North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Guidance on Development: Supplementary Planning Document

Consultation Statement, January 2018

1 Introduction

Background

1.1 This ‘Consultation Statement’ is prepared in accordance with Section 12 (a) of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. It sets out matters relating to consultation procedures related to the production of the North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Guidance on Development: Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

1.2 It sets out the following aspects:

·  The approach taken to consultation and engagement

·  A summary of the main issues raised in those consultations

·  How those issues have been addressed in the SPD

2 The approach to consultation and engagement

2.1 The SPD was produced in liaison with a number of bodies. Initial guidance was jointly produced by the Council, Natural England and Somerset local authorities, involving liaison with many bodies, indicated in the acknowledgments early in the document. They included Natural England, officers from local authorities including Somerset County Council and North Somerset Council, a number of ecological consultants, and various wildlife groups such as the Bat Conservation Trust, Bristol and Region Environmental Records Centre, and Yate and Congresbury Wildlife Action Group.

2.2 In May 2017 the resulting guidance, (just titled “North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Guidance on Development”), was approved by Natural England. Bearing the logos of Natural England, Somerset County Council, North Somerset Council, Sedgemoor District Council and Mendip District Council, the guidance was then published on Somerset County Council’s website.

2.3 North Somerset Council subsequently felt that it would be beneficial if the guidance could become a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for North Somerset. As part of this process, on 5 September 2017 the Council’s Executive approved the North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Guidance on Development: Draft SPD for public consultation. The public consultation occurred between 20 October and 2 December 2017. Consultees were invited to respond either using the online consultation system (eConsult), by letter, or email.

2.4 A notification was sent to all those persons, agents, and organisations listed on the Council’s Local Development Framework (eConsult) database (including the statutory consultees). In addition the Draft SPD details were posted on the North Somerset Council website.

2.5 There were 96 respondents to the consultation, which included responses from both national and local organisations, individuals and statutory consultees such as Natural England and the Environment Agency. A number of town and parish councils also responded to the consultation.

2.6 All comments received from the public consultation were considered and changes to the Draft SPD were made as appropriate. The resulting SPD document, incorporating the changes, was considered and adopted by the Full Council on 9 January 2018.

3. Summary of the main issues and how they have been addressed

3.1 Of the 96 respondents to the public consultation, one made “no comments”. Of the other 95, 13 respondents were judged to be supporting without raising issues; the other 82 respondents were judged to be raising issues but not clearly opposing the SPD in principle (indeed 4 of them clearly expressed support).

3.2 There did not appear to be any responses which clearly opposed the SPD in principle. One respondent seemed to question the amount of resources that he felt was being spent on bat conservation compared to other things like road repairs and the local NHS, but he did not raise clear issues relating to the content of the SPD. Another respondent commented that applying the guidance would add to the demands on the Council’s ecologists, including time, but he or she also made other more positive comments.

3.3 Of the town and parish councils who responded (Barrow Gurney, Bleadon, Brockley, Cleeve, Congresbury, Wrington and Yatton), while some raised issues, none clearly opposed the SPD in principle. Indeed, Brockley, Cleeve Congresbury and Yatton all clearly expressed support.

3.4 Natural England were very supportive, saying: “We very much welcome the preparation and adoption of development guidance which requires effective mitigation for Horseshoe bats. We look forward to working with the Council to develop further, multi-functional, strategic mitigation solutions”.

Summary of main issues raised

3.5 In the Appendix below, Table 1 gives summaries of the comments received which were judged to raise issues. The issues can be summarised as the following points:

-the Juvenile Sustenance Zones of 1km around maternity roosts is unsustainably low and should be significantly wider; could they be extended/customised?

-clearer maps will be needed when planning applications are assessed;

-bat species other than horseshoe bats can be affected by development and should not be overlooked;

-concerned that band C of the Bat Consultation Zone may not receive adequate protection; certain areas should be included in other bands, and more work is required on defining the zones;

-application of the guidance will add to demands on the Council’s ecologists, including time;

-minor impacts are not defined;

-how will the document be kept under review?

