Great Crested Newt pilot consultation: Responses to key themes

Transcription

1 Appendix 3a Great Crested Newt pilot consultation: Responses to key themes A number of common themes emerged through the targeted consultation (January/February 2016) on the draft Great Crested Newt (GCN) methodology and conservation strategy. The following provides Natural England and Woking Borough Council s joint response to each of these matters. Each theme is numbered to provide a reference to which individual comments, set out on the accompanying spreadsheet, relate. Amendments are the proposed changes to be made to the GCN consultation documents (Appendix 9 of Natural Woking and the accompanying Conservation Strategy) in light of correspondents comments on that theme. (1) Concerns regarding the legal basis of the biodiversity off setting approach The pilot scheme has been developed with the utmost regard for the legislation which protects great crested newts (GCN). The intention is that operations on site will be authorised by Woking Borough Council under an organisational licence from Natural England. This licence will be consistent with duties under the Habitats Directive and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the Habs Regs ), and will only be granted once Natural England is satisfied that it meets the three licensing tests, which relate to the purpose of the operations, the availability of alternatives and the effects on conservation status of the species. (2) GCN and their habitats on development sites Habitat compensation sites will be located and designed so that they can be colonised by natural dispersal from adjacent habitat. If Natural England is satisfied that this is can be relied upon, there will be no requirement within the pilot to trap and translocate GCN from development sites. However, should a developer with planning permission, who is participating in the pilot, wish to remove GCN from harm's way, this will be authorised by Woking Borough Council under the organisational licence, subject to necessary safeguards being put in place for welfare and hygiene. There is no risk of prosecution to those moving GCN in this way. Best practice guidance for development sites will be developed in relation to this matter and will be issued with planning permits for individual development sites. Whilst in practice this means that individual GCN on development sites which participate in the scheme are afforded less protection under the terms of the organisational licence compared to site-specific licences, this is fully consistent with the overriding intention of the Habitats Directive, which is to maintain and enhance the conservation status of the species overall. Natural England is not able to grant the organisational licence until is satisfied that appropriate measures are in place to meet the requirements of the Directive and Regulations, including the avoidance of any detrimental effect on the conservation status of the species. Thus the legislation makes it necessary to ensure that necessary safeguarding measures are in place before operation of the pilot scheme can commence.

2 A suggestion was received at a stakeholder consultation event (21 January 2016) regarding the potential to record GCN found on participating development sites in the Borough. Whilst there may be difficulties with how useful this information in ecological terms related to the extent to which developers engage with the Council in these circumstances this point will be considered as the monitoring strategy is developed. Related questions regarding the legal basis of the pilot approach are covered under response 1 above. (3) Views on whether the strategic approach will benefit GCN Respondents varied views on this point are noted. Some raised concern in respect of the overall principle (see the Council and Natural England s response in 1 above), considering that as a consequence there would not be benefits for GCN. One respondent commented that GCN should be left alone and no building should take place. This is unrealistic, in the context of identified local needs for housing and other development and clear local development plans (the Core Strategy and associated local development documents) to plan for these. Instead the pilot provides robust baseline information to inform and positively steer future development away from key GCN strongholds, whilst also delivering new GCN habitat on the ground in suitable locations in the Borough. Some respondents reserved judgement until the outcomes of the pilot are known. Some respondents view the scheme as putting development ahead of GCN protection. In response to this, we emphasise that we are confident that the pilot will deliver dual benefits: the strategic approach should lead to long-term enhancements of the newt population whilst at the same time streamlining the licensing process for developers. Others foresee positive GCN and wider ecological benefits across Woking Borough. Some are caveated on certain measures being in place, to which we respond below. learn lessons from practice elsewhere to ensure developer contributions are used most beneficially as the national regulator for European protected species habitats, Natural England is well placed to ensure best practice informs implantation of this pilot approach. certainty of funding the Council is committed to ensuring the compensation habitat sites are appropriately maintained for the benefit of GCN in the long term. proper monitoring required by an appropriately qualified body or individual - the Council will take expert advice to ensure the creation and longevity of suitable compensation habitat for GCN. 2

