

Contamination The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 2)

England and Wales

Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites cannot be applied to sports ground.

50




Detail

Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 3) Regulations 2005

Recreation - sports


Northern Ireland

Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to sports ground for the benefit of ecological improvement.

Recreation - sports


Scotland Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to sports ground for the benefit of ecological improvement.

Verges road/rail/ riparian

Contamination The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales) (Amendment and Related Provisions) Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 2) Regulations 2005; The Waste Management Licensing (England and Wales)(Amendment and Related Provisions)(No. 3) Regulations 2005

England and Wales

Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites cannot be applied to land that is a verge.



Northern Ireland

Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to land that is

51




Detail

a verge for the benefit of ecological improvement.



Scotland Indirect Low Waste soil excavated from contaminated sites that specifically excludes dangerous substances can be applied to land that is a verge for the benefit of ecological improvement.

Legislation is grouped in one single entry where legislative detail is the same.

52

5. DISCUSSION

According to the methodology used, the land uses under investigation (Table 5, Table6, Table 7 and Table 8) cover a small proportion of the total land use estimated for the UK. Aggregated at the UK scale, the land uses of interest are summarised in Table 21. It is estimated that about 9.5% of the total land use of the UK might be associated with soil degradation processes, but is not covered by larger existing soil protection policies such as the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) (now superseded by the Basic Payment Scheme introduced in January 2015, which postdates the data used in the present analysis).

Table 21. Aggregated spatial extent of land uses in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (based on Tables 5-8)

Land use category Estimated area (km2) % of total area

Mask 191,217 78.475

Other 29,411 12.070

Agricultural - Non SPS 9,576 3.930

Garden domestic 5,211 2.139

Verges - Road/rail/riparian 2,149 0.882

Horse pastures 1,432 0.588

Golf courses 1,029 0.422

Urban green space 896 0.368

Recreation - sports 611 0.251

Recreation areas 547 0.224

Garden/Park public 343 0.141

Quarry 341 0.140

Military land 282 0.116

Camping/Caravan sites 152 0.062

Derelict land 134 0.055

Footpath 96 0.039

Allotments 80 0.033

Cutting Peat 61 0.025

Landfill sites (active/restored) 59 0.024

Horse Race Courses 37 0.015

Cutting Turf 0 0.000

Total 243,667 100

summarises the key findings of the review of the current legislation related to soil protection. Information has been aggregated across all soil degradation processes to show the highest level of soil protection available.

53

Table 22 Summary of the most effective level of soil protection legislation across each land use within England (E), Wales (W), Scotland (S) and Northern Ireland (NI).

Land Use and country

Estimated area (km2)*

Estimated area (% of

total country area)*

Level of soil protection** Related soil

degradation processType Degree

Agr

icul

tura

l N

on S

PS

E 5,700 4.37 D Moderate ErosionW 745 3.58 D Moderate Erosion

S2,526

3.20 D HighCompaction, erosion, loss of organic matter and contamination.

NI 605 4.45 D Moderate Erosion

Allo

tmen

ts

E 75 0.06 I Low Contamination, water quality

W 3 0.01 I Low Contamination, water quality

S 1 0.00 I Low Contamination, water quality

NI 1 0.01 I Low Contamination, water quality

Cut

ting

peat

E 12 0.01 NEW 0 0.00 NES 13 0.02 D Moderate ErosionNI 36 0.27 NE

Cut

ting

turf E 0 0.00 NE

W 0 0.00 NES 0 0.00 NENI 0 0.00 NE

Der

elic

t la

nd

E 81 0.06 NEW 10 0.05 NES 27 0.03 NENI 16 0.12 NE

Foot

path E 72 0.06 NE

W 4 0.02 NES 20 0.03 NENI 0 0.00 NE

Gar

den

dom

estic

E 4,192 3.21 I Low ContaminationW 251 1.21 I Low ContaminationS 500 0.63 I Low ContaminationNI 268 1.97 I Low Contamination

Gar

den/

pa

rk p

ublic E 310 0.24 I Low Contamination

W 10 0.05 I Low ContaminationS 17 0.02 I Low ContaminationNI 6 0.04 I Low Contamination

