ECOLOGICAL CAPACITY AND COMPETENCE IN ENGLISH PLANNING AUTHORITIES

Transcription

1 ECOLOGICAL CAPACITY AND COMPETENCE IN ENGLISH PLANNING AUTHORITIES What is needed to deliver statutory obligations for biodiversity? November 2013 FINAL REPORT Prepared on behalf of the Association of Local Government Ecologists by Mike Oxford CEcol, FCIEEM ALGE Project Officer

2 Acknowledgements This work was funded through a grant provided by Natural England and presents the findings of surveys undertaken in England. Similar surveys were also undertaken of ALGE members and planners working in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands, and while the analysis and presentation of the results have not formed a part of this project, the results are available to interested parties on request. The author would like to acknowledge the following people for their invaluable inspiration, advice and input into the design of the two survey questionnaires, and on the drafting of the report: Sally Hayns Chief Executive for CIEEM Phil Sterling Natural Environment Manager Dorset County Council Ann Skinner Senior Conservation Advisor Environment Agency John Box Associate Director Atkins Ltd Elizabeth Milne Flood Risk and Natural Environment Manager Kent County Council Sue Hooton Senior Ecologist Suffolk County Council Citation This report may be cited as: Oxford, M. 2013, Ecological Capacity and Competence in Local Planning Authorities: What is needed to deliver statutory obligations for biodiversity? Report published by the Association of Local Government Ecologists.

3 CONTENTS Page S.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context Aims and Objectives of this Project METHODS 2.1 Online Surveys of Planners and Ecologists Using the CIEEM Competency Framework RESULTS AND KEY FINDINGS 3.1 Survey Response Rates Ecological Capacity - Work Load & Sources Of Advice 6 - Workload: Types and Volume 6 - Access to In-house Ecological Expertise 8 - Judging Whether Biodiversity is Likely to be Affected 8 - Sources of Ecological Advice (preferred and actual) Required Ecological Competencies 10 - Summary of Competencies 10 - Distinction Between European, Nationally and Locally Protected Biodiversity 11 - Ecological Surveys and Scientific Method 13 - Ecological Management (mitigation, compensation and enhancement) 13 - Environmental Assessments 14 - Biodiversity Legislation and Policy 16 - Working with the Mitigation Hierarchy 16 - Planners and Decision-making 16 - Planners Qualifications and Training in Ecology 16 - Further CPD Requirements for Planners DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 A Benchmark for Ecological Competence in LPAs Limitations Resulting from Lack of Technical Resilience 19 - Shortfalls in Current Ecological Competence 19 - Shortfalls in Current Ecological Capacity Risks Associated with Insufficient Technical Resilience Final Conclusions 24 REFERENCES 25 FIGURES Figure 1 Levels of Competence for Scientific Method 12 Figure 2 Decision-making for Biodiversity (Extract from Clause 8.1 of BS42020) 22 TABLES Table 1 CIEEM Professional Competency Themes 4 Table 2 Responses from Ecologists by Type of Planning Authority 5 Table 3 Responses from Planners by Type of Planning Authority 5 Table 4 Planners Workload and European Protected Species 7 Table 5 Summary of Required Ecological Competencies: Ecologists Responses 10 Table 6 Summary of Reported (Actual) Competencies: Planners Responses 11 Table 7 Comparison of Required & Reported (Actual) Ecological Competencies 21 APPENDICES (available on request to ALGE) Appendix 1/3/5 Ecologists Survey Questionnaire & Results Appendix 2/4/6 Planners Survey Questionnaire & Results England / Scotland / Wales England / Scotland / Wales

