Supporting authority pre-consultation review frequently asked questions

The local habitat map for the LNRS includes the areas of particular importance for biodiversity (APIB) and areas that could become of importance for biodiversity (ACIB).  The local habitat map is a requirement of the regulations but the value and use of the mapping is in viewing the two maps separately.

The APIB shows the areas of the county that are assumed to already have some level of protection through planning, and management as a result of associated legislation.

The ACIB shows the areas of the county considered to be where the greatest gains for nature recovery, and wider environmental benefits, would be realised if action was targeted there.  These areas place a priority on areas which improve connectivity of the strategy area and support the buffering and/or linking of areas of particular importance within the wider landscape.  They were identified by mapping areas with lowest level of connectivity that coincide with potential measures.

Whilst the APIB provides a spatial view of the opportunity areas for the county, it is the detail in the potential measures map that is important – especially in planning terms, to ensure that any biodiversity net gain is delivering against the priorities identified for that area.

These mapping layers identify areas where the potential measures could be delivered – based on greatest gains and benefit.  The potential measures are not an instruction, rather they are an informative and therefore they do not dictate what should, or shouldn’t, happen.  They can, however, be used by planning authorities to ensure that any gains delivered through biodiversity net gain, and any other development mitigation, is meaningful in terms of what action will be meaningful and contribute to the recovery of nature. 

Some measures are related to management of sites that are of existing importance, and some related to access to nature or broad principles to follow across all areas of relevant habitat in the county. Whilst important to the county’s nature, these are not eligible for inclusion in the ACIB under the LNRS regulations and statutory guidance.  The measures that specifically outlined areas that would suit a specific type of habitat, and encouraged either habitat creation or restoration, and where able to be suitably refined and targeted were included within the ACIB.

When the potential measures where mapped, their location was defined by considering  habitat, evidenced pressures, opportunities etc.  The mapping did not take account whether or not that land was already afforded some level of protection or management through a national or local designation.  This ensures that the ecologically integrity of the mapped measure is complete and not interrupted by arbitrary boundaries.

However the regulations require that there should be no overlap between the APIB and ACIB.  Therefore, once the ACIB was created the APIB areas had to be cut from the mapped layer.

The following advice is provided by Natural England:

The benefit of mapping potential measures in areas of particular importance is likely to vary considerably between different types of protected sites. Special Areas for Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves NNRs), Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) and Ramsar Sites, have strong legal protections and requirements in place regarding how they should and should not be managed. This means that it is unlikely that the LNRS process will generate useful new information about how these areas should be managed, or that it would be legally acceptable to manage these areas significantly differently from what has already been proposed.  RAs may still wish to reflect existing agreed actions for managing these most highly protected designations in their LNRS, but they are not required to do so as this is unlikely to affect whether necessary actions are undertaken.

LNRSs can, however, play an important role in identifying areas that could become of particular importance around or near existing highly protected sites to link or expand existing habitat, or buffer the protected areas from offsite pressures or impacts. For example, targeting action to improve water quality flowing into protected wetlands through habitat creation.

There is much greater potential for LNRSs to be of benefit in mapping potential measures in Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) and areas of irreplaceable habitat (IH). These areas should be included in the Local Habitat Map as existing “areas of particular importance for biodiversity”, but there are fewer restrictions on how they should be managed, and it is less likely that there are existing plans for how they could be improved (except for areas of IH inside protected sites). LWS and areas of IH (outside protected sites) can also be improved to help meet biodiversity net gain requirements and carrying out potential measures proposed by the LNRS in these locations would therefore benefit from the 15% uplift. This means that mapping potential measures in and around LWS and areas of IH can play an important role in encouraging their improvement.

LWS and areas of IH where potential measures have been mapped should still be included in the Local Habitat Map as “areas of particular importance” and should not be mapped as “areas that could become of particular importance” (or both). As explained in the data standards advice, RAs should include a separate data layer of locations where potential measures have been mapped when they provide their final LNRS to Government. RAs do not need to provide this information separately in the LNRS they publish. However, it should be clear from the Local Habitat Map which “areas of particular importance” have which potential measures mapped to them.

The LNRS does not draw localised, detailed or definitive boundaries but identifies theoretical areas where action is likely to provide the greatest gains.

