Planning for wildlife
Luke Bristow Wildlife Sites Officer, Essex Wildlife Trust, The Joan Elliot Visitor
Centre, Abbotts Hall Farm, Great Wigborough lukeb@essexwt.org.uk
In my previous two articles I have reviewed the changing role Local Authorities are
expected to play in helping to protect wildlife. This new role is the result of reforms to
the planning system, and as a response to recent government polices to protect
biodiversity. To recap:
• Local Authorities will, from October 2006, have a legal duty to "have
regard......to the purpose of conserving biodiversity";
• Local Authorities ".... should provide leadership in establishing and
maintaining partnerships and systems to identify and manage Local Sites."
• The policies adopted by Local Authorities must be based upon "... robust and
credible evidence"; and
• Their development plans should address, not only the protection of
individual wildlife sites, but entire "networks of natural habitats".
The enhanced role in protecting biodiversity of Local Authorities is clearly demonstrated
by the government's requirement that they must monitor annually the impact of their
planning polices upon wildlife within their district, specifically:
"Change in areas and populations of biodiversity importance, including:
(i) change in priority habitats and species (by type); and
(ii) change in areas designated for their intrinsic environmental value
including sites of international, national, regional or sub-regional
significance."
In practical terms it is still unclear exactly how this is to be achieved since there has
been no official government response to the first round of monitoring in 2005. In principle
the idea is to be welcomed; how else can we determine the effectiveness of planning
policies in halting habitat and species loss? However, it is difficult to remain optimistic
about the value of such monitoring in the absence of a robust methodology or without
additional resources being made available.
Within Essex, Local Authorities have approached the task in a wide variety of ways,
with a small minority admitting they simply don't have sufficient data or resources to
undertake effective monitoring.
Beyond the boundaries of Essex, the government's requirements are proving equally
difficult to achieve, but in counties where Biological Records Centres operate they are
collaborating with planners to help them develop a pragmatic strategy. Unfortunately,
Essex has no such resource, and as a result annual monitoring is likely to be significantly
comprised.
Essex Field Club Newsletter No. 51, September 2006
11