# Ecological Representation > Evaluate the ecological evidence submitted with a UK planning application (Ecological Impact Assessment, protected-species surveys, BNG metric, LEMP/CEMP, lighting strategy), identify the national law/policy/guidance it engages, and draft a concise, well-founded objection (or advise that no sustainable objection exists). England-focused. Not legal advice. - Skill: `seagulltwo/ecological-representation` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 8 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add seagulltwo/ecological-representation` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/seagulltwo/ecological-representation/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - License: MIT - Author: SeagullTwo (https://skillmd.com/u/seagulltwo) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/seagulltwo/ecological-representation --- # Ecological objection to a planning application Help a member of the public produce a rigorous, credible representation on the **ecological** merits of a planning application — the kind a case officer can act on and lift into the officer report. The skill does three things: 1. **Evaluate** the quality and adequacy of the applicant's ecological submission against current good-practice guidance and identify the material deficiencies. 2. **Map** each deficiency to the specific national (and local) law, policy and guidance it engages. 3. **Draft** the objection in clear, precise, concise language — or advise that the submission is sound and no sustainable objection exists. ## When to use The user has a planning application and wants to object (or find out whether they *can* object) on ecological/biodiversity grounds — bats, great crested newts, reptiles, dormice, badgers, water voles, breeding birds, hedgerows, ancient woodland, Biodiversity Net Gain, lighting impacts, protected sites. Trigger phrases: "object to this planning application on ecology grounds", "is this ecology report any good", "critique this EcIA / BNG metric", "the developer's bat survey looks thin." Not this skill: transport/highways, heritage, flooding, general amenity — those are separate matters. This skill is ecology only. ## What you need first - The **application reference and council** (and, ideally, the documents). - The **ecological documents themselves** — you cannot critique what you have not read. Uploaded, pasted, or already-downloaded files work directly; the companion **planning-document-search** skill is only needed when you don't have them (it retrieves them from the reference + council). Prioritise: the Ecological Impact Assessment / Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, any protected-species survey reports, the BNG metric / Biodiversity Gain Plan and BNG report, the lighting strategy / Lighting Impact Assessment, the LEMP/CEMP/HMMP, and the **LPA ecologist's consultation response** (often the strongest anchor — align with it). - The **local plan's** biodiversity/green-infrastructure policies (portal or council website) — cite these alongside national policy. - **If this is an amendment application — the parent permission and every earlier amendment.** A s.96A non-material amendment or a s.73 variation supplies only the change, and the ecology case turns on what that change does to the mitigation the original permission secured: the retained habitat, the LEMP/CEMP, the lighting strategy, the Biodiversity Gain Plan, and the conditions and s.106 clauses holding them in place. Get the parent's decision notice and full condition set, its approved plans, its officer report and obligations, **and every earlier amendment**. Method: the **application-triage** skill's `references/amendment-applications.md`. ## The integrity principle (read before drafting anything) **Only object where the evidence is genuinely inadequate or the impact genuinely unacceptable.** If the survey method complies with current guidance, the data is current, the surveyor is competent and licensed, and the LPA's own ecologist is content, then there is **no sustainable objection** — say so plainly, and stop. An objection manufactured from presentational faults (a wrong site name in a heading, template-reuse typos) when the method is sound is *vexatious, not substantive*; it wastes the officer's time and burns the credibility you need on the applications that matter. Sometimes the right output is a note explaining why not to object, or a short representation asking only that the LPA ecologist's recommended conditions be imposed in full. **Classify every point's ask — (A) refuse, (B) don't determine yet, or (C) condition it.** An evidential deficiency is not itself a reason for refusal. For each confirmed point, be explicit about which outcome it supports: **(A)** the evidence *demonstrates* an unacceptable impact → a refusal reason; **(B)** the evidence is *insufficient* for the Council to reach the necessary conclusion (e.g. it cannot lawfully conclude on an EPS or a European site) → the application should **not be determined** until the information is provided; **(C)** the issue can be adequately controlled → ask for the *specific* condition or obligation (LEMP, lighting scheme, BNG verification). Most deficiency findings are (B), not (A) — claiming (A) on (B) evidence is the classic credibility mistake. And test every point against (C): if a condition would lawfully and satisfactorily resolve it, ask for that rather than refusal — over-asking weakens the whole representation. ## Workflow ### Step 1 — Intake and read Gather the documents (above). Identify: the proposal and its stage (outline / reserved matters / full / condition discharge — this changes what "before determination" means and what is still open); the receptors present or likely (from the reports and the site's context); whether any **European site (SAC/SPA/Ramsar)** or **qualifying species** is engaged (this raises the bar — Habitats Regulations); and whether **statutory BNG** applies. Read the LPA ecologist's response first if there is one. **On an amendment, read the chain before evaluating anything:** the deficiency you are arguing is what the change removes, dilutes or defers measured against the permission **as already varied** — and a