3 (4) Views on whether the strategic approach will benefit development The Council and Natural England welcome the positive feedback received; many respondents to the consultation considering the strategic approach will benefit development. One respondent states it will clarify the impact assessments, mitigation or compensation needs, helping to remove uncertainties, and will also help to achieve proportionality in respect of surveys and conservation efforts. Anything that can simplify barriers to development is welcomed. The pilot does not, as some consider, seek to benefit development at the cost of local wildlife. The pilot does not reduce the protection of wildlife populations or habitats. Developers will still be required to meet all relevant local, national and European requirements in relation to the GCN; they are simply doing so through an alternative route. The main driver for this pilot is to improve the conservation status of GCN and later potentially other species in Woking Borough and the UK. Reduced cost and reduced time delay for development are positive additional benefits, which will help to contribute to delivery of development in the Borough. All funds generated through developer contributions will be used to provide and maintain the compensation habits improved/created. (5) Level of survey informing scheme/specific area-related comments (5)a The survey levels (i.e. edna testing and no population class surveys) are not robust enough to effectively inform the conservation strategy NE is making assumptions about the level of GCN distribution Not enough information in the Conservation Strategy Surveys haven t determined population size? We are confident that the picture of the Borough which the survey has provided allows an effective and appropriate conservation strategy to be devised. At each of the main GCN clusters, the importance of the population and the priorities for conservation action can be judged sufficiently from the records that we have and from the extent and condition of the habitat. Further survey, for example to provide population size class estimates, is not necessary to guide further decision making on these. The Woking Pilot is based on a different kind of survey information to individual licence applications. It has established a broad overview of GCN distribution, which allows predicted impacts and habitat compensation to be assessed in the context of local population connectivity and viability. This is not normally possible for individual licence applications. It has enabled the priority measures for GCN conservation status in the Borough to be identified. Within this context, the importance of each site has been assessed on the basis of the number of occupied ponds, and the extent, condition and connectivity of the habitat. The assessment set out in the Conservation Strategy has taken into account existing and new records, Habitat Suitability data and input from expert stakeholders. The measures identified in the pilot are set at a precautionary level. On the basis of the input and the precautionary measures which have been built in, we are satisfied that the importance of each site within the Borough has been adequately assessed and that there is very little risk that any site 3

4 in the borough merits greater protection than that which will be provided. The Pilot is designed to deliver a net benefit to GCN in the borough. Further, more detailed population size class assessment is very unlikely to alter decisions made on the information already available and therefore appears unnecessary. It is recognised that the information available at any one time can only offer a snapshot of the distribution and status of GCN in the Borough. Thus a monitoring programme is built into the Pilot and the Pilot is capable of adjustment, should monitoring suggest any adjustment is necessary. This provides a further safeguard, which adds to our confidence that the information available at commencement of the Pilot is sufficient. As part of the pilot, monitoring will be undertaken, so that the condition of the main GCN clusters and the success of habitat compensation can be judged, and so that the likelihood of change in distribution can be considered. More information regarding monitoring is provided under theme 9. (5)b Has every pond/pool in the area been identified and checked for likely presence? If not, why? A sufficient sample has been surveyed to assess the likelihood of significant impacts on GCN. Herpetological experts who know the area have agreed that the picture is realistic. (5)c The proposals rely on less information than Natural England would demand of a standard licence This pilot is based on a different survey approach to that used in individual site licence applications. It has established a picture of the distribution of great crested newt and habitat condition across the whole borough. It enables each development site to be put in the context of local populations and GCN conservation priorities much better than is normal for an individual site licence application. It enables an effective assessment of the likelihood of significant impacts arising at individual sites by showing where development will be in relation to the centres of GCN population and the likely linkages between them. It also allows cumulative impacts to be assessed more effectively than the site by site approach. The overview of distribution and the assessment of cumulative impact mean that habitat compensation can be located and designed to ensure that it will extend and improve linkage between the most important clusters of GCN habitat in the borough. Only in one the area of borough (Littlewick) does it appear necessary for development projects to undertake further survey before development can be allowed to participate in the scheme. The reasons for this are set out in the conservation strategy. (5)d Fear that compensation sites won t be established before some development This is addressed in section 14 of the Conservation Strategy. The planned timing of development in the draft site allocations allows sufficient time for habitat 4

