Policy Details 

What is this policy for? The Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol (DBAP) operates alongside the Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework. It provides a framework for quantifying impacts on biodiversity arising from development (residential, mineral or waste) and setting out the required mitigation and enhancements (net gain) as stipulated in National Planning Policy Framework, 2018. It also identifies whether there is a residual loss of biodiversity and therefore a need to use the Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework.

Who does this policy affect?

The DBAP affects anyone making a planning application which has an impact on biodiversity.

Keywords Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol, Biodiversity Appraisal in Dorset

Author Natural Environment Team, Dorset County Council. Contact: Annabel King, Snr Ecologist,

Dorset Council policy adopted from

Dorset County Council. Dorset Council has adopted policies from its constituent councils. Please be aware varying policies apply within the Dorset Council area. Policies will be reviewed and/or harmonised by 1 April 2021.

Does this policy relate to any laws?

National Planning Policy Framework, 2018. Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010.

Is this policy linked to any other Dorset Council policies?

The DBAP is functionally linked to the Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework (DBCF), providing the initial steps quantifying impacts on biodiversity, setting out mitigation and enhancements and identifying if there will be a residual loss needing consideration through the DBCF.

Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

An EQIA will be completed when the policy is reviewed/harmonised for Dorset Council.

Other Impact Assessments

None.

You can view the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol on our website: https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/countryside-coast-parks/countryside-management/biodiversity/biodiversity-appraisal-in-dorset.aspx

Status and Approvals

Status Live Version

Last review date 2018 Next review date 2019

Approved by (Director) Date approved

Member/ Partnership Board Approval

Date approved

 

Ref. No. PL/EN/3

Category: People Place YesCorporate In Constitution

Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol and Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework

1

Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol

Guidance for consultants

Natural Environment Team

Section A General Guidance

version 3 autumn2018

2

Contents page no.

1.0 The scope of the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol 3

2.0 Protocol criteria and general guidance 3

3.0 Outline planning applications and planning obligations 4 4.0 Ecology reports 6

5.0 Data searches 8

6.0 Completing a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan form 9 Further survey 10 Post construction monitoring 10 Filling out the form 10

7.0 Certification of Biodiversity Mitigation & Enhancement Plans 12 Certificate of Approval and European Protected Species 12 Failure to approve a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan 13

8.0 Dorset County Council Violence, Agression & Harrassment Policy 14 Feedback 14 Complaints 15

3

1.0 The scope of the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol (DBAP)

1.1 The Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol in Dorset is designed to meet the requirements of the Natural England Protected Species Standing Advice found at www.naturalengland.org.uk

1.2 Development requiring Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), or development affecting recognised wildlife sites:

• European / international sites (SAC, SPA, Ramsar)• Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)• Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)

is outside the scope of this Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol. In these circumstances, the Dorset planning authorities will consult conservation organisations after submission of an application.

1.3 The planning authority will condition a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) as a means of clearly identifying and securing mitigation and enhancement measures for developments affecting recognised wildlife sites.

1.4 Please note that development affecting a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) is within the scope of the Protocol and BMEPs must be submitted after consultation with Dorset Wildlife Trust has taken place. 2.0 Protocol criteria and general guidance

2.1 All Local Authorities have a duty to consider the conservation of biodiversity when determining a planning application. This is in accordance with policies within the local plans and national policy guidance, as well as the duty placed on local authorities within Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) to have regard for biodiversity.

2.2 Dorset local planning authorities routinely ask for a biodiversity appraisal in the form of a standard Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) with accompanying Certificate of Approval to be submitted with a planning application, where the following criteria apply:

• All development sites of 0.1ha or greater in size; specifically, where a greenfield or brownfield is site 0.1ha or greater

• Any sized site where there are known habitat / protected species interests• Any sized site affecting a rural barn where a BMEP must be used to secure nesting and

roosting opportunities for Barn owl• The criteria in this guidance apply equally to OUTLINE (see 3.0 below) and FULL applications

2.3 Dorset local planning authorities will also routinely require a bat survey if a development involves the following:

• Any building or structure with an existing bat record or subject to a report of bat activity, including historic activity

• Demolition of an existing house, building and outbuilding• Conversion of house attic space – including the installation of roof lights or dormer windows• House extensions that tie-in to an existing enclosed roof space• Renovation or conversion of derelict buildings (structures with roofs)• Conversion or demolition of agricultural barns / farm buildings (structures with roofs)

4

2.4 If evidence of bats is discovered, whether the above criteria apply or not, a standard BMEP will need to be completed, approved by the Natural Environment Team (NET) and submitted with a planning application.

2.5 All ecological appraisals should be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant with relevant protected species licence(s) as required.

2.6 All submissions must be supported by adequate survey data in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines. Surveys must be carried out at the optimum time of year. Submissions received without the appropriate level of survey will be rejected.

2.7 Site assessments must take account of any changes which may have occurred in preparation for the proposed developement.

2.8 It is the responsibility of the applicant / developer and the ecological consultant to ensure that an appropriate level of survey effort has been undertaken in proportion to the scale of development. 2.8 Retained or new permanent bat lofts must feature a prominently displayed notice which includes notification that the loft that it is a dedicated roosting space for bats and contact details for the Bat Conservation Trust as well as the consulting ecologist.

2.9 Developments affecting hedgerows must be subject to adequate survey for protected species including activity surveys for bats and surveys for Hazel dormouse. Hedges will be considered ‘affected’ by disturbance during construction and the proximity of development boundaries as well as removal of all or sections of hedges. Therefore, surveys for Hazel dormouse must be undertaken even where the removal of part or all of the hedge is not planned. This is to take account of the potential for development proposals to change and to establish appropriate buffers - for both during and post construction - at the outset. (Refer to Section B)

2.10 Developments involving grassland must have a botanical assessment at an optimal time of year and reports must be accompanied by a full plant list with DAFOR categorisation. Any deviation from this must be agreed with NET prior to submission and must be fully justified and supported by an appropriate desk top study. (Refer to Section B).

3.0 Planning obligations including outline applications

3.1 In accordance with legislation, planning policy and industry good practice guidelines, adequate and proportionate survey data and information must be provided to allow the impacts on biodiversity to be assessed.

3.2 Biodiversity interests of a site and its associated Zone of Influence (CIEEM Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (EcIA) guidelines (2018)) must be established and the potential impacts from the development adequately assessed and demonstrated within submitted reports.

3.3 Where protected species are concerned Circular 6/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and Their Impact Within the Planning System states:

‘It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The use of conditions to request protected species surveys should only be used in exceptional circumstances’.

5

3.4 Insufficient survey data may lead to a failure to issue an approval certificate (Refer to Section D). In these circumstances the planning authority will be advised accordingly. This would be the case if survey information fails to demonstrate that the material consideration in relation to protected species has been adequately addressed. In some cases, this will form a reason for planning refusal.

3.5 Compensation for residual loss of habitat (see 6 below) is secured by means of a legally binding deed made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) usually in the form of a Section 106 agreement. These are legal agreements between the Local Planning Authority and the applicant / developer. Alternatively, a Unilateral Undertaking may be secured between the developer and Dorset County Council. These mechanisms form a legal planning obligation that transfers automatically with any change in landownership. Government guidance on the use of planning obligations is contained in Circular 05/2005 and the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010) (as amended (CIL).

3.6 Off-site mitigation and / or compensation at the reserved matters stage is not easily obtained within the current planning system. Under these circumstances, any mitigation and / or compensation not captured at outline is reliant upon a Unilateral Undertaking. Whilst Unilateral Undertakings are also legal agreements, they do not have to be entered into by the Local Planning Authority. They come into effect when the planning permission to which they are linked is granted. Unilateral Undertakings are not considered appropriate for larger scale development or complicated applications.

3.7 The DBAP seeks to comply with the NPPF (2018) by ensuring positive gain is secured from all scales of development and avoiding residual loss of habitat, in keeping with the Defra Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots. Therefore, the NET requires assessment and demonstration of losses and gains for all developments. This can be presented in a table for any size of development but must be presented in a table for developments of more than five residential or industrial units. It is appropriate to include loss and gain tables in ecology reports are are not required within Biodivserity Mitigiation and Enhancement Plan forms. An example loss and gain table is provided in Section B.

6

4.6 As a minimum include the following:

Title page stating:• Type of survey report (Preliminary Ecological

Appraisal, Phase One Habitat Survey for example) • The site• The author and consultancy • The date and version number• Highlight if the report is confidential

SummaryGive a brief non-technical summary of the report.

Introduction stating:• The aim of the survey and report• The location of the building/site• A map or aerial image showing the boundary of the

site and give the full address including postcode and grid reference.

• A description of the building/site. This must include the size of the site in hectares and the existing /historic use of the site.

• A description of the proposals. This must be a full explanation of all works and associated infra-strucure. It must be clear that the type and scope of survey/s undertaken is appropriate to the nature and extent of development and scale of impact.

Methods divided into:i. Desk study – which must list all sources of data. Please

note reports for proposals affecting land of 0.1ha or greater must be supported by a Dorset Environmental Records Centre (DERC) search. For search parameters see 5.0 below.

ii. Field survey –state the date of survey and the methodology employed according to relevant, up-to-date guidance such as Bat Conservation Trust Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines. Also include details of the surveyor(s): names; species licences held; experience and competencies; the weather conditions and equipment used (for example the number and type of bat detectors and recorders, endoscope etc.)

Constraints to survey:• Highlight any limitations to the survey such as

weather conditions, sub-optimal timing and restricted access.

• Give a full explanation including any risks that features, habitat or species and their significance may not have been accounted for by the survey.

Results and discussion Give a clear, comprehensive but succinct statement of the survey findings including:• A description of the habitats and features on-site as

well as those adjacent and those in the surrounding landscape, highlighting existing connectivity. State the significance of the habitats noted and species found and how these may be impacted by the proposals.

4.0 Ecology reports

4.1 All Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plans (BMEPs) submitted to the Natural Environment Team (NET) for approval must be supported by an appropriate ecological survey report(s), unless agreed otherwise with NET prior to submission.

4.2 An EcIA is usually the main assessment that is submitted with a planning application, unless the NET agrees that a Preliminary Ecological Assessment report is sufficient. (Refer to 3.14 of the CIEEM EcIA guidelines (2018) and The background to ecological assessment (The Partnership for Biodiversity in Planning)).

4.3 Ecology reports and BMEPs must be separate documents. Please do not submit a single document containing both. The BMEP must be a separate document as it becomes the subject of a planning condition whilst the report does not.

4.4 The format and content of reports must follow current guidelines such as the Chartered Institute of Ecologists and Environmental Managers (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing (2017) and Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (2018); BS42020 Biodiversity - Code of practice for planning and development, as appropriate.

4.5 Insufficient or poorly presented reports will result in a request for more information or clarification and lead to delay. Remember that those reading reports have not been to the site.

7

• Define a Zone of Influence and provide an assessment of cumulative impacts and effects, as defined in the CIEEM EcIA guidelines (2018)

• Identify whether any of the features or habitats noted are of local, regional or national importance; are designated or qualify as important for example hedgerows under the Hedgerow Regulations (1997)and the presence of any priority or Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) habitats.

• Describe any features with the potential to support protected species, European Protected Species and Section 41 (Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act (2006)) habitats and species.

• Present protected species findings. Explain what evidence was found and include a plan drawing/sketch showing where the evidence was found; the quantity and likely age of the evidence; observed behaviours etc.

• If possible identify the species and indicate the level of use and estimated population. Discuss the use of the site by the species as suggested by the evidence. Include clearly labelled photographs.

• State the need for further survey/s and explain how and when these will be undertaken.

• The results of further surveys must be presented in additional report(s).

Required mitigationMitigation proposals must be based on the mitigation hierarchy (as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), (2018) to:

AVOID impacts where possible

MITIGATION against impacts if they cannot be avoided and provide

COMPENSATION if mitigation is not possible.

An assessment and demonstration of losses and gains is required for all developments. This must be in a table for developments of more than five residential or industrial units. An example of a table is provided in Section B.

