Back in December 2017 I asked Natural England about their involvement, as a statutory consultee, in the planning system and received this information;
I recently asked for an update and have been sent this:
Now, there are many ways in which one could read these figures and really one would need an expert opinion and some inside knowledge to do so.
The number of planning cases on which Natural England has been consulted has stayed about the same over the years (although the last year was quite a lot higher – a blip or not?) but the number of objections from Natural England is much lower. This either means that planning applications are better designed and less damaging, or that Natural England is objecting to lots of cases and making them better and then withdrawing its objection, or that Natural England is being more accommodating and less robust (or just maybe a combination of those things). My money is definitely, on the basis of some evidence and some hearsay and some gossip, on the last and least flattering explanation. Views?
[registration_form]
Pleased to see you having a bite at the planning system, Mark.
In my view, this is where, in England at any rate, conservation often comes a serious cropper.
As a veteran observer of how council planning authorities handle applications that affect wildlife and the environment, I have seldom been less than dismayed.
If a prospect development (say an onshore windfarm or a huge housing estate on a greenfield site) triggers environmental concerns, planning officers will generally seek an opinion from Natural England, the RSPB or the county wildlife trust – sometimes all of them.
The trouble is that none of these organisations has the resources to respond to all the requests for advice.
As a result, except in special circumstances ( such as when one of their own reserves is threatened), the RSPB and the wildlife trust provide no feedback at all.
Natural England will often refer the planning authority to its Standing Advice document. But this is a hopeless response. It merely signals to the planning officer and the councillors on the planning committee that NE isn’t sufficiently bothered to make a specific response.
So with no meaningful advice coming from the Big Three, what happens?
The only environment-related reference point is the ecological survey commissioned and paid for by the developer.
And what ecological consultant or consultancy will bite the hand that feeds it?
The survey may make a few suggestions about installing nestboxes, but invariably concludes with these words or similar: “Any impact on the environment, birds or other wildlife will be negligible/ insignificant.”
Occasionally residents with expert local wildlife knowledge will object, often vociferously, but to no avail unless there is supporting data from Natural England, the RSPB or the wildlife trust.
So the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the developer.
Even if an application is refused for environmental/ wildlife reasons, the decision may be overturned by a planning inspector who will often treat the ecological survey as if it is gospel.
I appreciate this is a somewhat oblique reply to your request for views, Mark, but I hope it provides some sort of context.
Unfortunately, the Natural England figures supplied in your blog are too general to provide much enlightenment which is why you have been left puzzled.
For instance, the term “substantive responses” covers a wide spectrum, and it would be helpful to know specifically what the responses were in each individual case.
Also, in the last table, it would be useful to know not just how many NE objections were sustained but also why they were sustained.
We surely also need to know how many NE objections were unsustained and why.
Maybe that additional data would provide valuable information/ trends on how environmentally- sensitive applications are assessed.
Of course, it would also be interesting to have a full list of the 102 cases where the NE objections were sustained.
However, I do spare a thought for the NE FOI team – they’re probably grossly overworked as it is.
Perhaps the information should be published in the annual report.
Incidentally, it would be great if it were possible to seek answers from the RSPB to the same questions, but I understand that, as a charity, they are not subject to FOI requests.
One final point, I wonder in what instances – I doubt if there are more than two or three a year – either NE or the RSPB has been sufficiently robust to stand up for the environment by engaging barristers and putting forward witnesses at a formal planning appeal tribunal.
If Wild Justice can do that, why, with all their clout, can’t they?
The quality of their comments leaves a lot to be desired in my experience. Part of the issue might be attributable to the fact that the central response team churn out the ‘standard’ reply without contacting local staff on the ground. Only when they are ‘challenged’ through local knowledge do they then appear to make a bit more effort. A sorry state of affairs for an organisation which claims to be the guardian of the natural environment ….
I refer everyone back to the following:
markavery.info/2017/12/14/guest-blog-planning-biodiversity-survey-advice-england-tim-reed/
markavery.info/2017/10/19/guest-blog-making-notes-plans-tim-reed/
And of course, its hard to compare this modern NE data back to days when maybe it was acting more within a planning advice remit, as ‘NE dont have any centralised data from this period’ and befire then, systems weer not standardised.. so maybe, before 2011, there were more staff objecting or simply providing sensible context on large plannning issues. Of course, the local planning stuff will nearly always be handled by county wildlife trusts, or essentially not, due to time constraints……
When I worked in a county Environmental Records centre we, along with others in England at least, were developing systems to scan weekly plannign lists fom districts for key applications which had a significant impact on protecetd species. Of course, this only works well if one has decent species/habitat data to put into it in the first place, and weekly planning info can be provided in a way to make this straightforward for local authorities. I do not know how many LA’s then went on to routinely prioritise applications to object to on this basis, as I leftthe recrods centre. The methods used in each county ended up being different, based on what was available to them. Oh, a not-centralised system at work again there, then!!
NE were for a while keen to have this sort of info, but their in ternal data/map systems meant thatthe stuff used by recrods centres was enver goign to be transferable to them, and they were never able to buy records centre time. (NE used to fund LERCs, but NEVER to do planning work such as this, or work with their NNRs.. it was only ever about making data publically available… guess what we all thought?)