5 compensation to be established before the commencement of any development which relies on it. This will be required under the organisational licence. (5)e Habitat offsetting is often unsuccessful as the new habitat is often not fully suitable for GCN Provision of compensatory habitat is a routine requirement of the existing licensing approach for GCN. If well located and designed, habitat compensation for this species has a high chance of success. In Woking the spread of land from which the Council can select habitat compensation sites provides a very good starting point, which makes us confident of the potential in this location. The details of habitat compensation will be set out in management plans, which will be required to be assessed and approved by Natural England before development operations can be authorised as part of the pilot. One of the most frequent reasons for habitat compensation proving unsuccessful is that of the land management is not secured for long enough to establish and maintain the habitat. In Woking, positive management will be secured for the long term (25 years). (5)f A more ambitious compensation programme should be attempted; perhaps 15 or so ponds? 8 ponds poor value for money The creation of 8 ponds is greater than we would expect to secure in Woking from the planned development, if it was to be authorised by individual site licences. Natural England advises that it is proportionate and precautionary scale of habitat compensation. (5)g Concentration of GCN distribution into a few areas will in fact make GCN more vulnerable. The scale of development impacts will be low. The proposed habitat compensation will extend the area of suitable habitat occupied by GCN and improve the linkage between clusters of suitable habitat. As a result, the net effect will be positive and will reduce the vulnerability of GCN in the Borough. (5)h Scepticism about the security of the compensation sites both within and beyond the 25 years agreement. The proposed scale of habitat compensation is sufficient to address the impacts of planned development in Woking borough up to Where development is permitted and would cause unavoidable loss of habitat, the existing licensing system up to now would normally require management of compensatory habitat for long enough to ensure its proper establishment and a location which provided good prospects for its long term viability. However, the long term management of the land is not normally secured by a legally enforceable mechanism and in some widely reported cases, land use in surrounding areas has changed in a way that has reduced the long term viability of compensatory habitat. The compensatory habitat 5

6 provided through the Woking Pilot will be secured and positively managed for 25 years. Sites will be selected for it within the context of the long term development plan for the Borough and so are unlikely to be adversely affected by land use change. Thus the Woking Pilot will provide an improvement by comparison to established standards in relation to the long term security of compensatory habitat. What is more, during and after the 25 year period of secured management, GCN in the habitat compensation will be subject to the normal protection provided by legislation and policy. (5)i Concerns about compensatory habitat being established in SANGS SANGs will be used as sites for GCN habitat compensation only if detailed assessment shows their functionality for GCN and for protection of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA to be compatible. (5)j 25 years not long enough to ensure survival of the species. For Favourable Conservation Status to be maintained at the landscape scale, these sites need even stricter legal protection than Sites of Special Scientific Interest (i.e. should be designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) 25 years is an improvement in relation to the normal standards for securing compensatory habitat for GCN through the licensing system. The notification of SSSIs is a duty on Natural England, where it is of the opinion that land is of special interest. No current GCN sites in Woking are likely to meet the guidelines which define special interest. Since SSSI notification is required to underpin the designation of SACs, it is unlikely that any current sites would merit this designation either. (5)k The agreement covering the compensation sites must be 'Brexit-proof' (in this eventuality); and currently domestic legislation does not allow for this. Given that it is unclear what effect Brexit would have on the protection of GCN, this Pilot cannot attempt to put in safeguards for this scenario. However, the habitat compensation sites secured through this Pilot project will be secured for 25 years, whether or not Britain leaves the EU. (5)l Suggestion for alternative model: The impact radius is too simplistic. Natural England for many years has advised that impacts depend on development size as well as distance from ponds. Not many developments are big enough to have impacts beyond 250m, and smaller developments may only impact on newts in a pond 50m or 100m distant. Use of a 500m zone is excessive and exaggerates impacts. In reality, impacts at distance relate to the presence of suitable habitat in which newts might spend time, so woodland at 250m from a breeding pond is more likely to be used than tightly-grazed pasture at 50m distant. The over-simplistic impact description falls below the standards that NE expects from newt licence applications and is unreliable. Only 5 out of 48 ponds had GCN DNA present, so if a development is outside 6

