habitat regulations assessment screening braintree site

Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report Braintree Site Allocations and Development Management Plan

March 2014

!

!

Habitat Regulations Assessment

Screening Report

Braintree Site Allocations and

Development Management Plan

!

HRA Screening of the Pre-Submission Version

Client Braintree District Council

Report Title Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report Braintree Site Allocations and Development Management Plan

Status V.2

Filename LC-0061_Braintree HRA Screening_4_270314SS.docx

Date March 2014

Prepared by Sarah Smith, Environmental Consultant, Lepus Consulting

Reviewed by Neil Davidson, Technical Director, Lepus Consulting

Habitat Regulation Assessment Screening Report March 2014

LC-0061_Braintree HRA Screening_4_270314SS.docx

Lepus Consulting for Braintree District Council i

Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Approach to report preparation ...................................................................................................... 1

1.3 The HRA process .................................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 About the BDC SADMP ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 HRA process to date ........................................................................................................................... 7

2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Guidance and best practice .............................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment methodology ...................................................................... 9

2.3 Dealing with uncertainty .................................................................................................................. 10

2.4 Likely significant effect ....................................................................................................................... 11

3 European Sites .............................................................................................................................................. 13

3.1 About European sites ......................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Ecological information ...................................................................................................................... 14

4 Potential Effects ........................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 15

4.2 Site vulnerabilities ............................................................................................................................... 19

4.3 Erosion .................................................................................................................................................... 19

4.4 Lowering of water levels .................................................................................................................. 19

4.5 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 20

4.6 Agricultural nutrient enrichment ................................................................................................... 21

4.7 Visitor pressure/recreation ............................................................................................................. 22

4.8 Management effects ......................................................................................................................... 24

4.9 Large man-made interference on site ....................................................................................... 24

4.10 Sea level rise and coastal squeeze ............................................................................................ 25

4.11 Conservation Objectives and Ramsar criteria ....................................................................... 25

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 26

5.1 Assessment findings .......................................................................................................................... 27

5.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................. 27

5.3 Next steps .............................................................................................................................................. 27

6 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX A Conservation objectives for European sites

APPENDIX B Flow chart of HRA process APPENDIX C BDC Core Strategy Policy CS8

APPENDIX D Core Strategy policies from the surrounding districts which may act in combination with Braintree’s SADMP to have a likely significant effect



Lepus Consulting for Braintree District Council ii

List of Figures

Figure 4.1

Map illustrating location of European sites

!

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Policies contained in the SADMP

Table 1.2 Site allocations contained in the SADMP

Table 2.1 Synoptic version of the flow chart in Appendix B identifying screening and appropriate assessment stages within the HRA process

Table 3.1 Criteria for identification of European sites (SNH, 2012)

Table 4.1 Vulnerabilities of European sites

!!

Abbreviations

AWS Anglian Water Services

BDC Braintree District Council

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs

ESW Essex and Suffolk Water

ha Hectares

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

LDF Local Development Framework

LNR Local Nature Reserve

LPA Local Planning Authority

LSE Likely Significant Effect

NE Natural England

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

SAC Special Area of Conservation

SADMP Site Allocations Development Management Plan

SANG Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

SPA Special Protection Area

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

SUDs Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems



Lepus Consulting for Braintree District Council iii

Executive Summary E1 This HRA report has carefully considered the effects that might be associated

with development as part of the Pre-Submission Version of the Braintree

District Council (BDC) Site Allocations and Development Management Plan

(SADMP).

E2 There are no sites of European Importance within the Braintree District. Of

those that have been identified from a 20km area of search and others that

have been included through hydrological pathways that lie beyond this search

zone, none are expected to experience adverse effects from proposals in the

SAMP.

E3 The following 13 sites were included in this HRA report:

!• Abberton Reservoir SPA • Blackwater Estuary SPA • Colne Estuary SPA • Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA • Hamford Water SPA • Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA • Essex Estuaries Marine SAC • Abberton Reservoir Ramsar • Blackwater Estuary Ramsar • Colne Estuary Ramsar • Crouch and Roach Estuary Ramsar • Hamford Water Ramsar • Stour and Orwell Estuary Ramsar

!

E4! Findings confirmed that impacts associated with new development in the plan

could lead to adverse effects if left unmitigated. Information regarding the

possible adverse effects and planned mitigation measures are included in the

2009 Appropriate Assessment (AA) and policy CS8 of the Core Strategy. This

will also apply to the SADMP through the plan hierarchy.!

E4 The pre-submission version of the BDC SADMP is not likely to lead to adverse

effects on any European Sites. An Appropriate Assessment is not required for

this plan.

!

!



Lepus Consulting for Braintree District Council iv

This page has been left intentionally blank for the purposes of double sided printing.

!



!

Lepus Consulting for Birmingham City Council 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Lepus Consulting is conducting the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process for the Braintree SADMP on behalf of Braintree District Council (BDC). This is a requirement of Regulation 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats

Regulations).

1.1.2 The following European sites were identified using a 20km area of search around Braintree as well as including sites which are potentially

connected (e.g. hydrologically) beyond this distance:

• Abberton Reservoir SPA • Blackwater Estuary SPA • Colne Estuary SPA • Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA • Hamford Water SPA • Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA • Essex Estuaries Marine SAC • Abberton Reservoir Ramsar • Blackwater Estuary Ramsar • Colne Estuary Ramsar • Crouch and Roach Estuary Ramsar • Hamford Water Ramsar • Stour and Orwell Estuary Ramsar

!

1.1.3 Potential significant effects were identified and were explored for the sites. These included air quality, disturbance and recreation pressures,

water resources, water quality and wastewater:

1.2 Approach to report preparation

1.2.1 The outputs of this report include information in relation to:

• The HRA process;

• Methodology for HRA;

• Evidence gathering in relation to European sites;

• Understanding vulnerabilities of sites;

• Assessing potential effects of the plan; and

• Conclusions and recommendations.

1.2.2 This report is a screening assessment under the Habitats Regulations to assess any likely significant effects of development proposals in the BDC

SADMP.



Lepus Consulting for Braintree District Council 2

1.3 The HRA process

1.3.1 The application of HRA to land-use plans is a requirement of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, the UK’s transposition of European Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive). HRA

applies to all Local Development Documents in England and Wales.

1.3.2 The HRA process assesses the potential effects of a land-use plan against the conservation objectives of any European sites designated for their importance to nature conservation. These sites form a system of internationally important sites throughout Europe and are known collectively as the ‘Natura 2000 network’.

1.3.3 European sites provide valuable ecological infrastructure for the protection of rare, endangered or vulnerable natural habitats and species of exceptional importance within the EU. These sites consist of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), designated under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPA), designated under European Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive). Additionally, Government policy requires that sites designated under the Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat) are treated as if they are fully designated European sites for the purpose of considering

development proposals that may affect them.

1.3.4 Under Regulation 102 of the Habitats Regulations, the assessment must determine whether or not a plan will adversely affect the integrity of the European sites concerned. The process is characterised by the precautionary principle. The European Commission describes the principle as follows:

1.3.5 “If a preliminary scientific evaluation shows that there are reasonable grounds for concern that a particular activity might lead to damaging effects on the environment, or on human, animal or plant health, which would be inconsistent with protection normally afforded to these within

the European Community, the Precautionary Principle is triggered.”

1.3.6 Decision-makers then have to determine what action/s to take. They should take account of the potential consequences of no action, the uncertainties inherent in scientific evaluation, and should consult interested parties on the possible ways of managing the risk. Measures should be proportionate to the level of risk, and to the desired level of protection. They should be provisional in nature pending the availability

of more reliable scientific data.

