gypsy and traveller - south cambridgeshire district ... · traveller community strategy, and will...
TRANSCRIPT
Local Development Framework
Gypsy and TravellerDevelopment Plan Document
Issues and Options 2 Site Options and Policies
Habitats Regulations Assessment
July 2009
08450 450 500www.scambs.gov.uk
Local Development Framework
Gypsy and Traveller
Development Plan Document
Initial Scoping Report of the Habitats Regulations Assessment
South Cambridgeshire District Council
July 2009
Gareth Jones, BSc. (Hons) MRTPI Corporate Manager (Planning & Sustainable Communities)
The maps in this document are based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown
copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Cambridgeshire District Council
Licence No. LA 100022500 (2009)
The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this document is provided by South Cambridgeshire District Council under licence from the Ordnance Survey in order to
fulfil its public function to make available Council held public domain information. Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyright for advice where they wish to licence Ordnance Survey mapping/map data for their own use.
The OS web site can be found at www.ordsvy.gov.uk
If you would like a copy of this document in large print or another format please contact
South Cambridgeshire District Council on 08450 450 500 or email [email protected]
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment i
CONTENTS
PageExecutive Summary 1
Outcome of Assessment 1
Introduction 3The Requirement For Habitats Regulations Assessment 3
What are Natura 2000 Sites? 3 What is Habitats Regulations Assessment? 4
What is a Significant Effect on a Natura 2000 Site? 5 Structure of the HRA Report 5
SECTION 1: Description of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document – Issues and Options 2: Site Options
6
SECTION 2: Description of the Relevant Plans and Strategies to be Considered “In Combination”
9
SECTION 3: HRA Screening Methodology, Sets Out the Approach Used and Specific Tasks Undertaken
13
SECTION 4: Natura 2000 and Ramsar Sites Potentially Affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD– Issues and Options 2: Site Options
15
SECTION 5: Screening Assessment of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD– Issues and Options 2: Site Options
17
SECTION 6: Consultations 18
SECTION 7: Conclusions 19
APPENDIX 1: Summary of Other Relevant Plans and Strategies 21
APPENDIX 2: Information on the Natura 2000 Sites 27
APPENDIX 3: Maps 51
APPENDIX 4: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Matrix 79
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is an Assessment of the Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (DPD) to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive. South Cambridgeshire District Council has prepared it, as the relevant competent authority.
The report provides a screening assessment to examine whether the options in the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document are likely to have any significant impacts on Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites, either alone or in combination with other projects and plans, in view of the sites’ conservation objectives. The Assessment:
�� Provides details of the DPD and its proposals;
�� Identifies Natura 2000 sites and Ramsar sites (in accordance with PPS9, para 6) within and outside the area that could potentially be affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD; Issues and Options 2.
�� Identifies the characteristics of these sites and their conservation objectives; and
�� Screens the DPD, in combination with other relevant plans or projects, to identify any likely significant effects on the sites.
The Assessment has been undertaken following a precautionary approach in accordance with the Habitats Directive.
OUTCOME OF ASSESSMENT
It has been objectively concluded by South Cambridgeshire District Council that options within the Issues and Options 2 stage of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD are not likely to have any significant effects on any Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites. The Council has therefore concluded as a result of this scoping report that there is no requirement to proceed to the next stage of an Appropriate Assessment.
This scoping report has been submitted to Natural England for consultation.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 3
INTRODUCTION
This report is an Assessment of the Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document, to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive. It focuses on the options for consultation included in the Issues and Options 2 Site Options and Policies Report. It has been prepared by South Cambridgeshire District Council, as the relevant competent authority and will be submitted to Natural England for consultation.
THE REQUIREMENT FOR HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT
The Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) sets out the requirement for Assessment of plans or projects affecting Natura 2000 sites. Article 6(3) establishes the requirement for Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and states:
“ (3) Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subject to Appropriate Assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.
Article 6(4) goes on to discuss alternative solutions and compensatory measures. It states:
(4) If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted.”
WHAT ARE NATURA 2000 SITES?
Natura 2000 is a Europe-wide network of sites of international importance for nature conservation established under the European Council Directive ‘on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora’ – (92/43/EEC ‘Habitats Directive’). This has been transposed into UK law as the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations (1994; ‘Habitats Regulations’).
Natura 2000 sites include Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC), which are designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), and Special Protection Areas (SPA) classified under the ‘Birds Directive’ (79/409/EEC).
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 4
In line with Government policy in PPS9 paragraph 6, this assessment also relates to Ramsar sites although these are not strictly part of Natura 2000. These sites support internationally important wetland habitats and are listed under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention, 1971).
WHAT IS HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT?
Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is an assessment of the potential effects of a proposed plan or project, which is not necessary for the management of the site and which is likely to have a significant effect, on one or more Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites, in view of the site’s conservation objectives.
There are 4 stages to the Habitats Regulations Assessment process set out in the European Commission guidance “Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Nature 2000 sites – Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC” (November 2001). Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive relates to Stages 1 to 3 and Article 6(4) to Stage 4, as follows:
First stage - Screening
The process, which identifies the likely impacts upon a Natura 2000 or Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be significant.
Second stage - Appropriate Assessment
The consideration of the impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 or Ramsar site, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, with respect to the site’s structure and function and it’s conservation objectives. Additionally, where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of the potential mitigation of those impacts.
Third stage – Assessment of alternative solutions
The process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the Natura 2000 or Ramsar site.
Fourth stage – Compensatory measures
As assessment of compensatory measures where, in the light of an assessment of imperative reasons of overriding public interest, it is deemed that the plan should proceed.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 5
If it is concluded at the screening stage that there will be no significant impacts, there is no need to carry out subsequent stages. This Screening Report addresses the First Stage only of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process.
WHAT IS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON A NATURA 2000 SITE?
A judgement of the significance of effects on a Natura 2000 site should be undertaken in relation to the designated interest features and conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 site (see Sections 4 and 5) using sound judgement, and with a scientific basis where available. If insufficient information is available to make a clear judgement, it should be assumed that a significant effect is possible in line with the precautionary principle.
STRUCTURE OF THE HRA REPORT
Section 1 Description of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD and explanation of the current Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document.
Section 2 Description of the relevant plans and projects to be considered “in combination”
Section 3 HRA Screening Methodology, sets out the approach used and specific tasks undertaken
Section 4 Identification of the Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites that could be potentially affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, including a description of the conservation objectives for each site and the potential sensitivities of the sites to adverse effects
Section 5 Screening Assessment to consider whether there are likely to be any significant effects of the'Issues and Options 2: Site Options and Policies' document of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, alone or in combination with other relevant plans and projects, on Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites
Section 6 Consultations
Section 7 Conclusions, summarises the findings of the HRA Screening
The Precautionary Principle
Prudent action that avoids the possibility of irreversible environmental damage in situations where the scientific evidence is inconclusive but the potential damage could be significant.
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 6
SECTION 1: DESCRIPTION OF THE OF THE GYPSY AND TRAVELLER DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT AND EXPLANATION OF CURRENT ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2; SITE OPTIONS AND POLICIES DOCUMENT
South Cambridgeshire District Council is preparing the Gypsy and Traveller DPD. It forms part of the Local Development Framework (LDF).
The Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (GTDPD), as part of the Council’s LDF, will form a vital tool for implementing the Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Community Strategy, and will set out policies and proposals as they relate to planning for Gypsies and Travellers, and Travelling Showpeople in the district, covering the period 2006 – 2021.
The Gypsy and Traveller DPD is not directly connected to or necessary for the management of Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites.
PROPOSED VISION OF THE DPD
The following vision is proposed for the GTDPD:
South Cambridgeshire contributes fully to the regional provision of Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople accommodation, meeting the needs of existing and future generations. There will be a range and choice of accommodation, including at major growth areas, which will contribute to the improvement of living conditions. Occurrences of illegal and unplanned Travelling encampments and development will be reduced.
PROPOSED OBJECTIVES OF THE DPD
In order to achieve the vision, the plan will aim to implement the following objectives:
�� To address the full range of land-use and planning issues that need to be taken into account regarding Gypsy and Traveller sites and Travelling Showpeople sites.
�� To ensure an adequate and appropriate supply of sites to meet the numbers required by the East of England Plan in South Cambridgeshire.
�� To provide a clear framework for making decisions on planning applications regarding Gypsy and Traveller sites and Travelling Showpeople sites.
�� To minimise the number of unauthorised encampments and unauthorised developments.
�� Contribute to achieving the aims of the South Cambridgeshire Gypsy and Traveller Community Strategy.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 7
THE PURPOSE OF THE CURRENT ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2 STAGE OF THE DPD
The purpose of this 'Issues and Options 2: Site Options and Policies' document is to consult on 20 potential site options for allocation as Gypsy and Traveller sites, as well as options for Transit sites and Travelling Showpeople sites, and to provide a further opportunity for site options to be suggested. It is also consulting on potential planning policies that could be included in the plan.
SUMMARY OF SITE OPTIONS
20 site options have been identified in the Issues and Options 2 document. The Council is now consulting on these options.
SiteNumber Source Location Address Number of
PitchesPotentialDelivery
1 Temporary Consent
Edge of Cambridge Sandy Park, Chesterton Fen Road 28 By 2016
2 Temporary Consent
Edge of Cambridge
Plots 1, 3 & 5 Sandy Park, Chesterton Fen Road 17 By 2016
3 MajorDevelopment
Edge of Cambridge Cambridge East 20
By 2016 or
2016-21
4 MajorDevelopment
Edge of Cambridge
North West Cambridge – Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road 10 By 2016
5 MajorDevelopment
Edge of Cambridge
North West Cambridge – Land between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road
(University Site) 10 2016-21
6 MajorDevelopment Northstowe Northstowe 20
By 2016or
2016-21
7 MajorDevelopment Cambourne Cambourne 10 By 2016
8 MajorDevelopment Fulbourn Ida Darwin Hospital 5 By 2016
9 Temporary Consent Willingham Grange Park, Foxes Meadow, Iram
Drove (off Priest Lane) 1 By 2016
10 Temporary Consent Willingham Plots 1 & 2 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 By 2016
11 New Site – Private Land Willingham Plots 3 & 4 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 By 2016
12 Temporary Consent Willingham Plots 5 & 6 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 By 2016
13 Temporary Consent Willingham Land to rear of Long Acre and Green
Acres, Meadow Road 3 By 2016
14 New Site – Private Land Willingham Land to rear of Longacre, Meadow
Road (1) 1 By 2016
15 Unauthorised Willingham Land to rear of Longacre, Meadow Road (2) 1 By 2016
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 8
SiteNumber Source Location Address Number of
PitchesPotentialDelivery
16 Temporary Consent Willingham Site of storage/agricultural buildings
east of Long Acre, Meadow Road 1 By 2016
17 Temporary Consent Willingham The Oaks, Meadow Road 1 By 2016
18New Site –
PubliclyOwned Land
Bassingbourn Land at Spring Lane 5 By 2016
19 Temporary Consent Swavesey Rose & Crown Road 8 By 2016
20 Expansion of Existing Site Whaddon New Farm, Old North Road 2 By 2016
TOTAL 149
Views are also being sought on whether the following site should be returned to a Transit site:
SiteNumber
Location Address Number of
Pitches
21Milton
(Edge of Cambridge)
Blackwell Traveller site, Milton - Transit Site option 10
Also views are being sought on the following Travelling Showpeople site option:
SiteNumber
Location Address Number of
Plots22 Meldreth Travelling Showpeople Site option 6
The Issues and Options 2 document also includes policy options to be consulted upon. These are as follows –
POLICY ELEMENT SUMMARY Gypsy and Traveller sites in the Green Belt
Policies to consider when sites are proposed for pitches in Green Belt locations
Sites at Major Development Sites
Policies to consider provision of pitches within the Major Development Sites – the delivery; location; design; size and phasing of these sites.
Existing policies for Travellers and Gypsies
Consideration of a saved policy from the Local Plan 2004 and whether it should be included in the DPD
Policy for considering planning applications and design issues relating to Traveller and Gypsy sites
Criteria based policy for considering planning applications for Traveller pitches. Also policy considering design of Traveller pitches.
Monitoring of policies Identification of indicators to monitor policies in DPD.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 9
SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES TO BE CONSIDERED “IN COMBINATION”
The Gypsy and Traveller Development Plan Document (GTDPD) will provide a vision for the future of Gypsies and Travellers in South Cambridgeshire and will set out policies and proposals as they relate to planning for Gypsies and Travellers in the District. It sits within a wider policy context provided by the plans of the Council.
A Local Plans
The South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework (LDF) comprises a number of Development Plan Documents (DPDs) that set out policies and proposals for the development and use of land in the district. The first DPDs cover the period to 2016 and were submitted to the Secretary of State in January 2006. The DPDs submitted and their current status is as follows:
�� Core Strategy DPD – adopted January 2007
�� Development Control Policies DPD – adopted July 2007
�� Northstowe AAP – adopted July 2007
�� Cambridge East Area Action Plan (AAP) (being prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council) – adopted February 2008.
�� Cambridge Southern Fringe AAP – adopted February 2008.
�� Site Specific Policies DPD – examination held in December 2007 and January 2008. Further hearings to be held during 2009.
�� North West Cambridge Area Action Plan (AAP) (being prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council) – examinations held in November and December 2008. Further hearings to be held during 2009. .
The LDF includes a vision of the future of South Cambridgeshire and objectives and targets, which developments must meet to secure that vision. Once adopted, planning applications and other decisions will be made in accordance with it.
The Core Strategy 2007 sets the overall level of growth and the broad spatial locations for development, with 20,000 new homes required between 1999 and 2016. The Strategy is one of concentrating development on Cambridge through a number of urban extensions to the city, including land in South Cambridgeshire, and at the new town of Northstowe. These major developments are addressed in a series of Area Action Plans. They include development that will continue beyond 2016. The strategy also allows for limited development to meet local needs in Rural Centres and other villages. New development will be accompanied by the necessary employment, community and recreation space to support the development of sustainable communities.
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 10
The Core Strategy, Development Control Policies DPD and Northstowe, Cambridge Southern Fringe, Cambridge East and North West Cambridge Area Action Plans have also been subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment, and were found to have no likely significant effects on any Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites.
The Local Development Frameworks of the Council:
�� Take account of national, regional and strategic planning policies;
�� Identify sites for, and requirements of, major developments;
�� Provide the framework of policies for assessing all planning applications;
�� Enable infrastructure and service providers to bring forward their services when needed by new development;
�� Enable the public to be fully involved in developing local policies and proposals.
B. Regional Plans
South Cambridgeshire’s Core Strategy 2007 plans for the development proposed in Regional Planning Guidance 6 (RPG6, 2000), and subsequently the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003.
The East of England Plan (RSS) was published in May 2008. It incorporates and carries forward the requirements of RPG6 and the Structure Plan for the Cambridge Sub-Region for the period to 2016. This plan was subject to an initial Habitats Regulations Assessment, which concluded that the plan will not have a likely significant effect on Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites, and hence Appropriate Assessment is not required for any of the policies in the RSS. This initial HRA states that the reasons for this include:
�� That the policies will not result in any development;
�� The policies make provision for development, but the exact location is to be selected following the consideration of options in lower tier plans (i.e. by local development plans, programmes and strategies);
�� The policy concentrates the development in urban areas away from Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites;
�� That the policies specifically state that development should avoid any adverse effects on the integrity of Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites;
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 11
�� Policy ENV3 states that local planning authorities should ‘ensure that...development does not have adverse effects on the integrity of sites of European or international importance’; and
�� Generic provisions have been made within the policies in the RSS (e.g. Policy ENV3) supported by more specific provisions to ensure that the integrity of Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites are not adversely affected by development (Policies SS9, E7, C2, and WAT2).
In the light of objections raised that challenge the findings of the HRA, the Government Office commissioned a new HRA of the Plan, which was published in October 2007. This review placed greater emphasis on an evidence-based assessment of risk of effects (applying the precautionary principle) than may have been the case in the previous work. It resulted in some sections within the RSS being subject to an Appropriate Assessment. As a result of this HRA further changes were proposed to the East of England Plan such that the current published RSS is now considered not likely to have any significant effect on Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites as a result its policies or the RSS itself in combination with other plans.
However, the RSS is a higher order spatial plan. South Cambridgeshire has a number of adopted DPDs that have been subject to HRA scoping and have been found to have no significant effect on Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites. The Gypsy and Traveller DPD is at a similar level of plan making to these DPDs.
C. Other Plans
The Gypsy and Traveller DPD Screening Assessment focuses on the “in-combination” effects of the DPD with other LDF level plans, including the other Development Plan Documents and Supplementary Planning Documents produced by South Cambridgeshire District Council, district LDFs of nearby authorities, and minerals and waste plans for both South Cambridgeshire itself and for nearby authorities. The plans considered in the screening Assessment are listed below. A brief summary of each plan is set out in Appendix 1:
Countywide plans affecting South Cambridgeshire:
�� Cambridgeshire Waste Local Plan 2003 �� Cambridgeshire Aggregates (minerals) Local Plan 1991 �� Cambridgeshire Minerals and Waste Development Plan Preferred Options 2
2008�� Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2006 – 2011
Other Plans for Areas Outside the Area Action Plan area:
�� Cambridge City Core Strategy (DPD) – Issues and Options (Reg 25), 2007 �� Cambridge Local Plan 2004 �� Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 �� Huntingdonshire Core Strategy Submission Draft 2008 & Development
Control Policies DPD Issues & Options Report, 2007
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 12
�� East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000 and Core Strategy Submission Draft 2008
�� Fenland Local Plan 1993; Core Strategy Preferred Options 2006 and Preferred Options 2 2007
�� Uttlesford Core Strategy – Preferred Options 2007 �� North Herts. Local Plan 1996 and Core Strategy & Development Policies
Preferred Options 2007 �� Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan 2005 & Core Strategy and Development Control
Policies DPD Preferred Options 2007 �� Forest Heath Local Plan 1995 and Core Strategy & Development Policies
Preferred Options Report October 2006 and Site Specific Policies and Allocations DPD Issues & Options Report 2006
�� St. Edmundsbury Local Plan 2006; Core Strategy and Policies DPD – Issues and options 2008.
�� King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 and Core Strategy- Issues and Options 2 2008 DC Policies Preferred Options 2007
�� Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2005 �� Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan –
Issues and Options (Jan 2006); Issues and Options 2 2008; Waste DPD – Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan 2006
�� Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan 1998 (and review adopted 2007) �� Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan 1998 �� Hertfordshire Minerals & Waste DPDs Issues & Options & Waste Core
Strategy Preferred Options Report, June 2007 �� Suffolk Minerals Local Plan 1999 & Minerals Core Strategy Submission 2007
& Minerals Specific Site Allocations DPD, April 2007 �� Suffolk Waste Local Plan 2006; Waste Issues Report 2007 �� Bedford Borough Local Plan 2006 and Bedford Core Strategy and Rural
Issues Plan Adopted 2008 �� Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005; Core Strategy – Preferred options 2007 �� Buckinghamshire County Council Waste Local Plan 1997; Buckinghamshire
Minerals DPD – Preferred options 2007; Buckinghamshire Waste DPD – Preferred options 2007
�� Milton Keynes Waste DPD Submission 2007 �� Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan 2006; Minerals DPD – preferred options
2007�� Norfolk Waste Local Plan 2000 �� Norfolk Minerals Local Plan 2004 �� Norfolk Minerals and Waste Core Strategy and Development Control
Document –preferred options stage 2008
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 13
SECTION 3: HRA SCREENING METHODOLOGY SETS OUT THE APPROACH USED AND SPECIFIC TASKS UNDERTAKEN
The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the'Issues and Options 2: Site Options and Policies' document ofthe Gypsy and Traveller DPD, has been undertaken in line with the European Commission’s guidance on the ‘Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Nature 2000 sites’, and seeks to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive.
South Cambridgeshire has a number of adopted DPDs, which have been assessed under the Habitats Directive, and it was concluded, using the same methodology, that they were unlikely to have significant impacts upon European Sites located within and in the vicinity of the District and that an Appropriate Assessment was therefore not required for these DPDs.
The tasks undertaken in preparing this Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report are:
Task 1: Identification of the Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites, which may be affected bythe'Issues and Options 2: Site Options and Policies' document of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD and the factors contributing to and defining the integrity of these sites
An initial investigation was undertaken to identify Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites within and outside the plan area with potential to be affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document. This involved the use of GIS data as well as consultation with the Natural England Four Counties team. In line with the precautionary approach, some sites at relatively significant distances from the district boundary were included in the study. The Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites identified as potentially affected by the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2 are identified in Section 4. The attributes, which contribute to and define the integrity of these sites were identified and described (including the conservation objectives). Information was appropriate to inform a screening decision.
Task 2: Completion of the Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Matrix for the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, including ‘Assessment of Significance of Effects”
A Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Matrix was completed for the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document which looked at each European site in turn and included an ‘Assessment of Significance of Effects”, and is found at Section 5. The screening gives particular consideration given to the possible effects of the plan on features contributing to the integrity of the Natura 2000 and Ramsar sites (e.g. increased disturbance, changes in water quality, etc). A risk-based approach involving application of the precautionary principle was adopted in the assessment of likely effects, such that an assessment of ‘no significant effect’ was only made where it was considered unlikely, based on current knowledge and information available, that the options in the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2 could have a significant effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 / Ramsar site. The consideration of potential effects involved an
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 14
examination of potential ‘in-combination’ effects of the options included in the Issues and Options 2 of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD and other plans and projects.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 15
SECTION 4: NATURA 2000 AND RAMSAR SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2; SITE OPTIONS AND POLICIES DOCUMENT OF THE GYPSY AND TRAVELLER DPD
There is one Natura 2000 site within South Cambridgeshire District, which has been considered as part of this assessment:
�� Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC.
There are a number of other sites within the surrounding districts, which have also been considered as part of this Assessment, because of their proximity to South Cambridgeshire and / or the nature of their conservation interest:
�� Ouse Washes SAC and SPA
�� Fenland SAC
�� Portholme SAC
�� Devil’s Dyke SAC
Candidate SACs and potential SPAs should be considered in the same way as if they had already been classified or designated. There are no relevant sites.
For the purposes of this Assessment, Ramsar sites are included although they are not Natura 2000 sites. For the Gypsy and Traveller DPD, this does not introduce any additional sites, but two of the sites listed above are also Ramsar sites:
�� Ouse Washes
�� Fenland (Woodwalton Fen, Chippenham Fen, Wicken Fen)
Natural England confirmed that this list was comprehensive for the purposes of Habitats Regulations Assessment (by letter 9.11.06).
The conservation objectives for each SPA or SAC are designed to ensure that the qualifying interest of each site is maintained in the long term. Whilst these are specific to each site, there are some general principles including:
�� To maintain the population of the habitat / species as a viable component of the site;
�� To maintain the distribution of the habitat / species within site;
�� To maintain the distribution and extent of habitats supporting the species;
�� To maintain the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; and
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 16
�� To ensure that there is no significant disturbance of the species.
For Ramsar sites the main aims are to promote the conservation of the wetland to avoid deterioration of the wetland habitats of Ramsar interest and significant disturbance of associated species.
Details of the European Sites being assessed, and their relevant conservation objectives, is provided in Appendix 2 of this assessment. Maps of the sites are attached at Appendix 3.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 17
SECTION 5: SCREENING ASSESSMENT OF THE GYPSY AND TRAVELLER DPD ISSUES AND OPTIONS 2;
There are a wide range of potential impacts of development plans on designated sites, but the impacts examined can be summarised as:
�� Land take by developments;
�� Impact on protected species found within but which travel outside the protected sites may be relevant where development could result in effects on qualifying interest species within the Natura 2000 or Ramsar site, for example through the loss of feeding grounds for an identified species.
