House of Commons - Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee

Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee Contents

3 The evidence base for changing the designation of SSSIs and other issues

Redesignation

15. The National Audit Office noted in its 2008 Report that between 2001 and 2008, 23 sites (1%) were re-classified following changes in features and only one site partially denotified, with 55 new sites having been notified.[20] This lack of turnover of existing sites is at first sight curious given that, as the Natural England memorandum put it, "the natural environment is dynamic",[21] a point expanded on by Brian Eversham from the Wildlife Trusts who commented "the interest features of sites are going to change subtly but significantly over the next ten, 20 or 30 years."[22]

16. Our concerns that SSSI designation could be seen to be a one-way process were heightened by a case set out in the NAO report of Attenborough Gravel Pits in Nottinghamshire, where even though the original features for which it was designated changed, the site remained classified for different reasons:

[The site was] first designated as a site in 1964 because of its importance as a refuge for over-wintering waterfowl and to sustain an important breeding bird community. Use of the site by birds has changed and the features for which it was originally classed as important are no longer present but have been replaced by new species of equal importance. These new features are not listed on the original designation and, accordingly, Natural England is re-classifying the site so that the important features are formally recorded.[23]

17. We raised these issues with Natural England. Christina Cork, Principal Specialist for Protected Areas, explained that through a new Notification Strategy Natural England was looking at the existing sites, or the "current series", as a whole and evaluating them on their merits:

The first stage review is: what do we currently have SSSIs for and how are they valued? Have we got the right things in the series at the moment or are there any gaps? […] Then, what do we currently have for those habitats and those species within a series? […] We then need to form a view on the adequacy of the current series against those standards.[24]

18. When asked whether the review exercise would result in a further increase in the number of SSSIs, Dr Helen Phillips replied:

we have done an initial assessment based on analysis of two regions and suggest that the potential scope for amendments or re-notifications is of the order of less than ten per cent. So this is not a whole scale exercise about needing to totally review it, but it does recognise that there may need to be some changes. Those changes will probably be principally about extending sites where we have worked out that the ecology of the site is dependent on some parameters or criteria or available land outside of it rather than a whole scale series of new sites. The previous National Audit Office in 1993 confirmed that they thought the series was more or less complete and that would continue to be our view.[25] [our emphasis]

19. After the evidence session Natural England supplied us with its draft copy of the Notification Strategy, which is printed with this report. The Strategy made the very important point that "The review should also consider denotification of sites (or parts thereof) that are not considered to be of special interest, to ensure the series as whole is not devalued."[26]

Impact of SSSI status on land values

20. The NAO report quoted research commissioned by the Scottish Executive which "suggested that SSSI notification had not had any significant effect on land values" but added a very significant caveat:

The conclusions of the study cannot be easily applied to England because a high proportion of Scottish sites are remote from population centres and therefore not subject to demands from development, which can have a significant impact on land values. Whilst it is difficult to establish whether the notification of a SSSI has an adverse impact on land value, there are benefits in owning a SSSI. Such land, for example, is exempt from inheritance tax. SSSIs also provide economic benefits through tourism.[27]

21. We asked the Chief Executive of Natural England if a similar exercise had been carried out or was being planned to cover English sites, but were told "When we quote that figure, which we do, we are relying on their [the Scottish Executive] assessment."[28]

Other issues

22. We were pleased to note that in general the relationship between Natural England and landowners seemed to be good, with issues to be resolved described by Andrew Clark of the NFU as "irritating detail rather than fundamental problems."[29] Other issues we covered in evidence but do not comment on in detail in this report were:

Monitoring of SSSIs by volunteers and Natural England staff;[30]
The relationship between SSSI designation and the Habitats Directive - an issue which relates to our points on redesignation above and which we consider would merit review by Natural England at an early stage, or further scrutiny by the EFRA Committee;[31] and
Incentive schemes.[32]