Natural Capital Investment Planning

for the

Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge

Growth Corridor

Final Report

August 2018

Produced by Jack Rhodes on behalf of the Local Nature Partnerships within the Growth Corridor

and the Local Authorities of Oxfordshire

2

Contents:

Page

Executive Summary: 3

Acknowledgements: 6

1. Overview 7

2. Understanding Natural Capital within the Corridor 12

3. Principles for Natural Capital and Biodiversity 18

4. Methods for Natural Capital Planning 27

5. Investment Priorities 36

6. Conclusions 41

7. Recommendations 42

3

Executive Summary

Natural Capital and the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Growth Corridor

The area between Oxford and Cambridge covers some of the fastest-growing and most economically

productive parts of England. The UK government and local authorities are currently considering major

changes to the Corridor’s governance and housing targets, in response to recommendations by the

National Infrastructure Commission on how to maximise the area’s economic potential.

If agreed, this could see commitments to:

- Double the rate of housebuilding, to provide 1 million new homes and a population increase

of between 1.4 and 1.9 million people (40%-60%) by 2050

- Construct several major new towns

- Improve east-west transport links, in the form of new rail and road connections designed to

provide commuter routes

The Corridor area is large, varied and predominantly rural. The majority of residents live in districts

where less than 10% of land is developed.

Residents and businesses consistently place the landscape and environment as key reasons to live,

work and invest in the area. The natural environment contributes to quality of life in a wide range of

ways: providing attractive public space for recreation and amenity, improving the air and water

quality, supporting wildlife and contributing to reducing the risks of climate change and flooding.

These benefits depend on natural environment assets worthy of protection and investment for the

wider public good. This is recognised by the Natural Infrastructure Commission and by national

planning guidance, which call for new development to provide a ‘net gain’ in biodiversity and natural

capital.

This Project

This project has examined the need for a natural capital investment plan to accompany the Corridor

proposals, and reviewed the relevant information and guidance available. The approach used was

based on the Natural Capital Committee’s How to do it workbook.

The work has been led by the Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership (LNP), working with a federation

of existing nature partnerships across the five counties of the Corridor. The project was funded by

Defra, with contributions from the Local Nature Partnerships of Bedfordshire and of Buckinghamshire

and Milton Keynes, and the Natural Environment Research Council.

Discussion workshops have been held in each of the five counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire,

Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire, attended by practitioners and decision-makers

from environmental trusts, charities and government bodies. These examined key environmental

concerns and investment priorities in relation to the Corridor proposals.

Two new proof of concept tools were also developed to support natural capital planning. One, which

can be used to compare the impacts of new infrastructure routes, was developed via an MSc group

project at Cranfield University and the other is a ‘ready reckoner’ applying government figures to

estimate the value of new natural habitat.

4

Conclusions

Participants have consistently raised three challenges requiring attention across the Corridor:

1. The need to ensure that new development does not cause an overall reduction in the

extent or condition of existing natural capital

2. The need to ensure a net gain in local environmental assets from new development

3. The opportunity to invest in major natural capital projects of Corridor-wide significance

There was general agreement that existing environmental protections do not mitigate the cumulative

impacts of new development or provide net gain, with particular mention of:

The loss of ecological connectivity through land-take

Flood risk and water resource impacts

Visitor-related disturbance and damage to wildlife sites

Each of these three challenges will require further planning and robust environmental governance at

a local authority and a Corridor level. It will require a means of ensuring that existing environmental

bodies have an effective voice within the new governance and planning processes being developed

for the Corridor.

The project has also highlighted learning points in how to proceed with work related to natural capital

approaches including aspects that cross existing administrative boundaries:

The Natural Capital Committee ‘How to do it’ workbook provides a useful framework for

natural capital planning

Strategies to address aspects of natural capital have already been developed in the

various local authorities and counties. Any new approaches need to find ways of building

on this work. This can add to the complexity and challenge of the task

The weighing of natural capital investment options is complex and highly dependent on

the scale of investment available. Identifying Corridor-wide priorities will require detailed

negotiation of a common method and level of ambition

The main barriers to effective engagement by the environmental bodies with the Corridor

include overlapping administrative and organisational boundaries, the lack of a Corridor-

wide environmental governance structure and the limited public discussion of the

Corridor proposals

There are challenges in agreeing and then acquiring the base datasets needed for an

initial baseline evaluation of natural capital, as these are vested in a number of different

bodies and not all relevant information is compiled

It is hard to integrate flood and water management decisions and health and wellbeing

goals into wildlife planning, because of mismatched understanding and priorities

between the responsible bodies

LNPs and other nature partnerships can provide added value in the decision-making

process as they were able to bring together a wide range of views on particular topics.

5

Recommendations

1. A strategic natural capital and environmental plan should be developed for the Corridor. This

should be of the same level and importance as the industrial, housing and transport strategies.

The further work required includes:

Active engagement of the Local Nature Partnerships and other existing partnerships

Agreement of overall ‘net gain’ targets for both biodiversity and natural capital across the

Corridor

Developing a natural capital asset register with an associated risk register. This should

include the asset extent and condition, the risks facing them and the cost of their

maintenance and enhancement

Prioritising the substantial opportunities for new investment in natural capital at

community, local authority and Corridor-wide levels

Better understanding the flood, water resource, landscape/amenity, health and visitor

benefits associated with existing natural capital

Explicit recommitment to existing environmental protections.

2. Effective, resourced governance arrangements for environmental and natural capital aspects

should be provided at all levels within the growth corridor arrangements. .

3. Key mechanisms are needed to protect and enhance the environment and natural capital in an

appropriate way across the growth corridor:

All local councils should implement fully the requirements of the National Planning

Policy Framework on natural capital, habitats and biodiversity

Housing developers should be required to deliver net biodiversity and environmental

gains as part of any development, notwithstanding viability assessments

Infrastructure providers including Highways England and Network Rail should commit to

net biodiversity and environmental gain

Homes England should commit to net biodiversity and environmental gain in housing

developments

Mechanisms need to be established to ensure local authorities cooperate to enhance

natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries

The environmental net gain proposed by the National Infrastructure Commission should

be implemented through clear, measurable and Corridor-wide targets

All net environmental gain targets must be linked to the needs of existing natural capital

and supported by mechanisms for aggregating funds and ensuring long-term maintenance

funding

Clarity should be provided on how the “unless” statements and exception tests in the

National Planning Policy Framework are to be used so that developments in restricted

areas or impacting on designated habitats is truly unavoidable and exceptional

6

There should be close cooperation between the health and wellbeing and net

environment gain action plans.

4. A baseline set of data and maps should be made available for use across the Corridor. This should

include a natural capital asset register, an associated risk register and identified investment

opportunities. Considerable savings could be achieved if Network Rail, Highways England, Homes

England, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission were to agree a

common approach to determining baseline natural capital conditions and net biodiversity and

environmental gain methodologies within the corridor.

5. An agreed approach to assessing net environmental gain should be developed for use across the

Corridor by infrastructure providers, housing developers, local authorities and environmental

groups. The factors to be taken into account include:

The need to deliver both net biodiversity gain and net natural capital gains

Clear presentation of any specific environmental damage, regardless of overall net

impact

The location of gains and losses including proximity to beneficiaries

The time lag and uncertainties between development and the establishment of new

natural capital assets

The distinctiveness of existing habitats: their species richness, diversity, rarity

The certainty and sustainability of funding to maintain natural capital.

Acknowledgements:

This project was made possible by a grant from the Department for the Environment and Rural

Affairs (DEFRA) and was supported by a partnership of Local Nature Partnerships across the Growth

Corridor, led by the Bedfordshire Local Nature Partnership. The Buckingham and Milton Keynes

Natural Environment Partnership also made a significant financial contribution. Although

Oxfordshire does not have a Local Nature Partnership the project was supported by the local

authorities within the county.

We would also like to thank the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Natural England, the

Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and Cranfield University for their contributions.

7

1. Overview:

Purpose of this project

This report explores the development of a Natural Capital Investment Plan for the Oxford-Milton

Keynes-Cambridge Growth Corridor. It sets out a test of concept approach and the views of existing

nature partnerships on investment priorities, across the five counties of the Corridor. It could be

further developed into an environmental strategy for the Corridor including an agreed Natural Capital

Investment Plan.

The report is an output from a series of workshops and follow-up meetings held in each county of the

Corridor – Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire.

These were based on the Local Nature Partnerships (LNPs) in Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes,

Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire. In Oxfordshire there is currently no LNP, but a

workshop was held by the existing well-established conservation partnership. The outputs from these

meetings were supported by a literature review, analysis of available information and the

development of maps and decision-support tools relevant to natural capital planning across the

proposed Corridor.

This work was jointly funded by Defra and the Local Nature Partnerships of Bedfordshire and of

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, to help wildlife bodies engage more closely in the Corridor’s

emerging governance and development plans.

The project has piloted and adapted guidance on developing natural capital investment plans1,

provided by the Government’s Natural Capital Committee in their How to do it workbook.

The Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Growth Corridor

The area between Oxford and Cambridge covers some of the fastest-growing and most economically

productive parts of England. In March 2016 the Chancellor asked the National Infrastructure

Commission (NIC) to consider how to maximise the economic potential of this area while protecting

its high-quality environment.