The inclusion/exclusion of allocated sites, and other land coming forward for development, in the mapping was discussed by the LNRS Data, evidence and mapping Technical Advisory Group with the recommendation that such sites should not be excluded.  This recommendation was endorsed by Kent Chief Planners.  Such sites are not excluded because:

• The LNRS does not instruct what should happen on land, rather it informs.  Therefore, overlap with a mapped potential measure or the ACIB does not prevent development from occurring on that land.  It does however offer direction on what measures for nature could be integrated into that development site to aid nature recovery, should this be something the LPA wished to pursue or already has policy for.  Therefore the mapping could be useful in pre-application conversations, site design and as an aid for planning application reviews.
• If removed, it would undermine the integrity of the LNRS and its role in biodiversity net gain – that being to identify strategically important areas for nature and inform strategic significance within the metric.  The potential measures will also indicate what actions/gains would be most beneficial and so removal would result in missing the opportunity to steer onsite BNG gains. This is beneficial to the developer too, it terms of knowing that is the most beneficial/valuable action in terms of their net gain delivery.
• Removal would also give the message that nature has no place within development or growth, suggesting that the two are incompatible.  Development has a huge and positive role to play in tackling nature decline and removal of sites from the LNRS mapping would undermine this.
• Potential measures mapping will also be identifying opportunities for nature based solutions.  Not only might this assist developers in finding solutions to challenges on site, there may also be the potential opportunity to secure investment to the site if the measures are offering a wider service that otherwise would have to be paid for elsewhere.

The inclusion/exclusion of approved sites, and sites in construction, in the mapping was discussed by the LNRS Data, evidence and mapping Technical Advisory Group with the recommendation that such sites should not be excluded.  This recommendation was endorsed by Kent Chief Planners.  Such sites are not excluded because the LNRS maps will be in place for up to a possible 10 years, therefore we need to ensure that areas of strategic significance are still considered even if for now, they are being used in a way that might preclude the delivery of the potential measure.

It was agreed that where LPAs provide a GIS layers of such sites, these will be clipped out of potential measures mapping with the exception of those measures that fall under priorities relating to urban, successional, connectivity, freshwater and coastal.  It is considered that some of the measures under these priorities may still be deliverable on previously developed land in the future. It was also recommended by the TAG and endorsed by Kent Chief Planners that the mapping would not exclude:

• Land where work is underway/planned to convert land to a habitat that’s an LNRS priority or deliver an identified potential measure. In order to ensure these areas can benefit from grants, funding, investment and BNG uplifts.
• Lower Thames Crossing development area, given there is still no decision on whether this will be going ahead or not.
• Any council owned land that they may be considering for release.

If you don’t see your suggestions reflected in the mapping, it is likely to because we either couldn’t locate data to be able to map it, the data gathering would have taken longer than the time allocated to produce this iteration of the strategy, or you may have provided us with maps rather than GIS files and due to the vast amount of data being inputted we did not have the resources or time to digitalise this mapping.

Yes, there will be online interactive maps for the public to look at during the public consultation

We do not need anything in writing to confirm an authority is “content” in order for us to proceed to public consultation; we just cannot have received objections we are unable to resolve.  However, you are welcome to confirm in writing to the responsible authority that you are content for it to proceed if you wish to – such confirmation should be sent to elizabeth.milne@kent.gov.uk (please do not post).

This period is not seeking supporting authority support or approval of the LNRS – this is not required by the regulations.  This review is to determine whether the supporting authorities are “content” for the public consultation to proceed.  If no objections are received by the end of the 28 day period, or the supporting authority/authorities confirm in writing before this time, it is determined that public consultation can go ahead.  We do not need anything in writing to confirm an authority is “content” in order for us to proceed to public consultation; we just cannot have received objections we are unable to resolve.

A lack of objection and/or a statement that the supporting authority is “content” to proceed to public consultation will not be viewed as support, approval or adoption of the LNRS by the supporting authority.  It will also not preclude them from making detailed comments during the consultation period.

The supporting authority will be asked to provide, in writing, their objection to the consultation proceeding and the reasons for it.  If relevant, the authority may also be asked for supporting evidence.  If this is not a matter that can be easily resolved to allow the consultation to go ahead, the objection will be taken to the MS4N Board.  If the matter can still not be resolved and the responsible authority  (with Board support) believes that the strategy should still proceed to consultation, permission for this needs to be sought from the Secretary of State.

It should be noted that if the Kent & Medway LNRS does not go to public consultation by mid-January, the consultation will not be able to take place until late spring/early summer 2025 (because of pre-election restrictions) and, consequently, the county will not have a completed LNRS until the end of 2025.  Notwithstanding the fact that this would be a year beyond Defra’s original target date for the LNRS, such a late publication date would also have consequences for BNG delivery in the county and potentially other grant and funding sources that will be informed by the strategy.  As a county, we would also miss the opportunity to embed the LNRS into some of the local plan reviews where the process aligns with our intended summer 2025 completion date.

