Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Draft Wolverhampton ...

Habitats Regulations Assessment of theDraft Wolverhampton City Centre Area Action

Screening Report

January 2015

!

!

!!

!

Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report of the

Wolverhampton City Centre Area Action Plan

!

HRA Screening of the Draft Version

LC-0089 Document Control Box

Client Wolverhampton City Council

Report Title Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report of the Wolverhampton City Centre Area Action Plan

Number 1

Status Draft

Filename LC-0089_Wolves_HRA Screening_6_160115AP.docx

Date 16th January 2015

Author AGP

Reviewed SS

Approved NJD

Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Wolverhampton City Centre Area Action Plan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!January, 2015!LC-0089_Wolves_HRA Screening_6_160115AP.docx!!

Lepus Consulting for Wolverhampton City 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 draft WCC AAP ................................................................................................ 3 1.5 HRA process to date ............................................................................................................ 4

2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Guidance and best practice .............................................................................................. 5 2.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment methodology ...................................................... 6 2.3 Dealing with uncertainty ..................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Likely significant effect ....................................................................................................... 7

3 European Sites ............................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 About European sites .......................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Ecological information ....................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Previous HRA work ............................................................................................................... 11

4 Potential Effects ........................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 12 4.2 Site vulnerabilities ............................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Visitor pressure and recreation ...................................................................................... 14 4.4 Human interference ............................................................................................................. 16 4.5 Lowering of water levels ................................................................................................... 17 4.6 Surface run-off ....................................................................................................................... 18 4.7 Conservation Objectives .................................................................................................... 18

5 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 20 5.1 Assessment findings .......................................................................................................... 20 5.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Next steps ............................................................................................................................. 20

APPENDIX A Conservation objectives for European sites APPENDIX B Flow chart of HRA process APPENDIX C Policy ENV1 from the Black Country Joint Core Strategy

! !


Lepus Consulting for Wolverhampton City Council ! ii!

Figures Figure 4.1 Map illustrating location of European sites

Figure 4.2 Zone of Influence 8 and 15 km from Cannock Chase SAC

Tables Table 1.1 Policies contained in the AAP

Table 1.2 Areas for development as described in the AAP

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

Acronyms AA Appropriate Assessment

AAP Area Action Plan

BC Black Country

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs

ha Hectares

JCS Joint Core Strategy

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

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

SPA Special Protection Area

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

ST Severn Trent

STWRMP Severn Trent Water Resources Management Plan

SuDs Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

WCC Wolverhampton City Council

WRMP Water Resources Management Plan


Lepus Consulting for Wolverhampton City Council ! iii!

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

with development as part of the Draft Version of the Wolverhampton City Council (WCC) Area Action Plan (AAP).

E2 There are no sites of European Importance within the AAP area. 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 AAP.

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

• Mottey Meadows SAC • Fens Pools SAC • Cannock Extension Canal SAC • Cannock Chase SAC • Severn Estuary SAC • Severn Estuary SPA • Severn Estuary Ramsar • Humber Estuary SAC • Humber Estuary SPA • Humber Estuary Ramsar

!E4 All parts of the City Centre AAP area fall outside the 15 km zone currently being

used by the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership in interim policy to assess impacts on the SAC and to secure developer contributions. Given that the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership has an interim mitigation system in place based on a 15 km zone, the City Centre AAP housing development proposals, which fall outside the 15 km zone and will deliver less housing than anticipated when the evidence base and interim mitigation system was put in place (as set out in the Black Country Core Strategy), will have no likely significanteffects or in-combination effects on Cannock Chase SAC in terms of increased visitor pressure and levels of recreation. These effects can therefore be screened out for the purposes of the HRA.

E5 There are additional safeguards offered through policy within the Plan (CC10: Delivering Environmental Infrastructure in the City Centre) and a policy within the Black Country Core Strategy (ENV1: Nature Conservation) that serve to fully protect the European site from development associated with this Plan.

E6 As the competent authority, the Council have consulted with Natural England to discuss the assessment findings and finalise the report. The authors believe they have prepared a report which is faithful to the EU Habitats Directive.

E7 The following vulnerabilities were considered during the assessment: visitor pressure and recreation, lowering of water table levels, surface run-off and human interference.