The Corridor is large and heterogeneous. It is characterised by separate and different labour markets,

communities and landscapes, with minimal commuting between major towns.

Alongside the growing cities of Oxford, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Cambridge and a number of

towns, the Corridor predominantly consists of districts where only 3-10% of land is currently built on2.

This is a level characteristic of rural parts of the English home counties, similar for example to the

districts of Tunbridge Wells and Mid Sussex. Of the approximately 3.5 million people now resident in

the Corridor area over 2 million live in such districts3. The region contains a corresponding variety of

land uses and habitats, including nationally and locally designated wildlife sites.

1 Natural Capital Committee (2017) How to do it: a natural capital workbook, version 1 2Cole, B., King, S., Ogutu, B., Palmer, D., Smith, G., Balzter, H. (2015). Corine Land Cover 2012 for the UK, Jersey and Guernsey. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre 3 Office for National Statistics (2017) Population Estimates for UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Mid-2016.

8

Map 1: The Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Corridor showing national designations

An interim report from the NIC on the Corridor in November 2016 with a final report in November

2017 have provided a focus for central thinking on the overall development of the Corridor. They have

9

been supported by a Treasury response setting out the government vision for the Corridor, and

substantial funding allocations in the 2016 and 2017 Budgets. The release of these and future

allocations will depend on governance being agreed by the relevant local authorities over the course

of 2018.

The central recommendations by the NIC and other bodies have concerned housing supply. Housing

costs across the Corridor are high in relation to wages, and people at most income levels can struggle

to find affordable homes. The NIC have identified this, combined with limited commuter links into the

main employment centres, as a potential brake on economic activity. They note as well that risks to

the Corridor’s natural environment could also act as a limit on development: any construction

programme seen as damaging to the area’s natural environment is likely to raise strong public

opposition and reduce the area’s attraction for new residents and investors.

Core NIC recommendations are:

The construction of up to 1 million new homes by 2050, including new towns. This would

double the rate of housebuilding from 16,000 units/year to over 30,000 units/year. The NIC

estimates that the current population of 3.3 million would increase by 1.4-1.9 million to the

region of 5 million.

Greater east-west transport links – in the form of new rail and road connections – designed

to allow new settlements and provide commuter routes

Changes to governance: agreeing governance structures and spatial development plans across

the region, and establishing statutory development corporations and design panels to ensure

targets within these plans are met with and that key decisions are taken locally

Ensuring ‘good growth’ that enhances the Corridor’s environment and social fabric: through a

requirement for new development to deliver net gains in biodiversity and natural capital, and

providing design panels and local authorities with the powers to ensure high-quality

development.

Responding to the 2017 NIC report4 central government has supported these aims, set out plans for

new road and rail connections, and invited local partners to agree – over the course of 2018 –

governance and a long-term vision for the region. They aim for this long-term vision to be underpinned

by sectoral strategies and by joint statutory plans across the corridor which would deliver the vision

through the planning system.

Governance of the decisions most relevant to the Corridor concept – planning control and

infrastructure and skills strategies – is currently dispersed between a number of competent authorities

and other bodies. This includes the district, borough, county and unitary councils of the five counties,

the combined authority of Cambridgeshire and public agencies such as Highways England, Homes

England, the Environment Agency and Natural England. Public-private bodies such as Local Enterprise

Partnerships, Business Boards and East-West Rail also hold roles critical to the NIC and Treasury

proposals.

Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire have both agreed Growth Deals and development plans with the

Treasury, and so have pooled certain aspects of governance. As of May 2018 similar agreements are

yet to be made in Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire, making it more complex to

agree major change in this central section of the Corridor.

4 Treasury (2017) Helping the Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford corridor reach its potential

10

Natural Capital

Environmental protection and enhancement will be critical to achieving the ambitions of the NIC and

Treasury for the Corridor area. The landscape character and natural environment of the area are

primary reasons for residents and businesses deciding to move to the Corridor and remaining in the

area5. Maintaining this high-quality environment will be instrumental in maximising further

investment, as both businesses and skilled staff will have a wide range of options elsewhere in the

world. Conversely, any threat to this environment and landscape is likely to spur opposition from

existing residents to the substantial development proposed, as is already being seen in some areas.

This potential for opposition is recognised by the National Infrastructure Commission (and by

Ministerial planning statements) which recommends development across the Oxford-Milton Keynes-

Cambridge Growth Corridor minimises environmental damage and achieves a ‘net gain’ in both

biodiversity and natural capital, so as not to compromise the environment for existing and future

residents.

This position is in keeping with the aims set out in the government’s 25-year plan for the environment6.

These include policy intents to establish an environmental net gain principle for new development –

and more broadly to enhance the natural environment beyond its current state – and the intention to

use a natural capital framework to inform all long-term decisions including in the use of significant

public funds.

Natural capital can be defined as those elements of the natural environment which provide valuable

goods and services to people7. These include the nation’s stock of forests, water, land and minerals –

and smaller features within them such as parks and accessible green spaces. Under a natural capital

framework, these can be understood as assets providing ongoing benefits critical to people’s health

and wellbeing, and to a sustainable economy.

In 2017 the government’s Natural Capital Committee published guidance for anyone wanting to use

natural capital approaches in making decisions about the natural environment (How to do it: a natural

capital workbook). This recommends an iterative five-part process in which a shared vision is defined,

the baseline situation understood and options are identified and weighed before implementation.

5 SEMLEP (2017) 2017 business survey, report by Public Perspectives Ltd. 6 HM Government (2018) A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment 7 Natural Capital Committee (2017) Economic valuation and its applications in natural capital management and the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan

11

This process has been applied within this project to identify investment priorities in each county in the

Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Growth Corridor. Workshops have been held with each of the

county Local Nature Partnerships8, with follow-up discussions with the Environment Agency, Natural

England, Forestry Commission and with local authorities. The NCC guidance has been applied in each

county to (1) agree a common vision, (2) summarise existing evidence and decisions, (3) identify the

additional evidence that would be needed to address the opportunities and challenges of the Corridor

proposals, and (4) identify investment priorities and practical options for addressing pressures on the

natural environment. The fifth stage, of implementation and evaluation, is yet to come and so is not

covered by this project.

As such, this project has provided a test of the NCC guidance and initial proof of concept for a Natural

Capital Investment Plan. It is however evident to all involved in the project that a Corridor-wide

Natural Capital Investment Plan is essential to unlock the growth of the Corridor and will require a

more detailed study, properly resourced, taking into account the governance structure and

development ambitions of the Corridor once these have been agreed.

8 As there is no LNP in Oxfordshire, the workshop there involved a similar group of representatives of the county’s environmental bodies, brought together by Oxfordshire County Council.

12

2. Understanding Natural Capital within the Corridor

The natural capital of the Corridor region is not yet sufficiently understood to compile a full register

of assets and risks. However, the workshops held for this project came to general agreement that the

key natural capital assets of the Corridor area are:

Designated sites – these include internationally, nationally and locally important wetland,

woodland, meadow, downland and heathland sites, and areas of outstanding natural beauty

Undesignated land with a high cumulative landscape and ecological value – an important

feature given residents’ appreciation of the area’s landscape

A wider green infrastructure network – including accessible green space, SUDS (drainage

systems) and watercourse buffers, features capable of absorbing air and carbon pollution such

as woodlands and corridor features such as hedgerows, ditches and field margins that connect

fragmented sites

The area’s network of rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and aquifers, the management of which

has consequences for water quality, water resources, flood risk and public enjoyment of the

landscape.

Members of each LNP and workshop participants were asked to list the datasets relevant to natural

capital decisions. These are listed in Table 1 below, which is not an exhaustive list of relevant datasets

but does present those seen as most useful by stakeholders.

Considerable data exist on the extent and distribution of natural habitats, waterbodies and (in highly

variable formats) green space accessible to the public, but the other categories of natural capital

assets remain predominantly unmapped. In particular there is little information available on natural

features that reduce flood and water resource risks, features on agricultural land, and those landscape

features that are important to public enjoyment of the natural environment or public health. While

these may be understood at a corporate or personal level, useable datasets are seldom available.

Limited data are available on the condition and risk profiles of natural capital assets. The exception to

this is the condition of nationally-designated sites, and of aquifers and larger waterbodies9 – these are

now known in most cases. The key threats to these features are also increasingly well-understood,

although there is limited understanding of their ecological resilience to stress and the ‘tipping’ points

at which damage would become substantial or irreversible, and very little indication of the costs of

management and remediation measures. Outwith these designated sites and waterbodies, condition

and threat assessments are predominantly absent. Condition targets for undesignated features do not

exist or have not been collated in the large majority of cases, even where these may have important

impacts (for example the capacity of SUDS).

Considerable data-processing and analysis is thus needed to understand connections between

relatively well-understood biodiversity assets and other natural capital benefits such as flood risk and

pollution management. Several such natural capital analyses have taken place within the Corridor,

falling into three broad categories:

9 Those that are covered by the Water Framework Directive monitoring network

13

Bespoke studies estimating the economic value of existing assets – notably of Oxfordshire’s

natural capital10 and of the Forest of Marston Vale in Bedfordshire11.