4 S.1 Executive Summary The results show that many local planning authorities do not currently have either the capacity and/or the competence to undertake the effective, and in some cases necessarily lawful, assessment of planning applications where biodiversity is a material consideration. Purpose of the Study S.1.1 S.1.2 S.1.3 Over the last two decades there has been a gradual increase in both the statutory and policy requirement for planning authorities to consider detailed technical ecological matters as part of their determination of planning applications. From research undertaken in England (commissioned by Defra: see Tydesley D. and Bradford G.; ), it appears that good outcomes for biodiversity are most likely to be obtained when expert ecological advice is available to the local planning authority and where sufficient ecological information is submitted with the application. ALGE believes that in order to achieve good outcomes, local planning authorities should have adequate technical resilience - a product of having: a) appropriate professional competence to undertake technical ecological assessments and to make informed and sound recommendations and decisions, and; b) sufficient capacity to cope with the anticipated work load to ensure compliance with statutory obligations and policy requirements wherever necessary. S.1.4 S.1.5 S.1.6 Whilst biodiversity is an acknowledged material consideration in the planning system, it s importance to many local authorities in relation to their obligations for statutory-based decisionmaking appears not to be given sufficient priority. As a result, with current budget restrictions the use of specialist input seems to be considered an optional extra. A clearer understanding of the specialist ecological competencies required (especially in the discharge of statutory obligations) may assist senior managers and elected members to reconsider the prioritisation and allocation of resources against the risks associated with having insufficient ecological technical expertise to fully inform planning decisions. The overall aim of this project is to generate a better understanding of both the capacity and ecological competencies required by local planning authorities in England when determining planning applications where biodiversity is involved. The study addresses two key questions: What type and level of professional ecological competence should a local planning authority have available to discharge its statutory obligations and policy requirements for biodiversity conservation? What are the current levels of ecological competence and capacity within local government and what seems to be most effective? Method S.1.7 During 2013 ALGE conducted two separate online surveys of ecologists and planners working for local government in England. (A copy of the survey questions and responses are available as a pdf on request to ALGE). Questions about levels and sources of ecological competence were drawn from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management s (CIEEM) Competency Framework 2. 1 Tyldesley D. and Bradford G. (2012a) Planning Policy and Biodiversity Offsets. Report on Phase II Research: Effectiveness of the Application of Current Planning Policy in the Town And Country Planning System 2 Published in December 2012 and available at: i

5 Key Findings S.1.8 Responses were received from all types of planning authority. The surveys were completed by 88 ecologists working for 70 councils in England; these represent a response from 20% of all English planning authorities and from 61% of those with an in-house ecologist. In addition, 119 planners from 69 different planning authorities responded to the survey, representing a response from 20% of English authorities. S.1.9 The survey results show that, when judged against the CIEEM Competency Framework, local planning authorities require high levels of ecological competence to discharge statutory obligations and implement national planning policy requirements. S.1.11 From previous research undertaken by ALGE, it is known that only one third of planning authorities in England have access to their own in-house ecologist. A large number of planning authorities (c.65%) have no or only limited (i.e. part-time or shared with another authority) access to any in-house ecological expertise. S.1.12 In view of the very large number of applications determined each year (>400,000 district applications), an average capacity of only one ecologist for every three local planning authorities in England would appear to be inadequate to deal with the relevant workload. S.1.13 Most local authority ecologists report that providing an input to the council s planning function is only a part of their responsibilities within their authority. Other duties can collectively take up in excess of 50% of their time. S.1.14 The majority (90%) 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. S.1.15 The evidence therefore suggests that ecological capacity within local government is stretched extremely thinly across a very wide policy agenda, where planning work is but one element. S.1.16 On the basis of the evidence from the two surveys, there is clearly an ecological skills gap within the planning system. S % of planners responding to the surveys indicate that having access to an in-house ecologist is their preferred source of expert advice. Other sources of ecological advice are less well used for instance: While just over 30% of planners report that they regularly or often refer to Natural England s Standing Advice, 47% report that they do so only occasionally, and 2 rarely or not at all. Advice provided through NE s Planning Hub appears to be least well used: 53% of planners rarely or never make use of it, and a further 37% do so only occasionally. Less than 10% of planners regularly or often obtain advice from their local Wildlife Trust through any formal arrangement or paid service. More use is made of local Wildlife Trusts advice and comments received in response to formal consultation on planning applications. Only c.7% of planners seek ecological advice from consultants through a formal service level agreement or framework contract. In contrast, 76% of planners report that they never use ecological consultants as a source of ecological advice. S.1.18 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. ii

6 S.1.19 Technical areas where the skills gap is most pronounced and where competency and capacity is a particular issue for local authorities without access to adequate expertise include: review and evaluation of ecological survey methods; scientific analysis and interpretation of ecological data and information; environmental management (i.e. measures for mitigation, compensation and enhancement); ecological impact assessment; habitat regulations assessment; compliance with and enforcement of environmental legislation and policy; understanding and application of the mitigation hierarchy. S.1.20 The results would also seem to suggest that there is likely to be a skills gap within the planning system when LPAs come to consider applications involving biodiversity offsetting. A very large majority (74%) of planners report that they have only a basic understanding of the mitigation hierarchy, although the hierarchy is expected to form a key element of the decision-making process when considering whether residual impacts should be compensated for offsite or whether there are alternatives (e.g. mitigation onsite) that might deliver an overall better outcome. S.1.21 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. S.1.22 There appears to have been an inexplicable time lag on the part of many planning authorities in recognising the implications of how the various statutory biodiversity obligations impact on their planning functions (e.g. the Habitats Directive (1992) and the first transcription of this into UK statute as the Habitat Regulations (1994), both of which are some 20 years old). S.1.23 Many local planning authorities have failed to respond to the increasing statutory obligations for biodiversity, by securing appropriate ecological expertise that would enable them to examine more effectively the technical merits of a case and then lawfully grant consent. S.1.24 A line is the sand should be drawn between the planning and ecological professions so that local authority planners are not placed in a situation where they are expected to make professional judgements outside their area of expertise and competence. This may not only require them to contravene their professional code of conduct but may also result in the LPA inadvertently breaching its statutory obligations. In the worst case, this may result in facilitating development that, when implemented, results in harm to protected wildlife (that may constitute a criminal offence under wildlife legislation) and which could all have been avoided if the LPA had intervened appropriately by using its relevant planning powers (i.e. imposition of appropriate planning conditions). S.1.25 With on-going budget restraints, the lack of technical resilience is a problem that is likely to remain or get even worse, with ecological posts being cut or not refilled when existing postholders move from the authority. However, senior managers and elected members should consider seriously whether their preferred strategy for risk management should, as a matter of first choice, be to find the necessary resources to ensure that they have adequate access to ecological expertise. The financial, reputational and professional risks of doing otherwise may ultimately prove too costly at both a corporate and/or personal level. iii

