Report published on Monday 5 October 2020.

Kent Wildlife Trust presentation published on 13 October 2020.

The Planner introduced the report and advised that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required development to provide biodiversity net gain.  He explained that the forthcoming Environment Bill 2020 would require it by law specifying a measurable biodiversity net gain (BNG) of 10% which would apply to both site allocations and planning allocations. 

The Planner reported that in order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and forthcoming Environment Bill 2020 an understanding of the different habitats across the Borough ensuring the best opportunities for achieving BNG was required.  He advised that to assist with this, the Council had commissioned the Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) Consultancy Services to prepare a Biodiversity Baseline Study for the Borough, and this was set-out at Appendix I to the report.  The Planner appreciated that the report had been published late for consideration at the meeting and explained that this was due to the manner in which they had to expedite the last few pieces of evidence.  He said that if Members had further queries after the meeting to contact him.  The Planner thanked KWT for their assistance in producing the document. 

The Planner welcomed Mr Richard Bloor from the KWT to the meeting.  Mr Bloor gave a presentation providing a rationale of the mapping exercise: classifying habitats, identifying high value habitat, identifying Nature Recovery Priority Areas; recommendations on developing a Swale Local Nature Reserves (LNRS) to guide Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Strategy and Local Plan policy; recommendations on provision of onsite BNG in Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment sites according to objectives of LNRS; and recommendations for establishing an offsite BNG policy within the Local Plan according to objectives of LNRS. 

Members were invited to ask questions and make comments.

A Member considered the 10% net gain to be too low and asked whether a higher BNG would be achievable?  Mr Bloor explained that 10% was the minimum required within the legislation.  He reported that both KWT and local authority officers were working alongside the Kent Nature Partnership (KNP) to build a Kent-wide case for an increase to 20%.  In response to further queries, the Planner advised that possible obstacles might come from developers claiming that 20% was impacted on the viability of their development, and KNP hoped to produce evidence that local authorities could use to dispute this.  The Planner added that the Council hoped to achieve a 20% BNG.

A Member asked whether the Council would be able to refer to the report when preparing a case in respect of the solar wind farm application at Cleve Hill?  The Head of Development Services agreed to look into this for the Member.  The Chairman requested that the information be circulated to the Panel. 

A Member asked how much weight the effective distinction carried on BNG?  Mr Bloor stated that the habitat distinctiveness criteria had the largest weight within the metric.  The metric was designed to discourage development on priority habitats, but that was not to say that off-setting was not achievable.

In response from a request from a Member, Mr Bloor agreed to include ‘improve the physical and mental wellbeing of the residents of Swale’, within the report.   

A Member asked when the Environment Bill 2020 was likely to come into force?  Mr Bloor stated that due to the Covid-19 pandemic it would probably not be until 2021, and after the Council had published it’s Local Plan, but he recommended that it should still be included.  The Senior Planner added that she was aware of other local authorities which were already implementing the BNG for some major developments, so it was not necessary to wait for the Bill to be enacted. 

A Member asked what work KWT were carrying out in respect of the effects of climate change: seasonal flooding; rising sea levels and pressure for additional infrastructure?  Mr Bloor stated that whilst that was not his area of expertise, KWT were aware of significant challenges around the mid-Kent marshes habitat, and were exploring carbon off-setting and how that could be combined with BNG.  The Member spoke about an area of land in Faversham where he was looking to create a wildlife habitat area.  Mr Bloor stated that the KWT were currently targeting areas around Faversham and suggested that the Member contact him direct about the project. 

A Member asked whether other local authorities had been able to adopt BNG before publishing their Local Plan?  He considered that it would be good if the Council could enforce it now.  The Senior Planner agreed to find out for Members.

A Member asked whether there were areas of salt marsh within Swale which could be developed for BNG?  Mr Bloor said that he would need to speak to the Environment Agency, but he was aware that the KNP were considering country-wide strategic projects where a proportion of BNG contributions could be targeted at specific projects such as salt marshes.

A Member asked what research had been carried out to arrive at 10% BNG?  Mr Bloor explained that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) considered 10% was the minimum they could achieve to ensure BNG was created, but the figure had not been evidenced. 

In response to queries from a Member about the impacts on landowners and the issue of removing wildlife and habitats from sites at the pre-application stage, Mr Bloor stated that landowners would have to adhere to the Environment Bill by not removing priority habitat and would be required to compensate in-line with the DEFRA metric.  The Biodiversity Baseline could be used to assist the Council in providing evidence of how a site was, prior to any ‘trashing’. 

Members welcomed the report and the ‘fantastic’ work of the consultants and officers.  A Member considered it was one of the best evidence reports he had seen and hoped that it could be imposed as soon as possible.

The Vice-Chairman in-the-Chair thanked the Planner, the Senior Planner and Mr Bloor for attending the meeting.

Recommended:

(1)      That the content of the report and the Biodiversity Baseline Study at Appendix I of the report be noted.

.