Habitats Regulation Assessment of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan Draft for Public Consultation

(January 2016)

2...... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 3...... INTRODUCTION ...... 4

3.2...... HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS ...... 4 3.3...... BACKGROUND ...... 5 4...... POSSIBLE IMPACTS ...... 6

4.2...... LANDTAKE ...... 6 Conclusion ...... 6 4.3...... HYDROLOGY ...... 6 Boston BC ...... 6 Anglian Water Water Resources Managment Plan (2015)...... 8 Conclusion ...... 8 South Holland DC ...... 9 Anglian Water Water Resources Management Plan (2015)...... 9 Conclusion ...... 10 4.4...... WATER QUALITY ...... 10 Boston Water Cycle Study (Nov 2009) ...... 10 South Holland Water Cycle Study (Jan 2011) ...... 10 Environment Agency Review of Consents Report ...... 11 Conclusion...... 11 4.5...... AIR QUALITY ...... 11 Conclusions ...... 13 4.6...... RECREATIONAL PRESSURE ...... 13 Conclusion ...... 16 4.7...... OTHER PROXIMITY EFFECTS OF URBANISM ...... 16 Conclusion ...... 17 5...... OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ...... 17

5.1...... POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON EUROPEAN SITES THAT CAN BE SCREENED OUT AT THIS STAGE...... 17 5.2...... SITES THAT CAN BE SCREENED OUT AT THIS STAGE...... 17 Baston Fen SAC...... 17 Grimesthorpe SAC ...... 17 The Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and Ramsar...... 17 Nene Washes Ramsar, SAC and SPA ...... 18

5.3...... EUROPEAN SITE CONCLUSIONS ...... 18 Gibraltar Point Ramsar and SPA, - Salfleetby/Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC - The Wash Ramsar and SPA, - The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC ...... 18 Barnack Hills and Holes SAC ...... 18 Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog Ramsar and SAC ...... 18 Rutland Water Ramsar and SPA ...... 18 6...... APPENDIX 1 EMAILS AND LETTERS ...... 19

6.1...... NATURAL ENGLAND LETTER 20 JULY 2012 ...... 19 6.2...... ANGLIAN WATER EMAIL 21 NOVEMBER 2013...... 21 6.3...... NATURAL ENGLAND EMAIL 25 MARCH 2015...... 23 6.4...... NATURAL ENGLAND EMAIL 08 JUNE 2015...... 25 6.5...... NATURAL ENGLAND EMAIL 12 JUNE 2015...... 26 6.6...... ANGLIAN WATER EMAIL 19 JUNE 2015...... 27 7...... APPENDIX 2 HRA ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS FOR PREFERRED OPTIONS CONSULTATION MAY 2013...... 29 8...... APPENDIX 3 HRA ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS FOR LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION 2016 ...... 33 9...... APPENDIX 4 PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMMES WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR IN-COMBINATION EFFECTS...... 38 10...... APPENDIX 5 THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY REVIEW OF CONSENTS REPORT ...... 47

1. Executive Summary 1.1.1 It is a requirement of Article 6 of the EC Habitats Directive 19921 and Regulation 21 of the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 20102 that ‘land use plans’, including local authority Local Plans, are subject to an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (AA) if it is likely that they will lead to significant adverse effects on a Natura 2000 site. These are Special Areas of Conservation, (SACs) and Special Protection Areas, (SPAs). As a matter of UK Government policy Ramsar sites, candidate SACs and proposed SPAs are given equivalent status. 1.1.2 'The SE Lincolnshire Local Plan Strategy and Policies DPD Combined Preferred Options and Sustainability Appraisal Report Full Consultation Document (May 2013)', included HRA screening for each proposed policy. The conclusions are listed in Appendix 2 of this document. In addition the current draft policies have also been screened and the results are in Appendix 3. 1.1.3 This assessment also considers: Landtake, Hydrology, Water quality, Air quality, Recreational pressure and Other ‘proximity effects’ of urbanisation. Natural England has agreed that all issues, except recreational pressure, are likely to have no significant effect. 1.1.4 As a result consultants have been employed to undertake visitor surveys at 11 locations around the Wash, which will be augmented with visitor surveys carried out by the RSPB at their two reserves at Freiston Shore and Frampton Marsh. The results of these surveys will be used to inform the next version of the plan, along with the responses to the consultation undertaken in January and February 2016.

2. Introduction 2.1.1 The SE Lincolnshire Local Plan sets out the development strategy and policies for the period to 2036. 2.1.2 It will set out the locations that are capable of coming forward for sustainable development and will also identify where land is protected from development, owing to its heritage, environmental or amenity value. The site specific proposals will identify the wide range of land allocations that are necessary to deliver the Strategy, and will include land for housing, employment, retail, open space, gypsy and traveller sites, physical infrastructure (e.g. roads) and community facilities (e.g. Schools etc).

2.2. Habitats Regulations Assessment 2.2.1 It is a requirement of Article 6 of the EC Habitats Directive 19923 and Regulation 21 of the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 20104 that ‘land use plans’, including local authority Local Development Frameworks, are subject to an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (AA) if it is likely that they will lead to significant adverse effects on a Natura 2000 site. These are Special Areas of Conservation, (SACs) and Special Protection Areas, (SPAs). As a matter of UK Government policy Ramsar sites, candidate SACs and proposed SPAs are given equivalent status.

1.1.1 1 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6, accessed June 2014 2 Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/contents/made, accessed June 2014 3 Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6, accessed June 2014 4 Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/490/contents/made, accessed June 2014 4

2.2.2 The Habitats Directive applies the precautionary principle to protected areas. Plans and projects can only be permitted having established that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site(s). However, potentially damaging plans and projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives to them and there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI)5 as to why they should go ahead. In such cases, compensation will be necessary to ensure the overall integrity of the site network. 2.2.3 As assessment of plans has developed, the term Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has come into use for describing the overall assessment process, including screening to determine whether significant adverse effects are likely or not, and this term is used below when necessary to distinguish the process from the ‘Appropriate Assessment’ stage itself.

2.3. Background 2.3.1 The methodology, evidence base, and scope of the HRA are set out in the 'SE Lincolnshire Local Plan Strategy and Policies DPD Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report Final Version (July 2012)' (Scoping Report 2012) which was consulted upon in June 2012. The Natural England Response is in Appendix 1, along with other responses to other versions of this report. The Scoping Report has been updated (Scoping Report 2015). 2.3.2 'The SE Lincolnshire Local Plan Strategy and Policies DPD Combined Preferred Options and Sustainability Appraisal Report Full Consultation Document (May 2013)', included HRA screening for each proposed policy. The screening comprised a number of questions that were derived from a presentation by Riki Therivel on 'Appropriate assessment of plans in practice' and are in the following table: Table 1 HRA Screening. Screening of Preferred Policy Approach (/X) Does the Does the policy Does the Is the policy Does the Does the Does the policy policy lead to specify a policy specify implemented policy policy steer protect the development? quantity or type a location for through other concentrate development natural of development? development? policies? development away from environment? in urban European or areas? Ramsar sites?

X/ X/ X/ X/ X/ X/ X/

2.3.3 Each question was answered with a tick or a cross and a conclusion was drawn for each policy. These conclusions are listed in Appendix 2 of this document. 2.3.4 Following this consultation SE Lincolnshire decided to produce a single local plan, with an end date of 2036, rather than a Strategy and Policies document and a separate Site Allocation document. Therefore, in January 2016 a second consultation document was issued that includes updated policies from the first consultation and mapping of proposed sites for allocation. These were also subjected to HRA and the conclusions are in Appendix 3 of this document. 2.3.5 Appendix 4 includes a table of other plans and projects which will be considered in combination with the SE Lincolnshire Local plan. This list is in the Scoping Report 2015 and modifies the original list in Scoping Report 2012 by: adding the Nene, Welland, Witham and Grimsby, Ancholme and Louth Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies; Central Lincolnshire and South Kesteven DC Local Plans and deleting Boston BC and South Holland DC Local Plans, as they are to be replaced by this plan, and English Leisure Day visit data, as it is not locally specific.

1.1.1 5 Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/2716/regulation/49/made, accessed June 2014 5

3. Possible Impacts 3.1.1 The possible impacts of Local Plan policies in SE Lincolnshire upon European Sites are set out in the Scoping Report 2015 which is reproduced below. Table 2 Possible impacts on European Sites. Impact Comment

Landtake May cause fragmentation as well as habitat loss. Land outside European site boundaries may be important for the integrity of the site (e.g. areas outside SPAs that are used by roosting or feeding birds) Hydrology Development may have hydrological consequences, affecting surface water and/or groundwater flows upon which wetland sites are dependent. However, the use of SUDS in development maybe beneficial. Water quality Sewage treatment effluent (e.g. pressure on capacity at Fishtoft STW). Effluent from industrial processes. Polluted run-off from car parking areas and roads. Air quality Industrial emissions. Domestic heating. Traffic. Recreational pressure Disturbance to sensitive species. Trampling and erosion of sensitive habitats e.g. dunes Eutrophication from dogs. Other ‘proximity Introduction of invasive alien species, mainly from tipping of effects’ of urbanisation garden waste. Increased risk of arson. Effects on behaviour from lighting. Noise disturbance. Cat predation

3.2. Landtake 3.2.1 The list of SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites is in the Scoping Report 2015. Owing to further investigations for this report two further areas have been added to the list in the original Scoping Report 2012. These are the Humber Estuary and Rutland Water. The terrestrial sites are all outside the SE Lincolnshire Local Plan area. Many are also marine environments. Therefore, none of the settlements and none of the proposed development sites in SE Lincolnshire are immediately adjacent to the SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites.

Conclusion 3.2.2 Owing to the SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites being either outside the SE Lincolnshire plan area or being marine environments the local plan is not going to allocate development on SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites and so the plan is not going to have a land take issue. In addition the land that may be allocated for development is agricultural land and is not intensively used by birds for feeding. The loss of the land is likely to have no significant effect on their well being. 3.2.3 Land Take can therefore be screened out as an issue.

3.3. Hydrology

Boston BC 3.3.1 Boston BC water supply is abstracted from the Louth canal, which contains treated effluent from Louth with back up from the Great Eau, into the Covenham Reservoir. It is treated in the Covenham Water Treatment Works and then piped to Boston. The Louth Canal drains into the Humber Estuary which has SPA, SAC and Ramsar designations. 3.3.2 The estuary covers the full salinity range from fully marine at the mouth of the estuary (Spurn Head) to the limit of saline intrusion on the Rivers Ouse and Trent. A salinity gradient from the north bank to the south bank is observed in the outer estuary, due to the incoming tide flowing along the north bank, while the fresh water keeps to the south bank as it discharges to the sea. The Humber catchment covers an area of about 24,240 square km,

more than 20% of the land area of England. Average annual precipitation in the upland areas of the catchment is as much as 1000 mm. Average freshwater flow into the Humber estuary from the rivers is 250 cubic metres per second, ranging from 60 cubic metres per second in drier periods to 450 cubic metres per second in wet periods. Peak flows of up to 1500 cubic metres per second have been recorded during floods. The rivers Trent and Ouse, which provide the main fresh water flow into the Humber, drain large industrial and urban areas to the south and west (River Trent), and less densely populated agricultural areas to the north and west (River Ouse).6 3.3.3 The Grimsby, Ancholme and Louth Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) in Appendix 4 states that ground water supplies in the Lincolnshire Limestone, Lincolnshire Chalk and Spilsby Sandstone are fully committed to existing users and the environment. Consequently, no new consumptive licences will be considered. New non-consumptive licenses will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be time-limited. 3.3.4 Abstraction from rivers is only possible when flows are high and this supply is restricted. The CAMS also shows that there are interconnections with the Trent-Witham-Ancholme Transfer Scheme and Great Eau-Covenham Reservoir to make the supplies more resilient. 3.3.5 The Witham CAMS in Appendix 4 says levels in the embanked channel are maintained by a tidal sluice at Boston and the River Witham also benefits from the Trent-Witham-Ancholme Transfer Scheme. This manages water resources, maintaining summer water levels and meeting agricultural, public water supply and industrial needs. Agriculture/horticulture uses a lot of water for irrigation in SE Lincolnshire. Storage reservoirs are now a common feature allowing the storage of water from the winter for use during the summer. 3.3.6 The groundwater resources in the Lincolnshire Limestone, Lincolnshire Chalk and Spilsby Sandstone are fully committed to existing users and the environment. Consequently, no new consumptive licences will be considered/granted. New non-consumptive licenses will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be time-limited. There may be the opportunity for consumptive abstraction from the Bain Sands and Gravels providing there is no hydraulic continuity with surface water features or with the Lincolnshire Limestone, Lincolnshire Chalk or Spilsby Sandstone. 3.3.7 Generally surface water is available for abstraction at very high, high and medium flows throughout the catchment and becomes more restricted as flows reduce. Specifically the Upper Bain has no water available at medium and low flows. The Slea has no water available except at very high flows. The South Forty Foot has no water available at low flows. 3.3.8 In accordance with the UK Habitats Regulations the Environment Agency have assessed the effects of existing abstraction licences and will assess new applications to make sure they are not impacting on internationally important nature conservation sites (SPA, SAC and Ramsar). For the Witham and the Grimsby, Ancholme and Louth Catchment CAMS the following Habitats Directives sites are considered:  The Wash SPA and Ramsar site;  The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC;  The Humber Estuary SPA and SAC.

