H A M P S H I R E
CITIES OF PORTSMOUTH & SOUTHAMPTON AND NEW FOREST & SOUTH DOWNS NATIONAL PARKS
Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations
HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT RECORD
July 2013 Final
Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Appendices A References 2 B Screening Report (Version 4) 3 B.1 Introduction 4 B.1.1 The purpose of this report 4 B.1.2 The structure of the report 9 B.2 Screening for significant effects 10 B.2.1 Introduction 10 B.2.2 Screening matrices 14 B.3 Findings and next steps 76 B.3.1 Results of the Latest Screening 76 B.3.2 Conclusion 85 B.3.3 Consultation and next steps 86 B.4 Screening report consultation responses (version 3) 88 B.5 Alternative options 132 B.6 Scope & method for Appropriate Assessment 141 C Summary of earlier concerns raised by nature conservation consultees 148 D Detailed analysis for the Appropriate Assessment stage 183 D.1 Flooding 185 D.2 Assessment of waste sites and areas 188 D.3 Squabb Wood 223 D.4 Selborne Brickworks 248 D.5 Roeshot 254 D.6 Purple Haze 285 D.7 Michelmersh Brickworks 315 D.8 Bleak Hill Extension Phase 3 320 D.9 Hamble Airfield 342 D.10 Forest Lodge Home Farm 360 D.11 Bramshill Quarry Extension 392 D.12 Wharves 401 E Detailed information on avoidence and mitigation measures 415 F Screening Report (Version 5) 423 F.1 Introduction 423 F.2 Proposed modifications - general and contents 424 F.3 Proposed modifications - Vision and spatial strategy 425 F.4 Proposed modifications - Protecting Hampshire's environment 427 F.5 Proposed modifications - Maintaining Hampshire's communities 429 F.6 Proposed modifications - Supporting Hampshire's economy 432 F.7 Proposed modifications - Plan review and long term safeguarding 443 F.8 Proposed modifications - Implementation monitoring and glossary 444 F.9 Proposed modifications - Appendices A,B,C, D and E 445 G Screening Report (Version 6) 448 G.1 Introduction 448 G.2 Proposed modifications 449 2 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Appendix A References
Cross, A.V., Brecknock Wildlife Trust and the Forestry Commission (2004 & 2005) Science for Conservation Management:European Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus - Breeding Success and Foraging Behaviour in Upland Coniferous Forests in Mid-Wales
Murison, G. The impact of human disturbance on the breeding success of nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus on heathlands in south Dorset, EnglandEnglish Nature Research Reports No. 483.(2002)
MURISON, G., BULLOCK, J.M., UNDERHILL-DAY, J., LANGSTON, R., BROWN, A.F., & SUTHERLAND, W.J., Habitat type determines the effects of disturbance on the breeding productivity of the Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata (2007)
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/114416.Aspx - Environment Agency discussion on Incinerator Bottom Ash
Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Mottisfont Bats SAC: Protocol for Planning Officers – A report to Natural England
Hampshire Joint Authorities. Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan – Assessment under the Habitat Regulations - Screening Report including scoping report, Version 2 (June 2011)
Taylor (University of East Anglia) (2002) Predation risk in woodlark Lullula arborea habitat: the influence of recreational disturbance, predator abundance, nest site characteristics and temporal factors
Liley, D. & Clarke, R.T. The impact of urban development and human disturbance on the numbers of nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus on heathlands in Dorset, England.' Biological Conservation 114: 219 – 230 (2003)
UNESCO Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar (Iran),UN Treaty Series No. 14583) (1971)
Sharp J, Lowen J., & Liley D. Changing Patterns of Visitor Numbers within the New Forest National Park, with particular reference to the New Forest SPA (2008)
Open University and Enviros A Review of Air Quality Trends and Planning Considerations (2010)
Therivel, R,. & Levett, R. Principles for good practice Appropriate Assessment of plans http://www.levett-therivel.co.uk/AAguidelines.htm (2009)
Hampshire County Council. Habitat Regulations Assessment of proposals for extraction of sand and gravel at Eversley Quarry, Hampshire County Council Stage One - Screening http://www3.hants.gov.uk/mineralsandwaste/application-details.htm?id=14473 November 2010
Footprint Ecology (2008) Changing Patterns of Visitor Patterns within the New Forest National Park, with particular reference to the New Forest SPA. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 3
Appendix B Screening Report (Version 4) 4 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
B.1 Introduction B.1.1 The purpose of this report
1 This document reports on a 'screening' process undertaken to assess the potential effects of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan on European sites. The draft plan is currently awaiting approval by County Council for publication; consultation on its soundness; and subsequent submission to the Secretary of State in accordance with Regulations 27-30 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 following public consultations undertaken earlier in 2011(1).
2 The first Screening Report (March 2011) and the second Screening Report (June 2011) was made available to Natural England and other nature conservation consultees. This is the fourth and final Screening Report (February 2012) and is to inform ongoing engagement with the nature conservation consultees and inform the plan preparation process.
3 The main objectives of this fourth report are as follows:
1. To describe how the planning authorities have screened the policies to satisfy the procedural requirements of the Habitats Regulations;
2. To document the screening findings relevant to the plan area to inform future assessment;
3. To suggest the scope and method for undertaking an Appropriate Assessment of selected policies;
4. To explain how the appropriate nature conservation bodies will be consulted.
4 This report describes part of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening stage undertaken for the emerging Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan, in particular the screening conclusions. This report should be read in conjunction with the Plan, as well as the HRA methodology and baseline report, which has been prepared in support of the assessment process, and satisfies the other information required for the HRA screening stage(2).
1 Have Your Say on Planning for Hampshire's Minerals & Waste (February-March 2011) and Have Your Say on Additional Mineral Issues (June-July 2011). 2 Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan: Assessment under the Habitats Regulations (Methodology) Report. The latest report is available from Hampshire County Council (County Planning section). Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 5
The requirement for 'screening'
5 The Habitats Regulations(3) contain a number of requirements that planning authorities (i.e. competent authorities) must comply with. Regulation 102 applies to land use plans and states:
"(1) Where a land use plan—
(a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site or a European offshore marine site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), and
(b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, the plan-making authority for that plan must, before the plan is given effect, make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that site’s conservation objectives".
6 The procedure for satisfying this requirement is known as a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and includes three main stages as summarised below. The screening stage (stage 1) requires sufficient information to decide if a significant effect is likely. If necessary, the Appropriate Assessment stage (stage 2) will then go into more detail to test whether those effects could result in an adverse effect on a European site. The HRA is an iterative process undertaken alongside the preparation of a plan. The HRA methodology and baseline report mentioned above explains how stages 1 and 2 will be addressed during the preparation of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan.
7 As shown in the following table, authorities are required to prepare a screening report to demonstrate compliance with stage 1. The screening stage has now been through four iterations, alongside the iterative process of preparing the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan. This fourth report, along with the first and second screening reports, HRA methodology and baseline report, satisfy the requirements of Stage 1.
Table B.1 Stages of full Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for spatial (land-use) plans
Assessment Stage Tasks Outcome
Stage 1: Screening for Description of the draft plan. Where effects are unlikely, prepare a a likely significant Identification of potential effects on European ‘finding of no significant effect report’. effect sites An initial evaluation of a plan’s effects on European sites Where effects judged likely, or lack of information to prove otherwise, prepare screening report and proceed to Stage 2.
Stage 2: ‘Appropriate Gather information (plan and European sites) Report evaluating the impacts and considering Assessment’ (AA) Impact prediction whether changes to the plan are needed to Evaluation of impacts in view of conservation ensure that it will not have an adverse effect on objectives European site(s). Where necessary define how adverse effects will be avoided through, firstly, avoidance, and Make report available for consultation. If secondly, mitigation including the mechanisms effects remain after mitigation measures have and timescale for these mitigation measures. been considered proceed to Stage 3.
3 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 6 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Assessment Stage Tasks Outcome
Stage 3: If AA is unable Consider alternative solutions and demonstrate This stage should be avoided if at all possible. The test to conclude the plan will the policy is the least damaging way of meeting of IROPI and the requirements for compensation are not have an adverse the need identified in the plan. extremely onerous. effect. Identify ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ (IROPI) Identify and agree potential compensation measures for the adverse effect that the policy will have. Notify Secretary of State prior to adoption - SoS will decide whether to give effect to plan
The 'likely significant effect' test
8 As shown in the table above, the first stage of assessment under the Habitats Regulations is a broad filter or 'likely significant effect' test, which determines whether the plan is likely to have a significant effect. A common definition of what constitutes a significant effect is as follows:
“…any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that may affect the conservation objectives of the features for which the site was designated, but excluding trivial or inconsequential effects"(4).
9 To determine if the proposals are likely to have any significant effects on designated sites the following issues are considered:
could the proposals affect the qualifying interest of the European site (is the site sensitive to the effect); the probability of the effect happening; the likely consequences for the site’s Conservation Objectives (as defined by Natural England) if the effect occurred; the magnitude, duration and reversibility of the effect.
10 The decision-making process under the Habitats Directive is underpinned by the precautionary principle, whereby the Competent Authority acts to avoid potential harm in the face of scientific uncertainty. If it is not possible in a 'likely significant effect' test to rule out a risk of significant effect on a European site on the basis of available evidence, then it should be assumed a risk may exist and needs to be dealt with at the next stage of Habitat Regulation Assessment. This precautionary approach should be taken at all stages of the assessment where faced with scientific uncertainty.
11 Elements of the plan, (identified through screening as having likely significant effects which cannot be avoided or mitigated by taking account of the measures described above OR through application of the precautionary principle) need to be assessed against the conservation objectives of European sites to demonstrate as to whether the element of the plan would not adversely effect the integrity of European sites. This is addressed through the further stages of the Habitat Regulations Assessment known as Appropriate Assessment.
4 English Nature (1999) Habitats Regulation Guidance Note 3: The Determination of Likely Significant Effect under The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 7
A 'living' document
12 As the Habitats Regulations Assessment process is undertaken, it is important that the supporting evidence (including the iterative screening reports) is amended as the Plan develops and findings and recommendations are fed into the policy development. As the 'screening' process has been regularly reviewed and updated with each iteration of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan, this report has been ‘living document’. This screening report is the fourth and final version (Version 4) and supports ongoing consultation and discussions with nature conservation consultees (see Appendix A for consultation responses received on the first screening report (March 2011), and second screening report (June 2011)). 8 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Description of plan policies- the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan
The documents that have been screened represent the final stages in preparing a new plan, called the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan. This Plan will build on and replace Hampshire’s Minerals and Waste Core Strategy adopted in 2007 and improve and strengthen its policies, particularly those relating to sustainable development. The Plan will also include updated and revised policies on how Hampshire deals with minerals and waste, as well as potential areas for new or extended facilities.
The Plan has built on the 'Have Your Say' consultation document published in February 2011, the additional minerals 'Have Your Say' document published in June 2011 and subsequent comments received from stakeholders. The original consultation document consisted of 60 suggested policy approaches and associated questions(5), which were split into four main policy areas:
1. Protecting Hampshire's environment. 2. Maintaining Hampshire's communities. 3. Supporting Hampshire's Economy: Ensuring Hampshire provides sufficient minerals to meet demand. 4. Supporting Hampshire's Economy: Ensuring Hampshire continues to manage waste sustainably.
Following this consultation, it was proposed that the Plan would cover the first three policy areas, with sustainability issues being merged with policy area 3. Additionally a fourth policy area will address the plan review and long term safeguarding This third version of the screening report includes references to the draft Plan policies.
1 policy relating to the presumption in favour of minerals and waste development;
8 policies which focus on environmental protection when considering minerals and waste development proposals.
5 policies which address community involvement and protection when considering minerals and waste development proposals.
19 policies which set out the need for minerals, supply issues, and the proposed locations for the delivery of sand and gravel, soft sand, brick-making clay, chalk and oil and gas over the next twenty years. Also, the policies which set out the principles for managing all types of Hampshire's waste, how proposals for maximising capacity would be considered, the types of locations considered suitable for different types of facilities, and the need for additional landfill capacity in Hampshire up to 2030. This also addresses the capacity requirements for transporting minerals via wharves and depot infrastructure.
1 policy safeguarding the long-term protection of marine and rail infrastructure, so that consideration can be given to their use for minerals and waste wharf or rail depot infrastructure.
5 Note: The consultation document contained 65 questions in total, because for five policy approaches there were two questions for one approach. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 9
B.1.2 The structure of the report
13 Following this introduction, Section 2 presents a set of screening matrices based on the structure and content of the consultation documents and Plan being assessed. These matrices assign each policy as currently drafted to a screening category (this is explained in more detail in Section 2).
14 Section 3 summarises the findings from the screening exercise reported in section 2, and explains how this information will be taken forward to inform ongoing assessment of the plan under the Habitats Regulations.
15 The conclusion from this fourth screening stage is provided in section 3.2.
16 This fourth screening report is accompanied by a set of appendices.
Appendix A records the nature conservation consultees' comments on the first, second and third screening report, and demonstrates how the authority has responded to these comments; Appendix B provides information on the alternative sand and gravel extraction sites which have been considered at the earlier stage of plan preparation (including how nature conservation aspects were considered); Appendix C proposes the scope of the Appropriate Assessment and the methodology to be used. 10 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
B.2 Screening for significant effects B.2.1 Introduction
17 To undertake the screening process, a Screening Matrix has been compiled listing all components of the Plan, i.e. the policies. Each policy has been checked for the likelihood (see section 1.1) of it leading to a significant effect on a European site alone, then, if not alone, in combination with other plans or projects. Assessment of each policy in combination with other policy approaches of the same plan will be undertaken at a later iteration of the screening (see section 2.2.1 for an explanation).
18 Each suggested Policy or element of a policy has been categorised as to its likely effects on each interest feature of each European site identified in the evidence base. There are four categories of potential effects as follows:
A. Policies that would have no negative effect on a European site at all;
B. Policies that could have an effect, but the likelihood is there would be no significant negative effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other elements of the same plan, or other plans or projects;
C. Policies that could or would be likely to have a significant effect alone and will require the plan to be subject to an appropriate assessment before the plan may be adopted;
D. Policies that would be likely to have a significant effect in combination with other elements of the same plan, or other plans or projects and will require the plan to be subject to an appropriate assessment before the plan may be adopted.
19 Categories A, C and D are subdivided into specific reasons, so that it is more directly related to the ways in which the plan may affect the European site, shown in Tables 2.1 - 2.3.
Table B.2 Potential effects of components of the draft plan: Category A and B (No negative effect/ significant effects)
Category Options / policies that will not themselves lead to development e.g. because they relate to design or other A1 qualitative criteria for development, or they are not a land use planning policy.
Category Options / policies intended to protect the natural environment, including biodiversity. A2
Category Options / policies intended to conserve or enhance the natural, built or historic environment, where enhancement A3 measures will not be likely to have any negative effect on a European site (e.g. restoration).
Category Options / policies that positively steer development away from European sites and associated sensitive areas. A4
Category Options / policies that would have no effect because no development could occur through the policy itself, the A5 development being implemented through later policies in the same plan, which are more specific and therefore more appropriate to assess for their effects on European sites and associated sensitive areas.
Category Options/ policies could have an effect but the effect would not be likely to have a significant (negative) effect B on a European sites (i.e. trivial or 'de minimis' effects). Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 11
Table B.3 Potential effects of components of the draft plan: Category C (Likely significant effect alone)
Category The option, policy or proposal could directly affect a European site because it provides for, or steers, a quantity C1 or type of development onto a European site, or adjacent to it.
Category The option, policy or proposal could indirectly affect a European site e.g. because it provides for, or steers, a C2 quantity or type of development that may be very close to it, or ecologically, hydrologically or physically connected to it or it may increase disturbance as a result of increased recreational pressures.
Category Proposals for a magnitude of development that, no matter where it was located, the development would be C3 likely to have a significant effect on a European site.
Category An option, or policy that makes provision for a quantity / type of development (and may indicate one or more C4 broad locations), but the effects are uncertain because the detailed location of the development is to be selected following consideration of options in a later, more specific plan. (This does not apply to the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan because lower-tier 'site allocation plans' are not being prepared).
Category Options, policies or proposals for developments or infrastructure projects that could block options or C5 alternatives for the provision of other development or projects in the future, which will be required in the public interest, that may lead to adverse effects on European sites, which would otherwise be avoided.
Category Options, policies or proposals which depend on how the policies etc are implemented in due course, for C6 example, through the development management process. There is a theoretical possibility that if implemented in one or more particular ways, the proposal could possibly have a significant effect on a European site.
Category Any other options, policies or proposals that would be vulnerable to fail the assessment under the Habitats C7 Regulations at project assessment stage.
Category Any other proposal that may have an adverse effect on a European site, which might try to pass the tests of the C8 Habitats Regulations at project assessment stage by arguing that the plan provides the imperative reasons of overriding public interest to justify its consent despite a negative assessment. (This does not apply to the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan since there are no reserves of national importance in the plan area, and waste management is a local matter).
Table B.4 Potential effects of components of the draft plan: Category D (Likely significant effect in combination)
Category The option, policy or proposal alone would not be likely to have significant effects but if its effects are combined D1 with the effects of other policies or proposals provided for by the plan the cumulative effects would be likely to be significant.
Category Options, policies or proposals that alone would not be likely to have significant effects but if their effects are D2 combined with the effects of other plans or projects, the combined effects would be likely to be significant.
Category Options or proposals that are, or could be, part of a programme or sequence of development delivered over D3 a period, where the implementation of the early stages would not have a significant effect on European sites, but which would dictate the nature, scale, duration, location, timing of the whole project, the later stages of which could have an adverse effect on such sites. 12 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Screening matrices- explanation of content
20 Tables 2.4 and 2.5 set out the screening findings for the policies. Table 2.4 includes all those policies considered unlikely to have a significant effect on European site(s), while Table 2.5 lists those policies found likely to have a significant effect and which therefore need to be considered at the appropriate assessment stage.
21 The first two columns in the tables refer to the policies. Where these are likely to take forward the suggested policies set out in the earlier version of the draft plan, the previous policy reference are shown for reference purposes. New policies, whereby consultation has not previously been undertaken are highlighted with '**'.
Justification for attributing a category
22 In order to categorise components falling into categories B, C and D, each component of the plan that may fall into one of these categories has been assessed against all European Sites to identify any likely significant effect. The process of identifying significant effect is outlined within the methodology and baseline report. To support the categorisation suggested in the screening matrices, a justification has been provided in the 3rd column which summarises the types of impact considered to potentially arise as a result of implementation of the policy; the relevant European site(s) which may be affected; and consideration of issues such as the magnitude, location or pathway of effects in relation to the impacts identified. This summarises information which has been drawn upon from the following sources:
Baseline information about the conditions required to maintain the integrity of the European sites. Geographical Information Systems (GIS)- mapping proposed development and European sites and assessing proximity and potential for connectivity. Survey information already gathered about European sites about e.g bird behaviour. Experiences with other similar minerals and waste development in the vicinity/within Hampshire Studies prepared for parts of Hampshire to inform local plan/project Habitats Regulations Assessments. Local knowledge from ecological specialists. Established impacts from types of minerals and waste development
23 As explained previously, a methodology and baseline report has been prepared and will be updated as information becomes available. The report contains information on all the European sites relevant to Hampshire, including the site vulnerabilities and sensitivities, any management issues, and so on(6). This detailed information is more likely to be referred to directly in support of any subsequent appropriate assessment; particularly the information about the conservation objectives of the European sites. The baseline information has been drawn upon where relevant in the screening matrices below however notably where policies and supporting text relate to specific potential minerals sites.
Identifying requirements for appropriate assessment
24 The final column used in the screening matrices states whether or not as this stage in the Plan development each policy or element of a policy is likely to require an appropriate assessment. This decision has been made following earlier stages of the screening process in which counter-acting measures have been applied. The screening matrices have been split into two tables - table 2.4 (policies/policy elements which have been screened out) and table 2.5 (those policies which have been screened in). Appropriate assessment of the screened in policies may also identify a requirement for such counter-acting measure - examples of which are:
6 See: Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan: Assessment under the Habitats Regulations (Methodology) Report. The latest report is available from Hampshire County Council (Planning & Development team) Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 13
1. Eliminate the likelihood of any effects on the European site (e.g deletion of a policy, text or addition of development consideration);
2. Cancel out potentially adverse effects on the European site before their effects are felt (e.g modifying the policy, supporting text, implementation plan or addition of development criteria );
3. Reduce likely significant effects, perhaps to a level that is insignificant or in a way that makes them unlikely to occur. 14 Habitats B.2.2 Screening matrices
Table B.5 Emerging policy approaches screened out from having a significant effect on European site(s) R egulations Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect? Assessment Policy 1 A1/A2/A5 A1: The approach will not itself lead directly to N/A NO development The implementation plan for this policy Climate change also relates to qualitative criteria for development R
mitigation and including design criteria that should help to protect the ecord adaptation natural environment.
