Sample planning application objection statements from 2023
Dorset County Council
Dorset Council. was not satisfied that the Environmental Impact Assessment provided robust evidence that all impacts have been identified and will be avoided or appropriately mitigated;
In response to the reg. 25 information submitted, Dorset Council as Mineral Planning Authority maintains this stance of questioning the suitability of developing the Purple Haze site in the light of the strong objections that have been raised and has not yet seen evidence that such impacts can be appropriately mitigated.
​
With specific regard to the further information provided under Reg 25 of the EIA Regulations, it is noted that an area of land within Dorset Council’s administrative area known as Jack’s Garden at Ashley Heath, south of the Castleman Trailway, has been put forward as offset land to mitigate impacts during development. Shouldpermission ultimately be granted for this proposal and a s.106 agreement be drawn up to establish such matters as the use of offset land, Dorset Council would expect to be one of the parties to the s.106 to ensure that we retain control of any such land lying within our administrative area.
Verwood Town Council
Verwood Town Council maintains its strongest objection to the proposed development for the extraction works on land at Purple Haze.
​
The Applicant references Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act and the principle that decisions should be made in accordance with the Development Plan is acknowledged. However, critically, the caveat to this is, unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan is now considered aged, 10 years old and since its adoption and the Inspectors report that led to its adoption, a considerable number of material planning considerations are now in place, including important case law that changes the threshold that must be reached in decision-making for such developments that will have an impact on important protected habitats.
Significant pieces of case law, particularly from the CJEU, re-enforces that for the LPA be able to make a decision on such applications, the Appropriate Assessment to be carried out must be able to satisfactorily prove scientific certainty that harm to such internationally important habitats (in this case including Ebblake Bog, a wetland of international importance) will be avoided beyond all reasonable doubt.
​
Purple Haze, Nr. Verwood. LPA Ref: 21/10459. Site Ref: NF272
​
Consultation Response from Verwood Town Council
Verwood Town Council maintains its strongest objection to the proposed development for
the extraction works on land at Purple Haze.
The site under consideration at 72.3 hectares (178.7 acres) is a major development that will
have materially significant impact on the local environment, highway network and amenities
of the residents of Verwood, Dorset. The reduced site size is noted; however, this remains a
very modest reduction given the considerable scale of the development area.
Verwood Town Council consider that the additional information submitted at the request of the
LPA remains poorly prepared, low quality with a high degree of unsubstantiated assertions
and assumptions that does not meet the high threshold required for the LPA to have scientific
certainty that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the many and various
protected habitats.
​
Verwood Town Council supports the very thorough analysis and detailed assessment of the
East Dorset Environment Partnership (EDEP) that highlights in forensic detail the various and
numerous short comings of the EIA submissions. The area both consisting of, and surrounding
the application site, is a network of protected areas, with some being of national and
international value. The responsibility on LPA is therefore considerable in the context of
compliance with the EIA (2017) regulations.
​
The Applicant references Section 38(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act and the principle
that decisions should be made in accordance with the Development Plan is acknowledged.
However, critically, the caveat to this is, unless material planning considerations indicate
otherwise. The Development Plan is now considered aged, 10 years old and since its adoption
and the Inspectors report that led to its adoption, a considerable number of material planning
considerations are now in place, including important case law that changes the threshold that
must be reached in decision-making for such developments that will have an impact on
important protected habitats.
​
Significant pieces of case law, particularly from the CJEU, re-enforces that for the LPA be able
to make a decision on such applications, the Appropriate Assessment to be carried out must
be able to satisfactorily prove scientific certainty that harm to such internationally important
habitats (in this case including Ebblake Bog, a wetland of international importance) will be
avoided beyond all reasonable doubt.
​
CJEU judgement in the case of People Over Wind (2018) also tells us that ‘assessments must
contain complete, precise and definitive finding and conclusions removing all reasonable
scientific doubt as to the effect of the proposed works on the protected site concerned’.
Thedetailed analysis of the proposed development by EDEP demonstrates that an
Appropriate Assessment cannot possibly be completed to prove such scientific certainty
that the proposed development will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected sites.
