SPD on Geodiversity: a new tool for UK geoconservation?

Murray Gray
Queen Mary, University of London

What works?

In the UK, the planning system is a frontline tool for preventing development that could damage acknowledged nature conservation interests (Gray, 2005). This is usually done by Local Planning Authorities adopting policies in their development plans, indicating that they will not allow development that would have an adverse impacts on designated sites (e.g. SPAs, SAPs, NNRs, SSSIs) or undesignated ones (e.g. RIGS, CWSs). These and other policies can also be used to defend appeals where planning consent has been refused. Examples of the success of the system in recent years include the prevention of potentially damaging developments at the important coastal sections at Birling Gap and Black Rock on the Sussex coast, both of which are designated SSSIs. In general the planning system has worked well to protect important sites for geoconservation over the last 50 years.  

What doesn't work?

Geodiversity has a very low profile within UK Local Planning Authorities. High profile cases like Birling Gap and Black Rock are uncommon and most planners have a low appreciation of geodiversity issues affecting everyday planning decisions (e.g. managing soils on development sites, remoulding of topography to create golf courses, fishing lakes, bunds etc., restoration of gravel pits and rivers). There is a need for more guidance and training for developers and planners on geodiversity issues.

What could we do better?

One approach to this problem would be for Local Planning Authorities to adopt a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Geodiversity. SPDs are intended to give additional guidance on particular topics, providing practical guidance on how principles and policies should be implemented. They could be aimed at developers to encourage consideration of geodiversity issues at an early stage in the planning process. They could be used by planning officers at all stages in the planning process from informal inquiries to formal applications. They are also relevant to planning policy development, site allocations, design statements, etc. In short they could raise the profile of geodiversity within all Local Planning Authorities.

Several authorities are now adopting SPDs on Biodiversity following adoption of Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs). We could follow the excellent work on Local Geodiversity Action Plans (Burek & Potter, 2002) by encouraging local authorities to develop and adopt SPD on Geodiversity. Alternatively, we could encourage the production of integrated SPD on Natural Diversity.

To illustrate this last point, SPD on Biodiversity in Norfolk (http://www.norfolk biodiversity.org) contains a generalised case study of the development and restoration of a quarry. Attention is given to how the site can be worked and restored to protect and enhance the biodiversity interests of the site, but an integrated SPD could give parallel guidance on protecting and enhancing the geodiversity interests during working and restoration. Similarly the Norfolk Biodiversity SPD has another case study of a landfill site restoration that gives no indication of the final contouring of the site.

An SPD on Geodiversity could include sections on:

• Geodiversity principles
• Legislation and national policy (e.g. PPS9)
• Development Plan policies
• Role of the planning system
• Stage 1: gathering information on the development site (designated and undesignated sites; landscape character assessments; site surveys)
• Stage 2: design – protecting, restoring, enhancing, mitigating harm
• Stage 3: aftercare – monitoring and management
• Case studies
• Appendices

Model SPD on Geodiversity could be developed along the lines above to make the task as easy as possible for Local Planning Authorities. They could then adapt the model SPD to suit local circumstances. This would be a very practical way in which geodiversity could be given greater prominence within the planning system.