(previous ENV1 and 3) A2: it provides criteria to protect the natural environment Appendices by minimising the environmental impacts of minerals and waste developments and the associated emissions, and by maximising the potential benefits of restoration
schemes in terms of opportunities for climate change (FINAL) adaptation (in conjunction with policy 8).
Maximising climate change mitigation and adaptation
and ensuring that climate change is a consideration of Se enhancement schemes (in conjunction with Policy 8 and pt Policy 2) minimises likelihood of proposals having in 2013 combination effects with the underlying trend of climate effects on European sites. A5: no development will occur through the policy itself, climate mitigation and adaptation schemes will most probably be considered through restoration schemes (Policy 8:restoration of quarries and waste developments), or through assessment of impacts (Policy 2) arising from development proposals/decision making. Policy 2 A2 The policy, supporting statement, implementation plan Policy, supporting text and NO and text within the development considerations implementation plan are secured Protection and (Appendix E of the HMWP) all work together to ensure within the plan. Supported by other enhancement of habitats that not only are European sites sufficiently protected Policies within the plan - Policy 1, and species and enhanced, but all proposals consider them in Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 9 (provision proportionate detail. of buffers and control of lighting), Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
(previous ENV 2 and 3) Policy 12, Policy 13 Such levels of reporting will maximise studies that will be carried out across Hampshire into how development Amendment to wording of policy can affect and enhance European sites, leading to a better understanding of such effects and providing a sound ‘…outweigh any likely damage and provided mechanism for implementing consistent and landscape that appropriate mitigation and compensation level mitigation. measures are required where development…’ This would ensure that the As clearly explained within the implementation plan for requirement for
this policy, it is the key mechanism for the securing of compensation/mitigation is a key part Habitats mitigation as proposals come forward for potential of the policy wording, rather than effects on European sites arising from other proposals being added on as a separate sentence in the HMWP, with further security arising from Policies at the end of the policy, after it has R
8, 9, 12 and 13. been stated that damage will in some egulations cases be permitted. A number of other policies will specifically rely upon this policy to ensure development cannot proceed if Define what is meant by ‘merits’
there would be adverse effects on integrity of a European within the policy or supporting text. Assessment site(s). This applies to those policies where there is uncertainty about the location and scale of development, and those that suggest that development need may outweigh environmental impact. R ecord A1/A4 A1: This policy will not lead directly to development but Policy 2: Protection of habitats and NO sets out criteria for locating development. species should provide sufficient Policy 3 Protection of safeguard to ensure that where any Appendices the landscape A4: This policy will steer the majority of development minerals and waste development is away from sensitive protected landscapes (which also proposed within areas with important (previous ENV 4 and 5) include a number of the European nature conservation landscape features, any effects on sensitive European sites will be
sites, such as the New Forest SAC/SPA), which may (FINAL) help to mitigate potential adverse effects. adequately considered, avoided and/or mitigated at the planning application This policy reduces the ‘area of search’ for new facilities stage, and clearly sets out the way that
(by applying a 'blanket buffer' across a large proportion the importance of the site influences Se of the county), potentially limiting the options for new decisions against the merits of pt development to avoid impacts on European sites by development. 2013 15 16 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
relocating elsewhere in Hampshire. Supported by other Policies within the plan - Policy 1, Policy 7, Policy 8,
The effects of this policy will depend on how it is Policy 9 (provision of buffers and Assessment implemented at the planning application stage i.e. control of lighting), Policy 12, Policy whether adverse impacts on the natural environment are 13 allowed to occur as a result of particular need for minerals and waste development, and whether any such
effects will affect the integrity of European sites. This R ecord will be countered by the requirements of Policies 2, (which is very clear about the way that the 'merits of development' apply to European sites), 8, 12 and 13. Appendices A1/A2 A1: This policy does not lead directly to development N/A NO and sets out qualitative criteria for the location of sites. Policy 4 Protection of the countryside A2: This policy carefully protects the open countryside (FINAL) from poor quality or permanent development. (previous ENV 6)
A2: Steering development away from greenfield sites will Se
give a measure of protection to direct impacts to pt
European sites. 2013
A2: Steering development onto brownfield sites along with the requirement for restoration may provide opportunities to improve wider biodiversity /linkage.
It is noted that the land-use, traffic etc. changes are not likely to be significantly different to the existing situation as a result of this policy (e.g. redundant agricultural buildings, local traffic etc). **Policy 5** A1/A2 A1: This policy does not lead directly to development N/A NO and sets out qualitative criteria for the location of sites. South West Hampshire Green Belt A2: Policy is designed to protect the Countryside, and to further the objectives of Green Belt (PPG2 1.6). This Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
(New Policy/parts of will also support similar policies of Local development ENV 6) frameworks.
Policy 6 A1/A2 A1: This policy does not lead directly to development N/A NO and sets out qualitative criteria for the location of sites. Conserving our heritage A2: This policy aims to conserve the historic (previous ENV 8) environment, therefore it is not expected to have an
effect on European sites in Hampshire. Habitats
Policy 2 will ensure that any proposed restoration/enhancement of such assets must be R
compatible with the objectives and integrity of the egulations European sites Policy 7 A2 The policy requires that no net degradation of soil N/A NO
quality will result from minerals and waste development. Assessment Protecting Hampshire's soils This will protect the environment from the impact arising from soil degradation, and ensure that suitable (new policy) management will be adopted to prevent other effects
arising from soil erosion etc. R ecord Policy 8 A2/A5 A2 - This policy will result in a net improvement in Policy 2: Protection of habitats and Ensure that all mineral biodiversity, by having a strong emphasis on biodiversity species should provide sufficient extraction sites identified in Appendices Restoration of minerals aims and the focus on European Site objectives. safeguard to ensure that any effects the Plan, and their associated and waste developments on sensitive European sites arising proposals for restoration, are The policy no longer makes the requirement for a from restoration will be adequately scrutinised in light of the (previous ENV 9) restoration scheme to include at least 2 aims which could considered, avoided and/or mitigated considerations identified lead in some circumstances to significant effects. at the planning application stage. within the assessment (FINAL) Therefore the current wording provides flexibility to Supported by other Policies within the provide single-use restoration where it is the only way plan - Policy 1, Policy 7, Policy 9
to not contravene the legislation. (provision of buffers, management Se
systems and control of lighting), Policy pt
A5 - Poor design of restoration can create additional 12, Policy 13. 2013 impacts. For example, poor drainage can lead to 17 18 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
erosion, sedimentation and hydrological impacts, or planting inappropriate plant species can lead to invasion
of non-native species or attraction of predators, as Assessment well as more direct impacts from lighting, public access, landfill leachate. However, the wording within the implementation plan for this policy and Policy 12 and supporting text (and implementation plan) makes a
requirement for high quality design, and prior R consultation which will eliminate any potential impact. ecord
Large areas of open water may be incompatible with Appendices European site conservation objectives e.g. those that support heathland. Water bodies may attract predators (or competitors) or sterilise habitats (permanent habitat loss) and may also be a draw for recreation (many European sites are vulnerable to recreation and (FINAL) access impacts). Water storage also leads to flooding, and hydrological changes to rainwater or groundwater
fed European sites (i.e. Emer Bog, Shortheath Common, Se
The New Forest SACs, riverine and marine sites) - some pt
areas may not be suitable for this (changes in hydrological 2013 gradients). Long term management and afteruse use of open water bodies will be relevant to the permanence, significance and extent of potential impacts. Agriculture, public access flood water storage, forestry, all have risks of impacts. Avoidance of creating these in the most sensitive areas is preferable due to lack of control beyond the after-care phase. Policy states that biodiversity objectives will be considered when allocating afteruse (and supporting text clarifies that European site objectives will be considered principally), and that restoration, aftercare and afteruse is carried out to a high standard, and that long-term management is required where necessary, ensuring the success of the mitigation. However, Policy 8 refers directly to the need for long-term management for some restoration schemes. Policy 13 provides a requirement for long-term Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
management plans to be made subject to legal agreements.
Improving public amenity could potentially have positive or a negative effects on European sites
Positive - Such provision could provide alternative access for users of more sensitive sites, easing the existing pressures that are causing impacts
Negative - such provision could provide more Habitats access where such pressures already exist, exacerbating the impacts (non-physical disturbance to birds reptiles/fish etc, erosion, introduction of R
species). Certainly some forms of nature egulations conservation restoration would conflict with providing public access, and this would need to managed carefully to ensure that the perceived
outcomes are achieved. Assessment
Additionally, encouraging public access may result in permanence of disturbance and trampling impacts that may prove to be significant. Text within the R
implementation plan states that where nearby European ecord sites are sensitive to pressure from public access, improving public access through restoration should be carefully considered as while it may produce a benefit Appendices for people, it could have a significant effect on the European sites. However, text within the implementation plan specifies where the aims of the restoration scheme SHOULD be made compatible to European site (FINAL) objectives, ensures that public access does not prejudice European site objectives and examples of specific opportunities for enhancement. (as well as being in
keeping with local objectives for biodiversity which will Se
help for beneficial ecological networks that will improve pt
the wider biodiversity) 2013 19 20 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
Restoration and afteruse can prevent impacts.
Re-enforced within the specific development Assessment considerations for each of the site allocations set out in Policies 19, 20, and 21 and cross referenced with the other policies in the plan (specifically Policy 2 & Policy 7) there are strict Development Management strategies
to ensure that the best and most suitable restoration R ecord scheme for all development will result from the plan, avoiding or mitigating those impacts caused by minerals and waste development from being permanent or even Appendices long-term which therefore affects the significance of the effects (especially habitat loss and damage and non-physical disturbance).
Policy 9 A1/A2 A1 - This policy will not itself lead directly to N/A NO (FINAL) development, as it relates to qualitative criteria for Protecting public health, development.
safety and amenity Se
A2 - In addition, it seeks to protect people/ environment pt
(previous COM 8) from potential impacts to water resources, visual 2013 (including lighting), and from emissions by such measures as buffer zones, operational controls and appropriate management systems. This policy should thus indirectly help to protect European sites from these effects.
Public safety safeguarding zones (13km from boundary of airports) could lead to areas around major airports being constrained by: Restoration types/operations such as settlement lagoons - not to attract flocks of wildfowl or gulls/corvids, or by restricting the types of landfill. These restrictions can in some cases be allowed if adequately mitigated by measures such as appropriate design or bird management systems.
Restrictions would be primarily in place around the flight Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
paths into and around Bournemouth and Southampton Airports, effecting
Dorset Heaths SAC Dorset Heathlands SPA Solent and Southampton water SPA/Ramsar Solent Maritime SAC River Itchen SAC
This policy potentially limits the options available to Habitats locate minerals and waste activities - effects would depend if the alternative to development in such
locations would be nearer to European sites. However, R given the location of the Airports, and the restrictions egulations already imposed by Policy 2 and Policy 8, it is unlikely that this will be significant.
Measures to restrict bird strike may have implications Assessment on which restoration schemes could be proposed, however only open water would be restricted and this is unlikely to have significant implications on the
conservation objectives of any European sites due to the R type and objectives of the European sites surrounding ecord the existing airports. Appendices Measures to restrict bird strike may increased predators as a result of vermin control measures. However, this would be dealt with by appropriate assessments of land-use and location by development management. (FINAL) **Policy 10** A1/A3 A1 - This policy will not itself lead directly to N/A No development, as it relates to qualitative criteria for Flood risk and development. prevention Se pt A3: The policy will protect the natural environment from 2013 (new policy) the impacts caused by flooding (e.g. Erosion and 21 22 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
siltation) not just that arising from development, but also increasing overall resilience in the wider area, in a way
that is appropriate(controlled by other Policies within Assessment the plan - Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 12) to the biodiversity of the area. Policy 11 A1/A5 A1 - This policy will not itself lead directly to N/A NO
development, as it relates to qualitative criteria for R Limiting the impacts of development. The policy is intended to limit the impacts ecord the transportation of of minerals and waste transport on communities, the
minerals and waste highway network and the environment. Appendices
(previous COM 7, COM However, some of these measures have their own 6) potential impacts.
Air pollution, disturbance from noise and vibration from (FINAL) minerals and waste traffic - will be most significant where European sites are within 200m of the roads down
which minerals and waste traffic passes. Se pt
Other technology to reduce reliance on roads would 2013 include:
Conveyors - used outside extraction sites may go through natural areas (creating impacts such as fragmentation, severance/barrier and edge effects as well as non-physical disturbance)
The effects of the policy will depend on how it is implemented e.g using conveyors may lead to impacts to coastal SPAs but would be subject assessment of each location
Some of the effects identified may be relatively localised, and temporary. Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
The strengthening of the policy to implicitly include environmental impacts arising from transport and by the rewording of Policy 9, ensuring that measures to prevent impacts such as noise and dust are embedded within the policy framework. Policy 12 A1 A1 - This policy will not itself lead directly to N/A NO development, as it relates to qualitative criteria for High quality design of development. Provides a framework for potential Supported by other Policies within the
minerals and waste mitigation (aimed at managing noise, odour and visual plan - Policy 1, Policy 7, Policy 8 Habitats development impacts). Also includes criteria relating to the design of (supporting text specifically cross minerals and waste developments. refers to this policy), Policy 9 (previous COM 2, ENV (provision of buffers and control of R
7) Habitat protection and incorporation of biodiversity lighting), Policy 12, Policy 13 egulations interests (thus embedding the concept of avoidance rather than mitigation) into the design of the development is included within Policy 2 (Habitats and
species protection) and Policy 8 (restoration) Assessment Policy 13 A1/A2 A1 - This policy will not itself lead directly to N/A NO development, as it relates to qualitative criteria for Planning obligations development. R ecord (previous COM 3) A2 - This policy will help secure long-term nature conservation though such measures as s106 contributions/long term management requirements, and Appendices therefore indirectly will provide enhancement to European sites. This is supported by Policy 8 and its supporting text which also sets out a requirement for long-term management. (FINAL) Policy 14 A1 The policy will not itself lead directly to development, N/A NO rather it encourages community involvement (and thus
Community involvement local knowledge) in development proposals. Se
benefits pt 2013 (Previous COM 4 and 5) 23 24 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations Policy 15 (part) A1/A5 N/A NO This proposal does not propose development, but could
however block options for the Eco-town in terms of Assessment locating housing, infrastructure and SANGs (which Safeguarding of mineral would all be considered incompatible development). reserves This could exacerbate or create impacts arising from the Eco-town development, linked to prior extraction at this
(previous MIN 2) site. However, it is unlikely that permission would be R ecord granted where these effects would impact European sites, as it is worded that development without prior extraction would be permitted where it would be inappropriate to Appendices extract material - in combination with Policy setting out how 'merits of the development' gets weighed up against the importance of European sites. (FINAL) The major concern would be if provision of SANG is considered needless sterilisation, and prior extraction is required. However, as Policy 2 clearly states that sites
identified or required as compensatory measures for Se
adverse effect on European sites will be protected, it is pt
unlikely that this element of the policy could refer to 2013 land that is required for SANG. Policy 15 A1/A5 A1 - The policy will not itself lead directly to The districts will need to conform development, only where prior extraction takes place, in with their policies and show Safeguarding of mineral which case the development would need to adhere to safeguarding areas on their proposal reserves other plan policies (e.g. Policy 2) maps
(previous MIN 3) Unlikely to apply to European site management projects (unlikely to be considered as incompatible development). Also, sites identified or required as compensatory measures for European sites are provided specific protection under Policy 2.
Safeguarding the whole of the available supply, it allows options on sites being available into the future, Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
minimising the risk of sites coming forward that would have significant impacts to European sites.
The major concern would be whereby there is, as part of the Whitehill/ Bordon development, provision of SANG is required which (under this policy) could be considered needless sterilisation, and prior extraction is required. However, as Policy 2 clearly states that sites identified or required as compensatory measures for
adverse effect on European sites will be protected, it is Habitats unlikely that this element of the policy could refer to land that is required for SANG. R
Safeguarding reserves does not change the baseline, but egulations adding a buffer around these sites creates an additional environmental constraint, possibly putting more pressure on other sites for e.g. housing development by blocking
alternatives. However, Local Development Frameworks Assessment already have strict policies regarding the protection of European sites, and though Districts may have some alternatives blocked, European site integrity will not be effected by this policy. R ecord Policy 16 A1/ A5 Unlikely to apply to European site management projects Policy 2: Protection of habitats and NO OR those sites required as SANG land (unlikely to be species should ensure that where Safeguarding mineral considered as incompatible development). Also, sites wharf capacity needs to be replaced Appendices infrastructure - identified or required as compensatory measures for by provision elsewhere, any effects on European sites are provided specific protection under sensitive European sites will be Aggregate wharves Policy 2. adequately considered, avoided and/or mitigated at the planning application (FINAL) (previous MIN 3) Safeguarding existing wharf capacity helps ensure new stage. capacity is not required elsewhere in Hampshire (or indeed other parts of the country). This may help to Policy 2 and 12 ensures that the quality
positively steer development away from European sites of the design is high, and ensures that Se
and associated sensitive areas. avoidance of impacts to European pt
sites is the primary objective, with 2013 mitigation of impacts only occurring 25 26 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
A5: No development could occur through the policy where avoidance cannot be itself, the development being implemented through other implemented, and will not effect the
policies in the plan, the effects of the policy will depend integrity of European sites. Assessment on how it is implemented i.e. where any wharves are relocated to. See Policy 33 Long-term safeguarding.
The safeguarding primarily resists development that if
implemented may give rise to impacts such as noise R ecord disturbance to residential properties. Any potential impacts arising from the existing minerals and waste development are already adequately controlled, and Appendices therefore can be screened out
EA - discharge and abstraction consents and adherence to industry standards for operations (FINAL) Planning conditions - control and monitor noise, access etc. Legislative control through Env. Act (EHO, EA
and Minerals Authority) Se pt 2013 Adding a buffer around these sites creates an additional environmental constraint, and may thus put more pressure on other sites for e.g. housing development (indirect effect by blocking alternatives). However, as most other local development frameworks have similar considerations, and strict protection of the integrity of European Sites, locally planned development would not be significantly 'squeezed' by this policy.
The only element that may be of concern is where c) results in relocating wharves to areas that may have impacts on European sites. Relocated sites could in theory be located anywhere within the coastal region and therefore all coastal European sites - Solent and Southampton SPA/ Ramsar; Portsmouth Harbour SPA/ Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
Ramsar; Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA/Ramsar; Solent Maritime SAC could have direct and indirect effects arising from construction, pollution, and disturbance are relevant. New development would need planning permission and would have to adhere to other plan policies.
Also, it should be noted that the policy is worded 'unless it can be demonstrated that the capacity CAN be
relocated' with the supporting text ensuring that this Habitats element is controlled by all the environmental and community policies of the plan, which will look not only at the protection of European sites, but transport issues R
and noise, lighting and dust impacts. Therefore this policy egulations ensures that safeguarding existing sites is paramount, and only those opportunities that will not have impacts to the environment will result in new development. Assessment Note: Marine dredging operations themselves cannot be assessed as licensing already subject to the HRA regulatory regime.
Policy 16 Unlikely to apply to European site management projects R A4/A5 ecord (Part)Safeguarding OR those sites required as SANG land (unlikely to be minerals infrastructure considered as incompatible development). Also, sites
identified or required as compensatory measures for Appendices (Aggregate rail depots) European sites are provided specific protection under Policy 2. (previous MIN 3) A4: Safeguarding existing rail depot capacity helps ensure (FINAL) new capacity is not required elsewhere in Hampshire (or indeed other parts of the country). This may help to positively steer development away from European sites
and associated sensitive areas. Se pt
A5: No development could occur through the policy 2013 27 28 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
itself, the development being implemented through other policies in the plan, the effects of the policy will depend
on how it is implemented i.e. where any wharves are Assessment relocated to. See Policy 33 Long-term safeguarding.
Adding a buffer around these sites creates an additional environmental constraint, and may thus put more
pressure on other sites for e.g. housing development R ecord (indirect effect by blocking alternatives). However, as most other local development frameworks have similar considerations, and strict protection of the integrity of Appendices European Sites, locally planned development would not be significantly 'squeezed' by this policy.
The safeguarding primarily resists development that if (FINAL) implemented may give rise to impacts such as noise disturbance to residential properties. Any potential impacts arising from the existing minerals and waste
development are already adequately controlled , and Se
therefore can be screened out pt 2013 EA - discharge and abstraction consents and adherence to industry standards for operations Planning conditions - control and monitor noise, access etc Legislative control through Env. Act (EHO, EA and Minerals Authority)
The only element that may be of concern is where c) results in relocating depots to areas that may have impacts on European sites. Two alternative sites for the north of the county (based on 'Hampshire Mineral and waste Wharves and Rail Depot Needs assessment' are considered to be the best and most sustainable locations (assessed within table 2.5 of this screening assessment), Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
Therefore the most 'risk' arising from relocation of depot sites will be in the south of the county where alternatives have not been identified and therefore we cannot plan on where relocation may occur.
