Representation by Buglife- The Invertebrate Conservation Trust (Buglife- The Invertebrate Conservation Trust)
- Date submitted
- 31 March 2021
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
Buglife welcomes the opportunity to make representations on proposals for the London Resort NSIP application. Impact on Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI and nationally important habitats: • The Swanscombe Peninsula was recently notified as the ‘Swanscombe Peninsula Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Kent’ by Natural England, following the enlargement of the Bakers Hole SSSI under section 28C (Enlargement) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 on 11th March 2021.This notification is with immediate effect, and a consultation is currently underway. Natural England note the “open mosaic habitat on previously developed land and traditional estuarine habitat which connects Ebbsfleet Valley to the southern shore of the River Thames between Dartford and Gravesend”, the value of the complex habitat mosaic and the nationally important assemblage of invertebrates that the site supports. Natural England have undertaken a thorough analysis of the significant biodiversity interest of the Swanscombe Peninsula and deemed it of national significance . This notification follows a review of the growing evidence that has come to light as the application has progressed. • The London Resort proposals would lead to the direct loss of over 100ha of the SSSI and indirect impacts on much of the remainder as a result of disturbance, impacts on site hydrology, light pollution, the potential introduction of inappropriate management and the fragmentation of remaining habitats. These indirect impacts will also impact the Botany Marsh Local Wildlife Site (LWS). The development would be a significant blow to biodiversity conservation within the Thames Estuary, which has suffered from the progressive loss of invertebrate rich habitats associated with Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL) and coastal habitats through widespread development, as outlined in Buglife’s State of Brownfields in the Thames Gateway report . The precedent set by losing over 100ha of nationally important habitat makes the London Resort proposals wholly inappropriate for the Swanscombe Peninsula. • The value of the Swanscombe Peninsula has been acknowledged for a number of years, with the site identified in the Natural England funded ‘All of a Buzz in the Thames Gateway’ project in 2008 as having high potential to support nationally rare or scarce invertebrate species. The recent campaign for the site to be designated as a SSSI was necessarily later as for the first time full invertebrate survey data was made public as part of the London Resort public consultation process. • The Swanscombe Peninsula supports a unique mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the sites complex human history. This includes areas clearly identifiable as OMHPDL, a Habitat of Principal Importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Swanscombe Peninsula represents one of the last remaining large wildlife-rich brownfield habitats in the Thames Estuary. Its mosaic of habitats (including OMHPDL), size and position within the Thames Estuary allow it to support an extraordinarily rich fauna and flora. The proposals would lead to the loss of the majority of the OMHPDL habitats used by terrestrial invertebrates, with likely high indirect impacts on invertebrates across the site. • The proposals also have the potential to impact the Swanscombe Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) which has been notified on the basis of its important population of the Tentacled lagoon-worm (Alkmaria romijni) . The habitat of the Tentacled-lagoon work is protected under the WCA. Incomplete Environmental Statement and inadequate assessment: • The London Resort application pre-dates the SSSI notification of the Swanscombe Peninsula. As a result, the SSSI status is not recognised throughout the Environmental Statement and the associated documents. The SSSI notification is a fundamental change within the assessment process and represents a significant change in the baseline of the site and measure of proposed impacts. It is now essential that the application is withdrawn and re-submitted in with appropriate assessments that correctly address the site’s SSSI status. • Buglife has emphasised the inappropriate location of the site in its submissions to the London Resort public consultation. It is noted that within the London Resort’s review of potential alternative sites that the Swanscombe Peninsula is identified as having limited ‘environmental constraints’ or ‘planning constraints’ . It is clear that with the SSSI notification, the selection of the Swanscombe Peninsula as the preferred location for the London Resort development is in need of urgent review. • The habitat assessments have failed to adequately assess both the extent and quality of OMHPDL within the application site. Much of this is a result of failing to utilise the OMHPDL qualifying criteria properly and instead breaking down the site’s complex mosaic into individual constituent components, overlooking their raised value in combination. It has also been suggested that many areas of OMHPDL are only in ‘moderate’ condition, which is undermined by the acknowledged invertebrate assemblages associated with the habitat, which represents the best example in the whole of the UK, as confirmed by comprehensive survey data. Nationally important invertebrate populations: • The Swanscombe Peninsula supports a nationally significant assemblage of invertebrates, which includes over 250 species of conservation concern (Red Data Book or Nationally Scarce), even without the inclusion of 2020 survey data . This exceeds the assemblages at both Canvey Wick and West Thurrock Marshes, long considered to be the best national examples of OMHPDL habitat and key sites in the Thames Estuary for invertebrates. Being home to the longest list of red-listed and nationally scarce invertebrate species of any wildlife-rich brownfield site in the UK means that the site is demonstrably of national significance. • The site supports the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), one of only two UK populations. The loss of the Swanscombe Peninsula’s OMHPDL habitats would threaten the long-term future of this