�� Increased disturbance, for example from recreational use resulting from new housing development and / or improved access due to transport infrastructure projects;
�� Changes in water availability, or water quality as a result of development and increased demands for water treatment, and changes in groundwater regimes due to increased impermeable areas;
�� Changes in atmospheric pollution levels due to increased traffic, waste management facilities etc. Pollution discharges from developments such as industrial Developments, quarries and waste management facilities.
An HRA Screening Matrix, including an ‘Assessment of Significance of Effects”, is contained at Appendix 4, which assesses the potential impacts of the Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD as set out above on the conservation interests of European sites, taking account of the policy elements of the options in the plan.
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 18
SECTION 6: CONSULTATIONS
Natural England has been consulted on the HRA screening report. The results of their response will be included in the final version of this HRA.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 19
SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS
The Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2has been assessed to determine whether there are likely to be any significant effects arising from the options, in accordance with the Habitats Directive Articles 6(3) and (4).
The HRA has:
�� Provided details of the plan and its proposals;
�� Identified European Sites within and outside the plan area that may potentially be affected by the options in the Gypsy and Traveller DPD Issues and Options 2; Site Options and Policies document;
�� Identified the characteristics of these European sites and their conservation objectives; and
�� Tested the plan, in combination with other relevant plans or programmes, to identify any significant impacts on the European Sites.
It has been objectively concluded by South Cambridgeshire District Council that the options within the Issues and Options 2 ; Site Options and Policies document of the Gypsy and Traveller DPD are not likely to have any significant effects on any Natura 2000 or Ramsar sites. There is therefore in the Council’s opinion no requirement to proceed to the next stage of an Appropriate Assessment.
This scoping report has been submitted to Natural England for consultation.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 21
APPENDIX 1
Summary of other relevant plans and strategies
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 22
SUMMARY OF OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES
OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES
SUMMARY
County-wide Plans affecting South Cambridgeshire:
Cambridgeshire Waste Local Plan 2003
Aims to provide a sustainable strategy and policy framework for waste management in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Includes site-specific proposals for waste management facilities.
Cambridgeshire Aggregates (minerals) Local Plan 1991
Sets policies for working minerals and safeguarding mineral deposits.
Cambridgeshire Minerals and Waste DPD Preferred Options 2006
(1) A draft Core Strategy DPD to guide the spatial strategy vision for the future of mineral extraction and the delivery of high quality sustainable waste management facilities.
(2) A draft Site Allocations DPD with proposed allocations for waste management facilities and minerals workings.
The documents have been subject to initial appropriate assessment, which found there were likely to be no significant effects that could not be overcome by mitigation measures through policies in the plan.
Cambridgeshire Minerals and Waste DPD Preferred Options 2 2008
A revised draft Core Strategy DPD and revised Site Allocations DPD.
As a result of the screening at this stage a number of allocations and policies are identified as having the potential to have an impact on European Sites of Importance and therefore must be assessed as part of a full Appropriate Assessment. Whilst it is not expected these will adversely affect a European Site it is needed to be assessed using the precautionary principle.
Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2006 - 2011
The Local Transport Plan 2006 -11 for Cambridgeshire sets out how Government capital funding allocated for transport will be spent, and how this will be used to meet local and national targets.
Other Plans for Areas Outside the Plan area:
Cambridge Local Plan 2004 The land use strategy up to 2016 focuses growth in Cambridge on the Station area and four urban extensions comprising mixed use centres to the north, south, west and east of the City as a focus for future employment and residential expansion, connected to each other and to the City Centre by high quality public transport (includes sites
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 23
OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES
SUMMARY
that extend into South Cambridgeshire).Cambridge Core Strategy – Issues and Options 2007
The Core Strategy Issues and Options considers growth within Cambridge up to 2021.
Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995
The Local Plan 1995 provided for development up to 2006, and focused development onto larger settlements.
Huntingdonshire Core Strategy Submission Draft 2008 & Development Control Policies DPD Issues & Options Report, 2007
The Core Strategy will set the framework for how Huntingdonshire will develop up to 2026. It will contain strategic policies to manage growth and guide new development. The Development Control Policies DPD will set out local policies for managing development in Huntingdonshire. The policies in this document will be used to assess and determining applications for development in the district and cover topic areas including climate change, housing, economic development, quality of life and the environment.
East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2000 and Core Strategy Submission Draft 2008.
The Local Plan 2000 concentrates growth in housing, employment and service provision within Ely, Soham and Littleport, including the reuse of previously developed sites. Elsewhere within the District, growth will be limited and is likely to take the form of meeting existing commitments and allocations and, where appropriate, the infilling or redevelopment of sites within the built framework.
The Core Strategy aims to provide for growth in a sustainable manner, planning for 8,600 dwellings between 2001 and 2021
Fenland Local Plan 1993 and Core Strategy Preferred Options 2006; Preferred Options 2 2007
The Local Plan 1993 concentrates growth in housing, employment and service provision within existing centres, an aim, which is continued in the Core Strategy. 11,000 dwellings will be required in Fenland by 2021.
Uttlesford Core Strategy – Preferred Options 2007
Housing is to be concentrated in a limited number of settlements. 8,000 dwellings are to be planned for by 2021.
North Herts Local Plan 1996 and Core Strategy & Development Policies Preferred Options 2007
The local plan 1996 seeks to restrain development pressures, maintain the existing pattern of settlements and countryside, and enhance the character of existing land uses in urban and rural areas.
Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan 2005 & Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD Preferred Options 2007
The local plan directs housing and economic development to within and adjoining the main urban areas, and in the strategic transportation corridors South West of Bedford and in East Bedfordshire.
The Core Strategy issues and options explores how housing and jobs required in the area should be accommodated.
Forest Heath Local Plan 1995 The Local Plan and the LDF Preferred Options focus
Habitats Regulations Assessment July 2009 24
OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES
SUMMARY
and Core Strategy & Development Policies Preferred Options Report October 2006 & Site Specific Policies & Allocations DPD Issues & Options Report 2006
development on existing towns. The Site Specific Policies and Allocations DPD will determine development boundaries for towns and villages and allocate sites for the required range of land-use and scale of development outlined in the Core Strategy.
St. Edmundsbury Local Plan 2006; Core Strategy and Policies DPD – Issues and options 2008
The Local Plan 1993 concentrates growth in housing, employment and service provision within existing urban areas. The Council has to make provision for 10,000 dwellings up to 2021.
King’s Lynn & West Norfolk Local Plan 1998 and Core Strategy Issues and Options 2 2008; DC Policies Preferred Options 2007
The Borough has to accommodate growth of 12,000 houses to be built up to 2021. The issues and options document aims to accommodate this development sustainably and is closely linked to the Sustainable Community Strategy.
Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2005;
Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction and waste sites, and allocates sites.
Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals DPD - Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan – Issues and Options (Jan 2006); issues and options 2 2008; Waste DPD – Core Strategy and Site Allocation Plan
Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction and waste sites, and allocates sites.
Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan 1998 (and review adopted 2007)
Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction, and allocates sites.
Hertfordshire Waste Local Plan 1998
Sets policies regarding proposals for waste sites, and allocates sites.
Hertfordshire Minerals & Waste DPDs Issues & Options & Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options Report, June 2007
Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction and waste sites, and allocates sites. The Waste Core Strategy sets out the spatial vision and strategic objectives for waste planning in the county. This will contain core policies needed to implement the overall objectives and covers the period to 2020.
Suffolk Minerals Local Plan 1999 & Minerals Core Strategy Submission 2007 & Minerals Specific Site Allocations DPD, April 2007
Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction, and allocates sites. The Core Strategy sets out the key elements of minerals planning framework for the county based on an agreed vision followed by aims and strategic objectives. The document also contains a suite of generic development control policies. The site allocations document
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 25
OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND STRATEGIES
SUMMARY
looks at 25 potential sites for new minerals and waste developments.
Suffolk Waste Local Plan 2006; Waste Issues Report 2007
Sets policies regarding proposals for waste, and allocates sites.
Bedford Borough Local Plan 2006 and Bedford Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan Adopted 2008
The local plan plans for 6349 new dwellings as well as other development. LDF provides a strategy for future development, principally in urban areas of key growth areas.
Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005; Core Strategy –preferred options 2007
Includes new development on the edge of Milton Keynes.
Buckinghamshire County Council Waste Local Plan 1997
Sets policies regarding proposals for waste, and allocates sites.
Buckinghamshire Minerals DPD – Preferred options 2007
Providing policies for planning for minerals
Buckinghamshire Waste DPD – Preferred options 2007
Providing policies for planning for waste.
Milton Keynes Waste DPD Submission 2007
Sets policies regarding proposals for waste.
Milton Keynes Minerals Local Plan 2006; Minerals DPD – preferred options 2007
Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction, and allocates sites.
Norfolk Waste Local Plan 2000 Sets policies regarding proposals for waste, and allocates sites.
Norfolk Minerals Local Plan 2004
Sets policies regarding proposals for minerals extraction, and allocates sites.
Norfolk Mineral and Waste Core Strategy and Development Control Document -Preferred options stage 2008
Sets out policies for both minerals and waste planning
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 29
INFORMATION ON THE NATURA 2000 SITES
NAME: EVERSDEN AND WIMPOLE WOODS
Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC) – UK0030331 SSSI boundary is the same as the SAC
LocationThe site is located in South Cambridgeshire District, but outside the area covered by the North West Cambridge Area Action Plan. The site is located close to Wimpole Park.
Grid ref: TL 340526 Area: 66.48 ha.
Primary reason for selection of the site Presence of colony of Barbastelle bats Barbastella barbastellus for which it is considered to be one of the best areas in UK.
Conservation objective To maintain, in favourable condition, the habitats for the population of Barbastelle bats.
General Site characteristicsBroadleaved deciduous woodland (100%)Soil and geology – Basic, Clay Geomorphology and Landscape – Lowland
SpeciesBarbastella barbastellus bats. This is one of the UK’s rarest mammals. The species is protected on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Site Description The site comprises a mixture of ancient coppice woodland (Eversden Wood) and high forest woods likely to be of more recent origin (Wimpole Wood). A colony of barbastelle bats is associated with the trees in Wimpole Woods. These trees are used as a summer maternity roost where the female bats gather to give birth and rear their young. Most of the roost sites are within tree crevices. The bats also use the site as a foraging area. Some of the woodland is also used as a flight path when bats forage outside the area.
Eversden Wood is species-rich example of ancient ash (Fraxinus excelsior) field maple (Acer campestre) – dog’s mercury (Mercurialis perennis) woodland and one of the largest remaining sites of this type on the Cambridgeshire chalky boulder-clay.
The woodland is predominantly relict coppice of ash and field maple over an understorey of hazel (Corylus avellana) with aspen (Populus tremula), birch (Betulasp) and small-leaved elm (Ulmus minor) also locally dominant.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 30
The ground flora is characterised by dog’s mercury and bluebell (Hyacinthoides non-scripta), and the damp soil conditions are reflected in the local abundance of associated plants such as meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria) and tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa). Many herbs typical of old woodlands are present including yellow archangel (Galeobdolon luteum), wood anemone (Anemone nemorosa) and the nationally scarce oxlip (Primula elatior) a species largely confined to damp chalky boulder-clay woods of eastern England. Other locally uncommon plants represented include herb-Paris(Paris quadrifolia), and, particularly on the drier wood banks, pignut (Conopodium majus) and hairy wood-rush (Luzula pilosa).
The woodland rides provide additional habitat diversity and support herbs such as ragged-Robin (Lychnis flos-cuculi) and false fox-sedge (Carex otrubae).
Management and ownership The primary management principles used for this site are those that maintain a regime of minimum management with little disturbance in order to protect the roosting sites in the woodland for the barbastelle bats.
Wimpole Woods is owned and managed by the National Trust and their management is aimed at maintaining and where possible, enhancing the barbastelle population.
Eversden Wood is privately owned and the current management is considered compatible with the use of this wood as a foraging area / flight path by barbastelles.
AccessThere is public access to the woods. Public rights of way go through both areas of woodland.
Wimpole Wood is near to Wimpole Park where the National Trust provide car parking for visitors to their estate. This is around 1km as the crow flies from the start of the woodland. There is also a minor road that runs between Wimpole and Eversden Woods and this provides very limited on road parking available closer to Eversden Wood but still some 500m away. This is not signposted as available for parking.
Current condition Natural England compiled a conditions report on Eversden and Wimpole Wood SSSI in 2008 (April report) and found that the site is meeting 100% of its PSA targets.1
The area is 100% favourable.2
Barbastelle bats require minimal disturbance within 2 km of their roost. They can forage up to 20km from their roosts but more typically venture around 6-8km. Barbastelle bats’ foraging routes radiate out from their roosting sites using a limited number of main routes, which split into major limbs and then into small branches.3
The main area of importance for them is shown on proposals map 1 in the 1 PSA target – the Government’s Public Service agreement (PSA) target to have 95% of the SSSI area in favourable or recovering condition by 2010. 2 Favourable condition means that the SSSI land is being adequately conserved and is meeting its conservation objectives. 3 Greenaway F (2004) Advice for the management of flightlines and foraging habitats of the barbastelle Bat Barbastella barbastellus, English Nature Research Report 657.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 31
Biodiversity Strategy published by South Cambridgeshire District Council in August 2006. It reflects the landscape and habitat of known value to bats, and also where survey effort has been deployed to date.
Vulnerability The current use of the woods, including public access, is considered compatible with the barbastelle interest and should not affect the barbastelle population or their roosts.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 32
NAME: DEVIL’S DYKE
Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC) – UK0030037
LocationThe site is located in East Cambridgeshire district and also extends into Forest Heath district in Suffolk.
Grid ref: TL 611622 Area: 8.02 ha.
Primary reason for selection of the site Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia). (important orchid sites)
Conservation Objective To maintain in favourable condition unimproved calcareous grassland with particular reference to semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (CG3 and CG5 grassland) and Himantoglossum hircinum lizard orchid.
General site characteristicsDry grassland. Steppes (100%) Soil and geology – Basic, Limestone. Geomorphology and landscape – Lowland
SpeciesCG3 Bromopsis erectaCG5 Bromopsis erecta – Brachypodium pinnatum calcareous grasslands Himantoglossum hircinum – lizard orchid Pulsatilla vulgaris - Pasque flower
Site Description This section is the most species rich of the Devil’s Dyke which as a whole stretches from the Fen Edge at Reach ending at Ditton Green. The section that is identified as a SAC is adjacent to Newmarket Heath. Devil’s Dyke consists of a mosaic of CG3 Bromopsis erecta and CG5 Bromopsis erecta – Brachypodium pinnatumcalcareous grasslands.
It is the only known UK semi-natural dry grassland site for lizard orchid Himantoglossum hircinum. Lizard orchid is nationally rare (i.e. occurring in 15 or fewer 10x10 km squares) and is vulnerable in Great Britain. It is restricted to calcareous grasslands and dunes in southern England.
Management and ownership The dyke is in private ownership. There is a Devil’s Dyke Restoration Project set up which is a partnership scheme involving Natural England, English Heritage, Cambridgshire Wildlife Trust and the Cambridgshire County Council working with landowners and managers and local people. The aim of the project is to restore the dyke and there is an agreed management plan. The species rich calcareous
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 33
grassland requires active management without which it rapidly becomes dominated by rank grasses which leads to the encroachment of scrub over time. Traditional management is by grazing.
The Pasque flower is a speciality of the dyke and a Local Species Action Plan has been produced for this plant.
AccessThere is a public right of way running along the dyke. There is parking available at the July Race course, Newmarket.
Current condition As grazing declined in the early part of the twentieth century scrub has encroached onto many areas of the dyke. In the SAC area there had been some scrub encroachment on the southern part of the site and some clearance work has been undertaken. Surveys have been carried out by Natural England of the Dyke - the latest being in July 2008 and a report compiled in December 2008 concluded that the dyke is in a favourable condition. However in May 2002 the site was meeting 100% of its PSA targets and this has now reduced to 86% of its targets.
Vulnerability Although clearance work has been undertaken there will need to be control over any regrowth of scrub and any weediness of this section.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 34
NAME: FENLAND
Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC) – UK 0014782 There are three fens that together form the Fenland SAC
1. Wicken Fen 2. Chippenham Fen 3. Woodwalton Fen
Each site is also a Ramsar site.
LocationWicken Fen and Chippenham Fen are in East Cambridgeshire District; Woodwalton Fen is in Huntingdonshire District.
Grid ref: Wicken Fen TL 555700; Chippenham Fen TL 648697; Woodwalton Fen TL 230840
Area: 618.64 ha.
Primary reason for selection of site for SAC Molinia meadows on calcareous peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) – considered to be one of the best areas in UK.
Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae – considered to be rare as its total extent in the UK is estimated to be less than 1,000 ha; considered to be one of the best areas in UK.
Conservation objective To maintain in favourable condition:
�� Molinia meadows on chalk and clay (Eu- Molinion community) �� Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus (great fen sedge) and species of the
Caricion davallianae vegetation community.
To maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the population of spined loach and great crested newts.
General site characteristicsBog. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (70%) Broadleaved deciduous woodland (20%) Inland water body (standing water, running water) (5%) Other arable land (5%)
Soil and geology – Basic, peat Geomorphology – Floodplain, Lowland
SpeciesMolinion caeruleae
Cladium mariscus
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 35
Caricion davallianae Cobitis taenia (Spined loach) Triturus cristatus (Great crested newt)
Current conditions The fenland grasslands are dependent upon traditional management practices of cutting and grazing by livestock. In recent decades scrub and woodland have spread at the expense of fen vegetation. Appropriate water management is vital to maintenance of the special feature. The three constituent sites are all National Nature Reserves and the site management plans include actions to address this problem.
DESCRIPTION OF EACH SITE THAT TOGETHER FORMS THE FENLAND SAC
1. WICKEN FEN
LocationThis site is in East Cambridgeshire District.
Area: 254 ha.
Reason for Ramsar allocation Criterion 1 – One of the most outstanding remnants of East Anglian peat fens. The area is one of the few, which has not been drained. Traditional management has created a mosaic of habitats from open water to sedge and litter fields.
Criterion 2 - The site supports one species of British Red Data Book plant fen violet Viola persicifolia which survives at only two other sites in Britain. It contains eight nationally scarce plants and 121 British Red Data invertebrates.
Site description This site is a marginal remnant of the original peat fenland of the East Anglian basin. It has been preserved as a flood catchment area, and its water level is controlled by sluice gates.
The original peat fen lies to the north of Wicken Lodge. The site here supports fen communities of carr and sedge. The carr scrub is largely of alder buckthorn Frangulaalnus, buckthorn Rhamnus catharticus and sallow over a sparse vegetation of fen plants and including marsh fen Thelypteris palustris. The more open areas of sedge fen are typically of tall grasses, saw sedge Cladium mariscus, purple moor grass Molina caerulea, sedges Carex spp and rushes Juncus spp.
Nationally important higher plants include Viola persicifolia, Lathyrus palustris, Myriophyllum verticillatum, Oenanthe fluviatilis and milk parsley Peucedanum palustre.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 36
To the south of the Wicken Lode, the area is of rough pasture land, reedbed and pools which are attractive to breeding wetland birds and to wintering wildfowl, the area being subjected to winter flooding.
The dykes, abandoned claypits and other watercourses carry a great wealth of aquatic plants. Many, such as greater spearwort Ranunculus flammula and lesser water-plaintain Baldellia ranunculoides are now uncommon elsewhere.
Management and ownershipThe site is owned by the National Trust and managed by a local management committee, which reports to the East Anglian Regional Office of the National Trust.
The continuation of the historic systems of management and the effective monitoring and maintenance of water levels underlies the Fen’s ecology and are crucial for the success of all other management practices. The Fen is artificially protected from drying out by a water-retaining membrane.
AccessThere is a visitor centre and shop, nature trails, three hides and 16km of walking routes. Entry is by permit only to help control visitor numbers. Visitors are also managed by ‘zoning ‘ parts of the Fen near the entrance, leaving the more remote parts of the site relatively undisturbed. The Fen is open throughout the year from dawn to dusk.
Current conditions Natural England has compiled a report about the condition of the SSSI (December 2008). Only 36% of the site is meeting PSA targets. 53% is unfavourable declining.
Vulnerability The reason for the adverse conditions is related to inappropriate water levels in the fen, marsh and swamp areas.
Work carried out in the nearby river system to prevent flooding in the 1960s means that the site no longer receives the amount of winter water as it did in the past. This has brought about a lowering of the water table over the past 40 years (Ramsar Report 5.5.06).
2. CHIPPENHAM FEN
LocationThis site is in East Cambridgeshire District Council.
Area: 112 ha.
Reason for Ramsar allocation Criterion 1 - A spring-fed calcareous basin mire with a long history of management which is partly reflected in the diversity of the present-day vegetation.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 37
Criterion 2 – The invertebrate fauna is very rich partly due to its transitional position between Fenland and Breckland. The species list is very long, including many rare and scarce invertebrates characteristics of ancient fenland sites in GB. Criterion 3 – The site supports diverse vegetation types, rare and scarce plants. The site is the stronghold of Cambridge milk parsley Selinum carvifolia
Site descriptionThe site comprises areas of tall and often rich fen, fen grassland and basic flush that have developed over shallow peat soils. The site also contains calcareous grassland, neutral grassland, woodland, mixed scrub and open water.
The site is in a shallow peat-filled depression underlain by a thick layer of marl which rises to the surface in places. The fen is fed by rainfall and springs from the chalk aquifer. There are several ponds on the site and a system of dykes take water from the springs, in the south of the reserve, to the Chippenham River, near its northern boundary.
The areas of tall fen are dominated by a mosaic of saw sedge Cladium mariscus and reed Phragmites australis are present with abundant purple moor grass Moliniacaerulea. A rich fen has developed in mown areas supporting the nationally rare Selinum carvifolia. In one area this merges into a species rich basic flush where black bog rush Schoenus nigricans becomes abundant. Dense and scattered scrub has developed. There are areas of chalk grassland that grade into the fen grassland. The damp neutral grassland meadows are developing a fen meadow flora. The ditches support a rich aquatic flora.
The water level is controlled within a series of ditches.
Because the fen contains such a wide range of habitats it supports a wide variety of breeding bird species, including hobby, short eared owl, nightingale and several species of warbler. It also forms the winter roosting for hen harriers.
Management and ownership Both the site and surrounding areas are privately owned. Part of the site is under unspecified tenure. The site is mainly used for nature conservation
The site is actively managed by Natural England through regular cutting and grazing with cattle. Encroaching scrub is being removed to restore fen where appropriate. A water compensation scheme has been instituted to ameliorate the effects of water abstraction. The Environment Agency monitors groundwater changes in the aquifer.
AccessThere are rights of way across the site. Access away from the paths is by permit only. The nearest car parking is in the villages of Fordham or Chippenham.
There is a low level of usage by local inhabitants using the rights of way through the middle of the site according to the Ramsar information sheet. Few people apply for permits for recreational purposes, they are mainly requested by naturalists.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 38
Current conditions For reporting purposes the SSSI is divided into 17 units. 85.41% of the area is meeting the PSA target.
Chippenham Fen NNR has suffered from a changed hydrological regime due to abstraction from the underlying chalk aquifer. This problem is being addressed through supply of supplementary water together with a programme of vegetation and invertebrate population monitoring. This project is being taken forward by Natural England, the Environment Agency and Anglian Water Services plc.
Vulnerability There is considerable pressure in the region from the water abstraction that may affect the local springs and aquifer. Persistent drought is a potential threat as seven of nine years in the recent past have received well below average rainfall for the regions (Report dated 2002).
The habitats within the site are highly sensitive to inorganic fertilisers and pesticides, applications of which should be avoided both within the site itself and in adjacent surrounding areas.