New depot infrastructure would include sidings and space alongside rail track for material storage. The footprint is generally small, but may give rise to impacts such as noise and vibration disturbance. New
development would need planning permission and would Habitats have to adhere to other plan policies.
However, it should be noted that the policy is worded R
'unless it can be demonstrated that the capacity CAN be egulations relocated' with the supporting text ensuring that this element is controlled by all the environmental and community policies of the plan, which will look not only
at the protection of European sites, but transport issues Assessment and noise, lighting and dust impacts. Therefore this policy ensures that safeguarding existing sites is paramount, and only those opportunities that will not have impacts to the environment will result in new development. R ecord Furthermore, Policy 2 provides clear guidance for the minerals planning authority on decisions potentially effecting European sites, and if a 'land grabbing' proposal Appendices promoting such a relocation cannot demonstrate that a depot would be moved without causing harm then the planning authority would object. (FINAL) Policy 16 B Unlikely to apply to European site management projects N/A NO OR those sites required as SANG land (unlikely to be Safeguarding minerals considered as incompatible development). Also, sites
Infrastructure identified or required as compensatory measures for Se
European sites are provided specific protection under pt
(Oil and Gas) Policy 2. 2013 29 30 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
(previous MIN 3) Safeguarding existing wharf capacity helps ensure new
capacity is not required elsewhere in Hampshire (or Assessment indeed other parts of the country). This may help to positively steer development away from European sites and associated sensitive areas.
The existing oil and gas sites (7) are in locations where R ecord pressure for development sites (to avoid sensitive habitats) is likely to be less because these areas are not as constrained in terms of European sites. Additionally, Appendices the magnitude and potential short-term nature of these types of development means that the area that this policy safeguard is relatively minor, and therefore unlikely to trigger 'significance'. (FINAL) Policy 16 A4/A5 Unlikely to apply to European site management projects NO NO (part)Safeguarding OR those sites required as SANG land (unlikely to be
minerals Infrastructure considered as incompatible development). Also, sites Se
identified or required as compensatory measures for pt
(Concrete batching, European sites are provided specific protection under 2013 aggregate recycling, Policy 2. existing other clay, existing chalk A4: Safeguarding existing capacity helps ensure new extraction) capacity is not required elsewhere in Hampshire (or indeed other parts of the country). This may help to (previous MIN 3) positively steer development away from European sites and associated sensitive areas.
A5: No development could occur through the policy itself, the development being implemented through other policies in the Plan, the effects of the policy will depend on how it is implemented i.e. where any wharves are relocated to. See Policy 33 Long-term safeguarding.
Adding a buffer around these sites creates an additional Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
environmental constraint, and may thus put more pressure on other sites for e.g. housing development (indirect effect by blocking alternatives). However, as most other local development frameworks have similar considerations, and strict protection of the integrity of European Sites, locally planned development would not be significantly 'squeezed' by this policy.
The safeguarding primarily resists development that if
implemented may give rise to impacts such as noise Habitats disturbance to residential properties. Any potential impacts arising from the existing minerals and waste development are already adequately controlled, and R
therefore can be screened out egulations
EA - discharge and abstraction consents and adherence to industry standards for operations
Planning conditions - control and monitor noise, Assessment access etc EHO emissions permitting for specific processes such as concrete batching and concrete crushing R ecord The effects of the policy will depend on how elements of it are implemented. The only element that may be of concern is where c) results in relocating operations to Appendices areas that may have impacts on European sites.
It should be noted that the policy is worded 'unless it
can be demonstrated that the capacity CAN be relocated' (FINAL) with the supporting text ensuring that this element is controlled by all the environmental and community policies of the plan, which will look not only at the
protection of European sites, but transport issues and Se pt 2013
7 see Oil and Gas production in Hampshire - Minerals in Hampshire for further details 31 32 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
noise, lighting and dust impacts. Therefore this policy ensures that safeguarding existing sites is paramount,
and only those opportunities that will not have impacts Assessment to the environment will result in new development.
Furthermore, Policy 2 provides clear guidance for the minerals planning authority on decisions potentially
effecting European sites, and if a 'land grabbing' proposal R ecord promoting such a relocation cannot demonstrate that a depot would be moved without causing harm then the planning authority would object. Appendices Policy 16 Safeguarding A4/A5 Unlikely to apply to European site management projects NO NO minerals Infrastructure OR those sites required as SANG land (unlikely to be considered as incompatible development). Also, sites (Proposed sites within identified or required as compensatory measures for (FINAL) the Plan) European sites are provided specific protection under Policy 2.
(previous MIN 3) Se
This policy safeguards the infrastructure of minerals and pt
waste development that is permitted through and 2013 controlled by other policies set out within the Plan.
The effects of the policy will depend on how elements of it are implemented. The only element that may be of concern is where c) results in subsequently relocating operations to areas that may have impacts on European sites.
It should be noted that the policy is worded 'unless it can be demonstrated that the capacity CAN be relocated' with the supporting text ensuring that this element is controlled by all the environmental and community policies of the plan, which will look not only at the protection of European sites, but transport issues and noise, lighting and dust impacts. Therefore this policy Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
ensures that safeguarding existing sites is paramount, and only those opportunities that will not have impacts to the environment will result in new development.
Furthermore, Policy 2 provides clear guidance for the minerals planning authority on decisions potentially effecting European sites, and if a 'land grabbing' proposal promoting such a relocation cannot demonstrate that an operation would be moved without causing harm then
the planning authority would object. Habitats Policy 17 A5 No development could occur though the policy itself. The N/A NO supply will be provided through: R
Aggregate supply Policy 18 (recycled aggregates), egulations Policy 19 (Marine won and imported aggregates), (previous MIN 1, MIN 10) Policy 20 (sites allocations for local aggregate extraction within Hampshire, and other sites) Assessment Policy 18 Recycled and A5 Encourages recycling of aggregates so that demand for N/A NO secondary aggregates extraction is reduced.
(previous MIN 5) A5 - development that is encouraged by this policy is R
put forward and controlled within Policy 29 (b) ecord
Policy 19 (part) Maximising existing wharf capacity ensures that new N/A NO
B Appendices wharf sites elsewhere on Hampshire's sensitive coast line Aggregate wharves and is not required, along with additional transport rail depots infrastructure. It also ensures that a continued move away from land-won mineral to secondary and recycled
(wharves) aggregates is possible. (FINAL)
(previous MIN 6 and MIN Existing wharf sites are scattered across the coastline, 8) there are potential implications for all of the coastal
European sites- Se pt
However, the effects of the policy will depend on how 2013 33 34 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
it is implemented i.e. at which wharves capacity will be increased, in what way and by how much, which will not
be known until the planning application stage, and Assessment therefore cannot be feasibly assessed at this stage.
Upgrading facilities at wharves may lead to impacts to coastal SPAs. Solent and Southampton SPA/Ramsar;
Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar; Chichester and R ecord Langstone Harbour SPA/Ramsar; Solent Maritime SAC. All direct and indirect effects arising from construction, pollution, and disturbance are relevant. Construction Appendices impacts e.g. noise. Wash and erosion impacts (localised losses). In-combination impacts along coast would need consideration. (FINAL) However, the 'Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire' (needs assessment) sets out how each of these sites could undergo increasing throughput,
and there are a multitude of ways for some of these Se
measure to be implemented (and therefore one or more pt
ways in which this policy could be implemented) without 2013 causing significant effects.
The maximising measure most likely to cause significant effects are extensions to existing sites, important as the market (for an overall declining market and for viability and consent reasons) switches to less but larger vessels to serve these wharves. Of the 3 sites that the needs assessment identifies as having potential for 'extension' (Kendalls Wharf, Marchwood Wharf, Leamouth/Burley Wharves) as having scope for such extension, only Kendalls is likely to 'require' significant changes to the water frontage in the form of lateral wharf extension and dredging. It is this for of development that would give rise to the most significant development. This suggests that the likelihood of such impacts arising are relatively Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
low, and therefore not significant.
A planning application for such development at Kendalls wharf was refused by Portsmouth City Council on 2005 including grounds of impacts to European sites, and a new application with a much reduced footprint and better mitigation and avoidance package is likely to come forward soon. The presumption of need and Policy 2 (merits of development/importance of designation) will
provide strong guidance to those considering such Habitats applications on how to address European designations
Note: Marine dredging operations themselves cannot be R
assessed as licensing already subject to the HRA regulatory egulations regime. Policy 19 (part) B Eastleigh Rail Depot west and east - within 0.7km of
River Itchen SAC - Needs assessment identifies the west Assessment Aggregate wharves and site as the only one that has the potential to establish rail depots additional facilities such as enhanced recycling to improve throughput. (rail depots)
Fareham Rail Depot - 1km from Portsmouth Harbour R ecord (previous MIN 6 and MIN SAC, 3km from Solent and Southampton SPA - 8) maximising may include increasing the level of imported aggregate through additional rail movements to the Appendices depot, or the development of associated activities such as batching or roadstone plant.
Botley Rail Depot - within 1km of Solent Maritime SAC/ (FINAL) SPA/ Ramsar - maximising may include increasing the level of imported aggregate through additional rail movements to the depot. Se
Unlikely that there will be direct impacts arising from pt
maximising sites in these location due to the connectivity 2013 35 36 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
between them and the nearest European sites in relation to the scale of any likely development. Assessment D1: However, maximising of rail depot for transportation of mineral, in combination with provision of new sites (see below) may lead to increased impacts from rail transportation (non/toxic contamination,
disturbance). The levels of transportation that the R ecord network can provide is controlled by Network rail.
European standards (Directive 2002/88/EC, amended Appendices by Directive 2010/26/EU ) of emissions from non-road engines have been tiered to gradually reduce the levels permitted. In 2014 new rail locomotive engines will have very strict limits of e.g. ammonia, CO2 and NOx (FINAL) imposed on them. This ensures that the overall background levels of these substances will be lower over time as stock is replaced, in combination with changes
in air quality brought about by sustainable transport Se
infrastructure being implemented across Hampshire. pt 2013 In addition, though there is some capacity for increase in rail movements, there is huge demand for passenger transport that is competing for a finite rail capacity. Given that all four depots are on the same main rail line, it is likely that that the capacities of the depots may not be able to be met by the available freight train pathways (Need assessment for wharves and Rail depots), which means that it is unlikely that the rail journeys resulting from maximised rail depots will increase significantly.
All rail aggregate movements into Hampshire currently comprise of hard rock from two rail linked quarries located in the Mendip Hills in Somerset. These rail imports are brought into one of three Hampshire aggregate rail depots, located at Botley, Eastleigh and Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
Fareham. Once at these depots, the rail imported aggregate is transferred from rail wagons to HGVs, for onward distribution to the Hampshire market. The demand for hard rock in Hampshire has however declined over the last 10 years (8) which will have resulted in a net decrease of rail movements into Hampshire over this period. It is expected that hard rock rail imports into Hampshire will be maintained at current levels, or possibly reduce further, over the plan period. As such,
it is considered that total rail movements into Hampshire Habitats are unlikely to increase, but may be more widely distributed across Hampshire, through the potential new aggregate rail depots at Basingstoke and/or Micheldever, R
and as such, this would likely result in a net decrease of egulations lorry movement distances into the north Hampshire market.
In consideration of the above points impacts arising Assessment from rail transportation as a result of this policy is likely to be de minimis, and may result in net decrease of lorry movements from these depots
Policy 19 Neither site are close to any European sites, and it is N/A NO R B ecord unlikely that there will be any direct impacts to European Aggregate wharves and sites arising from locating depots in these locations.
rail depots Appendices It is stated within the development considerations that (Individual sites) the major aquifer underneath Micheldever would require protection. D1: However, provision for new rail depots for transportation of mineral, in combination with (FINAL) maximising existing sites (see above) may lead to increased impacts from rail transportation (non/toxic contamination, disturbance). Se pt
European standards (Directive 2002/88/EC, 2013 amended by Directive 2010/26/EU ) of emissions 37 38 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
from non-road engines have been tiered to gradually reduce the levels permitted. In 2014 new
rail locomotive engines will have very strict limits Assessment of e.g. ammonia, CO2 and NOx imposed on them. This ensures that the overall background levels of these substances will be lower over time as stock is replaced, in combination with changes in air
quality brought about by sustainable transport R infrastructure being implemented across ecord Hampshire. Appendices In addition, though there is some capacity for increase in rail movements, there is huge demand for passenger transport that is competing for a finite rail capacity. Given that all four existing depots and these two proposed new ones are on (FINAL) the same main rail line, it is likely that that the capacities of the depots may not be able to be met
by the available freight train pathways (Need Se
assessment for wharves and Rail depots), which pt
means that it is unlikely that the rail journeys 2013 resulting from maximised rail depots will increase significantly.
All rail aggregate movements into Hampshire currently comprise of hard rock from two rail linked quarries located in the Mendip Hills in Somerset. These rail imports are brought into one of three Hampshire aggregate rail depots, located at Botley, Eastleigh and Fareham. Once at these depots, the rail imported aggregate is transferred from rail wagons to HGVs, for onward distribution to the Hampshire market. The demand for hard rock in Hampshire has however declined over the last 10 years(9) which will have
8 Minerals in Hampshire - Background Study: Section 5.1.3, Table 5.4 'Imports of hard rock to Hampshire', Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
resulted in a net decrease of rail movements into Hampshire over this period. It is expected that hard rock rail imports into Hampshire will be maintained at current levels, or possibly reduce further, over the plan period. As such, it is considered that total rail movements into Hampshire are unlikely to increase, but may be more widely distributed across Hampshire, through the potential new aggregate rail depots at
Basingstoke and/or Micheldever, and as such, this Habitats would likely result in a net decrease of lorry movement distances into the north Hampshire market. R egulations
In consideration of the above points, impacts arising from rail transportation as a result of this policy is likely
to be de minimis, and would alleviate the lorry Assessment transportation to the north of the county. Policy 20 (part Provision A5 A5: Potential impacts of specific sand and gravel N/A NO of landbank) extraction sites are considered in relation to the sites
identified in other policies within this plan. R Making provision for land ecord won sand and gravel
extraction Appendices
(previous MIN 9, MIN 10)
Policy 20 (Part A1/B A1 - This policy will not itself lead directly to (FINAL) remaining reserves at development, as it relates to qualitative criteria for permitted sites) development. Se Making provision for Any potential impacts arising from the existing minerals pt 2013
9 Minerals in Hampshire - Background Study: Section 5.1.3, Table 5.4 'Imports of hard rock to Hampshire', 39 40 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
land won sand and development are already adequately controlled, and gravel extraction therefore can be screened out Assessment (previous MIN 9, MIN 10) EA - discharge and abstraction consents and adherence to industry standards for operations Planning conditions - control and monitor noise, access etc
EHO emissions permitting for specific processes R ecord such as concrete batching and concrete crushing Appendices Policy 20 (Part - Other B The location for windfall sites is by their nature unknown, this N/A NO Proposals) policy allows for further extraction near European sites. European sites in or within 1km of the MRA Other proposals for Wealden Heaths Ph. II SPA (FINAL) mineral extraction in Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA/Ramsar Hampshire (previous Avon Valley SPA/Ramsar MIN 12 - windfall) Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar Portsmouth Water SPA/Ramsar Se pt New Forest SPA/Ramsar/SAC 2013 Salisbury Plain SPA Thursley, Hankley, Frensham Commons SPA Thames Basin Heaths SPA East Hampshire Hangars SAC Emer Bog SAC Mottisfont Bats SAC River Avon SAC River Itchen Sac Shortheath Common SAC Solent and Isle of Wight Solent Maritime SAC Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC Woolmer Forest Assessment of needs and the obligations provided under Policy Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
2 will give sufficient guidance to applicant and development managers as to the location and scope of any such developments. The provision of named sites within the plan, and assessment of deliverability as set out within the ISA report will reduce the likelihood of such sites coming forward Policy 21 (part) B The effects of the proposal will depend on how it is Policy 2: Protection of habitats and NO implemented, as the major emphasis of the policy is non species should provide sufficient Ensuring supply of brick location-specific, and also allows clay to be sourced from safeguard to ensure that where any
clay for Hampshire's outside the county. clay extraction is proposed outside of Habitats local brickworks and the Michelmersh and Selborne areas, other clay extraction However, the policy determines that such clay extraction any effects on sensitive European sites would only be permitted within existing sand and gravel will be adequately considered, avoided R
(other clay extraction) quarries and as such it has been possible to investigate and/or mitigated at the planning egulations where existing or proposed sand and gravel extraction application stage. (previous MIN15) sites will cause effect if they contain clay deposits.
None of the proposed or existing sand and gravel Assessment extraction sites are within the clay deposits of the county, restricting the amount that would be available within any one site, to minimal amounts within overburden and therefore extraction would be limited to ad hoc material
within overburden and is unlikely to have any significant R ecord effect.
Policy 22 B The Plan cannot control small-scale chalk extraction on land N/A NO Appendices where the owner is using the material on their own land. Potential effects depend on the scale and location of extraction (not currently known). Policy is effectively giving further Chalk extraction restrictions to the status-quo, as it is limiting the opportunities (previous MIN 16) for extraction. The scale of development is therefore unlikely (FINAL) to be significant, and it is explicit in the implementation plan that all development would require planning permission and
will be controlled by all policies within the plan. Se pt 2013 41 42 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations Policy 23 B The approach could indirectly affect a European site N/A NO because these operations can be located in a range of
Oil and gas development possible locations across the Plan area (which may be Assessment connected to a European site). (previous MIN 17) The highest risks originate from waste streams (produced water, drilling and cutting fluids, spills and leaks) which
can impact soils and water quality and contamination, R ecord sedimentation/smothering, as well as catastrophic events. Risk of spillage and discharge to water bodies/ escape of gas emissions etc cannot be discounted. Appendices However, these are controlled very strictly by industry controls and licensing/permitting, and high quality design in mind of this is required by policy 12 and parts of policy 9. (FINAL)
The first part of the wording of the policy could require mitigation/compensation measures where it is
demonstrated that any environmental impacts is Se
outweighed by the benefits of the development in pt
question. However, Policy 2 clearly sets out that the 2013 merits of development are set against the hierarchy of importance nature conservation designations, and as such it is unlikely that Oil and gas development would be permitted where it would require compensation to ensure that no impacts would result from a development. As with all development, mitigation can be a satisfactory alternative to avoidance, but avoidance of impact is clearly stated as the preferred stance within Policy 2.
Additionally, these operations do have limited land-take, and with appropriate environmental controls, and the restrictions imposed by part vi) of the policy and Policy 2, such impacts should be de minimis.
Pipelines have potential for creating fragmentation across Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
large areas of the landscape, as require large (20m approx) working widths, and extend for large distances in order to connect with existing gas/oil infrastructure - this would be an issue within or adjacent to European sites, However, such pipelines within Hampshire are rare, and only are associated with developments in close proximity to existing main pipelines (only 2 exist, the SA Midline, from Fawley north towards London, and from Fawley west to Wych Farm near Poole). Transportation of oil
is mainly by lorry tanker, (air pollution) but the average Habitats lorry movements for those in operation in Hampshire are so low (av <10/week across Hampshire(10)) the effects are likely to be de minimis. There are also av 5 rail R
movements between Holybourne Rail export terminal egulations (Alton) and Fawley. Policy 24 A1/A2/A5 A1 - This policy does not directly lead to development N/A NO
proposals, supporting only the principle of development Assessment Approach to sustainable that is given more spatial steer by other policies within waste management the plan
(COM 1, WAS 2) Policy 18 - recycling aggregates
Policy 26 - Provision of waste recycling, recovery R ecord and landfill capacity Policy 27 - Proposals for energy generation from waste of other low carbon fuels. Appendices
A2 - Sustainable waste management creates less overall impacts (not permanent, reuse of resources) (FINAL) A5 - locating waste management close to the sources of waste could lead to impacts on European sites. However, this is only an in principle policy element, and would be
adequately controlled by other policies within the plan Se
- Policy 2, Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 9, Policy 12, Policy pt
13. 2013 43 44 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
The policy provides for co-location that may lead to a
reduction in impacts (arising from construction, traffic Assessment movements etc). Impacts that could lead from over intensification are adequately dealt with here, supported by the above policies.