1.3.7 Action is then undertaken to obtain further information, enabling a more objective assessment of the risk. The measures taken to manage the risk should be maintained so long as scientific information remains

inconclusive and the risk is unacceptable.




1.3.8 The hierarchy of intervention is important: where significant effects are likely or uncertain, plan makers must firstly seek to avoid the effect through for example, a change of policy. If this is not possible, mitigation measures should be explored to remove or reduce the significant effect. If neither avoidance, nor subsequently, mitigation is possible, alternatives to the plan should be considered. Such alternatives should explore ways of achieving the plan’s objectives that do not adversely affect European

sites.

1.3.9 If no suitable alternatives exist, plan-makers must demonstrate under the conditions of Regulation 103 of the Habitats Regulations, that there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) to continue with

the proposal.

1.4 About the BDC SADMP

1.4.1 The aim of the SADMP is to allocate non-strategic sites to deliver the housing requirements and policies set out in the Core Strategy. The pre-submission version of the SADMP sets out proposals for how and where future housing development and associated amenities and services will

be located in the Braintree District.

1.4.2 A delivery strategy and monitoring framework is included in the SADMP to provide a clear indication of how the plan will be implemented and the indicators that will be used to measure its success. This includes the production of an Annual Monitoring Report to monitor the delivery of development and infrastructure proposed in both the Core Strategy and

the SADMP.

1.4.3 All future development will need to be supported by suitable physical and social infrastructure and set within environments that reflect the character and history of the District. Across the District all development must be well designed, accessible and safe. Schools, health care facilities, shops and other services need to be available in accessible locations along with parks, sports facilities and well-maintained local public open space, forming part of a wider ‘green infrastructure network’ threading through the District and linking to the open countryside beyond. The canal network will continue to be promoted as a vital asset for the District supporting movement, environmental and biodiversity quality and as the setting for development.

1.4.4 The SAMP policies are divided into nine key areas:

• Sustainable development

• Housing

• Employment

• Retail

• Community facilities

• Transport

• Environment

• Design, conservation and listed buildings

• Sport and recreation




1.4.5 The SADMP includes 76 policies as listed in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Policies contained in the SADMP

Sustainable Development

ADM1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

ADM2 Development within Development Boundaries

Housing

ADM3 Housing Allocations

ADM4 Affordable Housing in the Countryside

ADM5 Specialist Housing

ADM6 Care Homes and Specialist Housing Applications

ADM7 Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpersons Accommodation

ADM8 Housing Mix and Density

ADM9 Residential Allocations, Extensions and Outbuildings within Development Boundaries

ADM10 Residential Alterations, Extensions and Outbuildings in the Countryside

ADM11 Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside

ADM12 Rural Workers Dwellings in the Countryside

ADM13 Hamlets

ADM13A Previously Developed Infill sites in the Countryside

ADM14 Garden Extensions

Employment

ADM15 Employment Policy Areas

ADM16 Business Uses

ADM17 Business and Industrial Uses

ADM18 Industrial Development Boundaries

ADM19 Design and Layout of Employment Policy Areas and Business and Industrial Uses

ADM21 Change of Use of Commercial Buildings in the B Use Classes

Retail

ADM24 Primary Shopping Areas

ADM25 District Centre

ADM26 Impact Assessments

ADM27 Town District and Local Centre Improvements

ADM28 Freeport Outlet Centre

ADM30 Leisure and Entertainment

ADM31 Car Parking – Freeport and Braintree Retail Park

ADM32 Retail Warehouse Development

ADM33 Retail Site Allocations

ADM34 Comprehensive Development Area – Newland Shopping Centre, Witham

ADM35 Comprehensive Development Area – Rickstones Neighbourhood Centre, Dorothy Sayers Drive, Witham

ADM36 Comprehensive Development Area – Land to the East of the High Street, Halstead.

ADM37 Comprehensive Development Area – Land at Railway Garage,




Kelvedon

ADM37A Broomhills Regeneration Site

Community Facilities

ADM38 Education Provision

ADM39 Educational Establishments

ADM40 Cemeteries / Churchyards and Cemetery / Churchyard Extensions

ADM41 Community Uses

ADM42 Provision and Enhancement of Local Community Facilities

ADM43 Retention of Local Community Services and Facilities

ADM43A Health Impact Assessment

ADM44 Community Orchards and Community Woodlands

Transport

ADM45 Sustainable Access for All

ADM46 Cycle / Pedestrian Network

ADM47 Parking Provision

ADM48 Transport Related Policy Areas

ADM49 New Road Schemes

Environment

ADM50 Landscape Character

ADM51 Protection of Biodiversity and Geodiversity and Protected Species

ADM52 Built Development in the Countryside

ADM53 Farm Diversification

ADM53A Redundant or Disused Buildings in the Countryside

ADM54 Protected Lanes

ADM55 Energy Efficiency

ADM56 Renewable Energy

ADM57 Contaminated Land

ADM58 Development Likely to Give Rise to Pollution or the Risk of Pollution

ADM59 External Lighting

Design, Conservation and Listed Buildings

ADM60 Layout and Design of Development

ADM61 Outdoor Advertisements

ADM62 Shop Fronts

ADM63 Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas and Demolition within Conservation Areas

ADM64 Fascias and Signs in Conservation Areas

ADM65 Illuminated Signs in Conservation Areas

ADM66 Alterations and Extensions and Changes of Use to Listed Buildings or Structures and their Settings

ADM67 Demolition of Listed Buildings of Structures

ADM68 Enabling Development

ADM69 Archaeological Evaluation, Excavation and Recording

Sport and Recreation

ADM70 Sports and Leisure Facilities

ADM71 Golf Courses and Driving

ADM72 Sport Causing Noise or Disturbance to Users of the Countryside




ADM73 River Wals, Linear Parks and Disused Railway Lines

ADM74 Hatfield Peverel Country Park

ADM75 Tourist Development

ADM75A Formal and Informal Recreation and Allotment Allocations

Table 1.2 site allocations contained in the SADMP!

Braintree CS1 Policy Area BOB 38H Former Health Clinic site, Coggeshall Road

BON32H Christy House and Chantry House Church Street

BOS10H Land rear of 49- 57 Church Lane

BOS5H Former DWP offices Panfield Lane (sheltered housing)

BRC37H Land east of Station Approach (PG Bones yard)

BRC36H Former Garage site South Street

BRC81H Land rear of 37- 45 Clare Road

BRS2H BRS3H BRS4H

The Riverside St John's Avenue

BRS26H Land south of Mill Hill

BRC08H WJC Hospital site London Road

BRC30H Land adjacent Telephone Exchange South St

BRS35H The Rose and Crown PH site Masefield Road

BOB20H Former Garages site at Falkland Court/Land north of Edinburgh Gardens

BOB1 Tabor House site 5 Coggeshall Road

BON5H Land at Church Lane Bocking

BOS16H Land at Harkilees Way

BRC6H Land north of Rayne Road, south of Bunyan Road

BRC1H BRC31H Silks Way off South Street

BRC76H Crossman House Station Approach

BRC34H Land at Kwik Fit South Street

BRC82H Blandford House site 7 London Road

BRE25H Braintree Football Club site Clockhouse Way

BRE26H Braintree Tennis Club off Clockhouse Way

BRE1H Former playing field Chapel Hill

BRE17H 300/302 Cressing Road (Kalestead Works)

BRC7H Land between London Road, Pods Brook and A120

BOS6H West of Panfield Lane Growth Location

Halstead CS1 Policy Area HAS16H HAS17H Balls Chase /Tidings Hill, Ozier Field, Stanstead Rd

HAS16H Land off Stanstead Road

HAS22H Priory Hall, Colchester Road

HAS17H Land at Balls Farm

HAS7H The Old Wood yard site Fenn Road

HAS28H Fenn Road Depot site

HAS11H Central Park site

HAS54H Symonda Court St Andrews Road

HTR6H Senior Citizens Centre site New Street

Witham CS1 Policy Area




1.4.6 In addition to the policies listed in Table 1.1, the SADMP includes 62 sets

of housing site allocations, as shown in Table 1.2.

