The three scores
Poor (1), moderate (2), good (3); the score multiplies through the metric alongside distinctiveness. Criteria are set per habitat class in the JP039 condition cards; for grassland the criteria include indicator species count, sward structure, absence of negative indicators, and management history.[S1]
The 2-band uplift cap rule
Post-development habitat condition cannot uplift more than 2 bands above baseline; a poor modified grassland cannot be scored as good lowland meadow on the post-dev side. The rule prevents over-claiming through aspirational condition scoring; it is enforced by the LPA at the metric submission stage.
Who can assess condition
CIEEM competency at full member (MCIEEM) or higher is the practical minimum; sole reliance on a junior surveyor risks condition disputes at planning consultation. CIEEM publishes a competency framework distinguishing PEA, condition, and species survey competencies.[S6]
Evidence pack at submission
A defensible evidence pack contains: dated photographs at each survey point; species lists per quadrat; sward height measurements; management history (where ascertainable); and a written condition rationale per polygon. The rationale is the document LPAs scrutinise most heavily.