-the significance of the information should be put into the national context;

-a description of minimum mitigation requirements, notably for commuting corridors, would be helpful;

-various insignificant structures including garages and barns can provide roosts which could be affected by small developments;

-how will cumulative impact be considered? There seems to be opportunities to look at things at a more strategic landscape level;

-more help on survey requirements in band C would be helpful;

-the metric for calculating amount of habitat appears over complicated;

-more time and money seems to be available for care of bats than road repairs or support for the local NHS;

-it would be useful for the SPD to refer to the list of requirements for planning applications already in the existing North Somerset guidance on bat survey requirements;

-request clarification on identifying horseshoe bat roosts that might be associated with a development site, and on mitigation;

-we feel automated detector and transect surveys are inaccurate; suggest use of other methods like catching studies and radio tracking might be better, perhaps to give evidence which might help further refine the value of foraging area/commuting routes?

-there are roosts other than maternity ones. Could night/feeding/other low status roosts or habitat be included in the mitigation calculations?

3.6 The Council carefully considered the comments and issues, in liaison with the main author of the SPD, Somerset County Council’s Ecologist. The Council’s responses to comments, considering the issues raised, are set out in Table 1.

3.7 From consideration of the comments, the Council considered that the Draft SPD did not need much change; the issues raised were addressed by the Council’s responses.

3.8 However some changes were considered appropriate, and set out in Table 2 of the Appendix below. They mostly related to comments from the Yatton and Congresbury Wildlife Group and BRERC (Bristol Regional Environmental Records Centre) concerning the need for:

-reference to the national context, (such as on roosts and the population of horseshoe bats);

-additional reference, near the Flow chart, to the Council’s Bat Survey Requirements leaflet (which contains generic guidance on what information may be needed in support of applications);

-reference to the fact that roosts could be located in structures such as outbuildings, barns and garages.

3.9 However Table 2 also proposed amendments to paragraph A5.36 of Annex 5 of the SPD, because the Council considered that paragraph to be confusing. They discussed it with the main author of the SPD, Somerset County Council’s Ecologist, who agreed and advocated that the last two sentences of the paragraph be deleted.

3.10 As indicated above, on 9 January 2018 the Draft SPD was reported to the Full Council, including the summary of the response to public consultation, and Tables 1 and 2. The Full Council adopted the SPD, incorporating the changes set out in Table 2.

4. Conclusions

4.1 The SPD has been produced in liaison with a number of bodies and subject to public consultation. The comments of the numerous respondents were carefully considered, and resulted in some changes being made to the SPD document which was adopted.


Appendix

Table 1: Summaries of those comments received which raised issues, and the Council’s response to them