Put forward mitigation measures that will be required to avoid or reduce to an acceptable level, adverse impacts to the identified species and habitats. Highlight any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated for and that will require compensation.

Design mitigation to avoid or reduce potentially adverse effects on the identified wildlife and habitat features of the site. This commonly will include the timing of works to avoid the most active and sensitive

seasons for protected species such as nesting birds. Mitigation must be site and species/habitat specific to ensure planning conditions relating to biodiversity are clear and enforceable (see BMEP form completion in Section A).

Provide justification for the mitigation by drawing on previous successful case studies.

Always make provision for monitoring at an appropriate level. For example, where bird boxes are included photographic evidence must be provided to the NET or two seasons of post construction monitoring of a re-located maternity bat roost.

Ensure that an annotated plan drawing or illustrative masterplan is included showing the position of mitigation features such as bat boxes, bird boxes, ponds etc. This must be included for OUTLINE planning applications.

The success of mitigation measures must be explicated in light of the likelihood of success citing relevant good practice guidelines and evidence.

Demonstrate how mitigation will be delivered and how retained / new ecological features managed and maintained.

EnhancementsMeasures over and above mitigation must be included in all submissions and detailed within reports to ensure that proposals comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018.

Enhancement measures stated must demonstrate measurable net gain (NPPF, 2018) and specify management regimes where appropriate.

All new developments must include built-in provision for birds, bats, bees and hedgehogs (see Section D).

References and appendicesUse these sections to list all relevant material, citations and legislation / policy.

Reports that are not completed according to these guidelines will be rejected.

The survey reports must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to accompany the planning application alongside an approved and NET counter-signed standard BMEP and a Certificate of Approval.

8

5.0 County wildlife data searches

Table 1 below stipulates appropriate County wildlife data search parameters:

Type of request Data required

Minor alteration to a property1 Property check for species records

Single species check (Badgers, Dormouse, Amphibians & Reptiles)

1 km species check

EPS licence (bats)

EPS licence (Greater Horseshoe bats)

2km species check

5 km species check

Small development (1-10 units)Single wind turbine

1 km designated sites & species check

Medium development (11-50 units)Solar Farm

2 km designated sites & species check

Large development (51+ units)

EIA development

2 km species & local sites

5 km national/international sites & habitats

1Minor alterations on a property with no evidence of bats but suitable features and a high impact level of development will require a search (high risk). Minor alternations on a property with no evidence of bats and a low level of impact will not require a search (low risk).

9

6.0 Completing a Biodiversity Mitigation & Enhancement Form

6.1 The Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (BMEP) form has been designed specifically for applicants and planners to readily see what mitigation, enhancement and compensation measures are being committed to and will be implemented.

6.2 Therefore it must be a complete document that contains certainties and provides a non- technical summary in each section.

6.3 It must be written so that it can easily be conditioned and enforced. Text broken down into bullet points is encouraged.

6.4 Only one BMEP is required per planning application.

6.5 The BMEP must not contain long sections repeated from the supporting ecology report. Rather it must be a succinct but inclusive summary focusing on the implementation of mitigation and outcomes for enhancement and net gain.

6.6 The BMEP and ecology report(s) must be separate documents, please do not submit a single document with both elements.

6.7 Developers or their agents are advised to contact the Dorset Environmental Records Centre (DERC) to obtain existing wildlife records from the site and its environs to inform and complement a BMEP.

6.8 Mitigation for the loss of habitat features (e.g. species-rich grassland, ponds, hedges, orchards) must aim to replace features in-line with the Defra Biodiversity Offsetting metric (see Section C for more on compensation).

6.9 The BMEP must include all mitigation and enhancement measures that need to be secured as condition of any permission. Where appropriate this will include a detailed method statement.

6.10 The BMEP must include, as a minimum, measures that can be audited once the development is completed e.g. numbers of bird and bat boxes, length and plant species of replacement hedges, area of a pond and area and seed mix of wildflower grassland creation.

6.11 Ensure that mitigation and enhancement is separated and placed in the appropriate section of the form.

6.12 The BMEP must not contain words / phrases such as ‘should’, ‘may’ or ‘it is recommended’ and must instead use definitive verbs as such ‘will be’ in order to allow planning officers to check what has been delivered for wildlife as part of the development.

6.13 A BMEP must be a stand-alone document, and include all drawings and pictures needed to support it. It must not rely on reference to other survey reports or drawings.

10

Further survey

6.14 Section B (2.0) discusses the use of worst-case scenario based BMEP for bats ONLY.

6.15 All BMEPs must be based upon up-to-date survey data. Worst-case scenario based BMEPs will not be accepted for any other species.

6.16 A BMEP must not include recommendations for further survey, especially for European Protected Species (EPS). The planning authority cannot, as a matter of law, grant planning permission for a development where there is doubt over a possible significant adverse effect of a development on an EPS.

6.17 Planning authorities must be satisfied that the correct level of information is available to determine a planning application.

Post construction monitoring

6.18 BMEPs that require an EPS licence, or cover an area greater than 0.1ha, must include provision for a post construction compliance visit.

6.19 For more simple cases provide photographic evidence of the completed mitigation measures.

6.20 The results of the post construction monitoring must be sent to the NET.

Filling out the form

6.21 Please note that a Word version of the form is available – please contact net@dorsetcc.gov.uk to request one.

Section A: Planning Application Detailsa. Ensure the BMEP is dated and all other boxes completed.

Section B: Details of Biodiversity Features Affecteda. List all species and / or features identified during survey. b. Tick the boxes for worst-case scenario, DERC search and SNCI. c. Summarise the results of the desk top studyd. A small number of photographs of the site/building and evidence can be included.

DO NOT copy long sections from the survey report. Instead use bullet points to summarise the survey findings.

Sections C: BATS ONLY Existing Bat Roost and D: BATS ONLY Mitigation Summarya. These sections are for bats only.b. For enclosed roof void roosts, give the dimensions of the existing and proposed permanent roost in metres.c. Avoid the use of symbols. d. If the existing void is to remain post works ensure that the void dimensions are repeated under ‘Details of Permanent Bat Roost’ in Section D for clarity and to ensure the void remains available to bats post works.e. Under ‘Details of mitigation, method statement and description of bat roost features’ in Section D include a plan or sketch and/or photographs indicating access, roosting features and the location (if known) of integrated bat tubes or boxes. Specify the type and number of bat tubes and/or boxes and access points.

11

f. Proposed mitigation must be likely to meet Natural England licencing criteria. A BMEP containing mitigation that is considered unlikely to be granted a licence will be rejected.g. Mitigation required must be described in definitive terms such as ‘will’ or ‘must’ avoiding wording such as ‘can’ and ‘should’.h. DO NOT include enhancements for bats in Section D. These must only be listed in Section G (for all species).

Sections E: Other Protected Species (NOT BATS) Mitigation Summary and F: Other Protected Species (NOT BATS) & Habitat Mitigation & Method Statementa. These sections are for protected species other than bats.b. Summarise the mitigation and / or method statement for all other protected species and habitat interests.c. Mitigation must be quantified (a minimum number is acceptable) for example give the metres of hedge planting, number of bird boxes etc. and must be described in definitive terms such as ‘will’ or ‘must’ avoiding wording such as ‘can’ and ‘should’.d. Do not include enhancements in this section. These should be listed in Section G only.

Section G: Enhancement Measures / On-site Compensation Measures (ALL SPECIES)a. This section is for enhancements only; do not include mitigation.b. Biodiversity enhancements are welcome and must be included in BMEPs whenever possible. The provision for this is stated within the National Planning Policy Framework (2018). (See Section D for more information).c. Use definitive language to describe the enhancements that will be implemented and quantify the measures such as the number of ponds, bat boxes etc.

Section H: Off-site Compensationa. If the development will result in a residual loss that cannot be mitigated for on-site please tick the box to indicate that this is the case. A figure quantifying the loss that will require compensation must be given to NET (e.g. m2 of grassland, metres of hedgerow etc.) b. This will be used to calculate the sum of compensation using the Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework which is in-line with the Defra Biodiversity Offsetting metric (see Section C).

Section I: Declarationa. All BMEPs submitted to NET for approval must be signed by the applicant or their agent or the rel-evant box ticked by the ecological consultant. b. A Certificate of Approval will not be released for unsigned BMEPs.

Notesa. Read the notes at the bottom of the BMEP form.

BMEPs that are not completed according to these guidelines will be rejected.

12

7.0 Certification of Biodiversity Mitigation & Enhancement Plans

7.1 Payment must be provided at the same time as Biodiversity Mitigation & Enhancement Plans (BMEPs) and reports are submitted. The review process will not begin until payment has been received.

7.2 Consultants must make clients aware of the fees applicable and how to pay; details are given on Dorsetforyou. 7.3 Certificates will only be issued for BMEPs that are signed and dated by the applicant or their agent or the relevant box ticked by the ecological consultant.

7.4 Certificates will be dated from the date of the applicant’s / agent’s signature.

7.5 Please be aware that where newly available information becomes known that materially alters or undermines the originally proposed mitigation, the Natural Environment Team (NET) reserve the right to revoke an approval.

Certificate of Approval & European Protected Species licences

7.6 A BMEP Certificate of Approval from the Natural Environment Team of DCC does not in any way prejudice Natural England’s decision on whether a licence regarding European Protected Species (EPS) should be issued to an applicant.

7.7 The two processes address different legal duties.

7.8 Natural England is the statutory nature conservation body responsible for determining EPS licence applications.

7.9 However, Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive in considering whether to grant planning permission, and specifically, they must consider whether grant of permission would lead to deliberate disturbance of an EPS. If this is the case, then the Supreme Court has made it clear that the LPA should only refuse planning permission if it believes that Natural England is unlikely to grant a licence.

7.10 Where the LPA concludes a licence for an EPS is likely to be forthcoming, or it is unsure if it would, it should not prevent a planning permission from being issued.

7.11 This situation allows an LPA the option to consider ‘worst-case scenario’ mitigation, where it is expedient to consider a planning application which is supported by a BMEP affecting an EPS, but where the timing of survey for the EPS is not ideal.

7.12 Under certain strict conditions (Refer to Section B ) this Protocol makes provision for BMEPs for bats based upon worst-case scenario mitigation.

7.13 Typically, this would require mitigation appropriate for a maternity roost for the bat species affected.

7.14 If the BMEP is approved on the basis of a worst-case scenario, the LPA is entitled to conclude that an EPS licence is unlikely to be refused by Natural England.

7.15 The Planning Liaison Group will consider the appropriateness of mitigation solutions.

13

7.16 Under worst-case scenario mitigation, applicants will need to be explicitly informed by consultants that additional summer surveys will be necessary at the EPS licencing stage.

7.17 Applicants must be advised by consultants that it is always better to have recent survey data on EPS for their application, rather than to rely on worst-case scenario mitigation planning

Failure to approve a Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan

7.18 If NET is not able to approve a BMEP owing to non-compliance of the mitigation hierarchy (NPPF, 2018) or any of the following; a lack of information, sub-standard submissions that do not

comply with this guidance, inadequate survey data or insufficient mitigation or compensation for of effects on wildlife, a planning application can still be submitted. In such cases NET will write to the Planning Authority to explain why the BMEP was not approved.

7.19 Where these circumstances apply applications will be considered by the Local Planning Authority under Natural England’s Standing Advice and will be subject to consultation with the relevant conservation bodies.

7.20 The NET BMEP is a form which is integral to the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol (DBAP) and it must only be submitted as part of a planning application alongside a valid Certificate of Approval when the DBAP is in use. BMEPs without a NET approval certificate are not valid and must not be submitted to the local planning authority. This is designed to prevent misuse of the DBAP as has sometimes happened when BMEPs are submitted without being reviewed and approved by NET. Planning authorities will be asked by the NET to remove any BMEPs without a corresponding Certificate of Approval from the planning portal.