3.3.9 At the time the Boston Water Cycle Study was undertaken Water supply to Boston Borough was provided by two water treatment works located at West Pinchbeck and Wilsthorpe. The supply was supplemented by imported water from the neighbouring Ruthamford treatment works and the Rutland treatment works. Anglian Water's Water Resources Management Plan for that period also showed that there was a shortfall in available water supply 1.1.1 6 Available at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/RIS/UK11031.pdf accessed 04 June 2014 7

(compared to the demand generated) during drought years in the area. During normal conditions, there were sufficient water resources available to supply the Borough with potable water; however, during drought years, Anglian Water did not have sufficient water to ensure they did not have to impose restrictions on use. 3.3.10 The report indicated two options to resolve this. The preferred option was a transfer of water resources into the Lincolnshire Fens area (most likely from the north via Covenham Reservoir) and this has now been implemented.

Anglian Water Water Resources Managment Plan (2015). 3.3.11 This document is more up to date than the CAMS and Water Cycle Study and indicates no deficits are forecast in the East Lincolnshire Resource Zone. This includes North East Lincolnshire, East Lindsey, Boston, South Holland and part of South Kesteven council areas. It confirms sustainability reductions of 25Ml/d from the Northern Chalk. The worst case sustainability reduction may rise to 37Ml/d. No significant baseline climate change or levels of service sensitivities have been identified. In the worst case climate change may reduce average daily source-works output by 2ML/d. This would affect abstraction from the Louth Canal. Local Authority policy based growth projections exceed Anglian Water's trend based projections significantly but this can be met by the available and target headroom and therefore the associated supply-demand risk are minimal. 3.3.12 This analysis is undertaken on a forecast of 2,500 dwellings per year (d/y), which is consistent with recent build rates. Anglian Water advises that councils forecast 5,000 d/y. However, the information in Appendix 4 suggests East Lindsey are considering a rate of 375 d/y and South Kesteven 680 d/y, but only part of this would be in the East Lincolnshire Resource Zone. Boston Borough is considering 300 d/y and South Holland 430 d/y. NE Lincs are working on a new plan and early indications are up to 722 d/y. These figures may change but, the total figure for the East Lincolnshire Resource Zone is likely to be nearer 2,500 than 5,000 d/y. 3.3.13 Anglian Water has been contacted in relation to the HRA and has confirmed 'there is sufficient water resources to serve the proposed scale of housing development (23,450 dwellings over the plan period of which 9,500 dwellings is in Boston Borough and 13,950 dwellings is in South Holland District)'. Since the email was received our objectively assessed housing needs have been reduced as a result of new housing projection figures to a total of 18,250 for South East Lincolnshire.

Conclusion 3.3.14 There is not much capacity for water extraction unless surface water flows are very high, high or medium, depending on the river catchment. There are interconnections between the Trent, Witham and Ancholme, and the Great Eau and the Covenham reservoir which is also filled from the Louth Canal. Anglian Water advises that Boston BC's water supply comes from Covenham Reservoir. 3.3.15 The building regulations require new dwellings to use 125 litres per person per day. Water abstraction licenses control the amount of water that is taken from the watercourses and maintaining the appropriate flow for the rivers health is a requirement. Both CAMS consider the impacts on the SPA, SAC and Ramsar designations in the Humber and the Wash. 3.3.16 Together these will control the impact of water extraction on the SPA, SAC and Ramsar designations and the Anglian Water Water Management Plan indicates that water demand can be met, which is supported by their response to our consultation for this HRA. This is helped further by our housing figures reducing since they commented. 3.3.17 Hydrology, in relation to Boston Borough, can therefore be screened out as an issue.

South Holland DC 3.3.18 South Holland DC water supply comes from a number of sources. Much of the supply comes from bore holes. Some comes from Covenham Water Treatment Works and some comes from Rutland Water, which has SPA and Ramsar designations. The main reason for bringing water from Covenham is to reduce the demand on bore holes supplying the south Lincolnshire area. 3.3.19 The Nene and Welland CAMS in Appendix 4 indicate that groundwater resources in the Lincolnshire Limestone are fully committed to existing users and the environment. Consequently, no new consumptive licences will be considered. New non-consumptive licenses will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be time-limited. There may be the opportunity for consumptive abstraction from the secondary aquifers providing there is no hydraulic connectivity with the Lincolnshire Limestone or surface water features. 3.3.20 The River Nene is an important source of raw water to fill Pitsford and Rutland Water reservoirs for public water supply. For surface water the Nene CAMS says there is restricted water available for abstraction throughout the catchment. Specifically there is no water available from water bodies near Brampton and the North Level has no summer capacity from the Nene or the drainage network. The Welland CAMS says there is generally no water available for abstraction throughout the catchment. In the upper reaches the water is used for the Eyebrook and Rutland Water reservoirs and what remains is required for the downstream reaches of the River Gwash. If water is available in the Glen and the Welland it is at very high flows. 3.3.21 In accordance with the UK Habitats Regulations the Environment Agency have assessed the effects of existing abstraction licences and will assess new applications to make sure they are not impacting on internationally important nature conservation sites (SPA, SAC and Ramsar). For the Nene and the Welland CAMS the following Habitats Directives sites are considered:  The Wash SAC and SPA - Exceptional biological interest including: high numbers of wintering waterfowl; breeding seals; and salt marsh and shingle habitats.  The Nene Washes SPA - Important for wintering and breeding wildfowl.  Rutland Water SPA; 3.3.22 The South Holland, South Kesteven and Rutland outline water cycle study concludes for ecology, no effects on designated (Ramsar, SAC, SPA and SSSI) conservation sites are anticipated from the proposed growth in South Holland of, an assumed 100 Hectares of employment land and 7,400 dwellings from the former Regional Spatial Strategy. This is lower than currently being considered: about 170 Hectares of employment land and 10,750 dwellings.

Anglian Water Water Resources Management Plan (2015). 3.3.23 Paragraphs 3.3.11 to 3.3.13 for Boston indicate that supplies can meet the expected demand and this is also true for South Holland. 3.3.24 Rutland Water is a drinking water storage reservoir, which is heavily managed by AWS who balances abstraction and replenishment to ensure a continued water supply to customers across the region. The Appropriate Assessment carried out as part of the Habitats Directive Review of Consents concluded that there are no Water Quality Consents which have been shown to have an adverse affect on Rutland Water SPA, even under worst case scenarios in combination with other potentially significant influences on the site. The effects of increased surface water run-off on Rutland Water should also be considered, once the individual development sites are known. However, it is thought at this point that there should be sufficient scope for the use of SuDS in new development to ensure adverse effects of increased surface water run-off can be mitigated.

Conclusion 3.3.25 Much of the Water supply for South Holland DC comes from bore holes and the Nene and Welland CAMS suggest that further extractions to meet extra demand will not be likely approved. The Nene and the Welland supply Rutland Water and the relevant CAMS suggest that supplies are limited. 3.3.26 The building regulations require new dwellings to use 125 litres per person per day. Water abstraction licenses control the amount of water that is taken from water courses and maintaining appropriate flow for the rivers health is a requirement. Both CAMS consider the impacts on the SPA and SAC designations in the Wash, the Nene Washes and Rutland Water. 3.3.27 The review of consents concluded there are no consents which have been shown to have an adverse affect on Rutland Water. 3.3.28 Together these will control the impact of water extraction on the SPA, SAC and Ramsar designations and the Anglian Water Water Management Plan indicates that water demand can be met which is supported by their response to our consultation of this HRA. This is helped further by our housing figures reducing since they commented. 3.3.29 Hydrology, in relation to South Holland, can therefore be screened out as an issue.

3.4. Water Quality

Boston Water Cycle Study (Nov 2009) 3.4.1 The Pre Outline Water Cycle Study shows there is capacity in many of the waste water treatment works, although the network to these works can be at capacity. 3.4.2 The current water quality condition of watercourses in the Borough that receive wastewater flow from Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) are likely to fail water quality standards required under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Further discharges from additional development will therefore require upgrades to the processes at the WwTW to ensure they can meet more stringent levels of treatment. All of the watercourses in the Borough (with the exception of Hobhole Drain) are failing WFD standards for the nutrient phosphorus. This is a common theme for watercourses in the UK; but particularly in the East of England due to the stringent standard set for phosphorus under the WFD and because phosphorus levels in watercourses in the East of England are high due to the high use of fertiliser on agricultural land in addition to the phosphorus which is discharged from wastewater treatment works. 3.4.3 The study advises it is not possible, at this very early stage, to screen out adverse effects of potential development around Boston upon The Wash European protected sites. This is due to both possible increased abstraction from the rivers that flow into the Wash and increased discharge of wastewater which would eventually end up in the Wash. From evidence referred to in the Hydrology section abstraction is not an issue now, but wastewater cannot be excluded at present.

South Holland Water Cycle Study (Jan 2011) 3.4.4 Most of the South Holland Settlements listed in Table 4-1 of the water cycle study have lower growth figures than currently suggested. Also some settlements we are considering for growth are not on the list. 3.4.5 However, for the envisaged growth at the time the study was written, the required improvements to the (WwTWs) are technically feasible within the limits of conventional treatment and that with upgrades at certain WwTW, the additional flow could be treated to a higher quality and still ensure downstream compliance with water quality and protection of ecological sites. However, it should be noted that several are very close to this limit and are

likely to require substantial upgrades at key WwTWs which will have an impact on phasing of development whilst the upgrades are carried out. 3.4.6 An analysis of WwTW capacity within South Holland shows that there are 3 WwTW where the volumetric capacity will be exceeded: Crowland, Donington, Holbeach. As such it will be necessary to apply for an increase in the consented discharge volume for each of these works to meet the housing levels to be delivered within the study area. All of these WwTWs discharge to watercourses that ultimately drain into The Wash SAC, SPA, Ramsar site. 3.4.7 The Environment Agency Review of Consents process undertaken for The Wash concluded that while the features of the Wash are generally sensitive to eutrophication and The Wash can be classed as a hypernutrified system, it is not currently eutrophic. According to the Review of Consents report, marine influences rather than fluvial inputs and discharges dominate nutrient dynamics in the system. The Water cycle study therefore concludes that any increase in consented discharge volumes from the WwTWs would be unlikely to lead to a significant adverse effect on The Wash SAC, SPA, Ramsar site.

Environment Agency Review of Consents Report 3.4.8 Extracts from the Environment Agency Review of Consents Report are contained in Appendix 5. The assessment says that "The Wash is most affected by marine influences and the pollutants being flushed into The Wash from the four rivers are reducing as a result of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. It concludes that it is unlikely that the nutrient inputs reviewed (alone or in-combination with water resource abstractions) could have a significant influence on the levels within the site, and it is considered that these will not cause an adverse effect on the interest features of The Wash European Sites. It can, therefore, be concluded that there is no adverse effect (alone or in combination (with other discharges and diffuse sources)) on the integrity of the sites from nutrient enrichment".

