Advising on peatland habitats and carbon-rich soils in development management

Published: June 2023 
Revised: March 2026

Purpose

The purpose of this guidance is to help NatureScot staff provide developers, planning authorities and Scottish Government with consistent advice on the assessment of effects of any development proposals on peatland habitats and carbon-rich soils. This document will evolve as additional information and evidence informs our understanding, including additional NPF4 Policy 3 guidance.

Introduction

The approach set out in this guidance aligns with the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) policies which are relevant to development proposals on peatland, and carbon-rich soils.  A key focus will be on helping to ensure that development is designed and constructed to follow the mitigation hierarchy set out in NPF4 and that, in addition, biodiversity enhancement is delivered through peatland restoration.

The guidance also sets out the framework which will help NatureScot decide when proposals sited on peatland habitats and carbon-rich soils raise natural heritage issues of national interest, and therefore when we may object to development.  This is noting that some important features of the natural heritage are not confined to protected sites; they are often more widely distributed, and yet of great importance in terms of the overall quality of Scotland’s natural heritage.  We will continue to only raise outright objections where a proposal raises issues of national interest relating to peatland habitats following our development management guidance sections 3.3 to 3.6.  Our objections on this basis will be infrequent, however, and subject to the application of our balancing duty, recognising the supportive national policy context for renewables.

The guidance involves an appraisal of whether there are peatlands on a development site which have vegetation features which are indicators of being high quality and in a near-natural condition. This assessment is based on the JNCC Guidelines for the selection of biological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - Chapter 8 - Bogs, which is a peer reviewed standard that forms our best evidence. Once the condition and quality of the peatland has been determined, the impacts of the proposal on priority habitats are considered.

This guidance is predominantly to be used for proposals affecting land which is not protected for its peatland interest.  There is stronger protection for peatland which is part of the interest of a protected area and different tests apply, for example within a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), or Ramsar site where Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) must be considered, or within a World Heritage Site where an assessment of the impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) is considered.  This guidance is principally focused on energy generation developments, but is also applicable to other types of development.

Policy Background

Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

All development proposals listed in Annex 1 of the Directive requires EIA to be carried out and submitted with the proposal.  Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) is part of this assessment, and CIEEM has guidance on the process.

EcIA is used to identify likely significant effects and assess the development against these. This process identifies and assesses impacts on important ecological features (IEF) which include Protected Areas, Biodiversity Action Plan lists and red listed, rare, and/or  legally protected species.  This should include habitats which are identified in the European Habitats Directive Annex 1, as these are important internationally.  In addition to identifying these IEF, development should align with the EcIA guidance which states: ‘There may be cases where important habitat types are affected but they are currently in a degraded or unfavourable condition, for example peatlands.  Whilst the current baseline condition of a habitat may be sub-optimal, its potential value should be considered, including its possible contribution to conservation objectives.  It is essential not to under-estimate the importance of habitats in sub-optimal condition where there is potential for restoration.  For example, degraded peatlands are still capable of supporting indicator species and features of near-natural priority peatland’.

The EcIA considers whether there will be significant effects, which include impacts on structure and function of sites, habitats or ecosystems (including extent, abundance and distribution).  Any significant residual impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated should be compensated for.  This is the case for offsetting significant residual effects resulting in the loss of, or permanent damage to ecological features despite mitigation.

It should be noted that EIA and EcIA use different terms to National Planning Framework 4.  EcIA notes that consideration should be given to ‘implications of significant effects on the important ecological features in accordance with planning policies’.  In Scotland, this refers to the National Planning Framework, and therefore the use of the requirements and terms in current policies i.e. NPF4 is essential.

National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) 2023

The National Planning Framework 4 recognises that significant weight should be given to address both the global climate and nature crises when considering all development proposals (Policy 1).  Proposals should also conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity (Policy 3).  In addition, the intent of Policy 5 is to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development.

