Developing a Net Gain Policy in an Emerging Plan by David Scully

1. Developing a Net Gain
Policy in an Emerging Plan
David Scully CMLI
Landscape and Biodiversity Officer
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

2. 10 SSSI’s
59 Local Wildlife Sites
17 Sites of Local Nature Conservation Value
5 Local Nature Reserves
10 Roadside Nature Reserves
41 Historic Parks and Gardens
3000 Listed buildings
5, 391ha (16.27%) Ancient Woodland
0 Natura 2000 sites
Key species: badgers, birds, bats, dormice, great
crested newts and reptiles.

3. Moving from No Net Loss
to
Net Gains for Biodiversity
What does no net loss look like?

4. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0030080
Map and text from JNCC website accessed 17 March 2017 15.43
Biodiversity Policy
Core Policy 4
3. A hierarchical approach to nature conservation and the protection
of biodiversity and geodiversity will be applied across the sites and
habitats of national, regional and local importance within the
Borough. The objective will be to avoid net loss of biodiversity
and geodiversity across the Borough as a whole
4. Opportunities and locations for biodiversity enhancements will be
identified and pursued by the creation, protection, enhancement,
extension and management of green corridors and through the
development of green infrastructure networks in urban and rural
areas to improve connectivity between habitats

9. Conversations with members….

10. Draft Policy for Biodiversity Net Gain

11. An empirical means of measuring
whether the mitigation listed by the
appellant would result in a net gain in
biodiversity has not been submitted. Therefore,
I cannot be certain the measures would result
in a net gain, as required by Paragraph 170 of
the National Planning Policy Framework. The
submissions include differing expert opinions
on this point. This is a material consideration
weighing against the appeal scheme.
Whether the adverse impacts of the proposal
would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
its benefits.
The proposal would have greater than limited
harm to the setting of listed buildings and the
appellant has not demonstrated the scheme
would result in a net gain for biodiversity.

13. Proposal for using S106 contributions:
To be defined in the S106 agreement as “biodiversity offsetting sum”
which is “to be spent on a scheme of biodiversity offsetting within the Borough
covering the establishment of project principles, scheme design, identification of
site(s) including the Council owned Woodlands of Marshley Harbour Woods,
Snipe and Bassets Wood and High Woods and/or the acquisition of other sites,
preparation of management plans and the execution of improvements works and
fees for management, professional and legal advice”.
Initially this will be earmarked as follows but this may change depending upon
advice received and early scoping of the proposals:
• Management plans for Council owned woodlands by KHWP with some external
support - £9k
• Long terms works to woodlands to achieve a minimum net gain of 5.71 Units -
£75K to be spent over a minimum 50year timeframe.
• Development of a future scheme of borough or county offsetting - £18K
consultant fees
• Any surplus to be put towards future offsetting schemes or biodiversity units to
be provided elsewhere.

15. “We estimate that the purchase of 5.71
biodiversity units will be in the region
£90,000 – 115,000 + VAT”
Plus consultancy fees £12,000 + VAT
and reasonable expenses and
reimbursement . (£18 to 24K per
biodiversity unit)
We have agreed in principle
£102.78K or £18k per biodiversity
unit

17. 1 Biodiversity Unit £18k

18. Comments on Draft Policy
• Method of measurement
• Figure for net gain (10% but NE suggest 20%)
• Long term monitoring
• Resources and scrutiny
• Does not include – soils, genetic diversity,
species, social value, functionality etc.

19. Final Draft Policy Version 1
Policy EN 11
Biodiversity Net Gain
Development will only be permitted where it meets all of the following criteria:
It can be demonstrated through the application of the DEFRA Metric, as part of a
Biodiversity Gain Plan, that completion of the development will result in a measurable
long-term net gain for biodiversity in both area and linear habitats, as follows:
Where net gain is secured on site for the lifetime of the development, the gain shall be a
minimum of 10%, but where gains are provided off site, or through an accredited
offsetting scheme that is time limited, the gain shall be a minimum of 20%;
The Biodiversity Gain Plan will include, as a minimum, the information set out in the
supporting text or as otherwise required by Supplementary Planning Guidance; and
It can be demonstrated that the proposals have adopted a strict approach to the
mitigation hierarchy (i.e. avoid, mitigate, compensate) and are able to justify all
unavoidable impacts on biodiversity; and
The proposed measures for mitigation, compensation, and/or net gain for biodiversity are
acceptable in terms of design and location, and are secured, on site, for the lifetime of the
development, or off site for a minimum of 30 years, with appropriate funding mechanisms
that are capable of being secured by condition and/or legal agreement. Funding for both
on-site and off-site measures shall include a payment to the Council to cover the costs of
independent review of Biodiversity Gain Plans and long-term monitoring.

20. Final Draft Policy Version 2
Policy EN 9
Biodiversity Net Gain
Development will only be permitted where it meets all of the following criteria:
1. It can be demonstrated through the application of the Defra Biodiversity Metric (and any
subsequent replacements), as part of a Biodiversity Gain Plan, that completion of the development
will result in a measurable long-term net gain for biodiversity in both area and linear habitats, as
follows:
a) Net gain shall be provided on or adjacent to the site wherever possible and where
provided offsite shall in terms of location and type be in accordance with the supporting
text or as otherwise required by Supplementary Planning Guidance.
b) The percentage of net gain shall be a minimum of 10% as required by legislation or
greater where required by Supplementary Planning Guidance.
c) The Biodiversity Gain Plan will include, as a minimum, the information set out in the supporting
text or as otherwise required by Supplementary Planning Guidance; and
2. It can be demonstrated that the proposals have adopted a strict approach to the mitigation hierarchy
(i.e. avoid, mitigate, compensate) and are able to justify all unavoidable impacts on biodiversity; and
3. The proposed mitigation, compensation, and/or enhancement measures required to secure net
gain for biodiversity are acceptable to the Council in terms of design and location, and are secured,
on site, for the lifetime of the development, or off site for a minimum of 30 years, with appropriate
funding mechanisms that are capable of being secured by condition and/or legal agreement.
Funding for both on-site and off-site measures shall include a payment to the Council to cover the
costs of independent review of Biodiversity Gain Plans and long-term monitoring.

21. Issues to resolve:
• Scrutiny and monitoring
• Consistency in submissions and decision making
• 10%, 15% or 20% ?
• Location and nature of off site (not offsetting)
schemes – Local, regional, strategic?

22. Next Steps:
• Kent Nature Partnership and SPD
• High Weald AONB Unit and guidance on
Management Plan Objectives and habitats
• Rebuttal of legal challenge

23. Any Questions?