3. WOODWALTON FEN
LocationThis fen is in Huntingdonshire District.
Area: 229.7 ha.
Reason for Ramsar allocation Criterion 1 – The site is within an area of one of the remaining parts of East Anglia which has not been drained.
Criterion 2 – The site supports two species of British Red Data Book plants - fen violet and fen wood rush.
Site descriptionThis fen holds a range of wetland plant communities once characteristic of large areas of the East Anglian fens. The site was once a raised bog associated with the former Whittlesey Mere and was dug for peat in the late 19th century when most of the acidic peat was removed, exposing the underlying fen peat. The vegetation of the area today largely reflects this historical use of the site. The open fen and swamp communities represented are of several types. A relict of the acid peat holds stands of purple moor-grass Molinia caerulea with ling Calluna vulgaris, bog myrtle Myrica gale, tormentil Potentilla erecta and the saw sedge Cladium mariscus. Afurther swamp community is dominated by purple small-reed Calamagrostis epigejos.Mixed fen covers a significant part of the site. This vegetation community is floristically rich and contains species such as meadow rue Thalictrum flavum, yellow iris Iris pseudacorus, swamp meadow-grass Poa palustris and great water dock Rumex hydrolapathum. Rare fen plants such as the fen wood-rush Luzulapallescens and fen violet Viola persicifolia occur.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 39
Of particular note is the network of ditches on the site and these hold many water plants which are now relatively uncommon in Britain including bladderwort Urticulariavulgaris and water violet Hottonia palustris. In addition, two meres have been dug in order to increase the area of standing water on the site and these have proved valuable for aquatic plant and animal communities. Further habitats of significance on the site include marshy grassland, birch and alder woodland and fen carr. The carr is varied in composition and contains willow Salix spp., blackthorn Prunusspinosa, birch betula spp and guelder rose Viburnum opulus.
The whole site is a patchwork of wetland communities, providing a habitat for many uncommon plant and insect species-a number of which are confined to East Anglia.
Management and ownership The site was purchased by Hon Charles Rothschild in 1910 and donated to the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves (now the Royal Society for Nature Conservation) in 1919. Since the 1950s the pro-active management of the site has sought to reverse the drying out process and therefore conserve this crucial fenland habitat. The site is leased from the Wildlife Trust to Natural England.
The effective monitoring and maintenance of water levels underlies the Fen ecology and is crucial for the success of all other management practises. A Water Level Management Plan has been implemented and the site is flooded in winter in time of high water flows thus protecting low-lying farmland. However as a consequence nutrient levels in the water can be high due to agricultural runoff. Water inflows and outflows are strictly controlled. In the 1980s clay sealed banks were constructed around the perimeter of the reserve, this isolated water levels on the fen from that of the surrounding area.
The Great Fen project aims to link this nature reserve with Holme Fen.
AccessParking is limited at this site – some being available alongside the Great Raveley Drain. There are three marked trails around the fen following the rides. There are no public rights of way across the reserve but visitors are allowed access to the site. There is restricted access to some areas of the site and no dogs are allowed onto any part of the site.
Current condition Woodwalton Fen takes water in the summer months from the surrounding drains. In the winter months the fen is designed to be used as a flood storage area, although this occurs infrequently. In both these circumstances the water entering the Fen is high in nutrients from agricultural run-off. It is intended to undertake research to investigate what effects the flooding may be having on the site's interests.
Considerable work has been undertaken to help progress the reed beds towards favourable conditions including annual cutting and installation of windpump to control water levels. Further scrub removal is programmed to be carried out. Major scrub clearance and coppice management work is to be completed by 2008.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 40
Vulnerability The area is meeting 100% of the PSA target. The quality of the water from the agricultural run-off needs to be monitored.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 41
NAME: OUSE WASHES
Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site – UK0013011. The boundaries of the Ramsar site as extended are coincident with those of the Ouse Washes SSSI.
LocationThis site is located in East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and West Norfolk Districts.
Grid reference: TL 498895
Area: 2,403 ha. (Ramsar site and SSI site): 311.35 ha. (SAC site).
Primary reason for selection of this site as SAC Spined loach Cobitis taenia – This site is only one of four known outstanding localities in the UK.
Conservation objective: To maintain, in favourable condition, the habitats for the populations of Annexe 1species (Bewicks swan, whooper swan, hen harrier, spotted crake, and ruff) migratory species of European importance (widgeon, gadwall, pintail, shoveler, pochard and black-tailed Godwit) and wintering waterfowl assemblage of European importance, with particular reference to grassland / marshy grassland with ditches and open water.
Also to maintain in favourable condition the habitat for spined loach.
General site characteristicsInland water bodies (standing water, running water) (50%) Bogs Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (20%) Improved grassland (30%)
Site Description The Ouse Washes represent spined loach populations within the River Ouse catchment. The Counter Drain with its clear water and abundant macrophytes is particularly important and a healthy population of spined loach is known to occur.
The site is an area of seasonally flooded washlands habitat managed in a traditional agricultural manner. The washlands support nationally and internationally important numbers of wintering waterfowl and nationally important numbers of breeding waterfowl. The site is also of note for the large area of unimproved neutral grassland communities, which it holds, and for the richness of the aquatic flora within the associated watercourses.
Reasons for identification as a Ramsar Site The Ouse Washes Ramsar site and its proposed extension is a wetland of major international importance comprising seasonally flooded washlands, which are
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 42
agriculturally managed in a traditional manner. It provides breeding and winter habitats for important assemblages of wetland bird species, particularly wildfowl and waders.
Ramsar Criterion 1a - The site qualifies by being a particularly good representative example of a natural or near-natural wetland characteristic of its biogeographical region. It is one of the most extensive areas of seasonally flooding washland of its type in Britain, and the wetland has high conservation value for many plant and animal groups.
Ramsar Criterion 2a - The site qualifies by supporting a number of rare species of plants and animals. The site holds several nationally scarce plants, including the whorled water-milfoil Myriophyllum verticillatum, greater water parsnip Sium latifolium, river water-dropwort Oenanthe fluviatilis, fringed water-lily Nymphoidespeltata, long stalked pondweed Potamogeton praelongus, hair-like pondweed Potamogeton trichoides, grass-wrack pondweed Potamogeton compressus,tasteless water-pepper Polygonum mite, small water-pepper Polygonum minusand marsh dock Rumex palustris. Invertebrate records indicate that the site holds a good relict fenland fauna for several groups, reflecting the diversity of wetland habitats. Two rare Red Data Book insects have been recorded, the large darter dragonfly Libellula fulva and the riffle beetle Oulimnius major.
Ramsar Criterion 2a - The Ouse Washes also qualifies by supporting a diverse assemblage of rare breeding waterfowl associated with seasonally flooding wet grassland. This includes breeding migratory waders of lowland wet grassland: oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, redshank Tringa totanus, snipe Gallinagogallinago, ruff Phdomachus pugnax. lapwing Vanellus vanellus, and black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa, and a diverse assemblage of breeding wildfowl with mute swan Cygnus olor, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, gadwall Anas strepera, teal A.crecca, mallard A. platyritynchus, pintail A. acuta, garganey A. querquedu" shoveler A. clypeata, pochard Aythya ferina, tufted duck Aythya fuligulaa,moorhen Gallinula chloropus and coot Fulica atra occurring regularly. Many of these species are rare and much restricted in Britain and the European Community owing to habitat loss and degradation. The site thus has an important role in maintaining the ranges of several of these species, which have been affected by changes in habitat elsewhere in Britain. Breeding gadwall, mallard, garganey A. querquedula, shoveler and bar-tailed godwit are all present in nationally important numbers.
Ramsar Criterion 5 - The Ouse Washes qualifies as a wetland of international importance by virtue of regularly supporting over 20,000 waterfowl, with an average peak count of 60,950 birds recorded in the five winter periods 1986/7 to 1990/91.
Ramsar Criterion 6 - The Ouse Washes also qualifies by supporting, in winter, internationally important populations of the following species (figures given are average peak counts for the five winter period 1986/87 - 1990/91): 4,980 Bewick's swan Cygnus columbarius bewicki (29% of the north-west European wintering population); 590 whooper swans Cygnus Cygnus (3% of the
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 43
international population); 38,000 wigeon Anas penelope (5% of the north-west European population); 4,100 teal A. crecca (1% of NW European); 1,450 pintail Anas acuta (2% NW European); and 750 shoveler Anas clypeata (2% of NW European). Also notable are the following nationally important wintering populations: 270 cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (2% of the British wintering population); 490 mute swan Cygnus olor (3% of British); 320 gadwall Anasstrepera (5% of British); 2,100 pochard Aythya ferina (4% of British); 860 tufted duck Aythya fuligula (1 % of British); and 2,320 coot Fulica atra.
During severe winter weather elsewhere, the Ouse Washes can assume even greater national and international importance as wildfowl and waders from many other areas arrive, attracted by the relatively mild climate, compared with continental European areas, and the abundant food resources available.
The continued international importance of this site is dependant on the maintenance of a winter flooding regime and a high, but controlled summer water table.
Reasons for identification as a Special Protection Area The Ouse Washes Ramsar site and the Special Protection Area is a wetland of major international importance comprising seasonally flooded wash lands, which are agriculturally managed in a traditional manner. It provides breeding and winter habitats for important assemblages of wetland bird species, particularly wildfowl and waders.
The boundaries of the Special Protection Area are coincident with those of the Ouse Washes SSSI, apart from the exclusion of a section of the Old Bedford River in the north of the SSSI.
The Ouse Washes qualifies under Article 4.1 of the EC Birds Directive by supporting, in summer, a nationally important breeding population of ruff Philomachus pugnax, an Annex 1 species. In recent years an average of 57 individuals have been recorded, a significant proportion of the British population.
The site also qualifies under Article 4.1 by regularly supporting internationally or nationally important wintering populations of three Annex 1 species. During the five year period 1986/87 to 1990/91, the following average peak counts were recorded: 4,980 Bewick's swan Cygnus columbarius bewickii (29% of the north-west European wintering population, 70% of the British wintering population), and 590 whooper swans Cygnus Cygnus (3% of the international population, 10% of British). In addition, between 1982-87 an average of 12 wintering hen harrier Circus cyaneus was recorded, representing 2% of the British wintering population.
The Ouse Washes qualifies under Article 4.2 by supporting, in summer, in recent years, nationally important breeding populations of five migratory species: 111 pairs of gadwall Anas strepera (20% of the British breeding population); 850 pairs of mallard Anas platyrhynchus (2% of British); 14 pairs of garganey Anas querquedula (20% of British), 155 pairs of shoveler A. clypeata (12% of British), and 26 pairs of black-tailed godwits Limosa limosa (44% of British).
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 44
The site further qualifies under Article 42 as a wetland of international importance by virtue of regularly supporting over 20,000 waterfowl, with an average peak count of 60,950 birds recorded in the five winter period 1986/1 to 1990/'91. This total included-internationally or nationally important wintering populations of the following migratory waterfowl (figures given are average peak counts for the five winter period 1986/87 - 1990/91): 270 cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo (296 of the British wintering population); 490 mute swan Cygnus olor (3% of British); 38,000 wigeon Anas penelope (596 of the north-west European population, 1596 of British); 320 gadwall Anas strepera (5% of British); 4,100 teal A. crecca (1% of NW European, 4% of British); 1,450 pintail Anas acuta (2% NW European, 6% of British); 750 shoveler Anas clvpeata (2% of NW European, 8% of British); 2,100 pochard Aythya ferina (4% of British): 860 tufted duck Aythya fuligula (1% of British); and 2,320 coot Fulica atra (l % of British).
The site also qualifies under Article 4.2 by virtue of regularly supporting, in summer, a diverse assemblage of the breeding migratory waders of lowland wet grassland including: oystercatcher Haematopus ostmlegus, redshank Tringa totanus, snipe Gallinago gallinago, Ruff Philomachus pugnax lapwing Vanellus vanellus, and black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa; and a diverse assemblage of breeding wildfowl with mute swan Cygnus olor, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, gadwall Anas strepera, teal A. crecca, mallard A. platvrhynchus, pintail A. acuta, garganey A. querquedula, shoveler A. clypeata, pochard Aythya farina, tufted duck Aythya fuligula, moorhen Gallinula chloropus and coot Fulica atra occurring regularly. Many of these species are rare and much restricted in Britain and the European Community owing to habitat loss and degradation. The site thus has an important role in maintaining the ranges of several of these species, which have been affected by changes in habitat elsewhere in Britain.
During severe winter weather elsewhere, the Ouse Washes can assume even greater national and international importance as wildfowl and waders from many other areas arrive, attracted by the relatively mild climate, compared with continental European areas, and the abundant food resources available.
The continued international importance of this site is dependant on the maintenance of a winter flooding regime and a high, but controlled summer water table.
Management and ownership Given the extent of the Ouse Washes there are a number of management techniques that need to be carried out in the washes. Wetland grassland requires active management if it is to retain its conservation interest this has traditionally been done by grazing. Partial winter flooding is required to maintain suitable habitat conditions for wintering birds. A mosaic of winter flooded grassland and permanently un-flooded grassland is desirable. Ditches are artificial habitats created by land drainage – if left unmanaged silt accumulates in the bottom of the ditches leading to the loss the range of aquatic plants and animals colonising the ditches. There needs to be a rotation undertaken on ditch management. Also the level of water in the ditches and its quality needs to be regulated to maintain the
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 45
optimum level for the plant and animal community. All the habitats are highly sensitive to inorganic fertilisers and pesticides.
Access There is a network of public rights of way in the Washes. The RSPB manage a nature reserve at Welches Dam where there is a visitor centre and a number of bird hides. The WWT manage a nature reserve at Welney, Norfolk also with a centre and hides.
Current condition Assessment work was carried out in 2003 and at this time many of the units that comprise the Washes were in an unfavourable state. Only 12.93% of the site meets the PSA target. The water quality regularly fails to meet total Phosphorus target of 0.1mg/l. Until this can be remedied the site will continue to remain unfavourable.
Vulnerability Two independent and parallel rivers comprise the SAC. The Counter Drain / Old Bedford (known also as the outer river) drains adjacent farmland. The Old Bedford / Delph (known also as the inner river) is sourced by the River Great Ouse. During the winter and increasingly during the spring and summer months as well, the inner river takes flood-water from the Great Ouse, and therefore has an important flood defence function. Issues of concern relate to water quantity, water quality, salinity, turbidity and sediment.
The need to ensure there is sufficient water for the rivers is addressed through the Water Level Management Plan agreed by the Environment Agency and partner organisations. The outer river is also a source of water for nearby arable land forming spray irrigation, but this abstraction is unmetered for the most part. Abstraction of water from the Great Ouse system to Essex via the Ely-Ouse Transfer Scheme is monitored through the Denver License Variation. Other proposals for water abstraction, e.g. to Rutland Water by Anglia Water, have been the subject of assessment, but there are no current proposals.
Water quality is a major issue of concern. Increases in two plant nutrients - nitrogen and particularly phosphorus (thought to be derived from sewage treatment works) - are leading to changes in the macrophyte communities, shown by a decline in species diversity and the loss of species together with an increase in species tolerant of eutrophic conditions. This is particularly apparent in the inner river. There is evidence that agricultural inputs are a minor component. In addition, blanket-weed (aquatic algae) poses problems to navigation and angling, leading to issues of timing and frequency of aquatic weed-cutting. Water quality issues are currently the subject of debate between the Environment Agency and Natural England. Three sewage treatment works in the Great Ouse will be covered by the Urban Waste Water Directive, but there remain more than 90 smaller works. These will be subject to the Review of Consents to be undertaken by the Environment Agency within the next four years. A case could be prepared and submitted to OFWAT and the Water Industries AMP 4 Programme commencing 2005, in order to strip phosphates from all relevant sewage treatment works in the system.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 46
In addition, flood water draining off the adjacent Ouse Washes into the inner river can be of a very poor quality (particularly in warm weather) leading to problems of deoxygenation with resultant fish-kills. The frequency of increased spring and summer flooding on the Ouse Washes is currently being studied to ascertain ways of ameliorating its effects.
Saline intrusion through the northernmost tidal lock gate may be contributing to an increase in salinity levels of the outer river.
Conditions must be applied to planning permissions for gravel extraction from quarries near to the SAC, to ensure that drainage water from de-watering and washings does not affect the turbidity and sediment levels in the outer river.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 47
NAME: PORTHOLME
Designation and CodeSpecial Area of Conservation (SAC) – UK0030054.
LocationThis site is within Huntingdonshire District.
Grid reference: TL 237708 Area: 91.93 ha.
Primary reason for selection of this site Lowland hay meadows MG4Alopecurus pratensis Sanguisorba officinalis – considered to be one of the best areas in UK.
Conservation objectives To maintain in favourable condition the lowland hay meadow. General site characteristicsHumid grassland (100%) Soil and geology – Alluvial, Neutral Geomorphology and landscape – Floodplain, Lowland.
SpeciesAlopecurus pratensis Sanguisorba officinalis Fritillaria meleagrisLibellula fulva.
Site Description It is the largest surviving traditionally managed meadow in the UK with an area of 104 ha. of alluvial flood meadow (7% of the total UK resource). It is almost completely surrounded by water. There has been a long history of favourable management on traditional lines as a ‘lammas’ meadow and very little of the site has suffered from agricultural improvement, and so it demonstrates good conservation of structure and function. It supports a small population of fritillary (Fritillaria meleagris).Watercourses on the periphery of the site have populations of some uncommon invertebrates including one dragonfly, which is of a nationally restricted distribution.
The grassland communities are characterised by the presence of such grasses as Yorkshire fog Holcus lanatus, yellow oat-grass Trisetum flavescens, meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis,and meadow fescue Festuca pratensis. The range of herbs present, typical of such meadows, includes lady’s bedstraw Galium verum, pepper-saxifrage Silaum silaus and great burnet Sanguisorba officinalis. A number of locally rare and one nationally rare plant are also present.
Channels of the River Ouse surround the meadow, and the Alconbury Brook is close by. These water bodies are important for dragonflies (Odonata) in particular the restricted dragonfly Libellula fulva.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 48
Large flocks of waders use this site in winter.
Management and ownership The London Anglers Association owns the site and is advised on the management of the site by Natural England.
Neutral grassland requires active management if it is to retain its conservation interest. In order to maintain a species rich sward, each year’s growth of vegetation must be removed; otherwise the sward becomes progressively dominated by tall and vigorous grasses. These, together with an associated build up of dead plant matter, suppress less vigorous species and reduce the botanical diversity of the site.
The traditional management of this site, which still continues, is by cutting for hay followed by grazing of the aftermath in later summer until the autumn. In winter and early spring Portholme is inundated by floodwaters. This provides natural fertilising of the soil and it is this seasonal flooding coupled with the traditional management that maintains the diversity of the natural plant communities.
Part of the site is subject to a Countryside Stewardship agreement aimed at maintaining the alluvial flood meadow. The Environment Agency has produced a Water Level Management plan, which aims to maintain the current water level management regime in the long term and recommends improvements in data collection on water levels and flooding frequency. The recommendation will be incorporated in the relevant Local Environment Agency Plan (due to go to consultation in 1999).
In the past MAFF had sponsored dipwell monitoring of the meadows. Water table levels are vital to the management of this site. Currently no monitoring is being carried out. Anglian Water Services (AWS) is required to produce a statutory water company drought plan under the requirements of the new s39B of the Water Industry Act 1991 as introduced by the Water Act 2003. For each site, potential changes arising from the drought actions have been identified and the existence and adequacy of current monitoring programmes has been provisionally assessed. For the most part, existing monitoring are adequate for monitoring the effects of the drought actions. In relation to Portholme it recommends in the 2006 Drought Plan the following:
‘One site (Portholme Meadow) has been monitored in the past and this work is probably sufficient to determine a baseline. However, no monitoring is currently being undertaken. Previous modelling studies suggest that reductions in river water levels are likely to be very small and are therefore unlikely to have any effect on riparian water table levels in adjacent meadows or water levels in adjacent gravel pits.’
AccessThere are three main entrances to the meadow and visitors can walk around the site on the extensive footpaths, which lead off the main entrances. The footpaths form a triangle across the meadow and each footpath is approximately 1.6km in length.
July 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment 49
Current condition The units of the site were assessed in June 2005 and 2006 and it was found to have inappropriate cutting / mowing regimes and inappropriate weed control. The site was not meeting the PSA target at all. 90.92% of the area was seen to be in unfavourable but remaining unchanged i.e. not in decline. Overall the sward composition and structure were well within the criteria recommended for MG4 grassland however the unit failed on the frequency of Rumex crispus.
Vulnerability Without a controlled management plan the site will not retain its conservation interest.
July 2008 Habitats Regulations Assessment 53
MAPS
CONTENTS
Site maps for each Natura 2000 site
Map 1 Eversden and Wimpole Woods Map 2 Devil’s Dyke Map 3 Fenland - Wicken Fen Map 4 Fenland - Chippenham Fen Map 5 Fenland - Woodwalton Fen Map 6 Ouse Washes - North Map 7 Ouse Washes – South Map 8 Portholme
Map 9 Major Development Sites
Maps showing the extent of SAC sites; SPA sites and Ramsar sites in relation to the Traveller and gypsy sites proposed within South Cambridgeshire District including a 5km radius from each designated site. Index of sites in table below
Map 10 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) Map 11 Special Protection Areas (SPA) Map 12 Ramsar sites
Table showing index of sites
SiteNumber Location Address Number of
Pitches
1 Edge of Cambridge Sandy Park, Chesterton Fen Road 28
2 Edge of Cambridge Plots 1, 3 & 5 Sandy Park, Chesterton Fen Road 17
3 Edge of Cambridge Cambridge East 20
4 Edge of Cambridge
North West Cambridge – Land between Huntingdon Road and Histon Road 10
5 Edge of Cambridge
North West Cambridge – Land between Madingley Road and Huntingdon Road (University Site) 10
6 Northstowe Northstowe 20 7 Cambourne Cambourne 10 8 Fulbourn Ida Darwin Hospital 5
9 Willingham Grange Park, Foxes Meadow, Iram Drove (off Priest Lane) 1
10 Willingham Plots 1 & 2 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 11 Willingham Plots 3 & 4 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2 12 Willingham Plots 5 & 6 Cadwin Lane, Schole Road 2
13 Willingham Land to rear of Long Acre and Green Acres, Meadow Road 3
July 2008 Habitats Regulations Assessment 54
SiteNumber Location Address Number of
Pitches
14 Willingham Land to rear of Longacre, Meadow Road (1) 1
15 Willingham Land to rear of Longacre, Meadow Road (2) 1
16 Willingham Site of storage/agricultural buildings east of Long Acre, Meadow Road 1
17 Willingham The Oaks, Meadow Road 1
18 Bassingbourn Land at Spring Lane 5
19 Swavesey Rose & Crown Road 8
20 Whaddon New Farm, Old North Road 2
21Milton
(Edge of Cambridge)
Blackwell Traveller site, Milton - Transit Site option 10
22 Meldreth Travelling Showpeople Site option 6
July 2008 Habitats Regulations Assessment 79
APPENDIX 4
Habitats Directive Assessment Screening Matrix
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
81
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
APP
END
IX 4
- H
AB
ITA
TS R
EGU
LATI
ON
S A
SSES
SMEN
T SC
REE
NIN
G M
ATR
IX
SCR
EEN
ING
MA
TRIX
For
Eve
rsde
n an
d W
impo
le W
ood
SAC
Nam
e, lo
catio
n an
d su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f N
atur
a 20
00 s
ite
Ever
sden
and
Wim
pole
Woo
ds (g
rid lo
catio
n TL
340
526)
Rea
son
for d
esig
natio
n as
SA
C –
Pre
senc
e of
col
ony
of
Bar
bast
elle
bat
s (B
arba
stel
la b
arba
stel
lus
)
Thes
e w
oods
com
pris
e a
mix
ture
of a
ncie
nt c
oppi
ce w
oodl
and
(Eve
rsde
n W
ood)
and
hig
h fo
rest
woo
ds li
kely
to b
e of
mor
e re
cent
orig
in (W
impo
le W
oods
). A
col
ony
of b
arba
stel
le b
ats
is
asso
ciat
ed w
ith th
e tre
es in
Wim
pole
Woo
ds.