For this reason alone, the application must surely fail.
​
In the case of Grace & Sweetman para.52 of the decision states that, ‘any positive effects of
the future creation of a new habitat, which is aimed at compensating for the loss of area and
quality of that habitat type in a protected area, are highly difficult to forecast with any degree
of certainty.’ Again, the mitigation and restoration put forward by the Applicant does not provide
for the high threshold test of certain for the reasons set out by EDEP in their submission to the
consultation.
​
The Planning Statements’ reference to Para. 11 of the NPPF (2021) and the presumption in
favour and in particular, para. (d) is not relevant as footnote X does not apply as the proposal
is not for housing.
​
No loss of any habitat, including SINC habitat, should be considered acceptable in decision-
making. s.26(2) of the EIA Regulations 2017, directs LPA’s that they ‘must not grant planning
permission …unless satisfied that the reasoned conclusion….it [being the Environmental
Statement] addresses the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment
that are likely to arise as a result of the proposed development.’
​
The critical word is ‘must’ as a clear direction to decision-makers. The evidence put forward
by EDEP shows that the revised ES submitted by the Applicant does not address the
significant effects of the proposed development on the environment.
​
The EIA does not appear to have considered the ‘do nothing’ option.
Moving on now to Highways. Verwood has a population of circa 15,000 residents. There are
only 3 principal routes out of the town. The B3081 is the heaviest used by commuters due to
the links to the major employment hubs of Bournemouth and Southampton. The road width of
3.5m in each direction is relatively narrow given the width of a HGV is circa. 2.6m (without
wing mirrors). For such a heavily used carriageway, it would expect to be in the order of 7.5m
for safe passing of vehicles and other road users.
​
The continued degrading of the section of highway running to the north of the site that will be
greatly exacerbated by the proposed development of circa.45 HGV’s per day (80 movements).
This section of road is currently in poor condition littered with potholes and delamination of the
surface. Should the application be approved, the section of B3081 to the north of the
application should be widened and upgraded prior to the commencement of any extraction
works to include new white lines etc.
​
Terminating cyclists routes through the site that are currently enjoyed when works take place
will push cyclists onto the B3081. The B3081 has a history of accidents and fatalities ( 4 in the
last 20 years) between Verwood and Ringwood that demonstrates the poor nature of this road.
This has not appeared in the TA.
​
Without prejudice - s.106 Heads of Terms we make the following observations:
• Lorry Routing - ‘reasonable endeavours’ is not precise enough to be enforceable.
Needs to be an absolute. No more than 20 HGV movements per day as Planning
Statement states 45 HGV trips per day.• Hours reduced to 09:00 - 17:00 to reduce
conflict with commuting traffic into and out of Verwood.
​
• T junction to be constructed prior to the commencement of any extraction works
​
• The highway matters should include widening and re-surfacing of the stretch of road
to the site frontage along its entirety as the road surface is failing.
​
• Monitoring measures as per s.26(1)(d) of the EIA Regulations 2017.
​
• Nature Conservation Management: any LEM Monitoring Plan should be submitted with
the application as form part of the determination of the application and not left to be a
matter to be resolved. This aspect of any permission is fundamental to the acceptability
of any scheme and the assessment of the impacts on the significance of the
development.
​
In conclusion we remain totally opposed to the extraction of minerals from the site identified
as Purple Haze in the planning allocation and request that should this matter come before the
HCC Planning Committee for consideration that Verwood Town Council be given the
opportunity to address the committee as an objector to the application.
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
HCC environmental team
The additional information provides a much better level of detail as would be expected by
the size and significant location of this development. however, concerns that relate
primarily to the lack of initial discussions with Natural England and specialist species
groups as well as inherent concerns about the success of restoration remain.
Needless to say, especially in light of Natural England’s further objection, and
information supplied by the reptile species groups, we are in the position where we
still cannot determine this application without further information, or a different
approach to the development. There are elements of the response that do not
adequately address the further information that we have requested. I will undertake
to provide a more detailed response to each of the 16 Ecology items that we
requested, but the following should be used in initial discussions with the applicant.
