Small Sites Metric (SSM) Consultation

Page 1 of 3

Closes 31 Oct 2021

Introduction and Questions

1. What is your name?
2. What is your email address?
If you enter your email address then you will automatically receive an acknowledgement email when you submit your response.
3. What is your organisation?
4. What is your profession?
(Required)
5. Which other biodiversity metric have you used before?
(Required)
6. How user friendly did you find the Small Sites Metric?
(Required)
7. Did you encounter any errors or technical difficulties when using the Small Sites Metric? If no please proceed to question 10
(Required)
8. If you answered 'yes' to Q7 please select from the list below whereabouts in the Small Sites Metric you encountered the issue(s)
9. If you answered 'yes' to question 7 please describe the nature of the error(s) or technical difficulties you experienced below
10. Is the Small Sites Metric useful as a simplified assessment process for smaller developments?
(Required)
11. Is the guidance provided for use with the Small Sites Metric clear?
(Required)
12. Would provision of habitat visual/photographic aides to help users identify the habitat features on their site be useful?
(Required)
13. Is the approach to simplified habitat condition clear?
(Required)
14. Is the approach to a simplified habitat condition assessment appropriate?
(Required)
15. Is the approach to enhancement by increasing distinctiveness clear?
(Required)
16. Is the approach to data entry in the site details, desktop assessment and supporting information tabs clear (tabs 2, 3 and 4 in the small sites metric)?
(Required)
17. Is the approach to data entry in the Area, Hedges and Lines of Trees, and Watercourses tabs clear (tabs 5, 6 and 7 in the small sites metric)?
(Required)
18. Do you have any suggestions for how the data entry tabs/process could be improved?
19. Are the results tabs easy to interpret and understand (tabs 8 and 9 in the small sites metric)?
(Required)
20. Do you have any suggestions for the how results tab/process could be improved?
21. Is the approach to requiring a ‘competent person’ to carry out a site walkover an appropriate survey method for the Small Sites Metric?
(Required)
22. If you think that using a competent person to carry out a site walkover is not an appropriate survey method please say why.
23. Is the simplified list of habitats and linear features in the Small Sites Metric appropriate?
(Required)
24. If you think the simplified list of habitats and linear features is not appropriate please describe why and what habitats or linear features be added or removed.
25. Should individual species features e.g. bird/bat boxes, be included with nominal values?
(Required)
26. When a small site development is close to a valuable habitat (for example, designated, irreplaceable, priority, high and very high distinctiveness habitats) it may be inappropriate to use the Small Sites Metric. How far from the development's redline boundary would you consider this threshold to be appropriate?
(Required)
27. Would a GIS template and GIS data import helper tool (similar to that found with the Biodiversity Metric 3.0), that could be used with the Small Sites Metric, be useful?
(Required)
28. How useful do you consider the landscape conversion table, in the guidance annex, to be for landscape professionals, architects and other non-ecologists?
29. The Small Sites Metric has been designed for use on sites of 0.5ha or 5000 metres squared (except for residential sites of less than 9 units where the area threshold is upto 1 hectare). Is this size threshold appropriate or should it be increased to a 1ha or 10000 square metres maximum for all development types?
(Required)
30. The Small Sites Metric includes a drop down list of Local Planning Authorities and development types. Such lists risk becoming out of date quite quickly. Should this drop down be retained or removed in the final version?
(Required)