Reviews of early-stage development plans, seeking to improve their natural capital outcomes

A model-based assessment of where habitat creation in Northants and Peterborough could

best improve natural capital12. This was conducted by the consultancy Natural Capital

Solutions for the Northants LNP and was designed to inform expert opinion

This work – and natural capital assessments elsewhere – have indicated the most useful datasets for

understanding the benefits of natural assets. These are marked by an asterisk in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Datasets raised as relevant to the natural capital of the Corridor region

Dataset type Dataset name (dataset controller)

Land cover Digital terrain model (ONS)

MasterMap topography layer (ONS)

2015 Land Cover Map (CEH)

Corine EU habitat data (EU)

Priority Habitats Inventory (NE)

Habitat maps (County record centre)

Registered park and garden maps (Historic England)

Hydrological network (CEH/OS)

Demographic UK Census Data (ONS)*

Index of Multiple Deprivation (DCLG)*

Administrative boundaries

Biodiversity designations Natura 2000 sites (NE)*

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (NE)*

National Nature Reserves (NE)

County Wildlife Sites (County council/record centre)

Local Wildlife Sites (County wildlife trust)

Ancient Woodlands Inventory (NE)

Sites in Positive Conservation Management (NE)

Resource management Strategic Flood Risk Assessment maps (County council)

Flood Zone mapping: main river, sea and surface-water flooding (Environment Agency)

Flood Management Assets (Environment Agency)

Water Framework Directive monitoring (Environment Agency)*

Soil Hydrological Properties (Environment Agency)

EU Soils Data (EU; n.b. coarse resolution)

10 Cooley, A. D. (2011) TEEBcase: Using TEEB to calculate the economic value of ecosystem services in Oxfordshire, UK 11 Natural Capital Solutions (2017) The quantification and valuation of the environmental, social and economic impacts of the Forest of Marston Vale 12 Natural Capital Solutions (2018) Habitat Opportunity Mapping in Northamptonshire and Peterborough. Report for the Northamptonshire LNP.

14

Air Quality management areas (Defra)

Groundwater management units (EA)

Water Resource Availability (EA)

National Forest Inventory (Forestry Commission)

Features Accessible Greenspace (LA)

Species distribution maps (County records centre)

Bedfordshire Green Infrastructure Network maps (County records centre)

Tree Preservation Orders (District council)

Ancient/Veteran Trees (County records centre)

With ownership and management of these datasets split between a number of organisations, it is

difficult and expensive to collate the data needed for Corridor-wide assessments. This is likely to

complicate any attempts to conduct bottom-up natural capital assessments.

This project has concentrated on natural capital assets with high biodiversity value: these are the

assets best understood by practitioners (and so by workshop participants) and best represented in the

available datasets. The project also focused on natural capital features that had already been

identified by the Natural Capital Committee as having high economic values such as wetland,

woodland and accessible greenspace 13. The distribution of these habitats is mapped below, while

Table A.1 in Annex 1 presents a register of those designated sites for which site condition and risk

information is available.

13 Natural Capital Committee (2015) The State of Natural Capital. Third report to the Economic Affairs Committee.

15

Map 2: Designated sites within the Corridor area

16

Map 3: Distribution of habitat types within the Corridor area

Several workshops raised the need to map key natural capital constraints on development, going

beyond the mapping of designated sites to support developers and infrastructure bodies in minimising

17

negative environmental and social impacts. This will require considerable further work, drawing in

particular on the maps produced for county-wide Green Infrastructure Strategies and Biodiversity

Action Plans.

18

3. Principles for Natural Capital and Biodiversity

Participants in each of the meetings held for this project agreed their overall priorities – and vision –

for investment in the Corridor as being the safeguarding of existing environmental features while

achieving net gain for the natural environment including wildlife. Both arms of this are seen as vital,

as there are consistent concerns that a net gain target could be used to justify the destruction of the

area’s existing wildlife and habitats by promising compensation and gain elsewhere or at some future

date.

Planning law and regulations require that environmental damage is avoided – or where this not

possible, minimised – during development. Competent authorities have duties to require

environmental impact assessments, to protect designated sites and species, and to take all reasonable

steps to protect wildlife and biodiversity. The ‘mitigation hierarchy’ ensures that developers must

sequentially avoid, mitigate and compensate environmental damage. These core principles must be

adhered to and applied regardless of accelerated development in the Oxford-Milton Keynes-

Cambridge region. It has been noted by many participants in this project that exception statements in

the National Planning Policy Framework can lead to decisions being taken by planning authorities that

result in significant environmental impacts and that the greater levels of development envisaged for

the Growth Corridor means that it is vital clarity is given on how these should be applied.

The current government’s stated intent is for this to be the first generation to leave the environment

in a better state than the one we inherited, and the recently published 25 Year Environment Plan has

the central purpose of helping ‘the natural world regain and retain good health’. To this end the 25

Year Plan sets out ‘the principle that new development should result in net environmental gain’.

The government has also recently consulted on a draft revision of the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF). This sets out how the planning system should contribute to conserving and

enhancing the natural environment (para 17), protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and

providing net gains in biodiversity where possible (para 109). It does not however require overall

environmental or natural capital gain, gaps noted by the Natural Capital Committee response to the

recent review of the NPPF.

The NIC recommends that net environmental gain principles be applied to the proposed development

of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Growth Corridor. The Commission notes that net

(biodiversity) gain principles have already gained traction within the infrastructure industry, with

some emergent support from certain local authorities and developers. It further recommends

Corridor-wide strategic planning to ensure biodiversity and natural capital gain is planned for at all

stages, ‘seeking to maximise the value of natural assets as an integral and strategic part of placemaking

and growth, rather than a compensatory add-on’.

The NIC is clear that achieving net gain ‘is more than simply replacing and outweighing losses with

gains – it also requires doing everything possible to avoid losing biodiversity and natural capital in the

first place.’ This definition of net gain as requiring the protection of existing assets – and not as an

‘offsetting’ framework – is a vital safeguard. It is one built into the recent industry guidance issued by

CIRIA, CIEEM and IEMA14 which notes as a starting principle the need to ‘[a]void impacts on

irreplaceable biodiversity - these impacts cannot be offset to achieve No Net Loss or Net Gain’.

However it is not yet standard practice, with the real risk that natural features will be inappropriately

‘traded off’ against each other or for non-natural environmental assets. Currently net gain in both

biodiversity and natural capital is generally only achieved in flagship or exceptional projects.

14 CIRIA, CIEEM, IEMA (2016) Biodiversity Net Gain Good practice principles for development

19

The Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Corridor is a particularly good place to apply comprehensive

‘net gain’ principles. Remaining wildlife sites are often of high importance, but in fragmented and/or

degraded states in which minor threats could cumulatively cause significant damage. Natural features

often cut across local authority boundaries. This then requires close cooperation between local

authorities if the natural features and assets are to be protected and enhanced effectively.

Unfortunately there is little evidence to suggest that this happens on a routine basis.

Participants in every workshop held by this project agreed that there are substantial opportunities for

improving the environment of the area, that could be realised by well-planned development.

Concerns were also consistent: that visitor pressures, direct land take, and the loss of connectivity

between sites would affect environmental features. And that new development would put pressure

on water resources and have the potential to increase flood risks. Many of these risks could best be

addressed by net gain principles: habitat restoration to buffer and re-connect sites and improve water

regulation, and the creation of visitor facilities that both improve people’s experience and protect

sites from trampling, disturbance and other visitor pressures.

Several environmental bodies working in the corridor have already published principles for achieving

net gain and the creation of green infrastructure15. These are additional to the existing regulatory

requirements to prevent or minimise damage to existing environmental features. It was agreed that

these are relevant to achieving broader natural capital gains, and they have been collated as

recommendations of this report:

1. Development of the Growth Corridor must deliver a net gain in both biodiversity and natural

capital

Existing biodiversity targets and requirements must be maintained across the Corridor

area

Corridor-wide net gain targets should be adopted and quantified

Development must be required to protect and enhance natural features at all scales

Investment in environmental net gain should be closely aligned and integrated where

possible with health and wellbeing investment

There must be clear and visible leadership for the environment within the overarching

Corridor governance, involving environmental bodies in economic, infrastructure and

design strategies

Overarching governance should be established and properly resourced for a strategic

environmental approach and the effective implementation of a net natural

environment gain principle across the Corridor, including a formal role for LNPs.

