Although an ornithologist by training, Tim Reed has a background in monitoring and data quality- starting with standardising management planning and data recording for the statutory sector, moving on to developing the widely-used Common Standards site condition model.
After a long period introducing peer-reviewable data and biodiversity and ecosystem reporting models in big corporates around the world, Tim has spent the last few years working on data quality and the truly incredible material produced in support of development proposals in the UK. Some of this informed the note below.
Comments and issues appear regularly in his blog.
As a recent set of blogs by Mark Avery showed, when you scratch the surface of documents submitted along with a planning application, not all that glistens is made of gold.
I am currently working on a detailed review of the ecological material provided as part of planning applications, and there is a recurrent theme emerging across the board: unreliability. What do I mean by this, and does it matter?
The basic premise of planning is that suitable material is provided to help both planners (who advise councillors of the merit of a proposal), and the councillors that actually decide an application. This means that the combination of desk survey data (essentially a trawl of data bases held by county data centres and in the scientific literature) has been done well and should accompany the application. The field survey data that normally gets done and reported should also be in line with cited standards. If both of these are true, then there is a basis for a credible discussion: supporters and opponents are able to work on an open and reliable playing field. If it’s not, what then?
One of the safety valves should be the use of professional ecologists. After all, as the British Biodiversity Standard (BS 42020 2013) puts it:
“A professional is capable of making judgements, applying their skills and reaching informed decisions in situations in which a layperson cannot, because the latter have not received relevant training or necessarily gained appropriate experience.”
In Mark Avery’s case, even a short perusal of the data provided in support of the proposed chicken farm that raised his ire showed that the two professional ecologists hadn’t done what might have been expected. Mark’s own critique showed a wide range of holes: in process and substance.
Was Mark’s case any different from other cases? Not really. Frequently basic data sets are missing, and prove very hard to obtain. In cases that get to Public Inquiry, this can include delay of data up to a day or two before an Inquiry itself. Once those data are obtained, it is often very hard to understand how the results have been reached, and why they support the claims made of them. In a series of papers, (see Cherrill 2016) Cherrill and his co-workers showed a disturbingly high level of error in basic data sets, such as Phase 1 surveys, produced by professional ecologists. The result was that many decisions were made on effectively false premises: leading to recognised biodiversity loss.
Even when methods are stated, and material provided, numbers often don’t stack up, and the clear limitations that affect far too many surveys are ignored or not recognised. For groups such as bats, where there are clearly different patterns of behaviour across the field season, development surveys routinely sample tiny time windows and then generalise for the whole year. A recent study of bats and turbines (Matthews et al 2016) showed the obvious statistical fallacy of this, yet it persists.
Look at other taxa and cases, and you’ll find a similar pattern (Reed 2017). So, was Mark right to protest on the grounds that he did? Yes, and he won’t be the last. The days of “trust me, I’m a consultant” may be numbered.
Reed, T M 2017 Data reliability, data provision, professional judgement and assessing impact assessment for planning purposes. In Practice 95: 43-48.
[registration_form]
Having worked on several wind farm proposals in the past I know that what ever the consultant says it does not mean his work will end up in the final draft. ‘We need 14 amendments’ seems to suggest you have done something wrong? NO it is just the fact it may stop the proposal of the wind farm. So I stopped working on wind farms in 1995. Yes before the boom in work for people like me.
But then came a number of staff from various organisations that were supposed to be dedicated to wildlife who felt gaining this easy money was OK regardless of the effect of all these new roads in the uplands, big blocks of concrete that will stay for ever and the killing of raptors and bats from the blades of these things.
Being a consultant can be a hard job if you have a conscience!
Tim,
Firstly, many thanks for putting time aside and writing this guest blog. As an ecologist who has worked in the consultancy sector for more than 15 years and as an ecologist since the mid-1990s, I felt compelled to respond!
I agree and echo your comments conveyed in your guest blog and would like to take this opportunity to expand on two particular areas which concern me; (1) the taxonomic bias that many planning applications have when it comes to ecological impact assessment (EcIA); and (2) the lack of competent professional ecologists in local authorities who are able to support planning colleagues in making their recommendations to Councillors.
(1) Taxonomic Bias
In my experience, many ecological surveys that are undertaken post-Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) are focussed on two groups: bats (17 regularly breeding species) and amphibians (which in reality is really great crested newt [in Britain]; 1 species). Thus many post-PEA ecology surveys are really focussing on a maximum assemblage of 18 species of vertebrate and in reality, probably a lot less. Lack of evidence of either bats or great crested newts will often result in none, negligible or lip-service to the wider biodiversity interest of the site.