7 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Context Over the last two decades there has been a gradual increase in the requirement for planning authorities to consider detailed technical ecological matters as part of their determination of planning applications. This has arisen out of various statutory obligations imposed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981 as amended), the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006), and most particularly by the Habitat and Species Regulations (2010) This statutory obligation to consider biodiversity conservation within the planning system is highlighted in the Government s recently published online planning guidance 3. This makes clear that there a statutory basis for planning to seek to minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible; it states: This aim is underpinned by Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, which places a duty on all public authorities in England and Wales to have regard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. A key purpose of this duty is to embed consideration of biodiversity as an integral part of policy and decision making throughout the public sector, which should be seeking to make a significant contribution to the achievement of the commitments made by Government in its Biodiversity 2020 strategy These statutory requirements have been further emphasised in the Government s National Planning Policy Framework (2012). For instance, the NPPF (2012; paragraph 109) states: The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: - recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; - minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures In relation to how a local planning authority should address its statutory and policy obligations, the newly published British Standard BS42020 Biodiversity a code of practice for planning and development sets out the issues that a local planning authority should consider when determining a planning applications where biodiversity is a material consideration (see BS42020; Section 8 on decision-making ) From research undertaken with local planning authorities in England (commissioned by Defra: see Tydesley D. and Bradford G; 2012a), it appears that good outcomes for biodiversity are most likely to be obtained when expert ecological advice is available to the local planning authority and where sufficient ecological information is submitted with the application. When reporting on the cases studied in the research, paragraphs 5.19 and 5.20 of the report state: There was a good outcome in 7 of cases where internal and/or external sources of ecological advice was taken into account and only 1 judged to have poor outcomes. And In contrast, where no advice was received, either from internal or external sources, only 33% of cases were judged to have good outcomes, consistent with PPS9; whereas, 47% of decisions were judged to have poor outcomes. and in paragraph 5.24: Where survey and ecological reports were provided, the processing of the application tended to result in a better ecological outcome more frequently than those where no such material was provided. 3 See online guidance at: 1

8 NOTE The report to Defra found that a good outcome was identified in 80% of cases where an ecological survey and report was submitted with the application. In contrast, in 71% of the cases where no such information was provided, there tended to be a poor or neutral outcome for biodiversity The benefit of having access to ecological expertise is highlighted further (paragraph 5.49) where the report states: The involvement of internal ecological advisors and advice from informed organisations is probably the most critical factor in ensuring consistency with the principles of PPS 9 4 and the proper consideration of biodiversity issues generally, especially when engagement continues during the processing of the application The Defra report (paragraph 5.50) continues that, without in-house and external expert advice: Planning officers will be more likely to overlook or underestimate the significance of ecological issues and are more likely to under-implement the more positive aspects of the PPS9 Principles. Planning officers and in-house ecologists expressed the view that planning officers cannot be expected to be experts in ecological assessment of site characteristics or the likely impacts of proposals, and even more unlikely to be able to judge positive opportunities Defra s Review of the Implementation of the Habitats and Wild Birds Directive (2012; paragraph 79) acknowledged, as a problem, a lack of capacity in many competent authorities when dealing with habitats and species issues; the Review concluded: This has implications for the speed at which applications can be processed (with corresponding economic costs falling to the developer as a result of the delay); and the quality of the decisions being made, due to a lack of professional expertise Defra s Review undertook an extensive and detailed examination of the nature of the issues which can arise, the ways in which they can be addressed, and consequently identified four main areas for improvement. One of these (see paragraphs 29 and 30) refers to: The culture and capacity of all organisations involved in the process. While good practice exists, there is still scope to strengthen the customer-focused, collaborative culture in statutory bodies. Skills and capability gaps also occur in all bodies statutory bodies, developers and their ecological consultants In addition, in the introduction to the Government s Green Paper Biodiversity Offsetting in England 5, Defra recognises that good outcomes can be achieved for biodiversity when the planning system works well, while also drawing attention to the need for considerable improvement in the system; for instance (paragraph 2) states: The best planning decisions do manage to protect and enhance biodiversity; however the system does not always work as well as it should. Some planning decisions take too long and the outcome can be too uncertain, which can hinder development. At the same time biodiversity impacts are not always adequately taken into account, or mitigated or compensated for in ways that deliver enduring environmental benefit It therefore appears essential that to meet statutory obligations and implement policy requirements, local planning authorities should have adequate technical resilience to address biodiversity issues; this means having: a) appropriate professional competence to undertake technical ecological assessments and - based on these - to make informed and sound judgements, recommendations and decisions, and; 4 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 9 was replaced in 2012 by the National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF), which advocates very similar planning principles for biodiversity conservation. 5 Defra (September 2013) Biodiversity Offsetting in England: Green Paper. 2