2. Net gain must be planned for at all stages of planning and development

If this is to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state, net

environmental gain should be based on:

i. addressing any adverse impacts locally, including any habitat enhancements

needed to ensure resilience

ii. ensuring all impacts assessed as ‘insignificant’ are summed and accounted for

within any metric

15 Bucks NEP (2016) Vision and Principles for the Improvement of Green Infrastructure in Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes; Town and Country Planning Association/The Wildlife Trusts (2012) Planning for a healthy Environment: Good practice guidance for green infrastructure and biodiversity

20

iii. investment being targeted at enhancing biodiversity and natural capital

assets

iv. preventing biodiversity and natural capital assets being ‘traded off’ against

each other or against other benefits, however worthy

v. considering cost-benefit assessments of new investments only once the

prerequisites above are met

A Corridor-wide environmental strategy for achieving net gain is needed, co-ordinated

with other policy areas and strategies and endorsed by planning authorities through

Local Plans

New funding mechanisms are needed to ensure investment matches the scale of

opportunities and need

Design standards and plans should ensure biodiversity and natural capital net gain in

all new development

There is a need for full engagement with spatial planners at the master planning,

strategic and local levels – this will require the further development of environmental

guidance, decision support tools and design standards

There is a pressing need for councils to assess and address cross-boundary issues with

neighbouring councils, implementing in practice the ‘duty to co-operate’

The existing natural capital network needs to be protected at all spatial scales.

3. The creation and management of natural capital must be adequately resourced

New governance bodies must achieve ambitious environmental goals and targets

Funded long-term management plans should be put in place for all new natural assets

All new development must take reasonable steps to enhance existing natural assets

A strategic approach should be made possible for the expenditure of funding raised

through developer contributions, section 106 agreements and the Community

Infrastructure Levy

4. Natural capital features should be designed to deliver multiple benefits

New features should be designed to be species-rich, to encourage public access and

to maximise health and wellbeing benefits

Investment in new natural capital assets should be prioritised in locations where it

can deliver most benefit to both people and wildlife, including areas of deprivation,

those currently lacking in natural features, and where there is an opportunity to

reconnect fragmented habitats

5. Natural capital planning should deliver connected networks of natural features

At the landscape scale, natural features must provide a network of interconnected

habitats to enable species to move across the wider environment

Natural features within new development should be designed to form a connected

habitat network, incorporating existing habitat wherever possible

All development must give due consideration to linking natural and green

infrastructure features falling beyond site boundaries.

6. Natural capital investment must be informed by sound evidence and best practice

New development and investment must address known environmental risks

The considerable gap between normal and best practice must be narrowed through

design standards and training.

21

Several case studies raised by meeting participants provide useful illustrations of these principles: the

Kingsbrook and Tresham Garden Village developments present examples of the benefits and

challenges of designing natural capital into housing developments at the masterplan stage, and the

Forest of Marston Vale Trust provides a quantified case study of the ability of long-term environmental

planning to produce a wide range of benefits.

Case Study: Forest of Marston Vale Trust

The Forest of Marston Vale is a Community Forest – one of twelve in the country, designated and

established as a charity to increase the environmental, social and economic qualities of the area.

Since the charity was established in 1995, the Forest initiative has seen over 1100ha of woodland

planted, increasing forest cover from 3.6% to 10.6% across the 61m2 area of the Vale. This new

woodland will eventually produce over 9,000m3 of useable timber each year.

A review in 2015 found that the Forest had contributed directly to the local economy by providing

167 additional jobs each year and drawing in over £23M of funding (at 2017 prices). Beyond this,

new woodland planted under the Community Forest initiative was providing wider economic

benefits worth £14M/yr at 2017 prices. The bulk of this – over £12M/yr – is made up of the

recreational, health and wellbeing benefits to the people who use the newly-planted forest. Over

a million visits are made to the Forest each year by an estimated 40,000 people.

The Forest of Marston Vale provides substantial benefits beyond the local area, through improving

water quality and reducing flood flows, and reducing England’s greenhouse gas emissions. The

greenhouse gases sequestered and saved by the existence of the community forest are equivalent

to over 6,600 tonnes/yr of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the carbon footprints of roughly 700

people.

Case Study: Tresham Garden Village

Tresham Garden Village is a proposed development of 1,500 houses together with associated

business space, schools and other facilities. As part of a central government funding package for

the new development, the competent planning authority commissioned a review of its expected

impact on natural capital. This review, conducted by the consultancy Natural Capital Solutions,

compared the draft masterplan to the undeveloped site.

Eleven categories of benefit were modelled and mapped – covering carbon, air, water and noise

regulation alongside agricultural and timber production, biodiversity and public access to nature.

Changes to demand for accessible nature and pollution control were also mapped, to indicate the

additional demand created by new residents. This modelling suggested that under the proposed

masterplan, the delivery of most ecosystem services was expected to increase, with the exception

of agricultural production, water flow (management of flood risk) and biodiversity – all of which

were expected to decline.

A workshop of staff from planning and environmental organisations was then held to attempt to

address the negative impacts and increase the benefits of the masterplan. This meeting agreed

suggested changes to the design, which were incorporated into a new masterplan. When

22

modelling was repeated, this revised masterplan was projected to improve on the original in most

categories of benefit, but still to provide lower levels of biodiversity and of water flow

management than the undeveloped site. The outputs from the workshop had however markedly

increased the level of access to nature at the cost of a small further decline in agricultural

productivity. Learning from the modelling and workshop, the consultants commissioned for the

project made additional recommendations for improvements to the masterplan, aimed at

delivering net gains for biodiversity.

The case study demonstrates that new development can achieve a wide range of public benefits.

It also shows the difficulty in delivering net gains – and indeed in preventing losses – in biodiversity

even where space is available and effort has been made to include natural features in the design

for new housing. The effort and expertise needed to deliver biodiversity net gain is notable, and

demonstrates that without detailed review, biodiversity may suffer even in a development that

delivers overall natural capital gain.

The method used to estimate biodiversity impact was the ‘Defra Biodiversity Metric’ developed

for the 2012 Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots and examined below.

Case Study: Kingsbrook

Kingsbrook is Barratt Developments’ largest development in the UK: 2,450 homes and supporting

facilities to the east of Aylesbury, predominantly designed for families. An initial planning

application in the early 2000s was rejected by Aylesbury Vale District Council, but with rising

demand for housing the Council supported a revised application addressing the reasons for

rejection – which included adverse impacts on wildlife.

This Council decision formed the basis for a close collaboration between Barratt Developments

and the RSPB, in which the developer funded the RSPB to help develop the Kingsbrook masterplan

and detailed design. 60% of the Kingsbrook site is green space, and much of this is explicitly

designed as wildlife habitat. The RSPB also saw this as an opportunity to demonstrate that new

housing could provide high-quality wildlife habitat and green infrastructure at costs that could be

feasible for any development, even where large areas are not available for dedicated wildlife

habitat. This has included the development of low-cost measures such as standardised hollow

bricks in which swifts can nest – and which can be readily manufactured and fitted – gardens

planted for wildlife and passage routes for hedgehogs. The development’s drainage system has

also been planted and managed to increase the site’s biodiversity.

These are all measures with little or no additional cost, and which the developer believes has made

the homes easier to sell. New residents have been provided with community events and

information on managing their land for wildlife, and the ongoing impact of the development on

biodiversity will be monitored by the RSPB.

Barratt Developments and the RSPB have used the knowledge gained from the construction of

Kingsbrook to produce an ecology and landscape design guide that will be used across Barratt’s

other sites to meet their commitment to achieve net ecological gain by 2020.

23

Case Studies

Workshop participants agreed a list of good practice cases studies that illustrate these principles.

These are outlined below in Table 2 and presented in more detail in Annex 2.

Table 2: Good practice case studies agreed by county-level workshops

Bedfordshire

Forest of Marston Vale Trust Establishment of a Community Forest

Planting of 1100ha of woodland

Rushmere Country Park Expansion of a popular visitor destination

Relocation and improvement of visitor facilities to increase the site’s ability to handle additional visitors

Developing income-raising activities able to fund habitat restoration for 167ha of plantation forest

Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes

Kingsbrook development Major housing development with extensive wildlife features

Funded collaboration between RSPB and Barratt Developments from initial planning through to construction

Joint development of nature policies and features that can be included in the built environment

Cambridgeshire

Fen restoration and management Habitat restoration through the Great Fen and other projects

Changes to visitor access and provision of facilities, to reduce impacts on the Wicken Fen reserve

Northamptonshire

Tresham Garden Village Mapping of ecosystem services to improve development at the masterplan stage

Northampton Marina Creation/restoration of habitat as an integral part of a new development Rushden Lakes

Werrington Brook in Peterborough River restoration with extensive community involvement

Oxfordshire

Upper Thames and Upper Ray wetland projects

Coordinated planning between private sector and civil society to improve water quality

River of Life Project Re-wilding of a section of Thames side agricultural land to provide multiple benefits.

Bicester Green Infrastructure model review

Systematic review by Oxford University and Forest Research of green infrastructure planning tools to guide major expansion of Bicester

24

There are a number of shared features in these case studies. Reinforcing the principles above, these

are generally projects where:

Environmental and social benefits have been planned for at every stage of development

Funding for capital investment and skilled, sustainable management has been established

Multiple benefits have been carefully planned for, with a focus on achieving both public

access and species-rich features

Connections have been sought with wider ecological and infrastructure networks

There has been consistent involvement of bodies acting in the public interest

Ongoing monitoring has been established to track long-term net gains for wildlife and

people

Notwithstanding these common features, the case studies have quite different origins: including the

Biodiversity Action Plan and Green Infrastructure (GI) planning processes, developer-charity

partnerships, and the government-backed establishment of focus areas such as Community Forests

and Nature Improvement Areas. This is reflected in their aims and outcomes: with GI-led projects

generally concentrated near urban expansions and maximising public access, while ecology-led

projects have a greater focus on restoring large sites and protecting fragile habitats from visitor

pressure.