There is a wide range of issues related to this, including, in my opinion, comparatively little accurate attention given to wild birds (as highlighted by Mark’s blogs on the Northamptonshire planning application). Somewhat bizarrely, given the popularity of birds within wider society and particularly in the context of nature conservation memberships –
e.g. RSPB – there is, as yet, no established consensual guidance on survey effort for EcIA purposes when it comes to birds. Many professional consultants who ‘do’ bird surveys fail to appreciate that the BTO’s Breeding Bird Survey (2 visits) – and incidentally, which Mark blogs about – is the incorrect method for EcIA purposes. They should be undertaking an amended version of the Common Bird Census Territory Mapping methodology, by which a more accurate measure of the effects on breeding bird species can be assessed. Yet there is not even consensus on the number of visits – 3 (1 each in April, May and June); 4; or as the Handbook for Biodiversity Methods states (https://sunsetridgemsbiology.wikispaces.com/file/view/Biodiversity+Handbook.pdf; section 24.2.2) five visits should suffice.
As many developments, particularly housing, will be impinging on greenbelt, then their impacts on bird faunas are being poorly assessed and the resulting effects are not being accurately conveyed. Thus, farmland birds, a major declining group, are potentially increasingly vulnerable, not just to insensitive farming practices, but to development proposals. I am not saying this is easy – how do you mitigate for loss of skylark habitat? But my argument is that if the survey effort is poor (or incorrect) then everything else that follows is on unstable ground.
But my principal gripe is not related to our impoverished vertebrate fauna! It is the overlooked and often frequently dismissed invertebrate fauna. I don’t have an accurate percentage to hand but I would estimate that invertebrates represent approximately 95% of our terrestrial fauna (species diversity). Yet, invertebrates within EcIA are fundamentally overlooked. I have to admit to a vested interest here – it is what I specialise in and largely focus on for my living – so more invertebrate surveys are clearly in my interest in more ways than one – BUT, I would advocate that given their ecosystem services value – pollinators, soil health, decomposers, and cultural significance – they are as important as bats and great crested newts. How many naturally occurring bat roost features have been dismissed as having no ecological value because the series of bat roost activity surveys failed to record any bats with no consideration of the saproxylic (wood decay) faunas? How many ponds with no great crested newts have been lost without mitigation without any effective consideration as to their aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate faunas? More than a few I would suggest!
And this leads me neatly to my second point:
(2) Lack of Competent Professional Ecologists in Local Authorities
The competent decision maker in the context of this comment (and guest blog) is generally the local authority. Thus, when a proposal comes in, with supporting documentation, the planning department are required to assess these against national and local (i.e. their own) policy, legislation; and ideally, the relevant British Standard (BS42020: 2013 – Biodiversity in Planning and Development – see https://www.bsigroup.com/LocalFiles/en-GB/biodiversity/BS-42020-Smart-Guide.pdf for more info).
Yet, research undertaken by the Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE) has identified that only one-third of local authorities have access to a competent ecologist, either by employing one or an agreement is in place to have access to a third party’s ecologist. Thus two-thirds of competent decision makers are being asked to make complex decisions without access to competent individual(s) in answering these frequently posed questions:
-should further ecology surveys have been undertaken;
-is it proportionate for turtle doves to be a material consideration;
-has the local authority met its legal obligations under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act;
-is the decision legally compliant with the 2010 Habitat Regulations (for European Protected Species/ Habitats);
-how is the local authority engaging with the National Pollinator Strategy within the context of the five policy points expected, one of which relates to planning;
-is the work in accordance with the guidance it is claiming to be;
-is the work BS42020 compliant;
-is the decision recommended compliant with the local authority’s own policies;
-is the ecology survey report fit for purpose?
In this study – https://www.cieem.net/data/files/Resource_Library/News/ALGE_Report_on_Ecological_Competence_and_Capacity.pdf – some of the key findings are astounding; of which my two choices are:
-90 % of of local authority planners lack ecological qualifications, have had very little training and consequently recognise that they have only basic levels of the ecological expertise required to discharge duties and national policy;
-Many local planning authorities do not currently have either the capacity or the competence to undertake the effective, and in some cases necessarily lawful, assessment of planning
applications where biodiversity is a material consideration;
Many planning authorities appear to be unaware of the risks of providing a planning service that is not technically resilient when it comes to biodiversity; where identified risks include:
• Failure to deliver biodiversity policy requirements as set out in the NPPF;
• Failure to comply with statutory obligations;
• Referral to the local government ombudsman for maladministration;
• Expensive legal challenge in the courts (i.e. judicial review of planning decisions);
• Time consuming and unconstructive workloads;
• Infraction proceedings through the European Courts – and potential heavy financial penalties;
• Criminal prosecution under wildlife legislation;
• Damage to reputation and the financial consequences of being classed as a poorly
performing authority that has failed to meet delivery targets;
• Breach of a planner’s code of professional conduct.