9 b) sufficient capacity to cope with the anticipated work load to ensure compliance with statutory obligations and policy requirements wherever necessary Whilst biodiversity is an acknowledged material consideration in the planning system, it s importance to many local authorities in relation to their obligations for statutory-based decisionmaking appears not to be given sufficient priority. As a result, with current budget restrictions the use of specialist input seems to be considered an optional extra ALGE believes that a clearer understanding of the specialist competencies required by a local planning authority (especially in the discharge of statutory obligations) will assist senior managers and elected members to reconsider the prioritisation and allocation of resources against the risks associated with having insufficient ecological technical expertise to fully inform planning decisions. 1.2 Aims and Objectives of this Project The overall aim is to generate a better understanding of both the capacity and ecological competencies that are required by local planning authorities in England when determining planning applications where biodiversity is involved The survey is expected to address two key questions: What type and level of professional ecological competence should a local planning authority have available to it in order to discharge its statutory obligations and policy requirements for biodiversity conservation? What are the actual current levels of ecological competence and capacity within local government and what sources of such expertise are available and what seems most effective? It is intended that the results of the survey should help inform decisions being made at the local level by individual planning authorities to ensure they have adequate access to appropriate professional competencies. The results will also be useful in relation to how other national biodiversity policy objectives may be delivered at the local level. It is hoped that the results may also help inform national policy makers involved in taking forward the proposals set out in the Government s Green Paper on Biodiversity Offsetting in England. 2. METHODS Online Surveys of Planners and Ecologists 2.1 During the first quarter of 2013 ALGE prepared two separate questionnaires, for two different target groups, in the online survey tool Survey Monkey. One survey was circulated to local authority ecologists via ALGE s membership listings and the other was circulated as widely as possible to local government planners via a variety of planning networks, organisations and contacts. Separate versions of the two surveys were circulated to each target group in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. NOTE Re - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: It is the purpose of this study to investigate levels of competence and capacity in English planning authorities. Consequently, no detailed analysis and interpretation has been undertaken of the results obtained from ecologists and planners working in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. However as a general commentary, from the initial results collected and presented through Survey Monkey, it is possible to determine that the overall findings and conclusions presented in the main body of this report for England also hold true for the other three nations. 2.2 Survey Monkey was used to automatically collect, organise and analyse the responses and present the results in a series of graphs, charts and tables. A copy of these results is available as two Appendices in pdf format on request to ALGE. 3

10 2.3 Further analysis and interpretation was undertaken by the author of this report, where necessary making use of the online filter tools available in Survey Monkey. These filters enabled the results to be interrogated by setting various parameters and conditions to include or exclude specific responses or situations. For instance, the filters enabled the results to be interrogated to establish whether responses from planners differed depending on whether or not they work for a planning authority that has or has not got an in-house ecologist, or to identify how many planners have an ecological qualification. Using the CIEEM Competency Framework 2.4 Both surveys included questions about levels and sources of ecological competence, drawn from the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management s (CIEEM) Competency Framework. (December 2012) available at: The CIEEM Competency Framework defines 14 competence themes (see Table 1) subdivided into technical themes related to ecology and environmental management, and those associated with more general transferable skills. Topics covered in the technical themes were incorporated into the detailed questions in the survey. Table 1 CIEEM Professional competency themes Technical themes Ecological surveying Environmental management Environmental assessment Environmental governance, legislation and policy Scientific method Facilitation, consultation, engagement and partnering Public awareness and education Transferable themes Professional conduct Business management Project management Information management People management Self management Health and safety 2.6 The CIEEM Competency Framework also defines four levels of competence: Basic, Capable, Accomplished and Authoritative. In summary these are: Basic: Has a basic knowledge, with a simple understanding of terminology and concepts. Has some experience of practical application and would be able to carry out standard activities, under supervision. Capable: Has the knowledge and experience essential to carry out standard activities unsupervised confidently and consistently. Is likely to need to seek advice before carrying out complex or non-standard activities. Accomplished: Has the knowledge and experience of this activity to carry out complex, specialist or non-standard tasks confidently and consistently. Is aware of alternative options and approaches and can provide guidance, instruction and advice to others on this activity. Authoritative: Is widely recognised as an authority, both by others within the organisation and/or by external peers for the knowledge and experience they demonstrate in relation to this activity. 4

