Nature Networks and Biodiversity Enhancement

Feedback updated 17 Oct 2024

Results updated 17 Oct 2024

Summary of Feedback

We received 34 responses to this initial consultation exercise as follows

18 Member of public                  

7 Land owner or manager         

3 Community organisation       

2 Environmental Group or Agency

2 Landowner Representative organisation

1 Other statutory body

1 declined to provide details, and 2 responses came from the same individual in different capacities.

Q1 Should Local Biodiversity Sites be included as core areas?

A significant majority agreed yes to this question (25:7), including from NatureScot. Concern was raised about the method of using designated sites as core areas as a priority given the limitations of designation and ongoing management of all protected areas, as opposed to the importance of safeguarding wildlife and habitats more widely.

Q2 Priority ranking for goals for nature networks.

There was no clear win with all suggested priorities receiving at least one lowest (1) and highest (7) rank. However improving existing core areas and action for particular species scored on average highest. Improving native woodland was clearly a lower priority and pollinator action was divisive.

There was no consistent other priority suggestion, with access being suggested twice, (see also discussion in question 3). Other priorities included safe connections for wildlife, quality of life for all, peatland, soil through regenerative farming, montane habitats (excluding moorland), and natural regeneration.

Q3 Constraints

Overwhelmingly suggestions were given as to how to overcome constraints rather than identifying where corridors should not go. One comment summed this up as “Nature networks are critical for our future. Constraints should be removed, not avoided. For example, agricultural land should make room for nature with its own mini nature corridors criss-crossing the agricultural land. Lochs are a fundamental part of our natural environment and their banks should be protected. Roads should be under or over passed to allow networks to continue.” Other suggestions include using hedgerows, field margins, loch banks and road verges to perpetuate nature networks.

A contrast between prioritising public access with preventing public access to promote nature. Consideration was also asked of long term economic growth, prioritising food security,  the involvement and agreement of landowners, with recognition of the difficulty of securing long term positive management.

Q4 Principles for Connectivity

Of the provided principles for connecting core areas submissions chose the following.

25 Follow native woodland corridors

21 Follow river corridors

21 Any natural habitat connecting core areas

17 Provide the right habitat for the core areas being connected

15 Support landscape areas

14 Design networks on a river catchment basis

11 Take into account the cost of delivery

Other principles raised included ensuring that existing habitats of value were maintained, practicality, soil health, prioritising keystone species, and prioritising upland areas given potential for water management and carbon capture through natural regeneration (once deer are controlled). Agencies identified the need to connect habitats for species with restricted range, ensuring meaningful connections, and ensuring corridors are identified for ecological cohesion with a view to later integration of land management.

Biodiversity Compensation and Enhancement

Q5 Local Enhancement.

A significant majority of respondents (29:3) supported a defined percentage of biodiversity enhancement for local applications with reasons primarily related to providing certainty and the incremental loss of biodiversity. Caution was recommended however by one landowner due to the cost impact for smaller applications, and by NatureScot identifying potential practical difficulties in defining a percentage. One landowner stated that nature is important to Perthshire’s identity and economy and that larger applications should provide more.

Q6 Large project enhancement

26 respondents provided a % uplift for minimum enhancement for EIA/major projects, these ranged from 10%-30% with one respondent positing 100% and one “as much as possible” and one stating that it would be site dependent. Excluding the 100% figure the average uplift suggested was 18%. Six respondents posited a 10% minimum, with reasons for this lower figure primarily related to consistency with England and deliverability. Reasons for a higher figure were the need to address the nature crisis and a need to ensure any enhancement that was delivered was significant.

Q7 Habitat type

To the question as to whether habitat enhancement should relate to the habitat affected by development or that best for biodiversity the responses were:

18 Habitat affected by the development

15 Habitat that creates the best value for biodiversity

Both environmental agencies supported habitat of the best value for biodiversity.

Q8 Offsite opportunities

A significant majority of respondents preferred offsite enhancement to be  close to the development site as possible or in the local area of the development. The majority (but not all) of landowners including landowner organisations preferred enhancement anywhere in the Perth & Kinross area or at least within the same locality or catchment.

16 As close to the development site as possible

7 Anywhere in Perth & Kinross area

4 The local area of the development

3 The same river catchment

2 The same locality/ward

 

Q9 Offsite enhancement priorities

As to whether offsite enhancement should be required to meet LBAP or Nature Network objectives

18 Yes

13 No

Responses were mixed from landowners and members of the public. NatureScot disagreed.

Q10 How offsite compensation and enhancement should be delivered

The majority agreed with developers delivering on land they control with limited support for other options on 3^rd party land. Additional comments however supported delivery through a broker to ensure transparency.

21 On land within the developers control

13 Developers deliver on 3^rd party land with a landowner agreement

12 Developers deliver through a broker.

 

Q11 Register of willing landowners.

29/31 of respondents who answered this question agreed that the Council should hold a register of landowners willing to agree enhancement measures on their land with developers.

Q12 Sites identified

Respondents were also asked to identify any sites they had that were that they would like to be considered as part of a nature network.

Site Identification

Respondents were also asked whether they had nature rich sites, nature restoration projects or opportunities for projects on land they own or manage. 5 respondents identified land and these will be contacted to discuss further with a view to integrating their land or projects within draft nature networks mapping.