This is the most depressing listening. Section 2 Colchester Local Plan Examination. Stantec ecologist talking about how they when 1000 homes are built on rare & ecologically valuable acid grassland farmland will be turned into acid grassland 1/

This new grassland will take around 10 years to establish (they say), possibly less. Even assuming that it is possible to recreate an undisturbed habitat (is it?), what happens to the wildlife in the meantime? @chrismothman1 @SaveRanges @LV8andrea @Evansthegrump 2/

This is biodiversity net gain and the metric at its most depressing. The site should not have been in the plan! /

Essex Wildlife Trust now speaking.... (note EWT has objected to the inclusion of the allocation in the plan). Q - why has Stantec not used the DEFRA metric and why devised own?

Stantec replies - DEFRA metric does not allow measurement of acid grassland loss.... EWT - pls explain why DEFRA metric does not include it? Stantec - acid grassland is distinctive therefore first step is AVOID HARM....

So my question - as an ecologist, should Stantec therefor not be arguing DON'T build on it. EWT says this is an irreplaceable habitat and DEFRA metric will not allow you to compensate for it so developers having to design own metric to generate gain ...

WELL SAID Annie Gordon of Essex Wildlife Trust - exactly right - developers gaming the system. Great to hear them called out. Hope the inspector listens.....

Q to Stantec -if survey was incomplete, how could the metric be completed. q 2 - if the second survey shows mitigation wont' work, how go back to the council to say site should not be developed. STANTEC feels level is adequate... They are taking a precautionary approach...

...to the translocation of habitat. Now Mr Benton - Stantec seems to have supported much of the assessment of the ecological importance of the site despite the field survey being inadequate

Mr Benton says the invertebrate habitats need to be assessed with a series of visits in good weather. If all agree on importance of site then mitigation/compensation becomes key

Mr Benton says the diversity of the site is key. To pick & choose which bits you translocate will lead to a fall in diversity. He says that they have found an expert who has an optimism not share by anyone, not even DEFRA, Nat Eng.

You cannot replace the accumulated complexity of the invertebrate assemblages on the site. It's not simply a question of replacing one species with another. They are interdependent. If you disrupt it you have destroyed it permanently

Mr B says that it is inconceivable you could recreate this on nearby arable land. Comparators of successful mitigations are entirely different - for targeted species, enormous work and commitment. In this case trying to recreate an entire assemblage. His prof opinion

is it can't be done. Also the adjacent land takes you close to sssi's and river valley - v important to think of interconnection of wildlife sites. To bring more anthropocenic pressure is a serious problem.

Mr B's view: it simply is unrealistic to develop this site. In NPPF and in Council statements to protect & enhance biodiversity. Cannot be done.

I don't know Mr Benton - but well said...!!! Sorry for any typos - typing live

Stantec says corridors will be created. Increasing evidence of translocations working. She tells us that invertebrates are mobile. (no way jose)

Stantec says there will be an ecological impact but overall a net gain in biodiversity...