BIODIVERSITY

Question

Would be interested in people's views on the extent to which PCs promote  biodiversity. It seems that s40 of the NERC act 2006 places a duty on PCs to conserve biodiversity "in a manner that is consistent with the exercise of their normal functions such as policy and decision-making". It seems that conserve might include enhance.  As our new Council contains a "biodiversity expert" I am keen to understand what a PC is obliged to do as a duty is involved 

Answer 1

As the PC has no stipulated powers to enforce this within their community ( regardless of persuading groups) their most usual course would be to encourage it within the community by way of grants made to specific projects formulated within that community rather than dictated by the PC.

Comments

That's interesting because  I was thinking if S137 was used there would be no direct benefit i.e. any benefits would be indirect ?

---

Sorry don't make the connection between requirement of the PC to biodiversity and your reference. A little more information might help assistance with the question

---

Your response indicates that PCs have no stipulated powers to promote/fund  biodiversity projects. But you suggest providing grants to interested parties. If that is the case then surely S137 has to be used and that comes with the direct benefit condition.   What I am not sure of is while there is no stipulated power is there an overarching duty to fund such projects under S40?

---

My response points out that the council has no legally designated powers to enforce their legal duty within their community. Funding is for each council to decide. How this is distributed and to what ends is for the council to decide and should ideally be based on the communities needs and requirements ( their primary duty). PC''s must decide how to meet any duty they have and that is best decided by their full awareness of  the will of their community which can be met by a grant system available to those wanting to meet the bio-diversity aims.

---

Still doesn't answer the question of what power you can use. What will happen of course is that S137 will be used and the legal tests ignored.  Still just wanted to know what everybody's take on it was .  I agree however there are many common sense things that can be done but when faced for a request for a £1000 to create a wild flower meadow in a park I wasn't sure how it could be authorised.

---

Sorry for delay. On such a request ( assume from community) then the PC should expect a well laid out case from applicants to them for funding. This will allow the PC to thoroughly investigate the matter, ask for clarification etc, consider their options to meet the request ( or not) and then receive full council decision on the matter, then if positive, work to facilitate the support of the scheme with the powers they have at their disposal.
Even, dare I say, using creative out of the box thinking rather than box ticking alone.
Isn't that what PC's should be doing? Or am I an old dinosaur?

---

The only query I have with your response is that the legal tests for s137 require that a direct benefit must ensue .  We then get into the debate of what is a direct or indirect benefit . I believe in the case of biodiversity that any benefits are indirect

---

Surely it is for the applicant to meet and prove the question of benefit and for the council to decide whether the criteria comes within their ability to facilitate or if they can by creative thinking meet or enable it to happen within their powers. A PC cannot operate for the good of their community by by box ticking yes or no ( regardless of how higher authorities want to run)  but by finding ways to make the will of their community happen. That is what make PC's unique in local government and long should that happen. In my opinion, but I pride my self on finding solutions to problems and not on reading a regulation to give me the stock answer .

---

No conformance to the legal tests is "in the opinion of the Council".    I do understand your sentiments in making things happen and finding reasons to do things rather than not.  The only problem with that is there is a fine line between doing that and doing whatever you want and finding a power that might fit .  To me the latter is an abuse of power viz acting ultra vires.  Still as we say life is about opinions

---

Which brings us into the Nolan Principles that should be a yardstick basis for ALL councillor's decision making and actions.

---

Our Fin regs state .The RFO shall verify the lawful nature of any proposed purchase before the issue of any order, and in the case of new or infrequent purchases or payments, the RFO shall ensure that the statutory authority shall be reported to the meeting at which the order is approved so that the minutes can record the power being used. I can't see how any Nolan inspired sentiment can overrule that.  Still an interesting debate which leaves me better informed

---

I quoted adherence to the Nolan principles as being what the councillors making the decisions can be relied on by the community as their basic principles for decision making.
But as stated before there are NO powers given to a PC to comply with their legal duty on bio-diversity so they must resort to what the CAN ( or want to do within the framework allowed).

Answer 2

Following the great storm in the 1980's, where a large number of woodlands were destroyed, the 'biodiversity experts' all rallied to try and save the planet. Unfortunately there was not enough of them to go around and so some poor souls of woodlands were left to defend for themselves.

Turns out that the woodlands that did not get the 'biodiversity experts' treatment now have far more abundance of bio-diversity than the ones that did.

So your best course of action would be to keep your resident expert on a short leash.

Comments

I can see AR that like me you are somewhat of a cynic but I fear your solution is not always achievable. As always I want to understand what we can and cannot do money wise.  My understanding was that duties must happen i.e. they are not optional

---

AR’s response is legendary! );0)

As a resident environmental (I’ll say interested party rather then expert although….)
There is a great deal that a T&PC can proactively “do” without actually “doing” anything.
Ban neonics on all council owned land / allotments

Adopt enviro friendly land management policies and procedures

Require contractors to demonstrate and utilise carbon reduction machinery and practices

There’s loads that can been done without actually doing very much at all….

Answer 3

Some interesting comments here but a bit of a concentration on funding and money.  The quoted section in the original question actually highlights that spending money isn't necessarily the answer.  My council has an environmental policy which requires the council to consider the environmental impact in the decisions it makes.  So, for example, comments on planning applications can include comments on the environmental impact of any development proposals, we require grant recipients to confirm how they will support biodiversity within the project they are requesting funding for and we have a management plan for the open spaces we manage which encourages wildlife etc.  There is a group of councillors who monitor projects etc. and produce an annual report, making suggestions for improvement or change.  Small steps I know but for a parish of our size, all with a positive impact.

Comments

Unfortunately I belong to a Council whose first reaction seems to spend money to resolve a problem.   We don't have the General Power of Competence and for example they wish to spend over a £1000 creating a wild flower meadow in our park and  now build a new pond in our burial ground .  Traditionally with any spend or budget setting the powers to be used never even come into the conversation.    I get it that much can be done by the decisions you make but in the case of spend I simply query the power that can be used? When I queried the use of S137 the response was "whats that".....Aaaagh

---

Look at that! A rare moment of synergy ):0)