Great Crested Newts -District Level Licensing

[Furnace]

My latest spanner in the works comes in the shape of Great Crested Newts. The ecologist's report for the original Class Q stated that there was no danger to GCN since the site was already hardstanding, and as long as there was no more than 100m² of new hardstanding there was no requirement for GCN mitigation or licensing.

The ecology report for the new build (building location has shifted on the plot) recommends mitigation or licensing will be needed due to loss of habitat caused by the relocation.
Looking at the Natural England guidance leaves me in doubt about the methodology to calculate the Conservation Payment.
As far as I can deduce, one needs to calculate the 'effective number of ponds' that are impacted. Where the site sits entirely within a 250m radius of a pond this is simply:

(area of the planning application site)/ (area of circle radius 250m)
for each pond.
 
For multiple ponds in the vicinity, you add up the above results to achieve the 'effective' number of ponds.

If the site is in an 'Amber area' for GCN risk, multiply the above result by a factor of two.

Finally, multiply this number by the £15,165 +VAT cost of a 'replacement pond'

Can anyone can confirm my understanding?

It's all rather galling since in 2020 I 'donated' three ponds elsewhere on the farm to be restored for the benefit of GCN via Natural England's DLL program.

[ToughButterCup]

2 hours ago, Furnace said:

...
Can anyone can confirm my understanding?
...

 

To help you think this through, I need a little more detail.....

 

In short, I think you could be wrong. The legislation could have changed since my experience with GCNs: our site may differ from yours in important ways (you are -now- operating in an SSI for example). In particular, I'm not sure what you mean by Conservation Payment  : did you mean 'mitigation' or 'cost' ?

 

First, to check I have your story correct: in a previous application no Mitigation or licensing was needed, but now, because of a small change in the plot layout, there is a need to mitigate and license? Working backwards, this would mean that you have moved part of your plot so that part of the plot now lies within 250m of one of several ponds ? Correct?

 

That 'smells' wrong to me. Our ideas of 'small change' may differ, however.

 

 

 

 

[Furnace]

Hi TBC,

The Class Q ecology report stated that there was no impact on GCN as long as <100m² of new hardstanding was introduced. This was largely due to the Class Q building being already a hardstanding area therefore no GCN would be present at the excavations.

The new build site is exactly the same as the Class Q site. The only difference is the location of the building within the site. It is shifted by about 7m. The new build report states that there is potential for GCN to be impacted as the proposed building's footprint is only ~70% over the Class Q's footprint and there is some associated habitat loss.

There appear to be 3 routes to resolve this:

1. Challenge/persuade the ecology consultant that there is no increased GCN risk for the new build compared to the Class Q

2. Full GCN survey and mitigation plan. Time consuming and expensive.

3. District Level Licensing. (DLL). Quick, but possibly expensive too

DLL requires no survey of GCN presence. It allows any potential GCN harm to be offset via a payment that is then used to enhance GCN habitat elsewhere in the district.
As I understand it the payment has 3 parts: Enquiry Fee £570 +VAT; Licence Fee £690; Conservation Payment £15,165 x 'effective' number of ponds.

http://aspect-ecology.com/september-2019-natural-england-provides-new-cost-guidance-for-joining-the-district-licensing-schemes-for-great-crested-newts-in-kent-and-cheshire/

https://www.ecusltd.co.uk/news-and-insights/district-level-licensing-explained/

This is very new to me, so I may have misunderstood. I'd like to get my facts straight before I address the ecology and planning consultants.

Cheers

Edited March 6, 2023 by Furnace
Added links

[saveasteading]

I go for option 1. The rules are to retain habitats not to make money.

So explain if the area is currently not suitable for gcn. So no loss.

And that you have already made new ponds.

And can you provide some additional land cover to their liking?

And whatever else makes a sensible case. Eg that nothing significant  has changed since the original approval.

Make it easy for them with plans, photos etc.

[Furnace]

I'll ponder the right way to approach them, since it will be far better if they remain onside - the planners require an ecology report from an ecologist. There are reams of paper devoted to protecting the little critters and my opinion and past beneficial actions may not matter a hoot to them wot write the reports.

It's little wonder there are so few self-builders. The environmental impact survey ( a requirement of the Class Q) cost £7k and came to the shocking conclusion that there was indeed asbestos in the asbestos sheeted barn.....

[saveasteading]

I don't know enough about  your specifics, or the stage you  are at, but I (in business) developed a process to avoid such expensive reports by others.

 

If there was asbestos on the roof, then our proposal  says that we know there is asbestos, and this is how it will be dealt with.

We know there are newts, and this is how we will deal with them.

We know there may be archaeology  but our design won't disturb it because...etc.

 

Eg, for newts we advised clients to keep grass short (you are allowed to mow them to sludge) and arranged that site would be stripped at the season when they are all in the water. No survey or catching newts required,

 

All of it polite and considered.