E8 The draft version of the WCC AAP is not likely to lead to adverse effects on any European sites. An Appropriate Assessment (AA) is not required for this plan.!


Lepus Consulting for Wolverhampton City Council ! iv!

!

!

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

!


Lepus Consulting for Wolverhampton City Council! ! 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Lepus Consulting has prepared this Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) report of the Draft Area Action Plan (AAP) on behalf of Wolverhampton City Council (WCC). This is a requirement of Regulation 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 20101 (the Habitats Regulations).

1.1.2 The following European sites were identified using a 20km area of search around the Wolverhampton City Action Plan Area as well as including sites which are potentially connected (e.g. hydrologically) beyond this distance:

• Mottey Meadows SAC • Fens Pools SAC • Cannock Extension Canal SAC • Cannock Chase SAC • Severn Estuary SAC • Severn Estuary SPA • Severn Estuary Ramsar • Humber Estuary SAC • Humber Estuary SPA • Humber Estuary Ramsar

!

1.1.3 Potential significant effects were identified and were explored for each site. These included visitor pressure and recreation, lowering of water table levels, surface run-off and human interference.

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 WCC AAP.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 UK Government, (2010), The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 2 Lepus Consulting, (2010), Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Black Country Joint Strategy Appropriate Assessment 3 Black Country Core Strategy, (2011), [online] Available at: http://blackcountrycorestrategy.dudley.gov.uk!


Lepus Consulting for Wolverhampton City 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 draft WCC AAP

1.4.1 The aim of the AAP is to guide regeneration of the city centre until 2026. The draft version of the AAP sets out proposals for how and where future development and associated amenities and services will be located in the plan area.

1.4.2 An infrastructure and delivery and monitoring strategy is included in the AAP to provide a clear indication of how the plan will be implemented and monitored. This will be followed by the production of an AAP delivery plan and monitoring reports. The delivery plan will be published alongside the publication AAP and will be prepared with infrastructure providers, developers and other key organisations.

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 city. Across the city 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 city and linking to the open countryside beyond. The canal network will continue to be promoted as a vital asset for the city supporting movement, environmental and biodiversity quality and as the setting for development.

1.4.4 The AAP policies are divided into three key areas:

• Delivering a more prosperous and cohesive city centre • Creating sustainable communities • Transforming and protecting the environment and addressing climate

change

!

1.4.5 The AAP includes 10 policies as listed in Table 1.1.

!



Table 1.1: Policies contained in the AAP

Delivering a prosperous and cohesive city centre

CC1 Meeting shopping needs

CC2 Offices

CC3 Leisure

CC4 Providing sufficient employment land

CC5 Transport

Creating sustainable communities

CC6 Delivering a sustainable mix of housing

Transforming and protecting the environment and addressing climate change

CC7 High quality design and public realm

CC8 Protecting and enhancing historic character and local distinctiveness

CC9 Delivering environmental infrastructure in the city centre

CC10 City centre renewable and low carbon energy infrastructure

1.4.6 In addition to the policies listed in Table 1.1, the AAP identifies eleven Character Areas and development opportunities, as shown in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Character areas contained in the AAP!

1.5 HRA process to date

1.5.1 The HRA process is iterative and assesses 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 WCC has determined the need for HRA and has commissioned Lepus to undertake the screening stages for the AAP. This includes the completion of stages 1-7.

Character Areas and development opportunities

CA1 Shopping Core CA2 Westside

CA3 Interchange and Commercial Gateway

CA4 Canalside Quarter

CA5 Chapel Ash and West Park

CA6 University Quarter

CA7 Molineux Quarter

CA8 St Peter’s Cultural Quarter

CA9 St John’s and St George’s

CA10 Blakenhall and Graiseley

CA11 All Saints



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 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 Paragraph 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 1 to 7 are relevant to this report.

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 WCC, 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 four European sites identified as being potentially connected to Wolverhampton City Council. 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



3.3 Previous HRA work

3.3.1 Previous HRA work was undertaken for the Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS) (2010)2. The work examined likely significant effects the JCS could have on eighteen European sites within the Black Country.