7 500m (or whatever distance) from those 5 ponds there would be no impact and no money should be payable. I think the inadequate survey and the overcomplicated analysis by NE has resulted in a scheme which doesn't clearly understand impacts so includes a wider range of development as potentially impacting / having to pay, than would otherwise be the case. A simpler and more preferable scheme would be for impacts identified through proper survey to be mitigated by the Council's provision of ponds and habitat. Only 5 out of 48 ponds contained newts and the impact would be restricted to those ponds only. NE should have talked more to consultants who participate in and understand licencing issues related to development. The 500m zone is precautionary and leads to a scale of habitat provision which we can be confident is sufficient to (at the very least) balance the likely impacts. The estimated costs of providing this scale of habitat and the consequent indicative charges set out in appendix 9 are very modest and are expected to be a very cost effective option for developers, as participation in the pilot would remove their survey costs and risk of costs and delay caused by the need for bespoke survey, mitigation or habitat compensation. In addition for those developments that are enabled by the pilot to use a greater proportion of their allocated development land for a development purpose, because the pilot provides new habitat at strategic locations, the economic implications of this pilot are very positive. The alternative model suggested is possible but in Woking it would have less beneficial effect in reducing costs and red tape, without additional benefit arising for great crested newt. (5)m Clarification regarding the modelling: Modelling of GCN distribution is a developing field. We employed a few techniques in Woking to compare them but due to the small area and the limited amount of testing that could be completed the models were not judged to be very robust. We used model outputs only as an additional sense check, not to determine decisions, as we had better on-the ground-evidence. Some of the areas highlighted as potentially suitable by the modelling are unlikely to be suitable for GCN in reality as they are in floodplain and have a high risk of fish presence and there are no known records of GCN in those locations. The GLM modelling was done in R ( with the Maxent modelling additionally using the dismo package. The raster package was required for the spatial modelling (i.e. both GLMs and Maxent). The raster layers were prepared in ArcGIS using the Focal Statistics, Euclidean Distance and Point Density tools respectively. The connectivity analysis was undertaken using the Linkage Mapper toolbox which runs in ArcGIS. (5)n Questions about to what extent the Pyrford area has been considered as there are some reports of newts in this area [another comment made reference to smooth newts near the canal]. The Pyrford area does indeed have a lot of wetland habitat but as it is floodplain it is not particularly suitable for GCN, as such waterbodies tend to support and distribute fish which are detrimental to GCN populations. There are no known records of GCN in that area. The population mentioned are likely to be smooth newts. 7

8 This project focusses on great crested newts which have protection under the EU Habitats Directive. The smooth newt (often called the common newt) is not protected in the same way and is therefore not considered in this strategy. Amendments - updated Annex 1 Notes on Modelling (of Natural Woking, Appendix 9) to reflect the response above. (5)o Who will be doing all the upfront GCN survey work for Woking BC on this scheme? Presumably the spatial survey scope will cover both land already allocated for development (but not surveyed) and land likely to be allocated? The upfront survey required for the overall design of the scheme has been done, and was commissioned by Natural England. Further survey may be required on the habitat compensation sites. Follow up monitoring will be used to assess the success of the habitat compensation sites, the condition of the main existing populations and the likelihood of changes in distribution. We understand that the local amphibian and reptile group is planning further surveys. If these go ahead and the results are shared with Natural England and Woking Council, we will take them into account in review of the scheme. (6) The Council s approach to protecting GCN habitat from development Core Strategy Policy CS7: Biodiversity and nature conservation makes clear the Council s approach to development and protected species and habitats. It states: The Council is committed to conserving and protecting existing biodiversity assets within the Borough. It will require development proposals to contribute to the enhancement of existing biodiversity and geodiversity features and also explore opportunities to create and manage new ones where it is appropriate. This will include those habitats and species listed in the Surrey Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). Any development that will be anticipated to have a potentially harmful effect or lead to a loss of features of interest for biodiversity will be refused. The full text of Policy CS7 is available at The guidance for developers section of the pilot document confirms The pilot project does not replace statutory requirements regarding priority habitats. It is still necessary to avoid, mitigate or compensate for any protected species habitat loss arising from a development. You will still need to carry out an initial desk top survey to consider the presence of protected plant and animal species. The appended conservation strategy provides more detail. 8