Thes
e tre
es a
re
used
as
a su
mm
er m
ater
nity
roos
t whe
re th
e fe
mal
e ba
ts g
athe
r to
give
birt
h an
d re
ar th
eir y
oung
. M
ost o
f the
roos
t site
s ar
e w
ithin
tre
e cr
evic
es.
The
bats
als
o us
e th
e si
te a
s fo
ragi
ng a
rea.
Som
e of
the
woo
dlan
d is
als
o us
ed a
s a
fligh
t pat
h w
hen
bats
fora
ge
outs
ide
the
site
. Th
is is
one
of t
he U
K’s
rare
st m
amm
als.
This
site
is lo
cate
d in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Dis
trict
.
Are
ther
e ot
her p
roje
cts
or p
lans
that
toge
ther
with
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 c
ould
affe
ct E
vers
den
and
Wim
pole
Woo
d?
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Doc
umen
t (G
TDP
D)
will
pro
vide
a v
isio
n fo
r the
futu
re o
f Gyp
sies
and
Tra
velle
rs in
S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd w
ill s
et o
ut p
olic
ies
and
prop
osal
s as
th
ey re
late
to p
lann
ing
for G
ypsi
es a
nd T
rave
llers
in th
e D
istri
ct.
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge id
entif
ies
site
opt
ions
for G
ypsy
an
d Tr
avel
ler p
itche
s an
d Tr
avel
ling
Sho
wpe
ople
Plo
ts, a
nd d
raft
polic
ies
for i
nclu
sion
in th
e fin
al D
PD
.
The
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Cor
e S
trate
gy p
rovi
des
the
over
all
spat
ial s
trate
gy fo
r dev
elop
men
t in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
. Th
ere
are
othe
r pla
ns in
the
Sout
h C
ambr
idge
shire
LD
F, in
clud
ing
vario
us A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
ns fo
r urb
an e
xten
sion
s to
Cam
brid
ge, o
ne
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
82
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
AA
P fo
r a n
ew s
ettle
men
t at N
orth
stow
e an
d th
e S
ite S
peci
fic
DP
D, w
hich
cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly in
dire
ctly
affe
ct th
e si
te.
Thes
e pl
ans
prov
ide
deta
il to
the
fram
ewor
k pr
ovid
ed in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy, i
nclu
ding
allo
catio
ns o
f lan
d fo
r dev
elop
men
t.
Oth
er re
leva
nt p
lans
: ��
Cam
brid
ge C
ity C
ore
Stra
tegy
(DP
D) –
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns
(Reg
25)
, 200
7 ��
Cam
brid
ge L
ocal
Pla
n 20
04
��H
untin
gdon
shire
Loc
al P
lan
1995
��
Hun
tingd
onsh
ire C
ore
Stra
tegy
Sub
mis
sion
Dra
ft 20
08 &
D
evel
opm
ent C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
Issu
es &
Opt
ions
R
epor
t, 20
07
��C
ambr
idge
shire
and
Pet
erbo
roug
h M
iner
als
and
Was
te
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 –
Sep
tem
ber 2
008.
��
Bed
ford
shire
and
Lut
on M
iner
als
and
Was
te L
ocal
Pla
n 20
05��
Bed
ford
shire
and
Lut
on M
iner
als
Cor
e S
trate
gy a
nd S
ite
Allo
catio
n P
lan
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
(Jan
200
6); I
ssue
s an
d O
ptio
ns 2
200
8; W
aste
DP
D –
Cor
e S
trate
gy a
nd S
ite
Allo
catio
n P
lan
2006
��
Her
tford
shire
Min
eral
s Lo
cal P
lan
1998
(and
revi
ew
adop
ted
2007
) ��
Her
tford
shire
Was
te L
ocal
Pla
n 19
98
��H
ertfo
rdsh
ire M
iner
als
& W
aste
DP
Ds
Issu
es &
Opt
ions
&
Was
te C
ore
Stra
tegy
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns R
epor
t, Ju
ne 2
007
��B
edfo
rd B
orou
gh L
ocal
Pla
n 20
06 a
nd B
edfo
rd C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
Rur
al Is
sues
Pla
n A
dopt
ed 2
008
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
83
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Land
Tak
e by
D
evel
opm
ent
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
doe
s no
t pro
pose
any
opt
ions
that
will
take
land
from
Wim
pole
an
d E
vers
den
Woo
ds, a
nd w
ill n
ot re
sult
in th
e di
rect
fra
gmen
tatio
n of
hab
itats
.
No
othe
r pla
ns p
ropo
se d
evel
opm
ent t
hat w
ould
take
land
fro
m th
is s
ite.
Ther
e ar
e no
opt
ions
in th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
or o
ther
pla
ns, w
hich
di
rect
ly im
pact
, on
the
woo
ds b
y pr
opos
ing
deve
lopm
ent.
Impa
ct o
n pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
outs
ide
the
prot
ecte
d si
tes
Eve
rsde
n an
d W
impo
le W
oods
are
hom
e to
the
Bar
bast
elle
B
at.
The
bats
can
fora
ge u
p to
20k
m fr
om th
eir r
oost
s bu
t m
ore
typi
cally
ven
ture
aro
und
6-8k
m.
Bar
bast
elle
bat
s re
quire
min
imal
dis
turb
ance
with
in 2
km
of t
heir
roos
t. Th
e m
ain
‘are
a of
impo
rtanc
e’ fo
r the
bat
s ha
s be
en e
xam
ined
in
the
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Bio
dive
rsity
Stra
tegy
, and
is
show
n on
map
1 a
ttach
ed.
This
map
is in
clud
ed in
the
Bio
dive
rsity
SP
D.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
doe
s no
t con
tain
opt
ions
that
wou
ld n
egat
ivel
y im
pact
on
the
bats
. A
ll th
e si
te o
ptio
ns a
re o
f a li
mite
d sc
ale
and
wou
ld
not a
ffect
the
fora
ging
are
as o
f the
bat
s. T
he n
eare
st s
ite
optio
n do
es n
ot fa
ll w
ithin
the
mai
n ‘a
rea
of im
porta
nce’
for
the
bats
. Ad
ditio
nally
this
site
opt
ion
is o
f suc
h sm
all s
cale
th
at it
wou
ld n
ot im
pact
on
the
bats
or t
heir
roos
ting
area
s in
th
e w
oods
.
Look
ing
at th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
O
ptio
ns 2
in c
ombi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns, n
one
of th
e m
ajor
dev
elop
men
ts id
entif
ied
in th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
fall
with
in e
ither
the
area
of m
inim
al d
istu
rban
ce o
r the
mai
n
The
woo
ds a
re re
lativ
ely
isol
ated
, and
not
loca
ted
near
to a
ny o
f the
loca
tions
for m
ajor
de
velo
pmen
t ide
ntifi
ed in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
. Th
e cl
oses
t maj
or d
evel
opm
ent w
ill b
e on
e of
the
urba
n ex
tens
ions
pro
pose
d to
Cam
brid
ge.
Thes
e ar
e no
t spe
cifie
d in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy, b
ut th
e S
truct
ure
Pla
n id
entif
ies
the
Cam
brid
ge s
outh
ern
fring
e an
d no
rthw
est C
ambr
idge
as
two
loca
tions
fo
r dev
elop
men
t. A
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n ha
s be
en
adop
ted
for t
he fo
rmer
and
is a
t the
Sub
mis
sion
st
age
for t
he la
tter.
The
se a
re o
ver 8
km
dis
tant
. Th
e ne
w to
wn
of N
orth
stow
e is
ove
r 13
km
dist
ant.
The
se a
re s
ome
dist
ance
from
the
‘are
a of
impo
rtanc
e’ id
entif
ied
in th
e B
iodi
vers
ity S
PD
.
The
woo
ds a
re a
lso
som
e di
stan
ce fr
om a
ny
villa
ges
whe
re s
mal
l-sca
le w
indf
all d
evel
opm
ent
coul
d ta
ke p
lace
und
er th
e ru
ral s
ettle
men
t po
licie
s of
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy.
How
ever
, any
suc
h de
velo
pmen
t wou
ld b
e w
ithin
vill
age
fram
ewor
ks
and
wou
ld n
ot in
volv
e th
e us
e of
gre
enfie
ld la
nd in
th
e co
untry
side
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
84
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
‘are
a of
impo
rtanc
e’.
The
dra
ft C
ambr
idge
shire
Min
eral
s an
d W
aste
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 (
Sep
t 20
08) p
ropo
ses
an e
xten
sion
to B
arrin
gton
Qua
rry,
whi
ch
lies
with
in th
e ‘a
rea
of im
porta
nce’
. Th
e in
itial
scr
eeni
ng
show
ed th
at th
ere
was
a re
mot
e po
ssib
ility
that
the
min
eral
ex
tract
ion
wou
ld im
pact
on
the
bats
hab
itat a
nd th
eref
ore
the
Cou
nty
is in
tend
ing
to c
arry
out
a fu
ll A
ppro
pria
te
Ass
essm
ent (
AA
). W
hils
t it i
s no
t exp
ecte
d th
is p
olic
y w
ith
site
allo
catio
n w
ill a
dver
sely
affe
ct th
e si
te it
nee
ds to
be
asse
ssed
usi
ng th
e pr
ecau
tiona
ry p
rinci
ple.
Fol
low
ing
on
from
the
full
AA
the
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n w
ill b
e re
vise
d by
the
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e P
lan
does
not
hav
e an
ad
vers
e im
pact
on
any
Eur
opea
n si
te p
rior t
o its
sub
mis
sion
to
the
Sec
reta
ry o
f Sta
te.
Alth
ough
out
side
the
'are
a of
impo
rtanc
e', t
he c
lose
st a
rea
of n
ew d
evel
opm
ent i
dent
ified
by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy is
at
Cam
bour
ne, w
hich
is a
pre
viou
sly
plan
ned
new
set
tlem
ent
of 3
,300
dw
ellin
gs th
at is
6km
from
the
woo
ds a
nd h
ad
outli
ne p
lann
ing
perm
issi
on in
199
3. M
ore
than
2,0
00
dwel
lings
hav
e al
read
y be
en c
ompl
eted
. Th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
pr
opos
es th
at th
e vi
llage
is b
uilt
out a
t cur
rent
min
imum
de
nsiti
es o
f 30d
ph, w
hich
wou
ld g
ener
ate
an a
dditi
onal
700
dw
ellin
gs w
ithin
the
exis
ting
plan
ned
foot
prin
t.
All
the
site
opt
ions
in th
e Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2
repo
rt a
re o
f suc
h a
smal
l sca
le th
at th
ey w
ill n
ot
impa
ct o
n th
e w
oods
.
The
min
eral
ext
ract
ion
prop
osed
at B
arrin
gton
ha
s a
rem
ote
poss
ibili
ty o
f affe
ctin
g th
e ba
ts
habi
tat.
How
ever
as
the
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
inte
nd to
en
sure
that
thei
r Pla
n do
es n
ot h
ave
an a
dver
se
affe
ct o
n an
y E
urop
ean
site
s in
the
subm
issi
on
vers
ion
of th
e P
lan
it ha
s be
en c
onsi
dere
d th
at
this
is n
ot o
f sig
nific
ance
to th
is s
cree
ning
.
The
maj
or d
evel
opm
ent p
ropo
sed
at C
ambo
urne
w
ill ta
ke p
lace
with
in th
e ex
istin
g pl
anne
d fo
otpr
int,
whi
ch a
lso
lies
outs
ide
the
‘are
a of
im
porta
nce’
iden
tifie
d in
the
Bio
dive
rsity
SP
D, a
nd
ther
efor
e th
ere
will
be
no a
dditi
onal
impa
ct.
Rec
reat
iona
lP
ress
ure
and
Dis
turb
ance
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D o
nly
prop
oses
ver
y lim
ited
scal
e of
dev
elop
men
t, an
d 22
pot
entia
l site
opt
ions
, whi
ch a
re o
f suc
h a
smal
l sca
le
that
they
will
not
impa
ct o
n th
e w
oods
.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
The
Eas
t of E
ngla
nd R
egio
nal S
patia
l Stra
tegy
H
abita
ts D
irect
ive
Ass
essm
ent s
tate
s th
at in
dr
awin
g up
loca
l dev
elop
men
t pla
ns,
cons
ider
atio
n sh
ould
be
give
n to
car
ry o
ut
scre
enin
g w
here
Nat
ura
2000
and
Ram
sar s
ites
fall
with
in a
5km
radi
us o
f any
pro
pose
d ne
w
resi
dent
ial d
evel
opm
ents
to re
duce
the
risk
of
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
85
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
coul
d in
crea
se d
eman
d fo
r cou
ntry
side
recr
eatio
n. N
o m
ajor
pro
posa
ls in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy o
r any
oth
er p
lan
are
with
in 5
km o
f the
site
.
Not
with
stan
ding
this
, Wim
pole
Woo
ds, a
nd e
ven
mor
e so
E
vers
den
Woo
ds, d
oes
not a
ttrac
t a la
rge
num
ber o
f vi
sito
rs.
Its re
mot
enes
s, re
lativ
e to
maj
or c
entre
s of
po
pula
tion
(exi
stin
g an
d pr
opos
ed),
limits
its
attra
ctiv
enes
s co
mpa
red
to o
ther
ava
ilabl
e ru
ral l
ocat
ions
. Th
e cl
oses
t m
ajor
dev
elop
men
t loc
atio
n is
ove
r 8 k
m d
ista
nt a
nd th
e cl
oses
t dev
elop
men
t is
at C
ambo
urne
, whi
ch is
6 k
m a
way
.
The
recr
eatio
n ro
le o
f the
woo
ds is
as
part
of a
cou
ntry
wal
k of
som
e di
stan
ce, u
sing
foot
path
s pa
ssin
g th
roug
h th
e w
oods
as
part
of th
e w
ider
cou
ntry
side
foot
path
net
wor
k.
By
virtu
e of
thei
r for
m a
nd c
hara
cter
, tog
ethe
r with
thei
r re
lativ
e in
acce
ssib
ility
from
car
par
king
or p
ublic
tran
spor
t fa
cilit
ies,
they
are
not
are
as th
at p
eopl
e w
ould
be
likel
y to
m
ake
a vi
sit f
or p
icni
cs o
r inf
orm
al p
lay.
Acc
ess
to th
e si
tes
is m
ainl
y fro
m th
e ca
r par
k at
Wim
pole
H
all.
Whi
lst t
he s
tart
of a
pat
h th
roug
h W
impo
le W
ood
is
only
aro
und
1km
as
the
crow
file
s fro
m th
e ca
r par
k, a
w
alki
ng ro
ute
is li
kely
to b
e ne
arer
dou
ble
this
, whi
ch, t
akin
g ac
coun
t une
ven
terr
ain,
is li
kely
to b
e m
ore
than
a h
alf h
our
wal
k. T
he m
ajor
ity o
f vis
itors
to W
impo
le H
all a
re li
kely
to
focu
s th
eir v
isit
on th
e H
all,
mod
el fa
rm, a
nd th
e la
ndsc
aped
pa
rkla
nd, w
hich
incl
udes
attr
activ
e fe
atur
es s
uch
as tw
o la
kes,
a C
hine
se B
ridge
and
a h
illto
p fo
lly, r
athe
r tha
n th
is
perip
hera
l woo
dlan
d w
alk.
This
app
lies
to a
n ev
en g
reat
er e
xten
t to
Eve
rsde
n W
ood,
recr
eatio
nal d
istu
rban
ce e
ffect
s to
Nat
ura
2000
an
d R
amsa
r site
s fro
m w
alke
rs, d
ogs,
cat
s an
d ot
her r
ecre
atio
nal u
ses
that
can
resu
lt fro
m
addi
tiona
l hou
sing
and
ass
ocia
ted
deve
lopm
ent.
Th
ere
are
not l
ikel
y to
be
any
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s us
ing
this
test
as
no d
evel
opm
ent o
r ind
eed
prop
osed
Tra
velle
r site
is w
ithin
this
dis
tanc
e.
Not
with
stan
ding
, acc
ordi
ng to
the
Nat
ura
2000
D
ata,
the
curr
ent u
se o
f the
woo
ds, i
nclu
ding
pu
blic
acc
ess,
is c
onsi
dere
d co
mpa
tible
with
the
barb
aste
lle b
ats’
inte
rest
and
sho
uld
not a
ffect
the
barb
aste
lle p
opul
atio
n or
thei
r roo
sts.
The
exis
ting
right
s of
way
thro
ugh
the
woo
ds
allo
w fo
r som
e lim
ited
acce
ss to
the
woo
ds b
ut
the
bats
roos
t in
the
trees
, for
agin
g at
su
nset
/nig
ht s
o ar
e no
t dis
turb
ed b
y da
y vi
sito
rs
and
num
bers
will
con
tinue
to b
e lim
ited
due
to th
e w
oods
rela
tive
inac
cess
ibili
ty b
oth
from
cen
tres
of
popu
latio
n an
d fro
m c
ar p
arki
ng c
lose
to th
e w
oods
.
In v
iew
of t
he li
mite
d ad
ditio
nal r
ecre
atio
nal u
se
that
will
occ
ur o
f the
woo
ds, t
here
are
not
co
nsid
ered
to b
e an
y lik
ely
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
86
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
whi
ch is
not
sho
wn
on th
e W
impo
le W
alks
leaf
let p
rodu
ced
by th
e N
atio
nal T
rust
. A
wal
k of
aro
und
3km
from
the
NT
car p
ark
is li
kely
to b
e re
quire
d to
reac
h th
e w
oods
. Th
ere
is v
ery
limite
d pa
rkin
g av
aila
ble
on th
e ro
adsi
de n
ear t
o E
vers
den
Woo
d (p
erha
ps o
ne o
r tw
o ca
rs).
Thi
s is
stil
l ove
r 70
0m fr
om th
e m
ain
part
of th
e w
ood.
Eve
n th
ough
due
to th
e na
ture
and
dis
tanc
e of
the
site
from
th
e ne
w d
evel
opm
ents
it is
not
ant
icip
ated
that
ther
e w
ill b
e in
crea
sed
usag
e as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
ther
e ar
e ot
her c
ount
rysi
de
acce
ss o
ppor
tuni
ties,
exi
stin
g or
pro
pose
d, a
vaila
ble
in
mor
e ac
cess
ible
loca
tions
to th
e m
ajor
cen
tres
of
popu
latio
n. T
hese
are
spe
cific
ally
des
igne
d to
pro
vide
a
coun
trysi
de re
crea
tion
expe
rienc
e, a
nd w
ill c
ontin
ue to
be
the
focu
s fo
r tha
t use
by
exis
ting
and
new
com
mun
ities
, ra
ther
than
mor
e re
mot
e lo
catio
ns s
uch
as W
impo
le a
nd
Eve
rsde
n W
oods
. Th
is is
par
ticul
arly
dem
onst
rate
d by
the
Cam
brid
gesh
ire H
oriz
ons
Gre
en In
frast
ruct
ure
Stra
tegy
, an
d th
e S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire R
ecre
atio
n S
tudy
, whi
ch
take
forw
ard
the
prop
osal
s of
the
Cam
brid
gesh
ire S
truct
ure
Pla
n.
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of t
he w
oods
w
ill in
crea
se g
reat
ly a
s a
resu
lt of
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2, a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith
othe
r pla
ns.
Wat
er Q
uant
ity a
nd
Qua
lity
Not
rele
vant
for t
he c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f thi
s si
te.
Not
rele
vant
.
Cha
nges
in
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
Ther
e ar
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
that
dev
elop
men
t
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
87
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Pol
lutio
n Le
vels
D
PD
onl
y pr
opos
es a
ver
y lim
ited
scal
e of
dev
elop
men
t, an
d 22
pot
entia
l site
opt
ions
, whi
ch a
re a
ll ad
jace
nt to
ex
istin
g or
pro
pose
d se
ttlem
ents
.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
resu
lt in
incr
ease
d le
vels
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion,
th
roug
h th
e em
issi
ons
crea
ted
by d
evel
opm
ent,
or fr
om th
e ca
r jou
rney
s ge
nera
ted
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
opt
ions
will
not
resu
lt in
a
chan
ge in
pol
lutio
n le
vels
, as
they
are
sm
all i
n sc
ale,
and
w
ould
cou
nt to
war
ds th
e ov
eral
l cor
e st
rate
gy fi
gure
.
The
Cor
e S
trate
gy fo
cuse
s de
velo
pmen
t ont
o C
ambr
idge
an
d ar
eas
acce
ssib
le b
y pu
blic
tran
spor
t, pr
ovid
ing
acce
ss
to jo
bs a
nd s
ervi
ces
by m
eans
oth
er th
an th
e ca
r. T
his
will
he
lp to
min
imis
e le
vels
of c
ar u
se a
nd c
orre
spon
ding
po
llutio
n. W
hils
t the
act
ual i
mpa
ct o
f the
Cor
e S
trate
gy o
n ai
r qua
lity
alon
e or
in c
ombi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns is
di
fficu
lt to
qua
ntify
, the
loca
tion
of th
e si
te is
not
in c
lose
pr
oxim
ity to
the
maj
or d
evel
opm
ents
pro
pose
d or
maj
or
trans
port
rout
es.
The
draf
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire M
iner
als
and
Was
te
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 (
Sep
t 200
8)
prop
oses
an
exte
nsio
n to
Bar
ringt
on Q
uarr
y, s
ome
4 km
fro
m th
e si
te.
The
Initi
al s
cree
ning
of t
hat p
lan
indi
cate
s th
at a
full
App
ropr
iate
Ass
essm
ent (
AA
) mus
t be
carr
ied
out
on th
is a
lloca
tion
polic
y us
ing
the
prec
autio
nary
prin
cipl
es.
How
ever
the
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
has
stat
ed th
at it
will
ens
ure
the
polic
ies
in th
e fin
al s
ubm
issi
on v
ersi
on o
f the
Min
eral
s
does
not
har
m th
e id
entif
ied
Eur
opea
n S
ites
and
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
The
prop
osed
min
eral
ext
ract
ion
at B
arrin
gton
is
not l
ikel
y to
hav
e a
sign
ifica
nt a
ffect
on
the
woo
ds
due
to th
e fa
ct th
at th
e C
ount
y C
ounc
il in
tend
to
miti
gate
aga
inst
any
adv
erse
impa
cts
of th
e pr
opos
als
As
the
site
is n
ot in
clo
se p
roxi
mity
to th
e m
ajor
de
velo
pmen
ts p
ropo
sed
by th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
or
maj
or tr
ansp
ort r
oute
s, it
is n
ot c
onsi
dere
d th
at
ther
e is
like
ly to
be
any
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
on
thei
r na
ture
con
serv
atio
n ob
ject
ives
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
88
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Pla
n w
ill ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e re
sults
of t
he A
A.
The
Cou
nty
will
revi
se th
e pl
an to
ens
ure
that
its
polic
ies
do n
ot
have
any
adv
erse
impa
ct o
n an
y E
urop
ean
Site
s. T
his
will
be
ass
iste
d by
the
quar
ry b
eing
dow
nwin
d of
the
SA
C in
te
rms
of th
e pr
evai
ling
win
ds,w
hich
are
from
the
sout
hwes
t.