1.5 HRA process to date

1.5.1 The HRA process is iterative and assessed different stages of the plan making process. The HRA process of this report draws on the methodology prepared by David Tyldesley Associates for Scottish Natural Heritage (2012), as explained in section 2.1. This methodology

sets out 13 stages of the HRA process, shown in Table 2.1.

1.5.2 BDC has determined the need for HRA and has commissioned Lepus to undertake the screening stages for the SADMP. This includes a review of

stages 2-3 and the completion of stages 5-7.

WI2H Land between Constance Close and A12 Witham by-pass

WCH22H Iceni House Newland Street

WIS9H Land South of Maltings Lane

WCH8H Land adjacent to Coach House Way

WCH21H Sherbourne House 71 Collingwood Road

WCH14CD Land at Newlands Centre Newlands Street

WCH27H Former Magistrates Court Site Newland Street

WIN7H Former Forest Road Community Hall site

WIN8CD Land at Dorothy Sayers Drive/Laburnum Avenue

WIS10H Land at Ivy Chimneys off Hatfield Road

WIW1H Land off Teign Drive

RIV2H NE Witham Growth Location East of Forest Road

WIS6H South West Witham Growth Location off Hatfield Road

Key Service Villages CS1 Policy Area - Coggeshall COG21H Beaumont House Paycocke Way

COG12H Cookfield, East Street

COG20H Land at Walford Way Coggeshall

Key Service Villages CS1 Policy Area – Earls Colne EAR21H Harold Sims House Sims Close

EAR1H Land rear of Halstead Road

EAR3H Land at Station Road

Key Service Villages CS1 Policy Area – Hatfield Peverel HAT17H Sorrells Field

Key Service Villages CS1 Policy Area – Kelvedon KEL6CD Works and garage adjacent Kelvedon railway station

Key Service Villages CS1 Policy Area – Sible Hedingham SIB7H Coopers Yard Swan Street

SIB2H Premdor site Station Road

SIB2H Rockways site Station Road

Key Service Villages CS1 Policy Area –Silver End SIL6RG Crittal Works and adjoining Finishing Company

SIL7H Car Park at Sheepcotes Lane Rivenhall




1.5.3 An HRA Appropriate Assessment was prepared in June 2009 to accompany the BDC Local Development Framework (LDF) draft Core Strategy. This included completion of stages 2 and 3 during the Core Strategy AA. This report will draw on the findings from this AA and ensure that the data is up to date and relevant to the SADMP.

!!! !




2 Methodology

2.1 Guidance and best practice

2.1.1 Guidance on HRA has been published in draft form by the Government (DCLG, 2006) and Natural England in conjunction with David Tyldesley Associates (Local Development Plan Documents under the Provisions of the Habitats Regulations, 2009); both draw, in part, on European Union guidance (European Commission, 2001) regarding the methodology for

undertaking Appropriate Assessment (AA) of plans.

2.1.2 All guidance recognises that there is no statutory method for undertaking HRA and that the adopted method must be appropriate to its purpose under the Habitats Directive and Regulations; this concept is one of the reasons why HRA is often referred to as appropriate assessment.

2.1.3 Due to a moratorium on the publication of new guidance as issued by the Government, the draft guidance may not be published. As an alternative, Natural England has suggested that the guidance on HRA published by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH, 2012) can be used to assess land use

plans.

2.1.4 For the purposes of this report Habitats Regulations Appraisal and

Habitats Regulations Assessment are synonymous.

2.1.5 Para 1.3 of the SNH guidance states that “the procedure referred to in this guidance is that of ‘Habitats Regulations Appraisal’ (HRA) which encompasses the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive…The procedure is sometimes referred to as an ‘appropriate assessment’, but this can be confusing because an appropriate assessment is only one particular stage in the process of Habitats Regulations Appraisal. Not all plans undergoing Habitats Regulations Appraisal will reach the stage of appropriate assessment, because some

plans would not be likely to have a significant effect on a European site”.

2.1.6 The term ‘Habitats Regulations Appraisal’ is used here to encompass the decision on whether the plan should be subject to appraisal, the ‘screening’ process for determining whether an ‘appropriate assessment’ is required, as well as any ‘appropriate assessment’ that may be required. It is important to remember that an appropriate assessment is only required where the plan-making body determines that the plan is likely to have a significant effect on a European site in Great Britain, or a European Offshore Marine Site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and the plan is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site.

2.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment methodology

2.2.1 The HRA process follows the methodology prepared by David Tyldesley Associates for Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH, 2012). A step-by-step methodology is outlined in the guidance (see Appendix B) and has been

summarised in Table 2.1.




2.2.2 A synoptic version of the flow chart is presented in Table 2.1. Stages 5 to 7 are relevant to this report although stages 1 to 3 (from the Core

Strategy AA) will be reviewed.

2.3 Dealing with uncertainty

2.3.1 The assessment of effects can be affected by uncertainty in a number of ways; some of these are addressed below.

2.3.2 Regulatory Uncertainty: Some plans will include references to proposals that are planned and implemented through other planning and regulatory regimes, for example, trunk road or motorway improvements. These will be included because they have important implications for spatial planning, but they are not proposals of the LPA, nor are they proposals brought forward by the plan itself. Their potential effects will be assessed through other procedures. The LPA may not be able to assess the effects of these proposals. Indeed, it may be inappropriate for them to do so, and

would also result in unnecessary duplication.

2.3.3 There is a need to focus the Habitats Regulations Assessment on the proposals directly promoted by the plan, and not all and every proposal for development and change, especially where these are planned and regulated through other statutory procedures, which will be subject to a

Habitats Regulations Assessment.

2.3.4 Planning Hierarchy Uncertainty: The higher the level of a plan in the hierarchy the more general and strategic its provisions will be and therefore the more uncertain its effects will be. The protective regime of the Directive is intended to operate at differing levels. In some circumstances assessment ‘down the line’ will be more effective in assessing the potential effects of a proposal on a particular site and

protecting its integrity. However, three tests should be applied.

2.3.5 It will be appropriate to consider relying on the Habitats Regulations Assessments of lower tier plans, in order for an LPA to ascertain a higher tier plan would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site, only where:

A] The higher tier plan assessment cannot reasonably assess the effects on a European site in a meaningful way; whereas

B] The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the lower tier plan, which will identify more precisely the nature, scale or location of development, and thus its potential effects, will be able to change the proposal if an adverse effect on site integrity cannot be ruled out, because the lower tier plan is free to change the nature and/or scale and/or location of the proposal in order to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of any European site (e.g.

it is not constrained by location specific policies in a higher tier plan); and

C] The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the plan or project at the

lower tier is required as a matter of law or Government policy.

2.3.6 It may be helpful for the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the higher tier plan to indicate what further assessment may be necessary in the lower tier plan.




2.3.7 Implementation Uncertainty: In order to clarify the approach where there is uncertainty because effects depend on how the plan is implemented, and to ensure compliance with the Regulations, it may be appropriate to impose a caveat in relevant policies, or introduce a free-standing policy, which says that any development project that could have an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site will not be in accordance with

the plan.

2.3.8 This would help to enable the assessors to reasonably conclude, on the basis of objective information, that even where there are different ways of implementing a plan, and even applying the precautionary principle, no element of the plan can argue that it draws support from the plan, if it

could adversely affect the integrity of a European site.

