Objections 2023: Amphibian & Reptile Conservation
ARC sustain its objection to the application and recommends that it is refused.
For reptiles, in isolation, we consider:
​
o That the actions permitted by this application will adversely impact these species and their
habitats
​
o That the mitigation proposed will fail to achieve its objectives
​
o The net result of the actions if permitted via the application will reduce the range of reptiles,
their population size and the quality of their habitat; therefore the application will adversely
impact on the achievement of favourable conservation status for these species.
​
o The likely adverse impact on and loss of key species should this application be permitted will
be contrary to the Biodiversity Duty (Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006) applying to all public
bodies, in particular noting the amendment to this duty brought about by the Environment
Act 2021.Furthermore, we do not consider this application in isolation. Similar to our concerns put
forward on 26/01/2023 regarding the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan Partial Update, 2022 our generic
concerns remain:
​
• Region: Both the counties Local Plans programmed developments along the joint border areas of
e.g. Alderholt-Christchurch are excessive. We see no forms of balance with the environment and
consider that the scale and rate of change as unsustainable.
​
• Local Nature Recovery Strategy /Nature Recovery Network: Due to the ongoing loss of potential
habitats compared to the region’s clear potential, as indicated within RSPB HEAP maps, we believe
that this region is a clear priority to include within the LNRS. This could be considered jointly with
e.g. Dorset Local Nature Partnership’s Nature Recovery Proposal (2022).
​
• Landscape: Forest Design Plans (FDPs) are designed to strategically balance and deliver to multiple
land-use requirements within this landscape. However, we believe the current rate and scale of
minerals extractions has severely compromised its ability to balance, operate and deliver the agreed
long term objectives of the plan. As this application has further delayed agreement of the FDP
(2020-2030) we consider there is a serious ongoing decline of delivery of the agreed Open Habitats
targets for enhancing biodiversity in this landscape and within the application site e.g. principal
habitat, associated species and ecological network connectivity.
​
• Minerals guidance states that areas with successive minerals extractions have to provide policies to
reduce “cumulative impact of a proposed development on a community and the environment will be
acceptable. The cumulative impact is also capable of being a material consideration when
determining individual planning applications.”
o We believe that c.17% of The Ringwood Forest Biodiversity Opportunity Area (HBIC, 2010)
area is currently within active/completed mineral sites. This will rise to 23% if Purple Haze is
adopted.
​
o There is little evidence for the successful restoration of dry heathland following mineral
extraction, or that restoration is completed within agreed deadlines.
​
o As such we believe that cumulative impacts to the environment and its priority habitat in this
landscape are significant, have not been resolved (e.g. loss of European Protected Species)
and are escalating.
​
o This is reducing the range of reptiles, their population size and the extent, quality and
connectivity of their habitat.
​
o This is apparent for instance at two sites adjacent to the application site: Blue Haze and
Somerley Landfill. At both sites, the restoration programmes have either failed, or have been
substantially extended and have not achieved the agreed heather restoration within the
target deadlines. Restoration programmes typically do not comply with the agreed
management objectives (e.g. Atkins, 2005) remain inappropriately managed e.g. intensively
grazed and have failed to achieve the habitat extent, quality and connectivity e.g. to Hollow
Lodge, which continues to lose its principal habitat via enrichment.
​
o These are adverse impacts on the achievement of favourable conservation status for these
species.
• “Timing of new mineral workings are supposed to be carefully controlled, to minimise cumulative
impacts”. As these cumulative impacts have not been resolved no further allocation should occur
until these impacts have been rectified and completed.
​
• Within this landscape our major concerns remain impact to current and potential biodiversity and
on the restoration method and its outcome. NPPF 210 h requires “high quality restoration and
aftercare of mineral sites”.
​
o The Reg. 25 letter requirement It is recommended that a specialist consultant is involved inthe design of all stages of the soil management and restoration proposals to ensure that this
uncertain aspect is minimised. However, the Soil Handling Strategy has not been updated
and remains dated as December 2020.