Policy 25 A1 - Policy would not itself lead to development as it N/A NO R
A1 ecord seeks to safeguard existing operations and sites. Safeguarding waste
capacity 'inappropriate encroachment is considered (from wording Appendices within the supporting text) to be resisting development (previous WAS 8) within 250m of Landfill, and 50m of other waste operations. This prevents issues such as disturbance to dwellings if built too close to such facilities. (FINAL)
Any potential impacts arising from the existing minerals and waste development are already adequately controlled,
and therefore can be screened out (additionally, recent Se
transfer of 'consents' to 'permitting' by EA has result in pt
all dated permission being reassessed under the powers 2013 provided to the EA.
EA - discharge and extraction permitting, design specifications of structures, landfill gas and leachate structure and emissions to air. HCC - Permitted Environmental Management Schemes (within permission or condition) controlling (for e.g.) noise, dust, odour, elements of design and vermin - monitored regularly EHO - elements of noise and dust control
Land use implications may arise where 'incompatible'
10 Strategic Transport and traffic Assessment Table 4.5 Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
development is resisted, thus in theory potentially blocking options or alternatives for the provision of this other type of development. In principle this may lead to adverse effects on European sites, which would otherwise be avoided. However, as most other local development frameworks have similar considerations, and strict protection of the integrity of European Sites, locally planned development would not be significantly 'squeezed' by this policy. Habitats The element of this policy that provides the most scope for potential impacts is the potential relocation of such facilities if other development 'grabs land'. Due to the R
large number of existing waste sites in Hampshire it is egulations not feasible to assess locations where such impacts may occur in any meaningful way. It is also not possible at the plan-making stage to speculate on future
development proposals which may be resisted under this Assessment policy.
It should be noted that the policy is worded 'unless it can be demonstrated that the waste management activity R
CAN be relocated' with the supporting text ensuring that ecord this element is controlled by all the environmental and community policies of the plan, which will look not only at the protection of European sites, but transport issues Appendices and noise, lighting and dust impacts. Therefore this policy ensures that safeguarding existing activity is paramount, and only those opportunities that will not have impacts to the environment will result in new development. (FINAL)
Furthermore, Policy 2 provides clear guidance for the minerals planning authority on decisions potentially
effecting European sites, and if a 'land grabbing' proposal Se
promoting such a relocation cannot demonstrate that a pt
depot would be moved without causing harm then the 2013 45 46 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
planning authority would object.
Policy 26 (Part iv) A5 Though part iv) does not specify specific locations for new N/A NO Assessment waste management sites, evidence within the waste sites Provision of waste reuse, assessment (11)does suggest where such sites may be possibly recycling, recovery, and located (within an area). However, new sites will come forward landfill capacity and be considered under Policy 28, so this element of the policy is NOT screened in R (previous WAS 9, small ecord part of WAS 15) Appendices
Policy 27 A5 A5 - No development would arise from this N/A No development, as all new waste management facilities Energy generation from would be brought forward under Policy 26 and parts of waste other low carbon 28. (FINAL) fuels This policy provides an in principle support of Energy (previous WAS 4) from waste development dependant on fulfilling the Se principle of hierarchy (Policy 24) pt 2013 Minimising landfill.
D2: The effect of the provision of energy from waste development with large new development schemes such as housing may create a significant affect on nearby European sites. However, any development whose combination with housing development would cause significant impacts, Policy will void Part ii) of this policy.
It should be noted that this 'support' will also be in consideration of all the other policies within this plan and 'support' would not be given to development whose location, scale or operation would implicate European sites
Policy 29 A5 - No development would arise from this N/A NO Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect? Re-use and recovery of A5 development, as all new waste management facilities CDE waste would be brought forward under Policy 28b and 26.
(previous WAS 6) This policy provides an in principle support of the increase of re-use and recycling and CDE waste, supporting the principle of hierarchy (Policy 24), thus reducing the requirement to provide landfill capacity in future development plans.
Policy 30 A2/B A2: Supports upgrading of WWTW facilities if needed N/A NO Habitats to ensure planned new development in Hampshire does Liquid waste not breach either relevant 'no deterioration' objectives management (previous or environmental quality standards. R
WAS 7) egulations Further restricts the status quo, by providing strict guidance as to when such proposal could be considered.
B - Potential effects are dependent on location of Assessment development. Location, extent of development will be controlled by policies 2, 8 and 9. Other effects arising from operations are very strictly controlled by existing industry permitting (EA). Policy supporting text R
specifically states that no permission would be granted ecord unless no adverse environmental impact would be caused.
Policy 31 A5 This policy sets out the 'in principle' requirements for N/A NO Appendices applications re-using inert waste (e.g soils) for Use of inert waste development projects which would change the use of (previous WAS 16) the land (including exceeding the level of the land adjoining the site). A noise bund is one example. (FINAL)
A5 - as this policy sets out the 'in principle' use of such material, rather than use or location specific, other
policies within the plan would be considered the principle Se pt 2013
11 Assessment of sites and areas for waste management facilities in Hampshire 47 48 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
means of applying this policy to a particular project.
Policy 7 protects those soils that may be considered of Assessment any quality, policy 12 ensures that any design incorporating this principle is of good design, and policy 2 ensures that the objective of European sites are considered in any decisions taken by the authorities. R Policy 32 (part - Other Proposals at other Effects uncertain- this policy makes provision for a N/A NO ecord proposals) sites quantity/ type of development, but the effects are Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect? Disposal of B uncertain because it is not certain that provision would non-hazardous waste to only be made at the proposed locations in the other parts land of the policy.
(previous WAS 17, WAS Policy 2 will heavily influence the scale and location of 18) such windfall development in addition to other elements of the plan (the 'need' for the development and/or scale of operation)
NB - Squabb Wood is likely to meet the need for landfill Habitats within Hampshire for the plan period, in conjunction with the continued exportation of waste for landfill AND the predicted decline in the requirement for landfill (12)) R
and as encouraged by Policy 26 (diversion of waste from egulations landfill) Policy 32 (part - No A5 A5: This element of the policy does not directly lead to N/A NO provision for London's development proposals, supporting only the principle Assessment Waste) of development that is given more spatial steer by other elements of Policy 32, and other policies within the plan Disposal of (see below in table 2.4) non-hazardous waste to land R ecord
(previous WAS 19) Appendices
Policy 32 (part - use of B Any potential impacts arising from the existing minerals and N/A NO remaining capacity at waste development are already adequately controlled, and existing sites) therefore can be screened out (additionally, recent transfer of 'consents' to 'permitting' by EA has result in all dated (FINAL) permission being reassessed under the powers provided to the EA. Disposal of Se
non-hazardous waste to EA - discharge and extraction permitting, design pt
land specifications of structures, landfill gas and leachate 2013 structure and emissions to air. 49 50 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the R
effect? egulations
HCC - Permitted Environmental Management Schemes
(within permission or condition) controlling (for e.g.) Assessment noise, dust, odour, elements of design and vermin - monitored regularly.
EHO - elements of noise and dust control R ecord Policy 33 A1/A5 A1 - this policy does not proposed any development, on N/A NO sets out qualitative criteria for any development that may Disposal of Hazardous arise. Existing hazardous landfill (asbestos) at Pound Appendices waste to land Bottom AND thermal treatment facilities at Fawley provide sufficient operation that further landfill should (previous WAS 19) not be required. In addition, quantities of hazardous waste that require landfilling are so small that such (FINAL) capacity has to be dealt with at a regional level and therefore further reduces the likelihood of such a development being required within Hampshire during
the plan period. Se pt
Policy 2 will heavily influence the scale and location of 2013 such windfall development in addition to other elements of the Plan. With regards to the specific reference to low level radioactive waste, the Environment Agency has considered risk to Natura 2000 sites from radioactive discharges within England and Wales. Screening assessments have been made to identify those Natura 2000 sites which may be affected by permitted releases of pollutants and thus require a more detailed assessment(13). Policy 34 A1/A5 The Policy helps to secure suitable alternative facilities, N/A NO should they be needed to maintain a flexible and adequate Long term safeguarding of supply of minerals, in locations that are currently used for port related purposes and have some shore side
12 'Assessment of need of waste management facilities Landfill, Surcharging and Landraising report' AND 'Waste Data Summary Report' Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Potential changes to the policy to Is an Appropriate category affected) reduce effect, or does another Assessment required? policy in the Plan help to avoid the effect?
(previous MIN 7) facilities, including access, rather than needing to exploit new, stand alone facilities (14)
A1 - This does not promote any form of development, though may in the future result in some indefinable in-combination impacts that will be controlled by the framework of plan policies Nb. Marine dredging operations themselves cannot be assessed as licensing already subject to the HRA regulatory regime. BUT
in-combination assessment may be necessary to understand Habitats the relationship between this industry and provision of wharves R egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt
13 Only one site required further assessment and this was not in Hampshire. See Allott, R., Copplestone, D., Merrill, P.C. and Oliver, S. (in press) “Habitats assessments for radioactive substances” Environment Agency Technical 2013 Report NMA/TR/2008/05. 14 Need assessment for Wharves and Rail depots 51 52 Habitats Table B.6 Emerging policies screened in (i.e with potential to have a significant effect on European sites(s) and therefore taken forward to AA)
Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring R
category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, egulations plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve
Policy 20 2) extensions to the following existing sites: Bleak Hill (Sharp Dependant on outcome of AA C1/ C2 Assessment sand and gravel) (0.5 million tonnes) Making provision for The European sites that may be effected by the proposal: land won sand and gravel extraction Dorset Heath/lands SPA/SAC/Ramsar lies within
1.5 km R (Prev MIN 11) River Avon SAC, Avon Valley SPA/Ramsar within ecord 1.3km. Appendices 2) extensions to the following existing sites: Bramshill Quarry extension (Yateley Heath Wood), Blackbushe (1 Million tonnes) The European site that may be effected by the proposal:
Thames Basin Heaths SPA (within Castle Bottom (FINAL) to Yateley Common SSSI units 6 and 13) More detailed assessment is SSSI Unit 6 - Unfavourable declining due to required to establish where
encroachment of scrub (pine, birch, bracken) the impacts may arise (e.g Se
SSSI Unit 13 Favourable due to the presence of construction and operation) pt
rotational forestry, the cycle which could fit in with and how to adequately apply 2013 minerals development. development criteria.
3) New sand and gravel extraction sites at: Roeshot, Christchurch (Sharp sand and gravel) 3 million tonnes The European site that may be effected by the proposal:
Avon Valley SPA/Ramsar River Avon SAC Dorset Heaths SPA/Ramsar Dorset Heathland SAC (2.3km away)
This development will likely give rise to: Land take - Physical loss/damage to habitat, hydrological impacts (especially changes to water levels and changes to hydrological gradients where Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve
there are hydrological links) greater risk of non/toxic contamination (emissions to water)
Longer time scales of activities, especially processing and traffic/transport - non-physical disturbance (noise, visual, human presence), non/toxic contamination (air pollution) biological disturbance (damage to plants and animals by transport using infrastructure on site
and on the road network) Habitats Development of ancillary infrastructure (haul road, conveyor) to existing plant site (larger footprint, exacerbation and in-combination effect of all R
impacts arising from land take, traffic and egulations transport)
Such development is likely to result in non-physical Assessment disturbance – noise/visual - impacting on bird species.
All of these European sites are sensitive to hydrological impacts, especially changes to water levels and R
changes to hydrological gradients where there are ecord hydrological links.
With respect to Roeshot - Provision of site and Appendices infrastructure could lead to further development across the border (possible western extension) bringing development closer to the Avon Valley SPA/Ramsar
and River Avon SAC (to within 1.2km) and Dorset (FINAL) Heaths SAC and Dorset Heathland SPA/Ramsar (to within 2.3km), leading to exacerbated impacts, and include hydrological links (water level and stability
issues). Also Potential In combination effects with local Se
development such as housing development south of the railway. pt 2013 53 54 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations
implications in combination also with other aggregate proposals. Assessment With respect to Bleak Hill, nearby Hamer Brook and spring to east of site drain into Avon Valley system, and therefore it is very important in how development deals with water level management as it is likely to be
hydrologically linked to the European sites. R ecord
The significance of effects will also depend on: Appendices restoration and afteruse; timing of operations (e.g. whether in conjunction with other activities);
time of year (over-wintering birds more effected (FINAL) during winter months).
Some effects may be short-medium term depending on Se
whether effects reversible. pt 2013 Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve Policy 20 D1 2) extensions to the following existing sites: Dependant on outcome of AA Investigate assessments of district development plans, Making provision for Mortimer Quarry Extension (Benyon's Inclosure), and assess relationship with land won sand and Mortimer West End (Sharp sand and gravel) (2 million Hampshire lorry route gravel extraction tonnes) Work undertaken in the (Previous MIN 11) The nearest European site (Thames Basin Heaths) lies previous HRA of the 11.5km away and therefore unlikely to have any Hampshire Minerals Plan significant effect arising from the development. (2008) used GIS to identify
which European sites are Habitats Air quality and traffic issues (e.g TBH vulnerability to within 200m of the nitrogen deposition) may combine with underlying trend, Hampshire Minerals and other plans and other draft policies within this Plan to Waste lorry route. this will R
have any effect. The likelihood of significance is need to be updated to reflect egulations probably de minimis, however, further investigation is use of the Strategic Road required to clarify any in-combination with any other Network. planned development in the area.
Using the previous analysis, Assessment some minimal assessment will be required to determine whether HGV movements will increase significantly
along those parts of the R strategic road network within ecord 200m of the European sites
- information arising from Appendices the STA currently indicates insignificant changes to traffic patterns. (FINAL) Policy 20 D1 New sand and gravel extraction sites at: Dependant on outcome of AA investigate assessments of District Making provision for Cutty Brow, Longparish (Sharp sand and gravel) 1 million development plans, Se land won sand and tonnes and assess relationship pt gravel extraction with Hampshire 2013 (Previous MIN 11) The nearest European site (Porton Down SAC) lies 15km strategic road network 55 56 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations
away and therefore unlikely to have any significant effect Work undertaken in arising from the development. the previous HRA of
the Hampshire Assessment However, air quality and traffic issues may combine with Minerals Plan (2008) underlying trend, other plans and other draft policies used GIS to identify within this Plan to have an effect. The likelihood of which European sites significance is probably de minimis, however further are within 200m of the
investigation is required to clarify any in-combination Hampshire Minerals R ecord with any other planned development in the area. and Waste lorry route. this will need to be Policy links definitively with the Strategic Road Network. updated to reflect use Appendices of the Strategic Road Development considerations ensure that development Network. does not effect existing recreation (public rights of way maintained) and there would be no displacement of Using the previous (FINAL) recreation. analysis, some minimal assessment will be required to determine
whether HGV Se
movements will pt
increase significantly 2013 along those parts of the strategic road network within 200m of the European sites - information arising from the STA currently indicates insignificant changes to traffic patterns.
Policy 20 3) New sand and The European sites that may be effected by the proposal: Provision of detailed avoidance More detailed gravel extraction measures would not be prudent at the assessment is required Making provision for sites at: Solent Maritime SAC (0.5km) stage as it may limit opportunities in to establish where the land won sand and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar. the future when further details of impacts may arise (e.g gravel Hamble Airfield, (0.5km) development are known and construction and Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve extraction(Previous MIN Hamble (Sharp developments in best practice and operation)and how to 11) sand and gravel) science can be applied. Policy 9 adequately apply 1.25 million tonnes Due to the proximity of the SPA the following Brent provides requirements for sufficient development criteria. goose and wader sites are also implicated within the protection from impacts such as noise designation (within 200m) and dust, provisions for buffers and bunds etc. Policy 12 ensures that design is best available. Habitats R egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 57 58 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations C1/C2 E13 Further amendments dependant on Further study on E12b outcome of AA PUSH air quality
studies and Eastleigh Assessment (It will be necessary to judge impacts on these sites and and Southampton judge any significant knock-on effects across the whole Transport Impact of the Solent) Assessment Activities associated with new minerals extraction sites Strategic traffic R ecord Land take (extraction and infrastructure) - causing assessment should displacement of existing activities on the land, feed into assessments indirect habitat loss, fragmentation, changes of impacts of noise, Appendices to hydrological regime (interruption of flow, and vibration and construction of hard surfacing) pollution Site activities - resulting in disturbance (noise, Work undertaken in
light and visual), traffic and conveyor (FINAL) emissions/movements (pollution and habitat the previous HRA of /species damage) the Hampshire Operations - dewatering,(hydrological impacts, Minerals Plan (2008)
disturbance), storage of material, (emissions to used GIS to identify Se water) processing (noise and water use) which European sites pt Restoration - backfilling with are within 200m of the 2013 overburden/imported soils (biological Hampshire Minerals disturbance/soil contamination), after-use - and Waste lorry route. (disturbance, non/toxic contamination, water this will need to be use) updated to reflect use The impacts most likely to be significant are: of the Strategic Road Network. The proximity of the coastal area may lead to hydrological impacts, though the proposed Using the previous shallow excavation is likely to prevent de-watering analysis, some minimal and the creation of a hydrological gradient. There assessment will be is specific requirement in the development required to determine considerations to protect the water quality and whether HGV recharge of the underlying aquifer and groundwater movements will and surface water. increase significantly The most significant issue is likely to be impacts along those parts of to birds through noise/vibration/dust Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve
disturbance - 'important' wader and Brent goose the strategic road sites line the extent of the SPA/Ramsar to the east network within 200m and south of site of the European sites Possible indirect recreation disturbance from an - information arising increased use of the coastline footpaths resulting from the STA from loss of recreation opportunities on the currently indicates disused airfield. insignificant changes to traffic patterns.
The Brent Goose and wader Strategy shows that this site Habitats does not itself provide any grazing habitat for these species. However, it does provide great potential for habitat creation/habitat opportunities. R egulations Increased traffic may lead to impacts such as nitrogen deposition, especially in-combination with Eastleigh LDF (oil refinery). Assessment The significance of effects will also depend on restoration and afteruse; timing of operations (e.g. whether in conjunction with other activities); time of year (wintering birds more effected during winter months). Some effects R
may be short-medium term depending on whether effects ecord reversible
Policy 20 3) New sand and The European sites that may be effected by the proposal: Dependant on outcome of AA More detailed Appendices gravel extraction assessment is required Making provision for sites at: Avon Valley Ramsar/SPA (1.5km) to establish where the land won sand and impacts may arise (e.g gravel extraction Purple Haze, construction and (FINAL) (Previous MIN 11) Ringwood Forest operation)and how to (Soft sand) 4 adequately apply million tonnes development criteria. Se pt 2013 59 60 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations C1/C2 River Avon SAC (1.5km) Strategic traffic Dorset Heaths SAC (0.5km) assessment should
Dorset Heathland SPA (0.5km) feed into assessments Assessment of impacts of noise, Activities associated with new minerals extraction sites vibration and pollution Land take (extraction and infrastructure) - causing displacement of existing activities on the land, indirect Work undertaken in R habitat loss, fragmentation, changes to hydrological ecord regime (interruption of flow, and construction of hard the previous HRA of surfacing) the Hampshire Minerals Plan (2008) Appendices used GIS to identify Site activities - resulting in disturbance (noise, light which European sites and visual), traffic and conveyor emissions/movements are within 200m of the (pollution and habitat /species damage) Hampshire Minerals and Waste lorry route. (FINAL) Operations - dewatering,(hydrological impacts, this will need to be disturbance), storage of material, (emissions to water) updated to reflect use processing (noise and water use)
of the Strategic Road Se
Network. pt Restoration - backfilling with overburden/imported soils (biological disturbance/soil contamination), after-use 2013 Using the previous - (disturbance, non/toxic contamination, water use) analysis, some minimal The impacts most likely to be are: assessment will be impacts include habitat loss arising from dust required to determine deposition, habitat damage resulting from hydrological whether HGV change (springs to the north of the site drain directly movements will into the Ebblake Bog SSSI that forms the closest part increase significantly of the Dorest Heath/lands SAC/SPA/Ramsar) and along those parts of disturbance and habitat degradation from displaced the strategic road recreation. network within 200m of the European sites Possible cumulative or in-combination impacts if - information arising operating in conjunction with other Avon Valley mineral from the STA sites - would possibly start extraction prior to the end of currently indicates Blue Haze (though dependant on levels of extraction at insignificant changes Plumley Wood). to traffic patterns. Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve
Assessment of Nightjar territories within SPA may overlap parts of the significance of allocated site, and thus direct impacts on the site may potential Nightjar have implication on the European site - will have to territories demonstrate the significance and likelihood of any populations that may overlap. Individual territories on Assessment of the site not directly associated with the SPA do not need recreational use of the to be assessed under the HRA. proposed site and examine potential for
Boundaries encompass catchment of Ebblake Bog, and displacement of Habitats therefore create a significant hydrological issue as it is recreation onto unlikely that this hydrological regime could be adequately European sites replicated through a mitigation scheme - the development R
considerations for this site set out that this area is to be egulations excluded from extraction and buffered in order that the hydrological regime is protected.
