We welcome the proposal to include reference to the Black Country Geopark which is an internationally important initiative supported by the B&BC LNP. The proposed list of requirements for new developments should also incorporate protection and enhancement for valued landscapes and geological conservation interests (NPPF paras 109, 113 and 117.)
We welcome the proposed changes to ENV 1 that provide additional protection to irreplaceable habitats and to bring the definition of mitigation in line with NPPF to require compensation for residual negative impacts.
We further recommend that the proposed additional protection for ancient woodlands is extended to include other irreplaceable features such as ancient and veteran trees. The LNP can provide advice on the most accurate data sets available to identify such features.
We think that the policy would also further benefit from the following amendments;
* Reference to supporting the NIA and NIA strategy in accordance with Paragraph 117 and 157 of the NPPF.
* Reference to the role of the LNP as defined by the NPPF and Town and Country Planning Regulations (2012).
* Clarification on the level of protection afforded to SINC and SLINC. They are listed separately in the list of development controls suggesting differing levels of protection but the wording is ambiguous as to what the practical difference is. It states that development that "harms" a SINC will not permitted and SLINC are protected from "negative impacts".
* A recognition that development and changes in landuse outside the boundaries of designated site can have impacts on wildlife within designated sites as discussed in paragraph 3.37 of your report. This is applicable to designated sites of every sort, although the zone of influence will vary significantly depending on the importance of the site and the reasons for which it has been designated. To help guide developers it may be worth referencing the potential of lighting, pets, flytipping and the creation of barriers to wildlife movement as factors to be considered.
* The wording for species protection may also benefit from clarification relating to whether it is harm to individuals or populations of the named species groups that is being considered.
We note that this document states that the policy in its current form has protected and enhanced biodiversity across the Black Country. We would be very interested in seeing the evidence for this assertion as it runs contrary to national trends. Measures in the current authority monitoring reports across the Black Country relate purely to the maintenance of the area of existing designated sites or priority habitats. This is not a measure of biodiversity, does not provide a proxy measurement for biodiversity and does not illustrate the state of nature conservation across the Black Country. The LNP can provide advice on developing new monitoring measures that more accurately reflect the duties of the LA under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006).
Without a dedicated planning ecologist in the Black Country we would also like to re-iterate the role of the LNP in relation to all matters relating to the environment in the planning system and for individual developments and invite you to work with us in making this policy and its application as robust as possible.