Habitats – loss and creation through restoration.
​
This is a fundamental concern that runs through as a thread through the issues
outlined below. There are significant areas of habitats being removed from the site
that support extremely rare plants and animals and form a significant element of the
network of Hampshire and Dorset lowland heathland designated as SPA and
SAC. we have sought compensation for this loss (item 11) and to ensure that we
have a full understanding of the available habitats throughout the progress of mineral
operations (items 7, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16). The sufficiency of the compensation has
been rightly questioned by NE in their response, especially in terms of promoted
recreation, and and there remains some uncertainty on delivery (quality and timing)
of restored habitats on site, which fundamentally undermines most of the strategies
and assessments submitted. Natural England Argue that wet heathland is not
replaceable, and therefore the conclusions drawn on this issue within the EAI would
need to be modified, and the approach to the design of the proposal reconsidered to
accommodate irreplaceable habitats.
​
Items 15 and 16 clearly asked for a more detailed strategy for habitat restoration,
including specialist soil management to avoid the usual issues that we have with
restoring soils suitable for establishing lowland heathland. Both the restoration
information and the outline Landscape and Ecology mitigation and management plan
provide insufficient information on the detail of soil preservation, storage, and
replacement. The soil handling strategy does not appear to have been updated, and
includes elements of approach (inclusion of interburden, clays, silts etc) that would
be of concerns with respect to establishing soil profiles suitable for supporting
lowland heathland.The heathland creation relies on inappropriate seed mixes, and not
using locallyobtained material, and the levels of woodland on the site do give concern with
respect to the principles of ongoing heathland management and the objectives of the
East Dorset Forest Design plan.
​
Uncertainty over the delivery of lowland heathland through restoration, the
conclusions of the ES with respect to the impacts arising from loss of habitat on the
SAC/SPA and the birds, reptiles, invertebrates and rare plant species cannot be
justified.
​
Reptiles
Significant concerns remain relating to ensuring that the favourable conservation
status populations of Sand lizard and Smooth snake within the Hampshire and
Dorset heaths will not be harmed by the proposals, and as such, the authority cannot
meet the tests required of the Habitats Regulations with respect to European
protected Species. As European protected species mitigation licences would be
required to manage the loss and compensation of their habitats and the translocation
of the individuals, the authority also needs to be confident that such a licence would
be forthcoming from the statutory authority.
​
These are very rare animals and the populations within the area remain one of the
only (but still shrinking) populations in the country, and therefore normal techniques
to manage reptiles are not appropriate for the development. More care should have
been made to obtain more detailed data on the local and regional population
prior todesigning the scheme, and for this to feed into retaining habitats required for
breeding and movement between populations rather than relying on
translocation. Much has been done retrospectively to look at this issue, which is
appreciated, but it remains a significant constraint that has not been adequately
addressed.
​
The mitigation strategies, though more detail has been supplied still are inadequate
to be satisfied that sufficient habitats will be available throughout operation for
breeding, feeding and movement. There is much concern about the realignment of
Track F, considered to be a significant importance to the species in these
terms. This also relates to the issue outlined above about adequate mapping of
habitats, including retained and perceived establishment of restored habitats at any
given time during the operation. The reptile mitigation strategy lacks sufficient detail
on the methodology of translocation, including its timings in relation to phasing, and
unclear on the phased location and preparation of receptor sites. The
enhancements for the receptor sites also needs more detail; standard methods for
these species are not suitable, and location of sand scrapes etc would need to be
detailed.
​
Birds
Our concerns relating to the connection of this site to the SPA was outlined in full in
our previous response, and further information was sought through items 4, 6, 7, 9,
11, 13 of the Reg 25. Natural England retains a strong objection on this issue. Their
comments relate to a lack of information on available habitat throughout the
operational phase suitable to replicate the sites current function, especially in
terms of moving through the site. Therefore, we will be unable to determine this application
due to insufficient information relating to the impact to the nearby SPA.
