New House Building? It's for the Birds!

Hugh Sheppard,
Chairman, Hart & Rushmoor District Group, CPRE.

Introduction

Peter Burley is not a man to be envied. He is the independent Assessor for that part of the South East Plan reporting on the ecological Special Protection Area (SPA) known as the Thames Basin Heaths (TBH). (See the article 'Hibernation or Gestation for the Plan of Plans?' by Edward Dawson). The SPA comprises 13 SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) that provide the nesting habitat for three rare bird species: the Dartford Warbler, Woodlark and Nightjar.

For 2 years, a moratorium on planning consents in a 5km zone around some 8,400 hectares (32.3 square miles) of the SPA has applied to thirteen local authorities including Hart. This has effectively put a stop on house building across some 300 square miles of Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire, including prime residential areas such as all or part of Guildford, Woking, Bracknell, Fleet, Camberley, Farnborough and Aldershot.

At the heart of the matter lies a 'Draft Delivery Plan' from the statutory authority, Natural England (NE). This is concerned with the impact of population growth on the Thames Basin Heaths, but without taking account of existing densities of either humans or birds. In practice some residential suburbs sit cheek-by-jowl with recognised SPA nesting sites (eg. Camberley with Bagshot Heaths), while the zone around a small SSSI where only 1 per cent of the rare species nest (Ockham and Wisley Common) covers 25 square miles of rural Surrey. Of course, the birds nest elsewhere too, but that's not part of NE's equation.

The Assessor's job at public hearings in Woking has been to try to reconcile the interests of the bird and developer lobbies; the one represented by NE and conservationists such as the RSPB; the other led by 'The Defence Estates', as landowners of nearly half the SPA, and the House Builders Federation. Deftly and firmly, Mr. Burley has balanced the evidence of ecological academics and military strategists, supplemented by contributions from other stakeholders and legal advocates. And in public session no-one blinks, for fear of letting the side down.

Five of the Thames Basin Heaths, linked into two protected areas, are within or partly within Hart District. They are: Bourley and Long Valley (1) and Eelmoor (2) as one linked area, and Castle Bottom to Yateley and Hawley Commons (3), Bramshill (4) and Hazeley Heath (5) as the other. (Figures in brackets refer to the accompanying map).

Since March 2005, Natural England has relied on its draft plan in objecting to the vast majority of housing applications within 5km of the SPA, to which the local authorities have responded by refusing planning permission. This is because there are no agreed policies to provide alternative recreation areas for dog-walking etc. to take pressure off the SPA, known as SANGS. (Suitable Accessible Natural Green Space).

Essentially, Natural England's approach is for no development at all within 400 metres of the SPA, and the provision of SANGS in mitigation for housing approvals at two levels. Between 400m and 2kms of the SPA, 16 hectares are specified per 1,000 increase of population; between 2kms and 5kms the figure drops to 8 ha. per 1,000.

This is not the tall order that some seem to think but, and it is a big BUT, Natural England says that small developments in combination would have the same impact as one large one; so legal advice to the local authorities is to the effect that no consents at all should be granted ahead of agreed policies for SANGS.

The issues

To a layman, it has to be true that the greater the encroachment of housing close to the SPA the greater the strain on these rare bird habitats, as increased urbanisation brings increased visitor numbers together with more cats and dogs.

However, to dig deep into NE's evidence base and those of the developers and Defence Estates can be an unrewarding exercise because the subject is arcane with a great many variables. Overlay questions of location and definition for SANGS, the influence of management on habitat 'improvement', whether recreational visitors are to be discouraged, car park provision, constraints on cat ownership etc. and the pitfalls are self-evident. Stir in the role of local authorities and developers, let alone climate change and pollution issues, and the chances of an outcome to everyone's liking is very remote indeed.

On behalf of CPRE, my submission was that some 1,000 hectares of SANGS would be required over 20 years for the whole of the SPA. With planning permission lasting for 3 years, this would imply only 150 ha. in the land-bank at any one time. For Hart, I believe just 10 ha. would cover for 3 years, or up to 15 ha. (37 acres) to meet the higher estimate of council planners. Should this be such a big issue as to block housing development for 2 years and more?

What next?

A copy of the Assessor's Report arrived by email as I was completing the above. Now is not the time to review its 87 pages in any detail. Further comments are invited prior to a further public session and the subsequent recommendations of the panel for the South East Plan.

Suffice that Mr. Burley finds Natural England's Draft Development Plan to be 'unsound in its present form'. He prefers a single zone of 5km by travel distance, not as the crow flies, while retaining the 400m cordon sanitaire. He believes that only developments of more than 10 houses within 5km should require mitigation, together with developments of over 50 houses between 5 and 7km and smaller developments within 1km of the SPA. He also wants the impact of each proposal individually assessed, with a single standard of 8 ha. of SANGS per 1,000 increase in population.

His other comments reflect on how funding is to be achieved and the need for further research and joined-up thinking on the part of local authorities, the Regional Assembly and Natural England, together with other consultative bodies.

Odiham and the SPA

Only some 15% of Hart is registered within the SPA, but 75% of the district is within the proposed 5km zone. This leaves 25% where development is not affected, including Odiham and North Warnborough. To conclude that this means more housing in this part of the district is, in my view, a step too far. The Draft South East Plan places most of the parish outside the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley Sub-region; beyond the reach of sub-regional policies and the perimeter of Mr. Burley's remit. Subject to the finalised plan, it is much more likely that new housing development in the SPA zone will be enabled by identifying SANGS as soon as possible. In that exercise, Odiham Common, owned by Hart Council, may well have a role to play.

This article first appeared in The Odiham Society Journal, March 2007.