NPF4 Mitigation Hierarchy

All development proposals should adhere to the mitigation hierarchy set out in the NPF4, defined (see bold) as:

• Avoid – by removing the impact at the outset.

  Development should first seek to avoid areas of peatland habitats and carbon-rich soils.

• Minimise – by reducing the impact.

  Direct and indirect impacts of development should be limited to the minimum.

• Restore – by repairing damaged habitats.

  Any habitats that are damaged by the proposal (whether direct or indirect impacts) should be restored as far as is possible.

• Offset – by compensating for residual impact that remains, with preference to on-site over off-site measures.

  Effective restoration and management of degraded equivalent habitat should compensate for any losses.

In addition to the mitigation hierarchy, under NPF4 Policy 3b, major, national and EIA developments are required to provide significant biodiversity enhancements:

• Enhance – biodiversity, including by restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks

  This is a requirement to provide significant biodiversity enhancements, these measures are in addition to the restoration and offsetting requirements.

NPF4 requirements for assessment of impacts and the mitigation hierarchy

NPF4 Policy 5d, requires that ‘where development on peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland is proposed, a detailed site specific assessment will be required’.  This should include peat depth surveys (initial, detailed and additional information), Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), and detailed habitat surveys (NVC), including an assessment of condition.

The assessments and surveys should direct the project design and siting to ensure compliance with the mitigation hierarchy.  This should be secured through production of relevant plans, for example a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and the Peat Management Plan (PMP).  The HMP, alongside other plans (e.g. PMP, CEMP, PLHRA), should also demonstrate how restoration, offsetting and enhancement will be achieved.  It is often the case that outline HMPs, PMPs and CEMPs will be produced at application stage.  If so, these should be sufficiently detailed to allow assessments to be carried out.

The avoidance and minimisation aspects of the hierarchy are often demonstrated within the proposal’s siting and design rationale, as explained in the Site Selection and Design Evolution (or equivalent) chapter of the EIA report.  Information on avoiding, minimising impacts, and restoring peatland damaged by the proposal, may also be contained in the outline CEMP, outline HMP, outline PMP and the PLHRA.  For offsetting and enhancement, the key information is usually presented in outline HMP.

The Ecology chapter of the EIA report should pull together the relevant strands in order to provide a clear explanation of how the mitigation hierarchy has been followed for peatlands, and how significant biodiversity enhancement is demonstrated.

NatureScot Action

NatureScot will use the site-specific assessment surveys and supporting documents to carry out our appraisal of the impacts of a proposal.  This will include assessing whether the iterative design process has been in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy, if standing advice has been followed, and if any impacts raise issues of national interest on priority peatland habitat.  Further advice on the information we require to carry out our appraisal is provided in Annex 2

Defining Carbon-Rich Soil and Priority Peatland Habitat

Carbon-rich Soils

Carbon-rich soils are peat soils and peaty soils.  Peat soils in Scotland are defined as soil with a surface peat layer with more than 60% organic matter and of at least 50cm thickness.  Peaty soils have a shallower peat layer (<50cm) at the surface.  Peat is found in naturally cold, highly acidic and waterlogged environments, which provide ideal conditions for a slow transformation of peatland vegetation into peat material - a form of soil organic matter stable over long period of time if undisturbed.

Carbon-rich soils are the main reservoir of terrestrial organic carbon in Scotland and when degraded are a significant contributor to Scotland’s annual CO₂e emissions. Scotland’s soils are an important carbon store containing more than 3,000 Megatonnes (Mt), for context this is more than half the UK's soil carbon store and 60 times more than Scotland's vegetation, it is mostly held as organic carbon in peat and peaty soils.

Priority Peatland habitat

Peatlands are areas of land containing peat which support a variety of habitats, see Annex 3 for peatland definitions.  Peatlands in Scotland are dominated by blanket bog and montane/high altitude bog (blanket bog above 600m) with some upland flushes, fens and swamps, with raised bogs and fens in the lowlands.  Upland peatlands’ main source of water and nutrients is from rain and snow.  Blanket bog (including montane bog) is identified as a priority habitat in the UK BAP, Scottish Biodiversity List and Annex 1 of the ‘Habitats Directive’.