Wonder how the Environment stack up on this one? do they get chance to comment on plannign stuff when its relevant to water?
It’s now nearly 10 years since David Cameron was elected and we face an almost certain 5 years of Boris Johnson. Yet the conservation world still doesn’t seem to have woken up to the fact that these people are not on our side. Nor do they care – beyond issues which, even despite the majority, may impact their power. Housing is undoubtedly one of these, with the added advantage that new house building contributes to the rich getting richer. On top of that will be fears of what Brexit does to the economy – with the complete failure to improve productivity over the last decade looming in the background. NE are the smallest of small pawns in this game and the sheer volume of work and the political pressures behind it make it difficult even for the politically independent NGOs like RSPB.
Absolutely spot on, Roderick.
Mark
The issue is not so much NE but the lack of qualified ecologists employed in local authorities. LAs are the decision makers outside the National Infrastructure Project realm (eg HS2) and the lack of ecologists mean that there is no one to advise the planning officer of their legal responsibilities when it comes to writing their report to the planning committee, setting out the case and making their recommendation.
And as someone who works in this sector, a huge amount of work is undertaken by ecologists advising developers on the least damaging approach to their development. What the public see is a way down the journey from initial concept. I would also point out that as ecologists, we are constrained by policy and the law. We cannot force a client to deliver above and beyond what policy and the law require them to do. Whilst there is a British Standard (BS42020), again, the lack of Council ecologists is likely to mean whoever has nominal responsibility is not (sufficiently) competent to enforce of push for what may be a better delivery.
That is the reality am afraid. CIEEM is doing a lot of work on this, but it is pushing at a door that resists opening.
In defence of LAs, even if they had sufficient ecologists it is unlikely the ecologists would be allowed to oppose developments where there was a strong likelihood that developers would appeal any decision. LAs are not keen to commit funds to defending sites as legal expertise is a massive drain on their limited resources.
I also ponder how likely is it that any paid consultant taking a cautious stance will get lots of work from developers? I know of instances where developers requested red list species be removed from survey reports.
NE are statutory consultees, but they have effectively been ‘neutered’ …. “Muzzled Watchdog” (1997) to lapdog and thus a useful wall for politicians and developers to use as a shield?
Where to begin?!
Actually many of the key points of failure in the current system have already been pointed out by other commentators above. So as the original questiuon was about NEs role, I will merely add this complaint. It is that as NE have retreated further and further away from meaningful engagement in planning consultations and casework (the bland ‘cut and paste’ responses and diversion to high level ‘standing advice’ being a case in point) they have not made it clear to local authorities and other decision makers that they are in effect leaving the field of play. In fact they do much worse by still trying to pretend to be the ‘authority’ on all things nature conservation, and that is how they are still seen by planning officers and planning inspectors – to the extent that a position of silence from NE is counted as ‘no objection’. That then rides roughshod over any informed, expert local opinion, and pulls the rug from under the Wildlife Trusts and others trying to pick up the pieces at local level. Staying quiet on this is perhaps their biggest sin as one otherwise might have some sympathy with their need for ‘resource rationalisation’. Just how hard would it be for NE to say to all local authorities in their cut and paste blandishments “we no longer have the remit to engage in anything other than developments affecting European Sites and SSSIs so you are much better off seeking the advice of your local Wildlife Trust, and indeed ensuring that you have employed a suitable standard of in-house expertise. Silence and lack of engagement from us should not be taken as assent.”.
That would be the principled stance to take but it would probably not help Government with their pretense of facilitating a statutory adviser, a one stop shop for local authorities and developers to go to?
Remember also that NE has some nominal authority and it could be interesting to consider if there is any potential conflict of interest in situations where developers might have opted to pay for their advice, which often then appears to support the development application?
NGOs on the other hand have no remit within the planning system beyond a consultee by invitation so there is no need for developers to take any notice of their input however good it is. Conversely I’ve known cases where NGOs have encouraged members to object to planning applications thus enabling them to negotiate ‘inducements’ / mitigation funds to keep their project officers in jobs.
The whole planning system needs serious review and revision, it is not fit for purpose IMHO.
Nimby you are of course right that NE carry the additional gravitas of statutory function as compared with non-statutory consultees and interested parties. Perhaps if we cannot call on NE to do the honest and principled thing, planning authorities need to recognise the situation for what it is, catch up, and step up. At the end of the day good decision making relies on solid facts and evidence from whatever source not lazy box ticking. And truly sustainable development will forever remain an out of reach concept without good decision making. Unfortunately, the malaise runs deep: show me a planning officer who can honestly claim to be entirely independent of the influence of development promoters and the financial pressure they can bring to bear.
Fully agree with the latest contributions from Dominic W and Nimby.
However, county wildlife trusts don’t have the resources to take up the slack.
Also they lack the necessary clout.
I recall attending a planning meeting where a county wildlife trust objected to proposed development on a traditional flower-rich meadow.
The meeting chairman observed that the Wildlife Trust was not a statutory consultee and there was thus no need for the committee to give undue weight to its comments.
Very sad.