14

8.0 Dorset County Council Violence, Aggression and Harrassment Policy

8.1 The Dorset County Council Violence, Aggression and Harassment at Work Policy is in place to ensure that, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of staff is protected and that staff are aware of their own duties i.e. to identify the risk of such incident occurring and to report such incidents when they do occur.

8.2 The policy applies to all council employees. The policy states that:

‘Dorset County Council believes that all incidents of Violence, Aggression and Harassment to employees is unacceptable and is committed to providing full support to any employee who suffers any form of Violence, Aggression or Harassment in the course of, or arising out of, their official duties.’

‘Information will be available to members of the public in the form of a statement that violence is unacceptable and that the County Council will seek to take legal action if necessary to maintain employee safety and wellbeing.’

8.3 The policy provides definitions as follows:

Violence is defined as: ‘Any incident in which a person is abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work’. Aggression is defined as: feelings of anger or antipathy resulting in hostile or violent behaviour; readiness to attack or confront.

Harassment is defined as: the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. 8.4 These definitions also include verbal abuse or threat, threatening behaviour, any assault, any serious or persistent harassment and extends from what may seem to be minor incidents to serious assaults and threat against the employee’s family.

Feedback

8.5 This guidance has been informed by and compiled with the help and expertise of a range of consultees including planning officers, ecological consultants, Dorset Wildlife Trust, Natural England and other local government ecologists.

8.6 Producing guidance is an iterative process and constructive critique and feedback is welcomed.

8.7 Please send comments and suggestions, which may be included in future revisions of this guidance to net@dorsetcc.gov.uk.

15

Complaints

8.8 To make a formal complaint please do so under the Dorset County Council complaints procedure which is available here https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/comments. A complaint can be submitted by following the links on this web page.

8.9 You may be directed to this policy by the Natural Environment Team (NET) if informal complaints relating to the DBAP process or the NET are repeatedly received by an individual consultant / consultancy.

1

Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol

Guidance for consultants

Natural Environment Team

Section B Mitigation

version 3 autumn2018

2

Contents page no

1.0 Introduction 3 Example of a loss and gain table 4

2.0 Worst-case scenario based Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plans for bats 6

3.0 Hedges 8 Dormice 10

4.0 Trees (not woodland) 10

5.0 Watercourses and water bodies 11

3

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The mitigation hierarchy stated within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2018) must be adhered to and demonstrated:

‘If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.’ (Paragraph 176)

1.2 The NPPF also identifies how the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment (Paragraph 171), including:

• protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils; • recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from

natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;

• minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures (See Section D).

1.3 For the purposes of the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol and Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework (Section C), the term ‘mitigation’ typically refers to measures that reduce and / or minimise impacts within the red line planning application boundary. The term ‘compensation’ is used where a residual loss on site is either addressed by habitat creation outside of the red line planning boundary, or where this is not possible through financial compensation.

1.4 Financial compensation is only considered as a last resort when the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant permission and a residual loss in biodiversity still remains after the mitigation hierarchy has been applied; avoid, mitigate and ‘habitat’ compensation.

1.5 Avoidance will be applied where there are sites of high ecological value such as important hedgerows, nationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and Sites of Nature Conservation Interest (Dorset County Wildlife sites) and it is not possible to maintain ‘continued ecological functionality’ of a site for protected species through appropriate mitigation. However, it should be noted that in these cases if a Local Planning Authority is minded to grant planning permission financial compensation will be required.

1.6 Ecological losses and gains will be clearly identified with appropriate mitigation and off-site compensation (first) or financial compensation where there is still a residual loss. This can be presented in a table for any size of development but must be presented in a table for developments of more than five residential or industrial units. It is appropriate to include loss and gain tables in ecology reports are are not required within Biodivserity Mitigiation and Enhancement Plan forms. An example loss and gain table is provided below.

4

Broa

d H

abita

t Ty

pe

Hab

itat o

rSp

ecie

s ha

bita

tBr

ief

desc

ript

ion

Qua

lity

and

man

agem

ent.

Refe

r to

guid

ance

fo

r eac

h ha

bita

t.

Are

a or

le

ngth

(h

a or

m

)

On-

Site

m

itiga

tion

Des

crip

tion,

A

rea

(ha)

or

leng

th (m

)

Resi

dual

loss

or

de

teri

orat

ion

in q

ualit

y of

ha

bita

t(h

a)

Prop

osed

off

-si

te

com

pens

atio

n (

ha o

r m)

Resi

dual

loss

(h

a) fo

r m

itiga

tion

area

/le

ngth

and

co

mpe

nsat

ion

calc

ulat

ion.

On-

site

en

hanc

emen

ts a

nd

Net

Gai

n

AB

A –

B =

CD

C –

D

x ap

prop

riate

co

mpe

nsat

ion

mul

tiplie

rs

E

Hed

gero

wSp

ecie

s- ri

ch

Doe

s no

t mee

t cr

iteria

for

Hed

gero

w

Regu

latio

ns

1997

In g

ood

cond

ition

an

d no

t req

uirin

g ga

ppin

g up

or r

esto

-ra

tion

50 m

25 m

of n

ew

nativ

e sp

ecie

s-ric

h he

dger

ow

plan

ting

to

conn

ect w

ith

exis

ting

neig

hbou

ring

hedg

e

25 m

0 m

not

av

aila

ble

smal

l de

velo

pmen

t si

te.

25 –

0 =

25

m

25 m

x m

ultip

lier

of 2

for s

peci

es-

rich

hedg

e

50 m

equ

ival

ent

of n

ew s

peci

es-

rich

hedg

e w

ould

be

requ

ired

Enha

ncem

ent o

f he

dge

on s

ite b

y pl

antin

g-up

sm

all

gaps

. Doe

s no

t cou

nt

as m

itiga

tion

as

limite

d up

grad

ing

of

cond

ition

or

dist

inct

iven

ess.

Si

te h

edge

row

m

anag

emen

t pla

n re

quire

d.G

rass

land

Sem

i-im

prov

ed

with

2 in

dica

tor

spec

ies

pres

ent,

occa

sion

al in

sw

ard.

B ot

h D

orse

t no

tabl

es.

Gra

ssla

nd o

f lo

cal i

nter

est

Ung

raze

d an

d le

ft

unm

anag

ed fo

r 3

year

s. Pr

evio

us h

ay

cuts

.

1.5

haPu

blic

ope

n sp

ace

– 0.

25 h

a to

be

man

aged

fo

r wild

life

with

gr

assy

mar

gins

. SU

DS

with

sw

ales

–

0.05

ha

1.1

haN

ot a

vail-

able

and

fiel

d bo

unde

d by

de

velo

pmen

t on

one

sid

e,

arab

le o

n th

e ot

her.

1.1h

a x

1.5(

R) x

2

(S) x

1.4

(T) =

4.

62 h

a

4.62

ha

equi

vale

nt o

f gr

assl

and

of

loca

l int

eres

t w

ould

be

requ

ired.

3 m

etre

wild

life

buffe

rs w

ill b

e in

clud

ed a

gain

st

hedg

erow

s w

ith

man

agem

ent

outli

ned

in

Man

agem

ent P

lan

for h

edge

row

s, Pu

blic

Ope

n Sp

ace

and

swal

es.

Example of a loss and gain table

5

1.7 Mitigation must minimise impacts by changes to design, timing or working practices, to the point where at a minimum, there is a neutral effect on biodiversity. For smaller development sites this may not always be possible in which case off-site compensation must be considered.

1.8 Mitigation should also consider including alternative habitats of biodiversity value. Enhancement of other areas such community gardens, playing fields, allotments, SUDS, swales, SANGS or other green infrastructure may contribute to residual loss provided they have clearly defined wildlife benefits and contribute to Dorset’s ecological network in addition to their primary purpose (in line with the Government’s 25-year Environment Plan; Nature Recovery Network and securing net gain). Long-term management of these features will need to be secured. For habitats of low biodiversity value, creation of amenity grassland, gardens, SUDS and green infrastructure count towards mitigation for loss of these habitats but not for semi-improved grassland types.

1.9 Adequate survey must be undertaken to inform the mitigation and enhancement required. (BS 42020, chapter 6)

1.10 The retention of ecological features and links must be a priority on all projects submitted under the DBAP.

1.11 Mitigation and precautionary measures must be designed into schemes at the earliest opportunity. Applicants must commit to all necessary mitigation measures via an approved BMEP prior to the submission of a planning application.

1.12 Where guidance is published that prescribes mitigation it must be adopted. Where necessary and appropriate bespoke mitigation can be put forward for consideration by the Planning Liaison Group under the DBAP.

1.13 The planning authority must be provided with the degree of surety about the likelihood of the efficacy and practicality of the mitigation. Where monitoring of mitigation is appropriate, the mechanism for this must be clearly given in the BMEP. For example, the nature and duration of compliance visits and bat roost monitoring and who will undertake the monitoring must be written into the BMEP. Applicants must be made aware by consultants that all measures within the BMEP form a condition of their planning permission.

1.14 An appropriate and proportionate level of ecological supervision / Ecological Clerk of Works must be included in BMEPs.

Broa

d H

abita

t Ty

pe

Hab

itat o

rSp

ecie

s ha

bita

tBr

ief

desc

ript

ion

Qua

lity

and

man

agem

ent.

Refe

r to

guid

ance

fo

r eac

h ha

bita

t.

Are

a or

le

ngth

(h

a or

m

)

On-

Site

m

itiga

tion

Des

crip

tion,

A

rea

(ha)

or

leng

th (m

)

Resi

dual

loss

or

de

teri

orat

ion

in q

ualit

y of

ha

bita

t(h

a)

Prop

osed

off

-si

te

com

pens

atio

n (

ha o

r m)

Resi

dual

loss

(h

a) fo

r m

itiga

tion

area

/le

ngth

and

co

mpe

nsat

ion

calc

ulat

ion.

On-

site

en

hanc

emen

ts a

nd

Net

Gai

n

AB

A –

B =

CD

C –

D

x ap

prop

riate

co

mpe

nsat

ion

mul

tiplie

rs

E

Hed

gero

wSp

ecie

s- ri

ch

Doe

s no

t mee

t cr

iteria

for

Hed

gero

w

Regu

latio

ns

1997

In g

ood

cond

ition

an

d no

t req

uirin

g ga

ppin

g up

or r

esto

-ra

tion

50 m

25 m

of n

ew

nativ

e sp

ecie

s-ric

h he

dger

ow

plan

ting

to

conn

ect w

ith

exis

ting

neig

hbou

ring

hedg

e

25 m

0 m

not

av

aila

ble

smal

l de

velo

pmen

t si

te.

25 –

0 =

25

m

25 m

x m

ultip

lier

of 2

for s

peci

es-

rich

hedg

e

50 m

equ

ival

ent

of n

ew s

peci

es-

rich

hedg

e w

ould

be

requ

ired

Enha

ncem

ent o

f he

dge

on s

ite b

y pl

antin

g-up

sm

all

gaps

. Doe

s no

t cou

nt

as m

itiga

tion

as

limite

d up

grad

ing

of

cond

ition

or

dist

inct

iven

ess.

Si

te h

edge

row

m

anag

emen

t pla

n re

quire

d.G

rass

land

Sem

i-im

prov

ed

with

2 in

dica

tor

spec

ies

pres

ent,

occa

sion

al in

sw

ard.

B ot

h D

orse

t no

tabl

es.

Gra

ssla

nd o

f lo

cal i

nter

est

Ung

raze

d an

d le

ft

unm

anag

ed fo

r 3

year

s. Pr

evio

us h

ay

cuts

.

1.5

haPu

blic

ope

n sp

ace

– 0.

25 h

a to

be

man

aged

fo

r wild

life

with

gr

assy

mar

gins

. SU

DS

with

sw

ales

–

0.05

ha

1.1

haN

ot a

vail-

able

and

fiel

d bo

unde

d by

de

velo

pmen

t on

one

sid

e,

arab

le o

n th

e ot

her.

1.1h

a x

1.5(

R) x

2

(S) x

1.4

(T) =

4.