Peatlands are known to be important for biodiversity and their ability to sequester carbon which slowly accumulates below ground in carbon-rich soils.  We know that climate change is likely to threaten peatlands but they can also help alleviate some of the downstream effects by storing water, and reducing peak flows.  Peatlands regulate natural processes and are the largest reservoir of long-term accumulated atmospheric carbon.

Peatland can contain a variety of vegetation types, they mainly consist of mixtures of Calluna vulgaris, Eriophorum vaginatum, E. angustifolium and Sphagnum species.  Priority peatland is peatland that can have evidence of being undisturbed and contain species which are capable of forming peat.  The main peatland National Vegetation Classification (NVC) communities are listed below, split by what our likely advice in relation to them is:

Peatland communities, which could be priority peatland habitats, that should normally be completely avoided

• M1 Sphagnum denticulatum, M2 Sphagnum fallax/S. cuspidatum and M3 Eriophorum angustifolium bog pools occupy waterlogged depressions, shallow pools and erosion channels on bogs.  These communities especially M3 can be associated with erosion features, if this is the case avoidance is often not essential.

Peatland communities, which could be priority peatland habitats, where impacts have the potential to raise issues of national interest

• M17 Trichophorum-Eriophorum and M18 Erica-Sphagnum are communities of wetter peat and have species such as Molinia caerulea, Trichophorum cespitosum, Myrica gale and Erica tetralix.  The most characteristic Sphagna are S. papillosum and S. capillifolium, and, in M18, S. magellanicum.  Species such as Drosera rotundifolia, Dactylorhiza maculata, Narthecium ossifragum and Potentilla erecta are common in the wetter M17 and M18 bogs.
• M19 Calluna-Eriophorum occurs on drier substrates and has more Vaccinium myrtillus, V. vitis-idaea, Empetrum nigrum and Sphagnum capillifolium.  M19 has a darker, tussocky sward and is the more common type of bog at moderate to high altitudes.  Other species occurring in this community include Rubus chamaemorus, Betula nana and Melampyrum pratense.

Peatland communities, which could be priority peatland habitats, that are less likely to raise issues of national interest

• M20 Eriophorum vaginatum is a degraded form of M19 where the heather and most of the Sphagna have been eliminated by heavy grazing, repeated burning and/or atmospheric pollution.
• M15 Trichophorum-Erica, M16 Erica-Sphagnum and M25 Molinia-Potentilla are classed as blanket bog when they are on deep peat, as they are almost always a replacement for the original bog vegetation following unfavourable management such as burning on too short a rotation followed by heavy grazing.

Afforested peatlands can have the potential to be restored to good condition peatlands – see Appendix 4 of the Scottish Forestry guidance ‘Deciding future management options for afforested peatland’.

Impacts on these communities are unlikely to raise issues of national interest but should still follow the mitigation hierarchy.  They could also be important candidates, as well other peatland communities, for measures to offset impacts from development and areas where enhancement measures could be located.

Montane bogs – potentially priority peatland which should be avoided

These are blanket bogs which occur at altitudes above 600m, and are sometimes called high altitude bogs, they are particularly sensitive to damage and are difficult to restore.  At higher altitude, montane bogs can be characterised by extensive erosion features.  They may still be classed as ‘active’ if they otherwise support extensive areas of typical bog vegetation, and especially if the erosion gullies show signs of recolonisation.  NVC communities that are especially important at high altitude in this habitat include (detail above):

• M2 – bog pools which are most common on unmodified peatlands.
• M7 – near natural montane flush vegetation.
• M17 – a globally rare habitat therefore an important habitat
• M19 – internationally important habitat and resemble wet tundra vegetation.