Displacement of current recreation activity, recent visitor Assessment study - Ringwood forest receives large amounts of visitors. New alternative greenspace may be required if existing recreational use of Purple Haze would be significantly diverted onto the European sites. R ecord Some effects may be short-medium term depending on whether effects are reversible. Appendices
The significance of effects will also depend on
restoration and after-use;
timing of operations (e.g. whether in conjunction (FINAL) with other activities); time of year (wintering birds more effected during winter months). Se pt
Policy 20 3) New sand and European sites that could potentially be effected are: Dependant on outcome of AA More detailed 2013 61 62 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations
Making provision for gravel extraction Solent Maritime SAC (1.5km) assessment is required land won sand and sites at: to establish where the
gravel Solent &Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar (1.5km) impacts may arise (e.g Assessment extraction(Previous MIN Forest Lodge construction and 11) Farm, Hythe (Soft New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar (1km) operation) and how to sand/sharp sand Activities associated with new minerals extraction sites adequately apply and gravel) development criteria.
570,000 tonnes R
Land take (extraction and infrastructure) - causing ecord displacement of existing activities on the land, Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve C1/C2 indirect habitat loss, fragmentation, changes Strategic traffic to hydrological regime (interruption of flow, and assessment should construction of hard surfacing) feed into assessments Site activities - resulting in disturbance (noise, of impacts of noise, light and visual), traffic and conveyor vibration and emissions/movements (pollution and habitat pollution /species damage) Operations - dewatering,(hydrological impacts, Work undertaken in disturbance), storage of material, (emissions to the previous HRA of
water) processing (noise and water use) the Hampshire Habitats Restoration - backfilling with overburden/ Minerals Plan (2008) imported soils (biological disturbances/ oil used GIS to identify which European sites
contamination), after-use - (disturbance, R
non/toxic contamination, water use) are within 200m of the egulations Hampshire Minerals Impacts most likely to lead to significant impacts are: and Waste lorry route. Operations in this area could lead to hydrological issues. this will need to be
updated to reflect use Assessment The estuaries are particularly sensitive to changes in water of the Strategic Road levels from de-watering and salination. Network. Using the previous analysis, some minimal The significance of effects will also depend on; assessment will be R ecord required to determine restoration and afteruse (attracting visitors may whether HGV
have a negative impact on the coastal European Appendices movements will sites, but could provide alternative greenspace?; increase significantly timing of operations (e.g. whether in conjunction along those parts of with other activities); the strategic road time of year (wintering birds more effected during network within 200m winter months) of the European sites (FINAL) - information arising Some effects may be short-medium term depending on from the STA whether the effects are reversible
currently indicates Se
insignificant changes pt
to traffic patterns. 2013 63 64 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations Policy 21 C2 Michelmersh N/A Assessment of known foraging and commuting
Ensuring supply of The European sites that may be effected by the proposal: routes of the Bats Assessment brick-making clay for Hampshire's local Mottisfont Bats SAC (2.5 km) brickworks and other clay extraction As the bats utilise an area within 7.5km of their roosts
for foraging and commuting, it is essential that habitats R ecord (Michelmersh that could support this behaviour (hedgerows, Brickworks) unimproved pasture, open water, broad-leaved
woodland) are protected from direct loss, and indirect Appendices (previous MIN 14 - extra disturbance. bit new) Removal of hedgerows and tree lines (Direct physical loss/damage of habitat) may be an issue at this site, (FINAL) especially in the south-east of the site.
Disturbance in the form of lighting, which can cause
bats to avoid routes (indirect loss) is also a possibility Se
through development at this site. pt 2013 Due to the distance away from the development, the roost itself is unlikely to be impacted by the traffic noise and emissions (only likely to have impacts within 200m of a road or track). Impacts arising from traffic on the foraging and roosting of bats can be adequately taken into consideration during the design of the proposal (Protection given by specifically by Policy 11, and also policy 2 and Policy 9). As the extracted clay cannot be exported, there will be no such impacts arising from traffic on the wider road network.
Hydrological impacts - decrease in surface water run-off (interception to void) - Development criteria specifically requires the protection of the water quality and recharge of the source protection zone, major aquifer Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve
and of the River Test and its tributaries. In addition to the protection provided by Policy 2 (which also requires appropriate investigation and assessment) This will be sufficient protection for such effects to arise from this policy.
Policy 2 explicitly includes the 7.5km surrounding the Mottisfont Bat SAC within the considerations of integrity of the SAC. The development considerations for this
site specifically require the impacts to commuting or Habitats foraging of Mottisfont Bats to be addressed, and is therefore unlikely that significant effect will result from this policy. R egulations However, further investigation of the significance of the potential impacts would be further investigation through the Appropriate assessment - further data on Bat foraging is
available, and therefore the potential for impacts to occur can Assessment be made more accurate
Selborne
The European sites that may be effected by the proposal: R ecord
East Hampshire Hangars SAC (0.5km) Shortheath Common SAC (1.5km) Appendices Wealden Heaths SPA (2km) Woolmer Forest SAC (2.5km) (FINAL) Impacts that have potential to be significant are :
Drains and springs in the locality give rise to risk of toxic/non toxic contamination and hydrological Se impacts, - Development considerations states that it pt must Protect the water quality and recharge of the 2013 65 66 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations
underlying aquifer and groundwater and surface water, and along with the protection conferred by Policy 2 and
existing industry controls it is not likely that any such Assessment impacts will give rise to significant effect.
Operations will result in non-physical disturbance (noise, vibration) however, it is unlikely to result in
disturbance to SPA birds due to the distance from the R ecord designation.
Restoration to open water may leads to impacts from Appendices predation (rats and gulls) of ground-nesting birds and overgrazing from species such as Canada geese. - Policy 8 ensures that the objectives of the European sites are primary considerations where there is potential for such (FINAL) harm, and therefore this is unlikely to result in significant effect.
Potential in-combination with effects of the policy Se
safeguarding of Whitehill Bordon - however, as the pt
development to which the safeguarding is attached is 2013 uncertain it is is not possible for such in-combination effects to be understood at this time.
Clay will not be allowed to be exported, and so there will not be any wider traffic issues Policy 26 (Parts I, ii and C6 Part i and ii and iii) This part of the policy relates to Dependant on outcome of AA More detailed assessment is iii) existing sites which are in various locations across the required to establish where Plan area. The location of extensions is therefore the impacts may arise (e.g Provision of waste uncertain, but Appendix D (of which Aggregate construction and operation) reuse,recycling, Recycling sites, Energy Recovery facilities (burning with and how to adequately apply recovery, and landfill energy harnessing facilities), Metal recycling development criteria. Waste capacity sites,composting sites, household waste recycling Centres, sites assessment. and Waste Transfer Stations refers) sets out the full list (previous WAS 9, small of safeguarded site (from safeguarding study (15)to which Cross refer assessment of Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve
part of WAS 15) this part of the policy refers. The suitable extensions Policy 28 and Policy 32 to has been looked at within the waste sites assessment. ascertain whether level of (16) diversion can be accommodated within the There is a theoretical possibility that if implemented in Plan. one or more particular ways, this policy could possibly have a significant effect on a European site. This is because some existing sites are located where an extension may affect a European site (including
cumulative impacts for example noise). Habitats
Will allow great flexibility to existing sites to allow more capacity to be taken up there rather than on proposal R
site, ensure that there is less need to create new sites in egulations the future The provision for additional capacity for landfill and recycling/recovery (as set out in the final points of this policy)
is given in Policy 28 and Policy 32 - if this provision does not Assessment cause significant effects, then this level of diversion can be accommodated within this plan Policy 28 C2/D2 This policy implements the development supported by Dependant on outcome of AA YES the in principle policies such as Policy 27 and Policy 29 R
Further assessment is ecord New waste management required to investigate development Waste facilities that generate heat (coming under (c)) are the broad locations likely to have the following effects on European sites. likely to be considered Appendices (previous WAS 10, suitable for waste WAS11, WAS 12, WAS 13 management facilities and WAS 14) Air pollution - significant within 10km of facility, (e.g. industrial areas downwind and already above critical levels and within south (FINAL) loads for pollutants Hampshire) and their Changes to thermal regime (washing waters proximity to European discharging into receiving waters) - significant sites.
where facility discharging directly to receiving Se pt 2013
15 HMWP Hampshire Safeguarding Study 67 68 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations
waters within a European site. Need to investigate Management of residues may have land-use further about the types
implications if landfill cannot be avoided. of development that Assessment may arise from this policy (e.g. Landfill gas C2: Effects uncertain- the broad spatial strategy diagram collection? Residue suggests some broad areas within Hampshire suitable in disposal?) and the principle for certain types of waste management potential impacts and R ecord development (where development may be more likely locational constraints to be supported). There is a theoretical possibility that etc. development in these broad locations could have a Appendices significant effect on a European site. Evidence within Incorporation of the Waste sites assessment (17) might provide some information from spatial steer. PUSH air quality work should inform (FINAL) D2 - However this approach could steer development limitation of to some industrial locations- the majority of which are development located on the south coast (many European sites which /transportation in
are water-related i.e. esp. vulnerable to deposition of areas that have been Se
pollutants from traffic). Also steers development to identified as being 'at pt
major development areas (Fareham, Bordon Whitehill, capacity' in terms of 2013 Land west of Waterlooville, North of Whitely SDA); and air quality impacts some small-scale development towards more rural locations where appropriate. Strategic traffic assessment should C2: Some renewable energy activities (involving feed into assessments combustion of waste and other feedstock) and associated of impacts of noise, infrastructure could indirectly affect sensitive sites vibration and depending on the location. D2: Certain activities could pollution. in principle combine to have combined effects. Consideration of in-combination effects (e.g with WWTW and agricultural activities)
16 Assessment of sites and areas for waste management facilities in Hampshire Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve
is also important.
Policy 32 (Part) 2) by proposals for Proposals refers to both surcharging and increased cell Dependant on outcome of AA Investigate extension to the size/new cells. assessments of District Proposals will be existing landfill at Site lies within 4km of New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar development plans, supported for landfill the following site: - Air quality and traffic issues (e.g New Forest and assess relationship capacity necessary to deal vulnerability to nitrogen deposition) may combine with with Hampshire with Hampshire’s Squabb Wood underlying trend, other plans and other draft policies strategic road network
non-hazardous residual landfill near within this Plan to have any effect. The likelihood of Habitats waste to 2030. Romsey significance is probably de minimis, however further In-combination investigation is required to clarify any in-combination assessment of impacts Non-hazardous landfill with any other planned development in the area. of underlying trends R
capacity will be provided of increased traffic egulations and supported in accordance with the following priority: Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013
17 Assessment of sites and areas for waste management facilities in Hampshire 69 70 Habitats Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will R
involve egulations (previous WAS 17, WAS C1/C2 Site lies within 4.5km from Mottisfont Bats SAC - 18) consideration of maintaining habitats (broad-leaved
woodland, unimproved grassland, marsh or wetland) for Assessment Barbastelle bat foraging and commuting is required. Most of the site does not provide such habitat, but the wooded corridor running through the site will need to be retained, and existing lighting not altered in lux levels or position.
Additionally, mature trees should also be maintained as R roosts of Barbastelle are protected under the SAC, and ecord normal EPS licensing does not apply. Appendices Continuation of non-physical disturbance (from extension of time of operation site and traffic), Air pollution, predator/prey for extended time. However, given the distance from the European sites, it is unlikely that these impacts will be significant. (FINAL)
3) at the following The opportunities at this location are dependent on need Dependant on outcome of AA Further assessment of
identified suitable AND on void space becoming available during the plan where to adequately Se
reserve site (if period- see Policy 20: Sand and gravel development. apply development pt
required, and - New sand and gravel extraction sites at - Purple criteria 2013 mineral extraction Haze, Ringwood Forest has previously The site lies within 1.5km of Avon Valley Ramsar/SPA Plan needs to link in a occurred): River Avon SAC, and within 0.5km of Dorset Heaths more definitive way SAC and SPA. The most significant issue is likely to be with the Hampshire i. Purple Haze, impacts to birds through noise/vibration/dust strategic road network, Ringwood Forest, disturbance. and how that would near Ringwood provide a framework to protect European sites from impacts from traffic. Reference Assessment Justification (type of impact, European site(s) potentially Is there potential to change the Reason for requiring category affected) policy or other policies within the Appropriate Assessment, plan to reduce effect? and what the AA will involve C1/C2 Other potential impacts include potential habitat loss arising from dust deposition. Possible cumulative or in-combination impacts if operating in conjunction with other Avon Valley mineral sites - though is it not likely that landfilling here would start prior to Blue Haze finishing (though dependant on levels of extraction at Plumley Wood), and need to consider the cumulative effects of extraction and landfilling at this site.
Encouraging recreational on this site in such close Habitats proximity to the Dorset Heaths SAC may be a significant issue. R egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 71 72 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
B.2.2.1 In-combination assessment of policy approaches
25 As explained above, and in more detail in the supporting methodology report, an 'in-combination' assessment should be undertaken as part of the screening exercise. Each policy approach is therefore checked for the likelihood of it leading to a significant effect on a European site, firstly alone, then, if not alone, in combination with the other policy approaches, or other plans or projects.
In-combination with the other plans or projects
26 As indicated by section 2.1, the categorisation methodology used for this screening assessment suggests 'D categories' to identify likely significant effects in combination (see table 2.3):
Category D1 describes those policies/ policy elements which alone would not be likely to have significant effects but if its effects are combined with the effects of other policies or proposals provided for by the plan the cumulative effects would be likely to be significant.
Category D2 describes those policies alone would not be likely to have significant effects but if their effects are combined with the effects of other plans or projects, the combined effects would be likely to be significant.
Category D3 describes those policy approaches that are, or could be, part of a programme or sequence of development delivered over a period, where the implementation of the early stages would not have a significant effect on European sites, but which would dictate the nature, scale, duration, location, timing of the whole project, the later stages of which could have an adverse effect on such sites.
27 The preceding screening matrices indicate 44 policy approaches have been categorised solely or partly as A or B categories (i.e approaches which alone would not be likely to have significant effects). In principle, these policy approaches should be subject to in-combination assessment. The majority of the 44 policies/ policy elements have been categorised as A1, A2, A3 or A4, because they will not themselves lead to development, typically because they are protectionist type policy approaches, or seek to steer development away from sensitive areas. There is a very low risk that these A category policies/policy elements could have significant effects if combined with other plans and projects, and thus no further in-combination assessment is required for these.
28 There are 9 policy approaches which have been assigned a B category because they are considered, in part, to potentially have an effect but the effect is not considered to be significant (i.e. minimal or 'de minimis' effects). Further in-combination assessment may be required for these policy approaches at a later stage therefore. See Table 2.4.
29 For one other policy it was difficult to determine at this stage whether the approach is likely to have a significant effect, because it would depend on how the policy was implemented in due course (category C6). This is explained further in section 3.1 below. Because these approaches have not been 'screened out', and uncertainty remains, an in-combination assessment should be carried out in principle to determine the likelihood of effects.
30 Finally, the screening matrices above already identify 3 policy/ policy elements where there could be in-combination effects (categories D1 and D2). See Table 2.5. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 73
In-combination with the other policy approaches
31 As explained above, some policies alone may not be likely to have significant effects, but may combine with other policies in the emerging Plan itself to give rise to potential effects. In order to assess this, an exercise will be carried out looking at the relationship between all the policies in the consultation document. For instance, the policies which safeguard existing sites may need to be considered in detail in future where they lie in close proximity to proposed sites in the consultation document.
32 Furthermore, the policies which have been 'screened out' will also be considered in-combination with the rest of the policies. This is because the entire set of policies has to be screened as a whole, and it is apparent that there are some linkages between the policies (i.e. some policies essentially rely on other 'protective' policies to ensure they do not have potential effects). This exercise is important to ensure the assessors are familiar with such internal linkages to ascertain the implications of amendments to each policies. Due to the complexity this is an ongoing exercise and the findings will be reported in the subsequent screening report, and taken into account in the next stages of plan preparation. 74 Habitats Table B.7 Initial in-combination assessment of draft policies, with other draft policies in the plan
Reference (policy) Other policies relevant to implementation R egulations Policy 1 Policy 2, Policy 8, Policy 10, Policy 24, Policy 26, Policy 27
Policy 2 Policy 1, Policy 3, Policy 4, Policy 5, Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 9, Policy 11, Policy 12, Policy 13, Policy 15, Policy 16, Policy 17, Policy 18, Policy 19, Policy 20, Policy 21, Policy 22, Policy 23,
Policy 24, Policy 25, Assessment
Policy 3 Policy 2, Policy 5, Policy 4, Policy 6, Policy 8, Policy 11, Policy 23
Policy 4 Policy 2, Policy 3, Policy 4, Policy 6, Policy 8, Policy 11, Policy 12, Policy 13 R
Policy 5 Policy 2, Policy 4, Policy 7 ecord
Policy 6 Policy 3, Policy 4 Appendices
Policy 7 Policy 2, Policy 5, Policy 21, Policy 22, Policy 23, Policy 32, Policy 33
Policy 8 Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 3, Policy 10, Policy 13, Policy 14, Policy 20, Policy 32, Policy 33
Policy 9 Policy 2, Policy 10, Policy 11, Policy 24 (FINAL)
Policy 10 Policy 1, Policy 8, Policy 9, Policy 10, Policy 12, Policy 14, Policy 19, Policy 21, Policy 22, Policy 23 Se
Policy 11 Policy 2, Policy 3, Policy 4, Policy 9, Policy 16, Policy 19, Policy 20, Policy 25, Policy 28 pt 2013 Policy 12 Policy 2, Policy 10, Policy 13
Policy 13 Policy 2, Policy 8, Policy 12, Policy 14
Policy 14 Policy 8, Policy 10, Policy 13
Policy 15 Policy 2, Policy 16, Policy 17, Policy 18, Policy 19, Policy 20, Policy 21, Policy 22, Policy 23
Policy 16 Policy 2, Policy 15, Policy 17, Policy 18, Policy 19, Policy 20, Policy 21, Policy 22, Policy 23, Policy 24, Policy 34
Policy 17 Policy 2, Policy 15, Policy 16, Policy 18, Policy 19, Policy 20
Policy 18 Policy 2, Policy 15, Policy 16, Policy 17, Policy 19, Policy 20, Policy 29
Policy 19 Policy 2, Policy 10, Policy 11, Policy 15, Policy 16, Policy 17, Policy 18, Policy 20, Policy 34 Reference (policy) Other policies relevant to implementation
Policy 20 Policy 2, Policy 8, Policy 10, Policy 11, Policy 15, Policy 16, Policy 17, Policy 18, Policy 19
Policy 21 Policy 2, Policy 7, Policy 10, Policy 15, Policy 16
Policy 22 Policy 2, Policy 7, Policy 10, Policy 15, Policy 16
Policy 23 Policy 2, Policy 7, Policy 10, Policy 15, Policy 16
Policy 24 Policy 1, Policy 2, Policy 9, Policy 25, Policy 26, Policy 27, Policy 28, Policy 29, Policy 30, Policy 31, Policy 32, Policy 33
Policy 25 Policy 2, Policy 11, Policy 24, Policy 26, Policy 27, Policy 28, Policy 29, Policy 30, Policy 31, Policy 32, Policy 33 Habitats Policy 26 Policy 1, Policy 24, Policy 25, Policy 27, Policy 28, Policy 29, Policy 30, Policy 31, Policy 32, Policy 33
Policy 27 Policy 1, Policy 24, Policy 25, Policy 26, Policy 28, Policy 29, Policy 31, Policy 32, Policy 33 R egulations Policy 28 Policy 11, Policy 24, Policy 25, Policy 26, Policy 27, Policy 29, Policy 31, Policy 32, Policy 33
Policy 29 Policy 18, Policy 24, Policy 25, Policy 26, Policy 27, Policy 32 Assessment Policy 30 Policy 24, Policy 25, Policy 28
Policy 31 Policy 18, Policy 24, Policy 25, Policy 26
Policy 32 Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 9, Policy 24, Policy 25, Policy 26, Policy 28, Policy 29 R ecord Policy 33 Policy 7, Policy 8, Policy 9, Policy 24, Policy 25, Policy 26, Policy 28
Policy 34 Policy 19 Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 75 76 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
B.3 Findings and next steps B.3.1 Results of the Latest Screening
Directly connected with or necessary to the nature conservation management of any European site?
33 An early test under regulation 102(1)(b)(18) is whether the plan is directly connected with or necessary to the nature conservation management of any European site. Such plans are exempt from appropriate assessment under this test. Like most land use plans, the policies identified so far for the emerging Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan do not meet this test and the consultation document is therefore not exempt.