3.3.2 It was concluded that the JCS will have significant effects in combination on seven European sites and these were taken forward to Appropriate Assessment (AA). These sites were:

• Cannock Chase SAC • Severn Estuary SAC • Severn Estuary SPA • Severn Estuary Ramsar • Humber Estuary SAC • Humber Estuary SPA • Humber Estuary Ramsar

3.3.3 The results of the AA concluded that all negative effects of the JCS in relation to the conservation objectives of the seven sites can be overcome by adhering to the avoidance and mitigation measures prescribed.

Cannock Chase SAC

3.3.4 Effects arising from an increase in visitor numbers at Cannock Chase SAC were investigated. It was concluded that the policy ENV1 in the Black Country JCS3 would protect environmental assets including European sites, and that subsequent Local Plan work in and around Cannock Chase SAC would explore the issue of disturbance from new housing in more detail.

Water issues

3.3.5 Likely effects from the JCS on hydrologically linked European sites (Severn Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar and Humber Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar) were dealt with through the Severn Trent Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP).

3.3.6 In terms of effects associated with sewage and wastewater management in the JCS, these issues were addressed via the Severn Trent WRMP4, which covers the majority of the West Midlands (including the AAP area). The WRMP is subject to HRA and will be responsible for ensuring any adverse effects associated with management of water will be addressed before the plan is approved. The latest version has been approved by the Secretary of State and is ready for publication. The latest draft HRA report5 is available direct from Severn Trent Water on request.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 Lepus Consulting, (2010), Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Black Country Joint Strategy Appropriate Assessment 3 Black Country Core Strategy, (2011), [online] Available at: http://blackcountrycorestrategy.dudley.gov.uk!4 Severn Trent, (2014), Water Resources Management Plan, [online] Available at: http://www.severntrent.com/future/future-plans-and-strategy/water-resources-management-plan



4 Potential Effects

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 Baseline research identified four potential European sites for assessment:

• Mottey Meadows SAC • Fens Pools SAC • Cannock Extension Canal SAC • Cannock Chase SAC

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

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5 Cascade, (2013), Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Severn Trent Water Draft Water Resources Management Plan!


Lepus Consulting for Wolverhampton City Council! ! 13!

Table 4.1: Key vulnerabilities at European sites potentially near Wolverhampton City Area Action Plan!

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

Visitor Pressure and Recreation

Lowering of water levels

Surface run-off Human interference

Mottey Meadows SAC June 2008

o Vulnerable to the lowering of ground and surface water levels, as the floristic composition is dependent on a high water table in autumn and winter

o Vulnerable to nutrient run-off from adjacent agricultural land

Fens Pools SAC January 2001

o Off road vehicles

pose a pollution threat

o Human disturbance o Fish introductions o Pollution by expanding

number of ponds

Cannock Extension Canal SAC June 1995

o Vulnerable to an increase or decrease in boat traffic

o Surface run-off

from roads result in a reduction in water quality

Cannock Chase SAC March 2001

o Recreational activities such as dog walking, horse riding, mountain biking and off-track activities result in erosion and disturbance

o Water abstraction for public and industrial uses takes place at the site


Lepus Consulting for Wolverhampton City Council! ! 14!

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. Known vulnerabilities are summarised in Table 4.1 and discussed in the following sections.

4.3 Visitor pressure and recreation !

Vulnerability of European sites

4.3.1 Two sites have vulnerabilities associated with visitor pressure and recreational activities: Cannock Extension Canal SAC and Cannock Chase SAC.

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

4.3.3 An additional 2123 homes as set out in Policy CC7 of the Area Action Plan are proposed. This could potentially lead to an increase in visitor numbers to the European sites within 20km of the AAP area.

4.3.4 Recreational activities can pose vulnerabilities to European sites. The qualifying feature of Cannock Extension Canal SAC is dependent on a certain level of boat traffic. Any increase or decrease as well as recreational activities are vulnerabilities which could effect the integrity of the site.

4.3.5 Cannock Chase SAC receives a high volume of dog walkers, horse riders and other visitors undertaking recreational activities at the site. Creation of new tracks by cyclists and horse riders are resulting in erosion and vegetation damage at the site.