Gol

f co

urse

s E 745 0.57 NEW 66 0.32 NES 192 0.24 NENI 26 0.19 NE

54

Land Use and country

Estimated area (km2)*

Estimated area (% of

total country

Level of soil protection** Related soil

degradation processType DegreeH

orse

pa

stur

esE 1,152 0.88 NEW 130 0.62 NES 124 0.16 NENI 26 0.19 NE

Hor

se ra

ce

cour

se

E 33 0.03 NEW 3 0.01 NES 1 0.00 NENI 0 0.00 NE

Land

fill

site

s

E 32 0.02 NEW 10 0.05 NES 16 0.02 I Moderate ContaminationNI 1 0.01 I Moderate Contamination

Mili

tary

la

nd

E 154 0.12 NEW 30 0.15 NES 92 0.12 NENI 6 0.04 NE

Rec

reat

ion

area

s

E 457 0.35 I Low ContaminationW 14 0.07 I Low ContaminationS 72 0.09 I Low ContaminationNI 4 0.03 I Low Contamination

Rec

reat

ion

-spo

rts

E 531 0.41 I Low ContaminationW 27 0.13 I Low ContaminationS 20 0.03 I Low ContaminationNI 33 0.24 I Low Contamination

Urb

an

gree

n sp

ace

E 657 0.50 NEW 23 0.11 NES 160 0.20 NENI 56 0.41 NE

Ver

ges

-roa

d/ra

il/

ripar

ian E 1,509 1.16 I Low Contamination

W 144 0.69 I Low ContaminationS 336 0.43 I Low ContaminationNI 160 1.18 I Low Contamination

Cam

ping

/ ca

rava

n si

tes

E 112 0.09 NEW 29 0.14 NES 7 0.01 NENI 4 0.03 NE

Qua

rry

E 219 0.17 NEW 30 0.15 NES 56 0.07 I Low ContaminationNI 36 0.27 NE

*See Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8. **Direct protection (D) is considered to be of a higher level than indirect protection (I) or No Effect (NE).

55

Using the methodology developed, the evidence suggests that the provision of soil protection legislation varies across the different land uses identified in Table 1 and Table 4. Of these, the land use with the greatest spatial area after the Mask (page 6) and ‘Other’ categories, agricultural (non SPS) land, has the greatest number of effective legislation items compared with all other land uses. It is uncertain whether this is because this land use has the greatest spatial extent of all land uses (but then only c. 4% of total land use in the UK) and/or is associated with the highest degree/risk of soil degradation processes (therefore in need of greatest soil protection). Agricultural (non SPS) land and that used for cutting peat were the only land uses listed in Table 1 that are covered by current legislation judged to have a direct effect on soil protection (Table23).

Table 23. Number of legislative items with direct or indirect effect on soil protection by land use.

All countries of the UK have both direct and indirect forms of soil protection legislation, but it is likely that the impact of each of these laws on soil protection / degradation will vary. Only one legislative item (The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008) was judged to have a direct effect with high impact on soil protection. Scotland has almost 3 times the amount of effective legislation than all other countries in the UK (Scotland 14 items, England 5, Wales 4 and Northern Ireland 5). It is uncertain whether this is due to a (real or perceived) greater soil degradation risk in Scotland compared with the other countries.

All types of soil degradation process (e.g. soil erosion, compaction, soil contamination and loss of organic matter) are covered directly by soil protection legislation to differing degrees, depending on the country and specific land use (Table 24). The most common legislation relating directly to soil degradation was linked to the control of soil erosion. A number of laws relate indirectly to soil contamination. It is uncertain whether these findings reflect the greatest extent and/or severity of soil degradation processes in the UK, which could inform the level of legislation required to protect soil from these processes. Even though land covered by SPS / BPS was deliberately excluded from the study, it was noted that little or no active protection is afforded to soil by SPS from the threat of sealing.