​
Compensation areas
Item 11 of the Reg 25 set out the requirement for compensation for the loss of the
onsite habitats during operation and prior to establishment of final restored lowland
heathland. It was not the intention that these areas would be provided to as
increased recreation resource to offset any displacement during the operation of the
site. NE has rightly raised significant concerns about this, primarily with respect to
impacts to existing habitats, and SPA bird and EPS reptiles. These compensation
areas are not supported by baseline data related to these species and we are
therefore unable to determine impacts to conservation status or reptile population, or
the level of impacts to the SAP through the functional connection provided by the
bird populations.
​
Recreational impacts
Item 14 of the Reg 25 asked for further information on the impacts arising from
recreational impacts. The applicant has provided survey data on this, and has
woven the results of this into the long term mitigation strategies. However, Natural
England has significant experience in undertaking and analysing recreational
surveys for impacts to European sites, and has raised significant concerns on the
adequacy of the data. We therefore cannot determine that the information supplied
is sufficient to draw the conclusions on which the impact assessment and
subsequent mitigation strategy is based. As such, impacts to the SPA and SAC
cannot be ruled out.
​
Hydrological impacts
Natural England retain an objection on the basis of hydrological impacts to the
nearby SSSI. Further discussions between Natural England and the applicant on the
necessary data that is needed to satisfy this issue is required.
Royal Society for Protection of Birds
​
To reiterate, the RSPB’s interest in this planning application is as follows:
​
1. Its potential to adversely impact populations of breeding nightjar, Dartford warbler and woodlark, all of
which are qualifying species of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area.
​
2. The long-term potential to restore lowland heathland within Purple Haze through different mechanisms.
We have provided feedback below, based on our previous comments relating to these areas of interest.
We welcome the acknowledgement that the removal of habitat within the site could damage the interest of
the SPA and the clear recognition of the functional link between the site and the SPA (sHRA paragraph 4.2.4).
In our supplementary response letter of June 2021, we highlighted that a review of the UK’s terrestrial SPA
network was published in 2016, which recommended a boundary review of some existing heathland SPAs,
including the Dorset Heathlands SPA. There is strong evidence to extend the SPA boundary to include the
Purple Haze site and the surrounding area. The recommendations of this review are yet to be implemented.
Our supplementary response highlighted the Rufford case in Nottinghamshire. There are important similarities
between this and the Purple Haze application, which should be considered when assessing this application.
Further details can be found in our supplementary response (attached for ease of reference). Until such time
as the third SPA Review has been implemented in respect of both nightjar in general, and the boundaries of
the Dorset Heathlands SPA in particular, we would strongly advise that HCC should as a minimum adopt the
same approach to that adopted in the Rufford case. This is necessary to satisfy request number four in the
Regulation 25 letter, which asks for additional assessment of the functional linkage with the SPA and the
implications of displacing populations of bird species associated with it.
​
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 in the shadow HRA suggest a significant increase in high quality nightjar habitat from
around 4ha to over 30ha, but this is over 62 years. The woodland clearance outlined covers 20.9ha, but
doesn’t give a timeframe for completion. We welcome the assertion that some on-site habitat enhancements
and creation will take place prior to extraction, but very little additional information is provided as evidence
for this, nor is there certainty that these areas are suitable. It should be the case that extraction at the next
phase cannot commence until restoration is complete. The Bird Report (Appendix A6) states that suitability of
habitat for nightjar is decreasing (4.2.2). This is very disappointing given the significance of the species and2
should be addressed to ensure compliance with Annex 1 of the EU ‘Birds’ Directive (Directive on the
conservation of wild birds 2009/147/EC) Article 4 and to meet the commitments of the approved FDP 2009.