Effect of WCC policies/areas for development

4.3.6 There is considerable distance between the AAP area and the two European sites associated with visitor pressure and recreational activities. Cannock Extension Canal SAC is located approximately 12km away, and Cannock Chase SAC is located between 16.3km and 19km away.

4.3.7 It is unlikely that an increase in housing will result in an increased level of boat traffic along the Cannock Extension Canal SAC.



4.3.8 Evidence commissioned by the Cannock Chase SAC partnership and produced by Footprint Ecology6 indicates that planned housing development up to 2026 will increase the numbers of visitors to the SAC by around 15% and concludes that an increase on this scale is likely to have a significant effect on the SAC. The evidence measured visitor numbers according to source locations and prepared a zone extending 15km from the SAC boundary, within which 75% of visit sources are located, with the majority of visits arising from within an 8km zone. Figure 4.2 shows the Zone of Influence surrounding Cannock Chase SAC.

4.3.9 Members of the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership have prepared interim planning guidance to deliver satisfactory mitigation and management measures to protect the SAC from any significant effects arising from new housing development. The interim guidance aims to secure a payment per dwelling for developments within 15km of the SAC, with a higher payment for each dwelling within 0-8km of the SAC to reflect the greater impact arising from a higher likely number of visits. An example is Lichfield District Council7.

4.3.10 In order to avoid deterioration of the qualifying features for which the SAC has been designated, the Partnership has identified a range of on-site mitigation measures which have been costed. The total cost of these measures forms the basis for calculating the payments required from developers. The Partnership has agreed that local planning authority members will pool their developer contributions to provide the funding to deliver these mitigation measures.

4.3.11 There are 2123 homes allocated / committed in the City Centre AAP, which are located between 16.3 km and 19 km from Cannock Chase SAC. The total amount of housing proposed up to 2026 for the AAP area is 1,035 less than the targets set in the Black Country Core Strategy (2011). Therefore, the AAP will have no additional effects beyond those anticipated when the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership evidence base and interim mitigation system was put in place. All parts of the City Centre AAP area fall outside the 15 km zone currently being used by the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership in interim policy to assess impacts on the SAC and secure developer contributions (see Figure 4.2).

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6 Underhill-Day, J. & Liley, D. (2012). Cannock Chase Visitor Impacts Mitigation Report. Footprint Ecology 7 Lichfield District Council, (2014) Main Modifictions of the Lichfield District Local Plan: Strategy Addendum to Habitat Regulations Assessment, [online] Available at: http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/downloads/file/5612/addendum_to_habitat_regualtions_assessment_january_2014



!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! Figure 4.2: Zone of Influence 8 and 15 km from Cannock Chase SAC

!

4.3.12 Given that the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership has an interim mitigation system in place based on a 15 km zone, the City Centre AAP housing development proposals, which fall outside the 15 km zone and will deliver less housing than anticipated when the evidence base and interim mitigation system was put in place (as set out in the Black Country Core Strategy), will have no likely significant or in-combination effects on Cannock Chase SAC in terms of increased visitor pressure and levels of recreation. These effects can therefore be screened out for the purposes of the HRA.

4.3.13 There are additional safeguards offered through policy within the Plan (CC9: Delivering Environmental Infrastructure in the City Centre) and a policy within the Black Country Core Strategy (ENV1: Nature Conservation) that serve to fully protect the European site from development associated with this Plan.

4.4 Human interference !


4.4.1 Human interference is identified as a vulnerability at Fens Pools SAC.



4.4.2 Human interference at European sites can occasionally affect the status of the qualifying features and therefore the integrity of the site. Human interference such as fish introduction would affect populations of Great Crested Newts (Triturus cristatus).


4.4.3 Policies set out in the AAP are unlikely to result in an increase in human interference at Fens Pools SAC. Any increase in human interference at the site is unlikely to be due to any policies set out in the AAP.

4.5 Lowering of water levels !


4.5.1 The lower of water levels is listed as a vulnerability at two European sites: Cannock Chase SAC and Mottey Meadows SAC.

4.5.2 Water is abstracted from Cannock Chase SAC for public and industrial uses. Ongoing research and monitoring is being undertaken by Natural England to investigate the effects of water abstraction on the wetland features of the site; conclusions have not yet been published. Human interference such as this could be subtly affecting the integrity of the SAC and it’s qualifying features.

