SFI SSSi consent from Natural England

[Try to succeed]

Hi all,

Just after some information on how long it took to get your consents back from NE if you were subject to this upon submission of your application? I do not farm in a SSSi but the system told me I am upon submission of my application. Will they waiver it if you are obviously not in one? All this bull**** bureaucracy is a joke; I had similar issues when applying for Stewardship adjacent to a SSSi woodland. They say no, you can't do that... those running the SSI asked me to have said options exactly in that position!!
Anyway, how long has it held your application process up? I can't see them rushing to email back saying 'yes you can do wahtever you want to do on your own land'.

Thanks

 

[Try to succeed]

Just to add I have been on the phone to tell them I am not in a SSSi but system says that can't be helped. The things I want to do aren't even on the ORNEC list for this SSSI anyway so the whole thing is a complete mess and apparantly can take up to four months to get an answer. All spring cropping/SFI plans seemingly out the window

 

[ajcc]

They are a law unto themselves. Frustration personified.
As soon as you accept you need their permission or licence grant ( in mistaken belief that consent is required and will be forthcoming) you have lost any control. Even if consent occurs today it will be likely be withheld next year.
Too many roll over.

 

[Try to succeed]

If this is of any use to anyone waiting; I have spoken to Natural England who say there’s thousands of these consents requests sent in due to being adjacent to a sssi and the RPA not circumnavigating the issue. I am ringing to withdraw my application and start again minus those parcels. My intended 1st March start date is obviously nearly dead in the water, due to this absolute Boll*cks

 

[Hindsight]

If this is of any use to anyone waiting; I have spoken to Natural England who say there’s thousands of these consents requests sent in due to being adjacent to a sssi and the RPA not circumnavigating the issue. I am ringing to withdraw my application and start again minus those parcels. My intended 1st March start date is obviously nearly dead in the water, due to this absolute Boll*cks

Yes, concluded same. I have client wherever have decided same. Going to withdraw and start again.

 

[farmerm]

In the same boat. The issue is I believe that the SSSI mapping layer was from created from a different map to the parcel layer. Look at the SSSI layer on magic and it is slightly different and aligned 2m east of the OS mapping layer. As a result in places the computer "sees" parcels as containing SSSI, when in reality they do not! This is not a new issue the RPA should be fully aware of this, it has long been a problem in CSS too.

I have put in the request to NE but I have also replied to the RPA that the parcels are not in the SSSI, this is a mapping issue and they do need NE consent to proceed with the application!!

It would be great to get a hands up on this thread from everyone affected by this so we can demonstrate the scale of the issue to the RPA and have them rectify this problem on mass and once and for all.

All the RPA should really need is our assurance that we are aware of the SSSI boundaries and we will not act in a way that will be in breech of our SSSI restrictions.

 

[Try to succeed]

In the same boat. The issue is I believe that the SSSI mapping layer was from created from a different map to the parcel layer. Look at the SSSI layer on magic and it is slightly different and aligned 2m east of the OS mapping layer. As a result in places the computer "sees" parcels as containing SSSI, when in reality they do not! This is not a new issue the RPA should be fully aware of this, it has long been a problem in CSS too.

I have put in the request to NE but I have also replied to the RPA that the parcels are not in the SSSI, this is a mapping issue and they do need NE consent to proceed with the application!!

It would be great to get a hands up on this thread from everyone affected by this so we can demonstrate the scale of the issue to the RPA and have them rectify this problem on mass and once and for all.

All the RPA should really need is our assurance that we are aware of the SSSI boundaries and we will not act in a way that will be in breech of our SSSI restrictions.


View attachment 1164690

This is exactly my issue. What an absolute farce. Are you preserving with waiting for a consent or will you reapply? I’ve tried to get through to withdraw my application but keep getting the callback menu and can’t get in the queue. Feeling completely p*ssed off

 

[BenAdamsAgri]

I have got this issue on two applications now.
Both are not even within an SSSI but adjacent

 

[farmerm]

I suggest we bombard [email protected] with something along these lines of this.....


Hi Janet

I would like to raise your awareness to an issue that is causing unnecessary application delays and placing an unnecessary administrative burden upon Natural England. I am also aware of people taking land out of their applications in order to avoid this delay which will reduce the success of SFI uptake.

I believe there are a large number of SFI application like mine, people keen for a March start date, who are wrongly being told we need NE consent for actions on parcels that are inside SSSI zone. Half my farm is adjacent to a geological SSSI but all the parcels I am told I need NE consent for are outside the SSSI. Like many others I am now in the ridiculous situation of having to wait on NE consent for field parcels which DO NOT NEED NE consent. This is delaying the processing of applications and wasting considerable time for NE in having to make consent decisions for situations where no consent is required.

I believe this is down to a long present issue in which the SSSI mapping layer is not precisely aligned with the field parcel layer, If I zoom in on magic I can see the SSSI zone is about 2m West of the OS map layer. The system “sees” SSSI to be inside field parcels when in reality it is not. None of us are applying to put SFI actions where it is not legal or practical to do so.

There is a very simple solution to this problem, just put a bit of trust in your farmer clients!