Analysis of findings from screening matrices
34 The screening matrices have enabled all elements of the 34 policies to be assessed for the likelihood of significant effects. Please note a number of the approaches have been categorised under more than one category (owing to different effects associated with the different components of the polices).
18 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Table B.8
Categories
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3
Policy (or elements of)
1 X X X
2 X
3 X X Habitats 4 X X
5 X X R egulations 6 X X
7 X Assessment 8 X X
9 X X R
10 X X ecord
11 X X Appendices
12 X
13 X X (FINAL) 14 X
15 S+G X X Se pt
15 Clay X X 2013 77 78 Habitats Categories
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 R egulations Policy (or elements of)
16 (depot) X X Assessment
16 (oil/gas) X
16 (PART) X X R ecord 16 (sites) X X Appendices 17 X
18 X
19 wharves X (FINAL)
19 depots X
19 Sites X Se pt 2013 20 Landbank X
20 Existing X X
20 Other X
20 Ext'ns X X
20 Mortimer X
20 Cutty X Brow
20 Hamble X X Categories
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3
Policy (or elements of)
20 Purple X X Haze
20 Forest X X Lodge Farm
21 Other X Habitats
21 M'mersh X R
22 Chalk X egulations
23 X
24 X X X Assessment
25 X
26 iv X R ecord 26 i, ii, iii X
27 X Appendices
28 X X
29 X (FINAL)
30 X X
31 X Se pt
32 Other X 2013 79 80 Habitats Categories
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 R egulations Policy (or elements of)
32 London X Assessment
32 Existing X
32 Squabb X X R Wood ecord
32 Purple X X Appendices Haze
33 X X
34 X X (FINAL) Total 18 11 1 4 19 13 6 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 Se pt
Number of 43 9 3 2013 policy elements effected Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 81
43 policies (or elements of policies) have been categorised solely or partly under the A & B categories (No negative effect/ significant effects). 9 policies (or elements of policies) have been categorised under the C categories (uncertain and/ or likely significant effect alone). 3 policies (or elements of policies) have been categorised under the D category (Likely significant effect in combination).
Emerging policies with no likely significant effects
35 The assessment has identified 43 policies (or elements of policies) that have been categorised solely as either A or B categories (i.e approaches which alone would not be likely to have significant effects), as set out in table 2.1. This is because they will not themselves lead to development, typically because they are protectionist type policy approaches, or seek to steer development away from sensitive areas. As explained previously, two of these policies/elements have also been assigned a B category because they are considered to potentially have an effect, but the effect is not considered to be significant (i.e. minimal or 'de minimis' effects). 82 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Policy elements categorised solely as A or B ((No negative effect/ significant effects): 1 - Climate change 2 - Protection of habitat and species 3 - Protection of landscape 4 - Protection of countryside 5 - Greenbelt 6 - Historic environment 7 - Protection of soils 8 - Restoration 9 - Protecting public health, safety and amenity 10 - Flood risk and prevention 11 - Managing impacts from traffic 12 - High quality design of minerals and waste developments 13 - Planning conditions and obligations 14 - Community benefits 15 - Safeguarding mineral resources 16 - Safeguarding mineral infrastructure 17 - Aggregate supply capacity and source 18 - Recycling secondary aggregates development 19 - Aggregate wharves and rail depots 20 - Sand and gravel development (landbank, existing sites, other sites) 22 - Chalk development 23 - Oil and gas development 24 - Waste management hierarchy 25 - Safeguarding waste infrastructure 26 - Recycling, recovery and landfill (part iv) 27 - Energy from waste development 29 - Construction waste development 30 - Liquid waste management development 32 - Non-hazardous waste landfill 32 - Non-hazardous waste landfill (other, London, existing) 33 - Hazardous waste landfill 34 - Long term safeguarding
Emerging policies where it is uncertain if they are likely to have a significant effect
36 For one of the policies, it is difficult to determine at this stage whether it will likely to have a significant effect, because it would depend on how the policy is implemented in due course (category C6). For example, implementation through the development management process (dealing with planning applications). For the policy approaches listed below, there is a theoretical possibility that if implemented in one or more particular way, the approach could possibly have a significant effect on a European site, however, it is too early to say with any certainty that the approach would not lead to any significant effects. It is therefore important to continually screen the following emerging policies, and assess these when further information on their implementation (including any spatial aspects) is known (see scoping & method in Appendix C for further details on how this assessment will be undertaken): Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 83
Policy elements categorised as C6 (effects uncertain): Policy 26 Recycling, recovery and landfill capacity (parts i, ii, iii)
Emerging policies likely to have a significant effect alone or in combination
37 The following 12 policies (or elements of policies) have been assigned other C or D categories and therefore need to be considered in more detail (as part of the appropriate assessment stage). Note that similar policies identified in this category in previous iterations of the plan may have 'dropped out' of this list due to changes to wording in this final iteration.
38 The policies that have potential to have significant effects are generally those which make reference to particular sites for minerals or waste development, safeguarding etc. Alternative sites to those allocated or identified in the policy approaches currently 'screened in' are shown and explained in Appendix B.
39 The scoping report (see Appendix C) summarises the types of impacts that may lead to likely significant effects, and the specific European sites that might be affected, as a result of implementing the draft policies listed below.
Emerging policy elements categorised under other C & D categories (likely significant effects alone or in combination): Policy 20 - Sand and gravel development
Extensions Mortimer Hamble Purple Haze Forest Lodge Farm
Policy 21 - Brick-making clay development
Michelmersh and Selborne sites
Policy 26 - Recycling, recovery and landfill capacity
Parts ii, iii
Policy 32 - Non-hazardous landfill
Squabb Wood Purple Haze
40 As indicated in the screening matrices, the assessors have already considered measures which may be able to eliminate, cancel-out or reduce the likelihood of significant effects, and have a significant influence over the drafting of the policies, the supporting text, and implementation plan. The effectiveness of such measures would need to be considered in more detail, as part of the appropriate assessment where relevant. 84 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
The policies/policy elements which have been assigned to categories C and/ or D could have a significant effect on a European site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects. These will all proceed to an appropriate assessment if their possible effects have not been eliminated by changes to the plan during the screening process.
For further details on how the appropriate assessment will be undertaken, please see Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan: Assessment under the Habitats Regulations (Methodology) Report(19).
The scope and method of an appropriate assessment will be agreed with Natural England throughout the plan preparation, as required (including agreeing assumptions and the time period for consultation with nature conservation consultees) (see scoping report in Appendix C).
19 The latest report is available from Hampshire County Council (Planning & Development team). Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 85
B.3.2 Conclusion
41 It is important that this screening report leads to one of three possible conclusions as follows:
1. Conclusion of no likely significant effect; 2. Conclusion of likely significant effect alone; 3. Conclusion of likely significant effect in combination.
42 Natural England will either agree or disagree with the conclusion, and this will be established following the consultation (see Consultation and next steps below). As explained previously, this screening report (version 4) has taken into account the consultation responses received in relation to the first, second and third screening reports. This is demonstrated in Appendix A, which outlines the responses received and how the assessors have taken them into account.
Screening assessment: Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan
43 The initial screening assessment (see findings in section 3.1) has concluded that:
9 policies or elements of policies relating to future minerals and waste development in the Hampshire plan area, could currently have a significant effect on the integrity of European Sites (or the effects are uncertain). There is a risk that certain policy could:
directly affect a European site because they provide for, or steer, a quantity or type of development onto a European site, or adjacent to it;
indirectly affect a European site because they provide for, or steer, a quantity or type of development that may be close to or connected to a European site; and
block options or alternatives for the provision of other development or projects in the future, which will be required in the public interest, that may lead to adverse effects on European sites, which would otherwise be avoided.
3 policies or elements of policies would not be likely to have significant effects but if their effects are combined with the effects of other plan policies, the cumulative or combined effects could be likely to be significant.
44 policies or elements of policies are not currently considered to have a significant effect on the integrity of any European Sites. However, any amendments to these policies arising from changes arising from the approval by the partnership Council for publication and consultation on its soundness, should be monitored through a further screening exercise, to ensure such changes are assessed where appropriate. 86 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
B.3.3 Consultation and next steps
44 The Habitats Regulations Assessment should be undertaken during the preparation of the plan being assessed. This ensures the assessment has a direct influence over the developing plan. It also ensures that the plan does not include any land-use policies which would be likely to fail the Habitats Regulations tests at the project application stage. This integration also ensures Natural England are engaged throughout as the advisory nature conservation body.
45 By completing several versions of screening, the plan making authorities will record the iterative process of assessing the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan throughout its preparation.
46 Public consultation is a discretionary requirement in respect of Habitats Regulations Assessment(20). Hampshire County Council and its partner authorities consider that a targeted consultation, as necessary throughout the process is appropriate, rather than a single wider consultation. Natural England, the Environment Agency and other nature conservation bodies will be invited to comment informally on this screening report (version 4) as with the previous 3 versions. This will inform the on-going assessment of any likely significant effects of the emerging plan on the European sites.
47 The next step in the Habitats Regulations Assessment process for the emerging Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan is refining the policies in light of the findings from the Appropriate Assessment and in consultation with the nature conservation consultees. See plan preparation stages D and E in the table below:
Table B.9 Proposed integration of Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) with preparation of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan
Plan preparation stage HRA Assessment stage
A. Collecting baseline evidence to inform preparation of Gathering the evidence base on European sites and engaging the plan. nature conservation bodies and stakeholders to agree methodology and approach. Preparing Methodology Report.
B. Generating policy options and appraising using Stage 1 screening of policy options to identify likely significant Integrated Sustainability Appraisal framework. effects on European sites. Preparing Screening Report.
C. Engaging stakeholders on reasonable policy options Consulting nature conservation bodies on initial assessment and most sustainable plan approach. findings. Establishing the scope of Stage two assessment
D. Refining policy options and preparing plan in response Stage 2 Further iteration of screening if required, Appropriate to consultation findings and evidence. Assessment and reporting. Amending plan in light of ongoing assessment to avoid any adverse effect on European sites as the plan is refined. The assessment will be iterative following such amendments to the plan.
E. Prepare final draft plan (for publication and Document assessment process and produce draft HRA Record consultation). for Natural England.
F. Prepare final plan (for submission to Government for Produce HRA Record following Natural England comments. examination).
G. Adopt plan. Check any changes to plan and finalise HRA Record.
48 The Habitats Regulations Assessment Record (see stage E in the table above) will be available to the public as a supporting document as the plan is published and submitted to Government for examination.
20 Under the provisions of regulation 102(3) it is for the planning authority to consider if wider public consultation is appropriate. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 87
Further information
Contact Us:
County Planning Economy, Transport & Environment Department Hampshire County Council Floor 1, Elizabeth II Court West The Castle Winchester SO23 8UD
Email: [email protected] Tel: 0845 603 5634 (Contact Centre - Hantsdirect) 88 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
B.4 Screening report consultation responses (version 3)
Consultation to date
As explained in the second Screening Report (Version 2), Hampshire County Council (HCC) undertook a targeted consultation for five weeks between March and April 2011 on the first version of the screening report. The HCC response to this consultation is summarised in table A3. This initial consultation was followed up with another targeted consultation in June and July 2011 and The HCC response to this consultation is summarised in table A2.
These consultations were followed up with another targeted consultation in September and October 2011, when Natural England (NE), Environment Agency (EA); Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Hampshire & IOW Wildlife Trust (HWT) were invited to comment on the third version of the screening report. Consultees provided comments and these are summarised in the table A1 below. Table B.10 Summary of consultee comments following version 3 screening report October 2011
'HMWP' Policy and Consultee comment HCC Response consultee
Policy 19 Aggregate Policies that have been screened out that we believe should be screened in Noted. However, HCC feel that the uncertainty about the location and Wharves and rail depots We agree with the comments that the impacts arising from this policy to the scale of the development cannot be determined to provide such an European sites will depend on how this policy is implemented. This will depend assessment, and that the evidence shows that the need for such development (HWT) on if this will be implemented though existing permissions or though new planning is low, and therefore the justification for the B category is valid. permissions. Whilst it is recognised that new planning permissions will need to undertake their own HRA at the application stage we would consider that the potential impacts arising from these, should be looked at as part of an in- combination assessment at this minerals plan stage. One key aspects we would consider that needs assessing for Wharfs is the in combination impacts on the Shoreline Management plans and Coastal Defence strategies for these areas. As
such we would wish to see this Policy included within those screened in for further Habitats assessment. so these sites can be assessed in the strategic context.
We therefore disagree with the categories chosen. R egulations Policy 20 Sand and gravel Policies that have been screened out that we believe should be screened in Noted - However HCC only wish to appropriately assess sites or elements development (in part) We note that sections of this policy have been screened out and sections screened of policies that are likely to have significant effects. in. We believe that this leads to confusion and would like to see the whole policy (HWT) assessed as part of the HRA. Assessment
Policy 21: Brick-making Policies that have been screened out that we believe should be screened in Noted - this is a slight error in the presentation of the justification. Both Clay development It is noted that for Selborne Brickworks this has been screened out under Category sites have been taken forward for Appropriate Assessment. B and yet in the justification section you mention that European sites may be R
(HWT) affected. As such Its considered that this should be screened in to enable further ecord assessment of these potential impacts. Appendices It is noted that under the same policy 21 for Michelmersh Brickworks you have categorised this as C2 an option that could indirectly affect a Europeans site.
Whilst it is recognised that both Selborne and Michelmersh are very different
sites and will have different impacts it is questioned why one is in and the other (FINAL) not when its recognised that both may have impacts on European sites.
Policy 26: Recycling, Policies that have been screened out that we believe should be screened in Noted - However HCC only wish to appropriately assess sites or elements
recovery and landfill Some aspects of this policy have been screened in and some screened out leading of policies that are likely to have significant effects. Se
capacity to confusion we would wish to see all aspects screened in and considered . pt 2013 (HWT) 89 90 Habitats 'HMWP' Policy and Consultee comment HCC Response consultee
Policy 8 Restoration Amendments to policies to ensure policies can be screened out Noted - this will be taken forward as a consideration for the appropriate R egulations Whilst we acknowledge and agree with the reasons for screening this policy out, assessment. (HWT) we would wish to see an amendment to wording of this policy or to the accompanying text.
We note that whilst the restoration and aftercare of these sites is mentioned, there Assessment is no mention of the funding of the long term maintenance requirements and that developers would be expected to contribute towards these. Whilst it is recognised Policy 13 covers planning obligations we would wish to see a reference to this within the policy. We ask that it is highlighted as a amendment under the R
HRA to ensure that any restoration work in relation to avoidance/mitigation for ecord impacts to the European sites is fully funded. This will ensure it is achievable and viable over the long term . Appendices
Policy 11 Managing impacts Amendments to policies to ensure policies can be screened out Noted - this will be taken forward as a consideration for the appropriate from Traffic To ensure that this is able to be screened out we would wish to see an amendment assessment. to the policy. To make the policy clearer we would wish to see a reference to the (HWT) Environmental impacts. These are described in the screening table 2.4 and we would wish to see these included within the policy or accompanying text. In (FINAL) particular those where it states “. Air pollution, disturbance from noise and vibration from minerals and waste traffic - will be most significant where European sites are within 200m of the roads down which minerals and waste traffic passes”. Se pt Policy 13 Planning Amendments to policies to ensure policies can be screened out The reliance on Policy 13 relates to the requirement for conditions and 2013 conditions and obligations Whilst we acknowledge and agree with the reasons for screening this policy out. planning obligations such as s106 agreements, which are used to provide However we are concerned over the reliance on the Community Infrastructure long-term management or maintenance of compensation areas. This use (HWT) Levy (CIL). This is due to the nature of CIL. It is our understanding that CIL of obligations will still be valid under the proposed changes, and does not cannot be ring fenced for particular uses and therefore would not be able to be refer to CIL. used for funding towards measures that may be required to avoid or mitigate impacts to the European sites. We believe that this should be recognised within the policy and alternative funding mechanisms also considered.
Policy 23: Oil and gas Amendments to policies to ensure policies can be screened out Noted. However, HCC feel that all the policies should be considered in development Whilst we acknowledge the reasons for screening this policy out, but would wish conjunction with each other. Whilst Policy 23 does imply that development to see an amendment to wording of this policy or to the accompanying text. may in some circumstances outweigh environmental impacts, the hierarchal (HWT) weighting provided by Policy 2 with respect to European sites would ensure It is of concern that the first sentence implies that impacts to the environment that this is unlikely to be relevant where impacts to European sites are likely. will be outweighed if the development demonstrates a need. In terms of the European sites there is a clear process which has to be followed for a development to show its in the overriding public interest. 'HMWP' Policy and Consultee comment HCC Response consultee
We therefore consider that this policy needs amending to show clarity of the need to take this approach with regards to impacts to the European sites.
Policy 20 Sand and gravel Additional comments on the HRA assessments for those policies screened in Most of the sites within Policy 20 have been assessed within the Appropriate development (in part) See also our comments above relating to this policy. As you are aware from our assessment. previous correspondence the Trust has serious concerns over the inclusion of a (HWT) number of sites proposed within this policy. We would wish to see a full The red line and therefore the area of the site has not been reduced. Appropriate assessment being undertaken for all of these sites. However, the total mineral resource has been reduced from 1.75 million tonnes to 1 million tonnes, which reflects the inclusion of the development As you are aware from our previous correspondence and meetings with yourselves consideration that states that areas of higher nature conservation value will we have made you aware of our lease on the land known as Hartfordbridge flats have to be excluded and buffered'. This will include any area within the red which farms part of your proposals for Bramshill Quarry Extension. We are line that would conflict with the conservation objectives of the SPA and Habitats therefore extremely concerned and disappointed that this area is still shown on cannot be progressively extracted and restored without causing effects to your maps in Appendix E Bramshill Quarry Extension as an allocated site. We the SPA. Due to the plan period, and the uncertainty of when this site may strongly object to this. come forward it is best placed that this is determined accurately at the point R
of delivery. We fully appreciate the value of Hartfordbridge Flats, and would egulations For Purple Haze we agree that a full Appropriate assessment is required. As part expect that this area would fall within the areas of higher value that will be of this would wish to see an assessment of this site made in relation the recreational excluded and buffered. The retention of the red line boundary provides disturbance issues for Dorset heaths. It needs to be checked to confirm if this development management control over aspect of mitigation and securing long-term management, as we are mindful that the management plan site or the adjacent Moors Valley Country park are currently or plan to be used Assessment as part of the measures for avoidance or mitigation in relation to recreational agreement that HWT has at this site is a fixed term, and would benefit from impacts to the Dorset heaths SAC. This could have implications for the minerals having longer-term prospects and ties with other areas within the site that extractions proposed for this site. would be similarly managed. R
Policy 16 Safeguarding - Queries relating to the screening categories Noted, and agreed. Changes will be made to the next iteration of the ecord minerals infrastructure We are unsure why this has been given a category B for Oil and Gas where for screening assessment. all other aspects of this policy they are categorised as A4 and A5. It is considered (HWT) that all aspects of this policy should be consistent. In our view the potential Appendices impacts from oil and gas are the same as those from the other aspects of this policy.
General points In conclusion Noted - please see above comments. (FINAL) We welcome the overall approach to the HRA and have provided the above (HWT) comments to ensure that the impacts to the European sites are fully considered and avoided where possible. Se
We are however extremely concerned that Bramshill Quarry Extension is still pt
being shown as an allocated site despite our confirmation that we have a lease on 2013 91 92 Habitats 'HMWP' Policy and Consultee comment HCC Response consultee
the area know as Hertfordbridge flats. We strongly object to this still being R egulations included within the plan. Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 Table B.11 Summary of consultee comments following version 2 screening report June 2011
'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Policy approaches & likely significant effect Policy 8 has been significantly tightened since this version of the plan. Inappropriate or unmanaged access to restored sites could also lead to physical Specific reference to long-term management and (in the ENV9 - minerals disturbance to priority species on site or on adjacent sites supporting Annex I or implementation plan) the requirement for planning ahead and the restoration Schemes other regularly occurring migratory species. principle of ensuring the European site objectives (where relevant) (RSPB) are the primary focus for such scheme should ensure that this is addressed.