9 (7) Difficult and time consuming to recreate suitable habitat The Borough Council and Natural England do not underestimate the importance of ensuring the new or improved GCN compensation habitats provided are suitable. Expert advice will be taken to ensure the correct locations and approaches are employed when establishing these but also to ensure appropriate their maintenance in the short, medium and long-term. The GCN document provides more information about the safeguards designed into the pilot and associated project documents (e.g. organisation licence, memorandum of agreement) to ensure this. In line with national and local planning policies, developers will be advised to seek to avoid or mitigate for GCN presence first. However if this is not possible, the pilot provides an alternative way to protect GCN as distinct from the current practice of the developer providing compensation land elsewhere, which can result in a fragmented mosaic of habitat that does not allow for animals to move between strongholds. (8) Level and nature of developer contributions The Council accepts that the initial costs of setting up the pilot will not be recouped. The developer contributions sought through this pilot are set at a level that would assist the Council s full costs. For this reason, the pilot demands a long-term commitment by the Council to ensure compensation sites will be suitably maintained for at last 25 years. The Council is able to support this for two reasons. Firstly, following the initial establishment of compensation sites, the Council is not expecting annual maintenance costs to exceed those it already pays for these sites within its existing ownership. In some cases, landowner maintenance costs could even fall. Secondly, the project is an important step in delivering the Council s key objectives around biodiversity. Woking Borough Council s vision statements emphasise maintaining a high quality natural environment where resources are used wisely and biodiversity is conserved. The Council s draft biodiversity and green infrastructure strategy, Natural Woking, include as a guiding principle for future action Living spaces: restore and expand habitats for priority species enhancing the links between these (reducing fragmentation). The proposed tariff charge is based on estimated costings for establishing the compensation sites (site works), management planning, NE advice, ecological monitoring, and contingency. We note that some respondents consider the estimated costs and tariff to be too high, others too low. Costs can only be estimates at this time, as the compensation locations and therefore exact costs are to be determined. The tariff charged needs to be set at a point lower than that of the alternative, detailed surveys, to provide an incentive to developers to participate in the pilot and meet the strategic goals of the scheme. However we will keep the tariff cost under review as the pilot progresses. All funds generated through developer contributions will be used to provide and maintain the compensation habits improved/created. The developer contribution approach deliberately factors in the location of the development site in terms of the zone in which it lies, as a key influence on the risk of it impacting the GCN. By also taking into account the number of ponds nearby, the 9

