The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
(as amended)
European Protected Species Mitigation Licensing - Reasoned Statement for the purpose of Imperative Reasons of Overriding
Public Interest
The information provided in this form will be used by Natural England to determine whether the proposed
activity affecting the European Protected Species meets the requirements of Regulation 53(2)(e) and
53(9)(a) within The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). These are
known as the ‘
purpose’ and ‘
no satisfactory alternatives’ tests.
This form, for the purpose of Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest, only needs to be
completed if your application proposal is
not covered by one the scenarios and categories listed in the
guidance note on GOV.UK
Important Note: Detailed information on the proposal is required to demonstrate that your proposal wil
meet the tests set out under the Regulations. If you encounter difficulty answering the questions or
providing the evidence required, it may suggest that your proposal is insufficiently advanced to satisfy the
licensing tests. In that case, you should consider delaying your application until this information is available.
Please read the following and complete:
Section A: Purpose test
“
Imperative reasons of overriding public interest” (IROPI) including those of a social or economic
nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment”
Section B: No Satisfactory Alternative test
The tests are applied proportionately, so the strength of the evidence required to meet each will need
to be sufficient to justify the impact upon the protected species (see guidance for further information).
Where the supporting evidence upon which your reasoning is based consists of lengthy documents,
please do not submit these in their entity as this wil delay your application if we need to go through
them to find the relevant extracts. You need to provide clear, concise information for us to be able to
meet the licensing tests. Please note that your application is likely to be rejected in cases where the
supporting evidence has not been clearly referenced.
1
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)
Section A: Purpose Test
A1 - Please select against all of the following below which apply to your proposal. You are asked
to indicate against those that apply whether the projected benefits are primary or secondary or
not applicable to your proposal.
Please note: A primary benefit is considered to be the key social, economic or environmental benefit
brought about from the proposal. A secondary benefit is considered to be an additional benefit, but not
the main reason for the proposal. There may be more than one secondary benefit but supporting
evidence should be provided in Section A2 where applicable, for each benefit selected.
Does your proposal:
Provide housing in an area where
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
shortfalls have been clearly identified?
Create, repair or enhance essential
infrastructure at a local, regional or
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
national level?
Provide care facilities or another essential
public service in an area where it is known
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
to be required?
Address another clearly identified social,
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
religious or cultural need?
Create long term employment
opportunities in an area of high
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
unemployment?
Deliver other economic benefits or
otherwise contribute in some way to the
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
wider economy?
Contribute to addressing problems
associated with climate change or
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
promote sustainable energy use
Conserve a place of environmental
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
interest?
Provide alternative sources of energy?
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
Deliver other benefits from those specified
Primary benefit
Secondary benefit
N/A
above?
If ‘Other benefits’ is selected, please
Restoration following consented mineral operations will be
provide details here:
of long-terms environemntal benefit for a range of flora and
fauna.
2
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)
A2 – You have already explained the need for the proposal in the application form. In relation
to the primary and secondary benefits identified in A1, to help demonstrate the need for the
proposal, please provide the evidence and details for all the benefits ticked above.
Important note: Reference the supporting evidence upon which your reasoning is based and include
the relevant extracts (please do not send in documents with no indication where the evidence being
referred to is). This evidence must link back to the tick boxes selected above. Failure to do so wil
lead to us having to come back to you for further information.
Supporting evidence can usefully include some or more of the following: Local planning polices and
plans, planning permission, policy documents, specialist reports, feasibility studies, extracts from
relevant legislation, photographs, media articles or related correspondence. Where applicable,
please ensure that planning officer or committee reports and design and access statements are
included as supporting evidence.
A2 (a) Explain why your proposal is considered to be imperative (essential).
For example, if your development proposal is for a housing development reference the local housing
need as set out in the area plan and explain how your proposal contributes to meeting this need or
how the requirement for the proposed new public service, care facility or infrastructure project was
identified.
Restoration scheme is required under the planning consent for the surface mine at
. The mining
operations to the site are coming to a close and restoration is essential to return the land to good
condition. The restoration will increase the biodiversity value of the area for a range of species and return
sections to required farm land.