The Carbon and Peatland 2016 map

Is a useful guide to screen where areas of peatland are likely to occur, but should not be regarded as definitive.  Class 1 and 2 are solely, or are dominated by, land with peat soil and peatland habitats.  Class 5 is peat soil >50cm but currently without peatland habitats.  Class 3 is peaty soil with some/mostly peat forming vegetation. Developments on peat will always require a recent peat depth and vegetation survey to confirm the quality and distribution of peatland habitats across the whole development area.  The Carbon and Peatland 2016 map should be used as a tool for identifying likely locations where these surveys will be required.

Assessing the Impacts of Development on Peatland Habitats and Carbon-Rich Soils

National Planning Framework, Policy 5 intent is to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development.

Policy 5c states that ‘Development proposals on peatland, carbon-rich soils, and priority peatland habitat will only be supported for:

1. Essential infrastructure and there is a specific locational need and no other suitable site;
2. The generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets;
3. Small-scale development directly linked to a rural business, farm or croft;
4. Supporting a fragile community in a rural or island area; or
5. Restoration of peatland habitats’

Policy 5d states that ‘Where development on peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat is proposed, a detailed site specific assessment will be required to identify:

1. the baseline depth, habitat condition, quality and stability of carbon rich soils;
2. the likely effects of the development on peatland, including on soil disturbance; and
3. the likely net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon.

This assessment should inform careful project design and ensure, in accordance with relevant guidance and the mitigation hierarchy, that adverse impacts are first avoided and then minimised through best practice.  A peat management plan will be required to demonstrate that this approach has been followed, alongside other appropriate plans required for restoring and/ or enhancing the site into a functioning peatland system capable of achieving carbon sequestration’.

Impacts on peatland, carbon-rich soils and priority peatland will be affected differently dependant on a number of factors, this includes the type and quality of the habitat, development type, and the ability to recover from impacts.  As such when assessing a development proposal the sensitivity and impact should be considered and will inform our position on the case.

Impacts on peatland

Developments may have ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ impacts on peatland.  The assessment should include all likely direct and indirect, permanent and temporary impacts.  For example:

• The infrastructure within the construction/extraction footprint.
• Other areas intended for storage, use of soils (including peat) and extracted materials.
• Areas for habitat restoration, offsetting and enhancement within and outside the “red-line” boundary.
• Detail as to how the indirect impacts have been assessed and defined including the buffer width used, as there is no standard width.  Topography, drain size and depth, and the presence of other drainage factors can have an influence on the impact and will vary the buffer width.  For example, the Peatland Code considers peatland within 30m of an artificial or natural drain (e.g. from a hagg or gully) as drained (in a carbon context), therefore the impact would be the drain plus, a minimum of 30m either side.

Direct impacts

These comprise a loss of resource, i.e. peatland habitat from the development ‘footprint’ and habitat lost or damaged during construction and operation e.g. due to excavation, covering the area in concrete, inundation from impoundment from hydropower storage and storage of topsoil/peat on habitats.

Indirect impacts

These comprise the loss of function, and may arise from either temporary or permanent changes in drainage patterns and the quality or quantity of surface and ground water.  Peatland habitats are complex hydrological systems, vulnerable to activities occurring beyond the boundaries of individual habitat extents.  The assessment of indirect impacts should be part of the assessment of impacts on the peatland habitats.  The scale of the impact will likely vary on a case-by-case basis and should be explained in the development documentation.  Examples of indirect impacts include:

• Down-slope droughting or up-slope flooding of peat-based habitat.
• The pollution of wetland habitat through accidental spillage of vehicular fuels and oils, and release of sediments from the deterioration of track surfaces during their usage.
• Reduced stability of peat-based habitat on steep slopes, which in turn may have further impacts on habitat and species should a peat slide event occur.
• Changes to local chemistry due to imported materials (e.g. track stone).
• Introduction of access routes which increase physical disturbance and likelihood of introduction of INNS.

We evaluate direct or indirect impacts in the same way, as both result in the loss of peatland.