It was noted in many of the workshops that there are only a small number of truly best practice case

studies, and that these are having a limited impact on standard practice.

Funding and long-term management

Workshop participants raised common recommendations and concerns about funding mechanisms

for natural capital. This includes both the creation and management of habitat and natural features.

Broadly, there was a recognised need for funding and management for 4 separate purposes:

1. Investment to prevent the loss or deterioration of existing natural features

2. Ensuring new development meets high baseline standards

3. Creation of major new natural assets

4. Ongoing maintenance

Participants recognised limits on existing mechanisms for each of these, with particular mention of:

The failure of current impact assessments to fully address cumulative impacts on existing

wildlife sites, particularly from visitor pressure.

The limitations on using Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding to invest in new wildlife

sites: the other valid calls on this limited levy, and the limits on borrowing against CIL receipts

or aggregating levy contributions from more than five developments.

The prohibition on using section 106 funds to invest in infrastructure that is not site-specific

The ability of developers to reduce agreed social and infrastructure investment following

viability assessments

The general difficulty of raising funds for the ongoing maintenance of sites

The reduction in funding and staff of public bodies over the past decade.

Collectively, these will undermine attempts to protect and improve the environment of the Corridor

area. Unless these issues are addressed, accelerated development could lead to significant

deterioration in the landscape and natural capital of the Corridor area.

25

The NIC have put forward proposals for new bodies and mechanisms that could overcome these:

options include development corporations, section 106 tariffs covering wide areas of new

development, additional regional CIL levels, and design panels to set and maintain building standards.

These were consistent with proposals made by workshop participants, who expected a combination

of these would have the potential to deliver the environmental investment needed in the Corridor

area.

In addition, many participants suggested a need for an endowed body – or the endowment of existing

bodies – to manage green infrastructure features on new development sites. A trust on these lines

has already been proposed by the Cambridgeshire LNP for that county. Conversely, there was little

interest in a voluntary ‘payments for ecosystem services’ system, which was not thought capable of

raising the necessary level of funding.

Examples exist across the Corridor area of mechanisms and organisations capable of delivering both

biodiversity and natural capital gains, which could be used as a template for new bodies:

The Milton Keynes tariff, which captures some of the increase in land values to invest in

infrastructure

Endowed bodies, created to maintain and improve environmental features, such as the

Milton Keynes Parks Trust and Nene Park Trust

Charities established to focus on both wildlife and public benefits. This includes some

established by government, such as the Forest of Marston Vale Trust described above, and

also the potential to increase funding or raise endowments for non-governmental charities

Design standards for new housing, such as the Cambridge quality charter overseen by

Cambridgeshire’s Quality Panel.

It was noted that while such bodies exist, they cannot yet deliver the scale of environmental work that

would be needed to match the Corridor development proposals. Those with a strong environmental

remit and focus often struggle for funding, while better-funded organisations usually have wider

responsibilities that can distract from achieving a net gain that often requires an integrated approach

involving other partners.

Case Study: Milton Keynes Parks Trust

The Parks Trust is a registered charity, established to manage the city’s parks and green space

when the Milton Keynes Development Corporation was wound up in 1992. To this end the Trust

was given 999-year leases covering over 1,800ha of the city, and provided with a £20M

endowment (at 1992 prices). The majority of this endowment was interest in commercial

property within Milton Keynes: interest initially established by the Development Corporation

under the New Towns Act, which provided powers to purchase agricultural land at agricultural

prices. The endowment is now £130M (in 2017 prices) providing an income of £8.7M in 2016/17

that covered most of the Trust’s £10.9M expenditure.

The Trust’s work is varied. It includes management of a wide range of habitats (including parks,

ancient woodlands and over 80 miles of roadside green space), the provision of educational

programmes for 6,000 children across the city’s schools and the organisation of over 200 public

events each year. The endowment and technical advice by the Trust have also been used to

increase the area of green space within Milton Keynes. The Trust now manages over 2,400ha of

land – approximately 25% of the total area of Milton Keynes.

26

Milton Keynes currently has 98,500 households – 9.85% of the million additional households

proposed for the Corridor area. Endowing bodies across the Corridor to provide environmental

services, at a similar per-household rate for these million homes, would involve an investment of

over £1.3bn. Any investment on this scale would require changes to the current mechanisms for

funding infrastructure and environmental goods.

Case Study: Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth

In common with much of the Corridor area, Cambridgeshire has already experienced a period of

accelerated development. This spurred the drafting and agreement in 2008 of the Cambridgeshire

Quality Charter for Growth, which sets design principles for new housing and has been approved

by the county’s local authorities.

The Quality Charter outlines four high-level principles – the need to design for community,

connectivity, character and a sustainable climate – and the consideration and actions required of

developers in order to meet each of these. It is applied as a material consideration in planning

decision-making, defining the local authorities’ interpretation of national planning policy. The

Charter is supported by a Design Panel that reviews draft proposals from the masterplan stage.

There has been no systematic review of the impact of the Quality Charter, although anecdotal

opinions suggest that the quality of development within Cambridgeshire has benefitted from the

document. Participants in several of the meetings held for this project supported a Corridor-wide

Quality Charter along similar lines, with a stronger emphasis on enhancing natural assets.

Regardless of the exact mechanisms chosen for long-term funding, there was consistent agreement

that they would need to deliver:

Continuity in the management of natural capital features

Opportunities commensurate with the scale of development

Long-term funding that is not exposed to declines in central government funding

Both the maintenance of existing assets and the development and then maintenance of new

ones.

27

4. Methods for Natural Capital Planning

Realising the full potential of the Corridor’s net gain ambitions will require natural capital to be

considered at all levels and stages of decision-making. While existing environmental expertise is

directly relevant and will form the central part of this, the natural capital framework is a new one and

additional support will be needed to maximise environmental gains.

The sections below provide an overview summary of current guidance and available tools, relevant to

the critical decisions for the Corridor area’s natural capital.

At an overview level, it can be seen that the body of guidance and decision-support tools is in need of

consolidation. A wide range of tools and methods has been produced, including a number of detailed

pilot studies involving planning authorities, but there is limited formal guidance that can be relied

upon in planning or infrastructure approval processes. Experience from biodiversity planning shows it

is reliable guidance of this type that produces gains most efficiently, with the least friction between

developers and environmental bodies. The substantial region-wide construction proposed for the

Corridor area, together with the NIC’s ambition to foster consistent and high-quality development,

may make review and government consolidation of existing natural capital methods timely.

Decision-Making Levels

While the details of governance for the Corridor are yet to be agreed, it is likely that the decisions

affecting the area’s natural capital will be taken at different levels and by different competent

authorities.

Several of the core decisions recommended by the NIC and affecting the future environment of the

Corridor will need to be taken at a Corridor-wide level, if development across the Corridor is to be of

a consistent quality. These include:

The adoption of environmental ‘net gain’ targets and metrics for the Corridor, and agreement

of a level of ambition

The allocation of targets and sites at local authority level

Design standards for new settlements: including associated green infrastructure and natural

capital, and mechanisms for implementing these

Decisions and detailed design for major new nature sites: including regional parks and large

restoration projects

Agreement of infrastructure corridors and associated ‘net gain’ targets

Establishment of effective governance mechanisms

Planning for new natural features to deliver flood risk, landscape and health benefits, all of

which will rely on a broad network of new features.

Natural capital, wildlife and the benefits they provide do not align to county boundaries or

development site boundaries. This can be seen for example in the distribution of Areas of Outstanding

Natural Beauty and of National Character Areas, both of which extend across county boundaries. This

creates a need for cross-Corridor planning of natural capital, wildlife sites and networks, particularly

for large projects. The proposed Bedford – Milton Keynes Waterpark is a good example of this. The

project would be a destination for residents and tourists drawn from a wide area and would improve

water quality and help manage water flows across a catchment that crosses several local council

boundaries. These benefits could be boosted substantially through the design of the Waterpark and

connecting sites and infrastructure, if they are considered at a wider scale. To realise these benefits

fully, planning and funding will need to take place across several local councils.

28

Map 4: The Bedford-Milton Keynes ‘Waterpark’ Canal, showing the impact on residents in reduced

distance to water and recreation, and the catchment that will influence Canal water quality and flow

29

Decisions at local council level will also have a significant cumulative impact on the environment of

the Corridor area. In particular, participants in this project noted that it will be important to have net

gain of natural capital formally considered in each of the following:

Locations of new villages and urban expansions

The masterplan and detailed design of new settlements

Drafting of planning guidance

Allocation of Community Infrastructure Levy funds

Detailed development of infrastructure investment plans

Water resource plans

Supplementary planning guidance16 issued by Lichfield District Council provides a good example of a

systematic framework for considering biodiversity in the course of development, which could be

adapted and expanded to apply to natural capital in a wider sense. The guidance document provides

a clear step-by-step guide to avoiding and mitigating damage to biodiversity, and for achieving net

gain targets required by the Council for all new development. The document presents a review of

relevant central government requirements and a summary of the district’s biodiversity assets, before

outlining the biodiversity planning needed at each stage of the approval process.