62 h

a

4.62

ha

equi

vale

nt o

f gr

assl

and

of

loca

l int

eres

t w

ould

be

requ

ired.

3 m

etre

wild

life

buffe

rs w

ill b

e in

clud

ed a

gain

st

hedg

erow

s w

ith

man

agem

ent

outli

ned

in

Man

agem

ent P

lan

for h

edge

row

s, Pu

blic

Ope

n Sp

ace

and

swal

es.

6

2.0 Worst-case scenario mitigation for bats only

2.1 BMEPs involving bat roost destruction, or ecologically significant modifications to roosts supporting Pipistrelles and other crevice roosting species, must be supported by an appropriate level of emergence / re-entry survey according to current guidelines (BCT, 2016).

2.2 Applicants must be advised that it is always better to have recent survey data in support of their application, rather than to rely on worst-case scenario mitigation planning, and they must plan for summer surveys whenever possible.

2.3 Where there is time pressure to submit a planning application which may affect bats, but it is not possible to complete the required surveys, then worst-case scenario applications may be considered under the circumstances set out below.

2.4 Worst-case scenario based Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plans (BMEPs) will ONLY be accepted for bats and only then with strict adherence to the conditions set out below. Worst- case scenario BMEPs will not be accepted for any other species at any time of year.

2.5 BMEP submissions with worst-case scenario based mitigation must provide for a significant roost and be supported by a strongly reasoned justification statement. All such cases will require a European Protected Species (EPS) licence and therefore will need to subsequently complete the necessary supporting seasonal surveys.

2.6 Worst-case scenario BMEPs will never be accepted where high / very high conservation roosts (i.e. of rarer species or of three or more species) or where features offering high potential are identified.

2.7 In cases involving bat roost destruction, or ecologically significant alterations, NET will only accept worst-case scenario based mitigation where full surveys would result in a proven significant delay to the application. This is to avoid planning permissions being delayed due to the need for further seasonal surveys to meet the requirements of an EPS licence.

2.8 Worst-case scenario based BMEPs will only be accepted between October and January.

2.9 Worst-case scenario BMEPs will not be accepted for potential hibernation roosts. Appropriate winter survey must be conducted.

2.10 All worst-case scenario bat mitigation plans involving bat roost destruction, or ecologically significant alterations to a roost (loft conversions, dormer windows, etc.) must include the identification of species involved through DNA analysis of bat droppings.

2.11 Consultants must make it clear to their clients that worst-case scenario based mitigation:

• is optional and intended to reduce unnecessary delays to the determination of planning applications

• is not a requirement and if client declines the option they will be required to delay their application until the results of further seasonal surveys are known

• runs the risk of over-mitigation. Best practice survey effort can avoid this to justify the level of mitigation necessary which should be proportionate to the level of impact to the number of bats, the species and their roosting behaviour at the location.

7

• will require additional surveys will be required for an EPS licence application

• May require an application to the Local Planning Authority for a change in compliance/ condition to the original grant of permission and an additional charge for NET review and re-approval if any later surveys lead to an amended BMEP

2.12 Refer to Section B for information about worst-case scenario based BMEPs for bats and the granting of a Natural England EPS licence.

8

3.0 Hedgerows

3.1 As linear features hedges make a unique contribution to biodiversity. Assessment must take into account length, distinctiveness and condition and spatial relationship as well as their landscape or historic value.

3.2 The distinctiveness of hedgerows must be assessed using the wildlife and landscape criteria set out within the Hedgerow Regulations (1997) to identify ‘important’ hedges. These criteria take into account species composition, woody and woodland species, standard trees and other habitat features such as a bank or wall.

3.3 Hedgerows qualifying as ‘important’ under the Regulations will be viewed in the same way as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) and proposals to remove them or sections of them is not accepted under the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol (DBAP). This accords with the mitigation hierarchy (see 1.1 above) by seeking to avoid impacts rather than attempting to mitigate them.

3.4 For the purposes of the DBAP hedgerows are divided into:

i. important hedges ii. species-rich hedges typically comprising five or more native woody species within an average 30m length. NB: this category may also apply to the hedges which may have fewer woody species but have a rich basal herbaceous flora iii. species-poor hedges which may also include those with exotics / non-natives present.

3.5 ‘Condition’ must be assessed with reference to the following attributes which must be detailed within an ecology report:

• height• width• gap hedge base• length and frequency of gaps within hedge• invasive species• damage

3.6 The Hedgerow Survey Handbook (Defra, 2011) is recommended for more detailed guidance.

3.7 The overall assessment taking into account length, distinctiveness and condition and spatial relationship will provide the basis for determining the level of mitigation and / or compensation required.

3.8 Where replacement planting is required as mitigation, the length of the replacement hedgerow will be calculated using the multipliers set out in the Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework (DBCF) (refer to Section C)

3.9 Mitigation measures can include the restoration and enhancement of existing hedges, however a measurable upgrading of distinctiveness and / or condition must be demonstrated.

3.10 Limited gap filling and improved management alone will not qualify as mitigation for hedgerow loss and will be considered as ‘enhancement’ contributing to securing biodiversity net gain rather than as mitigation.

9

3.11 Where a hedge will be translocated on-site or a new hedge is being planted adjacent to the location of an existing hedgerow there may still be a requirement to address the interim loss of biodiversity value and function in accordance with the DBCF multipliers.

3.12 Hedges bounding green lanes and double hedges must be treated as two hedges and not a single hedge.

3.13 A hedge with more than 90% non-native species comprising its structure, will not be regarded as a hedgerow for the purposes of compensation. Mitigation however, will still need to be applied as for example it may be used as a navigational feature by bats.

3.14 Residual loss of hedgerows will be compensated under the DBCF (see Section C).

3.15 Where trees are present within the hedge line the Root Protection Zone must be increased as per BS 5837:2012. See 4.7 below for veteran trees. 3.16 All retained hedges and new hedges which are included as mitigation or enhancement must not be included within gardens of new residential development and must be buffered e.g. by public open space, SANGs, public rights of way and other green infrastructure and SUDs features.

3.17 During construction hedgerows must be protected by appropriate buffers of no less than 2m from the edge of the hedge, increasing to allow protection of root zones in-line with BS 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. Recommendations.

3.18 New hedgerows must include standard native trees. The Countryside Stewardship grants scheme advice under TE1: Planting standard hedgerow tree recommends irregular spacing with a minimum of 20m between trees to allow for full crown development.

3.19 Hedges within development sites must be subject to a minimum 2m buffer either side of the hedge starting at the edge of the hedge. For non-residential developments this will be increased to a minimum 5m buffer. (Cornwall planning for Biodiversity Guide (2018))

3.20 Hedgerows with protected species interests will also require a buffer during and post construction and this must be agreed with the NET. Management of the buffer post development must be detailed in the BMEP. Refer to Hazel Dormouse; 3.23 - 3.25 below.

3.21 The long-term management of hedges; their associated buffers and other ecological features such as ponds and woodlands must be addressed and included within management plans detailed within BMEPs.

3.22 The terms of Construction and Ecological Management Plans (CEMPs) and Landscape and Ecological Management Plans (LEMPs) must be stipulated as a requirement within BMEPs along with a statement that such plans must be provided to and approved by the Local Planning Authority where appropriate.

10

Hazel dormouse

3.23 The NET will accept the use of footprint tunnels as a survey methodology; please contact the NET to discuss cases where this methodology in combination or alone is being proposed.

3.24 Hedges with Hazel dormice present must be retained and protected from development both during construction and in perpetuity. Management plans must be provided which might include techniques such as hedge laying and will need to ensure arboreal connectivity it maintained. Additional planting at the hedge base should seek to curtail cat predation where residential development is concerned by allowing the growth of scrub and planting species such as bramble, gorse and where soil conditions allow Butchers broom.

3.25 For hedges and woodland edge habitat with Hazel dormice present, buffers during and post construction and their on-going management post construction must be agreed with the NET. The habitats / planting within buffers and how they are situated in relation to the development must also be agreed.

NB. This section will be expanded and updated when conservation and mitigation guidelines for the species is published in 2019.

4.0 Trees

4.1 Trees must be assessed for their own ecological value and as landscape and their importance to habitat connectivity and continuity.

4.2 Assessments must include consideration of the level of predicted impact during and post construction and must be included in ecology reports and BMEPs.

4.3 Ancient semi-natural woodland habitat must have a minimum buffer of 20m (Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council Landscape and Biodiversity SPD (pg 54-55))

4.4 Ancient, veteran and notable trees require special attention in accordance with the NPPF (2018) and British Standard BS. 5837:2012. Ancient and veteran trees are classed as irreplaceable habitats and must be assessed at the earliest possible stage in the design process with the presumption such trees will be retained. Veteran features such as dead wood and cavities provide valuable wildlife habitats for species such as bats, fungi, birds, invertebrates and lichen.

4.5 Ancient, veteran and other notable trees are defined by the Ancient Tree Forum. In addition, the VETREE website provides useful information and guidance.

4.6 The ecological consultant will review the arboricultural report and ensure the Tree Protection Plan has addressed ancient, veteran and notable trees which should almost always be included in Category A3 (high quality, cultural value including conservation). The design, protection and management will ensure their long-term retention.

4.7 Root Protection Zones (RPZ) for ancient, veteran and notable trees will be calculated as an area with a radius 15 times the diameter of the tree at breast height or 5m beyond the crown whichever is the greater. (see Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: protecting them from development).

11

4.8 Where appropriate, other trees (not currently ancient, veteran or notable) within the tree populations on site should be highlighted as the future Veteran and Notable trees and provided with appropriate mitigation / RPZs.

4.9 Tree replacement will follow the recommended levels set by Bristol City Council (listed in the listed Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 2012). Where trees will be felled for development, replacement will be dependent upon the size of the trees to be lost and in accordance with the following table:

Trunk of tree lost to development (cm) * No. of replacement trees required (all replacement trees must be 16-18cm girth)

Less than 19.9 1

20 - 29.9 2

30 - 39.9 3

40 – 49.9 4

50 – 59.9 5

60 – 69.9 6

70 – 79.9 7

80 + 8

*With the exception of notable, veteran or ancient trees.

4.10 50% of replacement or new trees will be large canopy trees such as oak, lime and beech.

4.11 Replacement and new tree planting will include a combination of at least 75% British native including smaller canopy trees such as hawthorn, field maple, rowan, whitebeam, silver birch, crab apple, willow and 25% non-native such as fruit trees and sycamore to ensure ecological value and resilience.

4.12 Where the grant of permission for development will result in the loss of a notable, veteran or ancient tree, the level of compensation tree planting required on-site will be calculated in accordance with recognised methodology Capital Asset Value Amenity trees (CAVAT).

4.13 If tree replacement cannot be secured on-site then CAVAT will be used to determine the level of financial compensation required under the Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework. (See Section C).

5.0 Watercourses and water bodies

5.1 For main rivers a minimum buffer zone of 8m must be provided with a minimum 5m buffer zone provided for non-main rivers, ditches, or ponds. Buffer zones start at the top of the bank not mid- channel. (Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council Landscape and Biodiversity SPD) (pg 22).

1

Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol

Guidance for consultants

Natural Environment Team

Section C Compensation& The Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework

version 3 autumn2018

2

Contents page no

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 The Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework 3 Risk Metric 4 Spatial Metric 4 Time Metric 5 Compensation costings 6 Worked examples 7

3.0 Habitat assessment 8 Grassland 8 Hedges 10 Trees 10

Appendix A Indicator Plant List including Dorset Notables 12

3

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Financial compensation is only considered as a last resort when the Local Planning Authority is minded to grant planning permission after the mitigation hierarchy: firstly to avoid and secondly to mitigate, has been applied but a residual loss of habitat(s) persists.

1.2 In cases where it is not possible to fully mitigate for the loss of biodiversity interests on a development site then applicants must be encouraged to avoid residual losses via off-site compensation measures. This is necessary to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paragraph 175) (2018).