Thus, there is a serious issue at play here. Whilst there are issues with consultant’s competencies, as raised by Mark’s objection and blog; there is also an issue at the other end of the process. I don’t know if East Northamptonshire Council has access to, or employs in-house an ecologist; and even if they do, resources are bound to be stretched, such that it would be unreasonable to expect them to review every application that came to the Authority’s attention. But this one application and objection highlights an issue that is prevalent nationally.
So, what is a solution? Arguably, BS42020, whilst not a compulsory British Standard, should be adopted as the minimum expected standard by all local authorities. In doing so, this would heap pressure on all local authorities to employ a competent ecologist – i.e an individual who has had the appropriate academic training and sufficient practical experience to enable the authority to discharge their duties and ensure legal and policy compliance.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful for ecology to be a protected profession such as architects?
And finally, I would ask this. Rather than focus on two impoverished groups (bats and great crested newts), perhaps greater emphasis should be on biodiversity more generally; and when it comes to biodiversity off-setting, giving greater credence and priority to the more biodiverse groups?
A timely article in PLoS One (see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809) makes for relevant reading in this context in my view.
I look forward to reading other comments on what I think is a very significant and not talked about issue in the mainstream media.
Richard
Richard – great comment, thanks
Richard is exactly right, but I would go one step further and transfer the responsibility for the EIA from the developer to the Local Authority. This would work in the same way that archaeology does at the moment. The developer would transfer the funds to the Local Authority who would then undertake or commission the work. The LA would then have a team of ecologists and the role of the head of that team would be elevated and hence so would the importance of biodiversity. You may feel you trust the LA little more than the developer, but at least you can vote the council out if they don’t look after biodiversity properly.
Matt
Matt – thanks. Sounds like a good idea to me.
I heard Tim present this topic at a symposium in Cambridge early in 2017 and I complimented him at the time for having the balls to stand up and present the evidence… OK most of the room were NOT ecological consultants but that doesn’t matter.
Having worked for 13+ years in local environmental records centres (LRCs), it is apparent that many (not all) consultants just want the minimum data they can get away with to provide the desk study, many of them would not have an understanding of some of the more complex species and habitat data we hold. Most of them also want it for as little money as they can (we have to charge for time taken to extract this data for them) and they usually want it yesterday (it usually takes a few days as we are all so busy all of the time, many county LRCs run on less than 2 full-time equivalent staff). LRCs used to supply lots of the more complex data to local authority ecologists, to help them work with their planning departments, but the loss of these skilled staff from local authorities is really staggering over the past few years – I’m surprised it is still as high as 30% have them. LRCs used to get funding to provide the more complex stuff to local authorities but no longer do so, but obviously the authorities still want the information, even though we know they understand so little of anything provided.
There is no solution to this whilst the planning system and environmental protection measures are perceived as a block to development, and thus the all-powerful ‘Economy’……..Newts and Bats hold things up so please don’t find any is the usual approach as far as I can tell. If a species is not on the protected list then it is utterly irrelevant and it will be forever thus whilst we have a business and economy-obsessed power system in place in this country.
With apologies to Richard… how ironic to read this blog now. A few weeks ago, I was at the gates of the fracking site at Kirby Misperton N Yorks, watching the bats flit around (yes I really do know with 100% surety what flitting bats look like). Odd really, as the fracking company Third Energy had submitted a consultants report at the planning meeting that said the site was ‘devoid of bats’. FoE had provided a different report to planning saying that 4 different species of bats had been noted at the site, with over 100 sightings at the time of the survey. Of course, the planning decision was approved in the sure knowledge of bats being devoid. Since so many other people have also observed the bats, now fracking activity has commenced, Natural England and the National Wildlife Crime Unit have been approached. Both are quite sure the site is ‘devoid of bats’ because Third Energy said so and will take no action. So there you have it… politics decrees that ‘I see no ships’.
A similar example arose in the south-east; this involved a planning application for land adjacent to land held as part of a community-led initiative to conserve a small breeding population of Turtle Doves. In May this year a developer cleared the trees and scrub from an adjacent plot of land in readiness for a planning application.
A survey conducted in mid-July, i.e. almost two months after most of the habitat had been removed, was subsequently submitted in support of the application. Despite widespread local and national publicity about the village scheme to support the Turtle Doves no mention was made of them in the report.
In addition, given that the majority of potential nesting habitat had been removed prior to the survey it wasn’t really surprising that the survey found no indications of any breeding birds. The application received a large number of objections from local residents many of whom cited the Turtle Doves as one of the reasons why they objected. Thankfully the planning committee refused the application. Whether or not this location supports Turtle Doves again next year remains to be seen.