Guidance and Tools

A number of guidance documents and tools exist to support natural capital decisions at each decision-

making level. Drawing on systematic reviews by the Ecosystem Knowledge Network/JNCC and Natural

England17, this project has briefly summarised below a number of non-proprietary tools that may be

applicable within the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Growth Corridor. However, this does not

provide an exhaustive list of available tools, and others are likely to be released.

Existing guidance is pitched at a variety of levels, and includes complete decision-making frameworks,

management standards, and the provision of evidence or reference values. A similar variety of outputs

are also provided: some look to quantify or value natural capital features, while others provide a

decision framework based on indices or qualitative advice. The leading examples within each of these

categories are presented in the table below.

Those that have been issued as government guidance or used by government bodies are highlighted

in the table. These are generally designed to ensure decisions are consistent between different

projects and policies: they present standards or values that are applicable nationwide and can inform

option appraisal.

Table 3: Available tools and guidance – Government-issued guidance marked with an asterisk

Type of tool Tools Decisions the tool/guidance is designed to support

Decision-making frameworks

Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) (Peh et al. 2013)

Programme-level option appraisal; project valuation

Integrated Valuation of Environmental Sciences and Tradeoffs (InVEST)

Spatial planning of new environmental features in the

16 Lichfield District Council (2016) Biodiversity & Development Supplementary Planning Document 17 Natural England (2013) Commissioned Report NECR126: Green Infrastructure – Valuation Tools Assessment; JNCC (2016) Report 584: Tool Assessor – Supporting practical assessment of natural capital in land-use decision making

30

wider landscape, to maximise benefits

Costing Nature Policy-support tool estimating the costs and impacts of measures to increase ecosystem services

Indices Natural Capital Planning Tool (CEEP/University of Birmingham, 2018)

Project-level review of natural capital

Natural England/Defra Biodiversity Metric (NE, 2012) *

Draft index for total biodiversity held by a site/ impacted by a project

Standards Natural England Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGst) (NE/LUC, 2008) *

Standards for maximum distance between residential property and green spaces of various sizes

UK Forestry Standard (Forestry Commission)*

Reference standard for sustainable forest management

Woodland Carbon Code (Forestry Commission Scotland)*

Voluntary standard for UK woodland creation projects seeking to measure carbon sequestration.

Peatland Code (IUCN UK) Standards for peatland management

Evidence, valuation and reference values

Economic Valuation of Environmental Effects (Environment Agency/eftec, 2010)*

Valuation of new wetland habitat

A brief guide to the carbon valuation methodology for UK policy (DECC 2011)*

Valuation of carbon storage and emissions

UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Integrated Model (‘TIM’) (UKNEA, 2013) *

Valuation of new woodland habitat

Carbon storage by habitat (NE, 2012) * Review of the impact of land use and management change on carbon emissions

Ecosystem Services Transfer Toolkit (NE/University of York, 2016) *

Quantification of the effects of land management change on ecosystem services

ORVal Outdoor Recreation Valuation (Exeter University)

Estimation of visits made to new greenspace

Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for walking and cycling (WHO, 2014; 2017)

Valuation of benefits of additional walking and cycling

The Value of Green Infrastructure (CNT, 2011) Valuation of green infrastructure features in the built environment

BeST (Benefits of SuDS Tool) (CIRIA) Estimates the impacts and benefits of SuDS features

EcoServ-GIS (Durham Wildlife Trust/Winn) Map-based estimation of demand for ecosystem services and capacity of natural capital assets to provide them

Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator (LUCI) (Bangor University)

31

Together, these tools provide support for improving the environmental outcomes of most stages of

decision-making. However, as noted above this is an emerging area of practice – professional use of

available tools is varied and few tools or guidance documents have become an established part of

housing or infrastructure planning. Participants in this project have noted that even government-

issued guidance and reference values are not widely known or consistently used.

One additional challenge is a key finding from the review of Green Infrastructure tools for the Bicester

development; that few tools receive the ongoing support they need to maintain their functionality. As

such, promising tools become obsolete and are rapidly no longer useful.

Demonstration tool for habitat creation

The difficulty in obtaining authoritative natural capital values was raised in most of the meetings held

for this project, limiting in particular the ability to engage with policy discussions and cost:benefit

analyses for government-led schemes such as the Corridor proposals.

To demonstrate the application of a ready reckoner approach to address this problem, this project has

converted existing government guidance figures into a user-friendly Excel tool. This has been designed

to allow non-expert users to estimate the whole-life economic benefits of wetland habitat creation or

restoration. The tool will also estimate some of the benefits of woodland creation or restoration,

although only those for which government-supported guidance or research exists; there is no

comprehensive guidance for valuing woodland habitat, which could provide comprehensive values

that include all classes of benefit.

Wetland values are estimated in accordance with Environment Agency guidance. This is provided by

the revised 2010 handbook Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management: Economic Valuation of

Environmental Effects. The handbook provides values per hectare for all public benefits, except for

flood risk management and carbon regulation. The tool created for this project does not attempt to

calculate flood risk management benefits as these are entirely site-specific, but it does calculate

carbon regulation benefits, by applying central government guidance on carbon valuation18 to per-

hectare sequestration rates collated by a Natural England literature review19.

The same methods are used to estimate the per-hectare valuation of carbon sequestration by

woodland. In addition, upper and lower estimates of the recreational value of new woodland can be

estimated, based on the two different per-visit values provided in existing government research: a

conservative lower value from research for the Office of National Statistics20, and the higher modelled

estimate derived for Defra’s UK National Ecosystem Assessment21. While these figures differ

substantially, both have themselves been derived from the same Natural England dataset22.

The tool has designed to be simple to use, requiring only the following inputs:

Habitat type

Year in which habitat will be ecologically functional

18 Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009) Carbon Valuation in UK Policy Appraisal: A Revised Approach 19 Natural England (2012) Carbon storage by habitat: Review of the evidence of the impacts of management decisions and condition of carbon stores and sources. Natural England Research Report NERR043. 20 Ricardo Energy & Environment (2016) Reviewing cultural services valuation methodology for inclusion in aggregate UK natural capital estimates. Report for the Office of National Statistics. 21 Sen et al. (2014) Economic Assessment of the Recreational Value of Ecosystems in Great Britain; estimates derived from 22 The annual Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment.

32

Length of time for which long-term site management will be guaranteed

Whether the site will be open for public use

For woodland only:

Expected number of annual visits (n.b. tools exist that provide estimates of visitor numbers,

such as the Exeter University ‘ORVal’ tool)

For wetland only:

Existing land use on the site

The scarcity at the county level of the habitat being created

Whether the site is within 200m of a built-up area

Outputs of this tool are compatible with the relevant government guidance, including the Treasury

Green Book and supplementary guidance23, and are appropriate for use in the initial stages of policy

and project design.

The Defra Biodiversity Metric developed for the 2012 Offsetting Pilots is currently being considered

for further use – particularly as a means of assuring net gain in biodiversity. This metric aims to provide

a single proxy figure for biodiversity gain or loss, based on the habitat created, improved, degraded

and destroyed during the course of a project. The proxy is calculated on the basis of the area,

distinctiveness and condition of the relevant habitats, the risks associated with recreating them, and

the time required to deliver new habitat. Safeguards are made explicitly to prevent critical habitats

from being replaced by habitat of lesser distinctiveness or condition, and for the value of hedgerows

as a linear feature. Safeguards for protected habitats and species also exist elsewhere in the planning

system.

Responses to the 2018 consultation on adapting the metric for further use, indicate a widespread

demand for such a metric but also a number of common concerns. Many of these are expressed as a

need to change and improve the multipliers and safeguards – while some of these are technical

comments, others are fundamental ethical concerns with creating and using a single proxy to

summarise impacts on the natural world.

There also remain outstanding issues with the focus on habitat areas, as can be seen in the Tresham

Garden Village case study presented above: recommendations by expert ecologists for the

development masterplan concentrate on improving the quality of environmental features at a

detailed level (for example the management of a drainage network) and this is not easily measured

by a metric based on hectarage of broad habitat classes.

Such concerns are likely to be present in any work to develop natural capital guidance applicable

across the Corridor area. There would be additional challenges with any tool applying an economic

framework to assets that are often non-fungible and understood by many as having an intrinsic non-

economic value. The Tresham Garden Village case study shows the potential strength of a metric that

highlights natural capital benefits and identifies issues requiring further design attention. It also

demonstrates the need to ensure natural capital decision-making addresses particular adverse

impacts, even where projects are expected to deliver aggregate natural capital gains.

Mapping

23 HM Treasury (2018) The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government; HM Treasury (2008) Intergenerational wealth transfers and social discounting: Supplementary Green Book guidance

33

Maps generated through GIS (Geographical Information System) algorithms are also widely used to

investigate and demonstrate where environmental investment could be prioritised. Examples of this

already exist in the Corridor area: the Forestry Commission’s opportunity maps set out potential new

woodland areas across England, Natural Capital Solutions have mapped the existing and potential

ecosystem service values of natural capital in Northamptonshire and Peterborough, and for

Oxfordshire the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre have mapped areas in which habitat

creation would most efficiently connect existing but fragmented habitat. Each have been designed to

guide habitat creation - with the Forestry Commission map for example feeding into Countryside

Stewardship funding decisions.