Sensitivity of the habitat

Some peatland habitats are more sensitive to impacts than others.  Raised bogs and montane (high altitude) bogs as well as bog pools (not associated with erosion features) have a particularly high sensitivity and so we advise that they should be entirely avoided.  This is because any impacts on these habitats are likely to raise issues of national interest which are unlikely to be overcome by offsetting, due to their sensitivity or difficulty to carryout successful restoration.  Other peatland habitats also have a high sensitivity and could also raise issues of national interest, the design of a proposal and application of the mitigation hierarchy should detail how these areas have been considered.

Determining when effects are significant

NatureScot Action

Consideration of significance of an effect must take into account the sensitivity and value of the habitat and the magnitude of the impact (both direct and indirect and permanent and temporary).  Priority peatland is a sensitive and valued habitat type.  Raised bogs and montane bogs are particularly sensitive and so any impacts on these habitat types are very likely to result in significant effects. In addition, if in the PLHRA there is identification of areas of medium or high risk potential then this could have significant impacts on the peat soil and priority peatland.  The information provided should be reviewed to ensure that the effects have been accurately identified.

Identifying When Impacts May Raise Issues of National Interest

NatureScot Action

This section outlines the framework that NatureScot will use to consider whether the impact of development on carbon-rich soil and priority peatland habitats may raise issues of national interest, and potentially warrant an objection.

Assessing national interest

To help assess when a proposal could have a significant effect that NatureScot will consider as raising issues of national interest, we have developed an assessment framework based on guidelines for the selection of SSSI for bogs (see Annex 1 and Template). Our main focus is on priority peatland habitat which is dependent on the supporting carbon-rich soils.

At the scoping stage we should request that the framework template is completed by a peatland ecologist on behalf of the applicant/developer.  We should also request that if the development infrastructure (including a 250m buffer) meets the criteria in the table, a map is provided showing where these features are in relation to the development.  Shape files showing the location of infrastructure, NVC communities and peat depths should also be supplied by the developer to aid our assessment.

The framework is a tool to assess the quality and therefore the sensitivity of a peatland affected by a proposal.  It should be noted that the peatland does not need to meet all the criteria to be considered of a quality and sensitivity sufficient for impacts to raise issues of national interest.  The combination of responses to these criteria will inform this assessment.  The framework will also be used by NatureScot specialist advisers to consider if mitigation is sufficient to overcome the impacts, further detail of this is in the mitigation section below.

When to seek specialist advice

The framework in Annex 1 must have been completed in the submitted information from the applicant.  If following review of the framework it is suspected that there are significant effects which potentially raise issues of national interest, the case officer should seek specialist advice from the Habitats Group (Natural Resource Management) for upland peatlands, the Freshwater and Wetlands Group (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) for lowland raised bogs, or the Geodiversity Group (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) for peat soil and peat geomorphology.

The specialist adviser will determine if there are issues of national interest, decide whether a site visit is required and if impacts can be substantially overcome by mitigation. To complete this assessment, information collated from the proposal’s Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR), (mainly in the Ecology chapter and the Geology and Hydrogeology chapter, together with supporting Appendices) complemented by internal information (e.g. geo.View, aerial photography and other relevant data) and additional field observations will be required.

The relevant Head of Operations should be made aware that the case may be one where a NatureScot objection may need to be considered.

Determining when, possible or likely national interest, is national interest

When reviewing documentation included in proposals alongside the Annex 1 Template, many of the above criteria (impacts and habitats present) can be determined.  However there can be gaps in this information (e.g. where there is uncertainty over the condition or species present), it may therefore be difficult for the case officer to form an initial view on the significance of the impacts of the development.  In this situation, the specialist adviser should be contacted, and they will also be able to advise as to whether a site visit is required to determine our position. In carrying out a site visit, the Template (Annex 1) can be checked by the specialist adviser.  This will confirm the condition of the peatland, as well as allowing consideration of any habitat management plans including restoration areas. Information obtained from the application documentation and the site visit (if carried out) will form the basis of determining our decision on whether the impacts of the proposal raise issues of national interest and our position (in accordance with our National Interest and Balancing Duty guidance).