Conclusion. 3.4.9 The Boston BC and South Holland DC Water Cycle Studies are different in their levels of analysis. The Boston Study is a 'Pre Outline Study' and concludes that it is not possible to screen out the affects of development on the Wash. The South Holland DC Study is an 'Outline Study' and concludes that the nutient dynamics of the wash is affected most by marine influences rather than fluvial inputs and discharges and so the amount of development being considered when it was written would be unlikely to lead to significant adverse affects on the Wash. This conclusion comes from the Environment Agency Review of Consents Report 3.4.10 Owing to the Environment Agency Review of Consents Report being the primary source of information on the state of the Wash it overcomes the different levels of Water Cycle Study carried out by Boston Borough Council and South Holland District Council. It concludes that there is no adverse effect (alone or in combination (with other discharges and diffuse sources)) on the integrity of the sites from nutrient enrichment. 3.4.11 An earlier version of this report was sent to Natural England in February 2015. In their response they advised that "The Wash currently is not failing its conservation objective for water quality." 3.4.12 Water Quality can therefore be screened out as an issue.

3.5. Air Quality 3.5.1 Table 48 of the Scoping Report 2014 contains critical load and actual load data for six gases for the eight SAC's in the scoping report. Actual load exceeds critical load for Ammonia and Nitrogen deposition.

3.5.2 For ammonia the excess is 1µg per cubic metre. This is a very small amount. Ammonia is a highly reactive and soluble alkaline gas. It originates from both natural and anthropogenic sources, with the main source being agriculture, e.g. manures, slurries and fertiliser application. 3.5.3 Excess nitrogen can cause eutrophication and acidification effects on semi-natural ecosystems, which in turn can lead to species composition changes and other deleterious effects. Ammonia comes from the breakdown and volatilisation of urea. Emissions and deposition vary spatially, with "emission hot-spots" associated with high-density intensive farming practices. Other agriculture-related emissions of ammonia include biomass burning or fertiliser manufacture. Ammonia is also emitted from a range of non-agricultural sources, such as catalytic converters in petrol cars, landfill sites, sewage works, composting of organic materials, combustion, industry and wild mammals and birds. 3.5.4 Emissions trends have mostly been downward since the peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s but have now flattened. As the climate warms, volatilisation of ammonia emissions will lead to a further rise in ammonia concentrations7. 3.5.5 SE Lincolnshire is generally an arable agricultural area where animal husbandry is rare. Therefore, ammonia will be mostly derived from crop fertilisers. The planning process cannot control the use of fertiliser. Any restrictions in its use will be from legislation or price. The Local Plan contains a Climate Change policy which seeks to reduce the need to travel and to ameliorate climate change. The landfill site is also closing owing to a new incinerator in North Hykeham. These will all help to reduce ammonia emissions. 3.5.6 For Nitrogen deposition the excess ranges between 5 and 11 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year. Nitrogen deposition is the term used to describe the input of reactive nitrogen from the atmosphere to the biosphere. Most concern has addressed the impacts of nitrogen deposition to terrestrial ecosystems, but impacts may also occur in the marine environment. 3.5.7 The pollutants that contribute to nitrogen deposition derive mainly from nitrogen oxides and ammonia emissions. Nitrogen oxides are produced in combustion processes, partly from nitrogen compounds in the fuel, but mostly by direct combination of atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen in flames. The UK emits about 2.2 million tonnes of Nitrogen Oxide each year. Of this, about one-quarter is from power stations, one-half from motor vehicles, and the rest from other industrial and domestic combustion processes. Emissions of nitrogen oxides are only falling slowly in the UK, as emission control strategies for stationary and mobile sources are offset by increasing numbers of road vehicles8. 3.5.8 Because the availability of nitrogen is often the main growth limitation in many semi-natural ecosystems the response of the majority of plants initially, is they grow better. However such communities exist in balance because their growth rates are contained by the level of available Nitrogen. When the availability of Nitrogen increases this balance is upset and some, especially the lower plants, lose out from too little light or other resources. Management intervention can help maintain the balance by grazing, removing, cutting down etc the faster growing species. However, getting the balance right between management intervention and Nitrogen deposition is a complex issue of optimising positive and negative outcomes. 3.5.9 The Climate Change policy seeks to reduce the need to travel and also supports renewable energy development. Along with national programmes that support renewable and nuclear energy combustion from power stations, the growth in small scale renewable energy schemes on domestic and commercial development, the growth of hybrid or electrical

1.1.1 7 Available at http://www.apis.ac.uk/ accessed June 2014. Look at pollutants in the Overviews box. 8 Available at http://www.apis.ac.uk/ accessed June 2014. Look at pollutants in the Overviews box. 12

vehicles and the electrification of the railways, if the electricity is from renewable sources, nitrogen emissions will be stabilised or reduced. 3.5.10 Boston town has an air quality management area on two sections of the inner ring road. There is a political will to achieve a distributor road around the southern and western edge of Boston. Although this will be provided by developing new housing and more development will increase vehicles, it will provide an alternative route for vehicles. This, along with national programmes to introduce hybrid and electric vehicles, will help improve the air quality of the inner ring road.

Conclusions 3.5.11 There is some impact on the sites from air quality, through ammonia and nitrogen deposition. 3.5.12 Ammonia emissions are mostly from agriculture and controlling them is outside the planning system. Legislation on disposal of manures and application of fertilisers, or the price of fertilisers, are likely to be the main drivers. 3.5.13 The climate change policy seeks to reduce the need to travel and along with national programmes supporting small scale and large scale renewable energy, nuclear energy, electric and hybrid vehicles will help stabilise nitrogen emissions. A distributor road around the southern and western edges of Boston, in addition to national programmes to introduce hybrid and electric vehicles, will help improve the air quality of the inner ring road. 3.5.14 Air quality can therefore be screened out as an issue.

3.6. Recreational Pressure 3.6.1 It is proposed to construct 18,250 dwellings over the plan period to 2036. Of these 7,500 will be in Boston Borough and 10,750 will be in South Holland District. 3.6.2 The surrounding council areas are planning about 115,000 more dwellings, about 610Ha of employment land and 135Ha of rail freight interchange. 3.6.3 Central Lincolnshire, in their now Further Draft Local Plan, concluded that there was no adverse affect on SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites. Fenland DC concluded similarly after the location of development in Whittlesey was changed. Peterborough City Council concluded no adverse affect with policies that contained safeguards to the sites. South Kesteven DC also concluded no adverse affect for their plan. 3.6.4 East Lindsey DC have adopted a precautionary approach and concluded four growth options in their draft core strategy, owing to the scale of development being unknown, could have an adverse affect on SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites. 3.6.5 The Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk concluded there was no adverse affect for their core strategy but now has HRA issues regarding Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog for its site allocations document, owing to it being in close proximity to a proposed residential site. They are proposing a number of approaches in the accompanying HRA to tackle the issue, such as:  Informal open space (over and above the Council’s normal standards for play space); the spaces provided will need to demonstrate their suitability for a variety of uses, including linear/ circular routes for dog exercising.  Landscaping, including landscape planting and maintenance; landscaping in itself will make little difference to alleviate recreational pressure on Roydon or Dersingham. However it may help to make the new housing areas more attractive to residents and dissuade them from travelling a greater distance.  A network of attractive pedestrian routes, and car access to these, which provide a variety of terrain, routes and links to the wider public footpath network.  Contribution to enhanced management of nearby designated nature conservation sites and/or alternative green space; this could come in the form of a Community

Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which could support any changes to the infrastructure on the European sites.  An ongoing programme of publicity to raise awareness of relevant environmental sensitivities and of alternative recreational opportunities away from the sensitive sites.  The new developments should be subject to screening for HRA. This does not replace those measures specified above, nor does it abdicate the duties of this HRA; rather it provides an additional safeguard that, at the point of delivery, a likely significant effect has been avoided.  Use of the European sites should be subject to ongoing monitoring for the years before, during and say 3 years after construction is complete.  There should be an ongoing dialogue, most likely organised by the Borough Council, and involving all relevant stakeholders, with the specific aim of reducing effects on these sites, examining the results of site monitoring and acting on any findings.  The Borough and other stakeholders should continue to explore options for obtaining long-term access or acquiring further recreational green space on an opportunistic basis.  As the potential effects on the European site come from a number of sources, some of which are outside the scope of this plan (for example existing settlements), the site managers should continue to innovate and explore ways of reducing on-site impacts of recreational disturbance. This could also be assisted by developer contributions. 3.6.6 Natural England has data resulting from ad hoc visitor surveys at Dersingham Bog NNR that indicates the site receives in the region of 15,000 visitors per annum. This represents a threefold increase in numbers since 2004. Visitor surveys have shown that the majority of visitors live within a 15 mile radius. However, there are still a significant number of visitors that come to the site from outside this radius and these visits tend to show a seasonal bias towards the summer period. Of the visitors that come from outside of the area, the majority seem to come from Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Leicestershire. 3.6.7 A visitor survey at Barnack Hills and Holes, carried out in 2013, indicates that almost 50% of the respondents (63) came from within a mile of the site and 18% of the respondents (23) travelled more than 10 miles to the site. A survey carried out in 1989 indicated most of the visitors came from Peterborough or further away rather than from the Barnack or Stamford area. The visitor pattern has therefore swapped over the 24 year period. 3.6.8 Some of the visitors might come from SE Lincolnshire, the closest area being the south western part of South Holland DC. 59% visit to see the flowers, 54% visit for walking, 44% for watching wild life, 33% for dog walking, 23% for photography and drawing, 11% for recreation and 7% for jogging 3.6.9 Natural England undertook a condition assessment of The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site (WNNCEMS) in 2007/8. It determined the site was in unfavourable condition because of the threatened status of Little Tern and Ringed Plover. Natural England also concluded in a 2009 report9 that many bird species were 'susceptible to human disturbance' with ground nesting birds considered particularly vulnerable. 3.6.10 Owing to the unfavourable condition the WNNCEMS undertook a project to understand disturbance. This involved a literature review and interviews with site managers and volunteers for unmanaged sites around the Wash and North Norfolk Coast. This found there was little evidence available on bird population being impacted by human disturbance but did find a PhD thesis which did provide evidence for it being reasonable to conclude a negative correlation between human disturbance and certain ground nesters breeding productivity and/or fitness to breed successfully in subsequent years.

1.1.1 9 Access and nature conservation reconciliation: Supplementary Guidance for England NE CR 1013 June 2009 14

3.6.11 Disturbance had historically been recorded for military aircraft, civil aircraft, bikes, dogs, litter, study groups, vehicles, walkers, water sports, wind sport and 'other' categories. 'Other' included campers, BBQ, bird watchers, bait digging, metal detecting, horse riding etc. Issues from many of these categories can be tackled e.g. by contacting the military or civil aircraft authorities or the police. 3.6.12 The research identified the apparent relative significance of walkers and dog walkers within the gamut of human disturbance. From the BTO WeBs data the difference between winter and summer disturbance at coastal sites was minimal. Summer visits were 12 -15% higher than winter visits, which indicated that locals were likely to constitute the majority of visits. This also indicated that disturbance was a year round issue. 3.6.13 The project then sort to engage with walkers and dog walkers to raise their awareness of the issues. A website was set up and information distributed. 3.6.14 Incident recording was also updated, to be undertaken through the website, rather than by paper records. The results of the incidence recording data for dog walkers and walkers are presented in the table below. Table 3: Percentage of all Disturbances by year of Dog Walkers and Walkers. All Sites 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Dog Walkers 24.1% 31.5% 24.3% 23.8% 19.2% Walkers 12.3% 8.4% 10.2% 9.4% 9.9%

3.6.15 In 2010, Natural England completed a condition assessment of the features for which The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site is designated. The outcome was positive, with 75% of features found to be in favourable condition; in comparison with 50% in 2008. The WNNCEMS Annual Management Plan 2014-15 indicates that the action 'Reduce disturbance on site interest feature by dog walkers and their pets' is on track. 3.6.16 Ploszajski Lynch open space assessment compared the amount of open space in SE Lincolnshire with our geographic neighbours and our CIPFA 'Nearest Neighbour' local authorities. On the basis of this and other information new standards of provision in hectares per thousand were developed for each open space category. This includes a "Natural and Semi Natural Green space" category, which is similar to the kings Lynn and West Norfolk informal open space required by their site allocations HRA. 3.6.17 These standards collectively require more land for open space than is currently required in the Boston BC Local plan, 7.5% of site area and the South Holland DC Local Plan, 14% of site area. Collectively the requirement would equate to 26% of site area. The standards are for amenity green space, provision for children and young people, (collectively about 5%) park and garden, allotments, churchyards and cemeteries and natural and semi natural green space (collectively about 21%). It will not be appropriate in all cases to provide this on site as it might be best to extend existing allotments and churchyards/cemeteries nearby. Also natural and semi natural green space would be best provided in large blocks such as, in Boston Borough, the Boston Woods project. Therefore, suitably located land or a monetary contribution, including sports provision, would need to be agreed. This amount of provision will affect affordability of development, especially when other items are also required, such as schools, affordable housing, and highway improvements. 3.6.18 The landfill site in Boston is closing owing to the opening of the Lincolnshire incinerator in North Hykeham. If this can be secured for informal open space at some stage during the plan period it could provide about 40H. It benefits from being connected to public footpaths and being beside the river, and so can contribute to the 'Health and Well-being' agenda. The Company are still considering their options.