2.4 Likely significant effect

2.4.1 The plan and its component policies are assessed to determine and identify any potential for ‘likely significant effect’ (LSE) upon European

sites. The guidance (SNH, 2012) provides the following interpretation.

2.4.2 “A likely effect is one that cannot be ruled out on the basis of objective information. The test is a ‘likelihood’ of effects rather than a ‘certainty’ of effects. Although some dictionary definitions define ‘likely’ as ‘probable’ or ‘well might happen’, in the Waddenzee case the European Court of Justice ruled that a project should be subject to appropriate assessment “if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on the site, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects”. Therefore, ‘likely’, in this context, should not simply be interpreted as ‘probable’ or ‘more likely than not’, but

rather whether a significant effect can objectively be ruled out”.

!




Table 2.1: Synoptic version of the flow chart in Appendix B identifying screening and appropriate assessment stages within the HRA process

!Group HRA Stage

Determination of Need and Compilation of Evidence Base

Stage 1 Determination of need

Stage 2 Identification of European sites that should be considered in the appraisal

Stage 3 Gathering information on European sites

Stage 4 Discretionary discussions on the method and scope of the appraisal

Screen all aspects of plan (Screening)

Stage 5 Screening the plan

Stage 6 Applying mitigation measures at screening stage to avoid likely significant effects

Stage 7 Rescreen the plan and decide on the need for appropriate assessment

Appropriate Assessment

Stage 8 The Appropriate Assessment – site integrity, conservation objectives and the precautionary principle

Stage 9 Amending the plan until there would be no adverse effects on site integrity

Consultation of Draft

Stage 10 Preparing a draft of HRA

Stage 11 Consultation

Stage 12 Proposed modifications

Stage 13 Modifying and completing HRA

!! !




3 European Sites

3.1 About European sites

3.1.1 Each site of European importance has its own intrinsic qualities, besides the habitats or species for which it has been designated, that enables the site to support the ecosystems that it does. An important aspect of this is that the ecological integrity of each site can be vulnerable to change from natural and human induced activities in the surrounding environment. For example, sites can be affected by land use plans in a number of different ways, including the direct land take of new development, the type of use the land will be put to (for example, an extractive or noise emitting use), the pollution a development generates

and the resources used (during construction and operation for instance).

3.1.2 An intrinsic quality of any European site is its functionality at the landscape ecology scale. This refers to how the site interacts with the zone of influence of its immediate surroundings, as well as the wider area. This is particularly the case where there is potential for developments resulting from the plan to generate water or air-borne pollutants, use water resources or otherwise affect water levels. Adverse effects may also occur via impacts to mobile species occurring outside of a designated site but which are qualifying features of the site. For example, there may be effects on protected birds that use land outside the

designated site for foraging, feeding, roosting or loafing.

3.1.3 During the screening process, as a starting point to explore and identify which European sites might be affected by the SADMP, a 20km area of search was applied. The guidance (SNH, 2012) specifies no specific size of search area. The inclusion of a specific search area was to facilitate the use of the following list of criteria for identification of European sites. Other sites beyond this zone were also reviewed on the basis that they

are connected physiographically.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




!Table 3.1: Criteria for identification of European sites (SNH, 2012)

3.2 Ecological information

3.2.1 Table 3.1 presents information about the criteria used for the identification of European sites in the HRA process. Appendix A provides conservation objectives for the 13 European sites identified as being potentially connected to Braintree. The information is drawn from the

Joint Nature Conservancy Council (JNCC) and Natural England (NE).

Selection of European Sites

Criteria European Sites to check

All plans Sites within the plan area, including those for the criteria listed below

For plans that could affect the aquatic environment

Sites upstream or downstream of the plan area in the case of a river or estuary

Peatland and other wetland sites with relevant hydrological links to land within the plan area, irrespective of distance from the plan area

For plans that could affect mobile species

Sites which have significant ecological links with land in the plan area, for example, land in the plan area may be used by migratory birds, which also use a SPA, outside the plan area, at different times of year

For plans that could increase recreational pressure on European sites potentially vulnerable to such pressure

European sites in the plan area

European sites within a reasonable travel distance of the plan area boundaries that may be affected by local recreational or other visitor pressure within the plan area (the appropriate distance in each case will need to be considered on its merits, in light of any available evidence)

European sites within a longer travel distance of the plan area, which are major (regional or national) visitor attractions such as European sites which are National Nature Reserves where public visiting is promoted, sites in National or Regional Parks, coastal sites and sites in other major tourist or visitor destinations (the appropriate distance in each case will need to be considered on its merits, in light of any available evidence)

For plans that would increase the amount of development

Sites that are used for, or could be affected by, water abstraction in or close to the plan area

Sites used for, or which could be affected by, discharge or effluent from waste water treatment works or other waste management streams serving land in the plan area, irrespective of distance from the plan area

Sites could be affected by transport or other infrastructure (e.g. by noise or visual disturbance)

Sites that could be affected by increased deposition of air pollutants arising from the proposals, including emissions from significant increases in traffic

For plans that could affect the coast

Sites in the same coastal ‘cell’, or part of the same coastal ecosystem, or where there are interrelationships with or between different physical coastal processes




4 Potential Effects

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 The June 2009 Core Strategy AA identified the following sites for consideration as part of the assessment:

• Abberton Reservoir SPA • Blackwater Estuary SPA • Colne Estuary SPA • Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA • Hamford Water SPA • Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA • Essex Estuaries Marine SAC • Abberton Reservoir Ramsar • Blackwater Estuary Ramsar • Colne Estuary Ramsar • Crouch and Roach Estuary Ramsar • Hamford Water Ramsar • Stour and Orwell Estuary Ramsar

4.1.2 The location of these sites is illustrated in Figure 4.1. All of these sites are assessed in this document.




Figure 4.1: Map illustrating location of European sites



!


Table 4.1: Key vulnerabilities at European sites potentially near Braintree District!

Name of international site (date indicates when the JNCC standard data form was prepared)

Erosion Lowering of water levels

Lowering of water quality

Agricultural nutrient enrichment

Visitor Pressure/ Recreation

Management effects including over grazing, burning, over fishing

Large scale man-made interference on-site

Sea level rise and coastal squeeze

Abberton Reservoir SPA (February 1999)

✖

Blackwater Estuary SPA (February 1999)

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Colne Estuary SPA (February 1999)

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA (June 1998)

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Hamford Water SPA (February 1999)

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA (May 2005)

✖ ✖ ✖ ✖

Essex Estuaries Marine SAC (May 2001)

✖ ✖

Abberton Reservoir Ramsar ) July 1981)

Blackwater Estuary Ramsar (May 1995) ✖ ✖ ✖




Colne Estuary Ramsar (July 1994)

✖ ✖ ✖

Crouch and Roach Estuary Ramsar (June 1998)

✖ ✖

Hamford Water Ramsar (June 1993) ✖

Stour and Orwell Estuary Ramsar (July 1994) ✖ ✖



!


4.2 Site vulnerabilities

4.2.1 Site vulnerabilities have been derived from various datasets held by the JNCC. SAC and SPA information is held on Natura 2000 Data Forms; Ramsar data is presented on Ramsar Information Sheets. Known vulnerabilities are summarised in Table 4.1 and discussed in the following

sections.

4.3 Erosion !

Vulnerability of European sites

4.3.1 Salt marsh and coastal erosion has been identified as vulnerability for a number of European sites. At Hamford Water, Colne Estuary, and Crouch and Roach Estuaries, this is associated with the natural process of

erosion, which is exacerbated by the presence of sea defences.