If, following specialist advice, it is confirmed that the habitat is priority peatland which is actively forming peat with indicator species and features of near natural condition, and taking into account the impacts and the mitigation hierarchy, that there are likely to be adverse impacts on the habitat, then our conclusion is likely to be that the proposal raises issues of national interest.  There may also be some cases where not all criteria in the Template are met, but due, for example to the magnitude of the effects, we may conclude that the proposal raises issues of national interest.

Mitigation Measures

NatureScot Action

The extent to which we provide advice on mitigation measures set out in management plans depends on the significance of effects.

• For consultations where impacts raise issues of national interest (or come close to raising issues of national interest) we should provide site specific advice on the mitigation hierarchy.
• For consultations where impacts don’t raise issues of national interest (or don’t come close to this level) we should not provide advice on the mitigation hierarchy.

Further advice on how we engage with Electricity Act cases, as opposed to Planning Act cases, can be found at Section 2.2 of the Development Management and the Natural Heritage guidance.

The proposed mitigation measures should be reviewed to determine whether they are sufficient to offset for the loss of the resource.  In addition there should be identification of enhancement measures in the Habitat Management Plan (HMP).

The HMP, or outline HMP, should be sufficiently detailed and should identify restoration areas for offsetting and enhancement, using site survey data to demonstrate the areas are appropriate and are likely to deliver outcomes in a reasonable timescale.  Our current recommendation is that restoration to achieve offsetting (rather than biodiversity enhancement) would be in the order of 1:10 (lost:restored), i.e. 1ha loss of peatland should result in measures to restore 10ha of peatland, using the same buffer to assess loss and restored areas (e.g. 30m), unless it is clearly detailed as to why this has been deviated from.  The basis of this recommendation is:

• Peatland is an important habitat type, supports biodiversity, and is a key carbon store, especially in a climate and nature crises.
• Peatland cannot be created in areas where it doesn’t already exist.  Peatlands only exist in limited situations where the physical (climatic, topographic, hydrology) and chemical (pH and low nutrient availability) conditions allow.  In addition peat soils accumulate at a rate of approximately 1mm per year, as such take a long time to recover.
• Degraded peatland can still be capable of storing carbon and supporting rare species.  If the condition is assessed as being degraded, restoration to improve condition and functioning is recommended.
• Peatland restoration can improve the condition and function of an existing peatland, but crucially it does not increase the extent of peatland.  As such, restoration of an area of peatland to offset that which is lost, needs to be greater to that which is lost.  It is also important that areas of restoration will restore equivalent habitat and setting to that which will be lost as a result of the development, to ensure that it does not equate to the overall loss of a peatland.
• Improving habitat and hydrological condition and function is a long-term objective as it can take many years to achieve.  It is also not possible to guarantee successful restoration, even when following best practice. As such a larger area of restoration is required than is lost to ensure that the ambition is met, and if unsuccessful the developer should assess whether further action is needed.

When providing advice, we will take all of the above and other issues into account, but every development will be assessed within the context applicable to each case.

This recommendation will be revised to take into account the outcome of the Scottish Biodiversity metric for planning, when it is available.

In addition, NPF4 Policy 3 introduced a new requirement that proposals for national or major development, or for EIA development, need to demonstrate that significant biodiversity enhancements are provided, in addition to any proposed mitigation.  Typical measures include:

• tree and scrub removal
• raising the water level and revegetating bare peat by blocking drains/installing dams/re-profiling peat haggs/peat pan restoration.  This should be considered and designed in accordance with the Peatland ACTION - technical compendium;

Measure which are beneficial but which should not be included in calculating the area of restoration are:

• If carried out, the cessation of burning/peat cutting.  The Muirburn Code states that burning on peatland should not be carried out.  There should be compliance with GAEC 6, and future Wildlife Management and Muirburn Act 2024 licensing.
• Proposals to only manage/reduce herbivore impacts (for example grazing, browsing and trampling impacts) on peatland is not considered as offsetting on its own. Damage caused by herbivores (livestock and wild deer) resulting in overgrazing or trampling, their numbers should be managed in compliance with GAEC 5 and Code of Practice on Deer Management.  However, including this land management measure in combination with other restoration interventions would be advisable, and could slightly extend the area being managed by other offsetting measures.