Table 24 Number of legislation items with direct or indirect on soil protection by soil degradation process.Soil degradation Direct effect on soil Indirect effect on soil

56

Land UseDirect effect on soil

protectionIndirect effect on soil

protectionAgricultural (Non SPS) 10 9Allotments 0 2Garden/ public park 0 3Garden domestic 0 3Landfill 0 5Cutting peat 1 0Quarry 0 1Recreation areas 0 3Recreation - sports 0 3Verges road/rail/ riparian 0 3

process protection protectionErosion 9 0Compaction 2 0Contamination 1 27Water quality 0 5Biodiversity 0 1Loss of organic matter 2 0

6. CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of the current soil protection landscape has been improved by:a) identifying land uses at risk of soil degradation processes;b) generating statistics on the spatial extent of these land uses; and c) interrogating the current legislation pertaining to soil protection in these land uses.

Using the methodology developed for the project, it is estimated that about 9.5% of the total land use of the UK is:a) at risk of soil degradation processes (as defined in the EC Thematic Strategy for

Soil Protection (2006)); and b) not covered by larger existing soil protection policies such as the Single Payment

Scheme (SPS) (now superseded by the Basic Payment Scheme introduced in January 2015, which postdates the data used in the present analysis).

The evidence suggests that the provision of soil protection legislation varies across the different land uses. Agricultural (non SPS) land and that used for cutting peat were the only land uses that are covered by current legislation judged to have a direct effect on soil protection. Agricultural (non SPS) land has the greatest number of effective legislation items compared with all other land uses. It is uncertain whether this is because this land use has the greatest spatial extent of all land uses (but then only c. 4% of total land use in the UK) and/or is associated with the highest degree/risk of soil degradation processes (therefore in need of greatest soil protection). On the other hand, a number of land uses at risk of soil degradation were found to have no relevant soil protection legislation.

All countries of the UK have both direct and indirect forms of soil protection legislation, but it is likely that the impact of each of these laws on soil protection / degradation will vary by land use and each devolved administration. Only one legislative item (The Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) (Scotland) Regulations 2008) was judged to have a direct effect, with high impact on soil protection.

Scotland has almost 3 times the amount of effective legislation than all other countries in the UK (Scotland 14 items, England 5, Wales 4 and Northern Ireland 5). It is uncertain whether this is due to a (real or perceived) greater soil degradation risk in Scotland compared with the other countries.

The most common legislation relating directly to soil degradation was linked to the control of soil erosion. A number of laws relate indirectly to soil contamination. It is uncertain whether these findings reflect the greatest extent and/or severity of soil degradation processes in the UK, which could inform the level of legislation required to protect soil from these processes.

In conclusion, some soil protection legislation exists in the UK in addition to SPS/ BPS.

57

However, this may not be sufficient to protect soil resources, in terms of being directly aimed at soil protection, with likely high impact when implemented. This suggests there are opportunities for better soil protection on certain land uses, such as the implementation of the EC Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2014), where soil protection is now much more prominent than in the previous iteration (2011). Soil protection features explicitly in several places. However, this has not been applied to the UK as yet, but this has to be done by May 2017.

7. REFERENCES

Collins, A. L., Walling, D. E., Stroud, R. W., Robson, M., & Peet, L. M. (2010). Assessing damaged road verges as a suspended sediment source in the Hampshire Avon catchment, southern United Kingdom. Hydrological Processes, 24(January), 1106–1122. http://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7573

Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D. (2008) "Producing a Systematic Review”, In: D. Buchanan, & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of Organisational Research Methods, Sage.

European Commission, 2006. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection. COM (2006)231; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/three_en.htm.

Gallego, J and Bamps, C. (2008). Using CORINE land cover and the point survey LUCAS for area estimation. Int .J. of App. Earth Obs. and Geoinformation, 10 (4), 467-475.

58

8. APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Additional commentary on Table 1Appendix 2. Compilation of relevant legislation by land use_110615 (separate Excel spreadsheet)

Appendix 1. Degree of risk which is actually posed by the non-mainstream agricultural land (see Table 1). Key: - = unlikely effect; ? = unknown effect; + = possible effect; ++ = likely effect.