Respondent / Summary of comment / Council’s response
These were “common comments” (received from about 67 respondents). / Note: The 67 respondents all made broadly similar “common comments” to those given here, except that some suggested that the 1km JSZ (Juvenile Sustenance Zone) be extended further than others. Most (82%) of them advocated its extension by either 5km (as below) or 4.5km, though a minority advocated its extension by smaller amounts. It is considered that the Council’s response appropriately applies to all who made the “common comments”.
We understand Brockley Hall roost isrecognisedas the largest maternity roost forGreater Horseshoe batsin England and is designated a SSSI andthereforeprotected under European law.The proposed radius of 1km for the Juvenile Sustenance Zone(JSZ)is unsustainablylowand will notfulfillthe Council’s obligations underEuropeandirective. On the basis of the data given in Appendix 1 of the consultation, juveniles in the Brockley colony forage to a distance ofup to4.5km. This demonstrates a foraging area of just under 64 squarekilometres.However, the consultation draft proposes to designate juvenile sustenance zones (JSZ) with aradius ofonly 1 km,protecting only3.1 squarekms(less than 5%) of the juveniles’foraging area.
To leave95% of the foraging areaof this rare and protected speciesunprotectedfrom major developmentwouldplace thebat coloniesunderseverethreatand consequently fail to satisfy the legal requirements placed on the Councilto safeguard these protected species.
Whilst accepting that in practice the focus of the JSZ may be on very young juveniles, use of the 1km zoneisbased on research over 20 years old(ref.Ransome1991). The limited extent of the JSZ fails to take account of the acknowledgeddeterioration ofhabitat within the immediate surroundings of Brockley Hall, namely the loss of hedgerow and degradationof hedgerow and other habitat (Ref:A2.4 of the consultation Annex). Moreover, the 1km radius does not take account of2016 advice from the Bat Conservation Trust (Core Sustenance Zones: Determining zone size 04.02.16) on determining bat conservation zone sizes. This adviceconcluded that use of "the mean foraging distance was too small to adequately safeguard the conservation status of a colony". Instead it recommended that the mean-maximum foraging distance should be used.
Based on this advice and the need to safeguard sufficient land of a suitable standard to sustain the population of bats at Brockley Hall, objection is raised to the consultation proposals for aJSZ of1kminradius. The JSZ should be increased to safeguard the unique characteristics of the surrounding environment which sustain this important maternity roost. Quoting A2.4, ‘summer foraging areas for adults were found to be within 3-4km of maternity roosts, and the mean adult range in one extensive study (Duverge) was 2.2km’. Furthermore ‘Billingtontracked the maximum distance covered by bats to be 6.8km from Brockley Hall’.
As acknowledged in the consultation document, agricultural land, particularly pastures and associated cattle grazing is vital to the survival of this roost. The combination of watercourses,grazing land, cattle, ancient woodland and hedgerows around Backwell and Nailsea provide the ideal habitat to sustain the Brockley SSSI. Accordingly, the JSZ radius should be increasedto 5km tosafeguard the juvenile population to maturityandprovide long term protectionof the habitat surrounding the SSSIwhich is intrinsic to the viability of this important bat roost.
As regards the further proposals in the consultation forBandA, B and C, the radius ofBandA should be expanded to the mean-maximum foraging rangeofBrockley Hall batsand the radius of zone B should extend to the maximum foraging range of Brockley Hall bats. Provided those changes are made,BandCis not required. / The guidance has been endorsed by Natural England and reviewed by experienced specialists in greater horseshoe bats. It is agreed that juveniles can forage up to 4.5km from the maternity roost but not in the initial days of flight when strength and stamina have not fully developed. They are entirely dependent on dung beetles in this period. It is therefore essential that the 1km JSZ is not developed.
The JSZ protects juveniles in the early days after first flight, as they grow they are more capable of foraging at the longer distances also accompanied by their mothers to her foraging sites. Radio tracking has found that within 1km foraging sites are shared but beyond that distance foraging territories become exclusive to an individual and her dependent young before they establish or inherit foraging patches.
Only a proportion of the 64 square kilometres would be used for foraging with occurrences becoming more dispersed the further away from the roost. Much of the habitats within this area including within 1km of the roost is likely to be considered of poor quality or ‘hostile’.
Areas outside the 1km are not unprotected but where replacement provision is appropriate it would need to provide sufficient accessible habitat to mitigate the value of that lost. In the metric calculating the amount of replacement habitat required where the habitat is of high value, for example some types of unimproved grassland, its replacement is likely to be prohibitive for development or then not permitted.
The guidance recommends that developers contact the local authority ecologist for early discussion. There is a legal requirement to maintain the Favourable Conservation Status of the colony, the integrity of the designated site feature. This does not mean that no development can take place but adequate mitigation is provided to maintain these objectives.
Monitoring can be provided as part of the conditions for the development to ensure that this is the case.
Outside 1km the foraging areas are not unprotected although may be not in-situ. Where replacement provision is appropriate it will need to provide accessible replacement habitat at minimum to the value lost so that the amount available is maintained, and potentially an enhancement. Feeding territories will also vary in location with agricultural practice.
In Band A the amount of habitat provided by development is substantive and possibly prohibitive where it is of good quality. The provided habitat would then be likely to be subject to appropriate management for horseshoe bats for the duration of the development, through a condition on the planning permission.