Representation by RSPB (RSPB)
- Date submitted
- 31 March 2021
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
Introduction The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (the RSPB) was set up in 1889. It is a registered charity incorporated by Royal Charter and is Europe's largest wildlife conservation organisation, with a membership of more than 1.2 million. The RSPB manages 220 nature reserves in the UK covering an area of over 158,725 hectares. The Society attaches great importance to the conservation of the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), notified in England by Natural England. The RSPB’s position on the London Resort application The RSPB objects to the application by the London Resort Holding Company Ltd (the Applicant) for the proposed London Resort development (the application). If granted, this application will represent one of the largest single losses of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in England and the largest in recent history. We calculate that this would comprise the direct loss of over 100 hectares of the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI (the SSSI) combined with significant indirect damage caused to other parts of the SSSI within and adjacent to the footprint of the development. Such large-scale loss of a nationally important wildlife site is wholly incompatible with the site’s SSSI status and in direct conflict with the Applicant’s claim to create a world class entertainment resort founded on sustainable principles. To achieve this, the proposal needs to be relocated to a more suitable, alternative location. Such destruction would contradict several key elements of Government policy and guidance with regard the protection of the natural environment. These include: - commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land for nature by 2030; - the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, including its approach to Nature Recovery Networks, which states “we will develop a Nature Recovery Network providing 500,000 hectares of additional wildlife habitat, more effectively linking existing protected sites and landscapes”; and - the national planning policy framework protection afforded to SSSIs. For example, NPPF paragraph 175b states that development likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI should not normally be permitted. Given the scale of the destruction that would be caused by this scheme on the SSSI, the benefits of the scheme’s location would not outweigh damage caused to the SSSI and the broader impacts on the national network of SSSIs. The importance of the Swanscombe Peninsula Site of Special Scientific Interest On 11 March 2021, Natural England notified the 264.10-hectare Swanscombe Peninsula Site of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This gave formal recognition to the high and diverse nature conservation value of the site that had become increasingly apparent during the pre-application period. SSSIs represent the pinnacle of UK wildlife habitats and geological sites. Maintaining them in favourable condition alone and as part of a wider national network of protected areas is crucial if we are to address the existing nature and climate emergency. The SSSI notification includes 6.89 hectares previously notified as Bakers Hole SSSI. The notification recognises four significant areas – complex geology, rare plants, an extensive invertebrate assemblage and two diverse assemblages of breeding birds - one associated with lowland open waters and their margins, lowland fen and lowland damp grassland; the other with lowland scrub. The impacts of the development on the SSSI The RSPB is gravely concerned about the major impacts the development proposals will have on all of the SSSI’s notified assemblages, both in terms of direct loss of habitat and the indirect impacts during construction and the operation of the site, for example noise, lighting, pyrotechnics, hydrology, (water supply and quality) and recreational disturbance. The application pre-dates the SSSI notification and so takes no account of the SSSI in its Environmental Statement. Such a fundamental change in the formal recognition of the peninsula’s importance for nature conservation, means that significant parts of the applicant’s Environmental Statement are no longer relevant. In our non-statutory consultation response (September 2020), we expressed concerns about the viability of this location due to its environmental sensitivity and other alternatives sites available. The RSPB considers that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will now need to be revised in respect of the impacts on the SSSI and an additional public consultation on that revision carried out prior to the commencement of the examination. This will ensure that the examination is able to take full and proper account of the SSSI status during the 6-month examination period and make best use of examination time. It may be simpler to withdraw the whole application and resubmit it once the additional EIA work and consultation has been completed. Application of the mitigation hierarchy in the Environmental Statement The Ecological Mitigation and Management Framework (EMMF – document reference 6.2.12.3) sets out the designated sites for consideration. Notwithstanding the RSPB’s objection to the development, the EMMF will require revision to take full account of the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI and the need to avoid and mitigate any predicted impacts on its interest features. Currently the applicant commits to providing Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) by way of compensation for damaging direct impacts on the natural environment. As with the Government’s emerging BNG system, this does not take account of indirect impacts and impacts on species. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is clear that any development taking land from protected sites cannot claim to be delivering BNG. This is set out in the Explanatory Notes to the current Environment Bill (paragraph 1575) and must apply to the London Resort proposals. The RSPB fully supports Defra’s position on this issue. Therefore, it is no longer appropriate or acceptable to apply BNG in respect of addressing impacts on the SSSI and reinforces the need to produce and consult on a revised EIA in respect of the impacts on the SSSI. A net gain in biodiversity must be in addition to, and not instead of existing statutory biodiversity protection. It should only apply to developments that do not have an impact on protected areas, as more robust requirements already apply to protected areas, and it must be additional and not an alternative to establishing and conserving a robust network of protected areas. Other matters The RSPB notes that, unlike development proposals for ports, new nuclear power stations or major road infrastructure, there is no designated National Policy Statement for business and commercial projects. Therefore, our understanding is that any decision in respect of the London Resort is covered by section 105 of the Planning Act 2008. Buglife, CPRE Kent, Kent Wildlife Trust and the RSPB will work together during the Examination on issues of joint concern including impacts on protected species and the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI (including SSSI land take, hydrological impacts, noise and light pollution and recreational impacts). This will include where appropriate joint submissions or support for each other’s positions to minimise repetition and save Examination time. For now, it should be noted that the RSPB is generally supportive of the other issues raised in the Relevant Representations by its conservation partners. The RSPB reserves the right to add to/amend its position in the light of any new information submitted by the Applicant or other Interested Parties. RSPB, 31 March 2021