1.3 In addition, where Natural Environment Team (NET) consider that on-site mitigation and enhancement will not contribute to maximising ecological networks and wildlife corridors, off- site compensation measures could be achieved either by providing:

• firstly, physical enhancement to a site elsewhere in the control of the applicant or if this is not possible and as a last resort;

• a financial contribution.

1.4 Enhancements over and above mitigation and compensation requirements will need to be included to demonstrate a measurable net gain for nature conservation and ensure compliance with the NPPF (2018).

1.5 Financial compensation will be agreed on a case-by-case basis.

2.0 The Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework

2.1 The Dorset Biodiversity Compensation Framework (DBCF) includes a metric for calculating the cost of replacing habitats and follows national guidelines established through the Defra pilot schemes and subsequent updates of those schemes.

2.2 The ‘Defra Biodiversity Metric’ is currently being reviewed by Natural England with the aim of launching a revised metric in autumn 2018. However, at time of writing this guidance no further information has been published. A pre-publication survey report is available here. The DBCF will be reviewed and amended, where appropriate, when further information is made available by Natural England.

2.3 Compensation required will be based on survey information and measurements supplied by the ecological consultant and reviewed by NET and the Dorset Appraisal Biodiversity Protocol (DBAP) Planning Liaison Group.

2.4 Typically, the DBCF does not consider the use of a site by protected species. They will need to be protected from development by applying national guidelines. However, there may be cases where loss of a species’ habitat may need to be considered under the DBCF.

2.5 The level of financial compensation will be determined using published Defra metrics and costings (see 2.7 below) which take account of the type and amount of habitat to be lost and the cost of recreating and maintaining the same habitat.

2.6 Compensation will not typically be sought for amounts of less than £2,000 but this will be at the discretion of the NET.

4

2.7 Financial compensation required = Compensation area (Area lost (A) x Risk (R) x Spatial (S) x Time (T) multipliers) x total compensation cost (the capital cost + 30-year discounted maintenance cost) as set out below: Risk Metric

Risk Metric Multipliers for different categories of delivery risk representing difficulty of recreation.

Typical Habitats Multiplier

Very High or impossible Creation of Aquifer Fed Naturally Fluctuating Water Bodies, Maritime cliff and slopes, Ancient Woodland, Purple Moor Grass

10

High Creation of Wet Heath and Rush Pastures, Coastal Vegetated Shingle, Lowland Fen

3

Medium Creation of Acid, Lowland Meadow and Calcareous Grassland (SNCI and grassland of local interest), Lowland Heathland creation, Lowland mixed deciduous woodland, Saltmarsh

Restoration of Lowland Heathland (including removal of pines)

1.5

Low Creation of Arable field margins, improved and semi-improved poor grassland, Ponds, Traditional orchards, Reedbeds, Coastal Floodplain Grazing Marsh, Saline Lagoons, species poor/species rich hedgerows (other than ancient), BAP tall herb communities (e.g. nettle beds, ungrazed wet grassland, etc), mature scrub

1

Spatial Metric

Spatial Location parameters MultiplierCompensation habitat (CH) is directly contributing to a spatially identified target or objective for the habitat in question e.g. CH is located in close proximity and delivers the same spatial ecological functions to area affected, or in an agreed alternative priority location that is delivering NIA and Nature Map objectives.

To be used when compensating for habitats that will contribute to ecological network irrespective of locality i.e. widespread habitats e.g. low value ruderal, rough improved grassland, non BAP tall herb communities, etc.

1

Compensation habitat (CH) is located elsewhere, but is nevertheless considered to be significantly contributing to the buffering, linking, restoring or expanding of existing habitat.

NB: To be used where recreation site has not been identified e.g. where compensation will be delivered through funding of Dorset BAP Partnership Project.

2

Compensation habitat (CH) is not strategically located and is not considered to be significantly contributing to an ecological network.

3

5

Time Metric* (time to fully restore habitat)

Years to target condition Habitats to be created / restored Multiplier5 Creation of Ponds, species poor grasslands, non BAP tall herb

communities1.2

10 Creation of Reedbed, Mudflats, Saline Lagoons

Traditional Orchards

Minimum period for creating grasslands of local interest with appropriate soil conditions.

Restoration of Lowland heathland where heathland soils intact e.g. via removal of conifer / dense scrub.

1.4

15 1.7

20 Minimum period for creating BAP priority grasslands of SNCI standard with appropriate soil conditions.

Minimum period for creation of native mature scrub (W21,22,23)

2.0

25 2.430 Minimum period for creating BAP priority grasslands of SNCI

standard with inappropriate soil conditions. NB To be used where recreation site has not been identified e.g. where compensation will be delivered through funding.

Minimum period for creation of mature scrub habitats without planting (i.e. natural regeneration).

2.8

32 + Mature woodland

Lowland heathland creation where heathland soils modified or improved. NB: To be used where recreation site has not been identified e.g. where compensation will be delivered through funding.

Minimum period for creation or recreation of BAP priority habitats of SSSI standard.

3

*Multipliers for different time periods using a 3.5% discount rate

6

Compensation costings

Biodiversity Compensation Costs per hectareHabitat to be compensated

Annual maintenance (based on HLS payment rates)

Combined maintenance costs over 30 years maintenance (with 3.5 % annual discount)

Capital cost of creating habitat

Based on average costs from Warwickshire

Total Compensation required

(capital cost + 30 discounted maintenance cost)

Lowland Meadows /pasture, improved and semi-improved poor Grassland

£200 £3,807 £1,498 £5,305

Lowland Dry Acid Grassland

£200 £3,807 £1,714 £5,521

Lowland Heathland £200 £3,807 £1,304 £5,111Lowland Calcareous Grassland

£200 £3,807 £2,408 £6,215

Coastal and Floodplain Grazing Marsh

£335 £6,377 £1,504 £7,881

Ponds (large individual pond)

£90 £1,713 £1,476 £3,189

Reedbeds £60 (for maintenance of

established)

£1,142 £1,486 £2,628

Fens £60 £1,142 £674 £1,816Native Woodland £122 £2,322 £2,126 £4,448Traditional Orchards £250 £4,759 £1,123 £5,882

Wood-Pasture and Parkland

£180 £3,426 £1,502 £4,928

Hedgerow (per meter) £7 £133 £9 £142 (per meter)

7

Worked examples

1. GrasslandHabitat and area/length of residual loss 1ha of Grassland of Local Interest

Compensation site not known Total value of compensation required = Area of compensatory habitat required1 x

(average capital cost of habitat creation + 30 year maintenance costs per ha)2

1Compensatory habitat required = 1ha (A) x 1.5 (R) x 2 (S) x 1.4 (T) = 4.2ha2Funding required for 1ha Grassland of Local Interest =

£3,807 (30 years of HLS maintenance payment rates @ £200) + £1,498 per ha (average cost of lowland meadow creation in year 1) = £5,305/ha

Compensation sum required = £22,281.00

NotesCalculating equivalent cost of compensation:• Specified management period = perpetuity. Given discount rate of revenue costs it is considered

pragmatic to use 30 years standard payment as after this length of time incremental benefit is relatively small i.e. perpetuity equivalent to 30 years discounted.

• Average cost of capital works (as per Warwickshire) = £1,498 per ha (lowland meadow creation) in year 1.

• HLS annual payment rate for maintaining target habitat for 30 years adjusted with standard discount rates of 3.5%

2. HedgerowHabitat and area/length of residual loss Overall loss of 70m of hedgerow on development

site: 20m species-rich intact hedgerow50m species-poor hedgerow with gaps and poached edges grading in to a garden hedge with non-native species.

Compensatory habitat required = For 20m of species-rich hedge, apply the hedgerow multiplier x 2 = 40mFor 50m species-poor hedgerow, apply the hedgerow multiplier x 1 = 50m

= 90mMitigation proposted on-site 50m species-rich native hedge planted

adjacent to open green space with buffer margin of a minimum of 2m

Compensation sum required = 40m of compensatory hedgerow habitat at £142 per metre for capital cost and 30 discounted maintenance costs. £5,680.00

8

2.8 The original Defra metrics have been adapted to incorporate a list of Dorset habitats, and their sensitivity and ability to be recreated.

2.9 The value of new habitats created on-site such as ponds, reedbeds and orchards or improvements such as enhancing grasslands swards will be taken into account when evaluating residual biodiversity loss and any compensation required. Their value will depend on the site, adjacent habitat and species and the contribution made to ecological connectivity. Where the mitigation for habitats of low biodiversity value includes the creation or restoration of priority habitats, these will make a more significant contribution to reducing residual loss compared to replacing ‘like-for-like’.

2.10 Financial compensation will be secured via a Section 106 agreement / Unilateral Undertaking between the developer and local planning authority or between the developer and Dorset County Council (DCC).

2.11 For compensation involving third party land an agreement will be required between developer, owner of the compensation site and the planning authority.

2.12 The DCC Natural Environment Team (in conjunction with the DCC External Obligations Manager via agreements with Local Planning Authorities (LPAs)) will act as co-ordinator and administrator of these funds. Working in partnership with the LPAs, Natural England, the Local Nature Partnership, Dorset Wildlife Trust and other conservation charities as appropriate, the compensation funds will deliver specific area-based projects, providing the best outcomes for Dorset’s natural environment / delivering specific compensatory habitat management or creation.

2.13 Compensation monies may be combined to enable larger projects with multiple habitat creation objectives. Further details will be provided when available.

2.14 Financial contribution is encouraged to support the work of Dorset biodiversity organisations and partnerships including Local Planning Authorities, Dorset County Council, Natural England, the Local Nature Partnership and the Dorset Wildlife Trust and other conservation charities as appropriate in developing a list of projects.

3.0 Habitat assessment

3.1 The compensation required for semi-natural grassland, hedges and trees will require a more detailed assessment of their biodiversity value to ensure the correct metric is applied.

Grassland

3.2 Assessment of required grassland mitigation and compensation will depend on the conservation value of the grassland affected by development. Different multipliers are used to reflect the conservation value of grassland types and the difficulty to recreate them.

3.3 For the purposes of assessment under the DBAP and the DBCF grasslands are divided into:

• Improved • Semi-improved (poor)• Semi-improved grassland of local interest• Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI ) quality grassland

9

3.4 Improved grasslands are defined by Phase 1 habitat survey as grassland dominated by grasses with a low diversity of forb species and more than 50% Lolium perenne, Trifolium repens and other agricultural species.

3.5 Residual loss of improved grassland, such as NVC MG 7 and some MG 6 communities which have been improved in the past will require compensation if the residual loss is over 1ha. The risk, spatial and time multipliers used will be 1. The total compensation cost will be the same as for Lowland Meadows.

3.6 A distinction is made between the quality of semi-improved grasslands based upon the presence and abundance (DAFOR) of ‘indicator species’ in the sward.

3.7 A list of plants, ‘indicator species’ which are considered important for assessing biodiversity value of grassland communities in Dorset are listed below. The list is based on the Common Standards Monitoring guidance for assessing condition of grassland features (Robertson & Jefferson 2000), adapted for non–statutory sites (Hewins et al 2005). Additional species have been added for Dorset including Dorset Notables, used in the assessment of Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI) sites and other plant species classed as good ‘indicators’ of grassland status. The list of indicator species will be reviewed from time to time by the SNCI panel and Dorset Environmental Records Centre (DERC).

3.8 For grassland to be assessed as a grassland of local interest at least one of the following must apply:

• 2 indicators, which must be Dorset Notables, should be occasional in sward or • 3 indicator species (Dorset Notables and/or other indicator species) occasional in the sward or• 4 indicators (Dorset Notables and/or other indicator species) present in the sward.

3.9 An indicator plant list including Dorset Notables is produced in Appendix A below.

3.10 Grassland which is semi-improved but not of local interest quality will be classed as species-poor for the purposes of compensation and the appropriate multiplier used.

3.11 Grassland supporting five or more Dorset Notables will be SNCI quality. Development on these sites will be avoided.

3.12 Assessment must involve a desk study considering natural conditions of the area, soil type, degree of management and other evidence such as old field boundaries.