4.5.3 Mottey Meadows SAC is vulnerable to the lowering of both ground and surface water levels, as the floristic composition is dependent on a high water table in autumn and winter.

4.5.4 As previously mentioned, the water levels at Cannock Chase SAC are lowered by the abstraction of water for public and industrial use. All water abstraction is controlled by licenses and the STWRMP.

4.5.5 Although the effects on the qualifying features are yet to be determined, any change in the alteration of water levels at the SAC may have an effect on the integrity of the qualifying feature.


4.5.6 Water abstraction is controlled by licences and all issues relating to water abstraction are covered in the Water Resources Management Plan produced by Severn Trent for the area they supply.

4.5.7 Human interference at Cannock Chase SAC is unlikely to increase as a result of the policies set out in the AAP. Other human interference due to recreation activities and visitor numbers is dealt with through mitigation set out in section 3.4.



4.5.8 The STWRMP deals with issues regarding water supply and wastewater treatment. The HRA of the WRMP has concluded that no adverse effects are likely. The AAP is operating in accordance with the WRMP. It is not anticipated that any policies set out in the AAP will have a likely significant effect on Cannock Chase SAC or Mottey Meadows SAC.

4.6 Surface run-off !


4.6.1 Surface run-off is an associated vulnerability at Cannock Extension Canal SAC and Fens Pools SAC.

4.6.2 Cannock Extension Canal SAC lists surface run-off as a vulnerability. Water run-off can cause some reduction in water quality and this, in turn can impact on the integrity of the qualifying feature. Surface water run-off into the Cannock Extension Canal SAC comes principally from surrounding roads and fields.

4.6.3 A reduction in water quality due to surface run-off is a vulnerability of Fens Pools SAC. The qualifying feature, Great Crested Newts, rely on adequate water quality for survival and any change of this can pose a threat to their survival. The urban surrounding of Fens Pools SAC makes it a susceptible site to surface run-off from roads and other surrounding development.


4.6.4 It is possible that policies involving the construction of buildings, roads and other infrastructure in the city can contribute to surface run-off in the area. The contribution is not thought to lead to a significant likely effect in Cannock Extension Canal SAC.

4.6.5 No policies set out in the AAP are thought to lead to a significant increase in surface-run off in the area surrounding Fens Pools SAC and is therefore is not thought to produce any significant like effects at the site.

4.7 Conservation Objectives

4.7.1 There is no likely significant effects on the AAP policies or areas for development on the SACs identified. This is because the assessments of vulnerabilities in sections 4.3 to 4.6 do not identify any risk of the WCC AAP 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; and • The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.



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 Draft Version of the WCC AAP.

5.1.2 There are no European sites within the AAP area. 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 AAP.

5.1.3 The Draft Version of the AAP is not likely to lead to adverse effects on any European sites alone or in-combination. 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 six 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 As appropriate assessment is not required, stages 8 and 9 in Table 2.1 may be excluded from this HRA process. If necessary, this report will be reviewed at Publication stage to take into account any changes between the draft AAP and the Publication AAP.

!

! !



!

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

!

!



References David Tyldesley and Associates (2012), Habitats Regulations Appraisal of Plans: Guidance for Plan-making Bodies in Scotland, Version 2.0 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 JNCC, (2001), Natura 2000 Standard Data Form: Fens Pools, [online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/n2kforms/UK0030150.pdf JNCC, (2001), Natura 2000 Standard Data Form: Cannock Chase, [online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/n2kforms/UK0030107.pdf JNCC, (1998), Natura 2000 Standard Data Form: Mottey Meadows, [online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/n2kforms/UK0030051.pdf JNCC, (1995), Natura 2000 Standard Data Form: Cannock Extension Canal, [online] Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/n2kforms/UK0012672.pdf Natural England, (2014), Site Improvement Plan: Fens Pools, [online] Available at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6307825315741696



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

!

Mottey Meadows SAC

Conservation objectives: Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features.

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

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

Qualifying Features:

• H6510. Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis)

Fens Pools SAC



• 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.