Relevant plans and projects The implementation plan set out the other land-uses that the objectives Surrounding land use should be considered when determining suitable after-use for restored sites need to consider, including National Parks. The options. Therefore, where they exist, local authority SPA mitigation strategies policy specifies that land identified as required as compensatory habitat ENV9 - minerals should also be used to identify SANG networks in the surrounding area. Where for European sites would be considered in the same way as European Habitats restoration Schemes appropriate, this should extend to plans and strategies beyond the county border. sites - this will ensure that such networks, where they do exist, should (RSPB) The correct title of the Solent recreation research project is the “Solent Disturbance be a material consideration in both scale and location of development, and Mitigation Project”. but in the design and implementation of restoration schemes. R egulations
Policy approaches & likely significant effect Policy has significantly changed, and is more clearly linked to protection The list of potential impacts arising from non-road based transportation does not from environmental impacts. Policy supporting text clearly states that adequately reflect the potential impacts of expansion/intensification of wharf that opportunities for alternative transport depends on the nature and Assessment activities within and adjacent to coastal European sites, which could also include location of the sites and mix of development. Cross referenced with COM6 - increased use of changes to hydrology, physical disturbance and direct (long-term) loss of habitat policy 9, impacts arising from these measures will be adequately rail depots and wharves & (including SPA supporting habitats/features). managed. non-road transportation (RSPB) Further impacts arising from the use of conveyor(identified within the screening R
report) have also not been fully identified, including: fragmentation; ecord severance/barrier and edge effects. Appendices
Further research? Noted - these issues have been looked at and used across the board It is acknowledged in the HRA screening report that intensification/expansion and used wherever relevant - this was a clear error - there is more COM6 - increased use of of Hampshire’s wharves could conflict with a number of coastal European sites. information in this version of the screening table with respect to the rail depots and wharves & Table 2.5 lists a number of important issues for consideration within the AA, steer on wharf expansion that the needs assessment gives to this (FINAL) non-road transportation which do not appear to be reflected in Table C.1, such as “Examination of needs assessment. (RSPB) assessment to assess the spatial steer of ‘expansion of suitable sites’”. These should be translated into the scoping report. Se pt 2013 93 94 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
COM7 – limiting road Policy approaches & likely significant effect Policy has significantly changed, and is more clearly linked to protection R egulations transport impacts by good Air pollution and non-physical disturbance should be included in the list of likely from environmental impacts. Generic transport issues arising from access to road networks significant effects of increased pressure on the road networks as a result of this site proposals and the application of the strategic road network will (RSPB) policy. look at this issue more closely. Assessment
MIN1 & MIN3 - Relevant plans and projects Noted safeguarding areas around Reference may also be necessary to the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project minerals sites (RSPB) results and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA Delivery Framework. R ecord MIN3 - (NE) Evidence as to whether the policy could affect sites protected under the Habitat Noted. However, we consider that the continued use of existing sites Regulations is entirely possible for the authority to provide as the sites are existing can be screened out of assessment due to the strict industry and and this should allow for assessment to be undertaken before the policy is screened development management controls that are in place. Appendices out. At this time the removal of the policy from further consideration lacks a suitable evidence base by just referring to draft policy ENV 2.
MIN5 - (NE) Draft Policy MIN 5 aims to maximise aggregate recycling but without knowing Noted. However, we consider that the continued use of existing sites where this currently takes place this policy could be used to support continued can be screened out of assessment due to the strict industry and (FINAL) use of plants which are currently on protected sites, such as at Eversley Common. development management controls that are in place. This policy is There is no assessment of the potential allocated sites either, to see which of an in principle policy and will be seen as part of the whole framework them, if any, could be used to bring forward greater capacity to allow delivery of the draft plan, which include those that will look at the deliverability Se against this policy. The current document appears to lead to this policy being of any proposal within the restrictions imposed by European sites. pt screened out, leaving the authority in a situation where there is the potential that it cannot deliver against it. 2013
MIN7 – extensions to / Policy approaches & likely significant effect Water based transportation can't be considered within the plan, as the new wharves (RSPB) Physical disturbance (e.g. direct disturbance to feeding/roosting birds from licensing of such vessels is already subject to the HRA regulatory water-based transportation and other wharf activities) should also be assessed. regime. Further consideration of this issue is provided within this iteration of the screening report to clarify your point.
MIN7 – extensions to / With regard to Draft Policy MIN 7 – provision of new wharf capacity, I note that There are no policies within the plan that set out a requirement for new wharves (RSPB) this policy is not in the draft plan. Please confirm that this has been removed and new wharf sites. is not an omission.
MIN8 - (NE) There are also places within the report where statements are made without the Noted and addressed within the latest iteration. necessary evidence. For example, under Draft Policy MIN 8 the impact resulting from transportation arising from the plan is said to be likely to be de minimis, but no reasoning is provided. This raises concern that the matter has not been given due regard. The conclusion may well be correct, if extraction is likely to be less 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
than has historically been the case and the increase in transportation movements is a small percentage of background levels around sites, but it is not clear that such consideration has been given.
MIN10 – prioritising Policy approaches & likely significant effect It is not possible to determine which existing site would be suitable minerals site extensions Extensions to existing minerals sites could lead to direct physical disturbance to (in terms of location or need) for extension other than the ones that (RSPB) breeding, feeding or roosting SPA species, particularly given that a number of have been put forward in the plan. It should be recognised that this existing sites are within or close to European sites. Other impacts such as policy is an in principle policy only and that extensions that would fragmentation and edge effects could also occur and should be assessed. have such effects would be contrary to Policy 2.
MIN10 – prioritising Under Draft Policy MIN 10 it is planned to have a landbank of permissions for All sites that will be considered 'land bank' consist of existing permitted minerals site extensions seven years supply of sand and gravel. If the sites to provide this landbank are not sites (which are not pertinent to this HRA Assessment for reasons Habitats (NE) further assessed at the planning stage, as discussed above, there is not reasonable given above) and the proposed sites that are put forward under Policy assurance that this will be possible and that allocated sites will be deliverable. 20 which have been considered within this HRA - nearly all are going Further to this, under the column Is appropriate assessment required? Reference forward to AA. The principle of 'landbank' does not require assessing, R
is made to safeguarding European sites from rail depot relocation. This has only the sites that have been designed to fulfil this requirement. egulations presumably been cut and pasted from elsewhere and not developed against the policy, giving more evidence of the lack of development of the screening opinion.
MIN11 – extensions Policy approaches & likely significant effect It is not possible to determine which existing site would be suitable Assessment (RSPB) Extensions to existing minerals sites could lead to direct physical damage to habitat (in terms of location or need) for extension other than the ones that and physical disturbance to SPA species, particularly given that a number of existing have been put forward in the plan, the majority of which are all going sites are within or close to European sites. Other impacts such as fragmentation forward to AA. These consideration will be picked up in those and edge effects could also occur and should be assessed. We question the assessments.
identification of recreation as a form of non-physical disturbance, and direct the R
Council to our overarching comment about consistency/clarity of descriptions of ecord likely significant effects within Table C.1 as a whole. Appendices
MIN11 – extensions Reference must also be made to any Forest Design Plans or other management Noted - these plans have been part of our assessment to date, and (RSPB) plans for allocation sites, in order to assess the impacts on bird populations over therefore the lack of reference was a clear error. the extraction period. This is particularly important for areas of rotational forestry. (FINAL)
MIN11 – new sites (RSPB) other Noted - this was a clear error. It is unclear why the list of likely significant effects and relevant plans/research
differs from those identified for extensions. Se pt 2013 95 96 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
The potential impacts of the new proposed minerals sites are in many cases the R egulations same as those of the proposed extensions, given that each includes sites within or with close proximity to European sites. Therefore, unless there is clear justification for differences, the likely significant effects and relevant plans/research for each should closely reflect each other, including the additional issues we have identified above. Assessment
In respect of Purple Haze, additional reference should be made to relevant Dorset Heathland mitigation strategies which identify SANGs in the surrounding area. R ecord MIN11 - (NE) Natural England supports the consideration of impacts under Draft Policy MIN We disagree that such a potential issue should have screened out this 11 and the conclusion that site allocations for sand and gravel will require sites, as counteracting measures such as those that are considered appropriate assessment. However, we note that under the type of impact listed within this current version should adequately ensure that these impact Appendices for Purple Haze it has already been considered that the changes to the hydrological does not arise. The full consultation with landowners/industry is regime for Ebblake Bog are unlikely to be replicated through a mitigation scheme. more appropriate to when the site comes forward as we would not This suggests that this site should have been screened out of the plan at the options want to restrict the potential in light of available best practice. The stage. Further to this the potential need for an alternative area for recreation (to principles of provision of appropriate alternative recreation and ensure that no displacement to the Dorest Heaths SPA takes place) may bring the avoidance of the northern part of the site as set out in development (FINAL) feasibility of the site in to question. We trust that this matter is in discussion with considerations will provide strong framework for future discussions. the landowners/extraction companies to ensure that appropriate development criteria can be written into the plan, should the hydrological issue be overcome. Se
MIN12 – windfall sites other Noted - however, given that windfall sites cannot be given any spatial pt (RSPB) As emphasised in our response to the Have Your Say consultation, windfall sites steer other than the underlying mineral resource area, it is not possible 2013 that come forward for minerals extraction must be appraised with the same level to apply these identified effects to any European sites. However, it is of scrutiny as is applied to potential sand and gravel allocations. Therefore, the recognised that these effects have the potential for harm, and Policy list of likely significant effects and relevant plans/research should be broadened 2, 3, 4, 8 9 and 11 work together to ensure that windfall sites coming to reflect those set out under Policy MIN11. forward are proposed on a scale and in locations that are robust. The plan does propose nearly enough sites/material to supply the landbank, and windfall sites would have to demonstrate the need in light of this, reducing the probability of windfall sites coming forward.
MIN17 – oil and gas Policy approaches & likely significant effect This has been done in the latest version of the screening, and it has exploration (RSPB) The screening report suggests that oil and gas exploration proposals could occur been considered insignificant. across the Plan area and do involved limited land-take. Therefore, the likely significant effects should be broadened to reflect this, including direct physical loss of habitat and physical disturbance. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
WAS7 – management of Policy approaches & likely significant effect Noted liquid waste (RSPB) We would question whether toxic contamination should be included in the list of likely significant effects.
WAS10 – strategic location Policy approaches & likely significant effect Noted. This policy has changed somewhat, but the broad principle of new waste management Displaced recreation could lead to direct physical disturbance to European sites, remain within Policy 28 which will be assessed within the AA. development (RSPB) particularly heathland sites. This should be considered further in the appropriate Displaced recreation is set out as a implication within the assessment. implementation plan for Policy 2.
WAS17 - non-hazardous Policy approaches & likely significant effect Noted biodegradable landfill We note that the European Sites column identifies “Existing recreational pressure Habitats capacity (RSPB) with the country park and likely displaced pressure on European sites” as an issue requiring further assessment. We assume that this relates specifically to the Purple
Haze site. This should be clarified and the likely significant effects expanded to R
include physical disturbance in order to properly reflect the potential issue of egulations displacement of recreation from this site onto nearby European sites.
WAS17 - non-hazardous Whilst not a matter for this screening report it is worth mentioning with regard Noted. Policy 2 specifically protects ancient woodland against no net Assessment biodegradable landfill to Draft Policy WAS 17 that the fact that Squabb Wood is mapped partly as loss and therefore will be a significant issue for the applicant to address capacity (NE) ancient/semi natural woodland replanted is not taken into account. This is an when this site comes forward. irreplacable habitat and should be considered directly, not just against the needs of the Mottisfont bats. To my knowledge the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic
Environmental Assessment so far only considers minerals sites and therefore the R wider impacts of the waste policies have not been assessed. ecord
WAS17 - non-hazardous The consideration of Purple Haze under Draft Policy WAS 17 considers that Noted Appendices biodegradable landfill encouraging recreational use of the site may be an issue due to its proximity to capacity (NE) the Dorset Heaths SAC. The use of the Country Park may well be offering an alternative to the heathland SAC/SPA and increasing its potential to do so would be a positive impact on the European designations. (FINAL) Yateley Heath Wood - Yateley Heath Wood extension is now included, following the consultation on Noted - this will be taken forward to the AA emerging policies screened further potential allocated sites. The evidence does not support the conclusion In that there is no potential to change the policy to reduce effect. The statement in
the following column states that further assessment is required to establish where Se
(NE) the impacts may arise, such an assessment may highlight the potential to change pt
the policy to reduce effects. 2013 97 98 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Whilst Natural England does not object out right to mineral extraction on R egulations designated sites where a short term impact may allow for restoration to a much improved habitat, this will need to be clearly demonstrated at the first opportunity to prevent our objecting to any policy or plan. The following should also be considered in determining the level of impact: Assessment
I. The features of interest of all designations relevant to the site and likely impacts upon them, including the hydrological regime where it supports the interest.
II. The total area of the site impacted at any one time - this should not be an increase R
in the extent impacted at designation where extraction is already taking place on ecord a site, so as to ensure that the site’s interest is maintained Appendices III. The level of assurance of the required restoration being delivered - we would suggest that 50% of heathland landscape areas be returned to dwarf shrub heath communities. We can work with landowners/operators to find a mutually agreeable site manager if this is not within their capabilities. (FINAL) IV. The previous management of the site - where public money has been used to finance the management of a site to improve its condition the investment should not be lost by clearing the area for extraction. Se
V. Any Forest Design Plan - where this includes areas of clear fell during the time pt
of the Minerals Plan careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring no net 2013 loss in habitat for Annex 1 birds during the 3-4 years in which clearfelled areas are of value. This may result in the need for provision of compensatory habitat elsewhere on a site during the period of extraction.
Appendix A - Table A1 The comments relating to our previous consultation response offer little assurance Your comments have been noted and passed to those conducting the (V2.) that our concerns have been dealt with, as illustrated by our comments above. It ISA. These issues were considered during the ISA process. is not adequate to respond to say that implications to SSSIs will not be considered (NE) in the HRA, the authority should be considering them and a needs assessment Where Annex VI species are also Annex II these will be considered does not meet the needs of the Strategic Environmental Assessment regulations within the HRA. Our original comments still stand. or Sustainability Appraisal in which these sites should be being considered. The current assessment of February 2011 does not develop the assessment beyond the needs assessment and therefore does not adequately consider the designated sites. Nor does it assess the waste policies. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
With regard to the response to our comments under Q37 and the consideration of European protected species. The Annex IV species for which Dorset Heaths SAC is designated is the great crested newt. This species is also listed in Annex II of the directive and therefore habitat regulations assessment does apply.
Appendix B - Table B.1 This table causes concern as some of the decisions have been made on erroneous Noted. HCC Acknowledge that Redlands Farm is not in an AONB information. and have amended this to reflect that it is actually located less than (NE) 150m from Ashford Hill Woods and Meadow SSSI which contains I. Redlands Farm is not in an AONB (though it would be an unsuitable site due to ancient woodland. the hydrological link with the adjacent SSSI and NNR).
II. Bickton is not in the New Forest National Park Habitats
Appendix B - Table B.1 For other sites the choice of the option chosen is not clear. For example, with This has been dealt with within the ISA - please see Table 7.8 (section R
regard to Yateley Heath Wood Extension, we would advise that the extraction of 7.2.1.1) and Section 7.2.2 of the ISA.(21) egulations (NE) material across an SPA is a lesser impact than extraction within an SPA. It is therefore not an adequate reason to remove a site as an option in favour of a site which is in an SPA. Assessment
Appendix B - Table B.1 Whilst BAP gain seems to be a key consideration on heathland sites it is not There are only a limited number of opportunities in Southern considered positively for the Warsash area and no reason is given for why Hamble Hampshire for the extraction of sharp sand and gravel, and a number (NE) airfield is considered more sustainable. Why is this? of these are located on the Hamble peninsular, but these have been
ruled out as they are not considered to be deliverable (see table 17.1, R Integrated Sustainability Appraisal Report) ecord Appendices Appendix B - Table B.1 Sites at Sherfield English have been ruled out due to possible cumulative impacts This evidence will be presented within the ISA. on the A27, thus leaving the option of a site with possible impacts to SSSI and (NE) SPA sites. We would advise that this assessment needs to provide the evidence base used to come to this decision and the weighting given to the different factors. (FINAL) Se pt 2013
21 Minerals and Waste Plan Integrated Sustainability Appraisal Report 99 100 Habitats Table B.12 Summary of consultee comments following initial (version 1) screening report March 2011
'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and R egulations consultee
Question 3: The We support the proposed changes but would like to see added that this will also include Agree. The approach as drafted refers to 'proposals for minerals and protection of demonstrating how any proposed restoration will not have an impact on the European waste development'. It will need to be made clear that this European nature sites (either directly or indirectly). 'development' refers to all stages (construction, operation, afteruses Assessment conservation etc). designations Restoration topic paper (HWT) R ecord
Question 3: The Natural England agrees that the policy approach to explain the requirements of HRA Careful judgements have been made as to which policy approaches
protection of does not in itself have a likely significant effect on European sites. However, we would could rely on policy approach question 3 to prevent impacts to Appendices European nature stress that it is of primary importance that the Minerals and Waste Plan is itself European sites. This method is only used where category C6 is conservation compliant with the Habitats Regulations, rather than relying on project level assessment, identified, and there are no means of establishing quantum, or spatial designations which is referred to in a number of sections of the HRA. This requires as rigorous an steer on any development that may be supported by the policy approach assessment as can reasonably be undertaken at the strategic level and adopting the in question. There are seemingly similar policy approaches that do not
(NE) precautionary approach embedded in the Directive and Regulations. This is to remove rely solely on this policy approach, and other measures/assessment (FINAL) potential impacts that could arise from the amount or location of development at the will be carried out. higher level where possible. European sites and other designation formed a central part of the site It is essential that the HRA of the Plan informs the selection of minerals and waste selection process and thus ensured that the plan process engages Se sites, so that options are chosen which are capable of implementation without adverse sufficiently with the inherent avoidance principle of the Habitat pt effects on the integrity of European or international sites. The Plan should give clarity regulations.- Version 2 of the screening assessment will include an 2013 on any necessary controls, such as policy caveats or mitigation necessary, to ensure annex setting out the site selection process - The opportunities to avoid that the development proposals can proceed in accordance with the Regulations and impacts by relocating development to alternative locations will be that the Plan is found to be sound and deliverable. Therefore, Natural England does addressed in this document (see Appendix B). not consider that paragraph 3.12 of the consultation document ‘where potential impacts are identified, measures are put in place to either avoid, reduce or potentially compensate The issue of traffic levels arising from plan policies has already been for the impact’ fully reflects the requirements of the Habitats Regulations to avoid raised as an issue. It is intended that traffic patterns over the plan potential impacts through assessment at the plan level. period will be looked at (Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) study) in conjunction with all European sites, and not just those directly This should include the relocation of development allocations where necessary to adjacent to nominated sites. alternative sites that would avoid adverse impact, as well as guidance on any necessary mitigation requirements. The inclusion of site allocations within a plan is a material The exact detailed policy wording will be established at the next stage consideration in the determination of a planning application, and it is for this reason in order to explain the requirements of the regulation and how the that HRA at plan level is required, to ensure that the principle of development is not applications will be assessed. NE's comments with regards to specific established where adverse effects upon the integrity of European sites cannot be ruled potential impacts are noted. out. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
In the fifth column of the Screening Matrices, consideration should be included of the potential effects from minerals and waste development on air pollution due to additional road traffic passing close to designated sites, which may occur at some distance from the development. The impacts of recreational displacement causing potential additional pressure on designated sites should also be referred to.
Question 5: Whilst we recognise your reasoning for C6 with “This approach reduces the ‘area of The issue of potential issues arising from adopting a blanket buffer Landscape search’ for new facilities (by applying a 'blanket buffer' across large proportion of the will be revisited in the next iteration of the screening report. designations county), potentially limiting the options for new development to avoid impacts on European sites by relocating elsewhere in Hampshire.” The Trust does not agree with We understand that the wording of the screening tables and the (HWT) it. We believe there would still be options available elsewhere. reasoning within each one may be confusing. We try to identify those Habitats areas that we feel have potential to be changed at screening stage, and those which we feel will need to be addressed at full AA - we did not Regarding the text included under “can this approach be changed at a screening stage intend to suggest that (without evidence) that application of measures R
to avoid likely significant affects”, this is confusing. would definitely prevent all significant effects from occurring. This egulations will be clarified in the next iteration of the screening assessment.
