Habitat plan and metric reconciliation checks that the drawing and biodiversity metric workbook describe a coherent set of proposals. If a parcel appears on one document but cannot be traced in the other, stop and establish which versions are being compared.
The useful first step is a controlled review, with the ecologist and drawing author working from the same files. This checklist helps a coordinator organise that discussion. It does not replace the specialist judgement behind a statutory biodiversity metric calculation.
Fix the document pair
Record the drawing revision and workbook version before comparing the information.
Locate the difference
Check the parcel, area or length, units and design status. Compare like with like.
Ask the right author
The ecologist or drawing author explains the difference and its implications.
Record and reissue
Log the agreed response, update affected documents and issue a coordinated set.
Still unresolved? Keep the issue open, identify who will resolve it and record any assumptions affecting the next decision.
Fix the document pair before investigating
Record the drawing number, revision and date alongside the workbook filename and version. Confirm the development boundary and design stage to which each applies. Keep copies of the reviewed pair so that later corrections do not erase the starting point.
If someone sends a newer layout during the review, record it as a change. Do not quietly replace a file and continue comparing figures without telling the other contributors.
Classify the discrepancy
| Question | Information to compare |
|---|---|
| Are the boundaries the same? | The site boundary and the area covered by the assessment. |
| Can each parcel be traced? | Drawing labels, parcel identifiers and corresponding workbook entries. |
| Are like quantities being compared? | Areas and lengths, units and the purpose of each figure. |
| Does the design status agree? | Retained, lost, enhanced and created habitat descriptions where applicable. |
| Are assumptions still current? | The proposed layout, habitat information and any outstanding design decisions. |
A mismatch may be a document-control problem, a drawing issue or a question about how the assessment has been prepared. Classifying it helps the team send the question to the right person.
Ask for the explanation before changing a number
A figure should not be altered solely to make two totals match. Ask the author to explain what it represents and which source information supports it. Different figures can have different purposes, and an apparent mismatch can require a technical explanation.
The official statutory metric tools and guides provide the relevant method reference. The publication allows any version of the statutory tools for BNG calculations. Record the actual tool used and the applicable guidance; do not describe every older statutory workbook as invalid simply because a newer guide exists.
Where the question concerns spatial information, refer to the project’s mapping author and ACP’s GIS mapping tools page. Where it concerns a metric rule, use the metric user guide as a route to the relevant guidance and specialist review.
Use a short resolution log
For each issue, record its location, the person responsible, the agreed explanation and the documents that need updating. Keep “awaiting explanation” separate from “resolved”. A revised plan does not automatically mean the workbook or report has also been reviewed.
Illustrative example: landscape plan revision D adds a path through a proposed habitat parcel. The workbook still relates to revision C. The coordinator records the change and asks the ecologist to review the affected proposal. The team then issues a coordinated set with a note explaining the response; nobody simply edits a habitat total to make it look consistent.
Complete the habitat plan and metric reconciliation
- Identify the drawing and workbook revisions that now belong together.
- Confirm who reviewed the technical implications of each discrepancy.
- Record whether associated report or plan text also changed.
- Retain superseded files as a project record, clearly marked.
- State any unresolved assumptions that the next decision relies on.
If the team needs help establishing the ecological scope of a discrepancy, contact ACP with the paired documents, a description of the issue and the decision being supported. Agree the review scope before treating the evidence set as ready for use.