4.3.2 At Blackwater Estuary SPA, sea level rise and increasing frequency of storms are exacerbating natural erosion. Port development and dredging

have added to the problem of erosion at Stour and Orwell.

Effect of SADMP policies/allocations

4.3.3 Erosion at the European sites listed in Table 4.1 is mainly a result of natural processes.

4.3.4 The Braintree SADMP will have no effect on the erosion process. The SADMP policies and allocations will not contribute to any exacerbating factors regarding erosion, such as sea defences or port development. The SPA conservation objectives for these sites are not affected by the SADMP as the maintenance and restoration required of the habitats is subject to natural change.

4.4 Lowering of water levels !


4.4.1 The River Blackwater, River Colne and River Stour run through the Braintree District, linking the District to the Blackwater Estuary, Colne

Estuary and Stour and Orwell Estuary sites.

4.4.2 Several of the sites identified in Table 4.1 have low water levels and are vulnerable to these being lowered further. The Crouch and Roach Estuary RASMAR site and SPA suffer from low water levels due to persistent drought and water extraction from the area. The Colne Estuary and Blackwater SPAs have low levels of incoming freshwater and

a low water table.

4.4.3 Abberton Reservoir was experiencing lower water levels and higher demand from public use. From 2009 to 2012 the Abberton Reservoir underwent an expansion scheme to meet the predicted rise in water

demand.





4.4.4 Water supply in the District comes via Anglian Water Services (AWS) and Essex and Suffolk Water (ESW). Water resources in the area are limited and both companies have established Water Resource Management

Plans, setting out their plans to supply over the next 25 years.

4.4.5 ESW, in conjunction with Natural England, recently completed the expansion of Abberton Reservoir in order to cater for increasing demand. The environmental effects of this have been considered in the Braintree Water Cycle Study (2011), ESW Water Resource Management Plan (2010) and The Abberton Scheme brochure (date not available). This expansion is expected to meet the water demand of the allocations made in the SADMP. The environmental effects of expansion of the reservoir have been assessed separately. Mitigations have been put in place to provide refuges for displaced waterfowl and the project is expected to increase the overall biodiversity of the site (The Abberton Scheme, date not available).

4.4.6 Water drainage in the Braintree District is unlikely to affect the other European sites identified, due to the distance between planned development and the sites. There are no plans to meet the increased

water demand in the area via abstraction from these European sites.

4.4.7 The expansion of the Abberton Reservoir is expected to meet increased water demand and the SADMP is not expected to affect the water levels of the remaining sites. Environmental issues surrounding the expansion of Abberton Reservoir have been sufficiently covered in documents

relating directly to this project.

4.5 Water Quality !


4.5.1 One of the main reasons why these sites are vulnerable to lowering of water quality is discharge of agricultural chemicals from upstream farmland. The Colne Estuary, Blackwater Estuary and Stour and Orwell Estuary Ramsar sites are vulnerable to low water quality, due to herbicides, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals entering the

system from runoff further upstream.

4.5.2 Other agricultural chemicals, namely fertilisers, leave many of these sites vulnerable to nutrient enrichment. Nutrient enrichment has both aquatic

and terrestrial effects and is discussed further in section 4.6.

4.5.3 Hamford Water SPA is vulnerable to lowered water quality as a result of discharge from boats, sewage and discharge from small industries. The

other sites have not identified these sources of pollution as an issue.

4.5.4 A number of legislative influences including European Directives on water quality and bathing water quality have led to improved water quality levels; pollution incidents are also subject to legal administration and have helped reduce the overall incidence of pollution events.

!





4.5.5 The SADMP recognises the need to improve water quality in accordance with the European Water Framework Directive (2000). Under the

heading ‘Built Environment within the Countryside’ the SADMP states:

“Developments in the District should contribute to water quality improvements, including through their requirements for waste water

treatment infrastructure.”

4.5.6 Policy ADM58 prevents development that is likely to give rise to pollution unless preventative measures have been taken to ensure that discharges or emissions will not cause harm to land use. This policy should therefore prevent any harmful effects of sewage and industry discharge on the European sites identified.

4.5.7 There is no evidence in the SADMP that any of the proposed policies or site allocations will affect runoff of agricultural chemicals. As the plan includes appropriate precautions regarding water quality in the District,

the plan will not affect the water quality of any of the European sites.

4.6 Agricultural nutrient enrichment !


4.6.1 Eutrophication, or nutrient enrichment, is the enrichment of ecosystems by nitrogen or phosphorus. In water it causes algae and higher forms of plant life to grow too fast. This disturbs the balance of organisms present in the water and the quality of the water concerned. On land, it can stimulate the growth of certain plants, which then become dominant so

that the natural diversity is lost.

4.6.2 In terms of the impacts the European sites listed. Eutrophication is associated with run-off from agricultural fields and can lead to dominance of particular species whilst overall biodiversity levels drop.

4.6.3 The Colne Estuary SPA, Blackwater Estuary SPA, Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and the Blackwater and Colne Ramsar sites are all affected

by nutrient enrichment from agricultural runoff.

4.6.4 Water entering the Abberton Reservoir SPA has high nitrate levels leading to algal blooms in the summer. There is no evidence that this has

a negative effect on the wildlife at the site.


4.6.5 There is no evidence in the SADMP that any of the proposed policies or site allocations will affect runoff of agricultural chemicals, as the Plan is not affecting agricultural management or operations. Therefore it is unlikely that the SADMP will impact agricultural nutrient enrichment at

any European sites.

!




4.7 Visitor pressure/recreation !


4.7.1 Increased access and recreational disturbance are associated with new development, due to the increased numbers of people living in the area.

4.7.2 Marine recreation, such as leisure boats, water skiing and jet skiing are sources of disturbance in the Stour and Orwell Estuaries, Hamford Water SPA and Blackwater Estuary SPA. The Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA is vulnerable to disturbance from hikers, dog walkers and bird watchers on the sea wall footpaths. At The Colne Estuary SPA, both recreation and unregulated samphire harvesting cause disturbance to feeding and roosting wildfowl. There is increasing pressure for recreational activities and development of facilities to support this at Colne Estuary, further

increasing the area’s vulnerability.


4.7.3 There is considerable distance between Braintree District and the majority of European sites identified. The minimum distance between the District and a European site is about 6km from Spring Lane (between Hatfield Peverel and Langford) and the Blackwater Estuary SPA and

Ramsar sites.

4.7.4 The BDC Core Strategy AA highlights policy option CS17: Housing Delivery as having a likely significant effect. The AA concluded that there would be an in-combination affect of visitor pressure LSE of Braintree and the surrounding districts allocations plans. Mitigation measures outlined include allocations of Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace (SANG), monitoring site use and enforcing suitable site management. Providing that these mitigation measures are enforced, there will not be a

LSE of visitor pressure/recreation from the SADMP.

4.7.5 In order for Braintree, Colchester and Tendring District Councils to conclude their local development plans would have no adverse effect of European sites, a programme of surveying and monitoring visitors was established (2013). As Abberton Reservoir and Blackwater Estuary are the closest sites to the district town of Braintree, these are given the

most consideration in this screening report.

4.7.6 The results of this surveying programme suggest that Abberton Reservoir has the potential to receive a noticeable increase in visitors as a result of the SADMP. This is due to the fact that the Reservoir has grown in popularity as a visitor attraction since its expansion. The expansion included facilities such as a visitor centre and additional walking and cycle networks around the site. Of the visitors surveyed, most travelled 6-10 miles to the site, which would include parts of the Braintree District. As the Reservoir is an Essex Wildlife Trust site, dogs are not allowed on the site and therefore do not contribute to possible disturbance. The visitor centre and additional footpaths are suited to a rise in visitor

numbers at the site, therefore no LSEs are predicted.