10 pilot factors in a multiplier that will increase the contribution sought from larger developments as these will typically be those which are near to a greater number of ponds. The pilot is offered as a voluntary opportunity for developers. If contribution levels are set too high, these could discourage participation as the costs may be no less than those faced by developers under the present process. If they were to exceed the costs of the present process even taking into account reduced survey work and time saving - this would certainly be the case and could also adversely impact development viability. At the point when the Council has completed the management plans for the compensation sites, there will be more precise cost information on which to base a review of the developer contributions. A review of the contributions will be built into the first review of the pilot, early in 2016/17. Woking Borough Council s report to Council 11 February 2016, provides more information about the financial implications of the pilot, see ee4bc95b6367/4/doc/ Section 17 of the Conservation Strategy sets out the monitoring and review proposals for the pilot. This is expected to comprise three stages, the last of which is a review of ecological effectiveness in year 4 or 5. Natural England will report back to stakeholders and other interested parties in a timely way through its quarterly European Protected Species Newsletter. The Council will also provide updates on its website. Amendments Section 17 of the Conservation Strategy, in Appendix 9 of Natural Woking, has been amended to make clear that compliance monitoring will be included within the monitoring strategy and the costs will be factored into developer contributions (9) How will we judge the success of the pilot? The Conservation Strategy (section 15) makes clear that the pilot does not seek to define what would constitute Favourable Conservation Status for GCN in Woking. We have chosen not to provide this definition because it is not necessary for the purpose of managing development impacts, which is the primary function of the pilot. The obligation on developers (and the legal test on what can be licenced) is to avoid adverse impact. There is no obligation on developers or the regulators to use the licensing process to maintain or restore favourable conservation status. Indeed it would be unreasonable to require this from development, when it is widely accepted that the decline of GCN has largely not been due to development, but has instead arisen from other factors operating in the wider countryside. We do, however, consider it reasonable (and consistent with planning policy) to seek a net benefit from development, as we consider that this can be delivered cost effectively through the strategic approach and indeed at lower cost than the measures secured by the individual licensing system which operates as the norm in England. Thus the measure of success for this strategy is not to achieve a defined end state (favourable conservation status), it is to show a positive trend, that is ensure that we are moving the conservation status of GCN in the right direction. The scale of increase in the number of ponds that will come from the pilot (a net increase of at least 6 GCN ponds), along with improvements in habitat extent and connectivity, we also consider to be a proportionate contribution to conservation status at the national level. The national target developed by Defra s Great Crested Newt Task Force is to increase the number of ponds across England by Woking s part of this should 10

11 reflect that it is a relatively small and relatively built up borough. If, however, national monitoring shows that local areas like Woking need to deliver a greater scale of increase in GCN habitat, this can be taken into account in the planned reviews of this pilot. The monitoring section of the Conservation Strategy sets out the high level proposals for monitoring and review of the pilot. In response to representations made, it has been amended to make clear some of the ecological variables that will be considered. The effect of these is to make clear that it will provide an up to date picture both of how effective the habitat compensation proposals are, but also the background change at the main three clusters of GCN population and in the distribution of GCN across the borough. This monitoring will primarily focus on the extent of suitable and occupied habitat, and habitat condition, rather than on population class size estimates. Though the latter have been identified as desirable by some of the submitted representations, we do not consider them to be as cost-effective or reliable as habitat data as an indication of the success of this pilot. Whilst class size data has commonly been relied upon in the licensing system for assessment of individual license applications, it would be prohibitively expensive to use it as a monitoring measure in this pilot and its usefulness in tracking change would be hampered by poorly understood variability in the data it provides. Amendments some detail has been added to the monitoring section (16) in the Conservation Strategy in Appendix 9 of Natural Woking. (10) Impacts on other species We recognise that the interests of GCN can act as an umbrella protection for other species. As a result, this pilot will provide habitat that benefits other wildlife which depends upon ponds. It does not, however, change the requirements on development in relation to any wildlife except for GCN. Developers who participate in the Pilot must therefore make the same provision for impact assessment and safeguarding measures for other wildlife as they would if they were not participating in the Pilot. This will be made clear in communications on the Pilot. Connectivity with the populations of GCN in adjacent boroughs has been taken into account in defining the impact zones set out in the Conservation Strategy. The selection of sites for habitat compensation and the management plans which will be prepared for them, will be able to take into account other initiatives and useful information, such as the location of Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOAs). The management plans will need to consider compatibility with other species and habitats. Amendment Appendix 9, detailing the GCN pilot, has been updated to make clearer the pilot does not remove the need to survey and assess impacts from proposed development in relation to other protected and priority species, which may still required full mitigation. 11