3.6.19 Natural England has commented in relation to Nene Washes. "The Nene Washes isn’t really open to visitors. There is a footpath that runs along one edge of the eastern end, but that appears to receive few visitors from what I’ve seen personally – as far as I know visitor numbers are not monitored, all the land in the vicinity is privately owned. The better areas for birds really just have visitors in one viewing area with a car park that isn’t actually on the washes itself. This looks out over (partly) RSPB land, and the RSPB do monitor visitors. More visitors could potentially disturb breeding birds, but there really isn’t the infrastructure for them – the car park is small, and quite far from the road, so I can’t imagine that it would ever get hugely popular, particularly because all you can do is stand in the car park and look out over the washes". 3.6.20 South Holland has a network of drains and a river around Spalding, which have footpaths. Large areas of 'natural and semi natural green space', with new footpaths, linking into the existing footpath network, along with the other open space requirements of the Ploszajski Lynch open space assessment would, reduce the likely impact on the Wash, Barnack Hills and Holes, Nene Washes and Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog. A similar approach could be adopted at Holbeach.

Conclusion 3.6.21 The Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk are considering how to mitigate the impact of residential development on Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog. There is evidence that many visitors to Dersingham Bog travel 15 miles to the site and this would include parts of SE Lincolnshire. East Lindsey has not screened out the impact of residential development at present and we know that the Wash has visitors that can disturb breeding and feeding birds. The 2008 condition survey undertaken by Natural England showed the site to be in unfavourable condition and the 2010 survey showed an improvement. 3.6.22 However, the development sites in Kings Lynn and West Norfolk are far closer to Dersingham Bog and Roydon Common than the development sites in South East Lincolnshire are to The Wash, Barnack Hills and Holes, Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog and Rutland Water. As requiring a lot of Natural and Semi Natural green space could affect viability, research has been commissioned on visitor numbers, the recreational activity, the frequency of visits and residential proximity to the Wash. The results of this research will be used to update the Local Plan text and this HRA, following the current consultation. 3.6.23 The Ploszajski Lynch open space assessment standards include significant space for informal recreation and walking and they will reduce the effect of developing 18,250 dwellings in SE Lincolnshire on the Wash and other sites because they have the potential to divert walkers away from these sites. However, site viability maybe undermined, especially if other facilities are required and therefore recreational pressure cannot be ruled out at this stage.

3.7. Other proximity effects of urbanism 3.7.1 As referred to in the Land Take section none of the SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites are adjacent to existing settlements in SE Lincolnshire and many are located outside the plan area. The closest is The Wash. 3.7.2 Boston BC has a fortnightly wheeled bin collection for refuse and recycling. A fortnightly garden waste collection service operates for eight months of the year. There is also a Household Waste Recycling Centre. 3.7.3 South Holland DC also has a Household Waste Recycling Centre in Spalding where residents take their garden waste. Crowland, Donington, Gedney Hill, Holbeach, Long

Sutton and Sutton Bridge, have a monthly collection for garden waste. In addition there is a district wide weekly collection for refuse and recycling.

Conclusion 3.7.4 Owing to the above waste collection regime the introduction of invasive species from tipping garden waste is minimised. Also owing to the distance of settlements from the Wash arson, light pollution effecting wildlife behaviour, noise disturbance and cat predation should also be minimised. 3.7.5 Other proximity effects of urbanism can therefore be screened out as an issue.

4. Overall Conclusions

4.1. Possible Impacts on European Sites that can be screened out at this stage. 4.1.1 Land take, hydrology, water quality, air quality and 'other proximity effects of urbanism' can be screened out as an issue.

4.2. Sites that can be screened out at this stage.

Baston Fen SAC. 4.2.1 The small 1µg per cubic metre of Ammonia exceedence can be ameliorated by the Climate Change Policy along with national programmes to support small scale and large scale renewable energy, nuclear energy, electric and hybrid vehicles. No significant effect is likely. 4.2.2 Development in SE Lincolnshire does not affect the channel. It is affected by development outside SE Lincolnshire and the Welland and Deepings Drainage board advise they are requiring agricultural runoff rates from development upstream. There is no evidence that it suffers from recreational pressure.

Grimesthorpe SAC 4.2.3 The Air quality data in table 48 of the Scoping report 2014 shows there could be a minor excess of Ammonia, 1µg per cubic metre and just over 5kg of Nitrogen per hectare per year. The Local Plan contains a Climate Change Policy along with national programmes to support small scale and large scale renewable energy, nuclear energy, electric and hybrid vehicles. No significant effect is likely. 4.2.4 Natural England, in their email in Appendix 1, advises that this site can be excluded from the assessment because it is towards the edge of the 15km buffer and public access is limited. It is considered that the likelihood of a harmful increase in recreational pressure as a result of the development provided by the plan is likely to be negligible.

The Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and Ramsar 4.2.5 The site is over 80Km from Boston and it is unlikely at this distance that many people will visit the Humber for recreation. No significant effect is likely. 4.2.6 The water supply for Boston BC does not have an impact on this site and no significant effect is likely. 4.2.7 The Air quality data in table 48 shows of the Scoping report 2014 there could be a minor exceedence of Ammonia, 1µg per cubic metre and just over 9kg of Nitrogen per hectare per year. The Local Plan contains a Climate Change Policy along with national programmes to support small scale and large scale renewable energy, nuclear energy, electric and hybrid vehicles. No significant effect is likely.

Nene Washes Ramsar, SAC and SPA 4.2.8 Owing to the comments in paragraph 3.6.19 we can screen out the effect of developing 18,250 dwellings in SE Lincolnshire on this site.

4.3. European Site Conclusions

Gibraltar Point Ramsar and SPA, - Salfleetby/Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC - The Wash Ramsar and SPA, - The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC 4.3.1 We cannot screen out the effect of developing 18,250 dwellings in SE Lincolnshire on these four sites in relation to recreational pressure. The new open space provision includes significant space for informal recreation and walking. This has the potential to divert walkers away from this site, but owing to viability issues it is not clear if all the open space standards can all be achieved.

Barnack Hills and Holes SAC 4.3.2 We cannot screen out the effect of developing 18,250 dwellings in SE Lincolnshire on this site in relation to recreational pressure. The new open space provision includes significant space for informal recreation and walking. This has the potential to divert walkers away from this site, but owing to viability issues it is not clear if all the open space standards can all be achieved.

Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog Ramsar and SAC 4.3.3 We cannot screen out the effect of developing 18,250 dwellings in SE Lincolnshire on this site in relation to recreational pressure. The new open space provision includes significant space for informal recreation and walking. This has the potential to divert walkers away from this site, but owing to viability issues it is not clear if all the open space standards can all be achieved.

Rutland Water Ramsar and SPA 4.3.4 We cannot screen out the effect of developing 18,250 dwellings in SE Lincolnshire on this site in relation to recreational pressure. The new open space provision includes significant space for informal recreation and walking. This has the potential to divert walkers away from this site, but owing to viability issues it is not clear if all the open space standards can all be achieved.

5. Appendix 1 Emails and Letters

5.1. Natural England Letter 20 July 2012

5.2. Anglian Water Email 21 November 2013.

5.3. Natural England Email 25 March 2015. From: Hildred, Ryan (NE) Sent: 25 March 2015 16:34 To: Peter Udy Cc: Deeming, Roslyn (NE) Subject: RE: SE Lincolnshire Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Dear Peter

Thank you for your patience whilst awaiting my response. I have reviewed the document attached to your email and have been able to liaise with our team freshwater senior adviser. On the whole, we are satisfied with your approach to HRA but have the following comments to make:

Landtake We concur with your screening assessment of no likely significant effect. If allocations are proposed within European sites or within close proximity, then we would expect this to be re- assessed under HRA.

Hydrology On the whole, we agree with your screening assessment of no likely significant effect. However, this is subject to a number of assurances that need to be (or may have already been) received from Anglian Water. At present, water supply (e.g. – as assessed in the relevant water cycle study, review of consents, etc.) will have been assessed as acceptable under Habitats Regulations Assessment.

If Anglian Water can provide you with written confirmation that the amount of housing required in the plan could be serviced by the currently assessed water resource, then there is no need to re-assess the SE Lincolnshire plan under the Habitats Regulations and hydrology can be screened out of further assessment. If a new source of water (including drinking water) is required or if a shortfall of water supply is reached part way through the plan period, then this will require assessment under the Habitats Regulations to ensure the protection of European sites which are dependent on freshwater flows. Anglian Water should also be contacted for a view on the water supply from Rutland Water SPA as, in our opinion, the SE Lincolnshire plan area is downstream of Rutland Water and would not have direct impacts upon this site.

Impacts upon Baston Fen SAC and the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC, Ramsar are dependent on the location of built development. Therefore if development is to be located with the potential to impact upon the freshwater flows to these sites, these sites should be assessed further. Natural England would also welcome a policy that ensures sustainable urban drainage systems maintain freshwater flows into water courses, main rivers and water dependent European (and national) sites. SUDS should be designed to replicate natural flows and drainage.

Water Quality Natural England supports your assessment of water quality screening into requiring further assessment. You asked a question about whether NE have any information on water quality;

unfortunately we do not have information that we can supply. However, The Wash currently is not failing it’s conservation objective for water quality.

Air quality Natural England concurs with your conclusion of screening air quality as no likely significant effect. We of course, would expect individual developments with the potential to impact (e.g. – pig and poultry units) to be subject to relevant air quality assessment and gain the relevant permits form the Environment Agency.

Recreational pressure Natural England supports your assessment of recreational pressure requiring further assessment. Unfortunately, outside of honeypot sites at the National Nature Reserves, not a lot is understood about recreational disturbance on The Wash. The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site (through project officer Sharron Bosley and including NE) are actively researching the impacts of disturbance upon The Wash. Are Boston BC and South Holland DC represented on this group? As information is published, this would be useful to feed into the plan process.

Sites such as Baston Fen SAC and Grimsthorpe Park SAC have negligible levels of disturbance currently.,

In relation to your question about recreational pressure, this is dependent on the location of development and how much alternative green space is required. We would of course support proposals such as converting the landfill site into a green space/biodiversity area but acknowledge the infrastructure and CIL constraints that a site of this size might exhibit.

At this stage, you may find it useful to look at how authorities within the ‘zone of influence’ of Cannock Chase SAC and Thames Basin Heaths SPA are addressing recreational pressure from built development. The South East Lincolnshire Plan would not be on the same scale of growth and impacts as these LPAs, but it may provide SE Lincolnshire with a useful framework to consider recreational disturbance. Please do let me know if you require further links/information as colleagues would be able to direct me to useful sources.

One thing that has been useful for both sites is research and understanding into visitor numbers and movements; this would be a useful to undertake by SE Lincolnshire and would complement The Wash EMS work.

Other proximity effects Natural England concurs with your conclusion of screening other proximity effects as no likely significant effect

I hope that you find my email of use at this stage. In terms of an EA contact, Annette would have been my suggestion to you!

If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards Ryan

Ryan Hildred Lead Adviser Sustainable Development East Midlands Area Team

Natural England Ceres House 2 Searby Road Lincoln LN2 4DT

5.4. Natural England Email 08 June 2015. From: Hildred, Ryan (NE) Sent: Mon 08/06/2015 18:17 To: Peter Udy Cc: Sharron Bosley; Millard, Anna (NE); Deeming, Roslyn (NE) Subject: RE: SE Lincolnshire Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Dear Peter

Thank you for your two emails with regards to the updated Habitats Regulations Assessment in support of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan.

In relation to the amended wording, I am satisfied with what you have re-drafted on the basis of our previous advice so therefore I agree that this leaves recreational pressure as the outstanding issue.