4.7.7 The study, ‘Disturbance to water birds wintering in the Stour Orwell Estuaries SPA’ (2007) found that birds can become habituated to low levels of constant disturbance, such as that caused by walkers. It is likely that any increased disturbance will ‘settle down’, but this should be monitored as per the mitigations suggested in the Core Strategy AA.

4.7.8 ‘Close to home’ was the most popular reason for visiting a number of sites surveyed. It is likely that the Braintree population will use local SANGs and other accessible green space, as outlined in policy CS8 of the BDC Core Strategy (Appendix C). SADMP policy ADM75A protects a range of formal and informal recreation allocations in the district. This, along with new development, should ensure that sufficient recreation is provided in the Braintree District to reduce the need for residents to travel further afield for suitable recreational opportunities.

4.7.9 The country park proposed at Hatfield Peverel (policy ADM74) is likely to provide an alternative recreational area for residents of Braintree, Hatfield Peverel and Witham. It is expected that this will reduce visitor pressure

on nearby European sites.

4.7.10 Provisions for sport and leisure facilities in the SADMP will be located within the Braintree District and therefore will not be in or adjacent to any of the European sites identified. Policy ADM72 requires that sports causing noise and disturbance may only be permitted if there would be no harm to noise sensitive development, users or the countryside and where there would not be an unacceptable increase in traffic on minor

roads.

4.7.11 The closest sites to the Braintree District are the Blackwater Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites. The report from the surveying programme suggests that the main visitor sites are the Old Hall Marshes and the Strood Channel. Both of these sites tend to be quiet and attract only local

visitors.

4.7.12 Without mitigation, the proposed allocations of up to 1556 dwellings in Witham, Hatfield Peverel and Kelvedon may lead to significant effects upon the Blackwater Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites. This is the closest point of Braintree District to any of the European sites identified in the 20km search area. It is predicted that LSEs may arise due to in-combination effects with development plans of neighbouring authorities. The risk of significant effects may be increased by the protection and possible improvement of the Blackwater Rail Trail (SADMP proposed

policy ADM73), which would improve access to the site.

4.7.13 The Core Strategy AA (2009) suggested the creation and allocation of SANGs, totalling 147ha, in the District to reduce any potential adverse effects arising from in-combination effects associated with new housing proposed in adjacent local planning authority areas as well as from Braintree District (Appendix D). Allocations for 103.84ha of SANGs have been outlined the 2010 Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspaces for the

Braintree District report.




4.7.14 The mitigation measures suggested in the Core Strategy AA are considered fit for purpose, and would also apply to the SADMP through the plan hierarchy. It is recommended that policy ADM73 of the SADMP states that SANG sites have been allocated in the proposals maps and the SANG report (2010). This will present the reader with clear evidence of

the BDC’s commitment to implementing appropriate mitigations.

4.7.15 In conclusion, it cannot be ascertained whether additional housing in the Braintree District is likely to increase disturbance at any of the European sites, without evidence of commitment to the appropriate mitigation measures. The SADMP encourages local development of recreational

facilities and prevents unacceptably noisy or disturbing activities.

4.8 Management effects !


4.8.1 Some land use management practices conflict with the nature conservation objectives of European sites when the practice in question is either applied at an intensive scale or at an inappropriate time of year for breeding birds, flowering plants or breeding invertebrates. Under such circumstances the relevant nature conservation body will seek to arrange and implement higher-level stewardship agreements or Tyr Gofal agreements to reduce adverse effects. Fires are used for management and can also start accidentally. Again, these can conflict with nature

conservation objectives of European sites.

4.8.2 This vulnerability was highlighted for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA, as maintenance dredging is being carried out on the River Stour and the

River Orwell.


4.8.3 There are no management policies in the SADMP that will affect any of

the European sites.

4.9 Large man-made interference on site !


4.9.1 Large man-made interference includes land-claim, aggregate extraction, physical developments such as barrage construction and other commercial construction activities, flood defences, industrial pollution, oil

spillage and tourism-based activities and disturbance.

4.9.2 The Essex Estuaries SAC is vulnerable to projects that may have an impact on sediment transport. The Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA is under pressure for increasing port development and marine recreation,

which is likely to impact on the species present.


4.9.3 The BDC does not encompass any of the European sites identified therefore the SADMP will have no impact on the vulnerability of these to man-made interference on site.




4.10 Sea level rise and coastal squeeze !


4.10.1 Sea level rise is associated with climate change effects and is a long-term phenomenon, which requires managing in order to protect built settlements prone to maritime flood events. Sea defences are

constructed and are necessary to hold the line of the existing coast.

4.10.2 Sea level rise leads to coastal intertidal habitats moving further inland, as the sea begins to cover their existing boundaries. Coastal squeeze occurs when sea defences or development prevent landward migration of coastal habitats, including beaches, marshes and intertidal zones. This results in loss of habitat and foraging opportunities for species exploiting

these niches, including various bird species.

4.10.3 Four of the European sites identified are vulnerable to coastal squeeze, including Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA and the Colne Estuary SPA. Sea defences along the Essex Estuaries SAC are leading to coastal squeeze of the salt marshes. At Blackwater Estuary SPA sea walls are

preventing landward movement of the marshes and intertidal habitats.


4.10.4 As these sites are outside the BDC area, the SADMP has no policies relating to the coastal management. The SADMP will have no impact on

sea level rise or coastal squeeze.

4.11 Conservation Objectives and Ramsar criteria

4.11.1 There is no likely significant effect of the SADMP policies or site allocations acting against any of the conservation objectives given for the SPAs and SACs identified. This is because the assessments of vulnerabilities in 4.3 to 4.10 do not identify any risk of the SADMP

affecting:

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features

• The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features

• The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely

• The populations of the qualifying features;

• The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

4.11.2 There is no likely significant effect of the SADMP policies or site allocations acting against the fulfilment of any of the Ramsar Criteria

given for the sites identified.




!

!This page has been left intentionally blank for the purposes of double sided printing.

!

!




5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Assessment findings

5.1.1 This HRA report has carefully considered the effects that might be associated with development as part of the Pre-Submission Version of

the BDC SADMP.

5.1.2 There are no European sites within the Braintree District. Of those that have been identified from a 20km area of search and others that have been included through hydrological pathways that lie beyond this search zone, none are expected to experience adverse effects from proposals in

the SADMP.

5.1.3 Issues of visual and noise disturbance from recreation and physical disturbance have been considered and mitigation suggested in the 2009 Appropriate Assessment of the BDC Core Strategy. Issues of water resources have been sufficiently considered in the 2011 Water Cycle

Study and by the ESW Abberton Scheme.

5.1.4 The Pre-Submission Version of the SADMP is not likely to lead to adverse effects on any European sites alone or in-combination with other plans providing that mitigation measures outlined in the Core Strategy AA are implemented. There is no requirement to prepare an appropriate

assessment.

5.2 Limitations

5.2.1 This report has been prepared using the best available data. References are cited in the text where appropriate.

5.2.2 Other limitations concern habitat and species information for the European sites, which was collected more than two years ago, and in some cases longer than that. Table 4.1 states the date that the JNCC Standard Data Form was prepared. This information was taken from the most up-to-date data forms available. Lepus Consulting has collected no

primary data in the preparation of this report.

5.3 Next steps

5.3.1 This report is subject to comments and review by Natural England as part of the consultation arrangements for the pre-submission version of the BDC SADMP. As Appropriate Assessment is not required, stages 8 and 9

in Table 2.1 may be excluded from this HRA process.

!




!


!

!