In addition, any future development to the northern portion of the site wil provide needed employment
and infrastructure to the area.
Please provide details of supporting evidence.
Provide clear referencing such as page numbers and paragraphs of specific documents so these can
easily be cross-referenced. To help with our assessment, please only provide the relevant extracts
that help to demonstrate the reasoning given above rather than including lengthy documents in their
entirety. Please do not provide website links to separate documentation, unless you identify where
exactly in the linked document or web page the evidence referred to is located (our preference is for
you to extract the evidence and copy it below, referencing where it has come from).
Restoration scheme variation approved under consent reference
– to vary original
consent reference
Please confirm that relevant extract/s from supporting evidence to verify
Yes
No
the above have been included
3
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)
A2 (b) Explain why the benefits of your proposal override any harm to the protected species.
The benefit/s arising from the proposal must outweigh the harm (or risk of harm) to the protected
species. Generally this means long-term public benefits rather than short term benefits (ie creation of
permanent employment opportunities rather than temporary employment or creation of infrastructure
that helps to provide long-term solutions to clearly identified national problems associated with energy
demands).
The
site is operating and must be restored in accordance with the approved scheme as varied.
The
colliery site has been operating for a number of years and its viable working life is coming
to a close. Al protected species issues were dealt with under previously approved licences (phase 1 and
Phase 2) and the main impacts to their conservation value have already been incurred.
Therefore the restorations proposals over-ride the minimal harm to protected species (potential loss of
places of rest or shelter in existing TAF) by virtue of restoring habitats on site and increasing their
biodiversity value whilst also returning many sections of the site to farmland.
The proposed future development in the north of the site wil not incur any impacts on the nature
conservation value of GCN as the habitats is presently of no value for this species, therefore impacts are
not applicable.
Please provide details of supporting evidence as explained in A2 above.
Restoration scheme variation approved under consent reference
– to vary original
consent reference
Previous licence application approvals for phase 1 - EPSM2009-1095 Suffix: G and phase 2 -
EPSM2011-3163 Suffix: B.
Please confirm that relevant extract/s from supporting evidence to verify the
Yes
No
above have been included
4
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)
A3. There must be a Public Interest. You need to demonstrate that your proposal will deliver a
public benefit rather than a solely private interest.
Note: Planning consent (or its equivalent) is considered evidence of public interest so please ensure
to reference here but only include details in the application form.
A3 (a) Indicate the scale of these benefits:
Local
Regional
National
A3 (b) Where possible, explain the scale of the benefits that will be achieved from your
proposal, in quantifiable terms, as indicated above.
For example, this could be the number of new houses provided in proportion to the identified need at a
local and regional scale; the number of long term employment opportunities that wil be created at a
local level; the level of reduced Co2 emissions at an ‘X’ level.
The restoration scheme seeks to provide rail connected mineral storage and maintain the strategic rail
connection currently in use at the site which connects to the Eastcoast mainline.
In addition, the restoration of the scheme wil have a wide range of benefits including environmental and
aesthetic, whilst also returning much of the land to its original farming use.
A3 (c) Please provide details of supporting evidence to verify the above as explained in A2
above
See Figure E3.1 restoration scheme.
Please confirm that relevant extract/s from supporting evidence to
verify the above have been included
Yes
No
5
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)
SECTION B: No Satisfactory Alternative Test
Please explain why there is no satisfactory alternative to your proposal.
A “satisfactory alternative” is a different way of achieving the objective of the activity (ie meeting your
need) which has a
less negative impact on the protected species. If there is a less damaging
satisfactory alternative available that is feasible, then legally, a licence cannot be granted.
You are expected to have considered all reasonable alternative solutions when developing your
proposal(s) and to have suitable grounds (and evidence) for discounting each against the proposed
solution to meet the need. There are technical and non-technical elements to consider for this test and
this part of your application will consider the non-technical elements – focussing on delivering the need.
Alternatives can include different locations, routes, designs and timings. The Method Statement focusses
on the technical elements of this test – ie reducing the impact on the species (see ‘Important Advice’
below).