3.13 Every effort must be made to establish the nature of the grassland through the use a range of resources such as aerials, DERC habitat maps, historical data and pers. comm. with land owners and managers. Desk top information will be particularly important if surveys are undertaken at a sub-optimal time (October to April inclusive).

3.14 Field assessment must take place between May and August (September is acceptable on permanent pasture) and before hay cuts.

3.15 Issues can arise when surveys are undertaken at the wrong time of year or when fields have been too heavily grazed. If there is a strong indication from desk top information and phase 1 survey that the grassland could be of local interest, the botanical survey must be delayed until the appropriate time.

10

3.16 For residual loss of improved grassland on-site; compensation will only be required for areas over for sums over £2,000.

3.17 For habitats of low biodiversity value, the creation of amenity grassland, gardens, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and green infrastructure will count towards mitigation for loss of these habitats but not for semi-improved grassland types.

Hedgerows

3.18 A hedgerow is defined as any boundary line of trees or shrubs over 20m long and less than 5m wide, and where any gaps between the trees or shrub species are less that 20m wide (Bickmore, 2002). Any bank, wall, ditch or tree within 2m of the centre of the hedgerow is considered to be part of the hedgerow habitat, as is the herbaceous vegetation within 2m of the centre of the hedgerow. A simplified key in the Defra Hedgerow Survey Handbook (2011) can be used to determine whether or not a feature is classed as a hedgerow.

3.19 A simple multiplier is used based on the type and quality of the hedgerow to be lost.

3.20 If on-site migration or off-site compensation hedgerow planting is not possible, payment of financial compensation will be required in accordance with the multipliers below.

Hedgerow type and quality Multiplier

applied

Hedges which qualify as ‘Important Hedges’ under The Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

3

Species-rich hedges which contain typically 5 or more native woody species on average in a 30 metre length.This multiplier may also apply to the hedges which may have fewer woody species but have a rich basal herbaceous flora.

2

Species -poor hedges which may also include those with exotics /non-natives present.

1

Trees

3.21 Ancient, Veteran and Notable trees require special attention in accordance with the NPPF (2018) and British Standard BS. 5837:2012. Ancient and veteran trees are classed as irreplaceable habitats and must be assessed at the earliest possible stage in the design process with the presumption such trees will be retained. Veteran features such as dead wood and cavities provide valuable wildlife habitats for species such as bats, fungi, birds, invertebrates and lichen.

3.22 Where the grant of permission for development will result in the loss of a notable, veteran or ancient tree, the level of compensation tree planting required on- site will be calculated in accordance with recognised methodology Capital Asset Value Amenity trees (CAVAT).

3.23 If tree replacement cannot be secured on-site then CAVAT will be used to determine the level of financial compensation required.

11

12

App

endi

x A

Indi

cato

r Pla

nt L

ist i

nclu

ding

Dor

set N

otab

les

Base

d on

the

DER

C D

orse

t Not

able

Pla

nt li

st (u

pdat

ed 2

012)

for g

rass

land

s an

d re

late

d ve

geta

tion

incl

udes

oth

er ‘ i

ndic

ator

’ spe

cies

(ind

icat

ed in

gre

en)

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Achi

llea

ptar

mic

aSn

eeze

wor

tRP

/F7

75

30

LCLC

Agrim

onia

eup

ator

iaAg

rimon

yN

G7

47

40

LCLC

Agro

stis

cur

tisii

Bris

tle B

ent

AG7

62

10

LCLC

Aira

cary

ophy

llea

Silv

er H

air-

gras

sAG

82

52

0LC

LCAi

ra p

raec

oxEa

rly H

air-

gras

s AG

82

42

0LC

LCAl

chem

illa

filic

aulis

subs

p. v

estit

aN

G8

66

30

LCLC

Anac

ampt

is m

orio

Gre

en-w

inge

d O

rchi

d

CG; N

G

84

73

0N

TVU

Anac

ampt

is p

yram

idal

isPy

ram

idal

Orc

hid

CG8

48

30

LCLC

Anag

allis

tene

llaBo

g Pi

mpe

rnel

RP/F

88

53

0LC

LCAn

thyl

lis v

ulne

raria

Kidn

ey V

etch

CG8

47

20

LCLC

Apha

nes a

ustr

alis

Slen

der P

arsl

ey-p

iert

AG7

45

40

LCLC

Arab

is h

irsut

aH

airy

Roc

k-cr

ess

CG7

58

30

LCN

TAs

peru

la c

ynan

chic

aSq

uina

ncyw

ort

CG7

38

20

LCLC

Blac

ksto

nia

perf

olia

taYe

llow

-wor

tCG

85

82

0LC

LC

Blys

mus

com

pres

sus

Flat

-sed

geRP

/F8

88

30

VUVU

PS; S

41

Botr

ychi

um lu

naria

Moo

nwor

tN

G8

46

20

LCVU

DR

Briz

a m

edia

Qua

king

-gra

ssCG

; NG

; RP/

F8

57

30

LCN

T

Brom

us co

mm

utat

usM

eado

w B

rom

eN

G7

48

60

LCLC

Brom

us ra

cem

osus

Smoo

th B

rom

eN

G6

67

80

LCLC

Callu

na v

ulga

risLi

ngAG

/H7

62

20

LCN

T

Calth

a pa

lust

ris

Mar

sh M

arig

old

RP/F

79

64

0LC

VU

Cam

panu

la g

lom

erat

aCl

uste

red

Bellfl

ower

CG8

47

30

LCLC

Cam

panu

la ro

tund

ifolia

Har

ebel

lCG

74

52

0LC

NT

Card

amin

e pr

aten

sis

Lady

’s Sm

ock

NG

78

54

0LC

LC

13

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Care

x ar

enar

iaSa

nd S

edge

AG8

35

21

LCLC

Care

x ca

ryop

hylle

aSp

ring

Sedg

eN

G; A

G7

47

20

LCLC

Care

x di

andr

aLe

sser

Tus

sock

-sed

geRP

/F8

95

30

LCVU

Care

x di

stic

haBr

own

Sedg

eRP

/F7

86

40

LCLC

Care

x ho

stia

naTa

wny

Sed

geRP

/F8

96

20

LCLC

Care

x hu

mili

sD

war

f Sed

geCG

83

82

0LC

LCN

S

Care

x m

uric

ata

subs

p. p

aira

eSm

all-f

ruite

d Pr

ickl

y-se

dge

AG7

46

40

LCLC

Care

x pa

llesc

ens

Pale

Sed

geRP

/F6

65

40

LCLC

Care

x pa

nice

aCa

rnat

ion

Sedg

eRP

/F8

84

20

LCLC

Care

x pa

nicu

lata

Gre

ater

Tus

sock

-sed

geRP

/F6

96

60

LCLC

Care

x pi

lulif

era

Pill

Sedg

e

A

G/H

7

53

20

LCLC

Care

x pu

licar

is

Flea

Sed

geRP

/F8

75

20

LCN

T

Care

x ro

stra

taBo

ttle

Sed

geRP

/F8

104

20

LCLC

Care

x ve

sica

riaBl

adde

r-se

dge

RP/F

810

54

0LC

LC

Care

x vi

ridul

a su

bsp.

bra

chyr

rhyn

cha

Long

-sta

lked

Yel

low

-sed

geRP

/F8

98

21

LCLC

Carli

na v

ulga

ris

Carli

ne T

hist

leCG

84

72

0LC

NT

Caru

m v

ertic

illat

umW

horle

d Ca

raw

ayRP

/F7

84

20

LCVU

Cent

aure

a ni

gra

Com

mon

Kna

pwee

dN

G7

56

50

LCLC

Cent

aure

a sc

abio

saG

reat

er k

napw

eed

CG8

38

30

LCLC

Cent

auriu

m e

ryth

raea

Com

mon

Cen

taur

yAG

/H/N

G8

56

30

LCLC

Cent

auriu

m p

ulch

ellu

mLe

sser

Cen

taur

yCG

88

83

1LC

LC

Cent

uncu

lus m

inim

usCh

affw

eed

AG8

75

30

NT

EN

Cera

stiu

m a

rven

seFi

eld

Mou

se-e

arCG

84

53

0LC

NT

Cera

stiu

m d

iffus

umSe

a M

ouse

-ear

AG9

46

31

LCLC

Cera

stiu

m p

umilu

mD

war

f Mou

se-e

arCG

82

81

0N

TLC

NS

Cera

stiu

m se

mid

ecan

drum

Litt

le M

ouse

-ear

AG8

36

30

LCLC

Cham

aem

elum

nob

ileCh

amom

ileAG

87

55

0VU

VU P

S; S

41Ci

rsiu

m a

caul

eD

war

f Thi

stle

CG9

48

30

LCLC

14

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Cirs

ium

dis

sect

umM

eado

w T

hist

leRP

/F8

84

20

LCLC

Cirs

ium

erio

phor

umW

oolly

Thi

stle

CG8

48

50

LCLC

Cirs

ium

tube

rosu

mTu

bero

us T

hist

leCG

86

83

0N

TN

T

Clad

ium

mar

iscu

sG

reat

Fen

-sed

geRP

/F8

108

40

LCLC

Clin

opod

ium

aci

nos

Basi

l Thy

me

CG8

28

10

VUVU

PS; S

41

Clin

opod

ium

asc

ende

nsCo

mm

on C

alam

int

CG7

57

60

LCLC

Coel

oglo

ssum

viri

deFr

og O

rchi

dCG

74

62

0VU

VUPS

; S41

Cono

podi

um m

ajus

Pign

utN

G; A

G6

55

50

LCLC

Cras

sula

tilla

eaM

ossy

Sto

necr

opAG

87

42

0LC

LCN

S

Cruc

iata

laev

ipes

Cros

swor

tCG

65

75

0LC

NT

Cyno

don

dact

ylon

Berm

uda

Gra

ssAG

84

75

0LC

LC

Cyno

glos

sum

offi

cina

le

Hou

nd’s-

tong

ueCG

84

86

1N

TN

T

Cype

rus l

ongu

sG

alin

gale

RP/F

98

54

0N

TN

T

Dac

tylo

rhiz

a fu

chsi

aCo

mm

on s

pott

ed-o

rchi

d

CG

;NG

7

87

30

LCLC

Dac

tylo

rhiz

a in

carn

ata

subs

p. in

carn

ata

Early

Mar

sh-o

rchi

dRP

/F8

96

20

LCLC

Dac

tylo

rhiz

a m

acul

ata

Hea

th S

pott

ed-o

rchi

dRP

/F7

73

20

LCLC

Dac

tylo

rhiz

a pr

aete

rmis

saSo

uthe

rn M

arsh

-orc

hid

RP/F

88

73

0LC

LC

Dac

tylo

rhiz

a tr

auns

tein

erio

ides

Nar

row

-leav

ed M

arsh

-orc

hid

RP/F

88

72

0LC

LC

Dan

thon

ia d

ecum

bens

Hea

th-g

rass

CG; N

G; A

G7

64

20

LCLC

Dau

cus c

arot

aW

ild C

arro

t

CG

/NG

8

47

32

LCLC

Dia

nthu

s arm

eria

Dep

tfor

d Pi

nkAG

85

53

0EN

ENPS

; S41

Dia

nthu

s del

toid

esM

aide

n Pi

nkAG

83

52

0LC

LC

Eleo

char

is q

uinq

ueflo

raFe

w-fl

ower

ed S

pike

-rus

hRP

/F9

97

20

LCLC

Epip

actis

pal

ustr

isM

arsh

Hel

lebo

rine

RP/F

88

73

0LC

NT

Equi

setu

m p

alus

tre

Mar

sh H

orse

tail

RP/F

78

63

0LC

LC

Erig

eron

ace

rBl

ue F

leab

ane

AG8

57

30

LCLC

Erio

phor

um la

tifol

ium

Broa

d-le

aved

Cot

tong

rass

RP/F

99

72

0LC

LC

Erod

ium

cic

utar

ium

Com

mon

Sto

rk’s-

bill

AG8

46

40

LCLC

15

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Eric

a ci

nere

a

Bell

Hea

ther

AG/H

75

22

0LC

NT

Eric

a te

tral

ix

Cr

oss-

leav

ed H

eath

A

G/H

8

82

10

LCN

T

Erop

hila

ver

na s.