11 3. RESULTS AND KEY FINDINGS 3.1 Survey Response Rates A copy of the survey questions and responses are available, as an Appendix in pdf format, on request to ALGE. Ecologists The survey was completed by 133 ecologists (88 working for 70 LPAs in England, with 31 from Wales, 10 from Scotland, 3 from Northern Ireland and 1 from Jersey). In total, these represent approximately 45% of ALGE s membership across the UK, with 38% of English, 76% of Welsh and 6 of Scottish members responding. Table 2 Responses from ecologists by type of planning authority Type of Local Planning Authority % of Responses % of by LPAs Type City and District Councils 3 13% Unitary Authorities 14% 21% London and Metropolitan Boroughs 20% 25% County Councils 33% 81% National Parks 1% 14% The results represent a response from 20% of all English local planning authorities, and from 61% of those employing an in-house ecologist. Table 2 shows that the survey was completed by ecologists working within all types of planning authority in England. Planners The planner s survey was completed by 119 individuals, working for 69 different councils in England. These represent a response from 20% of the total number of English planning authorities Table 3 shows that the survey was also completed by planners working within all types of planning authority in England, with the majority (70%) working for city, district, or metropolitan councils (although only 23% of the total number of these types of authority actually responded to the survey). Only 13% of English (compared to 50% of Welsh) unitary authorities are represented. In contrast, responses were received from 5 of English county councils. Table 3 Responses from planners by type of planning authority Type of Local Planning Authority % of Responses % of LPA by Type English district, metropolitan and city 70% 17% councils English county councils 20% 5 English unitary authorities 10% 13% Irrespective of the type of planning authority they work for (e.g. county minerals and waste or district or unitary), there appears, overall, to be little difference in response from planners to most of the questions There was a notably high response rate from senior planners (i.e. 60% with over 10 years and 30% with over 20 years practice). From this, it may be assumed that the results are from professionals with greater experience of the planning system and therefore a correspondingly higher understanding of how biodiversity issues should be dealt with in the planning process The following findings in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 are based solely on the results obtained from ecologists and planners working within English planning authorities. 6 Based on there being 32 London Boroughs, 36 Metropolitan Boroughs, 55 Unitary authorities, 201 District and City Councils and 27 County Councils in England. 5

12 3.2. Ecological Capacity - Work Load & Sources Of Advice Section 3.2 provides a summary of the workload experienced by local planning authorities and the sources of ecological advice available to them. Work Load Types and Volume Workload: Ecologists Local authority ecologists provide input to a range of council services in order to deliver other key national policy objectives for biodiversity (e.g. often in association with Local Nature Partnerships). These include: Land-use planning (including input into pre-application advice and forward planning) Countryside management Support for local biodiversity/nature partnerships Management of the local sites network Marine conservation Provision of biodiversity grants Management of council owned land Input into highway authority schemes Input into local authority flood management responsibilities Advising all departments on their statutory obligations where appropriate Work involving development management case-work accounts for the largest demand on ecologists time; for instance: 40% of respondents report that this occupies between a quarter to half of their time 15% of respondents indicated that it takes between half to three quarters of their time 20% reported that it takes more than three quarters of their time Many ecologists are also involved strategic/forward planning, for instance: nearly a third report that it takes between 11% - 24% of their time, and just over half state that it takes up to 10% of their time In their planning work, respondents indicate they spend up to a quarter of their time on work involving statutory and non-statutory designated sites. 84% report that their work sometimes includes applications involving international sites, and a further 85% deal with applications potentially affecting SSSIs A large proportion of ecologists spend large amounts of time dealing with protected species issues (40% spend more than three quarters of their time, 30% spend half to three quarters of their time and 17% quarter to half of their time) With regard to other areas of biodiversity work (see paragraph above), respondents report that their services are spread thinly, with the majority reporting that they have less than 10% of their time available to devote to any one of these specific activities One area of work that gets proportionately more time in some authorities is that of land management for biodiversity purposes. It seems that time spent on this is significant for approximately 10% of respondents who indicate that they spend more than 25% of their time on local wildlife site management and/or management of council owned land In contrast, quite large proportions of respondents report that they do not spend any time on some activities; for instance: 15% are not involved in support for local biodiversity/nature partnerships 33% are not involved in countryside management 26% are not involved with local sites management 45% are not involved in the provision of biodiversity grants 6

