Memorandum by the Wildlife Trusts (PGS
28)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Wildlife Trusts welcome the opportunity
to present written evidence to the Committee on the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister's Inquiry into the government's proposals
to introduce a Planning-gain Supplement (PGS).
1.2 The Wildlife Trusts are a unique partnership
of 47 local Wildlife Trusts covering the whole of the UK and the
Isle of Man and Alderney. The partnership works for the protection
of wildlife and invests in the future by helping people of all
ages to gain a greater appreciation and understanding of nature.
Collectively, The Wildlife Trusts have more than 600,000 members
including 100,000 junior members. In addition, we manage almost
2,500 nature reserves, covering more than 80,000 hectares of land.
Popular with visitors, they include some of the UK's finest wildlife
sites, from inner city locations to the open countryside.
1.3 We are active participants in the planning
system throughout the UK from the national to the local level.
Over the years our staff and volunteers have dedicated considerable
time and resources to many reviews of Development Plans and they
scrutinise thousands of planning applications annually for impacts
on biodiversity. They are engaging fully in the development of
Regional Spatial Strategies, Local Development Frameworks and
Community Strategies.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 With our wide range and depth of ecological
expertise and many years of experience of working with local people,
we bring a uniquely informed perspective to bear on biodiversity
in relation to both the planning system and communities. The concept
of a PGS is, naturally, of great interest to us and we are keen
to make a constructive input.
2.2 We are also forwarding a response to
the parallel consultation from HM Treasury, HM Revenue & Customs
and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the proposed PGS.
That response is appended to our evidence and we do not intend
to repeat it in detail here. Rather we shall concentrate upon
the issues set out in the call for evidence in so far as they
affect our area of interest.
3. INQUIRY ISSUES
The factors which should be taken into account
in determining the rate of the supplement and the level at which
it should be set
3.1 The parallel consultation (page 7) explains
that revenues generated by PGS would be "dedicated to local
communities to manage the impacts of growth and to funding the
local and strategic infrastructure necessary to support and stimulate
new development and contribute to long term sustainability."
3.2 It, therefore, seems logical that a
factor that should be taken into account in determining the level
of the PGS is an assessment of local and strategic infrastructure
needed to manage the impacts of growth and to support and stimulate
new development. In our submission on the parallel consultation
we make the case for biodiversity rich green infrastructure as
an essential component of sustainable communities. Consequently
we believe any assessment of new infrastructure needs should factor
in biodiversity provision.
3.3 In determining the level of biodiversity
provision required we would suggest that to a large degree it
should be possible to develop and apply formulaic approaches.
For example, English Nature recommends minimum standards for the
provision of accessible natural green space
[14]. However,
it is important to bear in mind that there is much variation between
regions and local areas in terms of the quantity and quality of
existing biodiversity assets and the direct community benefits
and ecological services already available.
How the supplement should reflect subsequent uses
such as social housing
3.4 Should the PGS be introduced we believe
it is important that it is applied in such a way as to avoid economic
distortions which could lead to excessive development in environmentally
sensitive locations. For that reason we would favour a single
rate applied to all types of development both residential and
non residential with very few exceptions.
3.5 It seems reasonable to exclude home
improvements from PGS not least because we would hope that in
future many of these will involve the retrofitting of sustainability
features.
How the revenue from the supplement should be
distributed and appropriate uses
Biodiversity rich green infrastructure
3.6 In our response to the parallel consultation
we present evidence in support of our belief that biodiversity
is a necessity for sustainable communities, rather than a luxury,
and is no less important than the provision of other public services
such as schools, health centres and transport.
3.7 Hence we believe the PGS should make
a substantial contribution towards the delivery of the biodiversity
rich environmental infrastructure needed for sustainable communities.
We would hope to see a substantial proportion of PGS receipts
specifically allocated for widespread biodiversity conservation
and enhancement beyond the case specific level.
Geographical distribution
3.8 We believe there is an argument for
operating a weighting system that allows a higher level of the
biodiversity component of the recycled PGS revenues to be allocated
to regions, sub regions and local areas that are likely to experience
enhanced levels of growth. Biodiversity resources will be under
greatest pressure in these areas at the same time as their being
an increased need for the environmental, social and economic benefits
they bring.
3.9 However we do not believe it would be
wise to direct the biodiversity component of the PGS revenues
solely towards the four Growth Areas, growth points, new free
standing settlements and major urban extensions. Biodiversity
conservation and enhancement requires a holistic approach and
the network of biodiversity rich green infrastructure should be
available to every community.
Distribution mechanism
3.10 The parallel consultation (page 32)
explains that the government is exploring an expanded version
of the Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF), or suitable alternative,
for the distribution of PGS revenues.
3.11 This does not seem unreasonable provided
the grant scheme is transparent, inclusive and can be readily
accessed by the key infrastructure providers. It would also be
important to ensure that the criteria are sufficiently broad and
the geographical coverage sufficiently wide to deliver an appropriate
level of biodiversity rich green infrastructure to every community.