12 (11) Can all developments take part in the pilot and at any time? The pilot is open to anyone who would like to take part. It makes no distinction between different types of planning applicant. Whilst the term developer is used for convenience throughout the document, in practice a developer could be in fact be of any scale from a private individual constructing a self-build home to a national house builder bringing forward a large allocated development site. The question has arisen whether developers would be able to opt into the pilot retrospectively, for example if they already have planning permission but GCN had not identified on their land but were then found during the construction period. In principle retrospective requests to participate in the pilot will be acceptable to the Council but (as with any request to participate in the scheme) this will be subject to adequate habitat compensation capacity having been established. (12) When will the Organisational Licence be in place? Expressions of interest from developers interested to take part in the pilot will be recorded from commencement of the pilot this spring. However, schemes will not be able to formally participate until the new GCN compensation habitat is established, suitable and ready for use and the Organisational Licence is in place to enable the Council to issue the necessary permit alongside the planning permission. It is anticipated that the Organisational Licence will be in place in Spring 2016 (pending the decision of the Council s Executive Committee). (13) Overall presentation and clarity Any presentation issues will be addressed in a final proof read before the documentation is published with the pilot s launch. Amendments document reviewed and updated to, as far as possible, address the concerns raised. (14) Security, scale, nature and location of compensation sites A number of respondents have commented on the scale of compensation proposed. At this initial pilot stage, Natural England and the Council are considering provision of eight ponds. However, the project will begin with one or two before increasing this over time as opportunities arise and developer funded contributions are received. 25 years is the minimum period that compensation habitat will be provided for. In the context of the Council s long term objectives for the Borough, including biodiversity objectives to 2050 linked to the Woking 2050 climate change strategy and the draft Natural Woking strategy, we envisage these will be protected in the long-term. Each potential compensation site will be assessed on its own merits. SANG land will be assessed along with other land (including any balancing ponds) in the Council s ownership. Only sites that will provide a satisfactory GCN habitat for the future will be pursued. Land that could flood will typically be avoided, as fish introduced into GCN ponds by flood water would predate the GCN larvae. Consideration will be given to the appropriate proximity of compensation sites and public access. 12

13 The pilot proposes to use public land within the ownership of Woking Borough Council, rather than private land, to locate mitigation habitat. This itself provides a measure of security. In addition the sites to be selected for habitat compensation will be located in areas in which development is not proposed to be allocated. What is more, the Council will consider the best way of making the location of habitat compensation sites readily available as information for the public and developers, so that unintended impacts can be avoided. The habitat compensation will be protected for 25 years from damaging activities and neglect on the habitat compensation sites themselves. During this 25 years and subsequently it will benefit from the strict protection afforded to European Protected Species. (15) Application of the pilot elsewhere and expressions of interest The Council and Natural England welcome the interest expressed by some respondents through this consultation to potentially take part in or alternatively to trial elsewhere similar principles. Thank you for your interest. These respondents will be contacted by the relevant organisation (Woking Borough Council or Natural England) in due course. As part of this the Council will raise the project with adjacent authorities, so that they are able to consider whether to create similar projects in their areas, and improve coordination of action across the Borough s boundaries. Natural England will report back to stakeholders and other interested parties in a timely way through its quarterly European Protected Species Newsletter. The Council will also provide updates on its website. We will undertake a review of the pilot this spring to ensure that lessons are learnt about the effectiveness of set-up of the strategic approach. It will not, however, be possible to measure the ecological effects of the pilot for some years. A review is planned in It is quite possible that local authorities in other locations will wish to put in place strategic schemes on the Woking model before then. Natural England will encourage planning authorities to come forward with such proposals where they think that a strategic approach would both benefit great crested newt (or other species) and improve the regulatory process. Before any strategic approach for an EPS is implemented in another location, Natural England would be required to assess whether it could be licenced. A licence could only be granted if it satisfied the tests set by the Habitat Regulations, including whether it would avoid an adverse effect on conservation status. If Natural England, as the regulator, was satisfied that this was the case, there would be no need to delay implementation to allow time for the Woking Pilot to be further assessed. Natural England has itself proposed a further pilot of a strategic approach for great crested newts at a county scale. This is intended to explore the implementation of a wider range of conservation mechanisms than is possible at borough scale in Woking. It will also provide an opportunity to formulate definitions of favourable conservation status at local levels, as a benchmark against which to assess the contributions which could be made by the different mechanisms. Natural England is developing this project proposal with partners at present. 13