As previous correspondence suggests, I am happy for you to liaise direct with my colleague Anna Millard in respect of the visitor survey tender for The Wash. Anna is best placed to ensure that the data you will be able to collect will ultimately provide the evidence needed for visitor numbers to The Wash and this HRA.

In answer to your questions, your liaison with Anna will hopefully provide an answer to your first question on visitor counts.

I will liaise with my colleague Kate Fagan to see if we have any visitor survey data that we can provide for Nene Washes SPA, SAC, Ramsar that you can slot into your HRA like you have done for other sites. I will be in touch again as soon as I have that.

This multiple approach to mitigating recreational disturbance is a useful reference and certainly an area NE have had experience with on sites such as Thames Basin Heaths and Cannock Chase which on the basis of a clear evidence base, have been able to determine what the best suite of mitigation is (e.g. – Suitable Accessible Natural Green Space (SANGS), visitor management, access restrictions, etc). However it should be noted that these sites have experienced a decline in conservation status and have larger housing allocations which require a strategic solution.

With clear evidence in mind and given the immediate proximity of The Wash (plus initiatives such as the coastal path improving access in the future), I agree that it would be much more 25

beneficial to focus visitor survey effort onto The Wash (including the 3 points outside of SE Lincolnshire) and those areas where there is limited data. This will build the evidence base for your HRA and examination of the local plan. That way a ‘zone of influence’ could be established, if necessary, to quantify what impact the proposed houses would have on The Wash.

As for the other sites, I know Ros has provided visitor survey data for Dersingham Bog and Barnack Hills and Holes and I will provide Nene Washes. You should analyse this data to draw out what proportion of the visitors to these sites are coming from SE Lincolnshire. That way, you will be able to quantify what impact further housing in SE Lincolnshire will have on these sites. Obviously if the visitor proportion from SE Lincolnshire is low, it could be assumed no LSE on these sites as result of the housing allocations.

In any case, notwithstanding the links to HRA, NE would welcome any policies which promote good site design with large areas of green space/green infrastructure and initiatives aimed at creating or enhancing existing green spaces/nature reserves. This would complement the any mitigation required from the HRA exercise.

I hope you find my email of use.

Kind regards Ryan

Ryan Hildred Lead Adviser Sustainable Development East Midlands Area Team

Natural England Ceres House 2 Searby Road Lincoln Lincolnshire LN2 4DT

5.5. Natural England Email 12 June 2015. From: Hildred, Ryan (NE) Sent: Fri 12/06/2015 17:47 To: Peter Udy Cc: Subject: SE Lincolnshire Local Plan HRA - further information Nene Washes

Dear Peter My colleague Kate Fagan has provided me with the following comments on the Nene Washes which I am sure will help in your HRA. "The Nene Washes isn’t really open to visitors. There is a footpath that runs along one edge of the eastern end, but that appears to receive few visitors from what I’ve seen personally – as far as I know visitor numbers are not monitored, all the land in the vicinity is privately owned. The better areas for birds really just have visitors in one viewing area with a car park that isn’t actually on the washes itself. This looks out over (partly) RSPB land, and the RSPB 26

do monitor visitors. More visitors could potentially disturb breeding birds, but there really isn’t the infrastructure for them – the car park is small, and quite far from the road, so I can’t imagine that it would ever get hugely popular, particularly because all you can do is stand in the car park and look out over the washes."

I hope that you find this of use.

Kind regards Ryan

Ryan Hildred Lead Adviser Sustainable Development East Midlands Area Team

Natural England Ceres House 2 Searby Road Lincoln Lincolnshire LN2 4DT

5.6. Anglian Water Email 19 June 2015. Peter,

Thanks for your e-mail. I am to provide the following response to the issues raised by Natural England:

Water resources: In the 2010 Water Resource Management Plan, this combination of growth and target headroom requirements (an allowance we make for uncertainty and risk) resulted in Anglian Water forecasting a significant deficit in water supply in the Lincolnshire Fens Water Resource Zone. To maintain the balance between supply and demand we promoted and have since built, the Covenham to Boston pipeline. The capacity of this is 16 millions litres per day – enough to meet our growth related needs in SE Lincolnshire through to the mid 2030’s, and probably well beyond this date.

Therefore Anglian Water can confirm that there is sufficient water resources to serve the proposed scale of housing development (23,100 (sic) (corrected in para 3.3.13) dwellings over the plan period of which 9,500 dwellings is in Boston Borough and 13,950 dwellings is in South Holland District).

Rutland Water: The majority of the South East Lincolnshire area is served by groundwater or surface water resources. However there is a transfer of water from Rutland Water to serve part of this area.

Paragraph 1.4.43 of the Draft Screening Assessment states that the spreadsheet I had provided in my earlier e-mail updates and clarifies the conclusions of the previous Water Cycle Studies (WCSs). The Red Amber Green (RAG) sheet was previously provided by Anglian Water to assist the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan Team in preparing their SHLAA. The spreadsheet (in itself) is not intended to update the conclusions of the previous 27

WCSs for the South East Lincolnshire area. For example it doesn’t offer a view relating to the cumulative impact on existing wastewater treatment works and the need for any upgrades. (The contents of paragraph 1.4.43 was deleted as a result of this comment. The subsequent paragraph now has this number.)

Anglian Water would welcome the opportunity to have further discussions with the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan Team regarding the need for a review of the existing WCSs.

Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know.

Regards, Stewart Patience Planning Liaison Manager

6. Appendix 2 HRA Assessment Conclusions for Preferred Options consultation May 2013. Policy Screened In Screened Out Strategic approach to This policy approach seeks to Flood Risk provide a strategic response to flood risk. It is not directly concerned with levels or locations of growth. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Provision for Housing Given that this policy approach is concerned with levels and broad locations of development, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process.

Presumption in Favour of This policy is concerned with Sustainable Development ensuring that the local plan is in conformity with the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is not the purpose of this policy to directly lead to development or outline levels or locations of growth. It is therefore considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Spatial Strategy Given that this policy approach is concerned with distributing development, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Site Allocations in SE This policy is concerned with Lincolnshire providing a link between the Strategy and Policies DPD and the Site Allocations DPD. It provides criteria for allocating land for new development and therefore has the potential to significantly effects a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Development Management This policy is concerned with providing an overarching statement highlighting the particular sustainable development considerations that will be taken into account by 29

decision-takers when determining planning applications. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Distribution and Scale of Given that this policy approach is Housing Development concerned with promoting development, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Broad Locations for Given that this policy approach is Housing Development concerned with promoting development, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Gypsies, Travellers and This policy guides the location of Travelling Showpeople Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople’s accommodation. It does protect nature conservation and therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Provision for Affordable Given that this policy approach is Housing concerned with promoting development, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Size, Type and Density of This policy is not concerned with Additional Housing development per se, but with the housing mix. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Housing Land Supply over Given that this policy approach is the Plan Period concerned with promoting development, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Employment Land and Given that this policy approach is Premises concerned with levels and broad locations of development, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats

Regulations Assessment process Town and Other Centres Given that this policy approach is concerned with promoting development, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Spalding Rail Freight Given that this policy approach is Interchange concerned with promoting development, particularly in a rural location, it is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process Environment The policy approach does not lead to development itself or specify a quantity or type of development. It seeks to protect the natural environment and steer development away from European and Ramsar sites. It also seeks to promote green infrastructure and open space so that networks are improved. There is no crossover between the European and Ramsar sites and the conservation areas, listed buildings/gardens and scheduled ancient buildings and as a result development of them will not affect European and Ramsar sites. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Climate Change and The policy approach seeks to Renewable & Low Carbon provide a strategic response to Energy Climate Change and Renewable and Low Carbon Energy. It does not specify a quantity or type of development or its location and it does not concentrate development in urban areas or explicitly steer development away from European or Ramsar sites. As such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process.

Design of New The policy approach does not Development lead to development itself, specify a quantity or type of development or its location. Development is implemented through other policies and this policy seeks only to influence the design of that development. It does not concentrate

development in urban areas or explicitly steer development away from European or Ramsar sites. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Community, Health and . The policy is not site-specific Well-Being and does not put forward any specific development proposals. Although it does not steer development away from European or Ramsar sites or seek to protect the natural environment, these issues would be considered through the provisions of other policies within the Local Plan. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process Sustainable Transport and This policy is not concerned with Accessibility development per se, but with ensuring a sustainable approach to transport and accessibility. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Spalding Western Relief This policy is concerned with Road development and therefore should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process.

Infrastructure and Viability The preferred policy approach to delivery is not deemed to have a significant impact on a European or Ramsar site. It is not the purpose of this policy to directly lead to development or outline levels or locations of growth. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment.

7. Appendix 3 HRA Assessment Conclusions for Local Plan Consultation January 2016 Policy Screened In Screened Out Presumption in Favour of This policy is concerned with Sustainable Development ensuring that the local plan is in conformity with the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is not the purpose of this policy to directly lead to development or outline levels or locations of growth. It is therefore considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Spatial Strategy This policy approach is concerned with distributing development. It is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site through recreational pressure and as such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Development Management This policy is concerned with providing an overarching statement highlighting the particular sustainable development considerations that will be taken into account by decision-takers when determining planning applications. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Strategic Approach to This policy approach seeks to Flood Risk provide a strategic response to flood risk. It is not directly concerned with levels or locations of growth. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Meeting Physical This policy approach seeks to Infrastructure and Service provide sufficient physical Needs infrastructure, which includes green infrastructure that will help divert recreational pressure from the Wash. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Developer Contributions This policy approach seeks to provide sufficient physical infrastructure, which includes green infrastructure that will help divert recreational pressure from 33

the Wash. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Improving South East This policy approach seeks to Lincolnshire’s Employment provide Employment Land, non Land Portfolio of which is protected by any nature conservation designation. In partnership with the “pollution” policy air quality will be minimised or reduced and the employment sites are unlikely to encourage recreational pressure on the Wash. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Specific Occupier and This policy approach seeks to Restricted Use Sites provide Employment Land, non of which is protected by any nature conservation designation. In partnership with the “pollution” policy air quality will be minimised or reduced and the employment sites are unlikely to encourage recreational pressure on the Wash. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Spalding Rail Freight This policy approach seeks to Interchange provide 112ha of land, which is not protected by any nature conservation designation. In partnership with the “pollution” policy air quality will be minimised or reduced and the employment sites are unlikely to encourage recreational pressure on the Wash. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Employment Development This policy approach seeks to in the Countryside provide opportunities for diversification of a scale appropriate to its location, protects agricultural land, where practicable, and would not have a significant adverse impact on the amount of traffic. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Meeting Objectively This policy approach is concerned Assessed Housing Need with promoting residential development. It is considered that

there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site through recreational pressure and as such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Distribution of New This policy approach is concerned Housing with distributing development. It is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site through recreational pressure and as such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. A Sustainable Extension This policy approach is concerned for Housing in Spalding with promoting 4000 dwellings in Spalding. It is considered that there is potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site through recreational pressure and as such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Providing a Mix of Housing The policy approach does not lead to development itself. It is concerned with the housing mix. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Affordable Housing The policy approach does not lead to development itself. It is concerned with the provision of affordable housing within development. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Rural Exceptions Sites This policy approach is concerned with providing affordable, starter or specialist homes adjoining settlement development boundaries. Some settlements are close to the Wash and cumulatively the amount of housing might have the potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site through recreational pressure and as such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Accommodation for This policy guides the location of Gypsies, Travellers and Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Travelling Showpeople’s accommodation. It does protect nature conservation and prevents permanent residential site provision on Flood Zone 3a or 3b, which is adjacent the Wash. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment

process. Houses in Multiple This policy approach is concerned Occupation and the Sub- with providing an intensified Division of Dwellings residential use within an existing dwelling. This could be anywhere within South East Lincolnshire and cumulatively the amount of housing might have the potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site through recreational pressure and as such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Replacement Dwellings in This policy will not increase the the Countryside number of existing dwellings. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Conversion of Redundant This policy approach is concerned Rural Buildings to with providing more residential use Residential Use within the countryside. This could be anywhere within South East Lincolnshire and cumulatively the amount of housing might have the potential for significant effects on a European or Ramsar site through recreational pressure and as such, it should be screened by the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Agricultural, Forestry and This policy approach is other Rural Workers concerned with providing Dwellings residential uses within the countryside for agricultural, forestry and rural workers. This could be anywhere within South East Lincolnshire but will be limited as they are the exception, rather than the rule. It is not considered that cumulatively the amount of housing will have significant effects on a European or Ramsar site through recreational pressure and as such, it should be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Retail Hierarchy This policy approach seeks to influence the location of retail development within the larger towns within South East Lincolnshire. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Primary Shopping This policy approach relates to Frontages Boston and Spalding town centres. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats

Regulations Assessment process. Additional Retail Provision This policy approach relates to built up areas. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. The Natural Environment The policy approach does not lead to development itself or specify a quantity or type of development. It seeks to protect the natural environment and steer development away from European and Ramsar sites. It also seeks to promote green infrastructure and open space so that networks are improved. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. The Historic Environment There is no crossover between the European and Ramsar sites and the conservation areas, listed buildings/gardens and scheduled ancient buildings and as a result development of them will not affect European and Ramsar sites. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Pollution The policy approach seeks to minimise or reduce emissions where possible, and have an acceptable impact on air quality. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Climate Change and The policy approach does not Renewable and Low lead to development itself; Carbon Energy specify a quantity or type of development or its location. Development is implemented through other policies and this policy seeks only to mitigate and adapt development to climate change. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Design of New The policy approach does not Development lead to development itself; specify a quantity or type of development or its location. Development is implemented through other policies and this policy seeks only to influence

the design of that development. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Promoting Safe, The policy approach does not Accessible Open Space, lead to development itself; Sport and Recreational specify a quantity or type of Facilities development or its location. Development is implemented through other policies and this policy seeks only to influence cohesion and inclusivity and improve health and well-being. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Delivering a More The policy approach does not Sustainable Transport lead to development itself; Network specify a quantity or type of development or its location. Development is implemented through other policies and this policy seeks only to influence a sustainable approach to transport and accessibility. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process. Vehicle and Cycle Parking The policy approach does not lead to development itself; specify a quantity or type of development or its location. Development is implemented through other policies and this policy seeks only to parking standards. Therefore, it is considered that this policy can be screened out of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process.

8. Appendix 4 Plans, policies and programmes with the potential for in-combination effects. REGIONAL East Midlands Regional Plan (RSS) (GOEM, 2009) The Regional Spatial Strategy provided a broad development strategy for the East Midlands up to 2026. It identified the scale and distribution of provision of new housing and priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, energy, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. The East Midlands Regional Plan was revoked on 12th April 2013 but it had informed development of the SE Lincolnshire Combined Preferred Options and Sustainability Report.

HRA Findings On the basis of the HRA conclusions, it is possible to conclude that East Midlands Regional Plan will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of European Sites in the Region, provided that the following site-specific actions are taken: 38

Future review of any implications of development for fragmentation of supporting habitat for Birklands and Bilhaugh SAC; Any necessary action to ensure adequate capacity for water treatment is available prior to further development in the catchment of the River Mease SAC.

In relation to the European Sites within the scope of this HRA screening report, the Regional Plan HRA identified the following issues which may need detailed consideration in future and which should be monitored:

There are several sites for which potential effects were identified due to increasing demand for water resources. These include the Nene Washes SAC and SPA, the Wash SPA and Rutland Water SPA/Ramsar.

There are several sites for which water quality changes represent a risk and for which effectiveness of SUDs and adequacy of water treatment infrastructure needs to be monitored including the Nene Washes SAC/ SPA/ Ramsar, and the Wash SPA.

There are several sites for which monitoring is required with respect to effectiveness of measures to manage recreational disturbance. These include the Rutland Water SPA/Ramsar, Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC and Gibraltar Point SPA and the Wash SPA/Ramsar for which effectiveness of policies on tourism and measures to manage levels of disturbance should be monitored to ensure that adequate controls are in place.

With respect to coastal squeeze, Saltfleetby- Theddlethorpe Dunes and Gibraltar Point SAC, the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC, Gibraltar Point SPA/Ramsar and the Wash SPA/Ramsar should all be reviewed in relation to the proposed changes to housing numbers before these are approved in the relevant districts. This may form part of the Coastal Strategy. There are some areas of residual uncertainty pending completion of the Coastal Strategy which need to be included in the Annual Monitoring Report. None of the sites within the scope of this HRA screening report are potentially affected by declines in air quality.

For the following sites, issues are flagged which are expected to become more significant in future: The Wash SPA/Ramsar is exposed to possible cumulative effects from development of renewable energy, and disturbance and this is flagged for more detailed consideration in future. East of England Regional Plan (RSS) (2008) The Regional Spatial Strategy provided a broad development strategy for the East of England up to 2021. It identified the scale and distribution of provision of new housing and priorities for the environment, transport, culture, economic development, water, carbon dioxide and renewable energy, minerals and waste treatment and disposal. The East of England Plan was revoked on 3rd January 2013. HRA Findings The Habitats Directive Assessment Report published for consultation alongside the Proposed Changes to the Draft Plan concluded that the Plan was unlikely to have a significant effect on sites designated for their European or international importance for wildlife. Following a review of comments received, four sites were identified for further assessment: Epping Forest SAC The Broads SAC The Chiltern Beechwoods SAC Essex Estuaries SAC, Crouch and Roach Estuaries SPA/Ramsar Site (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3) Non of these are within the scope of this HRA screening report. LOCAL PLANS Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council lies to the East of SE Lincolnshire. Its Core Strategy proposes to develop 16,500 dwellings and 66 Ha of employment land between 2001 and 2026. HRA Findings Amendments to the pre submission document satisfactorily address earlier issues raised, and that as a result it can be ascertained that the policies (as contained in the proposed submission document January 2010) will not adversely affect the integrity of the European Sites. The HRA for the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies has revealed likely impacts with proposed housing sites and protected sites and proposes a multi faceted approach to manage the impact. Central Lincolnshire

Central Lincolnshire comprises West Lindsey District Council, City of Lincoln and North Kesteven District Council. Central Lincolnshire is located to the North West of SE Lincolnshire. It proposes 36,960 dwellings and 137 Hectares of employment land in its Further Draft Local Plan. HRA Findings All elements of the draft Central Lincolnshire Core Strategy have been screened out and therefore it can be concluded that the plan would not be likely to have a significant effect on a European Site alone or in combination with other plans or projects. East Lindsey DC East Lindsey lies to the North of SE Lincolnshire. The draft core strategy was consulted upon between October 2012 and January 2013. The housing requirement is 1605 dwellings in the coastal area and 5841 in the inland area, less commitments. They consulted on four distribution of growth options: concentrated growth into five inland towns, moderately dispersed distribution of growth, more dispersed pattern of growth and dispersed pattern of growth including rural villages. The employment land requirement is up to 21.6Hectares in the Alford, Coningsby/Tattershall, Horncastle and Louth. HRA Findings The four growth options, along with two policies: renewable energy and widening the tourist economy have been assessed as having the potential for an adverse effect. Fenland DC Fenland District Council lies to the South East of SE Lincolnshire. Its Core Strategy proposes the development of 11,000 new homes and 85 Ha of employment land between 2011 and 2031. HRA Findings The development strategy focuses development into the four main market towns. An earlier draft of the Core Strategy identified development to the north of Whittlesey about 250m from Nene Washes. It was unclear whether development would or would not affect he protected site because of increased recreational use of the Nene Washes. This option has now been changed and so it is considered unlikely that the plan will affect European sites. Peterborough City Council Peterborough City Council lies to the south of SE Lincolnshire. Its Core Strategy DPD (Adopted February 2011) seeks to provide 25,450 dwellings over 17 years and 95.1 Ha of employment land supported by significant amounts of new infrastructure for transport, utilities, leisure and other services and facilities. HRA Findings Given the inherent uncertainty of potential effects on European sites from the strategic level proposals in the Core Strategy, it has been necessary to place reliance on generic safeguarding policies rather than detailed consideration of potential projects and their effects. Potential air pollution effects on Orton Pit SAC has further been addressed by a policy commitment to monitor levels of air pollution in and around the site at regular intervals, with a view to implementing appropriate traffic management measures if necessary. Taking all of these factors into account it is reasonable to conclude that the Core Strategy is not likely to adversely affect the integrity of any European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. South Kesteven DC South Kesteven District Council is located to the west of SE Lincolnshire. Its Core Strategy DPD (Adopted July 2010) seeks to provide the RSS housing total of 13,600. Grantham will accommodate two urban extensions. It also seeks to provide 205 Ha of employment land. HRA Findings The Policies contained within the Core Strategy have been assessed to determine whether there are likely to be any significant effects arising from them, in accordance with the Habitats Directive. The European Sites that may potentially be affected by the Core Strategy policies have been identified. The characteristics of each site have been examined and the policies tested to identify any significant impacts on the European Sites. The assessment concludes that the policies within the Core Strategy are not likely to have any significant effects on any Natura 2000 site. There is, therefore, no requirement to proceed to the next stage of an Appropriate Assessment. Anglian River Basin Management Plan, December 2009 This plan is about the pressures facing the water environment in the Anglian River Basin District, and the actions that will address them. It has been prepared under the Water Framework Directive, and is the first of a series of six-year planning cycles. The Anglian River Basin District is a unique environment; the landscape ranges from gentle chalk and limestone ridges to the extensive lowlands of the Fens and East Anglian coastal estuaries and marshes. Water is essential to the maintenance of the rivers, lakes, estuaries, coasts and groundwater that underpins these landscapes and their wildlife. And it is vital to the livelihoods of those who live and work here. HRA Findings The Habitats Regulations Assessment concluded that the River Basin Management Plan is unlikely to have 40

any significant negative effects on any Natura 2000 sites. The Plan itself does not require further assessment under the Habitats Regulations. This conclusion is reliant on the fact that before any measures in the plan are implemented they must be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. Any plans, project or permissions required to implement the measures must undergo an appropriate assessment if they are likely to a have a significant effect. A copy of the Habitats Regulations Assessment of this plan is available at www.environmentagency.gov.uk/wfd. Anglian Water Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) (2015) The 2015 Water Resource Management Plan covers the period from 2015 to 2040 and shows how the balance between water supplies and demand will be maintained. It also shows how the longer term challenge of population growth and climate change will be met. HRA Findings The WRMP is accompanied by a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and preparation is subject to guidance from the "Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment - Guidance for Water Resource Management Plans and Drought Plans". Sustainability changes may be required to protect international or national designated conservation sites (Habitats Directive, Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Biodiversity 2020 sites), to protect locally important sites (undesignated sites) or to deliver WFD objectives. In 2011/12, the water supply came from a number of different sources: Groundwater sources supplied around 53% of our water from various stone aquifers. Reservoir sources account for approximately 40% of our water mostly pumped from a nearby river, such as the Trent, Witham, Ancholme, Welland, Nene, Bedfordshire Ouse, Colne and Gipping. Direct river abstractions account for approximately 6% of our available supplies. These differ from reservoir sources in that the water is pumped directly into treatment and then into distribution. Sources are found on the Bedfordshire Ouse, the Witham, the Ancholme, the Nar and the Wensum. Less than 1% of our 2011/12 supplies were imported from adjacent water companies.

In summary, for East Lincolnshire, which covers SE Lincolnshire Local Plan area: No deficits are forecast in the East Lincolnshire RZ. Confirmed sustainability reductions are required to restrict abstractions from the Northern Chalk by up to 25Ml/d. River restoration and options appraisal will be completed in AMP6 to develop the preferred solution with the Environment Agency. This will impact on water resource zone integrity for AMP7 water resource planning. The worst case sustainability reduction is approximately 37 Ml/d. A reduction of this magnitude would drive significant supply-demand investment and is the subject of further options appraisal. No significant baseline climate change or levels of service sensitivities have been identified. In the worst case, climate change may reduce average daily source-works output by 2 Ml/d. This would affect abstraction from the Louth Canal. Deployable output in the RZ has been reduced to take account of the effect of poor quality groundwater, but includes an allowance for non potable demands. Anglian Water forecast new properties equivalent to around 2,500 per year. This estimate is consistent with recent rates of new build but is significantly less than the 5,000 new properties per year forecast by local authorities. Our available and target headroom are sufficient to account for the difference and the associated supply-demand risk is minimal. Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies (CAMS) set out how the Environment Agency will manage water abstraction in the river catchments. Water resources are analysed at a sub-catchment level and describe where water is available for abstraction and the implications water resource availability has for new and existing water abstraction licences. If water is available an indication of the reliability of a potential abstraction licence is provided. The Nene CAMS February 2013 The River Nene rises in Northamptonshire and flows through Northampton, Peterborough, Wisbech and Sutton Bridge before discharging into the Wash. The River Nene is an important source of raw water to fill Pitsford and Rutland Water reservoirs for public water supply. The Nene CAMS area does not contain a sizeable groundwater body, however the Blisworth Limestone, Cornbrash Limestone, and the Northampton Sands are considered to be locally important minor aquifers. The majority of the catchment is used for agricultural purposes.