13 20% are not involved in the management of council owned land 34% are have no input into highway schemes, and nearly 30% have no input into any local flood management responsibilities Workload: Planners In terms of their workload, planners are clear that biodiversity can be a material consideration in all types of planning application and for all forms of development; including for: Outline applications Small-scale and householder applications Conversion of rural buildings Major developments Highway schemes Renewable energy projects Minerals and waste applications Uncertainty Over Number of Applications Per Year Affecting Biodiversity It is unclear what proportion of applications received each year may involve biodiversity considerations, because a large proportion of planners (40-50%) do not collect or have access to appropriate data. Workload and European Protected Species Where data is available, planners state that the largest overall number of applications where biodiversity is involved relates to European protected species. But surprisingly, Table 4 shows that in authorities without an in-house ecologist, twice as many planners have reported that their authority has received higher numbers of applications each year, compared to authorities with an ecologist. There is no explanation within the results for this apparent difference. Table 4 Planners workload and European protected species No. of Applications Involving EPS % of Responses from LPA without an Ecologist % of Responses from LPA with an Ecologist >75 apps pa 3 18% apps pa 20% 14% Workload and Designated Sites There is a large variation in the number of applications that individual planning authorities receive each year that affect internationally and nationally designated sites. While 14% of planners report that they do not determine any applications involving international sites (i.e. involving Habitat Regulations Assessments), 24% report that their authority deals with up to five such applications per year, and c.20% can deal with a range between 6 and 75 applications each year. 43% report that they do not know how many applications affect international sites For national sites, (e.g. SSSIs) only 3% report that they do not deal with any applications, and 24% report that they deal with up to five applications per year. The proportion that deal with more than this, is slightly higher for SSSIs than for international sites (e.g. c.24%). Also, a larger proportion (48%) report that they do not know how many applications their authority determines that involve SSSIs Planners report that they generally receive higher numbers of applications that involve local sites (e.g. sites designated locally by the planning authority and it s local biodiversity partners) and/or priority habitats and species (i.e. those listed under S.41 of the NERC Act). 53% of planners report that they do not know how many applications affect priority habitats and species. 7

14 Access to In-house Ecological Expertise Two thirds (68%) of the planners responding to the survey indicate that they have their own inhouse ecological expertise, although other studies 7 show that in total only c.35% of all English planning authorities employ an ecologist. It appears that a proportionately larger response to the survey was received from planners working for an LPA with an ecologist, than from LPAs without an ecologist A third (3) of planners report in the survey that they have no in-house ecological expertise, although of these, approximately two thirds have some access to an ecologist working in another local authority, a third of respondents with no in-house ecologist report that they have no access to any other local authority ecological expertise For the local authority ecologists that responded to the survey: 40% are the only ecological professional employed by the council; 70% are employed on a full-time contract; 23% are on a part-time contract; 20% work for an authority with 2 ecologists and 15% with 3 or more; 30% are likely to stay in post to develop their careers over many years (>10yrs), and therefore likely to become very experienced in their work Where more than one ecologist is employed in an authority, this is usually with county councils (where there is often access to limited ecological expertise for the districts) or larger unitary authorities. Judging Whether Biodiversity is Likely to be Affected When planners were asked how they identify whether an application was likely to affect biodiversity: 75% reported that they regularly or often use their own professional judgement; 70% regularly or often use their in house ecologist; 70% regularly or often refer to GIS or alert maps; 63% report that they regularly or often make reference to their LPA s validation requirements ; From the results, it appears that Natural England s Standing Advice is one of the least well-used sources of ecological advice likely to influence planners judgement over whether biodiversity will be affected. For instance, 27% report that they only ever use it occasionally or rarely, and 2 never refer to it. Sources of Ecological Advice (what s preferred & what s the degree of use) The following findings show that, for some sources of ecological advice, there is a subtle distinction between what a planner would prefer to use compared with what they actually use. Use of In-house Ecologist When asked what their preferred source of ecological advice would be, 81% of planners responded that it would be through an in-house ecologist. 50% of planners in LPAs with no inhouse ecologist also gave this as their first choice. However, nearly 20% of respondents stated their preferred first choice would be through another local authority (rising to 43% where planners currently have no in-house expertise). 7 ALGE (2004) Measuring The Momentum - Biodiversity Services In Local Government A Baseline Study; An Executive Summary. Report Prepared by Keydata Group Ltd ALGE (2013) Recent review of ALGE membership numbers and composition. 8