Just a very quick question Mike, and I don’t know the answer myself, but assuming bats are on site, using the site (foraging and commuting from roost site to feeding areas, including the location you refer to), how will fracking effect their favourable conservation status (FCS)? This is the key question. That bats occur on a site, is not in itself a reason for not permitting the activity (whatever that activity is). It has to be shown that their FCS is negatively effected in a meaningful way; as a rule of thumb, the population (note not individual bat).
By FCS, what is meant is, the activity (in this instance, fracking) would have to have sufficient deleterious effects on the bat population (or a proportion of the population) to result in its likely decline; i.e. FCS is not being maintained. Examples may be loss of feeding habitat (directly – such as felling a wood; or indirectly such as severance of a hedgerow network such that bats cannot reach the wood (which is still intact)).
If no such pathway can be demonstrated, then there is no reason to not grant permission.
Richard
Richard, I don’t claim to be an expert in any way. It is quite clear that there is considerable bat activity in and around the site, which extends beyond the actual well pad (large concrete pad). It could be that the Third Energy report was carefully worded to imply no bat activity, when just the concrete pad was devoid of roosting or feeding bats (which would hardly be a surprise). An adjacent derelict bungalow known locally to be a bat roost was boarded up around the time of the planning application, but there is no hard evidence as to who did this. The fracking activity will involve 24 hour lighting, frequent traffic movements and elevated noise, plus the increased noxious gas releases from traffic, static equipment and gas leaks. The latter will probably be intermittent. There is also likely to be flaring of methane. I can only surmise that all this would be very likely to affect their FCS.
This is just a test frack, but permission for 9 years of production too, so ongoing activity. As ever, there will be no hard evidence of any leaks or contamination, be it water or air, until it happens and dependent on quality of monitoring. As this is one of the first fracking sites, monitoring will be at a much higher level. The real worry comes if the test frack proves it possible to obtain gas in commercial quantities. To comply with licensing conditions, that would result in literally thousands of wells across N England and beyond in rural locations. While air and water contamination can be argued ad nauseam, the traffic movements to service these well pads, the light and noise pollution, the massive water usage and waste water treatment are all completely undeniable. As will be the effect of burning more fossil fuels on anthropogenic global warming. Back to the bats though, it will be interesting if the laws to protect them can be ignored in favour of political expediency.
Thanks to Tim for the guest blog.
From a CIEEM perspective, we recognise that there are many potential weaknesses in the system. The standard of the work of consultants is only one of them, and which CIEEM continues to work to improve through raising standards of practice.
The lack of ecological resources for local authorities for us is a major issue, which if addressed could deliver significantly better outcomes for the natural environment.
At CIEEM we are also continuing to work towards ecology becoming a protected profession, which would enable standards to be raised even higher and crucially also be better enforced.
If anyone is interested in Tim’s article for In Practice, I can forward this on to them. Email me at: [email protected]
There is a current plan to extend quarrying in Darley Dale, near Matlock, Derbyshire. Part of the plans include widening a road onto Beeley Moor to improve access for lorries, so they can cart away the road stone, presumably that the quarry generates. If I remember correctly, this will involve removing a load of beech trees on Bent Lane. My question is that these trees are a locally well known wintering site for brambling and the surrounding area is also a well known site for wintering great grey shrikes. My question is can these two facts be used against such a planning application?
Gerard – yes they can and it’s worth doing so, but they eon’t Carry much weight as they aren’t species of European importance.
Mark and Gerard
I completely forgot…but the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 was amended in 2012 by The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1927/regulation/8/made) and in doing so, substituted Regulation 9 (of the 2010 Regulations) with new text such that:
*-*-*-*-*-*-
competent authorities (i.e. the local planning authority (‘the Council’ in common parlance) must take such steps in the exercise of their functions as they consider appropriate to contribute to the achievement of the objective in paragraph 3.
Paragraph 3 states:
The objective is the preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of a sufficient diversity and area of habitat for wild birds in the United Kingdom, including by means of the upkeep, management and creation of such habitat, as appropriate, having regard to the requirements of Article 2 of the new Wild Birds Directive.
This applies in particular to functions exercisable in relation to town and country planning.
*-*-*-*-*-*-
The text between the *-*-* is paraphrased from the legislation and is a summary of the whole text. I don’t think I have taken it out of context but be aware that this remains a possibility if quoting it. For the avoidance of doubt,
Thus, brambling, great grey shrike and for Mark’s blogs, turtle dove (and indeed any wild bird) are covered by this piece of legislation.
This doesn’t mean and SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED as preventing development; but the local authority need to be furnished with sufficiently robust data to come to an informed decision.
Richard