• S1166. Triturus cristatus; Great Crested Newt

Cannock Extension Canal SAC



• 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.


• S1831. Luronium natans; Floating water-plantain



Cannock Chase SAC



• 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


• H4010. Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Wet heathland with cross-leaved heath

• H4030. European dry heaths !



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

!



APPENDIX C Policy ENV1 from the Black Country Joint Core Strategy

Policy Development!within!the!Black!Country!will!safeguard!nature!conservation,!inside!and!outside!its!

boundaries!by!ensuring!that:!

!

Development!is!not!permitted!where!it!would!harm!internationally!(Special!Areas!of!Conservation),!

nationally!(Sites!of!Special!Scientific!Interest!and!National!Nature!Reserves)!or!regionally!(Local!

Nature!Reserve!and!Sites!of!Importance!for!Nature!Conservation)!designated!nature!conservation!

sites;!!

!

Locally!designated!nature!conservation!sites!(Sites!of!Local!Importance!for!Nature!Conservation),!

important!habitats!and!geological!features!are!protected!from!development!proposals!which!could!

negatively!impact!upon!them;!!

!

The!movement!of!wildlife!within!the!Black!Country!and!its!adjoining!areas,!through!both!linear!

habitats!(e.g.!wildlife!corridors)!and!the!wider!urban!matrix!(e.g.!stepping!stone!sites)!is!not!impeded!

by!development;!!

!

Species!which!are!legally!protected,!in!decline,!are!rare!within!the!Black!Country!or!which!are!

covered!by!national,!regional!or!local!Biodiversity!Action!Plans!will!not!be!harmed!by!development.!

!Adequate!information!must!be!submitted!with!planning!applications!for!proposals!which!may!affect!

any!designated!site!or!any!important!habitat,!species!or!geological!feature!to!ensure!that!the!likely!

impacts!of!the!proposal!can!be!fully!assessed.!Without!this!there!will!be!a!presumption!against!

granting!permission.!!Where,!exceptionally,!the!strategic!benefits!of!a!development!clearly!outweigh!

the!importance!of!a!local!nature!conservation!site,!species,!habitat!or!geological!feature,!damage!

must!be!minimised.!Any!remaining!impacts,!including!any!reduction!in!area,!must!be!fully!mitigated.!

Compensation!will!only!be!accepted!in!exceptional!circumstances.!A!mitigation!strategy!must!

accompany!relevant!planning!applications.!!Current!designated!nature!conservation!sites!including!

Local!Nature!Reserves!will!be!carried!forward!from!existing!Proposals!Maps,!subject!to!additions!and!

changes!arising!from!further!studies.!Local!Authorities!will!look!to!designate!additional!nature!

conservation!sites!as!necessary!in!conjunction!with!the!Local!Sites!Partnership!and!consequently!sites!

may!receive!new,!or!increased,!protection!over!the!Plan!period.!!All!appropriate!development!should!

positively!contribute!to!the!natural!environment!of!the!Black!Country!by:!!

!

Extending!nature!conservation!sites;!!

Improving!wildlife!movement;!and/or!!

Restoring!or!creating!habitats!/!geological!features!which!actively!contribute!to!the!!implementation!

of!Biodiversity!Action!Plans!(BAPs)!and/or!Geodiversity!Action!Plans!(GAPs)!at!a!national,!regional!or!

local!level.!!Details!of!how!improvements!(which!are!appropriate!to!the!location!and!scale)!will!

contribute!to!the!natural!environment,!and!their!ongoing!management!for!the!benefit!of!biodiversity!

and!geodiversity!will!be!expected!to!accompany!planning!applications.!Local!authorities!will!provide!

additional!guidance!on!this!in!Local!Development!Documents.!!

!

! !!

!! ! !

!

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

!

!

!

!!

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

!!!!!

© Lepus Consulting Ltd

1 Bath Street Cheltenham GL50 1YE

T: 01242 525222

E: [email protected]

www.lepusconsulting.com

CHELTENHAM ● Gloucestershire

!

!

!

!!

Lepus Consulting 1 Bath Street CheltenhamGloucestershire GL50 1YE

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

Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Draft Wolverhampton ...

Documents

Transcript of Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Draft Wolverhampton ...