Reviewing a large project such as this, particular one that attempts to encompass so many different issues is no small challenge. But I've now read the consultation documents and made some conclusions.
The short version is this. Developing a strategic approach to dealing with planning matters and protected species such as great crested newts will be a huge boon to large developers. If done to a scientifically high standard in a manner that addresses Favourable Conservation Status it could also benefit newts.
However, I think the current pilot project may not be quite so attractive to developers working on smaller schemes that would have a low impact on gcn populations. I'm also not fully convinced by the scientific evidence presented in the report and it is clear that no attempt has been made to address the thorny issue of what great crested newt Favourable Conservation Status means in Woking.
Since writing about this project will require a lot of words, I think I'll break my thoughts down into digestible chunks and publish these over the course of the next few days (time permitting). And yes, I've deliberately left this to the last minute because I prefer that if folks want to comment on the proposals themselves, they do so without being influenced by me.
I'll start by looking at the projected costs to developers.
Developers who sign up to the scheme no longer need to be concerned by undertaking newt survey work in good time. They won't need to worry about planning conditions that state newt survey and/or mitigation work is required. Nor will they need to be concerned by leaving everything to the last minute. Nope, those concerns will be gone. Pay up and build. Unless of course there are other protected species present on the site. In which case (at least until Woking BC draw up provision for including bats, dormouse, reptiles etc), this is all moot since development will still be delayed.
If capture work for slow-worms is undertaken on a site supporting newts, then it is quite possible that newts will be encountered. According to the proposals, under these circumstances somebody still has to move any newts that are encountered. Who? Where will the newts be moved to? What disease control measures will be undertaken? Has Woking heard of Chytrid? What additional costs will this all incur?
There is also an odd payment matrix (detailed on pg. 9 of the consultation document). Apparently it will cost £900 (per development) to participate in the scheme. That sounds relatively inexpensive. But there is also a multiplier that depends on which area of Woking the development occurs in. Areas considered most important for newts have a x3 multiplier associated with them (the 'orange zone'). There is also a multiplier that comes into affect based on the number of ponds located within 500m. Large development projects (e.g. 20+ residential units) in the 'orange zone' that destroy 3 ponds on a site with very high quality terrestrial habitat would therefore be asked to pay £900 x (3 x 3) = £8,100 (+undefined council legal fees). This would be considered very inexpensive for a large development project and would be more than paid for by virtue of the savings made through removal of delays. Yet this price does not really take into consideration the true impact of the development. Rather bizarrely, the report author(s) claims (pg. 28) that
'the value of terrestrial habitat is not correlated with area'
This statement alone makes me highly concerned about the credibility of the author(s) and is certainly at odds with current licensing. Worst still, a small developer building three houses at a distance of 450m from the same three ponds on land displaying low quality terrestrial habitat would have to pay the exact same fee! Such a developer may not have to pay anything for newt mitigation under the existing licensing system.
The pricing matrix has clearly been designed to favour large developers but in my opinion it is broken and needs a radical rethink.
Stay tuned for more thoughts...