15 In terms of actual use, 70% of respondents regularly or often use their in-house ecologist and another 8% occasionally. Use of Natural England Advice With regard to preferences, only 5% of planners indicate that advice from a Natural England case officer, or through NE Standing Advice, would be their first choice, 30% indicate that either of these would be their second choice, although where planners have no in-house expertise, only 8% indicate that a Natural England case officer would be their second choice In terms of actual use, less than 1 of planners regularly or often seek advice from NE case officers. 44% report that they do so occasionally, with 28% rarely and 16% never Contrary to what they consider influences their judgement (see ) more use is made of NE Standing Advice than of NE case officers 30% regularly or often (increasing to 51% where no in-house expertise is available). However, overall 47% report that they refer to the Standing Advice rarely or not at all Advice through NE s Planning Hub is least well used; with 53% of planners stating that they rarely or never use it and a further 37% do so only occasionally. Less than 10% do so regularly or often (rising to 2 where there is no in-house expertise). NOTE The above results should be taken in the context that NE s input into development management is usually limited to commenting on applications that affect statutory sites and protected species, or involve formal environmental impact assessment. It is not expected, therefore, that planners would need to refer to NE on a regular basis. It is noteworthy, however, that large proportions of respondents rarely or never make use of either NE s Standing Advice or responses from their Planning Hub. Use of Wildlife Trust Advice With regard to preferences, less than 6% of planners report that advice from their local wildlife trust would be their first choice. They also have a very mixed reaction to obtaining ecological expertise from a Trust through some form of Service Level Agreement and 23% stated that this would be their last (i.e. eighth choice) In contrast, 2 indicated that responses to planning consultations from the Trust was their second preferred choice, and a further 25% stated this as their third choice In terms of actual use, very few planners (<10%) regularly or often obtain ecological advice from their local wildlife trust through any formal service level agreement Far greater use is made of consultation responses, with 2 of respondents stating that they regularly or often use such responses and a further 45% do so occasionally. 30% indicated that they rarely or never do so. Use of Advice from Ecological Consultants With regard to preferences, 50% reported that using consultants on an ad hoc basis would be their seventh or eighth choice, and this increased to 58% if obtained under some form of Service Level Agreement. Only c.10% of planners stated that ecological consultants would be their first or second choice In terms of actual use, a small proportion of planners (<7%) reported that they regularly or often seek ecological advice from consultants through any form of service level or framework agreement. In stark contrast, 76% reported that they never seek advice through this source, and 10% do so rarely. Likewise, very few planners seek advice from consultants on an ad hoc basis. 9

16 3.3 REQUIRED ECOLOGICAL COMPETENCIES Summary of Survey Responses on Ecological Competencies ALGE members were asked specifically to only indicate what levels of competence are required by a planning authority to fulfill its obligations, as opposed to indicating what their own competence might be, In contrast, the planners were asked to respond with what they believed were their own actual levels of competence in ecological matters Tables 5 and 6 provide a summary of the responses for some of the key technical questions that were obtained from both surveys. The tables show the proportion of respondents that identified each particular level of competence as most accurately characterising required or available levels of ecological expertise in their authority. The highest degrees of consensus among respondents are shown in bold and black typeface, whereas lower degrees of consensus are shown in grey. Table 5 Summary of Required Ecological Competencies: Ecologists Responses Levels of Required Competence CIEEM Competency Theme (Type of Ecological Activity) Basic Capable Accomplished Authoritative Ecological Surveys Habitat and species surveys Habitat identification and evaluation 8% Scientific Method Design Implementation Analysis Interpretation and reporting Environmental management Habitat management Habitat creation/enhancement Species management Sustainable environmental design Environmental compliance Biosecurity 19% 19% 17% 9% 4% 15% 9% 23% 35% 30% 47% 50% 40% 43% 34% 35% 30% 3 35% 49% 45% 53% 20% 17% 31% 37% 46% 47% 49% 40% 35% 1 8% 1 7% 7% 6% 7% 1 11% 15% 9% 16% 7% Ecological impact assessment 4% 36% 39% 18% Habitat regulations assessment 4% 21% 50% 24% Environmental legislation and policy Understanding and application Compliance and enforcement 6% 8% 31% 31% 49% 47% 13% 11% 10