Groundwater - The resources in the Lincolnshire Limestone are fully committed to existing users and the environment. Consequently, no new consumptive licences will be considered. New non-consumptive licenses will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be time-limited. There may be the opportunity for consumptive abstraction from the secondary aquifers providing there is no hydraulic connectivity with the Lincolnshire Limestone or surface water features. 41

Surface water – There is restricted water available for abstraction throughout the catchment. Specifically there is no water available from water bodies near Brampton and the North Level has no summer capacity from the Nene or the drainage network.

Habitats Directive In accordance with the UK Habitats Regulations the Environment Agency have assessed the effects of existing abstraction licences and will assess new applications to make sure they are not impacting on internationally important nature conservation sites (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas). For the Nene CAMS the following Habitats Directives sites are considered: The Wash SSSI, SAC and SPA - Exceptional biological interest including: high numbers of wintering waterfowl; breeding seals; and salt marsh and shingle habitats. The Nene Washes SSSI and SPA - Important for wintering and breeding wildfowl. The Welland CAMS February 2013 The Welland CAMS area covers an area of approximately 1,656 km2 and is characterised by significantly different landscapes. To the west of Bourne and Stamford, the area is hilly, with major tributaries such as the Chater and Gwash cutting steep valleys into underlying clay strata. To the east, the Fenland area predominates and is characterised by low-lying terrain. The River Welland is the primary river system in the Welland CAMS area. The River Welland rises near Market Harborough in Leicestershire and passes through Stamford to drain into the Wash on the Lincolnshire coast.

Groundwater - The resources in the Lincolnshire Limestone are fully committed to existing users and the environment. Consequently, no new consumptive licences will be considered. New non-consumptive licenses will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be time-limited. There may be the opportunity for consumptive abstraction from these secondary aquifers providing there is no hydraulic connectivity with the Lincolnshire Limestone or surface water features.

Surface Water – There is generally no water available for abstraction throughout the catchment. In the upper reaches the water is used for the Eyebrook and Rutland Water reservoirs and what remains is required for the downstream reaches of the River Gwash. If water is available in the Glen and the Welland it is at very high flows.

The Witham CAMS covers an area of approximately 3,160 km2 and extends across a large part of southern and central Lincolnshire. The River Witham which rises south of Grantham, passes through Lincoln and discharges into The Wash at Boston. As with most rivers in the catchment, the Witham becomes an embanked channel in its lower reaches where it crosses the fens. Levels in the embanked channel are maintained by a tidal sluice at Boston. The River Witham also benefits from the Trent-Witham-Ancholme Transfer Scheme. This is a key infrastructure link for managing water resources, maintaining summer water levels and meeting agricultural, public water supply and industrial needs.

Groundwater - The resources in the Lincolnshire Limestone, Lincolnshire Chalk and Spilsby Sandstone are fully committed to existing users and the environment. Consequently, no new consumptive licences will be considered/granted. New non-consumptive licenses will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be time-limited. There may be the opportunity for consumptive abstraction from the Bain Sands and Gravels providing there is no hydraulic continuity with surface water features or with the Lincolnshire Limestone, Lincolnshire Chalk or Spilsby Sandstone.

Surface water – Generally water is available for abstraction at very high, high and medium flows throughout the catchment and becomes more restricted as flows reduce. Specifically the Upper Bain has no water available at medium and low flows. The Slea has no water available except at very high flows. The South Forty Foot has no water available at low flows.

Habitats Directive In accordance with the UK Habitats Regulations the Environment Agency have assessed the effects of existing abstraction licences and will assess new applications to make sure they are not impacting on internationally important nature conservation sites (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas). For the Witham CAMS the following Habitats Directives sites are considered: The Wash SPA and Ramsar site; The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC. Grimsby, Ancholme and Louth CAMS The River Ancholme, rising 13 km north of Lincoln, is the largest river in the catchment and is an important source of water for industry, agriculture and public water supplies within the Ancholme Valley. Downstream, the river has been heavily engineered and regulated to create a channel suitable for navigation and to enable drainage of the surrounding low lying area. In periods of low flow the River Ancholme is supported by transfers of surface water from the River Witham via the Environment Agency’s Trent-Witham-Ancholme transfer scheme. The catchment includes the rivers draining of the Chalk Wolds across the coastal plain into the Humber, such as the Laceby Beck and River Freshney system. Other river systems, such as the Skitter Beck and River Lud help drain this area, discharging directly to the sea. Towards the southeast of the area, significant water bodies include the Louth Canal and Waithe Beck. Flow in the Louth Canal is supported by the Louth Canal and Covenham Reservoir transfer scheme.

Groundwater - The resources in the Lincolnshire Limestone, Lincolnshire Chalk and Spilsby Sandstone are fully committed to existing users and the environment. Consequently, no new consumptive licences will be considered/granted. New non-consumptive licenses will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be time-limited. Waithe Beck and Louth Canal There is restricted water available for licensing at high flows, but no water available for licensing at medium to low flows.

This means that for new licences: No new unconstrained licences will be granted at any flows; New licences for consumptive water abstraction will be considered at extremely high flows; Water may be available at high flows, subject to conditions, if you can ‘buy’ the entitlement to abstract water from an existing licence holder; Water may be available at lower flows, subject to conditions, if you can buy the amount equivalent to that recently abstracted from an existing licence holder. Any new abstraction licences with the potential to affect the downstream Humber Estuary SPA/SAC will be assessed under the Habitats Regulations; Applications for non-consumptive purposes will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

For existing licences: There is the presumption of renewal for time limited licences, subject to the three renewal criteria (environmental sustainability, continued justification of need, and efficient use of water) and local

considerations ; In areas where recent actual flows have fallen below the Environmental Flow Indicator, we may seek to reduce licensed quantities as part of the renewal process; As part of the renewal process licences may be subject to change.

Covenham Reservoir Covenham is an impounding reservoir used to support public water supply and industrial use on the Humber Bank. The yield of Covenham reservoir is dependent on base flow from springs issuing from the Southern Lincolnshire Chalk and the return of treated effluent from Louth to the Louth Canal. The abstraction to Covenham is linked to the Chalk public water supply sources on the Humber Bank. The Northern Chalk Agreement has been drawn up as an aggregate licence condition on 14 abstraction licences managed by Anglian Water Services. As a result of this agreement abstractions of water from the Chalk aquifer by Anglian Water Services are restricted during periods of low water levels. Furthermore, there is a review at the start of each year to determine how much water can be taken while avoiding saline intrusion into the chalk aquifer. When flows in the Louth Canal are low, abstractions to Covenham Reservoir can be supported by the Great Eau and Covenham Reservoir Transfer Scheme. The scheme is owned, managed and operated by Anglian Water Services. Water is abstracted from the lower reaches of the Great Eau in the Steeping, Great Eau and Long Eau CAMS and transferred to the Louth Canal. This water can then be abstracted from the Louth Canal and stored in Covenham Reservoir for public water supply. The Great Eau and Covenham Reservoir Scheme is managed between Anglian Water Services and the Environment Agency. The abstraction to Covenham is subject to a minimum residual flow of 2.45 Ml/d at Tetney Weir.

The Trent-Witham-Ancholme (TWA) Surface Water Transfer Scheme The Ancholme water bodies are supported by water from the Trent Witham Ancholme Surface Water Transfer Scheme. This scheme comprises two river transfers, from the River Trent to the River Witham, and from the River Witham into the Toft Newton reservoir from which it flows into the River Ancholme. The (TWA) transfer scheme is owned, managed and operated by the Environment Agency. The TWA transfer scheme has a major impact on resource availability in the CAMS area, helping meet the needs of a number of large abstractions. Anglian Water Services holds a licence to abstract water from the River Ancholme at Cadney for public water supply. An agreement exists between Anglian Water Services and the Environment Agency whereby Anglian Water Services provide the Environment Agency with timely and accurate data regarding the quantities of water it is abstracting and is proposing to abstract from the River Ancholme. This enables the Environment Agency to plan how much water to transfer into the Ancholme via the TWA surface water transfer scheme. Habitats Directive Under the Habitats Regulations we have assessed the effects of existing abstraction licences and will assess new applications to make sure they are not impacting on internationally important nature conservation sites. These sites are known as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC’s) and Special Protection Areas (SPA’s). For the Grimsby, Ancholme and Louth CAMS the following Habitats Directives sites are considered: The Humber Estuary SPA and SAC. Catchment Flood Management Plans The CFMP considers all types of inland flooding, from rivers, ground water, surface water and tidal flooding, but not flooding directly from the coastal flooding. This is covered by Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs). Coverage of surface and groundwater flooding is however limited due to a lack of available information. The role of CFMPs is to establish flood risk management policies which will deliver sustainable flood risk management for the long term. CFMPs will help the Environment Agency target their limited resources where the risks are greatest. The Nene CFMP December 2009

In the River Nene catchment, climate change and urbanisation were shown to have the greatest impact on flood risk. Therefore, the scenario used to model future flood risk was based on urbanisation and climate change. Using river models it is estimated that by 2100, the number of people who may be at risk from the 1% annual probability river flood in the Fens will rise from 10 to 20 and the number of properties will rise from 5 to 11.

The CFMP is divided into eight sub-areas. In the upper reaches the policy is to help improve the flow between the river and its floodplain and so improve wetland and aquatic habitats and improve water storage. The urban areas and the fens will be managed to keep pace with climate change. Corby will receive further action to reduce flood risk and the final area is being managed effectively to manage flood risk.

which does flow down the system to the Wash. The Welland CFMP December 2009 In the River Welland catchment, climate change and urbanisation were shown to have the greatest impact on flood risk. Therefore, the scenario used to model future flood risk was based on urbanisation and climate change. Using river models it is estimated that by 2100, the number of people who may be at risk from the 1% annual probability river flood in the Fens and Surfleet will rise from 156 to 531 and the number of properties will rise from 66 to 207.

The CFMP is divided into nine sub-areas. In the upper reaches the policy is to help improve the flow between the river and its floodplain and so improve wetland and aquatic habitats and improve water storage. Spalding, Peterborough and the fens will be managed to keep pace with climate change. Further action will be taken in Surfleet to reduce flood risk.

For the fenland area of South Holland DC this will result in less water coming down the system, owing to more storage in the upper reaches. The intervening urban areas will be better protected, as will the Fens, from that which does flow down the system to the Wash. The Witham CFMP December 2009 In the River Witham catchment, climate change and urbanisation were shown to have the greatest impact on flood risk. Therefore, the scenario used to model future flood risk was based on urbanisation and climate change. Using river models it is estimated that by 2100, the number of people who may be at risk from the 1% annual probability river flood in the Fens will rise from 9862 to 33374 and the number of properties will rise from 4993 to 16156.

The CFMP is divided into eight sub-areas. In the upper reaches the policy is to help improve the flow between the river and its floodplain and so improve wetland and aquatic habitats and improve water storage. The Lincoln and the fens will be managed to keep pace with climate change. Outer Lincoln, Horncastle and Boston will receive further action to reduce flood risk and the Grantham, Ancaster and Sleaford are being managed effectively to manage flood risk.

For the fenland area of Boston BC this will result in less water coming down the system, owing to more storage in the upper reaches. The intervening urban areas will be better protected, as will Boston, from that which does flow down the system to the Wash. The EA Review of Consents Report for the Wash The Environment Agency has conducted a review of all plans and projects under its control to determine the effects on The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC and The Wash SPA. Although all mechanisms are investigated, the principle elements assessed have been to determine the effects of abstraction and water quality on the European Sites. The Environment Agency has concluded that for The Wash SPA, there is no adverse affect on the integrity of the site from its permissions. For The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC, it cannot be demonstrated that there is no adverse affect on the integrity of the site since some groundwater abstractions potentially affect tidal reed beds. HRA Findings EACG The Wash Shoreline Management Plan The Wash SMP sets out the long term plan for the management of the shoreline. It aims to identify the best ways to manage flood and erosion risk to people and the developed, historic and natural environment and to identify opportunities where shoreline managers can work with others to make improvements. HRA Findings The outcome of the assessment is that no adverse effect on the integrity of international sites cannot be concluded. The Marine Management Organisation Draft East inshore and East Offshore marine plans The two marine plans provide a clear spatial approach to the East Inshore and East offshore areas, their resources, and the activities and interactions that take place within them. These marine plans will help ensure the sustainable development of the marine area. HRA Findings The HRA / AA concludes that taking into account the mitigation measures outlined in the report and in particular future project level appropriate assessments, that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of a European site from the draft plans.