HMPs should follow our guidance on what to consider and include in Habitat Management Plans.  It is important that the HMP (or outline HMP) submitted at the application stage is sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that proposals for restoration will be effective, and that significant biodiversity enhancements are provided.

For peatland restoration, detail similar to a Peatland ACTION application should be supplied.  This should include detail of the current condition, identification of features to be restored and management of habitats proposed for restoration (to achieve offsetting and enhancement).  There should be detail on what the aim of offsetting and enhancement is and how this will be achieved (e.g. peatland condition, past and future grazing levels, identification of ditches to be blocked, methods of restoration, restoration footprint) and any monitoring proposed.  Proposals should be informed by best practice, including our website guidance, see Annex 2 for full details.

Restoration techniques for soil and peatland habitats

Our website provides guidance and best practice advice within the Peatland ACTION – Technical Compendium, and further information on peatland restoration.

The Peatland ACTION - Technical Compendium includes principles for use of each technique.  For example, for peat dams, the compendium makes it clear that this technique is only appropriate under narrow set of circumstances related to size, slope and nature of drains and may require additional practices like drain reprofiling. Evidence is required on the type and nature of drain to demonstrate that the proposal is a viable option for the site.

It should be noted that a proposal for the use of peat on-site as a backfill material is not an effective mitigation or enhancement practice of carbon-rich soil and functional peatland.  The reinstatement of general earthworks and excavated areas with layer of excavated peat, even if respecting the structure of acrotelm/catotelm, is not by itself sufficient to achieve functional peatland habitats or protect from further degradation to soil carbon stocks, as such it cannot be considered as offsetting or enhancement.  Additional factors, for example related to hydrological properties, connectivity with adjacent peatland system, nature of remaining substrate will need to be considered in devising an effect Peat Management Plan.

Enhancement

National Planning Framework 4 Policy 3b requires that major, national and EIA development proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity.  Potential negative effects should be fully mitigated in line with the mitigation hierarchy, so they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention.

This enhancement is in addition to work being carried out under the mitigation hierarchy.  The end result should be that there are additional benefits to the biodiversity of the habitats and species which are being impacted by the development.  For priority peatland habitats, this would mean that additional restoration measures beyond those required to achieve the 1:10 offsetting ratio (lost:restored) are required for enhancement.  We would expect this to be an appropriate additional percentage of the baseline assessment of the extent of peatland habitat, and recommend discussion with the relevant regulator to confirm their expectations as the decision maker.

Scottish Government have commissioned NatureScot to develop an adapted biodiversity metric suitable for use in supporting delivery of National Planning Framework 4 policy 3b (National, Major and EIA development).  Our guidance will this take into account once such a metric/tool becomes available.

NatureScot Action

We should only provide detailed advice on priority peatland enhancement measures in those cases where impacts on priority peatland habitats raise issues of national interest (or come close to raising issues of national interest).

Working with SEPA

NatureScot and SEPA work in accordance with the Scottish Regulators’ Code of Practice to support the delivery of environmental protection and enhancement in land use planning.

NatureScot and SEPA work together to ensure that:

• Our advice to customers is clear, complementary and avoids duplication; and
• We work together prior to responding to planning consultations where there is a joint interest.

SEPA focus their advice for peat and carbon rich soils on the avoidance, minimisation, and use of peat in areas disturbed by construction activities. They do not comment on restoration proposals either on or off site.

Guidance

Annexes