Objections 2023: RSPB
Royal Society for Protection of Birds
​
To reiterate, the RSPB’s interest in this planning application is as follows:
​
1. Its potential to adversely impact populations of breeding nightjar, Dartford warbler and woodlark, all of
which are qualifying species of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area.
​
2. The long-term potential to restore lowland heathland within Purple Haze through different mechanisms.
We have provided feedback below, based on our previous comments relating to these areas of interest.
We welcome the acknowledgement that the removal of habitat within the site could damage the interest of
the SPA and the clear recognition of the functional link between the site and the SPA (sHRA paragraph 4.2.4).
In our supplementary response letter of June 2021, we highlighted that a review of the UK’s terrestrial SPA
network was published in 2016, which recommended a boundary review of some existing heathland SPAs,
including the Dorset Heathlands SPA. There is strong evidence to extend the SPA boundary to include the
Purple Haze site and the surrounding area. The recommendations of this review are yet to be implemented.
Our supplementary response highlighted the Rufford case in Nottinghamshire. There are important similarities
between this and the Purple Haze application, which should be considered when assessing this application.
Further details can be found in our supplementary response (attached for ease of reference). Until such time
as the third SPA Review has been implemented in respect of both nightjar in general, and the boundaries of
the Dorset Heathlands SPA in particular, we would strongly advise that HCC should as a minimum adopt the
same approach to that adopted in the Rufford case. This is necessary to satisfy request number four in the
Regulation 25 letter, which asks for additional assessment of the functional linkage with the SPA and the
implications of displacing populations of bird species associated with it.
​
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 in the shadow HRA suggest a significant increase in high quality nightjar habitat from
around 4ha to over 30ha, but this is over 62 years. The woodland clearance outlined covers 20.9ha, but
doesn’t give a timeframe for completion. We welcome the assertion that some on-site habitat enhancements
and creation will take place prior to extraction, but very little additional information is provided as evidence
for this, nor is there certainty that these areas are suitable. It should be the case that extraction at the next
phase cannot commence until restoration is complete. The Bird Report (Appendix A6) states that suitability of
habitat for nightjar is decreasing (4.2.2). This is very disappointing given the significance of the species and2
should be addressed to ensure compliance with Annex 1 of the EU ‘Birds’ Directive (Directive on the
conservation of wild birds 2009/147/EC) Article 4 and to meet the commitments of the approved FDP 2009.
Maintenance of the quantity, quality and connectivity of nightjar habitat (both within the site and to the
nearby SPA) throughout extraction (sHRA 4.2.68) is essential. We can not see sufficient information to confirm
that the phasing of the works will maintain sufficient suitable habitat for nightjar during the development of
the site. The nesting bird protection scheme (oLEMMP 13.2) outlines some basic measures for screening works
and recreational access, as well as a few specific suggestions for nightjar habitat management. These are
useful, but we would require clarity on how any bracken management is likely to be conducted as mechanised
work will likely destroy any nightjar nests. The bird monitoring scheme (oLEMMP 14.2) contains generic
statements about the timing of habitat work and the need to carry out monitoring, but fails to identify who
will conduct this monitoring and how. Paragraph 14.2.3 states that ‘Quarry staff must be vigilant’ for certain
species. We have concerns about ongoing monitoring being left to site staff and not being carried out by
trained ecologists. Due to these issues, we do not feel that that the applicant has addressed request number
three in the Regulation 25 letter, which asks for more detail regarding how the phased development minimises
the impact on populations of notable birds.
​
We maintain our concerns regarding the displacement of recreational pressure from the site. We question the
conclusion that the existing control measures are likely to prevent quarrying operations from significantly
reducing the attractiveness of these areas (sHRA 4.2.21). No evidence is provided to back up this statement.
The visitor survey focusses only on local visitors outside the peak season, failing to account for a significant
amount of visitor pressure. It assesses existing usage and fails to ask respondents whether they would be likely
to recreate elsewhere given the changes proposed under the development, or how their patterns of usage
might be affected by the work. This is likely to change as restoration creates more open areas (both on site
and off), potentially moving people off the existing tracks and facilitating access to these more open areas.
This will create additional pressure on species using the adjacent and offset areas.
​
We acknowledge that offset areas could mitigate for some of the impacts on wildlife within the site boundary,
we have several concerns over the sites proposed and the ability to recreate suitable heathland habitats.
Whilst we welcome the addition of two offset areas to deliver biodiversity offsetting, we can see little
reference to nightjar in the plans for these areas. This is a missed opportunity, as these areas could provide
suitable habitat for this species. That said, the Ashley Heath area is very close to houses and potential sources
of disturbance, and the other site is long and thin with significant edge effects, such as the long boundary with
the main road. As these areas have also been proposed to provide alternative areas for recreation, we would
question whether they will they be able to manage the wildlife enhancement alongside additional recreational
usage. We have not seen any information relating to the existing wildlife value of these sites. It is likely that
they already support similar populations of birds (and other species) to the application site, in which case
there could be impacts on these areas that need to be assessed following survey work. No information has
been provided to demonstrate what management would be taking place on these sites in the absence of being
used as mitigation areas. We would also seek clarification that the off-site habitat will be provided prior to
extraction, and that monitoring would take place to ensure their efficacy prior to works commencing on site.
Heathland restoration is not quick or easy, and other mineral extraction sites have failed to restore heathland
habitats of sufficient quality to mitigate for losses elsewhere. If they do not provide adequate suitable
compensatory habitats, further remediation work would be required. We have concerns about the reliance on
planting gorse to restore the habitat. Gorse, suitably managed on a long rotation, can provide valuable habitat
for breeding and non-breeding Dartford warbler, but its value for breeding nightjar is likely to be limited and
would have little or no value for woodlark. The information provided fails to address request number eleven in
the Regulation 25 letter, which asks that acceptable compensatory habitats are provided to offset the loss of
habitats prior to restoration habitats becoming established.
​
Our comments above are based on the data presented. The breeding bird survey indicates that updated bird
surveys are scheduled for 2023, including a nightjar survey due to take place in June. It also suggested that an
updated walkover survey had taken place in October 2022 but provided no results. Whilst we welcome the
additional surveys and updated data, it is difficult for us to draw any final conclusions until we have seen the3
results. These will inform the mitigation strategy, and so we would like to comment on the final version of that
strategy if it is subject to any amendments.
​
Given that the site is functionally linked to the SPA, and the outcome of the Rufford case, we believe that
further information is required to ensure that the existing population of nightjar, both on and off-site, will not
be impacted by the development. We can not see sufficient information to confirm that the phasing of the
works will maintain sufficient suitable habitat for nightjar during the development of the site, nor do we
believe that the mitigation proposed, particularly that provided by compensatory habitats, is adequate or
properly assessed.
​
Therefore, we sustain our objection to this application. We share many of the concerns raised by NE, EDEP,
ARC and other conservation bodies