Important Advice: Please note that alternative mitigation (including timing of licensable works) and
compensation solutions are considered as part of the Favourable Conservation Status test and should
be included in the relevant species Method Statement submitted with your application and not here.
B1 (a) Firstly, please explain why the current situation (ie the status quo) isn’t acceptable or
feasible.
The site is currently an active opencast site of limited biodiversity value and the restoration is a planning
requirement.
Retention of the site in its current state (open workings, no vegetation) is not considered to be viable and
natural colonisation of plants would take many years to complete and the land would be unsuitable for
farming use in the intervening period. Therefore restoration under an agreed scheme wil provide the
greatest benefit in the shortest possible time.
B1 (b) Did you consider any other alternatives to your proposed
Yes
No
solution?
If ‘No’ to B1 (b), please explain why.
It is important to have considered alternative solutions when developing your proposal as failing to do so
could delay your application
6
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)
If ‘Yes’ to B1(b), please use the tables below to describe each alternative considered.
Please use a separate line for each and tick the relevant reason(s) why it was dismissed. It is important to
explain why each alternative was judged to be unsatisfactory or unfeasible to meet the need for the
proposal put forward in your application and to provide concise supporting evidence as appropriate (see
‘Guidance’ for advice on evidence and worked examples).
Please insert additional rows as required.
Set out what alternative locations
and/or routes were considered and
Not applicable
Won’t deliver
Greater impact
Not feasible
indicate how and why they were not
to situation
need
on species
acceptable.
Location or route 1:
Describe the location or route
Alternative site
considered
Clearly set out how and why the
Restoration required here due to previous working area being open
alternative location/route was
cast.
discounted.
Location or route 2
Describe the location or route
considered
Clearly set out how and why the
alternative location/route was
discounted.
Location or route 3:
Describe the location or route
considered
Clearly set out how and why the
alternative location/route was
discounted.
Location or route 4:
Describe the location or route
considered
Clearly set out how and why the
alternative location/route was
discounted.
*Please note: you can add more rows to the table: Right click in the bottom row > Choose Insert > Insert rows below.
7
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)
Set out which alternative
Not applicable
Won’t deliver
Greater impact
development scales or designs were
Not feasible
to situation
need
on species
considered.
Important note: If new infrastructure is to be created explain why the need cannot be met by expanding
existing infrastructure.
Development scale or Design 1:
Describe the development scale or
An increased future development area would result in reduced space
design considered.
for biodiveristy.
Clearly explain how and why the
Alternative proposals would not provide requiremnet for farmland or
different development scale or
furure development areas.
design considered was discounted.
Development scale or Design 2:
Describe the development scale or
design considered.
Clearly explain how and why the
different development scale or
design considered was discounted.
Development scale or Design 3:
Describe the development scale or
design considered.
Clearly explain how and why the
different development scale or
design considered was discounted.
Development scale or Design 4:
Describe the development scale or
design considered.
Clearly explain how and why the
different development scale or
design considered was discounted.
*Please note: you can add more rows to the table: Right click in the bottom row > Choose Insert > Insert rows below.
8
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)
Other alternative activities,
processes or construction methods
Not applicable
Won’t deliver
Greater impact
Not feasible
considered to reduce the impact
to situation
need
on species
upon the species
Important note –
detailed timings of licensable works, alternative mitigation and compensation which wil
reduce the degree of harm are to be considered within the Method Statement and not here. Alternative activity, process or
method 1:
Describe the alternative activity,
Works proposed wil have minimal potential impacts.
process or method considered.
Clearly explain why this alternative
Alternative proposals are not required.
was discounted.
Alternative activity, process or
method 2:
Describe the alternative activity,
process or method considered.
Clearly explain why this alternative
was discounted.
Alternative activity, process or
method 3:
Describe the alternative activity,
process or method considered.
Clearly explain why this alternative
discounted.
Alternative activity, process or
methods 4:
Describe the alternative activity,
process or method considered.
Clearly explain why this alternative
was discounted.
*Please note: you can add more rows to the table: Right click in the bottom row > Choose Insert > Insert rows below.
9
WML 12.4 IROPI (06/2015)