Section 6 states that ‘BNG can be delivered on-site or off-site (through purchasing biodiversity credits or enhancing nearby habitats)’. However, while Paragraphs 6.20-6.25 place considerable emphasis on off-site BNG, there is no further reference to near-site BNG. This balance needs correcting – development on green belt sites can displace species classified as ‘vulnerable to extinction in the UK’ and ‘near-threatened’ at a time when the latest State of Nature report (2023) states that around one in six species are at risk of becoming extinct in the UK. And many threatened species are relatively sedentary and unlikely to move some distance towards the s106 agreements that ‘the planning service has already negotiated and agreed with offsite providers for the establishment of habitat banks’ (Paragraph 6.21).
I propose a new Paragraph 6.21 which states that:
‘Where species classified as ‘vulnerable to extinction’ or ‘near threatened’ in the UK are present on a site, a separate mitigation package will be required for these species adjacent to the areas impacted and steps must be taken to improve sufficient appropriate habitat in nearby, adjoining areas to accommodate the displaced species.’
There is one further issue with Section 6: Paragraph 6.17 states that:
‘Pre-development biodiversity value must be calculated before any site clearance or other habitat management work has been undertaken, by the applicants or anybody else. However, if this is known to have happened, on or after 30th January 2020 the condition of the site will be taken as the habitat baseline.’
The second sentence in Paragraph 6.17 provides a significant loophole for developers and should be deleted or strengthened considerably.

The SPD appears to focus on BNG yet there might be other areas that S106 should be used for to deliver other biodiversity benefits and mitigation which should be referenced in the SPD.

Please see attached document for representations on behalf of Pigeon.

The draft SPD states in paragraph 6.4 that best practice indicates that there is an aspiration policy to achieve a 20% BNG and in paragraph 6.9 that the Council will encourage applicants to achieve 20%. Whilst recognising this is not framed as a requirement HBF would suggest that it is made clear that development achieving 10% will be considered as providing a positive contribution to biodiversity and will be supported by the Council.

Paragraph 6.8 lists some of the exemptions for BNG on new developments. If the Council are to set out exemptions, then the full list set out in legislation should be included in the SPD.

With regard to the form in which obligations can be made the Council place significant emphasis on the use of S106 agreements as a means of securing BNG. Whilst we recognise that this is a planning obligations SPD, we do consider it necessary to include more information on the use of conservation covenants as a means of discharging BNG and more clearly state their use will mean that a S106 agreement is not required for BNG in those instances. In particular the Council should amend paragraph 6.24 which suggests that without a S106 agreement is in place BNG conditions will not be discharged. Clearly if a conservation covenant is in place than a S106 agreement is not required in order to discharge that condition.

Please find attached our representations regarding the Planning Obligations SPD Consultation which ends at 5pm today.
You will see from our comments that we have raised a number of matters pertaining particularly to commercial development and would be more than happy to assist the Planning Policy Team going forward if required.