It is because of the potential complications of an objection that KCC have worked with the county’s supporting authorities throughout the process, so that at any point concerns over the process, approach or emerging strategy could be highlighted and addressed at the time – rather than at the end of the 28 day pre-consultation review period.  KCC also hopes the approach to the 28 day period, will also allow any potential issues to be identified and addressed before the end of the period.

No major changes to the strategy can be made as a result of the review period.  If this was necessary, a further pre-consultation review would be required.  The public consultation provides a further and extended period for districts and boroughs to review and comment on the LNRS.

The regulations require a 28 day period is provided to supporting authorities to determine if they are content for the LNRS to proceed to public consultation – this has been provided.

As mentioned above, the Kent & Medway LNRS must go to public consultation by mid-January – any later, and it will be delayed by KCC pre-election restrictions in the spring, which will have knock-on impacts to the publication date. A publication date of late 2025 will have consequences for BNG delivery in the county and potentially other grant and funding sources that will be informed by the strategy.

The public consultation period provides further opportunity for supporting authorities to comment again in detail.

The LNRS is a new document, and how it is interpreted and used at the local level is not yet set out in detail with regards to how it will inform local plans, ELMS and other government grants/funding.  The document is however strategic in its nature and therefore the mapping may not be considered wholly applicable when considered at the local level.  The potential measures mapping is indicative and the relevance/appropriateness needs to be considered and determined for the local level before implementation.

The anticipated formal guidance on the relationship between the LNRS and local plans is yet to be published, therefore we cannot advise what will be required to meet the statutory requirement of “take account” of LNRS in local plan development.

However the LNRS is an informative document – it does not instruct what must happen and where.  The strategy, and its mapping, does not supersede existing local plans and site allocations.  The strategy will not prevent development nor undermine any policies/plans that are already in place.  Clarification on this is within the current strategy document but will be strengthened before public consultation.

Potential measures mapping – In developing the mapping with stakeholders there were concerns raised that the approach of not mapping measures which had broad coverage gave the unintended and incorrect impression that some areas of the county had no potential, or need, for action to recover nature.  For stakeholders in these areas this understandably did not sit well.  It was therefore decided that if measures could be mapped, they would be; best attempts were made to focus these measures to areas of most need and benefit.

Areas that could become of importance for biodiversity – in order to create the areas that could become   of importance for biodiversity, the mapped potential measures were the first layer of opportunity considered.  Mapped measures that were not sufficiently discriminate were not included in this base layer – largely, these were measures that were related to the principle of “better” – i.e. the application and resourcing of better and appropriate management, to conserve and safeguard what we already have. To deliver a map of areas that could become of importance for biodiversity that was not just a collection of measures and had some ecological integrity and functionality sitting behind it, the collective mapped potential measures were refined to target areas that not only addressed the specific measure but also delivered in respect of connectivity.  Connectivity is the ultimate aspiration of the strategy, the apex, if you like, of the adopted Lawton principles.  Modelling was applied to identify bottlenecks and areas of “low flow” in relation to species movement.  Connectivity was also targeted to join-up and buffer the areas of particular importance for biodiversity.

Viewing potential measures within the areas that could become of importance for biodiversity – during the course of the pre-consultation review it has become clear that it would be useful to better understand where potential measures fall within the areas that could become of importance for biodiversity.  We are reviewing with Kent Wildlife Trust whether this can be built into the mapping in time for the public consultation.

During the course of the project we asked partners and stakeholders to map where action had already been taken for nature recovery and priority areas for future action.  The intention was to use this to inform the ACIB mapping.  However, when it came to prioritisation of areas this data level did not provide the level of detail needed.  However this data still remains useful – in particular when looking for areas to target in the first year of the strategy’s implementation, by identifying areas where action can be extended and built on – supporting expansion and connectivity principles – and identifying areas where there may be local and landowner support for nature recovery action.

Guidance on this is still awaited from Defra and MHCLG.  It is important to note that Defra guidance states that the LNRS will not draw localised, detailed or definitive boundaries – which means the role of the ACIB in informing the BNG strategic significance multiplier is not clear.  It is queried whether there will be a buffer around the ACIB where developers and BNG credit providers can evidence why or why not the multiplier should not or should be applied beyond the mapped area.  The Kent BNG Officer and LNRS Local Government Officer will be working with the county’s planning authorities in 2025 to develop a potential approach.