Below are the policies with the summaries as given on the gov.uk website. Links to further reading can be found at the end of this post.
Policy 1 – Greater flexibility when excluding and relocating European Protected Species (EPS) from development sites
Defra considers that compensation for European Protected Species impacts can be delivered without the need to relocate or exclude populations, where: exclusion or relocation measures are not necessary to maintain the conservation status of the local population; the avoid-mitigate-compensate hierarchy is followed; and compensation provides greater benefits to the local population than would exclusion and/or relocation.
Policy 2 – Greater flexibility in the location of newly created habitats that compensate for habitats that will be lost
If the licensing tests are met and the avoid-mitigate-compensate hierarchy is followed, off-site compensation measures may be preferred to on-site compensation measures, where there are good reasons for maximising development on the site of European Protected Species impacts, and where an off-site solution provides greater benefit to the local population than an on-site solution.
Policy 3 – Allowing EPS to have access to temporary habitats that will be developed at a later date
Where development (such as mineral extraction) will temporarily create habitat which is likely to attract European Protected Species, Defra favours proposals which enable works to proceed without the exclusion of European Protected Species, where the conservation status of the local population would not be detrimentally affected. On completion of development such sites must contribute to the conservation status of the local population as much as or more than the land use which preceded development. The measures to achieve this should be set out in a management plan and secured by a legal agreement.
Policy 4 – Appropriate and relevant surveys where the impacts of development can be confidently predicted
Natural England will be expected to ensure that licensing decisions are properly supported by survey information, taking into account industry standards and guidelines. It may, however, accept a lower than standard survey effort where: the costs or delays associated with carrying out standard survey requirements would be disproportionate to the additional certainty that it would bring; the ecological impacts of development can be predicted with sufficient certainty; and mitigation or compensation will ensure that the licensed activity does not detrimentally affect the conservation status of the local population of any EPS.