The Wash and North Norfolk Coast EMS Management Scheme

The management scheme has been produced to meet the requirements of the UK Habitats Regulations for the Wash and North Norfolk Coast European marine site. The site consists of a Special Area of Conservation designated under the Habitats Directive and three Special Protection Areas designated under the Birds Directive . HRA Findings An HRA was not undertaken for this document as it is the plan or project relevant to the management of the site. COUNTY PLANS Lincolnshire County Council 4th Local Transport Plan The 4th Lincolnshire Local Transport Plan (LTP4) covers the 10 year period 2013/14 to 2022/23. It has the following objectives: to assist the sustainable economic growth of Lincolnshire, and the wider region, through improvements to the transport network to improve access to employment and key services by widening travel choices, especially for those without access to a car to make travel for all modes safer and, in particular, reduce the number and severity of road casualties to maintain the transport system to standards which allow safe and efficient movement of people and goods to protect and enhance the built and natural environment of the county by reducing the adverse impacts of traffic, including HGVs to improve the quality of public spaces for residents, workers and visitors by creating a safe, attractive and accessible environment to improve the quality of life and health of residents and visitors by encouraging active travel and tackling air quality and noise problems to minimise carbon emissions from transport across the county HRA Findings The proposals included in the Lincolnshire LTP4 have been screened for their potential to have significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites. The following effects arising from the LTP4 may give rise to potential impacts: Changes in air quality through pollution; Increases in noise and light levels (as a result of vehicles, construction or new infrastructure); and Changes in soil or water chemical composition (through road spray and construction activities. No significant impacts to Natura 2000 sites will directly result from the implementation of the LTP4. However, based on the findings of the HRA screening Lincolnshire Local Transport Plan 4 process, it is possible that significant impacts could arise from some specific schemes or projects implemented in accordance with the LTP4. There is also potential for multiple plans to have in-combination effects with schemes implemented in accordance with the LTP4. Because of this uncertainty, the potential for schemes to affect Natura 2000 sites included within the HRA should be considered again when carrying out further HRA work at the project level or when preparing more detailed lower tier plans. Preferred Minerals and Waste Strategies, November 2013 FURTHER CONSULTATION DUE The document sets out the County Council’s Preferred Strategy in respect of future minerals and waste development. HRA Findings The HRA concludes that there are no likely significant effects from the policies either alone or in combination with other projects and plans. Changes have been made to particular policies in the light of the recommendations contained in the HRA. It is acknowledged that one European Site (‘Baston Fen’ SAC) falls within a proposed area of search for Sand and Gravel extraction. This consists of a 2km long main drain, the Counterdrain, which runs alongside the Fen. The HRA recommends that any proposals for new sand and gravel extraction/washing works within the catchment of Baston Fen SAC should either ensure that they remain above the water table and/or do not abstract water for gravel washing or undertake a project-level HRA to demonstrate that no likely significant effects on the SAC will occur. Boston BC Water Cycle Study Water supply to Boston Borough is provided by two water treatment works located at West Pinchbeck and Wilsthorpe. The supply is supplemented by importing water from the neighbouring Ruthamford treatment works and the Rutland treatment works. The Pre Outline Water Cycle Study shows there is capacity in many of the waste water treatment works, although the network to these works can be at capacity. The current water quality condition of watercourses in the Borough that receive wastewater flow from Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) are likely to fail water quality standards required under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Further discharges from additional development will therefore require upgrades to the processes at the WwTW to ensure they can meet more stringent levels of treatment. All of the watercourses in the Borough (with the exception of Hobhole drain) are failing WFD standards for the nutrient phosphorus. This is a common theme for watercourses in the UK; but particularly in the East of England due 46

to the stringent standard set for phosphorus under the WFD and because phosphorus levels in watercourses in the East of England are high due to the high use of fertiliser on agricultural land in addition to the phosphorus which is discharged from wastewater treatment works. The study advises it is not possible, at this very early stage, to screen out adverse effects of potential development around Boston upon The Wash European protected sites. This is due to both possible increased abstraction from the rivers that flow into the Wash and increased discharge of wastewater which would eventually end up in the Wash. The South Holland, South Kesteven and Rutland outline water cycle study The South Holland, South Kesteven and Rutland outline water cycle study concludes for ecology, no effects on designated (Ramsar, SAC, SPA and SSSI) conservation sites are anticipated from the proposed growth, 100 Hectares of employment land and 7400 dwellings although this is lower than currently being considered 13590 dwellings. The South Holland Settlements listed in Table 4-1 of the water cycle study have lower growth figures than currently suggested. Also some settlements we are considering for growth are not on the list. However, for the envisaged growth the required improvements to the (WwTWs) are technically feasible within the limits of conventional treatment and that with upgrades at certain WwTW, the additional flow could be treated to a higher quality and still ensure downstream compliance with water quality and protection of ecological sites. However, it should be noted that several are very close to this limit and are likely to require substantial upgrades at key WwTWs which will have an impact on phasing of development whilst the upgrades are carried out. An analysis of WwTW capacity within South Holland shows that there are 3 WwTW where the volumetric capacity will be exceeded: Crowland, Donington, Holbeach. As such it will be necessary to apply for an increase in the consented discharge volume for each of these works to meet the housing levels to be delivered within the study area. All of these WWTWs discharge to watercourses that ultimately drain into The Wash SAC, SPA, Ramsar site.

9. Appendix 5 The Environment Agency Review of Consents report 9.1.1 The Environment Agency Review of Consents report is very extensive. The following text comes from pages 265 to 267.  Although hypernutrified The Wash estuaries, Wash embayment and North Norfolk Coast are not eutrophic, and there is a very low foreseeable risk of becoming eutrophic in the near future;  Fluvial nutrient inputs have been high, but patterns/temporal trends have been stable for over 25 years (and more recently in decline);  Studies indicate that The Wash embayment is P-limited system with a N:P ratio of >10 and that freshwater species predominate in The Wash estuaries;  P loads in the four major fluvial inputs are in significant decline as a result of Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive;  Further reductions possible as a result of late-phase P-removal and as a result of Riverine SAC sites;  Nutrient ratios have not changed in recent years and follow expected patterns. Risk of algal spp. composition shift low;  The marine environment is very turbid with limited light availability. These limits build up of algae.  There is no evidence that hypernutrification and seasonally high production of algae in the tidal freshwaters or brackish waters of the estuaries is adversely affecting the ecological functioning of The Wash system and thereby having any undesirable disturbance to the balance of organisms and deterioration of water quality.  Nutrient and algal seasonal patterns do not deviate significantly from the typical patterns.  Seasonal high production of algae in The Wash estuaries are in the tidal freshwater and brackish zones and are associated with freshwater algae carried over from the riverine sections  Chlorophyll-a in the North Norfolk coast is below threshold levels  Dissolved Oxygen is good, and in excess of thresholds to protect juvenile fish, and there are no dissolved oxygen sags and the sediment is not at risk.

 The benthic communities in The Wash embayment are healthy and a 15 year data set indicates a normal community which changes according to salinity regime and sediment characteristics.  Benthos in The Wash estuaries is typical of the environments, but generally contain 40-50% of spp. sensitive to organic enrichment, despite hydromorphological stress.  No data on benthos were available for the North Norfolk coast. The fact that no data have been obtained indicates that this site is not of concern in relation to potential changes in phytoplankton species caused by nutrient enrichment.  Epibenthos in The Wash estuaries includes sensitive species such as the smelt and sole indicating a diverse and low impacted ecosystem.  Wash estuary fish data shows full ecological functioning; 26 taxa, including all 6 ecological guilds and all 4 feeding guilds.  Green macroalgae is spasmodic and in low abundance, and only in the embayment. Biomass is low with healthy benthic fauna beneath.  The Wash estuaries/embayment phytoplankton communities are diverse but typical of their ecosystems.  No data on phytoplankton assemblages were available for the North Norfolk coast. The fact that no data have been obtained indicates that this site is not of concern in relation to potential changes in phytoplankton species caused by nutrient enrichment.  No toxic spp. found in The Wash estuaries, only 5% associated with nuisance blooms (mostly freshwater).  In the embayment only 5 taxa belong to groups that have been recorded as nuisance (non in significant proportions in cell counts) and 4 taxa belong to groups that have toxic members.  Spasmodic occurrence of Phaeocystis or Biddulphia throughout the summer and have been recorded in the embayment since the turn of the century. 9.1.2 It continues on pages 339 and 340. 9.1.3 "The Wash embayment is a broad expanse of saline water covering approximately 650 km2. The intertidal part of the site has four main rivers that discharge via long tidal channels that extend out to almost the centre of the embayment at low tide. These discharges are, however, narrow and well defined and thus influences are restricted to the width of these channels at low water, as water does not diffuse out onto the adjacent intertidal mudflats. An overriding factor when considering the multifunctional in-combination assessment of water resources and water quality is, therefore, that despite the freshwater inputs from a large catchment area, it is marine processes that dominate the physical and biological character of the embayment. 9.1.4 The water quality functional assessment noted that the main contributing rivers to The Wash European Sites (Witham, Welland, Nene and Great Ouse) are all designated as Sensitive Area (Eutrophic) under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive for the majority of their length. The Wash estuaries and embayment are not, however, designated. A detailed review of the monitoring data from The Wash was undertaken by the Agency and concluded that the Estuary and embayment are not suffering from eutrophication (Wash Embayment EC Infraction Proceedings Report for Reasoned Opinion). Although hypernutrified, there was no evidence to indicate that hypernutrification and seasonally high production of algae in the tidal freshwaters or brackish waters of the estuaries is adversely affecting the ecological functioning of The Wash system. An assessment of the trends in nutrient loading and modelling of future risks also did not suggest that these waters were at risk of impacts from nutrients (studies indicate that The Wash is Phosperous-limited) and there are significant declining trends in nutrient inputs (phosphorous) from the four major fluvial inputs largely as a result of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 9.1.5 English Nature in their Regulation 33 advice for the site indicate that only the intertidal mudflats and sandflats are vulnerable to nutrient enrichment, but most features are

moderately sensitive. There is, however, a significant discharge to the saline lagoons at Snettisham and English Nature has confirmed that the Snettisham Lagoons can suffer from non-persistent algal blooms during the summer months. Saline lagoons are known to be generically sensitive to nutrient enrichment, however the degree of sensitivity is thought to be determined by a number of factors such as the type of lagoon, its size and the communities present. Nutrient dynamics in lagoons is thought to be highly complex and may vary spatially, seasonally and through time as a result of natural succession. 9.1.6 A discharge consent (PRCLS14826) for domestic sewage is located on a shingle spit that discharges a maximum volume of 0.5m3/day via a soakaway to the Snettisham Nature Reserve. Discharge consent PRCLS14826 has, however, been assessed under Regulation 48 and English Nature confirmed that the discharge was unlikely to damage the features of interest for which The Wash is designated and that the discharge as consented is not likely to have a significant effect alone and is not likely to have a significant effect in-combination with other plans and projects. 9.1.7 Integrated Pollution Control licences are currently being re-permitted and will thus be subject to consideration under Regulation 48 of the Habitats Directive although their relative contributions to acidification (sulphur) and/or nutrient enrichment (nitrogen) to the prevailing background conditions still need to be considered within the in-combination assessment. IPC permissions to air have the potential to act in combination with water quality discharge consents through mechanisms identified in Section C1.3. Breeding little tern were identified as being sensitive to airborne nutrient enrichment (2010 scenario) whilst the multifunctional in-combination assessment for water quality and water resources concluded that there was likely to be no adverse effect on the integrity of The Wash European Sites, the potential for additive effects should, however, be considered during re-permitting conducted under Regulation 48.