3.12 It would be vital to ensure that any
grant scheme makes provision for the ongoing costs of the management
of biodiversity rich green infrastructure in addition to funding
initial set up costs. Under the present system of negotiated Section
106 agreements it is common practice for developers to provide
a "commuted sum" to contribute towards ongoing management
of biodiversity features.
Whether and, if so, how the Planning-gain Supplement
should be used to encourage development of brownfield sites
3.13 In our response to the parallel consultation
we explain that we are not opposed, in principle, to brownfield
development which brings some advantages in terms of environmental
sustainability. However, there can be disadvantages in that regard,
too.
3.14 We are aware from our own experience
and the research of others
[15]that
a proportion of brownfield sites are of biodiversity value. That
fact is recognised within "Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity
and Geological Conservation" (paragraph 13) which advises
that in certain situations the aim should be to retain the interest
or incorporate it into any development.
3.15 Planning to retain some brownfield
sites as open space may also offer the potential to incorporate
biodiversity rich green infrastructure within heavily developed
urban areas.
3.16 Since planning policy already affords
high priority to the regeneration of previously developed land
we are not yet persuaded that applying a lower rate of PGS for
brownfield sites is either necessary or desirable.
The potential impact of the supplement on Section
106 arrangements negotiated through the planning system
3.17 In our response to the parallel consultation
we explain our concern that the PGS should be well run and not
inadvertently diminish the level of protection and enhancement
for biodiversity below that which can already be achieved through
the current system of Section 106 agreements.
3.18 At the present time the latter are
of considerable importance, both in terms of tackling case specific
biodiversity impacts and, increasingly, in securing wider biodiversity
benefits.
Section 106 agreements for the enhancement of
biodiversity
3.19 English Nature Research Report 672
"Using a Planning Gain Supplement for nature conservation
purposes"
[16]presents
a number of useful case studies in which Section 106 agreements
have been used to secure positive benefits. We are also aware
of a number of other cases. Typical examples would be the creation
and subsequent aftercare of a Local Nature Reserve or accessible
natural green space somewhere within the neighbourhood but not
necessarily within the development site.
3.20 The biodiversity facilities provided
in such cases are invariably of great benefit to the new residents
and the local community but they may not be essential to offset
case specific impacts. It is not clear to us whether cases of
this type would fall within the scope of the scaled back planning
obligations and development site environment approach described
within the parallel consultation (pages 26 to 29) or whether they
would be amongst the matters that would be excluded.
3.21 If such positive biodiversity benefits
are not considered to fall within the new scope of negotiated
Section 106 agreements it is vital that provision is made for
their delivery by other means.
3.22 The use of recycled PGS receipts could
have a significant role to play in that regard but if they are
to be disbursed in the form of competitive grants, perhaps with
some regions or local areas favoured over others, we are concerned
that funding may not be available from this source in every local
circumstance where it is needed.
3.23 "Planning Policy Statement 9:
Biodiversity and Geological Conservation" (paragraph 1) makes
clear that there is a new emphasis on planning delivering positive
gains for biodiversity. It would be particularly unfortunate at
this time if one of the main mechanisms for achieving such benefits
were weakened or removed without alternative arrangements that
are at least as effective being put in place.
Section 106 agreements for addressing case specific
impacts upon biodiversity
3.24 We welcome the fact that the description
of the development site environment approach suggests that case
specific biodiversity impacts could still be the subject of negotiated
Section 106 agreements. They are an essential tool for mitigating
and compensating for the unavoidable impacts of development upon
biodiversity, in line with the requirements of "Planning
Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation"
(paragraph 1).
3.25 In our view it is vital that it remains
within the scope of negotiated Section 106 agreements to address
the full range of case specific biodiversity impacts in the most
appropriate way.
3.26 For example, under some circumstances,
planning obligations may be needed to secure off site habitat
creation or restoration, and subsequent management, to compensate
for losses of biodiversity on a development site. Indeed, that
is an increasingly common scenario as the higher densities to
which new housing is now built often limits the scope for meaningful
biodiversity provision within the development itself.
3.27 It does seem that off site compensation
would be achievable under the development site environment approach.
However, we would welcome re-assurance from government that the
"replacement/substitution" for the loss or damage to
a facility or amenity described in the parallel consultation (Box
5.4 on page 27) would, indeed, include biodiversity assets.
14 Anon (1996) A Space for Nature-Nature is good
for you! English Nature, Peterborough. Back
15
See, for example, Gibson CWD (1998) Brownfield: red data.
The values artificial habitats have for uncommon invertebrates
English Nature Research Reports, No 273. Back
16
ENTEC UK Ltd (2006) Using a planning gain supplement for nature
conservation purposes English Nature and the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds English Nature Research Reports, No
672. Back
| 
