Examination of Witnesses (Questions 440
- 459)
TUESDAY 13 JUNE 2000
MS ANNIE
COOPER, MR
MIKE OXFORD
AND MR
GRAHAM DEAN
Mrs Ellman
440. How important are regional as well as local
plans?
(Mr Oxford) I have been involved almost from the outset
in the Southwest Regional Biodiversity Plan and I suppose there
have been several strands to that. It has provided a tier between
the national Action Plan and given us a chance to look at regional
character and regional priorities. It has allowed us to get together
and discuss it as a larger group, which has been tremendously
important; because it is very easy to feel isolated in your own
authority, or your own trust, without that wide network. There
is the support which comes from knowing you can take a national
target and drop it down and achieve some sort of consensus about
regional priorities. It has certainly raised the profile, having
something happening at a regional level with regional agencies.
Government Office South West have become involved in biodiversity
in a much more enthusiastic way, because of the regional planning
that has been carried out. I think they have been an inspiration
to us, and have supported us very much over the preparation of
the planning document.
441. Could you give any examples where the planning
system has been used to protect biodiversity?
(Mr Oxford) Two from my own area. This is where I
referred to the multiplier effect. Very recently we have had quite
a lot of development and given permission outside of Weston-super-Mare;
and in one set of negotiations we have achieved £125,000
of contributions towards habitat creation in compensation. That
work will be set in the local context of what is being affected
and, therefore, what will be created as a compensation. I suppose
the greatest success we have had to date, is a development just
outside of Bristol (but in North Somerset, very, very close to
the Severn Estuary) it is a site of international importance;
very recently I have seen the proposals for what is going to be
put into the planning agreement just for nature conservation,
a figure of £1.6 million has been identified. That will go
towards habitat enhancement, species enhancement and protection,
and long-term management. This will secure management of something
like 40-50 hectares in perpetuity. It will provide public access
and interpretation facilities and hopefully will bring a lot of
resources to bear through development in the planning process
to actually achieve very local real biodiversity objectives.
Mr Blunt
442. Just to come back to the link between nationally
designated sites and what I think you call SINCs, sites of importance
for nature conservation. Exactly what actions are required to
protect these local sites? They need protection so can you give
us specific detail.
(Mr Dean) I think the LGA will recognise that the
existing planning system is not going to protect biodiversity
in the UK. It is clearly a question of protecting some of the
major sites through the SSSI system and other designations. The
SSSI system is being strengthened at the moment in the Countryside
Bill, hopefully. That has always been a problem. Of course biodiversity
does not rely on national sites. It is the local sites which ensure
species diversity for woodland, farmland, garden birds and all
sorts of species. The planning system is just not adequate to
protect that. What is protecting a lot of local sites is land
ownership. That generally means local authorities, and perhaps
other agencies who have got land, have been able to keep that
land for nature conservation purposes. Quite often, because there
is a nature conservation officer in an authority who identifies
the habitats they, therefore, can plan ahead to try and get these
protected through ownership, and perhaps then local nature reserve
status. The planning system itself is not adequate. If you have
a planning designation on a private site you cannot have a presumption
against development on that site in your local plan. Therefore,
in exceptional circumstances those sites can disappear. There
is this problem of how do you protect local sites which are not
in the ownership of an authority who wants to keep them as nature
areas. That is a big issue. The other issue is improving biodiversity
by having new habitats. Through the planning system it is very
difficult to enforce management through planning approval; because
I think it is only for two or three years that landscape agreements
are actually enforceable by the local authority. After a few years
the management can drift and if it is a private owner there is
no compunction to continue that management for nature conservation
purpose. There are a lot of problems really. It is a big issue
in terms of protecting green space against development.
443. Who owns Oaks Park in Sutton?
(Mr Dean) Oaks Park is owned by the council.
444. Why is it, as such good protectors of wildlife,
they are intending to build a crematorium there?
(Mr Dean) That is an issue for Sutton Council.
445. You do work for Sutton two days a week.
I do find it extraordinary regarding the actions of local authorities
that the only area which they look after and make a contribution
to the countryside is with benign neglect, where they do not take
any care at all about the land they look after.
(Mr Dean) You have started from the wrong premise.
You have said they are going to put crematoria on the Oaks Park—that
is completely wrong.
446. They are not going to?
(Mr Dean) No. It is the Oaks Farm, on the other side
of the road, which is two fields which have not had agricultural
use for decades because no-one wants to farm them. They have been
looking for a useful use for those sites for a long time.
Mrs Dunwoody
447. They are going to create their own fertiliser!
(Mr Dean) Absolutely.
448. Just going back to the Southwest before
we leave this. What is interesting to me is that you do not know
the MoD people. Large parts of the Southwest are MoD land, and
the constant battle between the need to train forces and the need
to retain some sensible management of that land is a very real
one in the Southwest. I would have thought one of your most important
plans was how do you work with the national institutions that
have got a real interest in these matters?
(Mr Oxford) I perhaps gave you the wrong impression,
because certainly some of my counterparts in other local authorities,
where there is a much stronger MoD presence and certainly a landholding
presence, I know do have contact. It is because North Somerset
does not have that sort of landholding that I personally do not.
Chairman
449. Could I pursue this question of local sites.
What proportion of local sites in the Southeast, for instance,
are on brownfield land?
(Mr Oxford) Relatively it is a small proportion.
450. If we are going to get development on brownfield
land then some of these sites are going to disappear, is that
right?