Allow the applicant to reply to the RPA email with a self declaration,

1. I confirm the parcel(s) is inside and SSSI and I will apply and wait on NE consent

Or

1. I confirm I have checked the SSSI boundaries, I declare that these parcels do not contain SSSI and the SFI actions will in no way endanger the SSSI. You may proceed with this application without NE consent. and I accept responsibility for this and for ensuring I do not breach my SSSI responsibilities.

Longer term, the SSSI mapping needs properly resolved.

You have the power to prevent these application delays and unnecessary burdening of Natural England, please make this happen

 

[BenAdamsAgri]

Just phoned Natural England and they said they're trying to get consent forms back within 28days

 

[farmerm]

This is exactly my issue. What an absolute farce. Are you preserving with waiting for a consent or will you reapply? I’ve tried to get through to withdraw my application but keep getting the callback menu and can’t get in the queue. Feeling completely p*ssed off

It is half the application so withdrawing it is not an option. My plans remains unchanged. NE will consent to not needing to consent, its just a question of when!

 

[Pigless]

I have seven parcels bordering SSSI , sent of for permission to do nothing and NE share the info with RPA that you have applied and RPA proceed with SFI application - took about a week, but NE have as long as they want to respond to you.
All because they mis mapped it in the first place

 

[BenAdamsAgri]

I have seven parcels bordering SSSI , sent of for permission to do nothing and NE share the info with RPA that you have applied and RPA proceed with SFI application - took about a week, but NE have as long as they want to respond to you.
All because they mis mapped it in the first place

Error seems to be with natural england currently and their incorrect mapping

Have just spoken to higher ups at the RPA/DEFRA and they are well aware of the issue currently and are trying to sort ASAP

 

[Try to succeed]

I suggest we bombard [email protected] with something along these lines of this.....


Hi Janet

I would like to raise your awareness to an issue that is causing unnecessary application delays and placing an unnecessary administrative burden upon Natural England. I am also aware of people taking land out of their applications in order to avoid this delay which will reduce the success of SFI uptake.

I believe there are a large number of SFI application like mine, people keen for a March start date, who are wrongly being told we need NE consent for actions on parcels that are inside SSSI zone. Half my farm is adjacent to a geological SSSI but all the parcels I am told I need NE consent for are outside the SSSI. Like many others I am now in the ridiculous situation of having to wait on NE consent for field parcels which DO NOT NEED NE consent. This is delaying the processing of applications and wasting considerable time for NE in having to make consent decisions for situations where no consent is required.

I believe this is down to a long present issue in which the SSSI mapping layer is not precisely aligned with the field parcel layer, If I zoom in on magic I can see the SSSI zone is about 2m West of the OS map layer. The system “sees” SSSI to be inside field parcels when in reality it is not. None of us are applying to put SFI actions where it is not legal or practical to do so.

There is a very simple solution to this problem, just put a bit of trust in your farmer clients!

Allow the applicant to reply to the RPA email with a self declaration,

1. I confirm the parcel(s) is inside and SSSI and I will apply and wait on NE consent

Or

1. I confirm I have checked the SSSI boundaries, I declare that these parcels do not contain SSSI and the SFI actions will in no way endanger the SSSI. You may proceed with this application without NE consent. and I accept responsibility for this and for ensuring I do not breach my SSSI responsibilities.

Longer term, the SSSI mapping needs properly resolved.

You have the power to prevent these application delays and unnecessary burdening of Natural England, please make this happen

It needs acting on straight away as people like me are looking for a way to withdraw and start again not putting options on those fields; probably end up doing that and then they’ll remedy it and I’ll be at the back of the queue again. I can completely understand the situation it has you in. I was told by the NE chap that they had ‘thousands’ of requests, and couldn’t possibly even think about putting a time frame on it.

 

[Try to succeed]

I have seven parcels bordering SSSI , sent of for permission to do nothing and NE share the info with RPA that you have applied and RPA proceed with SFI application - took about a week, but NE have as long as they want to respond to you.
All because they mis mapped it in the first place

When was this pigless? Was it this month? How long did the whole thing take from submission of consent request?

 

[Try to succeed]

Error seems to be with natural england currently and their incorrect mapping

Have just spoken to higher ups at the RPA/DEFRA and they are well aware of the issue currently and are trying to sort ASAP

Was that someone sharing frustration with you on the phone or someone who is able to act upon it? We all have snippets of info but need them to come out and say ‘your application will be processed within the time frame required’

 

[Pigless]

When was this pigless? Was it this month? How long did the whole thing take from submission of consent request?

Applied 28th Jan told I needed consent beginning of Feb applied , and offered agreement about a week later, 1st march start

 

[Try to succeed]

Does anyone actually know if I restarted and didn’t put any actions on those adjacent parcels, would it still flag up as requiring consent, purely by being on your parcels list? I’m assuming not but would be even more frustrating if I found this was the case.

 

[BenAdamsAgri]

Was that someone sharing frustration with you on the phone or someone who is able to act upon it? We all have snippets of info but need them to come out and say ‘your application will be processed within the time frame required’

No someone that can do something. It won't be any time soon I don't think

 

[B'o'B]

Same issue with my SFI application, an SSSI reservoir adjacent one side of the farm and a quarry adjacent the other end.
Ironically the quarry was designated an SSSI as the rock face had an interesting geological fault, which is now long ago carted away!