6 References Braintree District Council (2009), Appropriate Assessment: Braintree District Council Local Development Framework draft Core Strategy, Royal Haskoning Braintree District Council (2010) Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspaces For Braintree District Braintree District Council (2011), Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Braintree District Council (2013) Site Allocations and Development Management Plan Pre Submission Draft Colchester Borough Council (2013) Habitat Regulations Assessment Survey and Monitoring Programme David Tyldesley and Associates (2012), Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans: Guidance for Plan-making Bodies in Scotland, Version 2.0 Essex and Suffolk Water (2010), Final Water Resources Management Plan 2010-2035 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2011), Braintree District Council Water Cycle Study: Stage 2 Detailed Water Cycle Study Essex and Suffolk Water (date not available), The Abberton Scheme. Available: https://www.eswater.co.uk/_assets/documents/3431_Abberton_scheme_brochure_WEB.pdf, Accessed: 21 March 2014 European Commission (2001), Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites: Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Articles 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC European Commission (1992), Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of Natural Habitats of Wild Fauna and Flora European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC on Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy European Commission (2006) Directive 2006/7/EC on the Management of Bathing Water Quality (Repealing Directive 76/160/EEC) European Commission (2009), Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1981 – 1998) Designated and Proposed Ramsar Sites in the UK and Overseas Territories & Crown Dependencies: Information Sheets on Ramsar Wetlands. Site numbers: UK11001, UK11007, UK11015, UK11058, UK11028, UK11068. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2001) SACs in the United Kingdom: Natura 2000 Standard Data Form for Special Protection Areas (SPA), for Sites Eligible for Identification as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and for Special Areas of Conservation. Site number UK0013690. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1998 – 2005) Special Protected Areas (SPAs): UK: Natura 2000 Standard Data Form for Special Protection Areas (SPA), for Sites Eligible for Identification as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and for Special Areas of Conservation. Site numbers: UK9009141, UK9009245, UK9009243, UK9009244, UK9009131, UK9009121. Natural England (2012), Wildlife-friendly reservoir project backed by Natural England. Available: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningdevelopment/spatialplanning/reservoirexpansionfeature.aspx Accessed: 21 March 2014 Ravenscroft, N., Parker, B., Vonk, R., Wright, M. (2007), Disturbance to Waterbirds Wintering in the Stour-Orwell Estuaries SPA, Wildside Ecology




APPENDIX A European sites: Conservation Objectives (where available from Natural England). * Denotes a priority natural habitat or species

!Abberton Reservoir SPA

Conservation objectives: Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive.

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features

• The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features




Qualifying Features:

• A005 Podiceps cristatus; Great crested grebe (Non-breeding)

• A017 Phalacrocorax carbo; Great cormorant (Breeding)

• A036 Cygnus olor; Mute swan (Non-breeding)

• A050 Anas penelope; Eurasian wigeon (Non-breeding)

• A051 Anas strepera; Gadwall (Non-breeding)

• A052 Anas crecca; Eurasian teal (Non-breeding)

• A056 Anas clypeata; Northern shoveler (Non-breeding)

• A059 Aythya ferina; Common pochard (Non-breeding)

• A061 Aythya fuligula; Tufted duck (Non-breeding)

• A067 Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye (Non-breeding)

• A125 Fulica atra Common coot (Non-breeding)

• Water bird assemblage

• A140 Pluvialis apricaria; European golden plover (Non-breeding)

Abberton Reservoir Ramsar

Ramsar Criterion 5 Assemblages of international importance

Ramsar Criterion 6

Species/populations occurring at levels of international importance.

Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation):

Species with peak counts in spring/autumn:

• Gadwall , Anas strepera strepera

• Northern shoveler , Anas clypeata

Species with peak counts in winter:

• Eurasian wigeon , Anas penelope

Species/populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration under criterion 6.





• Mute swan , Cygnus olor

• Common pochard , Aythya ferina

Blackwater Estuary SPA



• The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;

• The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;

• The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;




• A046a Branta bernicla bernicla; Dark-bellied brent goose (Non-breeding)

• A059 Aythya ferina; Common pochard (Breeding)

• A082 Circus cyaneus; Hen harrier (Non-breeding)

• A137 Charadrius hiaticula; Ringed plover (Breeding)

• A141 Pluvialis squatarola; Grey plover (Non-breeding)

• A149 Calidris alpina alpina; Dunlin (Non-breeding)

• A156 Limosa limosa islandica; Black-tailed godwit (Non-breeding)

• A195 Sterna albifrons; Little tern (Breeding)


• A048 Tadorna tadorna; Common shelduck (Non-breeding)

• A132 Recurvirostra avosetta; Pied avocet (Non-breeding)

• A137 Charadrius hiaticula; Ringed plover (Non-breeding)


• A151 Philomachus pugnax; Ruff (Non-breeding)

• A162 Tringa tetanus; Common redshank

Blackwater Estuary Ramsar

Ramsar criterion 1 Qualifies by virtue of the extent and diversity of saltmarsh habitat present. This site, and the four others in the Mid-Essex Coast complex, includes a total of 3,237 ha that represent 70% of the saltmarsh habitat in Essex and 7% of the total area of saltmarsh in Britain.

Ramsar criterion 2 The invertebrate fauna is well represented and includes at least 16 British Red Data Book species. In descending order of rarity these are:

Endangered:

• A water beetle Paracymus aeneus;




Vulnerable:

• Damselfly Lestes dryas,

• Flies Aedes flavescens, Erioptera bivittata, Hybomitra expollicata

• Spiders Heliophanus auratus and Trichopterna cito;

Rare:

• Beetles Baris scolopacea, Philonthus punctus, Graptodytes bilineatus and Malachius vulneratus,

• Flies Campsicemus magius and Myopites eximia

• Moths Idaea ochrata and Malacosoma castrensis

• Spider Euophrys sp.

Ramsar criterion 3

This site supports a full and representative sequences of saltmarsh plant communities covering the range of variation in Britain.

Ramsar criterion 5 Assemblages of international importance:


105061 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003)

Ramsar criterion 6 Species/populations occurring at levels of international importance.



• Dark-bellied brent goose, Branta bernicla bernicla

• Grey plover , Pluvialis squatarola

• Dunlin , Calidris alpina alpina

• Black-tailed godwit, Limosa limosa islandica



• Common shelduck , Tadorna tadorna

• European golden plover , Pluvialis apricaria apricaria, P. a. altifrons

Common redshank , Tringa totanus totanus

Colne Estuary SPA













• A059 Aythya ferina; Common pochard (Breeding)


• A137 Charadrius hiaticula; Ringed plover (Breeding)

• A162 Tringa totanus; Common redshank (Non-breeding)





Colne Estuary Ramsar

Ramsar criterion 1 The site is important due to the extent and diversity of saltmarsh present.

Ramsar criterion 2 The site supports 12 species of nationally scarce plants and at least 38 British Red Data Book invertebrate species.

Ramsar criterion 3 This site supports a full and representative sequences of saltmarsh plant communities covering the range of variation in Britain.