Soil protection issuesLand Use*

Soil erosion

Com

paction

Loss of OM

C

Loss of biodiversity

Soil contam

ination e.g. acidification

Sealing

Off-site im

pacts associated w

ith soil condition e.g. w

ater

comments

Agricultural land not claiming SPS

+ + + + ? + +

This would include arable, horticultural and grassland (lowland and upland). When and where soil is exposed to rainfall, wind and runoff through farming practices (e.g. cultivations, removal of vegetation through harvesting and/or overgrazing, etc.), there is a risk of soil erosion. Heavy machinery and overgrazing (especially during wet periods) can induce shallow or deeper-seated compaction as loading causes porosity decreases and bulk density increases. Exposure of soil organic matter to the atmosphere during soil disturbance (e.g. inversion tillage, overgrazing) can lead to oxidation losses. Preferential loss of organic matter in eroded sediment and runoff can also lead to loss of soil organic matter, as well as causing adverse impacts on water quality off-site. Soil disturbance including erosion, compaction and loss of organic matter due to agricultural practices are likely to lead to losses in soil micro- and macro-biota and thus biodiversity. Soil contamination is associated with excessive application and residual effects of high levels of chemical fertilisers and agrochemicals. Agricultural land is also at risk of soil sealing through urban development and building of infrastructure.

Military land + ++ (localised)

+ + ? + + Vehicle traffic breaks vegetation cover, exposing the soil to rainfall, running water and wind. Often located on poor quality soils with low

59

organic matter and high erodibility (susceptibility to erosion)Heavy and frequent loading by vehicles, especially on wet soils can lead to soil compaction.

Horse pastures

+ + ? ? - + +

Horse pastures for domestic use certainly cause exposure of soil via overgrazing, poaching and soil structural problems. Soil degradation processes are aggravated by horse pastures sometimes being on marginal areas of poor soil quality / land capability. One issue with horse pastures is the cyclic nature of soil degradation. Bad winter poaching and low quality grazing in the winter months can be followed by too much grass in the summer.

Golf courses

+(during construction)

+ (localised)

? + + + +

It is not in the financial interest of the owner to allow soil degradation processes to take place, as these will affect the quality of the greens and fairways. Construction traffic may cause compaction. Local ‘honey pot’ areas (e.g. near tees) may cause compaction and loss of vegetative cover, exposing soil to rainfall and wind, as well as loss of organic matter and biodiversity. Buildings, tracks and access roads will seal the soil surface.

Turf cutting+(wind) + + ++ + + +

Removal of turves will expose soil to degradation processes, especially erosion and loss of organic matter. Heavy trafficking during cutting may cause compaction, especially if the ground is wet.

Urban areas + (during construction) ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++

During construction, removal of previous vegetation / surface cover may increase erosion risk. Construction traffic may cause compaction. Once sealed, soils will suffer decline in organic matter and soil biodiversity.

Communal parks and gardens - +

(localised) - + - + + Localised removal of vegetation, exposure of soil and compaction around ‘honey pot’ areas.

Gardens (domestic) - - - ? ? + +

Predominantly permanent grass cover, so soil erosion risk low. Light use / trafficking reduces compaction risk too. May be prone to sealing (e.g. decking and paving over former lawns)

Allotments

-

+ - ? ? + + Exposure of bare soil due to cultivation, row crops etc. may be at risk to erosion and loss of organic matter. May be off-set by high concentrations of additions of compost etc. Localised compaction possible due to overworking the soil. Use of composts and intensive management may increase soil organic matter and soil biota.

Recreation areas (forest bike trails; 4by4 courses)

++ ++ ++ ++ - + ++ Heavy use will remove natural surface cover, exposing soil to erosion and loss of organic matter and soil biota/biodiversity. Heavily used areas may be compacted, especially during wet weather. Trails often located on sloping ground of poor land capability which is prone to soil degradation

60

processes.Recreation – sports grounds - + + + + ? ? Highly managed surface swards will limit erosion risk. Over use may

cause localised poaching and compaction, especially if the ground is wet.Horse race courses - + - ? - + ? Unlikely to be on sloping ground, so erosion risk is low. Localised

compaction and poaching if ground is over used when wet.Road verges

+ + - - ? + +Removal of vegetation by encroachment by vehicles may increase erosion risk. Trafficking may cause compaction, especially when the ground is wet. (Collins et al. , 2010)

61

Date post:	03-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	haque
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

INTRODUCTION - Defra, UK - Science SearchDefra SP1318BBetter understanding of the current soil...

Documents