Maps of this sort may prove particularly important for prioritising environmental investment within

the Corridor; it is a diverse area cutting across local council boundaries and no one person has expert

knowledge of opportunities and needs across the area nor are there clear accountabilities and

responsibilities for this.

Environmental bodies across the Corridor area were sent a survey form asking for a full list of the

existing data layers they considered relevant to natural capital planning in the Corridor. A compiled

list of these data layers is presented in Table 1 above.

Broadly and with examples, these data layers fall into the following categories:

Mapping of environmental features: habitat types, hedgerows, watercourses, open green

spaces

Boundaries of designated areas and features: Natura 2000 sites, Sites of Special Scientific

Interest, County and Local Wildlife Sites, AONB, Landscape Character Areas and the locations

of Tree Protection Orders

Qualitative or quantitative assessments: summaries of habitat condition, soil condition, air

and water quality, groundwater availability

Relevant demographic and administrative information: local authority boundaries,

population level, distribution and composition, economic and financial states, property price

information

Maps showing the results of risk and opportunity analyses: Strategic Flood Risk Assessments,

agri-environment priority areas, and the opportunity maps mentioned above.

Collectively, respondents to this project considered that these existing datasets provide a good basis

for biodiversity and natural capital planning. Spatial modelling provides the ability to build on these

data: combining biodiversity and population distribution datasets with research showing the impact

of natural features, and using algorithms to model the benefits of existing and new features. This has

proven useful in work conducted by Natural Capital Solutions, and in the construction of tools such as

Exeter University’s ORVal.

As noted above however, there are still critical gaps in datasets and research showing the benefits of

particular natural features for more location-specific benefits such as flood risk management, water

resource availability and health and wellbeing improvements. Addressing these gaps will require close

involvement from the relevant statutory bodies and teams.

Cranfield Decision Support Tool

Cranfield University were commissioned as part of this project to develop a proof of concept decision-

support tool incorporating mapping to help guide route choice for linear infrastructure. The approach

34

was piloted on the route choice for the prospective Bedford-Cambridge railway. This was delivered

through an MSc student group project.

The project aimed to provide an overview of the impacts associated with indicative rail routes,

summarising both positive and negative impacts in a way that would be readily understood by

stakeholders, including when public consultation is undertaken. The tools identified and developed

through the project were applied to three potential routes: one suggested by East-West Rail, a second

identified in the 5th Studio report for the NIC24, and a ‘Northern’ route following the existing A428

transport corridor.

The overall approach to route selection was based on: first identifying constraints such as designated

sites, protected habitats, grade 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land and housing; and then factoring in

construction and compensation costs; and the operational costs and environmental impacts.

The tools developed for this purpose provide, for each route, an estimate of:

route length

journey times between Bedford and Cambridge

initial cost projections

the number of properties directly affected by noise and by land take (demolition), and the

cost of resulting compensation payments

the area of land in the route’s footprint and buffer zone, broken down by its ecological and

agricultural classification

the potential economic impact of losses to habitat and to agricultural land and associated

compensation costs

This work demonstrates the importance of agreeing impacts of particular interest to residents and

other stakeholders, and of setting appropriate buffer zones to capture these impacts. The number of

homes expected to be affected by noise, for example, varies considerably depending on the distance

from a new line that impacts are expected to be felt. Explicitly considering natural habitat by type and

agricultural land by class also allows greater public understanding of the impact of land take.

Demonstration maps showing the potential for these impacts to be mapped are provided below.

It should also be noted that several of the critical datasets used in this project are not openly available

to potential consultees: in particular compilation of land covers (provided here by the academic

provider Digimap), Land Registry data showing property locations and Ordnance Survey base maps to

provide context in a form familiar to residents of the area. Most consultees cannot be expected to

analyse these data independently, and should be given support to understand and quantify these

impacts.

The project also highlighted the known difficulty of assessing habitat fragmentation due to new

infrastructure routes. This is likely to be a particular problem given the already poor landscape

connectivity in the Corridor area.

24 5th Studio for the National Infrastructure Commission (2017) Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford Future Planning Options Project

35

Map 5: Demonstration displaying sensitive habitat within infrastructure buffer zone

Map 6: Demonstration displaying property within infrastructure buffer zone

36

5. Investment Priorities

The workshops held in each of the Corridor’s five counties looked to determine natural capital

priorities with respect to the Growth Corridor and recommendations for environmental planning.

Participants were from a wide range of organisations interested in the area’s natural capital including:

local councils, government agencies, LEPs, wildlife charities, universities, developers, health,

recreation and agricultural bodies.

There was broad agreement that the Corridor proposals offer substantial opportunities for natural

capital, much of which is currently fragmented and could benefit from development that includes

strategic environmental improvements.

This is not to overlook the considerable risks that accelerated development could pose to the natural

environment and wildlife in the area. Participants in all workshops raised particular concerns that the

cumulative impacts of development are not being and would not be fully addressed – leading to the

direct loss of habitat, loss of connections between designated sites, and damage from additional

visitor pressure.

Environmental Planning

Within each county, considerable environmental planning has already taken place. This is recognised

as a resource- and time-intensive process, which has relied on government funding available under

past planning initiatives: notably the Biodiversity Action Plans in the late 1990s and early years of the

last decade, the Green Infrastructure Strategies drafted between 2005 and 2010 and more recently

Nature Improvement Area, Local Nature Partnership and Catchment Partnership processes.

As noted above, the majority of the good practice case studies identified for this project were agreed

and implemented through these planning initiatives. Of particular note are the Country Parks and

similar greenspace that have been established in association with many of the recent urban

expansions across the Corridor area. Most of these were planned in accordance with Natural England’s

Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) and agreed through the county Green Infrastructure

Strategies. Concerns were raised that the next generation of urban expansion sites do not all have

similar plans for new green space.

Four of the five county workshops agreed a list of county-level natural capital investment priorities –

the exception being the Oxfordshire meeting, where workshop participants considered that existing

plans and limited detail on key development proposals (notably the Expressway route) provided

insufficient context to take a strategic decision within the timescale of this project. The priorities

identified in the other counties are outlined below and include a wide range of priority outcomes and

project types.

Participants were however in general agreement that existing plans will not be sufficient to match the

ambitions of the Corridor proposals. They will need to be reviewed or replaced with new plans that

are consistent with the scale of Corridor development, once the governance of the Corridor and the

scale of net gain targets have been agreed. To be successful it is clear that such work will require

proper governance, focus and resources.

Expectations for net gain were that new development should provide 20% or greater increases in

existing natural capital. This was considered to be consistent with the NIC recommendations for new

development corporations and means of capturing increases in land value to invest in public

infrastructure, but as noted above would require explicit and quantified responsibilities for such new

bodies and appropriate mechanisms in place.

37

Investment Priorities

With the exception of Oxfordshire, each of the county workshops agreed a list of natural capital

investment priorities for the county – these are outlined below in Table 4.

Table 4: County-level natural capital investment priorities, agreed by existing nature partnerships

Bedfordshire Projects in order of priority:

1. Habitat creation in line with GI Strategy (2009) and Greensand Ridge NIA (2013) priorities

Habitat creation along eleven GI corridors:

Milton Keynes to Grafham Water

Upper Great Ouse River Valley

Lower Great Ouse River Valley

Ivel River Valley

Bedford to Milton Keynes

Greensand Ridge (heathland restoration, especially former quarries)

Ouzel River Valley

Flit Valley

The Chalk Arc

Leighton Linslade to Dunstable

Upper Lea River Valley

Forest of Marston Vale (woodland planting)

Investment outwith reserves and habitat creation: landowner engagement and roadside nature reserves

2. Visitor management and greenspace provision

Creation of country parks and accessible green space near to growth sites, with a particular need to avoid large increases in visits to sensitive downland sites around Luton.

3. Public outreach and education Greater engagement to increase public engagement with nature

4. Ensuring new development includes GI features

Corridor-wide design and quality standards to improve standard practice

5. Waterside improvements Improving connections between urban areas and their rivers Upstream interventions to reduce flood peaks

Buckinghamshire

1. An ambitious Corridor-wide environmental goal, such as a new forest

Large-scale habitat creation, with targets equivalent in scale to the Corridor’s housing and economic targets. The strategy and governance for this should form a core part of the Corridor vision instead of being a response to or mitigation for economic development.

