Agenda item

Following introduction by the Cabinet Member for the Climate and Nature Emergency, the Service Lead: Sustainability and Natural Environment and the Ecologist/Biodiversity Officer presented the report in relation to enhanced biodiversity duty, and several questions were asked, including the following: 

1. An enquiry was made regarding whether the council possessed the ability to capture data on biodiversity projects, such as hedgerow planting, that occurred on land outside of council ownership. It was explained that community groups were encouraged to report their actions and that the mandatory Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) reporting would provide more robust data on such delivery. It was further noted that the Nature Improvement Plan (NIP) aimed to establish clearer templates and direct routes for communities and parish councils to share this information.

2. Further clarification was sought on whether additional guidance or incentives could be provided to parish councils to assist in monitoring local biodiversity activities. It was noted that the council intended to use platforms such as Parish Connect to provide guidance and encourage reporting. It was suggested that sharing examples of work undertaken by different parishes could encourage engagement.

3. An explanation was requested regarding the biodiversity gains data in the report, specifically why certain habitat baseline figures remained identical to post-development figures. It was clarified that the table followed a standard government template which included retained habitats. It was    explained that if a developer retained an existing habitat without alteration, the units would appear in both the baseline and post-development columns.

4. A request was made for a key or more user-friendly format to be included in future reports to help the public understand the relationship between biodiversity units and hectares. It was confirmed that while the current report followed a statutory template, future iterations of the Nature Improvement Plan reporting could be adapted to be more accessible.

5. A question was asked concerning the adequacy of resources for BNG monitoring and whether a robust enforcement system was in place to ensure developers met their commitments. It was stated that monitoring fees were set to ensure adequate resourcing and that the BNG governance framework was designed to make enhancements measurable and enforceable over a 30-year period.

6. Further clarification was sought on the lack of off-site biodiversity units secured within the local planning authority boundary and whether this indicated a shortage of habitat banks in the district. It was explained that while the council did not have full control over private land, work was being undertaken with the Partnership for South Hampshire to identify land across the county for habitat banks. It was noted that the market for these banks was beginning to materialise. 

7. A question was raised as to whether the council could enforce the requirement for BNG units to be located within the district. It was clarified that while the statutory metric provided financial incentives to keep units in close proximity to a development, the council could not refuse an application solely because units were provided in a different location.

8. An enquiry was made as to where information regarding amendments to Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) could be located. It was noted that this information had been discussed during a previous committee meeting regarding the Nature Improvement Plan.

9. Further clarification was sought on whether the objectives of the Nature Improvement Plan were supported by sufficient financial and human resources. It was stated that the action plan was developed to be commensurate with available resources. It was further noted that the NIP remained a priority for the sustainability team with a supporting budget.

10. A question was asked regarding why a large number of planning permissions were exempt from BNG requirements and what examples of such exemptions existed. It was noted that the government had introduced exemptions to streamline the planning system. 

11. A question was raised regarding whether the presentation of data could be improved to show the time required for habitats to mature and how this linked to carbon credits. It was agreed that future public-facing           reports would aim to be more accessible and that the team would consider how to better demonstrate the linkage between biodiversity data and carbon credits. 

The questions were responded to by the Cabinet Member, the Service Lead: Sustainability and Natural Environment, and the Ecologist/Biodiversity Officer. 

In conclusion, the committee thanked officers and the Cabinet Member for an informative report. 

RESOLVED: 

That the report be received and the comments raised by the committee, as summarised above, be noted.