Representation by Matt Shardlow
- Date submitted
- 12 March 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Almost every day we hear that species and habitats are in decline and international commitments to conserve biodiversity are being failed. The planning system has been a key part of this picture, but the NPPF is clear that: "if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last compensated for, then planning permission should be refused" Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI and the adjacent MCZ support more species of conservation concern and IUCN red listed species than any other single site in the whole of the UK. This is possible because of the unique combination of high quality habitats in close proximity to each other. While London Resorts have been, and will continue to, make far-fetched claims relating to their ability to protect, restore or recreate the habitats, the truth is that it takes many decades for such habitats to develop and become suitable for maintaining populations of the most specialised and endangered species. Because the project will be unable to recreate the area and proximity of habitats that they are planning to destroy, it will inevitably cause significant harm to the nation's biodiversity. Species driven to extinction on this site cannot wait in limbo for 30 years until any mitigation habitat becomes suitable for them to remerge from extinction and occupy. This is the key issue to be determined and on it I hope that the inspector will pay particular attention to the expert views of independent scientists, NGOs representing wildlife and brownfield practitioners. If left with significant doubt that biodiversity harm can be avoided then the precautionary principle means that the SoS should act to ensure that the biodiversity is not exposed to the risk. The designation of the site as an SSSI has changed the parameters of the decision, in particular the NPPF is clear that: "development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;" As submitted the development plans and proposal do not address the key questions set out in this policy. The SSSI designation has established the interest features and the development has be be considered in respect to its likely impact on each one of them. The format and content of the current application do not enable this analysis or attempt to show how the development might outweigh its impacts on the SSSI. To enable a proper consideration of the SSSI implications the plans should be withdrawn and resubmitted. If this is not done then the process is likely to be judged to be flawed as key environmental information is unavailable. With the application now submitted it is clear that there is no nationally significant infrastructure associated with the development. The SoS should take the opportunity provided by the withdrawal of the application to address the SSSI designation to reconsider if his opinion about the NSIP status of the site should be revised. There does not seem to be any reason why the normal planning process could not be applied to the development.