2. High baseline standards for all new development

Natural capital gain requirements, in close proximity to all new development

38

a. Peri-urban parks including habitat restoration

b. Amenity improvements including waterway access and tree planting

c. Green Infrastructure requirements in accordance with the county strategy

3. Major additional habitat creation 4.

Habitat creation and management improvements to connect and buffer existing wildlife sites. Priority areas for this include the Forest Ridge across the north of the county, and the area surrounding Bernwood Ray

Cambridgeshire Projects in order of priority:

1. Fenland Large-scale wetland habitat restoration

Creation/expansion of visitor facilities

2. Ouse Valley Forming a cohesive regional park from existing and new wetland sites

Gravel pit restoration into wetlands

Creation of visitor facilities Reconnection of fragmented woodland sites

Visitor management to avoid damage from disturbance and trampling

Creation of small grants scheme to fund improvements in the wider landscape

3. West Cambridge Hundreds

4. Country Parks and Accessible Green Space

Ensuring new developments have extensive and varied green space, to avoid increased visitor pressure on existing wildlife sites. Particular focus on:

Denny Abbey near Waterbeach

Huntingdon West

Expansion of Hinchingbrooke Country Park

New sites west of St. Ives Improving Fen Drayton visitor facilities

Northamptonshire Projects in order of priority:

1. The Nene Valley SPA habitat restoration and management

Landscape-level conservation

2. Rockingham Forest Woodland planting Reconnection of fragmented habitat through new woodland and hedgerows

3. The Yardley-Whittlewood woodland ridge restoration

4. ‘John Clare’ country to the west of Peterborough: habitat creation and visitor management

Re-connection of meadow, woodland, wetland and bare limestone habitat Preservation of farmland wildlife features

Oxfordshire

39

In the absence of a strategic framework for the wider Corridor the Oxfordshire workshop did not prioritise individual projects. Drawing upon the identified themes and existing strategic documents e.g. SEEIP and State of Nature in Oxfordshire 2017, a number of project areas have been identified.

The water environment, associated habitats and flooding

Floodplain restoration in the Upper Thames including a water management and land access initiative

Accessible green spaces and active travel routes

A suite of projects designed to enhance access to and expand Oxfordshire’s diverse and often fragmented network of greenspace, with the further aim of enhancing connectivity between them and the resources to coordinate implementation

Known non-statutory wildlife sites and the connectivity between them

Enhancement to existing Local Wildlife Sites and the wider Conservation Target Area network to improve the overall provision of habitat and connectivity with a particular focus on grasslands and woodlands

These investment priorities can be broadly divided into programmes of work to address the four

strands of work outlined above:

1. Investment to prevent the loss of existing natural features

2. Ensuring new development meets high baseline standards

3. Creation of major new natural assets

4. Ongoing maintenance

Many of these investment priorities were put forward to address stakeholder concerns regarding

further – and accelerated – development in the corridor. The central concerns were:

Visitor pressure on fragile wildlife sites: this is the basis for investing in ‘honeypot’ sites such

as country parks that can act as buffers even if their biodiversity value is limited

Loss of connectivity, in particular through urban ‘sprawl’ and new infrastructure corridors

Impacts on the wider landscape that are spurred on by new housing development, the

intensification of agriculture and greater water abstraction

The need to restore historic damage to habitats and the landscape

Participants in several workshops raised the need for business cases and outline designs for these

strategic projects, to test their feasibility and so that appropriate work can begin in tandem with the

proposed Corridor developments. In most cases the funding and resources for this are not yet

available.

There is an agreed need for further cross-corridor mapping of investment opportunities, making full

use of the latest data and GIS methods to design local schemes that contribute to these county- and

Corridor-level priorities. This cannot however be an entirely bottom-up exercise, and it must take into

account existing priorities.

40

The Role of Statutory Environmental Bodies with respect to the Corridor

Defra (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) hold a seat on the cross-departmental

group developing detailed policy for the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Growth Corridor. This is a

recently-formed group, and to date key decisions have been taken by the Treasury and latterly MHCLG

(the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government).

Alongside the Defra representative, the Environment Agency have also appointed a Programme

Director for the Growth Corridor – supported by colleagues from each of the three Environment

Agency areas (Thames, East Anglia and Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire) that fall within the

Corridor. Similarly, Natural England engagement is through a national-level Principal Advisor and

nominated leads from their East Anglia and Thames operational areas. As well as biodiversity features,

Environment Agency engagement is concerned with developing upstream flood storage schemes

across the Growth Corridor to reduce the need for costly flood protection works downstream –

including works outside of the Corridor area. At the time of writing (May 2018) there is no agreed

Defra policy specific to the Growth Corridor proposals.

Defra is proposing the development of local/regional natural capital plans across England, developed

from existing Defra Group local area plans wherever possible. The current intention is for these plans

to be agreed between statutory environmental bodies, Local Nature Partnerships, Local Enterprise

Partnerships and other key stakeholders. It is currently expected that several of these natural capital

plans will overlap with the Corridor area.

41

6. Conclusions

Participants in this project share the view that providing a healthy and attractive environment in the

immediate vicinity of new development will be key to its desirability for new residents and

acceptability by people already living in the area.

Participants have consistently raised three challenges requiring attention across the Corridor:

1. The need to ensure that new development does not cause an overall reduction in the

extent or condition of existing natural capital

2. The need to ensure a net gain in local environmental assets from new development

3. The opportunity to invest in major natural capital projects of Corridor-wide significance

There was general agreement that existing environmental protections do not mitigate the cumulative

impacts of new development or provide net gain, with particular mention of:

The loss of ecological connectivity through land-take

Flood risk and water resource impacts

Visitor-related disturbance and damage to wildlife sites

Each of these three challenges will require further planning and robust environmental governance at

a local authority and a Corridor level. It will require a means of ensuring that existing environmental

bodies have an effective voice within the new governance and planning processes being developed

for the Corridor.

The project has also highlighted learning points in how to proceed with work related to natural capital

approaches including aspects that cross existing administrative boundaries:

The Natural Capital Committee ‘How to do it’ workbook provides a useful framework for

natural capital planning

Strategies to address aspects of natural capital have already been developed in the

various local authorities and counties. Any new approaches need to find ways of building

on this work. This can add to the complexity and challenge of the task

The weighing of natural capital investment options is complex and highly dependent on

the scale of investment available. Identifying Corridor-wide priorities will require detailed

negotiation of a common method and level of ambition

The main barriers to effective engagement by the environmental bodies with the Corridor

include overlapping administrative and organisational boundaries, and the limited public

discussion of the Corridor proposals

There are challenges in agreeing and then acquiring the base datasets needed for an

initial baseline evaluation of natural capital, as these are vested in a number of different

bodies and not all relevant information is compiled

It is hard to integrate flood and water management decisions and health and wellbeing

goals into wildlife planning, because of mismatched understanding and priorities

between the responsible bodies

LNPs and other nature partnerships can provide added value in the decision-making

process as they were able to bring together a wide range of views on particular topics.

42

7. Recommendations

1. A strategic natural capital and environmental plan should be developed for the Corridor. This

should be of the same level and importance as the industrial, housing and transport strategies.

The further work required includes:

Active engagement of the Local Nature Partnerships and other existing partnerships

Agreement of overall ‘net gain’ targets for both biodiversity and natural capital across the

Corridor

Developing a natural capital asset register with an associated risk register. This should

include the asset extent and condition, the risks facing them and the cost of their

maintenance and enhancement

Prioritising the substantial opportunities for new investment in natural capital at

community, local authority and Corridor-wide levels

Better understanding the flood, water resource, landscape/amenity, health and visitor

benefits associated with existing natural capital

Explicit recommitment to existing environmental protections.

2. Effective, resourced governance arrangements for environmental and natural capital aspects

should be provided at all levels within the growth corridor arrangements.

3. Key mechanisms are needed to protect and enhance the environment and natural capital in an

appropriate way across the growth corridor:

All local councils should implement fully the requirements of the National Planning

Policy Framework on natural capital, habitats and biodiversity

Housing developers should be required to deliver net biodiversity and environmental

gains as part of any development, notwithstanding viability assessments

Infrastructure providers including Highways England and Network Rail should commit to

net biodiversity and environmental gain

Homes England should commit to net biodiversity and environmental gain in housing

developments

Mechanisms need to be established to ensure local authorities cooperate to enhance

natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries

The environmental net gain proposed by the National Infrastructure Commission should

be implemented through clear, measurable and Corridor-wide targets

All net environmental gain targets must be linked to the needs of existing natural capital

and supported by mechanisms for aggregating funds and ensuring long-term maintenance

funding

Clarity should be provided on how the “unless” statements and exception tests in the

National Planning Policy Framework are to be used so that developments in restricted

areas or impacting on designated habitats is truly unavoidable and exceptional

43

There should be close cooperation between the health and wellbeing and net

environment gain action plans.

4. A baseline set of data and maps should be made available for use across the Corridor. This should

include a natural capital asset register, an associated risk register and identified investment

opportunities. Considerable savings could be achieved if Network Rail, Highways England, Homes

England, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission were to agree a

common approach to determining baseline natural capital conditions and net biodiversity and

environmental gain methodologies within the corridor.

5. An agreed approach to assessing net environmental gain should be developed for use across the

Corridor by infrastructure providers, housing developers, local authorities and environmental

groups. The factors to be taken into account include:

The need to deliver both net biodiversity gain and net natural capital gains

Clear presentation of any specific environmental damage, regardless of overall net

impact

The location of gains and losses including proximity to beneficiaries

The time lag and uncertainties between development and the establishment of new

natural capital assets

The distinctiveness of existing habitats: their species richness, diversity, rarity

The certainty and sustainability of funding to maintain natural capital.