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
n C
S29
Air
Qua
lity
prop
oses
that
new
m
iner
als
and
was
te d
evel
opm
ent w
ill b
e pe
rmitt
ed w
here
em
issi
ons
will
be
min
imis
ed.
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
n C
S32
(B
iodi
vers
ity) p
ropo
ses
that
new
min
eral
s an
d w
aste
de
velo
pmen
t will
onl
y be
per
mitt
ed w
here
it is
dem
onst
rate
d th
at th
ere
will
be
no li
kely
sig
nific
ant a
dver
se im
pact
s on
si
tes
of n
atur
e co
nser
vatio
n im
porta
nce.
Age
ncie
s co
nsul
ted
Nat
ural
Eng
land
Res
pons
e to
Con
sulta
tion
Aw
aitin
g re
spon
se.
Ove
rall
Con
clus
ions
of S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istr
ict C
ounc
il
The
optio
ns w
ithin
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
Rep
ort,
alon
e an
d in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er D
PD
s in
the
LDF
and
othe
r rel
evan
t pla
ns, w
ere
asse
ssed
for i
mpa
ct o
n E
vers
den
and
Wim
pole
Woo
ds a
nd it
was
con
clud
ed th
at th
ere
are
no li
kely
si
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
of t
he s
ite.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
89
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Map
1 B
arba
stel
le b
at -
area
of i
mpo
rtanc
e fo
r E
vers
den
and
Wim
pole
Woo
ds S
peci
al A
rea
of C
onse
rvat
ion
(SA
C) (
sour
ce: S
outh
C
ambr
idge
shire
Bio
dive
rsity
Stra
tegy
Aug
ust
2006
)
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
90
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
SCR
EEN
ING
MA
TRIX
For
Dev
il’s
Dyk
e SA
C
Nam
e, lo
catio
n an
d su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f Nat
ura
2000
site
D
evil’
s D
yke
(Grid
Ref
TL6
1162
2)
Rea
sons
for d
esig
natio
n as
SA
C –
Sem
i-nat
ural
dry
gra
ssla
nds
and
scru
blan
d fa
cies
on
calc
areo
us s
ubst
rate
s (F
estu
co-
Bro
met
alia
)
Dev
il’s
Dyk
e co
nsis
ts o
f a m
osai
c of
cal
care
ous
gras
slan
ds
(CG
3B
rom
us e
rect
us a
nd C
G5
Bro
mus
ere
ctus
– B
rach
ypod
ium
pi
nnat
um.)
It i
s th
e on
ly k
now
n U
K s
emi-n
atur
al d
ry g
rass
land
si
te fo
r liz
ard
orch
id (H
iman
togl
ossu
m h
ircin
um.)
This
site
is lo
cate
d in
Eas
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istri
ct o
utsi
de th
e di
stric
t of S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire.
Are
ther
e ot
her p
roje
cts
or p
lans
that
toge
ther
with
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 c
ould
affe
ct D
evil’
s D
yke?
Th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n D
ocum
ent (
GTD
PD
) w
ill p
rovi
de a
vis
ion
for t
he fu
ture
of G
ypsi
es a
nd T
rave
llers
in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
and
will
set
out
pol
icie
s an
d pr
opos
als
as
they
rela
te to
pla
nnin
g fo
r Gyp
sies
and
Tra
velle
rs in
the
Dis
trict
. Th
e Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 s
tage
iden
tifie
s si
te o
ptio
ns fo
r Gyp
sy
and
Trav
elle
r pitc
hes
and
Trav
ellin
g S
how
peop
le P
lots
, and
dra
ft po
licie
s fo
r inc
lusi
on in
the
final
DP
D.
The
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Cor
e S
trate
gy p
rovi
des
the
over
all
spat
ial s
trate
gy fo
r dev
elop
men
t in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
. Th
ere
are
othe
r pla
ns in
the
Sout
h C
ambr
idge
shire
LD
F, in
clud
ing
vario
us A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
ns fo
r the
urb
an e
xten
sion
s to
Cam
brid
ge,
one
AA
P fo
r a n
ew s
ettle
men
t at N
orth
stow
e an
d th
e S
ite S
peci
fic
DP
D, w
hich
cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly in
dire
ctly
affe
ct th
e si
te.
Thes
e pl
ans
prov
ide
deta
il to
the
fram
ewor
k pr
ovid
ed in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy, i
nclu
ding
allo
catio
ns o
f lan
d fo
r dev
elop
men
t.
Oth
er re
leva
nt p
lans
: ��
Cam
brid
ge C
ity C
ore
Stra
tegy
(DP
D)–
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
91
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
(Reg
25)
, 200
7 ��
Cam
brid
ge L
ocal
Pla
n 20
04
��E
ast C
ambr
idge
shire
Loc
al P
lan
2000
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy
Sub
mis
sion
Dra
ft 20
08��
Fore
st H
eath
Loc
al P
lan
1995
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy &
D
evel
opm
ent P
olic
ies
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns R
epor
t Oct
ober
20
06 a
nd S
ite S
peci
fic P
olic
ies
and
Allo
catio
ns D
PD
Is
sues
& O
ptio
ns R
epor
t 200
6 ��
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd P
eter
boro
ugh
Min
eral
s an
d W
aste
D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns 2
–S
epte
mbe
r 200
8.
��S
uffo
lk M
iner
als
Loca
l Pla
n 19
99 &
Min
eral
s C
ore
Stra
tegy
S
ubm
issi
on 2
007
& M
iner
als
Spe
cific
Site
Allo
catio
ns
DP
D, A
pril
2007
��
Suf
folk
Was
te L
ocal
Pla
n 20
06; W
aste
Issu
es R
epor
t 200
7
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Land
Tak
e by
D
evel
opm
ent
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
doe
s no
t pro
pose
any
opt
ions
that
will
take
land
from
Dev
il’s
Dyk
e, a
nd w
ill n
ot re
sult
in th
e di
rect
frag
men
tatio
n of
ha
bita
ts.
No
othe
r pla
ns p
ropo
se d
evel
opm
ent t
hat w
ould
take
land
fro
m th
is s
ite.
Ther
e ar
e no
opt
ions
in th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
or o
ther
pla
ns, w
hich
di
rect
ly im
pact
on
the
Dev
il’s
Dyk
e.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
92
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Impa
ct o
n pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
outs
ide
the
prot
ecte
d si
tes
The
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es re
late
to s
peci
es o
f pla
nt w
ithin
th
e gr
assl
and.
The
refo
re th
ere
are
no s
peci
es li
sted
as
impo
rtant
to th
e in
tegr
ity o
f the
site
that
trav
el to
fora
ge
outs
ide
the
site
.
Due
to th
e di
stan
ce o
f the
site
from
the
Dis
trict
an
d as
ther
e ar
e no
spe
cies
list
ed a
s im
porta
nt to
th
e in
tegr
ity o
f the
site
that
trav
el to
fora
ge o
utsi
de
the
site
ther
e is
not
like
ly to
be
any
sign
ifica
nt
effe
ct.
Rec
reat
iona
lP
ress
ure
and
Dis
turb
ance
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D o
nly
prop
oses
ver
y lim
ited
deve
lopm
ent,
and
22 s
ite
optio
ns, w
hich
are
all
adja
cent
to e
xist
ing
or p
ropo
sed
settl
emen
ts a
nd a
re o
f suc
h a
smal
l sca
le th
at th
ey w
ill n
ot
impa
ct o
n th
e dy
ke.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
incr
ease
dem
and
for c
ount
rysi
de re
crea
tion.
Tha
t gr
owth
will
be
regu
late
d by
pol
icie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n. H
owev
er, n
o m
ajor
pro
posa
ls in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy o
r an
y ot
her p
lan
are
with
in 5
km o
f the
site
.
Dev
ils D
yke
is a
cces
sed
via
a lo
ng d
ista
nce
foot
path
that
ru
ns th
e le
ngth
of t
he d
yke.
The
re is
par
king
ava
ilabl
e at
th
e Ju
ly R
ace
cour
se, N
ewm
arke
t. Th
e si
te is
ove
r 10k
m
from
the
deve
lopm
ent p
ropo
sed
at C
ambr
idge
Eas
t. It
is
not c
onsi
dere
d th
at th
e le
vel o
f pub
lic u
se o
f the
Dev
il’s
Dyk
e fo
otpa
ths
will
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
an
d Tr
avel
ler D
PD
in c
ombi
natio
n w
ith th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
or
othe
r pla
ns.
Eve
n th
ough
due
to th
e na
ture
and
dis
tanc
e of
the
site
from
th
e ne
w d
evel
opm
ents
it is
not
ant
icip
ated
that
ther
e w
ill b
e in
crea
sed
usag
e as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r
The
Eas
t of E
ngla
nd R
egio
nal S
patia
l Stra
tegy
H
abita
ts D
irect
ive
Ass
essm
ent s
tate
s th
at in
dr
awin
g up
loca
l dev
elop
men
t pla
ns,
cons
ider
atio
n sh
ould
be
give
n to
car
ry o
ut
scre
enin
g w
here
Nat
ura
2000
and
Ram
sar s
ites
fall
with
in a
5km
radi
us o
f the
any
pro
pose
d ne
w
resi
dent
ial d
evel
opm
ent t
o re
duce
the
risk
of
recr
eatio
nal d
istu
rban
ce e
ffect
s to
Nat
ura
2000
an
d R
amsa
r site
s fro
m w
alke
rs, d
ogs,
cat
s an
d ot
her r
ecre
atio
nal u
ses
that
can
resu
lt fro
m
addi
tiona
l hou
sing
and
ass
ocia
ted
deve
lopm
ent.
Th
ere
are
not l
ikel
y to
be
any
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s us
ing
this
test
as
no d
evel
opm
ent i
s w
ithin
this
di
stan
ce.
Not
with
stan
ding
, the
impa
ct o
f pub
lic a
cces
s is
no
t lis
ted
in th
e vu
lner
abili
ties
rela
ting
to th
e si
te.
In v
iew
of t
he li
mite
d ad
ditio
nal r
ecre
atio
nal u
se
that
will
occ
ur o
f the
site
, as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
an
d Tr
avel
ler D
PD
opt
ions
alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
ther
e ar
e no
t co
nsid
ered
to b
e an
y lik
ely
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
93
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 th
ere
are
othe
r cou
ntry
side
ac
cess
opp
ortu
nitie
s, e
xist
ing
or p
ropo
sed,
ava
ilabl
e in
m
ore
acce
ssib
le lo
catio
ns to
the
maj
or c
entre
s of
po
pula
tion.
The
se a
re s
peci
fical
ly d
esig
ned
to p
rovi
de a
co
untry
side
recr
eatio
n ex
perie
nce,
and
will
con
tinue
to b
e th
e fo
cus
for t
hat u
se b
y ex
istin
g an
d ne
w c
omm
uniti
es,
rath
er th
an m
ore
rem
ote
loca
tions
suc
h as
the
Dev
il’s
Dyk
e.
This
is p
artic
ular
ly d
emon
stra
ted
by th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
H
oriz
ons
Gre
en In
frast
ruct
ure
Stra
tegy
, and
the
Sou
th
Cam
brid
gesh
ire R
ecre
atio
n S
tudy
, whi
ch ta
ke fo
rwar
d th
e pr
opos
als
of th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
Stru
ctur
e P
lan.
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of t
he d
yke
will
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
, alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
ot
her p
lans
.
Wat
er Q
uant
ity a
nd
Qua
lity
Not
rele
vant
for t
he c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f thi
s si
te.
Not
rele
vant
.
Cha
nges
in
Pol
lutio
n Le
vels
Th
e Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 s
tage
of t
he G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
onl
y pr
opos
es v
ery
limite
d de
velo
pmen
t, 22
site
op
tions
hav
e be
en id
entif
ied,
whi
ch a
re a
ll ad
jace
nt to
ex
istin
g or
pro
pose
d se
ttlem
ents
. The
pro
pose
d si
tes
are
also
of a
sm
all s
cale
and
ther
efor
e w
ill n
ot im
pact
on
the
dyke
.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
resu
lt in
incr
ease
d le
vels
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion,
th
roug
h th
e em
issi
ons
crea
ted
by d
evel
opm
ent,
or fr
om th
e ca
r jou
rney
s ge
nera
ted.
Tha
t gro
wth
will
be
guid
ed b
y
Ther
e ar
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
that
dev
elop
men
t do
es n
ot h
arm
the
iden
tifie
d E
urop
ean
Site
s, a
nd
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
Ther
e ar
e no
t lik
ely
to b
e an
y si
gnifi
cant
impa
cts
from
add
ition
al tr
affic
usi
ng th
e pa
rt of
the
A14
cr
ossi
ng th
e si
te a
s a
resu
lt of
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 in
co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
94
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
polic
ies
in th
e D
evel
opm
ent C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD, u
nles
s sp
ecifi
ed in
an
Are
a A
ctio
n P
lan.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
opt
ions
will
not
resu
lt in
a
sign
ifica
nt c
hang
e in
pol
lutio
n le
vels
, as
they
are
sm
all i
n sc
ale,
and
wou
ld c
ount
tow
ards
the
over
all h
ousi
ng
deve
lopm
ent r
equi
red
by th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
the
Eas
t of
Eng
land
Pla
n.
The
Cor
e S
trate
gy fo
cuse
s de
velo
pmen
t ont
o C
ambr
idge
an
d ar
eas
acce
ssib
le b
y pu
blic
tran
spor
t, pr
ovid
ing
acce
ss
to jo
bs a
nd s
ervi
ces
by m
eans
oth
er th
an th
e ca
r. T
his
will
he
lp to
min
imis
e le
vels
of c
ar u
se a
nd c
orre
spon
ding
po
llutio
n. W
hils
t the
act
ual i
mpa
ct o
f the
Cor
e S
trate
gy o
n ai
r qua
lity
alon
e or
in c
ombi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns is
di
fficu
lt to
qua
ntify
, the
loca
tion
of th
e si
te is
not
in c
lose
pr
oxim
ity to
the
maj
or d
evel
opm
ents
pro
pose
d.
It is
adj
acen
t to
the
A14
, but
this
is a
t rou
ghly
righ
t ang
les
to
the
road
and
ther
efor
e on
ly a
lim
ited
part
of th
e dy
ke is
cl
ose
to a
maj
or tr
ansp
ort r
oute
. Th
e po
licie
s of
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy e
ndea
vour
to li
mit
traffi
c as
par
t of d
evel
opm
ent
prop
osal
s an
d th
e ov
eral
l stra
tegy
has
the
obje
ctiv
e of
re
duci
ng c
omm
utin
g to
Cam
brid
ge fr
om o
utsi
de b
y fo
cusi
ng
maj
or d
evel
opm
ent i
n an
d on
the
edge
of C
ambr
idge
and
in
the
new
tow
n of
Nor
thst
owe
to th
e no
rth w
est o
f C
ambr
idge
. A
s su
ch, i
t is
cons
ider
ed th
at th
ere
are
not
likel
y to
be
any
sign
ifica
nt in
crea
ses
in tr
affic
usi
ng th
is p
art
of th
e A
14 in
this
loca
tion
as a
resu
lt of
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D, i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
95
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Age
ncie
s co
nsul
ted
Nat
ural
Eng
land
Res
pons
e to
C
onsu
ltatio
n A
wai
ting
resp
onse
.
Ove
rall
Con
clus
ions
of S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istr
ict C
ounc
il
The
optio
ns w
ithin
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
Rep
ort,
alon
e an
d in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er D
PD
s in
the
LDF
and
othe
r rel
evan
t pla
ns w
ere
asse
ssed
for i
mpa
ct o
n D
evil’
s D
yke
and
it w
as c
oncl
uded
that
ther
e ar
e no
like
ly s
igni
fican
t effe
cts
on
the
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es o
f the
site
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
96
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
SCR
EEN
ING
MA
TRIX
For
Fen
land
SA
C a
nd R
amsa
r Site
s
Nam
e, lo
catio
n an
d su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f Nat
ura
2000
site
Fe
nlan
d –
com
pris
es 3
site
s:��
Wic
ken
Fen
��C
hipp
enha
m F
en��
Woo
dwal
ton
Fen
Rea
son
for d
esig
natio
n as
SA
C –
a)
Mol
inia
mea
dow
on
calc
areo
us, p
eaty
or c
laye
y si
lt la
den
soils
(M
olin
ion
caer
ulae
)b)
Cal
care
ous
fens
with
Cla
dium
mar
iscu
s an
d sp
ecie
s of
Car
icio
n da
valli
anae
c)
Sig
nific
ant p
rese
nce
of S
pine
d lo
ach
(Cob
itis
taen
ia)
d)P
rese
nce
of G
reat
Cre
sted
New
ts (T
ritur
us c
rista
tus)
Fenl
and
cont
ains
, par
ticul
arly
at C
hipp
enha
m F
en, o
ne o
f the
m
ost e
xten
sive
exa
mpl
es o
f the
tall
herb
-ric
h E
ast A
nglia
n ty
pe
of fe
n-m
eado
w (M
olin
ia c
aeru
lea
– C
irsiu
m d
isse
ctum
). It
is
impo
rtant
for t
he c
onse
rvat
ion
of th
e ge
ogra
phic
al a
nd e
colo
gica
l ra
nge
of th
e ha
bita
t typ
e, a
s th
is ty
pe o
f fen
-mea
dow
is ra
re a
nd
ecol
ogic
ally
dis
tinct
ive
in E
ast A
nglia
.
The
indi
vidu
al s
ites
with
in F
enla
nd e
ach
hold
larg
e ar
eas
of
calc
areo
us fe
ns, w
ith a
long
and
wel
l-doc
umen
ted
hist
ory
of
regu
lar m
anag
emen
t. Th
ere
is a
full
rang
e fro
m s
peci
es-p
oor
Cla
dium
-dom
inat
ed fe
n to
spe
cies
-ric
h fe
n w
ith a
low
er p
ropo
rtion
of
Cla
dium
and
con
tain
ing
such
spe
cies
as
blac
k bo
g-ru
sh
(Sch
oenu
s ni
gric
ans,
torm
entil
Pot
entil
la e
rect
a)an
d m
eado
w
this
tle(C
irsiu
m d
isse
ctum
). Th
ere
are
good
tran
sitio
ns to
pur
ple
moo
r-gr
ass
(Mol
inia
cae
rule
a) a
nd ru
sh p
astu
res,
all
set w
ithin
a
mos
aic
of re
ed b
eds
and
wet
pas
ture
s.
The
fens
als
o su
ppor
t a s
igni
fican
t pre
senc
e of
spi
ned
loac
h (C
obiti
s ta
enia
) and
gre
at c
rest
ed n
ewts
(Trit
urus
cris
tatu
s ).
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
97
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
The
thre
e se
para
te F
enla
nd s
ites
are
som
e di
stan
ce a
part.
Eac
h si
te is
ther
efor
e as
sess
ed s
epar
atel
y. E
ach
site
is a
lso
a R
amsa
r si
te a
nd th
e su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f eac
h si
te
unde
r thi
s de
sign
atio
n is
giv
en b
elow
.
(a) F
enla
nd –
Wic
ken
Fen
- SA
C a
nd R
amsa
r site
Nam
e, lo
catio
n an
d su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f R
amsa
r site
W
icke
n Fe
n- G
rid R
efer
ence
: TL
5557
00
Rea
son
for d
esig
natio
n as
Ram
sar s
ite -
One
of t
he m
ost o
utst
andi
ng re
mna
nts
of E
ast A
nglia
n pe
at fe
ns.
Sup
ports
one
spe
cies
of B
ritis
h R
ed D
ata
Boo
k pl
ant f
en v
iole
t V
iola
per
sici
folia
, whi
ch s
urvi
ves
at o
nly
two
othe
r site
s in
Brit
ain.
It
cont
ains
eig
ht n
atio
nally
sca
rce
plan
ts a
nd 1
21 B
ritis
h R
ed D
ata
inve
rtebr
ates
.
This
is lo
cate
d in
Eas
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istri
ct.
Are
ther
e ot
her p
roje
cts
or p
lans
that
toge
ther
with
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 c
ould
affe
ct W
icke
n Fe
n?
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Doc
umen
t (G
TDP
D)
will
pro
vide
a v
isio
n fo
r the
futu
re o
f Gyp
sies
and
Tra
velle
rs in
S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd w
ill s
et o
ut p
olic
ies
and
prop
osal
s as
th
ey re
late
to p
lann
ing
for G
ypsi
es a
nd T
rave
llers
in th
e D
istri
ct.
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge id
entif
ies
site
opt
ions
for G
ypsy
an
d Tr
avel
ler p
itche
s an
d Tr
avel
ling
Sho
wpe
ople
Plo
ts, a
nd d
raft
polic
ies
for i
nclu
sion
in th
e fin
al D
PD
.
The
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Cor
e S
trate
gy p
rovi
des
the
over
all
spat
ial s
trate
gy fo
r dev
elop
men
t in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
. Th
ere
are
othe
r pla
ns in
the
Sout
h C
ambr
idge
shire
LD
F, in
clud
ing
vario
us A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
ns fo
r the
urb
an e
xten
sion
s to
Cam
brid
ge,
one
AA
P fo
r a n
ew s
ettle
men
t at N
orth
stow
e an
d th
e S
ite S
peci
fic
DP
D, w
hich
cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly in
dire
ctly
affe
ct th
e si
te.
Thes
e pl
ans
prov
ide
deta
il to
the
fram
ewor
k pr
ovid
ed in
the
Cor
e
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
98
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Stra
tegy
, inc
ludi
ng a
lloca
tions
of l
and
for d
evel
opm
ent.
Oth
er re
leva
nt p
lans
: ��
Cam
brid
ge C
ity C
ore
Stra
tegy
(DP
D) –
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns
(Reg
25)
, 200
7 ��
Cam
brid
ge L
ocal
Pla
n 20
04
��E
ast C
ambr
idge
shire
Loc
al P
lan
2000
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy
Sub
mis
sion
Dra
ft 20
08��
Fenl
and
Loca
l Pla
n 19
93; C
ore
Stra
tegy
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns
2006
and
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns 2
200
7 ��
Fore
st H
eath
Loc
al P
lan
1995
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy &
D
evel
opm
ent P
olic
ies
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns R
epor
t Oct
ober
20
06 a
nd S
ite S
peci
fic P
olic
ies
and
Allo
catio
ns D
PD
Is
sues
& O
ptio
ns R
epor
t 200
6.
��C
ambr
idge
shire
and
Pet
erbo
roug
h M
iner
als
and
Was
te
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 –
Sep
tem
ber 2
008.
��
Suf
folk
Min
eral
s Lo
cal P
lan
1999
& M
iner
als
Cor
e S
trate
gy
Sub
mis
sion
200
7 &
Min
eral
s S
peci
fic S
ite A
lloca
tions
D
PD
, Apr
il 20
07
��S
uffo
lk W
aste
Loc
al P
lan
2006
; Was
te Is
sues
Rep
ort 2
007
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ct
How
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2
(alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
) is
likel
y to
af
fect
the
Euro
pean
site
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Land
Tak
e by
D
evel
opm
ent
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
doe
s no
t pro
pose
any
dev
elop
men
t tha
t will
take
land
from
W
icke
n Fe
n, a
nd w
ill n
ot re
sult
in th
e di
rect
frag
men
tatio
n of
Ther
e ar
e no
opt
ions
in th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
or o
ther
pla
ns, w
hich
dire
ctly
impa
ct o
n W
icke
n Fe
n.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
99
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ct
How
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2
(alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
) is
likel
y to
af
fect
the
Euro
pean
site
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
habi
tats
.
No
othe
r pla
ns p
ropo
se d
evel
opm
ent t
hat w
ould
take
land
fro
m th
is s
ite.