​
o The intent therefore remains to restore the extraction/restoration area to heather (25%-
75% cover) and that; quarry spill and interburden (that includes clay) will be used and that
“Any remaining arisings (i.e. clay and silt) will be used in the restoration process… at a ratio
of 70:30 subsoil to silt to aid the development of these habitats”.
o However, “made” soils take no account of the difference in the particle size and the
inherently different drainage and nutrient retention characteristics of each.
​
o This method therefore generally fails to deliver the agreed restoration targets and too often
restores an irreversible gorse dominant habitat that has low ecological value and cannot
support typical species e.g. reptiles (Fig.4).
​
o This method has provided no guarantee that dry heath restoration targets will be met
either for its extent or condition (Fig.3).
​
o We therefore consider that the current and potential dry heath habitat is irreplaceable
using this method of restoration.
​
o No plan has been included detailing forage harvesting for heather seed either within or
external to the site. This is an increasing impact on mature heath and e.g. on reptile species
therefore a detailed plan must be included.
​
• Increasing airborne nitrogen oxides are a major concern e.g. Dorset Heaths Air Quality Interim.
Species e.g. gorse, can and is both outcompeting and inhibiting heather. This can negatively impact
established heaths and may similarly affect the outcomes of minerals heath restorations.
​
• Climate change indicates that the chance for large scale wild-fires is increasing. Further gorse
dominant habitats within plantations are an increasing permanent high fire risk.
​
• We consider that further allocation in this landscape, at present, and with current restoration
method can only deliver further gorse dominant habitats, further cumulative impacts and could not
currently comply with NPPF210 h.
​
Purple Haze application 21/10459 “site”
The following response should be read in conjunction with our previously submitted comments
20/05/2021 on the original application PLAN/LK/NF272.
​
Biodiversity
The importance of the Purple Haze site is at international, national and local level. It therefore must
be assessed in the context of
​
• its proximity to designated and locally important heaths, principally those that are components of the
Dorset Heaths/Heathlands (SPA, SAC, Ramsar);
​
• the cumulative impact of loss and degradation of priority habitat lowland heath in the area due to
previous mineral extraction and unmet/inadequate restoration commitments;
• the cumulative impact on habitats and species of principle importance and those identified as UK BAP
or local BAPs,
​
• the Moors River system, SSSI and the River Avon SSSI, SPA, SAC.
​
• The site is within the Ringwood Forest & Home Wood Site of Importance for Nature Conservation
(SINC). The SINC is noted for the assemblage of all six native species of reptiles that is supports.
o The site can be considered as a Key Reptile Site of National Importance.
o The site contains well established breeding populations of sand lizard, smooth snake and
widespread reptile species. Guidelines for the Selection of Biological SSSIs (Bernhard et al,
2022) states that “all established breeding populations of sand lizard, or smooth snake,should be selected.” Therefore the land supporting sand lizard and smooth snake within the
proposed Purple Haze application would warrant selection as a SSSI according to
government guidance.
​
o The site also contains the only remaining viable native metapopulation of sand lizard in
Hampshire.
​
• The site also contains: 122 plant species (27 are “Dorset notables” or rarer e.g. Coral Necklace), 511
invertebrate species (55 are nationally rare or nationally scarce), and 86 bird species (3 SPA, 13 WCA
Schedule 1, 14 BoCC Red list, 14 NERC Act species and 22 BoCC Amber list species) and; an
invertebrate assemblage characteristic of lowland heathland of National Importance (with reference
to Appendix 4) which is of sufficient quality to be considered as a targeted feature within a lowland
heathland SSSI.
​
• Ashley Heath Design Concept (2009) (Fig.1). A major strategic ecological network has been agreed
within the FD plan (2009) and remains within FD plan (2020-2030) as part of FE Open Habitats policy
to enhance priority lowland heath and multiple protected species towards favourable. This coherent
ecological network connects and enhances e.g. Ebblake Bog SSSI, the SINC and Ashley Heath SNCI. This
complies with NPPF 175 “take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of
habitats..”. and NPPF 179 a) “ Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife rich habitats
and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national, and locally
designated sites of importance for biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect
them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement,
restoration or recreation and; ”
​
b) “ promote the conservation, restoration, enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks, and
the protection and recovery of priority species; and identify and pursue opportunities for securing
measurable net gains for biodiversity.