s.73 grants a new permission, so current survey currency and BNG duties attach to it, whatever was accepted on the parent. ### Step 2 — Evaluate against the deficiency catalogue (function 1) Work through [`references/deficiency-catalogue.md`](references/deficiency-catalogue.md) against the documents. For each candidate deficiency, confirm it is **actually present** and **material**, and capture the *specific* evidence: the document, author, date, and the paragraph/table/figure that shows it. Quote the applicant's own words. Grade each finding (decision-critical vs minor) — lead with the decision-critical ones. Apply the integrity principle: drop anything you cannot evidence. Key cross-cutting tests: Is the data **current** at the decision date? Is the method the **current guidance edition**? Does the survey **effort/coverage** match the site's own graded importance? Has the **decision-critical assessment been deferred** beyond the decision? Does the **BNG metric** stand up (baseline, distinctiveness/condition, double- counting, verification)? Are **buffers and mitigation** real and deliverable? Does **lighting** protect commuting routes? Is a **European site / EPS** engaged, and can the Council conclude on it *now* — or is the protected-site impact instead addressed through a **made Environmental Delivery Plan** with the nature restoration levy committed (NPPF N6), which an objection must engage with rather than ignore? ### Step 3 — Map to law, policy and guidance (function 2) For every confirmed deficiency, attach the precise instrument it engages from [`references/national-guidance.md`](references/national-guidance.md) — statute (Environment Act 2021 BNG, NERC s.40, Habitats Regs reg 9(3)/63, WCA 1981, Badgers Act), national policy (NPPF policy codes — the natural-environment policies N1–N6 in the August 2026 edition — and PPG), and professional guidance (CIEEM, BCT/Collins, Froglife, ILP/BCT lighting, AWI Handbook). Add the **local plan** biodiversity policies. Cite specifically — a named paragraph or guidance clause, never "best practice" in the abstract. If a point needs current guidance you are unsure of, verify it rather than guess. ### Step 4 — Draft (function 3) Draft to the [`references/house-style.md`](references/house-style.md) and [`references/objection-template.md`](references/objection-template.md): header → RE line → opening (consultation status; material considerations; place on file) → framework list → numbered points (each a bold conclusion heading, the quoted evidence, why it matters, the ask and its timing) → numbered **Summary of requests** (mostly "before determination") → objection sentence → sign-off. Keep it concise — density over length. Lead with the decision-critical points and align with the LPA ecologist. ### Step 5 — Check before sending - Every point is evidenced from the documents or cited guidance; nothing asserted. - Quotes are accurate and referenced (§/Table/Figure). - It reads as material considerations, not objection-to-development-in-principle. - Consultant-/campaign-specific framing excluded unless the user asked for it and it is defensible on this application's own facts (see the template note). - The requests are concrete and correctly timed to the application's stage. - Every point is classified **(A) demonstrated harm / (B) insufficient evidence / (C) conditionable** — and no point asks for refusal where a condition would lawfully and satisfactorily do. - Deadline: note if consultation has closed; representations are usually still accepted and are material while the application is undecided — say so in the opening. - **Hand back to a human, with the two warnings:** the draft must be read and checked by a person before submission, and submitting it will put a **public document in the user's name** on the council's portal — so confirm they're content with the content and with the personal details included. ## Reference files - [`references/deficiency-catalogue.md`](references/deficiency-catalogue.md) — the evaluation checklist: recurring, defensible grounds, each with the tell, why it matters, what it breaches, and the ask. - [`references/national-guidance.md`](references/national-guidance.md) — the law/policy/ guidance catalogue, with citations, to map deficiencies to instruments. - [`references/house-style.md`](references/house-style.md) — how a strong objection reads. - [`references/objection-template.md`](references/objection-template.md) — skeleton + annotated worked example. ## Scope and limitations - **Not legal advice, and no warranty.** This helps a lay objector marshal evidence and cite policy; it is not a substitute for a solicitor or professional ecologist, guarantees no outcome, and is provided "as is" with no warranty of accuracy or fitness for purpose. - **Human review is necessary before submitting.** A person must read the draft, check every quote and citation against the actual documents, and confirm the points are correct and fair for this application. Do not submit skill output unread. - **A UK planning representation is a public document in your name.** Comments and objections submitted to a local planning authority are normally published on the council's public planning portal, typically including the submitter's name (and sometimes address), and are retained on the record. Tell the user this before they submit, and let them decide what personal details to include; many councils publish name but redact signatures/contact details — check the council's statement. - **England-focused.** The statutory BNG regime, NPPF and PPG are England; the species legislation (Habitats Regs, WCA, NERC, Badgers Act) is broadly GB-wide but devolved policy differs in Wales/Scotland/NI — flag when the application is outside England and adjust the policy citations. - **Evidence-bound.** Every objection stands or falls on the submitted documents and the cited guidance. Do not invent survey results, fabricate quotes, or assert a species is present without a basis. Where information is missing, that *absence* is itself the point ("the survey was not done"), argued as such — not filled with speculation. - **The honest answer is sometimes "don't object."** Treat that as a valid, valuable output, not a failure.