Impa
ct o
n pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
outs
ide
the
prot
ecte
d si
tes
The
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es re
late
to s
peci
es o
f pla
nt w
ithin
th
e fe
n, a
nd s
peci
es o
f inv
erte
brat
es.
Th
e G
ypsy
and
Tr
avel
ler D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
will
not
hav
e a
sign
ifica
nt a
dver
se im
pact
on
spec
ies
liste
d as
impo
rtant
to
the
inte
grity
of t
he s
ite s
ince
the
site
is o
utsi
de o
f the
dis
trict
of
Sou
th C
ambs
.
Due
to th
e di
stan
ce o
f the
site
from
the
Dis
trict
it
is n
ot c
onsi
dere
d th
at th
ere
is li
kely
to b
e a
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
from
the
plan
, alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
.
Rec
reat
iona
lP
ress
ure
and
Dis
turb
ance
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D o
nly
prop
oses
ver
y lim
ited
deve
lopm
ent i
n th
at 2
0 si
tes
have
bee
n pr
opos
ed fo
r Tra
velle
r pitc
hes,
whi
ch a
re
all a
djac
ent t
o ex
istin
g or
pro
pose
d se
ttlem
ents
. The
pr
opos
ed s
ites
are
also
of a
sm
all s
cale
that
will
not
impa
ct
the
fen.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
incr
ease
dem
and
for c
ount
rysi
de re
crea
tion.
Tha
t gr
owth
will
be
regu
late
d by
pol
icie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n. H
owev
er, n
o m
ajor
pro
posa
ls in
the
polic
y el
emen
ts
of th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
or a
ny o
ther
pla
n ar
e w
ithin
5km
of t
he
site
.
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of W
icke
n
The
Eas
t of E
ngla
nd R
egio
nal S
patia
l Stra
tegy
H
abita
ts D
irect
ive
Ass
essm
ent s
tate
s th
at in
dr
awin
g up
loca
l dev
elop
men
t pla
ns,
cons
ider
atio
n sh
ould
be
give
n to
car
ry o
ut
scre
enin
g w
here
Nat
ura
2000
and
Ram
sar s
ites
fall
with
in a
5km
radi
us o
f the
any
pro
pose
d ne
w
resi
dent
ial d
evel
opm
ent t
o re
duce
the
risk
of
recr
eatio
nal d
istu
rban
ce e
ffect
s to
Nat
ura
2000
an
d R
amsa
r site
s fro
m w
alke
rs, d
ogs,
cat
s an
d ot
her r
ecre
atio
nal u
ses
that
can
resu
lt fro
m
addi
tiona
l hou
sing
and
ass
ocia
ted
deve
lopm
ent.
Th
ere
are
not l
ikel
y to
be
any
sign
ifica
nt e
ffect
s us
ing
this
test
as
no d
evel
opm
ent i
s w
ithin
this
di
stan
ce.
Not
with
stan
ding
, the
Nat
iona
l Tru
st m
anag
es
publ
ic a
cces
s to
Wic
ken
Fen.
The
re is
a v
isito
r
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
100
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ct
How
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2
(alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
) is
likel
y to
af
fect
the
Euro
pean
site
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Fen
will
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tr
avel
ler D
PD
, alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
. In
an
y ev
ent,
acce
ss a
way
from
pub
lic ri
ghts
of w
ay is
by
perm
it on
ly a
nd c
an th
eref
ore
be c
ontro
lled.
Eve
n th
ough
due
to th
e na
ture
and
dis
tanc
e of
the
site
from
th
e ne
w d
evel
opm
ents
it is
not
ant
icip
ated
that
ther
e w
ill b
e in
crea
sed
usag
e as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
ther
e ar
e ot
her c
ount
rysi
de
acce
ss o
ppor
tuni
ties,
exi
stin
g or
pro
pose
d, a
vaila
ble
in
mor
e ac
cess
ible
loca
tions
to th
e m
ajor
cen
tres
of
popu
latio
n. T
hese
are
spe
cific
ally
des
igne
d to
pro
vide
a
coun
trysi
de re
crea
tion
expe
rienc
e, a
nd w
ill c
ontin
ue to
be
the
focu
s fo
r tha
t use
by
exis
ting
and
new
com
mun
ities
, ra
ther
than
mor
e re
mot
e lo
catio
ns s
uch
as W
icke
n Fe
n.
This
is p
artic
ular
ly d
emon
stra
ted
by th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
H
oriz
ons
Gre
en In
frast
ruct
ure
Stra
tegy
, and
the
Sou
th
Cam
brid
gesh
ire R
ecre
atio
n S
tudy
, whi
ch ta
ke fo
rwar
d th
e pr
opos
als
of th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
Stru
ctur
e P
lan
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of t
he fe
n w
ill
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DP
D
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
, alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er
plan
s.
cent
re a
nd s
hop,
nat
ure
trails
, thr
ee h
ides
and
16
km o
f wal
king
rout
es.
Ent
ry is
by
perm
it on
ly to
he
lp c
ontro
l vis
itor n
umbe
rs.
Vis
itors
are
als
o m
anag
ed b
y ‘z
onin
g ‘ p
arts
of t
he F
en n
ear t
he
entra
nce,
leav
ing
the
mor
e re
mot
e pa
rts o
f the
si
te re
lativ
ely
undi
stur
bed.
The
site
is o
ver 1
2km
fro
m th
e ne
ares
t maj
or d
evel
opm
ent p
ropo
sed
by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy, a
t Nor
thst
owe.
The
impa
ct o
f pub
lic a
cces
s is
not
list
ed in
the
vuln
erab
ilitie
s re
latin
g to
the
site
.
Wat
er Q
uant
ity a
nd
Qua
lity
Dev
elop
men
t cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly h
ave
an im
pact
on
wat
er
quan
tity,
thro
ugh
run
off f
rom
dev
elop
men
t site
s, o
r wat
er
use.
It c
ould
als
o ha
ve a
n im
pact
on
wat
er q
ualit
y, th
roug
h
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd
Opt
ions
2 in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
ap
prop
riate
ly a
ddre
sses
wat
er is
sues
, and
is n
ot
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
101
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
addi
tiona
l was
te p
rodu
cts
prod
uced
.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
onl
y pr
opos
es a
ver
y sm
all a
mou
nt o
f dev
elop
men
t and
giv
en
this
lim
ited
scal
e w
ill n
ot a
ffect
wat
er q
ualit
y in
the
area
.
The
Cam
brid
ge W
ater
Cyc
le S
trate
gy is
cur
rent
ly b
eing
pr
epar
ed b
y C
ambr
idge
shire
Hor
izon
s. P
hase
1 o
f the
pr
ojec
t has
rece
ntly
bee
n co
mpl
eted
and
it a
ims
to e
nsur
e su
stai
nabl
e m
anag
emen
t of w
ater
reso
urce
s (s
uppl
y an
d di
spos
al) a
s th
e ar
ea is
dev
elop
ed, i
nclu
ding
ens
urin
g pr
otec
tion
of in
tern
atio
nally
des
igna
ted
cons
erva
tion
site
s.
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DP
D in
clud
es a
sui
te o
f po
licie
s to
add
ress
the
impa
ct o
f dev
elop
men
t on
wat
er
quan
tity
and
qual
ity.
likel
y to
resu
lt in
sig
nific
ant i
mpa
cts
on th
e na
ture
co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
.
Cha
nges
in
Pol
lutio
n Le
vels
Th
e Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 s
tage
of t
he G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
onl
y pr
opos
es v
ery
limite
d de
velo
pmen
t, an
d 22
site
op
tions
, w
hich
are
all
of li
mite
d sc
ale.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
resu
lt in
incr
ease
d le
vels
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion,
th
roug
h th
e em
issi
ons
crea
ted
by d
evel
opm
ent,
or fr
om th
e ca
r jou
rney
s ge
nera
ted.
Tha
t gro
wth
will
be
regu
late
d by
po
licie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DPD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n.
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
es D
PD
incl
udes
pol
icie
s to
pr
otec
t Eur
opea
n bi
odiv
ersi
ty s
ites,
and
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
opt
ions
will
not
resu
lt in
a
sign
ifica
nt c
hang
e in
pol
lutio
n le
vels
, as
they
are
sm
all i
n
Ther
e ar
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
that
dev
elop
men
t do
es n
ot h
arm
the
iden
tifie
d E
urop
ean
Site
s, a
nd
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
As
the
site
is n
ot in
clo
se p
roxi
mity
to m
ajor
pr
opos
ed d
evel
opm
ents
, the
re a
re li
kely
to b
e no
si
gnifi
cant
impa
cts
on th
eir n
atur
e co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
102
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
scal
e, a
nd w
ould
cou
nt to
war
ds th
e ov
eral
l hou
sing
de
velo
pmen
t req
uire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy a
nd th
e E
ast o
f E
ngla
nd P
lan.
Age
ncie
s co
nsul
ted
Nat
ural
Eng
land
R
espo
nse
to
Con
sulta
tion
Aw
aitin
g re
spon
se.
Ove
rall
Con
clus
ions
of S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istr
ict C
ounc
il
The
optio
ns w
ithin
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
Rep
ort,
alon
e an
d in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er D
PD
s in
the
LDF
and
othe
r rel
evan
t pla
ns, w
ere
asse
ssed
for i
mpa
ct o
n W
icke
n Fe
n an
d it
was
con
clud
ed th
at th
ere
are
no li
kely
sig
nific
ant e
ffect
s on
th
e co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
of t
he s
ite.
(b) F
enla
nd- C
hipp
enha
m F
en- S
AC
and
Ram
sar s
ite
Nam
e, lo
catio
n an
d su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f R
amsa
r site
C
hipp
enha
m F
en –
(Grid
Ref
TL
6486
97 )
Rea
son
for d
esig
natio
n as
Ram
sar s
ite -
A s
prin
g–fe
d ca
lcar
eous
bas
in m
ire w
ith a
long
his
tory
of
man
agem
ent,
whi
ch is
par
tly re
flect
ed in
the
dive
rsity
of t
he
pres
ent-d
ay v
eget
atio
n. T
he in
verte
brat
e fa
una
is v
ery
rich
partl
y du
e to
its
trans
ition
al p
ositi
on b
etw
een
Fenl
and
and
Bre
ckla
nd.
The
spec
ies
list i
s ve
ry lo
ng, i
nclu
ding
man
y ra
re a
nd s
carc
e in
verte
brat
es c
hara
cter
istic
s of
anc
ient
fenl
and
site
s in
GB
. Th
e si
te s
uppo
rts d
iver
se v
eget
atio
n ty
pes,
rare
and
sca
rce
plan
ts.
The
site
is th
e st
rong
hold
of C
ambr
idge
milk
par
sley
Sel
inum
carv
ifolia
.
This
is lo
cate
d in
Eas
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istri
ct.
Are
ther
e ot
her p
roje
cts
or p
lans
that
toge
ther
with
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Doc
umen
t (G
TDP
D)
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
103
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Trav
elle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 c
ould
affe
ct C
hipp
enha
m
Fen?
will
pro
vide
a v
isio
n fo
r the
futu
re o
f Gyp
sies
and
Tra
velle
rs in
S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd w
ill s
et o
ut p
olic
ies
and
prop
osal
s as
th
ey re
late
to p
lann
ing
for G
ypsi
es a
nd T
rave
llers
in th
e D
istri
ct.
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge id
entif
ies
site
opt
ions
for G
ypsy
an
d Tr
avel
ler p
itche
s an
d Tr
avel
ling
Sho
wpe
ople
Plo
ts, a
nd d
raft
polic
ies
for i
nclu
sion
in th
e fin
al D
PD
.
The
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Cor
e S
trate
gy p
rovi
des
the
over
all
spat
ial s
trate
gy fo
r dev
elop
men
t in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
. Th
ere
are
othe
r pla
ns in
the
Sout
h C
ambr
idge
shire
LD
F, in
clud
ing
vario
us A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
ns fo
r the
urb
an e
xten
sion
s to
Cam
brid
ge,
one
AA
P fo
r a n
ew s
ettle
men
t at N
orth
stow
e an
d th
e S
ite S
peci
fic
DP
D, w
hich
cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly in
dire
ctly
affe
ct th
e si
te.
Thes
e pl
ans
prov
ide
deta
il to
the
fram
ewor
k pr
ovid
ed in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy, i
nclu
ding
allo
catio
ns o
f lan
d fo
r dev
elop
men
t.
Oth
er re
leva
nt p
lans
:
��C
ambr
idge
City
Cor
e S
trate
gy (D
PD
) – Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
(R
eg 2
5), 2
007
��C
ambr
idge
Loc
al P
lan
2004
��
Eas
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire L
ocal
Pla
n 20
00 a
nd C
ore
Stra
tegy
S
ubm
issi
on D
raft
2008
��Fe
nlan
d Lo
cal P
lan
1993
; Cor
e S
trate
gy P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
20
06 a
nd P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 2
007
��S
t. E
dmun
dsbu
ry L
ocal
Pla
n 20
06; C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
P
olic
ies
DPD
– Is
sues
and
opt
ions
200
8.
��C
ambr
idge
shire
and
Pet
erbo
roug
h M
iner
als
and
Was
te
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 –
Sep
tem
ber 2
008.
��
Suf
folk
Min
eral
s Lo
cal P
lan
1999
& M
iner
als
Cor
e S
trate
gy
Sub
mis
sion
200
7 &
Min
eral
s S
peci
fic S
ite A
lloca
tions
D
PD
, Apr
il 20
07
��S
uffo
lk W
aste
Loc
al P
lan
2006
; Was
te Is
sues
Rep
ort 2
007
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
104
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Land
Tak
e by
D
evel
opm
ent
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd o
ptio
ns 2
doe
s no
t pro
pose
any
opt
ions
that
will
take
land
from
C
hipp
enha
m F
en, a
nd w
ill n
ot re
sult
in th
e di
rect
fra
gmen
tatio
n of
hab
itats
.
No
othe
r pla
ns p
ropo
se d
evel
opm
ent t
hat w
ould
take
land
fro
m th
is s
ite.
Ther
e ar
e no
opt
ions
in th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
or o
ther
pla
ns w
hich
dire
ctly
impa
ct o
n C
hipp
enha
m F
en.
Impa
ct o
n pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
outs
ide
the
prot
ecte
d si
tes
The
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es re
late
to s
peci
es o
f pla
nt w
ithin
th
e fe
n, a
nd s
peci
es o
f inv
erte
brat
es. D
ue to
the
dist
ance
of
the
site
from
the
Dis
trict
ther
e is
like
ly to
be
no e
ffect
.
Due
to th
e di
stan
ce fr
om th
e D
istri
ct, i
t is
not
cons
ider
ed th
ere
will
be
any
impa
ct o
n br
eedi
ng
bird
spe
cies
ass
ocia
ted
with
the
fen.
The
refo
re,
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns
2 al
one
or in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
is n
ot
likel
y to
hav
e a
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
on
spec
ifies
lis
ted
as im
porta
nt to
the
inte
grity
of t
he s
ite.
Rec
reat
iona
lP
ress
ure
and
Dis
turb
ance
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D o
nly
prop
oses
ver
y lim
ited
deve
lopm
ent,
22 s
ite
optio
ns h
ave
been
iden
tifie
d, w
hich
are
of a
sm
all s
cale
.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
incr
ease
dem
and
for c
ount
rysi
de re
crea
tion.
Tha
t gr
owth
will
be
regu
late
d by
pol
icie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n. H
owev
er, n
o m
ajor
pro
posa
ls in
the
polic
y el
emen
ts
of th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
or a
ny o
ther
pla
n ar
e w
ithin
5km
of t
he
site
.
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of
Chi
ppen
ham
Fen
will
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
O
ptio
ns 2
alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er
plan
s an
d th
at th
ere
will
ther
efor
e be
no
likel
y si
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e si
te.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
105
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Bot
h th
e fe
n an
d su
rrou
ndin
g ar
eas
are
priv
atel
y ow
ned.
P
art o
f the
site
is u
nder
uns
peci
fied
tenu
re.
The
site
is
mai
nly
used
for n
atur
e co
nser
vatio
n. T
here
are
righ
ts o
f w
ay a
cros
s th
e si
te.
Acc
ess
away
from
the
path
s is
by
perm
it on
ly.
The
near
est c
ar p
arki
ng is
in th
e vi
llage
s of
Fo
rdha
m o
r Chi
ppen
ham
. Th
ere
is a
low
leve
l of u
sage
by
loca
l inh
abita
nts
usin
g th
e rig
hts
of w
ay th
roug
h th
e m
iddl
e of
the
site
acc
ordi
ng to
the
Ram
sar i
nfor
mat
ion
shee
t. F
ew
peop
le a
pply
for p
erm
its fo
r rec
reat
iona
l pur
pose
s, th
ey a
re
mai
nly
requ
este
d by
nat
ural
ists
.
Eve
n th
ough
due
to th
e na
ture
and
dis
tanc
e of
the
site
from
th
e ne
w d
evel
opm
ents
it is
not
ant
icip
ated
that
ther
e w
ill b
e in
crea
sed
usag
e as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
. Th
ere
are
othe
r cou
ntry
side
ac
cess
opp
ortu
nitie
s, e
xist
ing
or p
ropo
sed,
ava
ilabl
e in
m
ore
acce
ssib
le lo
catio
ns to
the
maj
or c
entre
s of
po
pula
tion.
The
se a
re s
peci
fical
ly d
esig
ned
to p
rovi
de a
co
untry
side
recr
eatio
n ex
perie
nce,
and
will
con
tinue
to b
e th
e fo
cus
for t
hat u
se b
y ex
istin
g an
d ne
w c
omm
uniti
es,
rath
er th
an m
ore
rem
ote
loca
tions
suc
h as
Chi
ppen
ham
Fe
n. T
his
is p
artic
ular
ly d
emon
stra
ted
by th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
Hor
izon
s G
reen
Infra
stru
ctur
e St
rate
gy,
and
the
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Rec
reat
ion
Stu
dy, w
hich
ta
ke fo
rwar
d th
e pr
opos
als
of th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
Stru
ctur
e P
lan
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of t
he fe
n w
ill
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DP
D
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
, alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er
plan
s.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
106
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Wat
er Q
uant
ity a
nd
Qua
lity
Dev
elop
men
t cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly h
ave
an im
pact
on
wat
er
quan
tity,
thro
ugh
run
off f
rom
dev
elop
men
t site
s, o
r wat
er
use.
It c
ould
als
o ha
ve a
n im
pact
on
wat
er q
ualit
y, th
roug
h ad
ditio
nal w
aste
pro
duct
s pr
oduc
ed.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
onl
y pr
opos
es a
sm
all n
umbe
r of o
ptio
ns a
nd g
iven
this
lim
ited
scal
e w
ill n
ot a
ffect
wat
er q
ualit
y in
the
area
.
The
Cam
brid
ge W
ater
Cyc
le S
trate
gy is
cur
rent
ly b
eing
pr
epar
ed b
y C
ambr
idge
shire
Hor
izon
s. P
hase
1 o
f the
pr
ojec
t has
rece
ntly
bee
n co
mpl
eted
and
it a
ims
to e
nsur
e su
stai
nabl
e m
anag
emen
t of w
ater
reso
urce
s (s
uppl
y an
d di
spos
al) a
s th
e ar
ea is
dev
elop
ed, i
nclu
ding
ens
urin
g pr
otec
tion
of in
tern
atio
nally
des
igna
ted
cons
erva
tion
site
s.
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DP
D in
clud
es a
sui
te o
f po
licie
s to
add
ress
the
impa
ct o
f dev
elop
men
t on
wat
er
quan
tity
and
qual
ity.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd
Opt
ions
2 in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
ap
prop
riate
ly a
ddre
sses
wat
er is
sues
, and
is n
ot
likel
y to
resu
lt in
sig
nific
ant i
mpa
cts
on th
e na
ture
co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
.
Cha
nges
in
Pol
lutio
n Le
vels
Th
e Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 s
tage
of t
he G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
onl
y pr
opos
es v
ery
limite
d de
velo
pmen
t, 22
site
op
tions
hav
e be
en id
entif
ied,
whi
ch a
re o
f a s
mal
l sca
le.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
resu
lt in
incr
ease
d le
vels
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion,
th
roug
h th
e em
issi
ons
crea
ted
by d
evel
opm
ent,
or fr
om th
e ca
r jou
rney
s ge
nera
ted.
Tha
t gro
wth
will
be
regu
late
d by
po
licie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DPD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n.
Ther
e ar
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
that
dev
elop
men
t do
es n
ot h
arm
the
iden
tifie
d E
urop
ean
Site
s, a
nd
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
As
the
site
is n
ot in
clo
se p
roxi
mity
to m
ajor
pr
opos
ed d
evel
opm
ents
, the
re a
re li
kely
to b
e no
si
gnifi
cant
impa
cts
on th
eir n
atur
e co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
107
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
es D
PD
incl
udes
pol
icie
s to
pr
otec
t Eur
opea
n bi
odiv
ersi
ty s
ites,
and
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
opt
ions
will
not
resu
lt in
a
sign
ifica
nt c
hang
e in
pol
lutio
n le
vels
, as
they
are
sm
all i
n sc
ale,
and
wou
ld c
ount
tow
ards
the
over
all h
ousi
ng
deve
lopm
ent r
equi
red
by th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
the
Eas
t of
Eng
land
Pla
n.
Age
ncie
s co
nsul
ted
Nat
ural
Eng
land
Res
pons
e to
C
onsu
ltatio
n A
wai
ting
resp
onse
.
Ove
rall
Con
clus
ions
of S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istr
ict C
ounc
il
The
optio
ns w
ithin
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
Rep
ort,
alon
e an
d in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er D
PD
s in
the
LDF
and
othe
r rel
evan
t pla
ns w
ere
asse
ssed
for i
mpa
ct o
n C
hipp
enha
m F
en a
nd it
was
con
clud
ed th
at th
ere
are
no li
kely
sig
nific
ant e
ffect
son
the
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es o
f the
site
.
(c) F
enla
nd -
Woo
dwal
ton
Fen
– SA
C a
nd R
amsa
r site
Nam
e, lo
catio
n an
d su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f R
amsa
r site
W
oodw
alto
n Fe
n - (
Grid
Ref
TL
2308
40)
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
108
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Rea
son
for d
esig
natio
n as
Ram
sar s
ite -
The
site
is w
ithin
an
area
of o
ne o
f the
rem
aini
ng p
arts
of E
ast
Ang
lia, w
hich
has
not
bee
n dr
aine
d. T
he s
ite s
uppo
rts tw
o sp
ecie
s of
Brit
ish
Red
Dat
a B
ook
plan
ts- f
en v
iole
t and
fen
woo
d ru
sh.
This
is lo
cate
d in
Hun
tingd
onsh
ire D
istri
ct.
Are
ther
e ot
her p
roje
cts
or p
lans
that
toge
ther
with
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 c
ould
affe
ct W
oodw
alto
n Fe
n?
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Doc
umen
t (G
TDP
D)
will
pro
vide
a v
isio
n fo
r the
futu
re o
f Gyp
sies
and
Tra
velle
rs in
S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd w
ill s
et o
ut p
olic
ies
and
prop
osal
s as
th
ey re
late
to p
lann
ing
for G
ypsi
es a
nd T
rave
llers
in th
e D
istri
ct.
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge id
entif
ies
site
opt
ions
for G
ypsy
an
d Tr
avel
ler p
itche
s an
d Tr
avel
ling
Sho
wpe
ople
Plo
ts, a
nd d
raft
polic
ies
for i
nclu
sion
in th
e fin
al D
PD
.