​
• Just one of the major considerations in this agreed ecological network is to reconnect and enhance
sand lizard sub-populations (Fig. 2), and other multiple species, towards favourable.
o Throughout this application to date there has been no or limited attempt to follow the
mitigation hierarchy i.e. to avoid or minimise impact to an agreed ecological network.
​
• The LPA in the Reg 25 letter indicated that, There is a need to address discrepancies between various
documents to ensure consistency. However, many are contradictory and misleading. In combination
they provide no reassurance of the reliability of the contents, the documents or their compliance with
any plans and conditions that may be agreed. As such, we consider they fail to comply with or do not
fully address the Reg. 25 requirements.
​
• NPPF 179 b asks for “..securing measurable net gains for biodiversity”. The Biodiversity Metric 4.0
(JP039) (NE, 2021) indicates in section 6.4.4 “Target outcomes should be appropriately evidenced”,
and assessed with section 7.1 Risk multiplier. We remain highly uncertain that some of the evidence
and measures are consistent with what is required within the Biodiversity Impact Assessment and
the calculations for Biodiversity Net Gain. We cannot substantiate this in the limited timeframe that
is available to reply, though would indicate that for example the following should be re-measured
within the Biodiversity Metric as;
​
o The wrong version of some of the FD plans maps and concept maps may have been
measured against, and are not portrayed within some of the documents provided;
​
o Some of FE’s current/programmed heath restoration may still be included,
​
o No method statement has been included for how the assessment of reptile habitat quality
has been measured, nor does it distinguish between each species. We consider this unsafe.
​
o The relocation area is incorrectly mapped and includes the major mown fire-breaks parallel
to the B3081 that are required for site and public safety. This is not suitable reptile habitat,
​
o The restoration quality of restored heather has been indicated as “high” suitability. However,
this method of restoration has a very high risk of failure and no guarantee to restore dryheath, which we would consider as irreplaceable. Therefore this needs to be accurately
evidenced against previous restorations using the same method.
​
o No measurement of negative impact has been included with the intention to plant mixed
woodland restoration. This remains contrary to both the agreed and proposed FDP which
specifies wooded heath. Mixed woodland planting adjacent to heath is incompatible. Birch
seed source and succession will nullify heather restoration. It will also negatively impact
heath throughout the site and within the adjacent landscape. This will compromise and
directly undermine the Open Habitats policy (Forestry Commission, 2010) and the agreed
FDP ecological network (Fig .1).
​
o No measurement of negative impact has been included for the intended loss of bare ground
tracks (A & F). This is a permanent loss of potential e.g. for plants (Coral Necklace),
invertebrates and e.g. for sand lizard loss of egg-laying and recruitment along a c. 1 km
length of track. Loss of track F alone will undermine the agreed ecological network (Fig.1)
and cause decline and subsequent loss of 2-5 interconnected and interdependent
subpopulations and similarly undermine opportunities for multiple protected species.
Reptile report 2023:
​
• Contrary to the information ARC has previously supplied this report still does not adequately consider
that the application site is a component of the landscape, in particular the habitat and species
connectivity between the site and surrounding land (see Fig. 1 & 2 below).
​
• As no surveys have been undertaken within the immediately adjacent landscape this fails Reg. 25
requirement 3 … This assessment should assess the contribution of the loss on and off the
development site to populations of notable birds, reptiles and invertebrates, as well as the impacts to
habitats that displacement of visitors would have on the wider SINC, other notable habitats and
possibly the nearby SACs.
​
Fig. 1: Ashley Heath Design Concept (March, 2009)Fig. 2: Sand lizard animal records (historic-2021). These do not include results from evidence surveys or indicate decline or loss. (Green circles=sand lizard. Blue= critical sand lizard habitat in 2005.
Purple=Ebblake Bog SSSI).
​
Fig. 3. Forestry England’s heathland restoration at Ashley. This has restored a large extent of high
quality dry heathland which is favourable for multiple typical heathland species.
Fig.4. Somerley Landfill heather restoration. Use of high surface silt has resulted in dominance by
gorse and grasses. This, along with uncontrolled grazing pressure has supressed the regrowth of
heather. This is now permanently unfavourable for reptiles and many other typical species