l. Co

mm

on W

hitlo

w-g

rass

AG/H

83

73

0LC

LCEu

phra

sia

arct

ica

subs

p. b

orea

lisan

eye

brig

htN

G7

56

40

LCD

D

Euph

rasi

a co

nfus

aan

eye

brig

htCG

85

62

0LC

VU

Euph

rasi

a ne

mor

osa

Co

mm

on e

yebr

ight

CG;N

G7

58

40

LCN

T

Euph

rasi

a offi

cina

lis v

ar. a

nglic

aEy

ebrig

htAG

75

53

0EN

ENPS

; S41

Euph

rasi

a ps

eudo

kern

eri

an e

yebr

ight

CG7

48

30

ENVU

PS; S

41

Euph

rasi

a te

traq

uetr

aan

eye

brig

htCG

86

63

3LC

NT

Fest

uca

filifo

rmis

Fine

-leav

ed S

heep

’s-fe

scue

AG8

43

20

LCLC

Fila

go m

inim

aSm

all C

udw

eed

AG8

34

20

LCN

T

Fila

go v

ulga

risCo

mm

on C

udw

eed

AG7

46

40

NT

NT

Filip

endu

la u

lmar

iaM

eado

wsw

eet

RP/F

78

65

0LC

LC

Filip

endu

la v

ulga

risD

ropw

ort

CG7

48

20

LCLC

Gal

ium

mol

lugo

Hed

ge B

edst

raw

CG;N

G7

47

40

LCLC

Gal

ium

saxa

tile

Hea

th B

edst

raw

AG6

63

30

LCLC

Gal

ium

ulig

inos

umFe

n Be

dstr

awRP

/F7

96

40

LCLC

Gal

ium

ver

umLa

dy’s

Beds

traw

CG; N

G7

46

20

LCLC

Gas

trid

ium

ven

tric

osum

Nit-

gras

sCG

93

82

0LC

LCN

S

Gau

dini

a fra

gilis

Fren

ch O

at-g

rass

NG

85

66

0LC

LCN

S

Gen

ista

ang

lica

Pett

y W

hin

RP/F

85

32

0N

TVU

Gen

ista

tinc

toria

Dye

r’s G

reen

wee

dN

G8

67

20

LCVU

Gen

tiane

lla a

mar

ella

Autu

mn

Gen

tian

CG8

48

20

LCN

T

Gen

tiane

lla a

nglic

aEa

rly G

entia

nCG

83

82

0LC

LCN

SPS

; S41

Geu

m ri

vale

Wat

er A

vens

RP/F

67

64

0LC

LC

Gym

nade

nia

cono

psea

Chal

k Fr

agra

nt O

rchi

dCG

76

73

0LC

LC

Gym

nade

nia

dens

iflor

aM

arsh

Fra

gran

t Orc

hid

RP/F

LCD

D

Hel

iant

hem

um n

umm

ular

ium

Com

mon

Roc

k-ro

seCG

74

72

0LC

NT

16

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Her

min

ium

mon

orch

isM

usk

Orc

hid

CG8

58

20

VUEN

Hip

pocr

epis

com

osa

Hor

sesh

oe V

etch

CG8

38

20

LCLC

Hor

deum

seca

linum

Mea

dow

Bar

ley

NG

86

76

1LC

LC

Hyd

roco

tyle

vul

garis

Mar

sh P

enny

wor

tRP

/F8

86

31

LCN

T

Hyp

eric

um m

onta

num

Pa

le S

t Joh

n’s-

wor

tCG

74

82

0N

TLC

Hyp

ocha

eris

gla

bra

Smoo

th C

at’s-

ear

AG8

44

20

VUVU

Hyp

ocha

eris

radi

cata

Co

mm

on C

at’s-

ear

AG/H

/NG

76

65

0LC

LC

Illec

ebru

m v

ertic

illat

umCo

ral-n

eckl

ace

AG8

73

20

LCLC

Inul

a co

nyza

ePl

ough

man

’s-sp

iken

ard

CG7

38

30

LCLC

Isol

epis

seta

cea

Bris

tle C

lub-

rush

RP/F

79

53

0LC

LC

Jasi

one

mon

tana

Shee

p’s-

bit

AG7

44

20

LCVU

Junc

us su

bnod

ulos

usBl

unt-

flow

ered

Rus

hRP

/F8

98

40

LCLC

Juni

peru

s com

mun

isJu

nipe

rCG

85

53

0LC

NT

PS; S

41

Knau

tia a

rven

sis

Fiel

d Sc

abio

us

CG7

38

40

LCN

T

Koel

eria

mac

rant

haCr

este

d H

air-

gras

sCG

84

72

0LC

LC

Lath

yrus

lini

foliu

sBi

tter

-vet

chN

G; A

G; R

P/F

65

43

0LC

NT

Lath

yrus

nis

solia

Gra

ss V

etch

ling

NG

86

76

0LC

LC

Lath

yrus

pra

tens

is

M

eado

w V

etch

ling

C

G;N

G

76

65

0LC

LC

Leon

todo

n hi

spid

usRo

ugh

Haw

kbit

C

G; N

G

84

73

0LC

LC

Leon

todo

n sa

xatil

isLe

sser

Haw

kbit

NG

85

63

0LC

LC

Lepi

dium

het

erop

hyllu

mSm

ith’s

Pepp

erw

ort

AG7

45

40

LCLC

Leuc

anth

emum

vul

gare

Oxe

ye D

aisy

NG

84

74

0LC

LC

Linu

m ca

thar

ticum

Fairy

Fla

xCG

85

72

0LC

LC

Lotu

s ang

ustis

sim

usSl

ende

r Bird

’s-fo

ot-t

refo

ilAG

83

43

0LC

LC

Lotu

s cor

nicu

latu

sCo

mm

on B

ird’s-

foot

-tre

foil

NG

74

62

1LC

LC

Lotu

s sub

biflo

rus

Hai

ry B

ird’s-

foot

-tre

foil

AG7

56

50

LCLC

Luzu

la ca

mpe

stris

Fi

eld

Woo

d-ru

shN

G;A

G7

45

20

LCLC

Lysi

mac

hia

num

mul

aria

Cree

ping

-Jen

nyN

G5

75

50

LCLC

17

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Lysi

mac

hia

vulg

aris

Yello

w L

oose

strif

eRP

/F7

97

50

LCLC

Mar

rubi

um v

ulga

reW

hite

Hor

ehou

ndCG

95

78

0LC

LCN

S

Men

tha

pule

gium

Penn

yroy

alAG

87

57

0EN

CRPS

; S41

Men

yant

hes t

rifol

iata

Bogb

ean

RP/F

810

43

0LC

LC

Moe

nchi

a er

ecta

Upr

ight

Chi

ckw

eed

AG7

83

20

LCVU

Myo

sotis

ram

osis

sim

aEa

rly F

orge

t-m

e-no

tAG

83

63

0LC

LC

Myo

sotis

secu

nda

Cree

ping

For

get-

me-

not

RP/F

69

54

0LC

LC

Nar

dus s

tric

ta

Mat

-gra

ssAG

; RP/

F7

73

20

LCN

T

Neo

ttin

ea u

stul

ata

Burn

t Orc

hid

CG8

48

20

ENEN

NS

PS; 4

1

Oen

anth

e fis

tulo

saTu

bula

r Wat

er-d

ropw

ort

RP/F

79

76

0LC

VUPS

; S41

Oen

anth

e la

chen

alii

Pars

ley

Wat

er-d

ropw

ort

RP/F

88

85

3LC

NT

Oen

anth

e pi

mpi

nello

ides

Cork

y-fr

uite

d W

ater

-dro

pwor

tN

G7

76

30

LCLC

Ono

bryc

his v

iciif

olia

Sain

foin

CG7

48

30

LCLC

Ono

nis r

epen

sCo

mm

on R

esth

arro

wN

G;C

G8

46

30

LCLC

Ono

nis s

pino

saSp

iny

Rest

harr

owN

G8

48

30

LCN

T

Oph

iogl

ossu

m a

zoric

umSm

all A

dder

’s-to

ngue

AG8

65

21

LCLC

Oph

iogl

ossu

m v

ulga

tum

Adde

r’s-t

ongu

eN

G8

77

30

LCLC

Oph

rys a

pife

raBe

e O

rchi

dCG

84

83

0LC

LC

Oph

rys s

pheg

odes

Early

Spi

der-

orch

idCG

84

93

0LC

LCN

S

Orc

his m

ascu

laEa

rly P

urpl

e O

rchi

dCG

65

74

0LC

LC

Orc

his m

orio

Gre

en-w

inge

d O

rchi

dCG

; NG

84

73

0N

TVU

Orig

anum

vul

gare

Mar

jora

mCG

64

74

0LC

LC

Orn

ithop

us p

erpu

sillu

sBi

rd’s-

foot

AG7

44

30

LCLC

Oro

banc

he e

latio

rKn

apw

eed

Broo

mra

pe

CG8

38

30

LCLC

Pare

ntuc

ellia

vis

cosa

Yello

w B

arts

iaAG

77

75

0LC

LC

Pedi

cula

ris p

alus

tris

Mar

sh L

ouse

wor

tRP

/F8

85

20

LCVU

Pedi

cula

ris sy

lvat

ica

Lous

ewor

tAG

; RP/

F8

83

20

LCVU

Pers

icar

ia b

isto

rta

Com

mon

Bis

tort

RP/F

67

66

0LC

LC

18

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Picr

is h

iera

cioi

des

Haw

kwee

d O

xton

gue

CG8

48

30

lclc

Pilo

sella

offi

cina

rum

Mou

se-e

ar-h

awkw

eed

CG; N

G; A

G8

47

20

LCLC

Pilo

sella

pel

eter

iana

Shag

gy M

ouse

-ear

Haw

kwee

dCG

83

82

0N

TLC

NR

Pim

pine

lla sa

xifra

gaBu

rnet

-sax

ifrag

eCG

; NG

74

73

0LC

LC

Plan

tago

coro

nopu

sBu

ck’s-

horn

Pla

ntai

nAG

86

64

2LC

LC

Plan

tago

med

iaH

oary

Pla

ntai

nCG

84

73

0LC

LC

Plat

anth

era

chlo

rant

haG

reat

er B

utte

rfly-

orch

idCG

55

74

0N

TLC

Poa

hum

ilis

Spre

adin

g M

eado

w-g

rass

NG

86

64

2LC

LC

Poly

gala

calc

area

Chal

k M

ilkw

ort

CG7

38

20

LCLC

Poly

gala

serp

yllif

olia

Hea

th M

ilkw

ort

AG; R

P/F

87

22

0LC

NT

Poly

gala

vul

garis

Com

mon

Milk

wor

tCG

; NG

85

63

0LC

LC

Pote

ntill

a an

glic

aTr

ailin

g To

rmen

tilN

G7

55

50

LCLC

Pote

ntill

a ar

gent

eaH

oary

Cin

quef

oil

AG8

35

20

NT

NT

Pote

ntill

a er

ecta

Torm

entil

NG

; RP/

F7

73

20

LCN

T

Pote

ntill

a pa

lust

risM

arsh

Cin

quef

oil

RP/F

89

53

0LC

LC

Pote

rium

sang

uiso

rba

Sala

d Bu

rnet

CG7

48

30

LCLC

Prim

ula

veris

Cow

slip

CG; N

G7

47

30

LCLC

Pulic

aria

dys

ente

rica

Com

mon

Fle

aban

eRP

/F7

77

40

LCLC

Pulic

aria

vul

garis

Smal

l Fle

aban

e AG

98

67

0CR

EN

Radi

ola

linoi

des

Alls

eed

AG8

74

21

NT

VU

Rhin

anth

us m

inor

Yello

w-r

attle

NG

75

64

0LC

LC

Rhin

anth

us m

inor

subs

p. ca

lcar

eus

‘Cha

lk Y

ello

w-r

attle

’CG

DD

DD

Rosa

agr

estis

Smal

l-lea

ved

Swee

t-br

iar

CG8

38

30

NT

NT

Rum

ex a

ceto

sa

Com

mon

Sor

rel

NG

75

54

0LC

LC

Rum

ex a

ceto

sella

Shee

p’s

Sorr

elAG

/H7

54

30

LCLC

Sagi

na n

odos

aKn

otte

d Pe

arlw

ort

AG8

77

31

LCVU

Sagi

na su

bula

taH

eath

Pea

rlwor

tAG

86

64

0LC

NT

Salix

repe

nsCr

eepi

ng W

illow

RP/F

87

63

0LC

NT

19

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Salv

ia v

erbe

naca

Wild

Cla

ryCG

83

72

0LC

NT

Sang

uiso

rba

offici

nalis

Gre

at B

urne

tRP

/F7

76

50

LCLC

Saxi

fraga

gra

nula

taM

eado

w S

axifr

age

CG8

56

40

LCLC

Scab

iosa

colu

mba

riaSm

all S

cabi

ous

CG8

38

20

LCLC

Scirp

us sy

lvat

icus

Woo

d Cl

ub-r

ush

RP/F

68

66

0LC

LC

Scle

rant

hus a

nnuu

sA

nnua

l Kna

wel

AG7

44

40

ENEN

PS; S

41

Scor

zone

ra h

umili

sVi

per’s

-gra

ssRP

/F8

75

20

VUVU

PS; S

41

Scut

ella

ria g

aler

icul

ata

Skul

lcap

RP/F

78

65

0LC

LC

Scut

ella

ria m

inor

Less

er S

kullc

apRP

/F7

94

20

LCLC

Sedu

m a

cre