The
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Cor
e S
trate
gy p
rovi
des
the
over
all
spat
ial s
trate
gy fo
r dev
elop
men
t in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
. Th
ere
are
othe
r pla
ns in
the
Sout
h C
ambr
idge
shire
LD
F, in
clud
ing
vario
us A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
ns fo
r the
urb
an e
xten
sion
s to
Cam
brid
ge,
one
AA
P fo
r a n
ew s
ettle
men
t at N
orth
stow
e an
d th
e S
ite S
peci
fic
DP
D, w
hich
cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly in
dire
ctly
affe
ct th
e si
te.
Thes
e pl
ans
prov
ide
deta
il to
the
fram
ewor
k pr
ovid
ed in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy, i
nclu
ding
allo
catio
ns o
f lan
d fo
r dev
elop
men
t.
Oth
er re
leva
nt p
lans
: ��
Cam
brid
ge C
ity C
ore
Stra
tegy
(DP
D) –
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns
(Reg
25)
, 200
7 ��
Cam
brid
ge L
ocal
Pla
n 20
04
��H
untin
gdon
shire
Loc
al P
lan
1995
��
Hun
tingd
onsh
ire C
ore
Stra
tegy
Sub
mis
sion
Dra
ft 20
08 &
D
evel
opm
ent C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
Issu
es &
Opt
ions
R
epor
t, 20
07
��Fe
nlan
d Lo
cal P
lan
1993
; Cor
e S
trate
gy P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
109
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
2006
and
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns 2
200
7 ��
Uttl
esfo
rd C
ore
Stra
tegy
– P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
200
7 ��
St.
Edm
unds
bury
Loc
al P
lan
2006
; Cor
e S
trate
gy a
nd
Pol
icie
s D
PD –
Issu
es a
nd o
ptio
ns 2
008.
��
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd P
eter
boro
ugh
Min
eral
s an
d W
aste
D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns 2
–S
epte
mbe
r 200
8.
��S
uffo
lk M
iner
als
Loca
l Pla
n 19
99 &
Min
eral
s C
ore
Stra
tegy
S
ubm
issi
on 2
007
& M
iner
als
Spe
cific
Site
Allo
catio
ns
DP
D, A
pril
2007
��
Suf
folk
Was
te L
ocal
Pla
n 20
06; W
aste
Issu
es R
epor
t 200
7
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Land
Tak
e by
D
evel
opm
ent
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
doe
s no
t pro
pose
any
opt
ions
that
will
take
land
from
W
oodw
alto
n Fe
n, a
nd w
ill n
ot re
sult
in th
e di
rect
fra
gmen
tatio
n of
hab
itats
.
No
othe
r pla
ns p
ropo
se d
evel
opm
ent t
hat w
ould
take
land
fro
m th
is s
ite.
Ther
e ar
e no
opt
ions
in th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
or o
ther
pla
ns, w
hich
di
rect
ly im
pact
on
Woo
dwal
ton
Fen.
Impa
ct o
n pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
outs
ide
the
prot
ecte
d si
tes
The
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es re
late
to s
peci
es o
f pla
nt w
ithin
th
e fe
n. D
ue to
the
dist
ance
of t
he s
ite fr
om th
e D
istri
ct it
is
likel
y th
at th
ere
will
be
no e
ffect
.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns
2 al
one
or in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
will
not
be
like
ly to
hav
e a
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
on
spec
ies
liste
d as
impo
rtant
to th
e in
tegr
ity o
f the
site
.
Rec
reat
iona
lP
ress
ure
and
Dis
turb
ance
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D o
nly
prop
oses
ver
y lim
ited
deve
lopm
ent,
and
22 s
ite
optio
ns, w
hich
are
of a
sm
all s
cale
.
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of
Woo
dwal
ton
Fen
will
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
110
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
incr
ease
dem
and
for c
ount
rysi
de re
crea
tion.
Tha
t gr
owth
will
be
regu
late
d by
pol
icie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n. H
owev
er, n
o m
ajor
pro
posa
ls in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy o
r an
y ot
her p
lan
are
with
in 5
km o
f the
site
.
Par
king
is li
mite
d at
Woo
dwal
ton
Fen
– so
me
bein
g av
aila
ble
alon
gsid
e th
e G
reat
Rav
eley
Dra
in.
Ther
e ar
e th
ree
mar
ked
trails
aro
und
the
fen
follo
win
g th
e rid
es.
Ther
e ar
e no
pub
lic ri
ghts
of w
ay a
cros
s th
e re
serv
e bu
t vi
sito
rs a
re a
llow
ed a
cces
s to
the
site
alth
ough
som
e ar
eas
are
rest
ricte
d.
Eve
n th
ough
due
to th
e na
ture
and
dis
tanc
e of
the
site
from
th
e ne
w d
evel
opm
ents
it is
not
ant
icip
ated
that
ther
e w
ill b
e in
crea
sed
usag
e as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
ther
e ar
e ot
her c
ount
rysi
de
acce
ss o
ppor
tuni
ties,
exi
stin
g or
pro
pose
d, a
vaila
ble
in
mor
e ac
cess
ible
loca
tions
to th
e m
ajor
cen
tres
of
popu
latio
n. T
hese
are
spe
cific
ally
des
igne
d to
pro
vide
a
coun
trysi
de re
crea
tion
expe
rienc
e, a
nd w
ill c
ontin
ue to
be
the
focu
s fo
r tha
t use
by
exis
ting
and
new
com
mun
ities
, ra
ther
than
mor
e re
mot
e lo
catio
ns s
uch
as W
oodw
alto
n Fe
n. T
his
is p
artic
ular
ly d
emon
stra
ted
by th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
Hor
izon
s G
reen
Infra
stru
ctur
e St
rate
gy,
and
the
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Rec
reat
ion
Stu
dy, w
hich
ta
ke fo
rwar
d th
e pr
opos
als
of th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
Stru
ctur
e P
lan
Opt
ions
2 a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns
and
that
ther
e w
ill th
eref
ore
be n
o lik
ely
sign
ifica
nt
effe
cts
on th
e si
te.
Not
with
stan
ding
, pub
lic a
cces
s to
the
site
is
cont
rolle
d an
d is
rest
ricte
d in
som
e ar
eas.
The
im
pact
of p
ublic
acc
ess
is n
ot li
sted
in th
e vu
lner
abili
ties
rela
ting
to th
e si
te.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
111
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of t
he fe
n w
ill
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
, alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
.
Wat
er Q
uant
ity a
nd
Qua
lity
Dev
elop
men
t cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly h
ave
an im
pact
on
wat
er
quan
tity,
thro
ugh
run
off f
rom
dev
elop
men
t site
s, o
r wat
er
use.
It c
ould
als
o ha
ve a
n im
pact
on
wat
er q
ualit
y, th
roug
h ad
ditio
nal w
aste
pro
duct
s pr
oduc
ed.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
onl
y pr
opos
es a
ver
y sm
all a
mou
nt o
f dev
elop
men
t and
giv
en
this
lim
ited
scal
e w
ill n
ot a
ffect
wat
er q
ualit
y in
the
area
.
The
Cam
brid
ge W
ater
Cyc
le S
trate
gy is
cur
rent
ly b
eing
pr
epar
ed b
y C
ambr
idge
shire
Hor
izon
s. P
hase
1 o
f the
pr
ojec
t has
rece
ntly
bee
n co
mpl
eted
and
it a
ims
to e
nsur
e su
stai
nabl
e m
anag
emen
t of w
ater
reso
urce
s (s
uppl
y an
d di
spos
al) a
s th
e ar
ea is
dev
elop
ed, i
nclu
ding
ens
urin
g pr
otec
tion
of in
tern
atio
nally
des
igna
ted
cons
erva
tion
site
s.
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DP
D in
clud
es a
sui
te o
f po
licie
s to
add
ress
the
impa
ct o
f dev
elop
men
t on
wat
er
quan
tity
and
qual
ity:
Giv
en th
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2, t
aken
to
geth
er w
ith th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f oth
er le
gisl
atio
n,
alon
e or
in c
ombi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns, t
he p
lan
is n
ot li
kely
to re
sult
in s
igni
fican
t im
pact
s on
the
site
.
Cha
nges
in
Pol
lutio
n Le
vels
Th
e Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 s
tage
of t
he G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
onl
y pr
opos
es v
ery
limite
d de
velo
pmen
t, 22
site
op
tions
hav
e be
en id
entif
ied,
whi
ch a
re o
f a s
mal
l sca
le.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
resu
lt in
incr
ease
d le
vels
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion,
th
roug
h th
e em
issi
ons
crea
ted
by d
evel
opm
ent,
or fr
om th
e
Ther
e ar
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
that
dev
elop
men
t do
es n
ot h
arm
the
iden
tifie
d E
urop
ean
Site
s, a
nd
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
As
the
site
is n
ot in
clo
se p
roxi
mity
to m
ajor
pr
opos
ed d
evel
opm
ents
, the
re a
re li
kely
to b
e no
si
gnifi
cant
impa
cts
on th
eir n
atur
e co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
112
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
car j
ourn
eys
gene
rate
d. T
hat g
row
th w
ill b
e re
gula
ted
by
polic
ies
in th
e D
evel
opm
ent C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD, u
nles
s sp
ecifi
ed in
an
Are
a A
ctio
n P
lan.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
opt
ions
will
not
resu
lt in
a
sign
ifica
nt c
hang
e in
pol
lutio
n le
vels
, as
they
are
sm
all i
n sc
ale,
and
wou
ld c
ount
tow
ards
the
over
all h
ousi
ng
deve
lopm
ent r
equi
red
by th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
the
Eas
t of
Eng
land
Pla
n.
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
es D
PD
incl
udes
pol
icie
s to
pr
otec
t Eur
opea
n bi
odiv
ersi
ty s
ites,
and
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
Age
ncie
s co
nsul
ted
Nat
ural
Eng
land
Res
pons
e to
C
onsu
ltatio
n A
wai
ting
resp
onse
.
Ove
rall
Con
clus
ions
of S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istr
ict C
ounc
il
The
optio
ns w
ithin
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
Rep
ort,
alon
e an
d in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er D
PD
s in
the
LDF
and
othe
r rel
evan
t pla
ns, w
ere
asse
ssed
for i
mpa
ct o
n W
oodw
alto
n Fe
n an
d it
was
con
clud
ed th
at th
ere
are
no li
kely
sig
nific
ant e
ffect
s on
the
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es o
f the
site
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
113
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
SCR
EEN
ING
MA
TRIX
For
Ous
e W
ashe
s SA
C, S
PA a
nd R
AM
SAR
site
Nam
e, lo
catio
n an
d su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f Nat
ura
2000
and
Ram
sar s
ite
The
Ous
e W
ashe
s (G
rid R
ef T
L498
895)
The
Ous
e W
ashe
s is
a w
etla
nd o
f maj
or in
tern
atio
nal i
mpo
rtanc
e co
mpr
isin
g se
ason
ally
floo
ded
was
hlan
ds, w
hich
are
agr
icul
tura
lly
man
aged
in a
trad
ition
al m
anne
r. It
pro
vide
s br
eedi
ng a
nd w
inte
r ha
bita
ts fo
r im
porta
nt a
ssem
blag
es o
f wet
land
bird
spe
cies
, pa
rticu
larly
wild
fow
l and
wad
ers.
Rea
son
for d
esig
natio
n as
a S
AC
- S
igni
fican
t pre
senc
e of
spi
ned
loac
h(C
obiti
s ta
enia
) pop
ulat
ions
w
ithin
the
Riv
er O
use
catc
hmen
t. Th
e C
ount
er D
rain
, with
its
clea
r w
ater
and
abu
ndan
t mac
roph
ytes
, is
parti
cula
rly im
porta
nt, a
nd a
he
alth
y po
pula
tion
of s
pine
d lo
ach
is k
now
n to
occ
ur.
Rea
son
for d
esig
natio
n as
SPA
-
The
Ous
e W
ashe
s is
a w
etla
nd o
f maj
or in
tern
atio
nal i
mpo
rtanc
e co
mpr
isin
g se
ason
ally
floo
ded
was
hlan
ds, w
hich
are
agr
icul
tura
lly
man
aged
in a
trad
ition
al m
anne
r. It
pro
vide
s br
eedi
ng a
nd w
inte
r ha
bita
ts fo
r im
porta
nt a
ssem
blag
es o
f wet
land
bird
spe
cies
, pa
rticu
larly
wild
fow
l and
wad
ers.
R
easo
n fo
r des
igna
tion
as R
amsa
r site
-
a)
Par
ticul
arly
goo
d ex
ampl
e of
a n
atur
al o
r nea
r-na
tura
l w
etla
nd c
hara
cter
istic
of i
ts b
ioge
ogra
phic
al re
gion
. b)
Th
e si
te s
uppo
rts a
num
ber o
f rar
e sp
ecie
s of
pla
nts
and
anim
als
c)
The
site
sup
ports
a d
iver
se c
olle
ctio
n of
rare
bre
edin
g w
ater
fow
l ass
ocia
ted
with
sea
sona
lly fl
oodi
ng w
et
gras
slan
d.d)
Th
e W
ashe
s ar
e of
inte
rnat
iona
l im
porta
nce
by v
irtue
of
regu
larly
sup
porti
ng o
ver 2
0,00
0 w
ater
fow
l. e)
Th
e W
ashe
s ar
e im
porta
nt in
tern
atio
nally
for s
uppo
rting
in
win
ter c
erta
in s
peci
es.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
114
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
The
boun
darie
s of
the
SPA
and
Ram
sar s
ite v
arie
s sl
ight
ly fr
om
thos
e of
the
Ous
e W
ashe
s S
AC
.
The
Ous
e W
ashe
s ar
e pr
imar
ily lo
cate
d in
Eas
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire
Dis
trict
, and
Kin
g's
Lynn
and
Wes
t Nor
folk
Dis
trict
.
Are
ther
e ot
her p
roje
cts
or p
lans
that
toge
ther
with
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 c
ould
affe
ct th
e O
use
Was
hes?
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Doc
umen
t (G
TDP
D)
will
pro
vide
a v
isio
n fo
r the
futu
re o
f Gyp
sies
and
Tra
velle
rs in
S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd w
ill s
et o
ut p
olic
ies
and
prop
osal
s as
th
ey re
late
to p
lann
ing
for G
ypsi
es a
nd T
rave
llers
in th
e D
istri
ct.
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge id
entif
ies
site
opt
ions
for G
ypsy
an
d Tr
avel
ler p
itche
s an
d Tr
avel
ling
Sho
wpe
ople
Plo
ts, a
nd d
raft
polic
ies
for i
nclu
sion
in th
e fin
al D
PD
.
The
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Cor
e S
trate
gy p
rovi
des
the
over
all
spat
ial s
trate
gy fo
r dev
elop
men
t in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
. Th
ere
are
othe
r pla
ns in
the
Sout
h C
ambr
idge
shire
LD
F, in
clud
ing
vario
us A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
ns fo
r the
urb
an e
xten
sion
s to
Cam
brid
ge,
one
AA
P fo
r a n
ew s
ettle
men
t at N
orth
stow
e an
d th
e S
ite S
peci
fic
DP
D, w
hich
cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly in
dire
ctly
affe
ct th
e si
te.
Thes
e pl
ans
prov
ide
deta
il to
the
fram
ewor
k pr
ovid
ed in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy, i
nclu
ding
allo
catio
ns o
f lan
d fo
r dev
elop
men
t.
Oth
er re
leva
nt p
lans
: ��
Cam
brid
ge C
ity C
ore
Stra
tegy
(DP
D) –
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns
(Reg
25)
, 200
7 ��
Cam
brid
ge L
ocal
Pla
n 20
04
��H
untin
gdon
shire
Loc
al P
lan
1995
��
Hun
tingd
onsh
ire C
ore
Stra
tegy
Sub
mis
sion
Dra
ft 20
08 &
D
evel
opm
ent C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
Issu
es &
Opt
ions
R
epor
t, 20
07
��E
ast C
ambr
idge
shire
Loc
al P
lan
2000
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy
Sub
mis
sion
Dra
ft 20
08
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
115
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
��Fe
nlan
d Lo
cal P
lan
1993
; Cor
e S
trate
gy P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
20
06 a
nd P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 2
007
��M
id B
edfo
rdsh
ire L
ocal
Pla
n 20
05 &
Cor
e S
trate
gy a
nd
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DP
D P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
20
07��
Fore
st H
eath
Loc
al P
lan
1995
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy &
D
evel
opm
ent P
olic
ies
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns R
epor
t Oct
ober
20
06 a
nd S
ite S
peci
fic P
olic
ies
and
Allo
catio
ns D
PD
Is
sues
& O
ptio
ns R
epor
t 200
6
��K
ing’
s Ly
nn &
Wes
t Nor
folk
Loc
al P
lan
1998
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy- I
ssue
s an
d O
ptio
ns 2
200
8 D
C P
olic
ies
Pre
ferr
ed
Opt
ions
200
7 ��
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd P
eter
boro
ugh
Min
eral
s an
d W
aste
D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns 2
–S
epte
mbe
r 200
8.
��B
edfo
rdsh
ire a
nd L
uton
Min
eral
s an
d W
aste
Loc
al P
lan
2005
��B
edfo
rdsh
ire a
nd L
uton
Min
eral
s C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
Site
A
lloca
tion
Pla
n –
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns (J
an 2
006)
; Iss
ues
and
Opt
ions
2 2
008;
Was
te D
PD
– C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
Site
A
lloca
tion
Pla
n 20
06
��B
edfo
rd B
orou
gh L
ocal
Pla
n 20
06 a
nd B
edfo
rd C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
Rur
al Is
sues
Pla
n A
dopt
ed 2
008
��M
ilton
Key
nes
Loca
l Pla
n 20
05; C
ore
Stra
tegy
– P
refe
rred
op
tions
200
7 ��
Buc
king
ham
shire
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
Was
te L
ocal
Pla
n 19
97;
Buc
king
ham
shire
Min
eral
s D
PD
– P
refe
rred
opt
ions
200
7;
Buc
king
ham
shire
Was
te D
PD
– P
refe
rred
opt
ions
200
7 ��
Milt
on K
eyne
s W
aste
DP
D S
ubm
issi
on 2
007
��M
ilton
Key
nes
Min
eral
s Lo
cal P
lan
2006
; Min
eral
s D
PD
–
pref
erre
d op
tions
200
7 ��
Nor
folk
Was
te L
ocal
Pla
n 20
00
��N
orfo
lk M
iner
als
Loca
l Pla
n 20
04
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
116
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
��N
orfo
lk M
iner
als
and
Was
te C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
D
evel
opm
ent C
ontro
l Doc
umen
t –pr
efer
red
optio
ns s
tage
20
08
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Land
Tak
e by
D
evel
opm
ent
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
doe
s no
t inc
lude
any
site
opt
ions
that
will
take
land
from
the
Ous
e W
ashe
s, a
nd w
ill n
ot re
sult
in th
e di
rect
frag
men
tatio
n of
hab
itats
.
No
othe
r pla
ns p
ropo
se d
evel
opm
ent t
hat w
ould
take
land
fro
m th
is s
ite.
Ther
e ar
e no
opt
ions
in th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
, whi
ch a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns d
irect
ly im
pact
on
the
Ous
e W
ashe
s.
Impa
ct o
n pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
outs
ide
the
prot
ecte
d si
tes
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
will
not
ha
ve a
sig
nific
ant a
dver
se im
pact
on
spec
ies
liste
d as
im
porta
nt to
the
inte
grity
of t
he s
ite s
ince
the
Ous
e W
ashe
s as
a s
ite is
out
side
of t
he d
istri
ct o
f Sou
th C
ambs
. Th
ere
are
som
e si
te o
ptio
ns th
at a
re ju
st w
ithin
5 k
m o
f the
W
ashe
s in
Will
ingh
am b
ut g
iven
the
smal
l sca
le o
f de
velo
pmen
t pro
pose
d on
thes
e si
tes,
and
that
mos
t of
them
are
exi
stin
g si
tes
with
tem
pora
ry c
onse
nt, t
heir
impa
ct
will
be
limite
d an
d no
t affe
ct th
e pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
from
the
was
hes.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns
2, a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns w
ill n
ot
be li
kely
to h
ave
a si
gnifi
cant
impa
ct o
n sp
ecie
s lis
ted
as im
porta
nt to
the
inte
grity
of t
he s
ite.
Rec
reat
iona
lP
ress
ure
and
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D o
nly
prop
oses
ver
y lim
ited
deve
lopm
ent,
22 s
ite
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of
the
Ous
e W
ashe
s w
ill in
crea
se g
reat
ly a
s a
resu
lt
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
117
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Dis
turb
ance
op
tions
hav
e be
en id
entif
ied,
whi
ch a
re a
ll ad
jace
nt to
ex
istin
g or
pro
pose
d se
ttlem
ents
and
are
of a
sm
all s
cale
.
Ther
e ar
e so
me
site
opt
ions
that
are
just
with
in 5
km
of t
he
Ous
e W
ashe
s in
Will
ingh
am.
Sin
ce th
ese
are
of s
uch
a sm
all s
cale
, and
are
mai
nly
exis
ting
site
s w
ith te
mpo
rary
pl
anni
ng p
erm
issi
on, t
hey
will
not
impa
ct o
n th
e w
ashe
s by
in
crea
sing
the
usag
e of
the
site
.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
incr
ease
dem
and
for c
ount
rysi
de re
crea
tion.
Tha
t gr
owth
will
be
regu
late
d by
pol
icie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n. H
owev
er, n
o m
ajor
pro
posa
ls in
the
polic
y el
emen
ts
of th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
or a
ny o
ther
pla
n ar
e w
ithin
5km
of t
he
site
.
Ther
e is
a n
etw
ork
of p
ublic
righ
ts o
f way
in th
e W
ashe
s.
The
RS
PB
man
age
a na
ture
rese
rve
at W
elch
es D
am
whe
re th
ere
is a
vis
itor c
entre
and
a n
umbe
r of b
ird h
ides
. Th
e W
WT
man
age
a na
ture
rese
rve
at W
elne
y, N
orfo
lk a
lso
with
a c
entre
and
hid
es.
Eve
n th
ough
due
to th
e na
ture
and
dis
tanc
e of
the
site
from
th
e ne
w d
evel
opm
ents
it is
not
ant
icip
ated
that
ther
e w
ill b
e in
crea
sed
usag
e as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
ther
e ar
e ot
her c
ount
rysi
de
acce
ss o
ppor
tuni
ties,
exi
stin
g or
pro
pose
d, a
vaila
ble
in
mor
e ac
cess
ible
loca
tions
to th
e m
ajor
cen
tres
of
popu
latio
n. T
hese
are
spe
cific
ally
des
igne
d to
pro
vide
a
coun
trysi
de re
crea
tion
expe
rienc
e, a
nd w
ill c
ontin
ue to
be
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DP
D is
sues
and
O
ptio
ns 2
alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
an
d th
at th
ere
will
ther
efor
e be
no
likel
y si
gnifi
cant
ef
fect
s on
the
site
. N
otw
ithst
andi
ng, t
he im
pact
of
pub
lic a
cces
s is
not
list
ed in
the
vuln
erab
ilitie
s re
latin
g to
the
site
.
The
prop
osal
s co
ntai
ned
with
in th
e M
iner
als
and
Was
te D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
are
not l
ikel
y to
hav
e a
sign
ifica
nt a
ffect
on
the
Was
hes
due
to th
e fa
ct
that
the
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
inte
nd to
miti
gate
aga
inst
an
y ad
vers
e im
pact
s of
thes
e pr
opos
als.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
118
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
the
focu
s fo
r tha
t use
by
exis
ting
and
new
com
mun
ities
, ra
ther
than
mor
e re
mot
e lo
catio
ns s
uch
as th
e O
use
Was
hes.