Otherwise some consultants rather take advantage.

 

[SteamyTea]

5 hours ago, saveasteading said:

I don't know enough about  your specifics, or the stage you  are at, but I (in business) developed a process to avoid such expensive reports by others.

So basically assume that the problem is there, but have the mitigation, remedies and solutions ready.

Similar to when I worked in the automotive industry.  We assumed that things went wrong, so had contingency plans in place.  Came about when we manufactured the tooling for the Panther Kallista dashboard.  We forgot that with hand built vehicles, accuracy come in second to style.  after that, any shut lines became style lines.

Edited March 7, 2023 by SteamyTea

[Jilly]

You can confirm presence/absence of GCN with a pond water sample which analyses for DNA: much cheaper than the survey method. 

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, Jilly said:

You can confirm presence/absence of GCN with a pond water sample which analyses for DNA: much cheaper than the survey method. 

That is brilliant, like testing athletes for banned drugs, you can contaminate the samples.

https://www.quora.com/Forensic-Science-How-hard-is-it-to-clean-up-a-murder-scene-of-all-DNA-evidence?share=1

 

Or dose it.

https://www.thermofisher.com/uk/en/home/references/ambion-tech-support/rna-isolation/tech-notes/a-new-method-to-remove-dna.html

[Furnace]

7 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Otherwise some consultants rather take advantage

Indeed. The environmental survey crowd have included recommendations that a qualified consultant oversee all mitigation works; establish a 'discovery team' on site for unforseen events etc. We've instructed them to remove all that stuff from the report, but of course they may stand their ethical ground.

 

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

So basically assume that the problem is there, but have the mitigation, remedies and solutions ready

On general, I agree (and it's particularly pertinent to the asbestos whose mitigation is easy).

Of course, this only covers what you look for, or have the ability to find. Because of GCN protected species status there are prescriptive measures in place if there is an identified risk from the development.

 

Shifting the building by 7m seems pretty marginal to me in the overall site and scheme but may well end up costing many thousands in GCN payments.

 

Sigh 

[saveasteading]

I have strongly implied, when inheriting planning permission with reports already done, that it is not proper that a consultant deems that they supervise another survey and mitigation and the construction....  And here is our counter proposal.

 

One council had a realistic policy that newts, if any, would all be in ponds between (can't remember) and so any site clearance must be then. Other councils just demand surveys and barriers and exporting thr newts.

[Furnace]

26 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

One council had a realistic policy that newts, if any, would all be in ponds between (can't remember) and so any site clearance must be then.

Likely between Feb and May. The impacted 'habitat' in my situation comprises about 100m² of closely cut lawn.

Sigh x2

 

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, Furnace said:

2 hours ago, saveasteading said:

 

 100m² of closely cut lawn

Keep it cut.

Depending on how stroppy you want to be, you might just find another consultant who will say all is OK. They exist. 

Their attitude is more that we do our best and let nature sort itself out.

Planners will accept an alternative view. The trouble us when they come recommended by the council. Not dodgy, just too cosy.

[saveasteading]

I once looked at a tender document where the client's architect had appointed 12 more consultants. One was 'hard landscaping' where they skilfully suggested tarmac, gravel and block paving. Bats, newrs etc if course.

The main building design , the bit the architect did, was barely competent which is why it was double the budget.

 

I'm thinking it would have cost 100k for fees pre tender.

[Furnace]

I'm awaiting the planning consultant's (without whom I don't think I could survive) convo with the ecologist. I think he'll have more sway as there's more potential business he can send their way. The whole self-build process is fraught with pitfalls, expense, vested interests and an entire lexicon of terms to learn. I think I'm more up to speed on Part O than I'd like to be....

[Furnace]

On 06/03/2023 at 18:01, saveasteading said:

I go for option 1. The rules are to retain habitats not to make money.

It was unsuccessful. I suggested having them on site for the 11m of hedge removal to ensure compliance, but apparently that's illegal. It looks like I will need to enter the DLL scheme. No one has yet managed to confirm my methodology and estimate of cost.

[saveasteading]

Have you reminded them that all newts are in ponds at a definite time of the year? So there is zero risk to newts in that window. Sometimes these consultants aren't the most practical people.

 

Your planner can be subtle." Remind me, is it the case that newts migrate to ponds....etc."

 

[Furnace]

When dealing with mission critical consultants, I'm finding the path a delicate one. The potential costs are significant for what some might feel are 'minor' changes to a plan. I've thanked the ecologist for 'helping me navigate this issue' and have asked for a call with her to confirm her advice (the DLL) and its likely cost (my estimate is £2k). I'll raise the 'aren't they all shagging in ponds from March?' question then.

The environmental consultant is a different kettle of fish. They seem to want to move in and be on site to monitor the movements of all humans within 100m.