Maintenance of the quantity, quality and connectivity of nightjar habitat (both within the site and to the
nearby SPA) throughout extraction (sHRA 4.2.68) is essential. We can not see sufficient information to confirm
that the phasing of the works will maintain sufficient suitable habitat for nightjar during the development of
the site. The nesting bird protection scheme (oLEMMP 13.2) outlines some basic measures for screening works
and recreational access, as well as a few specific suggestions for nightjar habitat management. These are
useful, but we would require clarity on how any bracken management is likely to be conducted as mechanised
work will likely destroy any nightjar nests. The bird monitoring scheme (oLEMMP 14.2) contains generic
statements about the timing of habitat work and the need to carry out monitoring, but fails to identify who
will conduct this monitoring and how. Paragraph 14.2.3 states that ‘Quarry staff must be vigilant’ for certain
species. We have concerns about ongoing monitoring being left to site staff and not being carried out by
trained ecologists. Due to these issues, we do not feel that that the applicant has addressed request number
three in the Regulation 25 letter, which asks for more detail regarding how the phased development minimises
the impact on populations of notable birds.
​
We maintain our concerns regarding the displacement of recreational pressure from the site. We question the
conclusion that the existing control measures are likely to prevent quarrying operations from significantly
reducing the attractiveness of these areas (sHRA 4.2.21). No evidence is provided to back up this statement.
The visitor survey focusses only on local visitors outside the peak season, failing to account for a significant
amount of visitor pressure. It assesses existing usage and fails to ask respondents whether they would be likely
to recreate elsewhere given the changes proposed under the development, or how their patterns of usage
might be affected by the work. This is likely to change as restoration creates more open areas (both on site
and off), potentially moving people off the existing tracks and facilitating access to these more open areas.
This will create additional pressure on species using the adjacent and offset areas.
​
We acknowledge that offset areas could mitigate for some of the impacts on wildlife within the site boundary,
we have several concerns over the sites proposed and the ability to recreate suitable heathland habitats.
Whilst we welcome the addition of two offset areas to deliver biodiversity offsetting, we can see little
reference to nightjar in the plans for these areas. This is a missed opportunity, as these areas could provide
suitable habitat for this species. That said, the Ashley Heath area is very close to houses and potential sources
of disturbance, and the other site is long and thin with significant edge effects, such as the long boundary with
the main road. As these areas have also been proposed to provide alternative areas for recreation, we would
question whether they will they be able to manage the wildlife enhancement alongside additional recreational
usage. We have not seen any information relating to the existing wildlife value of these sites. It is likely that
they already support similar populations of birds (and other species) to the application site, in which case
there could be impacts on these areas that need to be assessed following survey work. No information has
been provided to demonstrate what management would be taking place on these sites in the absence of being
used as mitigation areas. We would also seek clarification that the off-site habitat will be provided prior to
extraction, and that monitoring would take place to ensure their efficacy prior to works commencing on site.
Heathland restoration is not quick or easy, and other mineral extraction sites have failed to restore heathland
habitats of sufficient quality to mitigate for losses elsewhere. If they do not provide adequate suitable
compensatory habitats, further remediation work would be required. We have concerns about the reliance on
planting gorse to restore the habitat. Gorse, suitably managed on a long rotation, can provide valuable habitat
for breeding and non-breeding Dartford warbler, but its value for breeding nightjar is likely to be limited and
would have little or no value for woodlark. The information provided fails to address request number eleven in
the Regulation 25 letter, which asks that acceptable compensatory habitats are provided to offset the loss of
habitats prior to restoration habitats becoming established.
​
Our comments above are based on the data presented. The breeding bird survey indicates that updated bird
surveys are scheduled for 2023, including a nightjar survey due to take place in June. It also suggested that an
updated walkover survey had taken place in October 2022 but provided no results. Whilst we welcome the
additional surveys and updated data, it is difficult for us to draw any final conclusions until we have seen the3
results. These will inform the mitigation strategy, and so we would like to comment on the final version of that
strategy if it is subject to any amendments.
​
Given that the site is functionally linked to the SPA, and the outcome of the Rufford case, we believe that
further information is required to ensure that the existing population of nightjar, both on and off-site, will not
be impacted by the development. We can not see sufficient information to confirm that the phasing of the
works will maintain sufficient suitable habitat for nightjar during the development of the site, nor do we
believe that the mitigation proposed, particularly that provided by compensatory habitats, is adequate or
properly assessed.
​
Therefore, we sustain our objection to this application. We share many of the concerns raised by NE, EDEP,
ARC and other conservation bodies