Thi
s is
par
ticul
arly
dem
onst
rate
d by
the
Cam
brid
gesh
ire H
oriz
ons
Gre
en In
frast
ruct
ure
Stra
tegy
, an
d th
e S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire R
ecre
atio
n S
tudy
, whi
ch
take
forw
ard
the
prop
osal
s of
the
Cam
brid
gesh
ire S
truct
ure
Pla
n.
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of t
he O
use
Was
hes
will
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tr
avel
ler D
PD
, alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
.
The
draf
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire M
iner
als
and
Was
te
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 (
Sep
t 200
8)
prop
oses
an
Ear
ith /
Mep
al A
ctio
n Ar
ea P
lan,
stra
tegi
c al
loca
tions
for s
and
and
grav
el e
xtra
ctio
n at
Cot
tenh
am a
s w
ell a
s an
allo
catio
n at
Nee
ding
wor
th a
nd e
xten
sive
m
iner
als
safe
guar
ding
are
as a
cros
s th
e D
istri
ct.
All
thes
e pr
opos
als
coul
d ha
ve a
n im
pact
thro
ugh
nois
e of
traf
fic a
nd
oper
atio
n of
pla
nt a
nd th
eref
ore
crea
te a
pot
entia
l di
stur
banc
e. H
owev
er, a
fter t
he in
itial
scr
eeni
ng o
f the
pla
n th
e C
ount
y C
ounc
il ha
s st
ated
a fu
ll A
sses
smen
t A
ppro
pria
te w
ill b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t on
the
plan
and
that
the
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
will
ens
ure
that
the
final
sub
mis
sion
ver
sion
of
the
plan
will
not
con
tain
pol
icie
s th
at h
ave
an a
dver
se
affe
ct o
n an
y E
urop
ean
Site
s.
Wat
er Q
uant
ity a
nd
Qua
lity
Dev
elop
men
t cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly h
ave
an im
pact
on
wat
er
quan
tity,
thro
ugh
run
off f
rom
dev
elop
men
t site
s, o
r wat
er
use.
It c
ould
als
o ha
ve a
n im
pact
on
wat
er q
ualit
y, th
roug
h ad
ditio
nal w
aste
pro
duct
s pr
oduc
ed.
Giv
en th
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2, t
aken
to
geth
er w
ith th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f oth
er le
gisl
atio
n,
alon
e or
in c
ombi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns, t
he p
lan
is n
ot li
kely
to re
sult
in s
igni
fican
t im
pact
s on
the
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
119
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D o
nly
prop
oses
ver
y lim
ited
deve
lopm
ent,
22 s
ite
optio
ns h
ave
been
iden
tifie
d, w
hich
are
of a
sm
all s
cale
and
th
eref
ore
this
will
not
cre
ate
a ch
ange
in w
ater
qua
lity.
The
Cam
brid
ge W
ater
Cyc
le S
trate
gy is
cur
rent
ly b
eing
pr
epar
ed b
y C
ambr
idge
shire
Hor
izon
s. P
hase
1 o
f the
pr
ojec
t has
rece
ntly
bee
n co
mpl
eted
and
it a
ims
to e
nsur
e su
stai
nabl
e m
anag
emen
t of w
ater
reso
urce
s (s
uppl
y an
d di
spos
al) a
s th
e ar
ea is
dev
elop
ed, i
nclu
ding
ens
urin
g pr
otec
tion
of in
tern
atio
nally
des
igna
ted
cons
erva
tion
site
s.
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DP
D in
clud
es a
sui
te o
f po
licie
s to
add
ress
the
impa
ct o
f dev
elop
men
t on
wat
er
quan
tity
and
qual
ity.
The
draf
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire M
iner
als
and
Was
te
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 (S
ept 2
008)
pr
opos
es a
n E
arith
/ M
epal
Act
ion
Area
Pla
n, s
trate
gic
allo
catio
ns fo
r san
d an
d gr
avel
ext
ract
ion
at C
otte
nham
as
wel
l as
an a
lloca
tion
at N
eedi
ngw
orth
and
ext
ensi
ve
min
eral
s sa
fegu
ardi
ng a
reas
acr
oss
the
Dis
trict
, whi
ch
coul
d ha
ve a
n im
pact
on
hydr
olog
y an
d w
ater
reso
urce
s.
How
ever
, afte
r the
initi
al s
cree
ning
of t
he p
lan
the
Cou
nty
has
stat
ed a
full
Ass
essm
ent A
ppro
pria
te w
ill b
e ca
rrie
d ou
t on
the
plan
and
that
the
Cou
nty
will
ens
ure
that
the
final
su
bmis
sion
ver
sion
of t
he p
lan
will
not
con
tain
pol
icie
s th
at
have
an
adve
rse
affe
ct o
n an
y E
urop
ean
Site
s
site
.
The
prop
osal
s co
ntai
ned
with
in th
e M
iner
als
and
Was
te D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
are
not l
ikel
y to
hav
e a
sign
ifica
nt a
ffect
on
the
Was
hes
due
to th
e fa
ct
that
the
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
inte
nd to
miti
gate
aga
inst
an
y ad
vers
e im
pact
s of
thes
e pr
opos
als.
Cha
nges
in
Pol
lutio
n Le
vels
Th
e Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 s
tage
of t
he G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
onl
y pr
opos
es v
ery
limite
d de
velo
pmen
t, an
d 22
site
op
tions
, whi
ch a
re a
ll ad
jace
nt to
exi
stin
g or
pro
pose
d
Ther
e ar
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
that
dev
elop
men
t do
es n
ot h
arm
the
iden
tifie
d E
urop
ean
Site
s, a
nd
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
120
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
settl
emen
ts.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
resu
lt in
incr
ease
d le
vels
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion,
th
roug
h th
e em
issi
ons
crea
ted
by d
evel
opm
ent,
or fr
om th
e ca
r jou
rney
s ge
nera
ted.
Tha
t gro
wth
will
be
regu
late
d by
po
licie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DPD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n.
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
es D
PD
incl
udes
pol
icie
s to
pr
otec
t Eur
opea
n bi
odiv
ersi
ty s
ites,
and
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
The
draf
t Cam
brid
gesh
ire M
iner
als
and
Was
te
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 (
Sep
t 200
8)
prop
oses
an
Ear
ith /
Mep
al A
ctio
n Ar
ea P
lan,
stra
tegi
c al
loca
tions
for s
and
and
grav
el e
xtra
ctio
n at
Cot
tenh
am a
s w
ell a
s an
allo
catio
n at
Nee
ding
wor
th a
nd e
xten
sive
m
iner
als
safe
guar
ding
are
as a
cros
s th
e D
istri
ct, w
hich
co
uld
have
an
impa
ct o
n em
issi
ons.
How
ever
, afte
r the
in
itial
scr
eeni
ng o
f the
pla
n th
e C
ount
y ha
s st
ated
a fu
ll A
sses
smen
t App
ropr
iate
will
be
carr
ied
out o
n th
e pl
an a
nd
that
the
Cou
nty
will
ens
ure
that
the
final
sub
mis
sion
ver
sion
of
the
plan
will
not
con
tain
pol
icie
s th
at h
ave
an a
dver
se
affe
ct o
n an
y E
urop
ean
Site
s
As
the
site
is n
ot in
clo
se p
roxi
mity
to m
ajor
pr
opos
ed d
evel
opm
ents
, the
re a
re li
kely
to b
e no
si
gnifi
cant
impa
cts
on th
eir n
atur
e co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
.
The
prop
osal
s co
ntai
ned
with
in th
e M
iner
als
and
Was
te D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
are
not l
ikel
y to
hav
e a
sign
ifica
nt a
ffect
on
the
Was
hes
due
to th
e fa
ct
that
the
Cou
nty
Cou
ncil
inte
nd to
miti
gate
aga
inst
an
y ad
vers
e im
pact
s of
thes
e pr
opos
als.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
121
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Age
ncie
s co
nsul
ted
Nat
ural
Eng
land
Res
pons
e to
C
onsu
ltatio
n A
wai
ting
resp
onse
.
Ove
rall
Con
clus
ions
of S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istr
ict C
ounc
il
The
optio
ns w
ithin
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
Rep
ort,
alon
e an
d in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er D
PD
s in
the
LDF
and
othe
r rel
evan
t pla
ns w
ere
asse
ssed
for i
mpa
ct o
n th
e O
use
Was
hes
and
it w
as c
oncl
uded
that
ther
e ar
e no
like
ly s
igni
fican
t effe
cts
on th
e co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
of t
he s
ite.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
122
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
SCR
EEN
ING
MA
TRIX
For
Por
thol
me
SAC
Nam
e, lo
catio
n an
d su
mm
ary
of c
onse
rvat
ion
obje
ctiv
es o
f Nat
ura
2000
site
Po
rtho
lme
(Grid
ref T
L237
708)
Rea
son
for d
esig
natio
n as
SA
C -
Bes
t exa
mpl
e of
low
land
hay
m
eado
ws
in e
aste
rn E
ngla
nd.(A
lope
curu
s pr
aten
sis,
San
guis
orba
of
ficin
alis
)
This
site
is o
ver 9
0 he
ctar
es in
siz
e. It
is th
e la
rges
t sur
vivi
ng
tradi
tiona
lly m
anag
ed m
eado
w in
the
UK
of a
lluvi
al fl
ood
mea
dow
(7
% o
f the
tota
l UK
reso
urce
). Th
ere
has
been
a lo
ng h
isto
ry o
f fa
vour
able
man
agem
ent a
nd v
ery
little
of t
he s
ite h
as s
uffe
red
from
agr
icul
tura
l im
prov
emen
t, an
d so
it d
emon
stra
tes
good
co
nser
vatio
n of
stru
ctur
e an
d fu
nctio
n. It
sup
ports
a s
mal
l po
pula
tion
of fr
itilla
ry (F
ritill
aria
mel
eagr
is).
The
site
is lo
cate
d in
Hun
tingd
onsh
ire D
istri
ct.
Are
ther
e ot
her p
roje
cts
or p
lans
that
toge
ther
with
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D c
ould
affe
ct P
orth
olm
e?
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
evel
opm
ent P
lan
Doc
umen
t (G
TDP
D)
will
pro
vide
a v
isio
n fo
r the
futu
re o
f Gyp
sies
and
Tra
velle
rs in
S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire a
nd w
ill s
et o
ut p
olic
ies
and
prop
osal
s as
th
ey re
late
to p
lann
ing
for G
ypsi
es a
nd T
rave
llers
in th
e D
istri
ct.
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge id
entif
ies
site
opt
ions
for G
ypsy
an
d Tr
avel
ler p
itche
s an
d Tr
avel
ling
Sho
wpe
ople
Plo
ts, a
nd d
raft
polic
ies
for i
nclu
sion
in th
e fin
al D
PD
.
The
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Cor
e S
trate
gy p
rovi
des
the
over
all
spat
ial s
trate
gy fo
r dev
elop
men
t in
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
. Th
ere
are
othe
r pla
ns in
the
Sout
h C
ambr
idge
shire
LD
F, in
clud
ing
vario
us A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
ns fo
r the
urb
an e
xten
sion
s to
Cam
brid
ge,
an A
AP
for t
he n
ew s
ettle
men
t of N
orth
stow
e an
d th
e S
ite S
peci
fic
DP
D, w
hich
cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly in
dire
ctly
affe
ct th
e si
te.
Thes
e pl
ans
prov
ide
deta
il to
the
fram
ewor
k pr
ovid
ed in
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy, i
nclu
ding
allo
catio
ns o
f lan
d fo
r dev
elop
men
t.
Oth
er re
leva
nt p
lans
:
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
123
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
��C
ambr
idge
City
Cor
e S
trate
gy (D
PD
) – Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
(R
eg 2
5), 2
007
��C
ambr
idge
Loc
al P
lan
2004
��
Hun
tingd
onsh
ire L
ocal
Pla
n 19
95
��H
untin
gdon
shire
Cor
e S
trate
gy S
ubm
issi
on D
raft
2008
&
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DP
D Is
sues
& O
ptio
ns
Rep
ort,
2007
��
Fenl
and
Loca
l Pla
n 19
93; C
ore
Stra
tegy
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns
2006
and
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns 2
200
7 ��
Nor
th H
erts
Loc
al P
lan
1996
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy &
D
evel
opm
ent P
olic
ies
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns 2
007
��
Mid
Bed
ford
shire
Loc
al P
lan
2005
& C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
D
evel
opm
ent C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
Pre
ferr
ed O
ptio
ns 2
007
��K
ing’
s Ly
nn &
Wes
t Nor
folk
Loc
al P
lan
1998
and
Cor
e S
trate
gy- I
ssue
s an
d O
ptio
ns 2
200
8 D
C P
olic
ies
Pre
ferr
ed
Opt
ions
200
7 ��
Her
tford
shire
Min
eral
s Lo
cal P
lan
1998
(and
revi
ew
adop
ted
2007
) ��
Her
tford
shire
Was
te L
ocal
Pla
n 19
98
��C
ambr
idge
shire
and
Pet
erbo
roug
h M
iner
als
and
Was
te
Dev
elop
men
t Pla
n P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
2 –
Sep
tem
ber 2
008.
��
Her
tford
shire
Min
eral
s &
Was
te D
PD
s Is
sues
& O
ptio
ns &
W
aste
Cor
e S
trate
gy P
refe
rred
Opt
ions
Rep
ort,
June
200
7 ��
Bed
ford
Bor
ough
Loc
al P
lan
2006
and
Bed
ford
Cor
e S
trate
gy a
nd R
ural
Issu
es P
lan
Ado
pted
200
8 ��
Milt
on K
eyne
s Lo
cal P
lan
2005
; Cor
e S
trate
gy –
Pre
ferr
ed
optio
ns 2
007
��B
ucki
ngha
msh
ire C
ount
y C
ounc
il W
aste
Loc
al P
lan
1997
; B
ucki
ngha
msh
ire M
iner
als
DP
D –
Pre
ferr
ed o
ptio
ns 2
007;
B
ucki
ngha
msh
ire W
aste
DP
D –
Pre
ferr
ed o
ptio
ns 2
007
��M
ilton
Key
nes
Was
te D
PD
Sub
mis
sion
200
7 ��
Milt
on K
eyne
s M
iner
als
Loca
l Pla
n 20
06; M
iner
als
DP
D –
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
124
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
pref
erre
d op
tions
200
7 ��
Nor
folk
Was
te L
ocal
Pla
n 20
00
��N
orfo
lk M
iner
als
Loca
l Pla
n 20
04
��N
orfo
lk M
iner
als
and
Was
te C
ore
Stra
tegy
and
D
evel
opm
ent C
ontro
l Doc
umen
t –pr
efer
red
optio
ns s
tage
20
08
The
asse
ssm
ent o
f sig
nific
ance
of e
ffect
s:
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Land
Tak
e by
D
evel
opm
ent
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
doe
s no
t pro
pose
any
opt
ions
that
will
take
land
from
Por
thol
me,
an
d w
ill n
ot re
sult
in th
e di
rect
frag
men
tatio
n of
hab
itats
. N
o ot
her p
lans
pro
pose
dev
elop
men
t tha
t wou
ld ta
ke la
nd
from
this
site
.
Ther
e ar
e no
opt
ions
in th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
or o
ther
pla
ns w
hich
di
rect
ly im
pact
on
Por
thol
me.
Impa
ct o
n pr
otec
ted
spec
ies
outs
ide
the
prot
ecte
d si
tes
The
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es re
late
to s
peci
es o
f pla
nt w
ithin
th
e ha
y m
eado
w.
Due
to th
e di
stan
ce o
f the
site
from
the
Dis
trict
ther
e w
ill b
e no
effe
ct.
The
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd
Opt
ions
2 a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pl
ans
will
not
be
likel
y to
hav
e a
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
on
spe
cies
list
ed a
s im
porta
nt to
the
inte
grity
of
the
site
. R
ecre
atio
nal
Pre
ssur
e an
d D
istu
rban
ce
The
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
sta
ge o
f the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller
DP
D o
nly
prop
oses
ver
y lim
ited
deve
lopm
ent,
22 s
ite
optio
ns h
ave
been
iden
tifie
d, w
hich
are
of a
sm
all s
cale
.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
incr
ease
dem
and
for c
ount
rysi
de re
crea
tion.
Tha
t gr
owth
will
be
regu
late
d by
pol
icie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t C
ontro
l Pol
icie
s D
PD
, unl
ess
s pec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of
Por
thol
me
will
incr
ease
gre
atly
as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DP
D Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2,
alon
e or
in c
ombi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns.
Als
o,
the
impa
ct o
f pub
lic a
cces
s is
not
list
ed in
the
vuln
erab
ilitie
s re
latin
g to
the
site
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
125
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
Pla
n. H
owev
er, n
o m
ajor
pro
posa
ls in
the
polic
y el
emen
ts
of th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
or a
ny o
ther
pla
n ar
e w
ithin
5km
of t
he
site
.
Eve
n th
ough
due
to th
e na
ture
and
dis
tanc
e of
the
site
from
th
e ne
w d
evel
opm
ents
it is
not
ant
icip
ated
that
ther
e w
ill b
e in
crea
sed
usag
e as
a re
sult
of th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
ther
e ar
e ot
her c
ount
rysi
de a
cces
s op
portu
nitie
s,
exis
ting
or p
ropo
sed,
ava
ilabl
e in
mor
e ac
cess
ible
loca
tions
to
the
maj
or c
entre
s of
pop
ulat
ion.
The
se a
re s
peci
fical
ly
desi
gned
to p
rovi
de a
cou
ntry
side
recr
eatio
n ex
perie
nce,
an
d w
ill c
ontin
ue to
be
the
focu
s fo
r tha
t use
by
exis
ting
and
new
com
mun
ities
, rat
her t
han
mor
e re
mot
e lo
catio
ns s
uch
as P
orth
olm
e. T
his
is p
artic
ular
ly d
emon
stra
ted
by th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
Hor
izon
s G
reen
Infra
stru
ctur
e St
rate
gy,
and
the
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
Rec
reat
ion
Stu
dy, w
hich
ta
ke fo
rwar
d th
e pr
opos
als
of th
e C
ambr
idge
shire
Stru
ctur
e P
lan.
It is
not
con
side
red
that
the
leve
l of p
ublic
use
of t
he h
ay
mea
dow
s w
ill in
crea
se g
reat
ly a
s a
resu
lt of
the
Gyp
sy a
nd
Trav
elle
r DP
D, a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns.
Wat
er Q
uant
ity a
nd
Qua
lity
Dev
elop
men
t cou
ld th
eore
tical
ly h
ave
an im
pact
on
wat
er
quan
tity,
thro
ugh
run
off f
rom
the
site
s, o
r wat
er u
se.
It co
uld
also
hav
e an
impa
ct o
n w
ater
qua
lity,
thro
ugh
addi
tiona
l was
te p
rodu
cts
prod
uced
. H
owev
er, t
he im
pact
of
the
plan
, alo
ne o
r in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er p
lans
is n
ot
cons
ider
ed s
igni
fican
t.
The
Cam
brid
ge W
ater
Cyc
le S
trate
gy is
cur
rent
ly b
eing
pr
epar
ed b
y C
ambr
idge
shire
Hor
izon
s. P
hase
1 o
f the
New
dev
elop
men
t pro
pose
d in
the
dist
rict i
s lo
cate
d to
o fa
r to
be li
kely
to h
ave
sign
ifica
nt
effe
cts
on th
e ha
y m
eado
ws
and
is lo
cate
d do
wn
stre
am o
n th
e R
iver
Ous
e ca
tchm
ent.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
126
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
Nat
ure
of p
oten
tial
impa
ctH
ow th
e G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
(a
lone
or i
n co
mbi
natio
n w
ith o
ther
pla
ns) i
s lik
ely
to
affe
ct th
e Eu
rope
an s
ite
Why
thes
e ef
fect
s ar
e no
t con
side
red
sign
ifica
nt
proj
ect h
as re
cent
ly b
een
com
plet
ed a
nd it
aim
s to
ens
ure
sust
aina
ble
man
agem
ent o
f wat
er re
sour
ces
(sup
ply
and
disp
osal
) as
the
area
is d
evel
oped
, inc
ludi
ng e
nsur
ing
prot
ectio
n of
inte
rnat
iona
lly d
esig
nate
d co
nser
vatio
n si
tes.
Cha
nges
in
Pol
lutio
n Le
vels
Th
e Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2 s
tage
of t
he G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r D
PD
onl
y pr
opos
es v
ery
limite
d de
velo
pmen
t, 22
site
op
tions
hav
e be
en id
entif
ied,
whi
ch a
re o
f a s
mal
l sca
le.
How
ever
, inc
reas
ing
the
dwel
ling
stoc
k in
the
dist
rict b
y 20
,000
dw
ellin
gs a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cor
e S
trate
gy D
PD
co
uld
resu
lt in
incr
ease
d le
vels
of a
tmos
pher
ic p
ollu
tion,
th
roug
h th
e em
issi
ons
crea
ted
by d
evel
opm
ent,
or fr
om th
e ca
r jou
rney
s ge
nera
ted.
Tha
t gro
wth
will
be
regu
late
d by
po
licie
s in
the
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
ies
DPD
, unl
ess
spec
ified
in a
n A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n.
The
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol P
olic
es D
PD
incl
udes
pol
icie
s to
pr
otec
t Eur
opea
n bi
odiv
ersi
ty s
ites,
and
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
Ther
e ar
e po
licy
requ
irem
ents
that
dev
elop
men
t do
es n
ot h
arm
the
iden
tifie
d E
urop
ean
Site
s, a
nd
to a
ddre
ss a
ir qu
ality
.
As
the
site
is n
ot in
clo
se p
roxi
mity
to m
ajor
pr
opos
ed d
evel
opm
ents
, the
re a
re li
kely
to b
e no
si
gnifi
cant
impa
cts
on th
eir n
atur
e co
nser
vatio
n ob
ject
ives
.
Age
ncie
s co
nsul
ted
Nat
ural
Eng
land
Res
pons
e to
C
onsu
ltatio
n A
wai
ting
resp
onse
.
Ove
rall
Con
clus
ions
of S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire D
istr
ict C
ounc
il
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
127
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
The
optio
ns w
ithin
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller D
PD
Issu
es a
nd O
ptio
ns 2
Rep
ort,
alon
e an
d in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er D
PD
s in
the
LDF
and
othe
r rel
evan
t pla
ns w
ere
asse
ssed
for i
mpa
ct o
n P
orth
olm
e an
d it
was
con
clud
ed th
at th
ere
are
no li
kely
sig
nific
ant e
ffect
s on
the
cons
erva
tion
obje
ctiv
es o
f the
site
.
App
endi
x 4
– G
ypsy
and
Tra
velle
r DPD
– Is
sues
and
Opt
ions
2: S
ite O
ptio
ns
128
Hab
itat R
egul
atio
ns A
sses
smen
t – J
uly
2009
DA
TA C
OLL
ECTE
D T
O C
AR
RY
OU
T TH
E A
SSES
SMEN
T.
Who
car
ries
out t
he
asse
ssm
ent?
Sour
ces
of d
ata
Leve
l of a
sses
smen
t co
mpl
eted
Whe
re c
an th
e fu
ll re
sults
of t
he
asse
ssm
ent b
e ac
cess
ed a
nd v
iew
ed
Offi
cers
of S
outh
C
ambr
idge
shire
Dis
trict
C
ounc
il w
ith th
e as
sist
ance
of N
atur
al
Eng
land
Con
sulta
tion
with
N
atur
al E
ngla
ndD
eskt
op s
tudy
. S
outh
Cam
brid
gesh
ire is
co
nfid
ent w
ith th
e re
sults
of
the
asse
ssm
ent.
Sou
th C
ambr
idge
shire
D
istri
ct C
ounc
il of
fices
an
d on
line
at
ww
w.s
cam
bs.g
ov.u
k/ld
f .