Ramsar criterion 5

Assemblages of international importance:







• Common redshank, Tringa totanus totanus




Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA


• Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:











Water bird assemblage

Crouch and Roach Estuaries Ramsar

Ramsar criterion 2 Supports an appreciable assemblage of rare, vulnerable or endangered species or subspecies of plant and animal including 13 nationally scarce plant species:

• slender hare’s ear Bupleurum tenuissimum

• divided sedge Carex divisa

• sea barley Hordeum marinum

• golden-samphire Inula crithmoides

• lax- flowered sea-lavender Limonium humile

• curved hard-grass Parapholis incurve

• Borrer’s saltmarsh grass Puccinellia fasciculate

• stiff saltmarsh grass Puccinellia rupestris

• spiral tasselweed Ruppia cirrhosa

• one-flowered glasswort Salicornia pusilla

• small cord-grass Spartina maritime

• shrubby sea- blite Suaeda vera

• sea clover Trifolium squamosum

Several important invertebrate species are also present on the site, including:

• emerald damselfly Lestes dryas

• shorefly Parydroptera discomyzina

• soldier fly Stratiomys singularior

• large horsefly Hybomitra expollicata

• beetles Graptodytes bilineatus and Malachius vulneratus

• ground lackey moth Malacosoma castrensis and Eucosoma catoprana











Hamford Water SPA











• A052 Anas crecca; Eurasian teal (Non-breeding)








• A151 Philomachus pugnax; Ruff (Non-breeding)


Hamford Water Ramsar




• Ringed plover, Charadrius hiaticula

• Common redshank, Tringa totanus totanus,


• Dark-bellied brent goose, Branta bernicla bernicla,




• Grey plover, Pluvialis squatarola

Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA

Conservation objectives:




Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive.









• A054 Anas acuta; Northern pintail (Non-breeding)

• A132 Recurvirostra avosetta; Pied avocet (Breeding)


• A143 Calidris canutus; Red knot (Non-breeding)

• A149 Calidris alpina alpina; Dunlin (Non-breeding)







• A169 Arenaria interpres; Ruddy turnstone (Non-breeding)

Stour and Orwell Estuaries Ramsar

Ramsar criterion 2 Contains seven nationally scarce plants:

• stiff saltmarsh-grass Puccinellia rupestris

• small cord-grass Spartina maritime

• perennial glasswort Sarcocornia perennis

• lax-flowered sea lavender Limonium humile

• eelgrasses Zostera angustifolia, Z. marina and Z. noltei Contains five British Red Data Book invertebrates:

• muscid fly Phaonia fusca

• horsefly Haematopota grandis

• spiders, Arctosa fulvolineata and Baryphema duffeyi

• swollen spire snail Mercuria confusa.










• Common redshank , Tringa totanus totanus

• Species with peak counts in winter:

• Dark-bellied brent goose, Branta bernicla bernicla,

• Northern pintail , Anas acuta Grey plover , Pluvialis squatarola

• Red knot , Calidris canutus islandica (wintering)

• Dunlin , Calidris alpina alpina

• Black-tailed godwit , Limosa limosa islandica

• Common redshank , Tringa totanus totanus

!

Essex Estuaries Marine SAC

Conservation objectives: Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features.


• The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

• The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

• The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;

• The populations of qualifying species;

• The distribution of qualifying species within the site.


• H1110. Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time; Sub tidal sandbanks

• H1130. Estuaries

• H1140. Mudflats and sand flats not covered by seawater at low tide; Intertidal mudflats and sand flats

• H1310. Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand; Glasswort and other annuals colonising mud and sand

• H1320. Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae); Cord-grass swards H1330. Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)

• H1420. Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi); Mediterranean saltmarsh scrub

!




APPENDIX B Flow chart of HRA process. The 13 Key Stages of the Habitats Regulations Appraisal Process (reproduced from SNH, 2012)




APPENDIX C

Policy CS8

Natural Environment and Biodiversity

All development proposals will take account of the potentialimpacts of climate change and ensure the protection andenhancement of the natural environment, habitats and biodiversityand geo-diversity of the District. This will include whereappropriate protection from:-

• Air, noise, light and other types of pollution

• Excessive use of water and other resources

Development should protect the best and most versatileagricultural land.

Development must have regard to the character of the landscapeand its sensitivity to change and where development is permitted itwill need to enhance the locally distinctive character of thelandscape in accordance with the Landscape CharacterAssessment. Landscape Character Areas will be defined in theSite Allocations Development Plan Document and further guidancewill be set out in a supplementary planning document.

The natural environment of the District, and in particulardesignated sites of national importance and locally designatedsites, which are identified on the Proposals Map, will be protectedfrom adverse effects. Criteria based policies will be set out in theDevelopment Management Document, against which proposals forany development within, or affecting such sites, will be considered.The restoration and enhancement of the natural environment willbe encouraged through a variety of measures such as;

• Maximising opportunities for creation of new green infrastructure and networks in sites allocated for development

• Creating green networks to link urban areas to the countryside

• Creating and enhancing the biodiversity value of wildlife corridors

• Designating and protecting local nature reserves and local wildlife sites

• Conservation and enhancement of SSSIs in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act

• Development will promote wildlife enhancements which will

Environment

80

LOC

AL

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

FR

AM

EW

OR

K

CO

RE

ST

RAT

EG

Y




contribute to the habitat and species restoration targets set out inthe Essex Biodiversity Action Plan

The Council will minimise exposure of people and property to therisks of flooding by following the national guidance laid out inPPS25. In particular the sequential test will be applied to avoidnew development being located in areas of flood risk. Where a sitelies partially in the flood zone the Sequential Approach will also berigorously applied and only water compatible or essentialinfrastructure uses (footnote) will be permitted in areasdemonstrated to be at risk. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)will be used wherever possible to reduce flood risk, promotegroundwater recharge, enhance biodiversity and provide amenitybenefit, unless, following an adequate assessment, soil conditionsand/or engineering feasibility dictate otherwise.

It must be ensured that the capacity of waste water treatment andfoul sewerage infrastructure is not exceeded and thatopportunities to improve water quality in all watercourses andwater bodies will be taken where possible in order to prevent thedeterioration in current water quality standards and meet theobjectives of the Water Framework Directive.

Developers must engage in discussions with water and sewerageproviders at the earliest opportunity to provide evidence with theirplanning application that there is capacity for their proposals.

The Council will seek to promote the use of water efficiencymeasures.

Footnote: as defined in table D.2. of Planning Policy Statement 25

Built and Historic Environment

8.21 The quality of the District’s built environment is already high with over

3,000 listed buildings and 39 conservation areas. High standards of

design and layout will be required for new developments in the District.

In assessing new developments the Council will have regard to the

Essex Urban Place Supplement and the Essex Design Guide. The

Council will also want to ensure that new development contributes to

carbon reduction through the promotion of efficient use of energy and

resources and through waste minimisation and recycling. National

policy seeks to achieve zero carbon homes by 2016.

Environment

81

LOC

AL

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

FR

AM

EW

OR

K

C

OR

E S

TR

ATE

GY




APPENDIX D The following policies from the Core Strategies of districts surrounding Braintree may act in-combination with Braintree’s plans, resulting in a likely significant effect on European sites. Council (date of Core Strategy) Policy

Maldon District Council (2010)

Increasing visitor numbers Urban regeneration of the Causeway area of Maldon/Heybridge Protect urban areas from the effects of climate change by flood defences Encourage marina proposals Provide additional footpaths, cycleways, bridleways and other recreational facilities in the countryside Development of offshore wind farms, wave and tidal energy and a nuclear power station

Colchester Borough Council (2008)

Sustainable development locations Housing delivery Open Space Walking and cycling Rural communities

Tendring District Council Draft Replacement Local Plan (2007)

Housing provision Tourism and leisure uses

Extensions to static caravans and holiday parks Touring caravans and tents Small holiday villages Small holiday villages Managed realignment Urban regeneration areas Brightlingsea waterside regeneration Mixed development Brightlingsea shipyard

!


!

!

!

© Lepus Consulting Ltd

Eagle Tower Montpellier Drive Cheltenham GL50 1TA

T: 01242 525222

E: [email protected]

www.lepusconsulting.com

CHELTENHAM ● LONDON

!!!!

Lepus Consulting 1 Bath Street CheltenhamGloucestershire GL50 1YE

t: 0242 525222w: www.lepusconsulting.come: [email protected]