17 Table 6 Summary of Ecological Competencies Held: Planners Responses Levels of Reported (Actual) Competence CIEEM Competency Theme (Type of Ecological Activity) Basic Capable Accomplished Authoritative Ecological Surveys Habitat identification and evaluation Scientific Method Design (appropriateness of methods used) Implementation (competence of surveyors) Analysis Interpretation and reporting Environmental management Habitat management Habitat creation/enhancement Species management Environmental compliance Biosecurity 83% 16% 1% 0% 8 79% 84% 81% 94% 93% 93% 84% 94% 14% 18% 1 15% 3% 3% 11% 3% 3% 3% 3% Ecological impact assessment 87% 10% 1% Habitat regulations assessment 89% 9% 1% 1% Environmental legislation and policy Understanding and application Compliance and enforcement 44% 41% 9% 4% 77% 17% 3% Mitigation Hierarchy 74% 19% 5% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% Distinction Between European, Nationally and Locally Protected Biodiversity The survey sought to identify whether the ecological competencies required by an LPA vary depending on the status of the biodiversity features involved and their level of legal protection (e.g. for European, nationally or locally protected sites and species). To do this, if they felt that the skills and experience were the same, ecologists were asked to skip the sections relating to SSSIs and protected species, and to Local Wildlife Sites and Priority Habitats and Species (see questions in the survey) Nearly a fifth (18%) of ecologists skipped these questions, indicating that they believe there is no difference between the competencies required to deal with international and national designations and protected species; and 21% believe that there is no difference in required competence for any level of designation or protection. 11

18 Figure 1 Levels of Competence for Scientific Method required when considering planning applications involving European, Nationally and Locally Important biodiversity European Design Implementation Analysis Interpretation National Design Implementation Analysis Interpretation Local Design Implementation Analysis Interpretation CIEEM Levels of Competence Not applicable Basic Capable Accomplished Authoritative Also, where respondents did complete all of the questions, detailed analysis of the results (e.g. provided in response to questions 13-26) has revealed that ecologists have identified overall that there is very little distinction between the levels of competence required for work involving European, Nationally and Locally important biodiversity. To illustrate this, Figure 2 presents the results for the competency theme Scientific Method. These results are typical for all of the technical competencies and the three bar charts show that the pattern and proportion of responses is very similar irrespective of the status of the features under consideration Where any distinction in required levels of competence has been identified, slightly more respondents believe that slightly higher levels of competence are required to deal with issues involving European protected sites where, for instance, formal Habitat Regulations Assessment is required. 12

19 3.3.7 In light of the above, and in order to identify minimum levels of competence required, the results presented in sections to provide the results for dealing with applications involving locally important biodiversity. Consequently, for applications affecting European and nationally important features, it should be assumed that slightly higher levels of competence are usually required by a local planning authority wishing to discharge its statutory obligations. Ecological Surveys and Using Scientific Method In relation to ecological surveys, the emphasis of LPA ecologists work is to establish that the design of any surveys undertaken in support of planning applications is appropriate, adequate and scientifically robust. To be able to do this, 55-60% of ecologists have identified that high levels of ecological competence (accomplished or authoritative) are required. Less than 10% believe that only a basic level of competence will suffice When asked what level of competence local planning authorities should have in the scientific analysis 8 and interpretation 9 of ecological data and information (e.g. as might be submitted in support of a planning application), 41% of ecologists believe that the relevant professional should be at a capable level of competence. 31% believe it is necessary to be accomplished and 10% indicate that an individual needs to be authoritative Despite the need for higher levels of competence identified through the ecologists survey, the majority of planners do not consider that they are capable, accomplished or authoritative with regard to ecological surveys. In fact, 80% of planners indicate that they understand the terminology and basic concepts but would normally need to refer to a specialist for a detailed appraisal of the following: the appropriateness of methods used for the survey; the ecological competence of the surveyors; whether habitats or species have been identified/evaluated accurately; the adequacy of the analysis of field results; the interpretation of ecological results and appropriateness of conclusions and recommendations A number of respondents left written comments and the following sums up the overall response: I rely heavily on our in-house ecologist as I do not have the expertise, nor the correct qualifications. The word 'robust' in the second option has deterred me from selecting anything but the first. I consider I could make a limited appraisal. Ecological Management (Mitigation, Compensation and Enhancement) This competency refers to the various skills and knowledge required to design and implement successful species management and habitat creation and restoration - as might be necessary to inform ecological mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures For work associated with habitat creation and enhancement, 53% of ecologists believe an LPA should have access to accomplished or authoritative levels of advice, and a further 4 believe that, as a minimum, this should be at the level of capable. Less than 5% believe that only a basic level of competence is adequate for this type of work When dealing with legally protected species 64% of ecologists believe that an LPA should have access to accomplished or authoritative advice, and a further 30% believe that it should be at least at the level of capable. 8 Carrying out appropriate analysis of results and information that is fit for purpose (statistical or otherwise). 9 Interpreting outcomes and drawing valid conclusions. Presenting findings clearly and appropriately to a range of audiences. 13