Bitin

g St

onec

rop

AG8

27

21

LCLC

Sedu

m a

nglic

umEn

glis

h St

onec

rop

AG8

34

21

LCLC

Serr

atul

a tin

ctor

iaSa

w-w

ort

CG; N

G; R

P/F

76

62

0LC

LC

Sher

ardi

a ar

vens

isFi

eld

Mad

der

AG7

46

40

LCLC

Sila

um si

laus

Pepp

er-s

axifr

age

ng8

57

40

LCLC

Sile

ne fl

os-c

ucul

iRa

gged

-Rob

inRP

/F7

96

40

LCN

T

Sile

ne n

utan

sN

ottin

gham

Cat

chfly

CG8

38

40

NT

NT

NS

Siso

n am

omum

Ston

e Pa

rsle

yN

G7

47

50

LCLC

Sper

gula

ria ru

bra

Sand

Spu

rrey

AG8

34

20

LCLC

Spira

nthe

s spi

ralis

Autu

mn

Lady

’s-tr

esse

sCG

84

63

0N

TN

T

Stac

hys o

ffici

nalis

Beto

nyCG

; NG

; AG

; RP/

F7

55

30

LCLC

Stel

laria

als

ine

Bog

Stitc

hwor

tRP

/F7

85

50

LCLC

Stel

laria

pal

lida

Less

er C

hick

wee

dAG

74

44

0LC

LC

Stel

laria

pal

ustr

isM

arsh

Stit

chw

ort

RP/F

78

64

0VU

VU

Succ

isa

prat

ensi

sD

evil’

s-bi

t Sca

biou

sCG

; NG

; AG

; RP/

F7

75

20

LCN

T

Tees

dalia

nud

icau

lisSh

ephe

rd’s

Cres

sAG

83

22

0N

TN

T

Teph

rose

ris in

tegr

ifolia

Fiel

d Fl

eaw

ort

CG7

38

30

ENVU

PS; S

41

Thal

ictr

um fl

avum

Com

mon

Mea

dow

-rue

RP/F

78

75

0LC

LC

Thel

ypte

ris p

alus

tris

Mar

sh F

ern

RP/F

68

75

0LC

LC

20

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Thes

ium

hum

ifusu

mBa

star

d-to

adfla

xCG

84

83

0LC

LCN

S

Thym

us p

olyt

richu

sW

ild T

hym

eCG

84

62

0LC

LC

Thym

us p

uleg

ioid

esLa

rge

Thym

eCG

84

82

0LC

LC

Trifo

lium

arv

ense

Har

e’s-

foot

Clo

ver

AG9

35

21

LCLC

Trifo

lium

frag

iferu

mSt

raw

berr

y Cl

over

NG

87

76

2LC

VU

Trifo

lium

glo

mer

atum

Clus

tere

d Cl

over

AG9

35

20

LCLC

Trifo

lium

med

ium

Zigz

ag C

love

rN

G; R

P/F

74

64

0LC

LC

Trifo

lium

mic

rant

hum

Slen

der T

refo

ilAG

85

55

0LC

LC

Trifo

lium

orn

ithop

odio

ides

Bird

’s-fo

ot C

love

rAG

96

53

0LC

LC

Trifo

lium

pra

tens

eRe

d Cl

over

NG

75

75

0LC

LC

Trifo

lium

scab

rum

Roug

h Cl

over

AG9

37

21

LCLC

Trifo

lium

stria

tum

Knot

ted

Clov

erAG

83

52

0LC

LC

Trifo

lium

subt

erra

neum

Subt

erra

nean

Clo

ver

AG8

34

20

LCLC

Trifo

lium

suffo

catu

mSu

ffoca

ted

Clov

erAG

84

42

0LC

LC

Trig

loch

in p

alus

tre

Mar

sh A

rrow

gras

sRP

/F8

96

22

LCN

T

Ule

x ga

llii

Wes

tern

Gor

seAG

/H7

63

20

LCLC

Ule

x m

inor

Dw

arf G

orse

AG8

61

20

LCLC

Vacc

iniu

m m

yrtil

lus

Bilb

erry

AG6

62

20

LCLC

Vale

riana

dio

ica

Mar

sh V

aler

ian

RP/F

88

63

0LC

NT

Vale

riane

lla e

rioca

rpa

Hai

ry-fr

uite

d Co

rnsa

lad

CG8

38

30

LCLC

Vero

nica

cha

mae

drys

Ger

man

der S

peed

wel

lCG

65

65

0LC

LC

Vero

nica

offi

cina

lisH

eath

Spe

edw

ell

AG6

54

40

LCN

T

Vero

nica

scut

ella

taM

arsh

Spe

edw

ell

RP/F

89

53

0LC

NT

Vici

a cr

acca

Tuft

ed V

etch

NG

77

75

0LC

LC

Vici

a la

thyr

oide

sSp

ring

Vetc

hAG

83

53

0LC

LC

Viol

a ca

nina

Hea

th D

og-v

iole

tAG

; RP/

F8

45

20

NT

VU

Viol

a hi

rta

Hai

ry V

iole

tCG

74

82

0LC

LC

Viol

a la

ctea

Pale

Dog

-vio

let

AG7

62

20

VUEN

PS; S

41

21

E

llenb

erg

Valu

es2

Spe

cies

Sta

tus

Latin

nam

eCo

mm

on n

ame

Gra

ssla

nd ty

pe1

LF

RN

SG

B3EN

G4

Rari

ty5

Oth

er6

Viol

a pa

lust

risM

arsh

Vio

let

RP/F

79

32

0LC

LC

Viol

a riv

inia

naCo

mm

on D

og-v

iole

tAG

65

54

0LC

LC

1 AG

= A

cid

gras

slan

d; C

G =

Cal

care

ous

gras

slan

d; N

G =

Neu

tral

gra

ssla

nd; R

P/F

= Ru

sh-p

astu

re, f

en-m

eado

w &

fen;

A

G/H

= A

cid

gras

slan

d/H

eath

mos

aic

2 Elle

nber

g va

lues

: L =

Lig

ht

F =

Moi

stur

e R

= R

eact

ion

N =

Fer

tility

S

= Sa

linity

3 GB

= U

K Re

d Li

st, C

heffi

ngs

et a

l, 20

05

4 ENG

= E

nglis

h Re

d Li

st, S

troh

et a

l, 20

14

5 Rari

ty: D

R =

Dor

set R

are;

DS

= D

orse

t Sca

rce;

NR

= N

atio

nally

Rar

e; N

S =

Nat

iona

lly S

carc

e

6 Oth

er: P

S =

UK

Prio

rity

Spec

ies;

S41

= S

ectio

n 41

spe

cies

(NER

C)

1

Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol

Guidance for consultants

Natural Environment Team

Section D Enhancements & Biodiversity Net Gain

version 3 autumn2018

2

Contents page no

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Enhancements required 1

3

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act (2006) states that a public authority must ‘in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity; Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.

1.2 Paragraph 174b) of the NPPF (2018) states ‘Plans should ...identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity’ and Paragraph 175 states that ‘…opportunities to incorporate biodiversity improvements in and around developments should be encouraged especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity’.

1.3 Enhancements must be site and species / habitat specific to ensure planning conditions relating to biodiversity are clear and enforceable (see Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plan form completion in Section A). 1.4 On-site enhancements and measureable biodiversity net gain appropriate to the site and wider area must be provided.

1.5 Enhancements must be clearly over and above the required mitigation and compensation.

1.6 Biodiversity net gain must seek to accord with County wildlife projects such as the SNCI Grassland Project, (Dorset Wildlife Trust) to bolster or create ecological networks and meet relevant sustainable development objectives such as informing the design of Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDs) or contributing to the enhancement of a bordering Local Nature Reserve.

2.0 Enhancements required

2.1 All new residential developments must include bird nesting and bat roosting provisions built-into the fabric of new buildings in appropriate locations as follows:

• 50% of all new houses on residential developments must have built-in provision for bats such as tiles, tubes, bricks and boxes mounted within lofts.

• 50% of all new houses on residential developments must have built-in boxes for birds reliant upon buildings such as swift, swallow and house martin.

(Cornwall Plannign for Biodiversity Guide, Cornwall Council 2018)

2.2 All new houses / buildings on the edge of developments backing onto open countryside must have built-in bat roosting tubes.

2.3 All householder applications for alterations and extensions must provide a minimum of one nest box for birds or one built-in tube for bats.

2.4 Residential developments must also include:

• Suitable lighting schemes and regimes in accordance with Guidance Note 08/18 Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK. Bats and the built environment series, Bat Conservation Trust (London) & Institution of Lighting Professionals (Rubgy) (2018)

• Hedgehog friendly gravel boards / holes (10cm x 10cm) in garden fencing between houses

4

• Bee bricks – for developments of a single new dwelling upward; a minimum of two bee bricks

per dwelling• Fruit trees

2.5 Enhancements must be designed into all developments and buildings and wherever possible and include a range of the following measures:

• Dedicated bat lofts

• Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS); linking to adjacent wetland / riparian habitat if possible

• New ponds / seasonal ponds

• Native standard tree planting which must be within public open space and must not be within gardens

• New native hedgerow planting incorporating standard native trees which must be within public open space and must not be within gardens

• Green / living roofs and green walls

• Habitats incorporating wildlife friendly trees, shrubs and flower rich meadows; establishing and maximising ecological networks and wildlife corridors wherever possible

• Restoration and management of habitats and ecological features

• Low maintenance verges managed for biodiversity (Dorset County Council Conservation Verge Trials)

2.6 Suitable locations for these enhancements must be indicated on a location plan within Biodiversity Mitigation and Enhancement Plans (see Section A (6.0)).

2.7 Outbuildings and barns conversions must include built-in Barn owl nest spaces or Barn owl boxes in accordance with the advice of the Barn Owl Trust whenever possible. Other birds reliant upon buildings such as swallows and house martins must be accommodated within suitable open-fronted / accessible buildings.

2.8 The BMEP must state definitively and clearly how the enhancements will be maintained, managed and if appropriate, monitored.