spider as a UK species. The site also supports the Endangered Duffey’s bell-head spider (Praestigia duffeyi), the Vulnerable Orange-striped water beetle (Graphoderus cinereus) and several Near Threatened invertebrate species. The site also boasts an impressive list of invertebrate Section 41 species, that are indicative of the site’s potential importance: Sea aster mining bee (Colletes halophilus), Brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis), Phoenix fly (Dorycera graminum), Black-headed mason wasp (Odynerus melanocephalus), Five-banded weevil wasp (Cerceris quinquefasciata), Saltmarsh shortspur beetle (Anisodactylus poeciloides), Yellow-striped bear-spider (Arctosa fulvolineata), in addition to a number of declining Lepidoptera species. • Although a combined list of 2012, 2015 and 2020 invertebrate surveys has not been compiled by the applicant, it is abundantly clear that the Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding assemblage of invertebrates, with in excess of 2,000 terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates recorded. This makes it the single most significant site for invertebrates within the Thames Estuary, and a leading site nationally. • Swanscombe supports a quarter of the national water beetle fauna, demonstrating the national significance of the aquatic invertebrate assemblages. Of the 199 species submitted in the surveys prior to 2020, this includes 1 Vulnerable species, 3 Near Threatened water beetle species, 10 Nationally Scarce species and 42 Local Species. Across the site, two thirds of communities were assessed as being of Very High Conservation Value using the Community Conservation Index (CCI). • The Swanscombe MCZ is the only MCZ designated for the Tentacled lagoon-worm in the East of England. Absence of a detailed mitigation and compensation strategy for invertebrates: • The applicant has failed to provide a comprehensive mitigation and compensation strategy, despite the long-acknowledged value of the site prior to the recent SSSI notification. On-site proposals are notably limited in their specific efforts for terrestrial invertebrates and off-site compensation proposals are limited only to ‘Offsite mitigation principles’ . It is unacceptable that a SSSI is at risk of such significant loss to development, and for proposals to be limited to principles alone. • Importantly, without a detailed mitigation and compensation strategy, it is not possible for a reasonable Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken of any site, let alone one of recognised national importance. • With regards to the limited mitigation and compensation information provided, Buglife expects the current on and off-site proposals to lead to an overall considerable net loss of biodiversity, with irreversible impacts on the invertebrate biodiversity of the Thames Estuary. • The on-site mitigation proposed would not be expected to support a large proportion of the invertebrate interest identified. The proposed layout would see the loss of the vast majority of the OMHPDL areas and associated habitats supporting the terrestrial invertebrate interest, with the retained areas being more wet in character. • Buglife considers OMHPDL to be an irreplaceable habitat that cannot be recreated with any proven success. Losses of irreplaceable habitats must be avoided as a priority. • It is also concerning that the principles of offsite mitigation for invertebrates for a nationally significant habitat of such complexity are evidence only by small scale habitat creation works which were created in 2013 as part of the London Distribution Park development. This involved the creation of a simple layout of bunds on spread material, with no demonstration that habitats as complex as those on the Swanscombe Peninsula can be replicated. For such small scale works to be used as the primary evidence for a proposed mitigation approach for such a nationally significant wildlife site of clear complexity is unacceptable. Policy: • The proposed development undermines the government’s commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land for nature by 30% and its commitment to Nature Recovery Networks and the 25 Year Environment Plan’s commitment to “effectively linking existing protected sites and landscapes” . The SSSI network and protection of habitats of principle importance must underpin the government’s approach to halting biodiversity declines. • Although overridden by the NSIP process, Paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that “ (a) 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 resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; (b) 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 proposals would lead to irreversible impacts on the nationally important habitats and invertebrate fauna of the Thames Estuary. • NSIP applications are usually guided by National Policy Statements (NPS) produced by the government, for example there are NPS to guide and provide a framework for applications for ports, national transport networks, and energy production or storage facilities. “National Policy Statements undergo a democratic process of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny before being designated (ie published). They provide the framework within which Examining Authorities make their recommendations to the Secretary of State” . However, there is no such NPS to support theme parks or entertainment developments. • NSIPs are not bound to commit to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), but is essential that any claims of BNG are withdrawn from the application following the SSSI notification of the Swanscombe Peninsula. Paragraph 1575 of the Environment Bill explanatory notes confirms that “development cannot claim biodiversity net gain in cases when development results in land take from statutory protected sites (such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, and Ramsar sites)” Issues of joint concern: Buglife, CPRE Kent, Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) 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 & 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 Buglife is generally supportive of the other issues raised in the Relevant Representations by our conservation partners. Buglife reserves the right to add to/amend its position should new information be made available by the applicant or other Interested Parties.