(Mr Oxford) That is correct. Of course, the conflict
is that very often the wildlife sites on the brownfield land are
actually the sites closest to the highest proportion of the population—so
it is where most people have a chance to have contact with nature
close to where they live.
(Ms Cooper) In areas of heavier industry, the further
north you go and perhaps over to Wales, there will be a higher
concentration of wildlife sites on brownfield sites than, say,
the Southeast.
Mr Benn
451. Can I pick up the last point you made,
Mr Dean, about problems where land is in other ownership and it
is hard to actually require people under the present set-up to
maintain that land in a particular way. Are you saying you would
like some sort of legal framework that would make that possible?
If there was, would you find the resources to actually make it
work anyway?
(Mr Dean) Exactly, it is a huge problem to consider
this. The knock-on effects in terms of ongoing management have
a big resource implication. If we and the Government are all serious
about biodiversity we have to do something about that. Whether
there is some sort of compulsory purchase approach; or if, through
designation, the value of the land is only a value as public open
space, then there may be ways round it. The landowners themselves
may feel they have a compensation claim if they felt there was
some development there.
Mrs Butler
452. You could not have a public open space
that was privately owned?
(Mr Dean) No, what I am saying is it would be valued
at public open space value. Once it was purchased then of course
the local authorities could open it.
453. How could local authorities afford to CPO
things like that?
(Mr Dean) That is a problem.
(Mr Oxford) The development I mentioned just now which
is attracting this colossal £1.6 million—it is through
the developer that the land will be purchased. It is in a mix
of private ownership and ownership by the adjacent local authority.
That will be acquired through the developer and then eventually
passed over to the local authority or to a conservation body;
and our hope is to then see that declared as a local nature reserve.
This is where I think the link between the duty to manage sites
and the site protection all fits together. I think it is partly
a stick and carrot. I think developers now recognise there are
lots of opportunities to make a contribution. Some do it willingly;
some do it begrudgingly.
454. It could be a 106 planning gain?
(Mr Oxford) I think a lot can be achieved through
the planning gain and the 106 agreements.
(Mr Dean) There are a number of good examples of that
around. One of the problems is how far can you get 106 agreements,
given that it is supposed to relate to the development and that
the planning gain, as such, has been certainly attacked by the
developers and businesses saying that it is just a tax on them
for building new development. There is a problem there. It also
competes with other section 106 agreement monies.
Mr Benn
455. How do we measure biodiversity? How do
we measure what it is we say we want to protect and enhance? How
are we going to know whether all of this stuff is going to make
a difference?
(Mr Oxford) I mentioned just now about the local record
centres and ensuring that they are adequately resourced. Certainly
in my neck of the woods we are entirely dependent on the record
centre collating, managing and keeping up to date our view of
our local biodiversity. They can present us with the character
of what we have and are beginning to build up information to tell
us what we have got at the moment. I guess, against that baseline
information, we can now put in place the system to actually measure,
hopefully, positive change. I think it is too soon really at the
local level to have those mechanisms to measure in place. We are
struggling just to get some of the principles across at the moment.
(Ms Cooper) There are recognised systems for establishing
base lines for the kinds of surveys to provide you with the right
information that will establish the base lines from which you
can go on and do your additional surveying every few years. You
can highlight particular indicators, as the Government has done
with its quality of life indicators. Certainly those will not
be anywhere near sufficient in identifying whether sustainable
development is being carried out at a local level. There are a
number of specific indicators you can take. In the East Midlands'
Biodiversity Action Plan we are working with the East Midlands
Local Authority Association and East Midlands Development Agency
to come up with a suite of indicators, such as the number of ground
nesting birds in farmland, the number of ponds which are still
in management, the extent of wet grazing marsh, the extent of
ancient woodlands that are actually being taken into management.
There are recognised ways you can do this, but they do all take
resources—both to actually do it and then to manipulate
the data.
456. Is local government doing enough to support
the National Biodiversity Network?
(Mr Oxford) I suspect it is very piecemeal. I expect
some record centres are supported very well and others probably
not at all. On the measurement, I think this is why the best value
process appeals to me as well, because that imposes on us a duty
to measure our performance; and if we have a corresponding duty
to do biodiversity we then actually will have to measure our efforts.
I think it will accelerate the development of local systems which
the biodiversity partnership could then feed into as well. If
we have a statutory duty to measure our performance, and a duty
to conserve biodiversity, we will have to establish the mechanism,
which there is no momentum for at the moment because there are
so many other things to do. It is obviously crucial at the end
of the day to know whether we are having any success, and in which
areas we are getting it right.
Chairman
457. There are plenty of bodies to champion
birds and to see there is a reasonable number of them. Who is
looking after the interests of black mould that needs to grow
nicely on tower blocks, or algae which are sulphur tolerant?
(Mr Oxford) Dr Alan Feast at Bristol University. He
will be delighted somebody has asked a question about moulds;
it is his specialism. It is a slightly flippant answer, and I
am sorry.
458. In collecting this information are you
confident that too much of it is not being collected on what could
be described as the "cuddly" interests?
(Ms Cooper) Not at all—probably the opposite
actually. There are more people out there collecting information
about the lichens, bryophytes and moulds then there are about
wild flowers.
459. Do you think the state of our habitat as
far as moulds and algae are concerned is good?
(Ms Cooper) It is getting better. In those areas where
you require clean air for lichens and bryophytes it is definitely
improving. That would include some areas of the Pennines where
air quality is improving. Some of the things which liked the less
salubrious air quality are probably declining.
Chairman: On that note, may I thank you very
much for your evidence.
| 