Sigh

 

[saveasteading]

I was nervous on occasions i challenged that proposals for monitoring were unreasonable, and even self-interested. (Didnt use those words).It always turned out ok though as long as we were reasonable...esp not rude.

 

I think my secret was to not blame, but point out something that allowed them to agree and back down. Site specific, so I can't really suggest what yours might be.

Problem...solution.

Newts under stones or in hedges...clear only in the pond season

Grass....confirm has been mown for x years.

Workers wandering too far into nature...strict site rules and fence.

Polluting pond ?

Etc. 

 

Sometimes though you just have to accept it and limit the problem and cost.

 

 

[Furnace]

12 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

Sometimes though you just have to accept it and limit the problem and cost.

Yup, swallowing hard is becoming a requirement.

Just got off the phone with the ecologist. Apparently the hornbeam hedge I planted through geotextile membrane 15yrs ago is now high quality GCN habitat and juveniles may still be present while sexed-up adults plod off to do their stuff in the ponds.

[saveasteading]

I wrongly thought they all went back, it seems.

Remind me why this matters. Do you plan to remove the hedge?

[Furnace]

11m of hedge will be removed and 20m of hedge will be planted. The ecologist knows all this (and the fact I have restored ponds elsewhere on the farm and have donated other ponds to the DLL scheme) and concludes that there is a risk to GCN. Dealing with this can be via mitigation (survey, possible capture and relocation etc.) or via the DLL. DLL is far quicker and will likely cost a couple of grand.

That £2k pales into significance alongside the likely cost of the Geo-environmental consultant's involvement. My current plan is to try to avoid planning conditions that require Phase 3 and 4 reports by writing a (thick) 'Summary of Risk Identification and Mitigation during site works

' document to accompany the application. This will be filled with 'we know there is asbestos, and this is how it will be dealt with', 'we know there are newts and this is how we'll deal with them' etc....

Anyone got a nice chunky asbestos removal Method of Work statement?

Mark

[saveasteading]

6 hours ago, Furnace said:

Anyone got a nice chunky asbestos removal Method of Work

As long as you know it is low risk asbestos, you simply need to refer to the HSE helpful documents. Copy and attach if you want.

If you feel that the planners are suckers for thick documents then do a precis of it too, adding project specific  detail.

 

Then do it by the book.

What material is it?

[Furnace]

Geo-environmental survey tested and classified it as 'chrysotile asbestos cement sheeting'. Apparently it's the most common type of asbestos.

I had the Desktop Study for the Class Q (£900). The GE consultants are suggesting/recommending/trying to implement their involvement is all 4 stages relating to contaminated land. Lots of 'a qualified environmental consultant will be present during all groundworks to identify potential risks; a Discovery Team should be formed to monitor any issues etc.'   The planning permission that was then granted for the Class Q had a condition of a Phase 2 intrusive study, and if contaminants were discovered a remediation strategy was required. Prior to any occupancy, a verification report detailing completion of the remediation work is required.
The Phase 2 study(£7k) identified asbestos on the roof and walls (no surprise - it's an asbestos clad agricultural barn) although no asbestos in the soil samples. The other risk found was a localised area of raised levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) on an area of farm track that will ultimately be a parking zone. They suggest removing the soil in that area and taking it off site to a hazardous waste landfill centre. They also suggested that :

That all proposed garden / landscaped areas be provided with a cover system comprising a minimum

thickness of 300mm certified “clean” topsoil. The available information obtained as part of this
assessment is favourable and suggests that the existing topsoil may be suitable to provide a "clean”
cover system however to confirm these initially favourable findings additional confirmatory analysis is
recommended to representatively certify existing soils are suitable in all proposed garden /
landscaped areas. Alternatively imported certified "clean” topsoil should be provided to all proposed
garden / landscaped areas to a minimum 300mm thickness laid over a hi-visibility geotextile marker
layer and should be validated by an Environmental Consultant. All imported material provided to site
should be certified chemically “clean” in relation to human health and the cover system thickness
should be inspected and certified
All, of course, under their watching brief.
They're sending a quote for a Phase 3 remediation study, but I'd dearly like to cut them out of the loop. I'm currently thinking that I may be able to address the Remediation and Verification phases by including my own version of it with the application to discharge the condition.

I also currently feel like I'm being fed to the wolves....

 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Furnace
edited

[saveasteading]

In my opinion , not knowing the site...

If you get a quote from an approved demolition company they will include the risk assessments and disposal. They will give you a certificate to show proper disposal to licenced tip. That should be the end of that. 

My construction company did this without specialists and even had an hse spot check once. It is easy. But we took to using demo cos just to avoid insurance issues. It is dismantling, not demolition.

Don't grind it up and snort it and you are 90% there.

 

Oil in the ground is normally only an issue for lawns and playing fields. Last time I checked it was preferred to cover with buildings or hardstanding  (not permeable) than to take it away.

Sounds like your consultants are pushing their luck, to be polite.

Find another?