Where I think you are proposing policy changes to the European sites policy by 'This policy approach' refers to the policy under consideration, namely
including a reference to “where they are within areas of important landscape features Question 5. HWT's comments on the requirement to change this Assessment any effects on sensitive European sites will be adequately considered, avoided and/or policy are noted and this will be revisited in the next iteration of the mitigated at the planning application stage” We believe that this does not need to be screening report. included as the European sites policy already contains safeguards by saying “ the potential impacts of minerals and waste development need to be considered thoroughly
to prevent significant impacts inconsistent with the Habitat regulations”. R ecord
Where you say “However, to ensure proper and effective application of Policy approach Appendices 3 (as above) in this context, this policy approach should be altered.” I am not sure if “this policy approach” is referring to alterations to policy 3 (the European sites policy” or the landscape policy. (FINAL) Where you say that “It is suggested that the policy approach determines circumstances under which proposals trigger the need to consider the requirements set out in Question 3” . We believe that potential impacts onto the European sites wherever they are ,
whether in an area of landscape importance or not would be the trigger for a habitat Se
regulations assessment . As such no changes to policy three (on European sites) are pt
needed . We also believe that as there is an adequate policy for the protection of 2013 European sites then there is also not need to alter the policy on landscapes. 101 102 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 5: The suggested policy approach is that minerals and waste development should not Noted - as stated within the screening matrix, we will consider this further. Landscape take place in National Parks and AONBs unless there are exceptional reasons for this However HWT believe that enough options would remain outside of the designations (NE) to occur, any negative impacts are reduced to a minimum and the need for the designated landscape. development outweighs any negative impact. The policy approach to safeguard nationally protected landscapes is in itself welcome, and the policy will help to safeguard NB - The approach follows the provisions within MPS1 in which, with respect Assessment European sites within the protected landscape areas, shown on map 3 of the ‘Have to European Nature Conservation sites, the MPA have to take account of the your say’ consultation document. advice within PPS9', whereas with respect to National Parks and AONBs, MPAs are instructed to 'not permit major development.... except in exceptional circumstances', However, the policy approach focuses attention on non-protected landscape areas to and therefore the inflexibility results from national policy. R
deliver the Plan targets. We therefore recommend that the strategic HRA needs to ecord consider the effects of the policy, by assessing whether there is sufficient available flexibility to deliver the Plan’s minerals and waste targets from land outside the protected landscapes, without adversely affecting the integrity of European sites that are outside Appendices protected landscape areas. We recommend that this is not left until planning application stage. We would however generally support the further policy development, referred to in column 5, relating to the requirements set out in question 3.
Question 7 & 8: The We note that this policy approach includes “Appropriate minerals and waste Noted - this will be considered further in the next iteration of the Screening (FINAL) protection of the management activity should not be excluded from countryside locations”. Your report . open countryside assessment category classified this as C6 “Options, policies or proposals which depend on how the policies etc are implemented in due course, for example, through the (HWT) development management process. There is a theoretical possibility that if implemented Se in one or more particular ways, the proposal could possibly have a significant effect pt on a European site”. One of the reasons given for this is “By not excluding facilities 2013 in the countryside, this approach does not preclude uses which maybe close to SACs (e.g. Shortheath Common); SPAs (e.g. Thames Basin Heaths); Ramsar sites (e.g. Dorset Heaths, New Forest).”.
Whilst it is good to see the recognition of safeguarding the European and Ramsar sites we believe that policy 3 ( protection of the European sites) with the amendments suggested above should be sufficient to steer development away from the European sites. We believe the ecological importance of a site is not determined by whether a site is greenfield or brownfield as important wildlife habitats and species can be found on both. As such we would want to see the ecological importance of a site protected and enhanced regardless of whether brownfield or greenfield. We feel that the current proposed policies for the protection of designated sites for nature conservation (European, national and local) should provide for the protection of these .This is subject to the comments we have made on them. As such further restrictions are in our view not necessary for ecological reasons. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Regarding the text included under “can this approach be changed at a screening stage to avoid likely significant affects”, our comments given under question 5 above apply to this also as it’s the same text.
Question 7 & 8: The The second bullet point in the fourth column states that ‘It is noted that the land use, Noted - as stated within the screening matrix we believe that inclusion protection of the traffic etc change are not likely to be significantly different to the existing situation of policy approach set out in Question 3 provides strong direction on open countryside (e.g. redundant agricultural buildings, local traffic etc)’. Whilst this may be true in many the appropriate levels of assessment for individual circumstances. (NE) cases, the HRA should consider whether in individual circumstances there are any potential indirect impacts on European sites e.g. hydrology or significant changes in Further screening work will include additional information gathering Habitats the levels or re-direction of road traffic close to European sites. on potential impacts arising from different broad categories of waste operation, which may help inform statements regarding to the land-use implications (and the significance of any likely impacts - see assessment R
of relevant waste policy approaches). egulations
Question 11: We agree with you categorising this as C6 and with your first two justifications for this. Noted- Further screening work will include additional information Restoration schemes However with the third justification “It must be stressed that biodiversity objectives gathering on which restoration uses are unlikely to be compatible with
are compatible with all other aims, and opportunity to include biodiversity in most European conservation objectives (the scope/ detail of this work is to Assessment (HWT) schemes can contribute to conservation objectives for European sites”. We would yet to be established). raise caution with this statement. It needs to be recognised that not all biodiversity opportunities would be compatible. Only those compatible the European sites Noted - further consideration of this wording and approach will be conservation objectives should be considered. given in the next iteration of the screening report. R ecord We agree also with the proposed suggestions for included under “can this approach Noted - wording will be more appropriate in the next iteration.
be changed at a screening stage to avoid likely significant affects”. Appendices
We also agree with the conclusion that an Appropriate assessment may be required. However we would also recommend that an assessment is undertaken on the restoration
proposals as well as construction etc. (FINAL)
Question 11: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects
Restoration schemes Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage.. Se
(RSPB) Question 11 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and pt
Species Regulations 2010. 2013 103 104 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 12: Taking We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects responsibility for Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Hampshire's waste Question 12 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010. Assessment Question We disagree with the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Agree. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant 13:Managing waste Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided. from outside Question 13 does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Hampshire Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We consider that as this proposal has the R
potential to increase traffic (particularly HGV traffic), it could have a cumulative It is important that the draft policy is clear that managing waste from ecord (RSPB) impact in terms of increased air pollution, which can have a negative impact on the outside Hampshire does not necessarily equate to a net-increase in sensitive habitats and species for which Hampshire’s European nature conservation traffic impacts (this is a practice which already takes place in the sites are designated. We consider that this matter should therefore be‚ screened-in‛ to commercial waste management sector). Further screening work will Appendices the requirement for Appropriate Assessment. include additional information gathering on where it is understood waste 'imported' into Hampshire is likely to come from, and the implications of this (drawing upon a Strategic Transport Assessment undertaken in support of the emerging Plan). The scope/ detail of this work is to be established however. (FINAL)
Question 14 & 15: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Reducing reliance on Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. road transport Questions 14 and 15 require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Se Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. pt (RSPB) 2013
Question 14: The expansion of wharves could have significant impacts environmental impacts on The issue of traffic levels arising from plan policies has already been Reducing reliance on the interest features of designated sites through encroachment or disturbance. Localised raised as an issue. It is intended that traffic patterns over the plan road transport(NE) impacts on air quality due to increased traffic around wharves would also need to be period will be looked at (Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) study) (including response considered and use of conveyors, although potentially reducing Heavy Goods Vehicle in conjunction with all European sites, and not just those directly to reg 25 (HGV) movements, may have noise impacts particularly in quieter locations such as adjacent to nominated sites. This will form part of the Appropriate consultation Langstone Harbour, that would need to be assessed. Assessment we identified will be carried out on this policy. document) 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
The issues surrounding the use of conveyors will be assessed within the AA. The consultation document suggests that individual wharfs can be ‘regenerated’ by redevelopment for alternative uses if they are no longer needed or are relocated Regarding the second point, it must be clarified that this Plan does not elsewhere. However, alternative uses such as housing are likely to generate significant itself provide the policy mechanism for regeneration of wharves- it just recreational disturbance impacts on the interest features of designated sites. We would states that this is a realistic prospect. The City Councils' have their wish to see the HRA address appropriate alternative uses which may be encouraged own development plans (LDFs) which address such matters (including to maintain the coastline as an environmental and recreational resource, managing the accompanying HRAs). The scope and remit of this Plan is to recognise dynamic nature of the coast through collaboration between organisations and across the pressures facing wharf land and provide appropriate safeguards. administrative boundaries. In particular, this will need to respond to climate change NE's comment is noted therefore, but will not be addressed in this pressures and rising sea levels, and ensure the protection and enhancement of highly HRA as the matters raised are beyond the scope of Waste/ Mineral
valued and designated wildlife habitats and landscapes found along the coast. The Planning Authorities' responsibilities. NE may wish to pick this issue Habitats Plan should take account of emerging policies in other relevant plans and national up with other relevant Planning Authorities however. guidance to ensure that proposals are sustainable in the medium to long term. These will include Shoreline Management Plans, Estuary Management Plans, Coastal Habitat R
Management Plans, Catchment Management Plans, Coastal Defence Strategies and egulations Harbour Management Plans, also reflecting national guidance.
Question 15: The expansion of existing wharves will inevitably result in impacts on the nearby coastal Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Assessment Reducing reliance on / marine environment. Any expansion of a wharf is likely to involve one of a number can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Specific issues road transport (NE) of developments, including land reclamation, dredging, additional marine infrastructure, raised will be addressed within the AA. (including response all of which will have an impact. However, this impact of most of concern is in areas to reg 25 where existing wharfs are already located in ‘natural’ and environmentally sensitive consultation areas, as opposed to wharfs located in heavily industrialised areas. These potential R document) impacts would need to be fully assessed through Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats ecord Regulations Assessment. For further comments on wharf extensions or new sites, please see the response at question 28. Appendices
Natural England considers that the stock of existing wharf infrastructure should be maintained as part of a long term strategy to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to deal with future increases in demand for marine-sourced aggregates. The expansion of existing wharves will inevitably result in impacts on the nearby coastal / marine (FINAL) environment. Any expansion of a wharf is likely to involve one of a number of developments, including land reclamation, dredging, additional marine infrastructure, all of which will have an impact. However, this impact of most of concern is in areas where existing wharfs are already located in ‘natural’ and environmentally sensitive Se
areas, as opposed to wharfs located in heavily industrialised areas. These potential pt impacts would need to be fully assessed through HRA. 2013 105 106 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 16: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Please note that the screening matrix indicates that we have not screened this Co-locating waste Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that policy approach as requiring further assessment. management facilities Question 16 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010. Assessment Question 16: Natural England would in principle support the co-locating minerals and waste If we consider at a later stage that there is enough strategic direction Co-locating waste development to reduce transport impacts. However, if the Plan is to give strategic being provided within the plan as to the location of such co-location management facilities direction as to where the co-located facilities are to be provided, this should be we will revisit whether the policy approach will be assessed within the (NE) considered as part of the Plan’s HRA. Appropriate Assessment. R ecord The final column of the screening matrix refers only to European sites within important Noted - this is an error, and refers to many of the similar comments landscape areas. However, all relevant European sites should be considered whether in the 4th and 5th columns in this table. or not these are located within important landscape areas. Appendices
Question 17: We disagree with the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Nature conservation does not have to be included within the text, This Limiting the impacts Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that is because restricting 'highways impacts' (as the general term used here) from the Question 17 does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of includes all impacts arising from traffic. This policy does not lead to transportation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We consider that as this proposal only seeks development nor does it provide a steer to location/routing of traffic. (FINAL) minerals (RSPB) to prevent traffic having an impact on communities and does not offer any protection for nature conservation sites, it could have an indirect impact in terms of increased air pollution in the vicinity of designated sites. We consider that this matter should However, plan should endeavour to make clear what is meant by therefore be 'screened-in‛ to the requirement for Appropriate Assessment. highways impacts (including those which have environmental impacts Se pt i.e air pollution, traffic noise etc). Furthermore, information arising from a strategic assessment (scope/detail of which is yet to be fully 2013 established) of traffic across Hampshire will be presented in the HRA.
Question 17: Particular consideration should be given to sites of national and international importance Please see response to Q5 with regards to policy development providing Limiting the impacts for nature conservation and to nationally important landscapes. These should receive protection to Landscape and Biodiversity designations. from the the highest levels of protection and a logical approach demonstrated within the Plan, transportation of with necessary avoidance and mitigation measures to steer the DPD process. Further research will be required to ascertain the evidence and minerals (NE) likelihood that vehicles using the main minerals and waste lorry route (including response We would advise that HRA should consider the potential impacts of air pollution due could have air pollution impacts on sensitive habitats. The Strategic to reg 25 to increased traffic from development on all roads which pass within 200m of a Transport Assessment for the Plan will assess the overall net-increases consultation European, where there is likely to be a significant increase in traffic, which may be at in vehicle movements (and any localised increases in movements), and document) some distance from new development itself. It should also be recognised that critical this will be assessed in relation to the proximity of European Sites. levels for sensitive habitats may be equally or more stringent than those required for The scope/ detail of this work is yet to be established. human health. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Question 24: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Please note that the screening matrix indicates that we have not screened this Adequate and steady Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that policy approach as requiring further assessment. supply of aggregates Question 24 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010.
Question 24: Column 5 of the screening matrix refers to consideration of this issue at the planning Noted- work on the 'contingency' in terms of minerals supply for Hampshire Adequate and steady application stage. However, the HRA should ensure that there is sufficient flexibility is ongoing (i.e to establish what would happen if demand for minerals is supply of aggregates in the Plan to deliver the minerals target without adverse effect on the integrity of greater than planned provision allows for). (NE) European sites.
Question 26: This matter will need to be carefully evaluated in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Please note that the screening matrix indicates that we have not screened this
Safeguarding of of the plan and we therefore welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & policy approach as requiring further assessment. Habitats existing wharves Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that Question 26 requires Appropriate Assessment under the (RSPB) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. R egulations
Question 26: Many of Hampshire’s wharves are immediately adjacent to designated sites of national A Wharves & Depots Needs Assessment (made available online as part of Safeguarding of and international importance for nature conservation. Natural England considers that the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants existing wharves existing wharves should be maintained, so as not to compromise future ability to import on behalf of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature and process marine aggregates. As pointed out in the consultation document, there conservation constraints on making provision for new, additional wharf Assessment (NE) are likely to be major difficulties in expanding or relocating wharves to currently capacity (including extensions of existing wharves, areas of search). undeveloped areas, without significant environmental and social impacts, including The HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment where relevant. those associated with infrastructure or additional dredging requirements. There may be opportunities to relocate wharfs onto existing hard standing structures such as scrap Regarding the second point, to reiterate, this Plan does not itself provide R
metal yards / old boat working facilities. However, any proposals will need to satisfy the policy mechanism for the conversion/ regeneration of wharves. ecord the tests of the Habitats Regulations. The City Councils' have their own development plans (LDFs) which address such matters (including accompanying HRAs). NE's comment on future alternative uses of wharves is noted therefore, but will not Appendices Conversion of any redundant wharves to housing and associated infrastructure that be addressed in this HRA as the matters raised are beyond the scope gives residents access to the waterside is liable to increase recreational disturbance on of Waste/ Mineral Planning Authorities' responsibilities. NE may designated sites and would be a likely significant effect. The completion of the Solent wish to pick this issue up with other relevant Planning Authorities Disturbance and Mitigation Project later this year will provide additional information however. on recreational pressures affecting designated coastal sites. We would advocate that (FINAL) the County Council gives consideration to the potential for disused wharves to provide supplementary habitats to designated sites. The HRA should address these issues at the strategic level. Se pt 2013 107 108 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 27: This matter will need to be carefully evaluated in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Please note that the screening matrix indicates that we have not screened this Existing capacity to of the plan and we therefore welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & policy approach as requiring further assessment. land marine-dredged Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version sand and gravel 1), March 2011, that Question 27 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Assessment (RSPB)
Question 27: Any expansion of a wharf is likely to involve one of a number of developments, A Wharves & Depots Needs Assessment (made available online as part of R
Existing capacity to including land reclamation, dredging, additional marine infrastructure, all of which will the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants ecord land marine-dredged have an impact. However, this impact of most of concern is in areas where existing on behalf of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature sand and gravel wharfs are already located in ‘natural’ and environmentally sensitive areas, as opposed conservation constraints on making provision for new, additional wharf to wharfs located in heavily industrialised areas. These potential impacts would need capacity (including extensions of existing wharves, areas of search). Appendices (NE) to be fully assessed through HRA. If maximisation of capacity is expected to involve The HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment where relevant. additional infrastructure or extension of wharves, any potential impacts on adjacent designated sites would need to be assessed through HRA. The draft policy should clarify what 'maximisation of capacity' is likely to mean in land-use terms, and this will be taken forward for AA if at As set out in response to question 26, Natural England considers that existing wharves a later stage we believe that provision of the protection of Question 3 (FINAL) should be retained and utilised. However, if maximisation of capacity is expected to does not adequately provide protection in this case. involve additional infrastructure or extension of wharves, any potential impacts on adjacent designated sites would need to be assessed through HRA. Se
Question 28: Need These matters will need to be carefully evaluated in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects pt for new wharf of the plan and we therefore welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. 2013 capacity Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that Question 28 requires Appropriate Assessment under the (RSPB) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
Question 28: Need Natural England would be concerned about any proposals which could have adverse A Wharves & Depots Needs Assessment (made available online as part of for new wharf impacts on sensitive designated sites, which may result from impacts such as loss of the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants capacity (NE) intertidal mud and saltmarsh, impacts on hydrodynamics and sediment budget from on behalf of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature (including response dredging and new infrastructure, bird disturbance and loss of feeding / roosting habitat. conservation constraints on making provision for new, additional wharf to reg 25 We would wish to see the Minerals and Waste Plan provide a clear presumption against capacity (including extensions of existing wharves, areas of search). consultation such development. We would therefore support the retention and utilisation of existing The HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment where relevant, document) wharves, rather than extending wharves or developing entirely new sites. [...] As indicated but will not be iterated in whole within this assessment. in the consultation document, Kendall’s Wharf Extension lies within Langstone Harbour SSSI, Ramsar Site SPA and Solent Maritime SAC and if included in the As mentioned above, this Plan does not itself provide the policy Minerals and Waste Plan will require Habitats Regulations Assessment in order to mechanism for the conversion/ regeneration of wharves. The City 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
demonstrate that any potential scheme can be delivered without adverse effect on the Councils' have their own development plans (LDFs) which address integrity of designated sites. such matters (including accompanying HRAs). NE's comment on future alternative uses of wharves is noted therefore, but will not be Natural England is unable to offer further comment on proposals referred to in the addressed in this HRA as the matters raised are beyond the scope of consultation document for areas of search the Southampton and Portsmouth Areas. Waste/ Mineral Planning Authorities' responsibilities. NE may wish We would be happy to comment when further information is available. to pick this issue up with other relevant Planning Authorities however.
Natural England would be concerned about any proposals which could have adverse The policy area outlined by Question 26 provides clear steer on impacts on sensitive designated sites, which may result from impacts such as loss of retaining existing wharves. intertidal mud and saltmarsh, impacts on hydrodynamics and sediment budget from dredging and new infrastructure, bird disturbance and loss of feeding / roosting habitat. We would wish to see the Minerals and Waste Plan provide a clear presumption against Habitats such development. We would therefore support the retention and utilisation of existing wharves, rather than extending wharves or developing entirely new sites. R
As mentioned above, we would advocate that the County Council gives consideration egulations within the Minerals and Waste Plan to the potential for disused wharves to provide supplementary habitats to designated sites. We would advocate that the Minerals and Waste Plan should set out a strategic vision for wharf sites across Hampshire,
underpinned by a thorough evidence base. We would agree that this issue is a likely Assessment significant effect which should be addressed through more detailed assessment at the strategic level.
Question 28: Need One concern we have is the potential for the development of these wharves. It is A Wharves & Depots Needs Assessment (made available online as part of the
for new wharf important that any proposed development does not involve the reclamation of intertidal Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants on behalf R capacity (EA) areas, as the majority of Southampton Water and Portsmouth Harbour are designated of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature conservation ecord (response to reg 25 conservation areas. We would support any appropriate developments that were constraints on making provision for new, additional wharf capacity (including consultation land-based. Another concern is the operational impacts that may/will arise from the extensions of existing wharves, areas of search). The HRA will draw on the Appendices document) construction processes. findings in this Assessment where relevant.
We are also confident that the policy area outlined within Question 3 will provide protection to European sites for any development in the areas described. (FINAL)
Question 33: Sand We disagree with the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Agree. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects and gravel hierarchy Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Se
Question 33 does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of pt (RSPB) Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We consider that as this proposal supports 2013 extensions to existing minerals sites, a number of which coincide with or are closely 109 110 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations related to internationally designated nature conservation sites, it could have a negative impact on the sensitive habitats and species for which these sites are designated, through increased noise, dust, vibration and habitat loss. We consider that this matter should therefore be‚ screened-in‛ to the requirement for Appropriate Assessment. Assessment Question 34: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Suggested extensions Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. to existing mineral Question 34 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and sites Species Regulations 2010. R ecord (RSPB) Appendices Question 33 & 34: Natural England acknowledges that there may be economic or other advantages in The potential effects of site extensions to existing sites have been considered Sand and gravel extending existing mineral workings, but this may not be the most sustainable through other policies (Q.s 34 & 35), and those sites will be subject to the hierarchy & environmental option, due to the environmentally sensitive location of many existing appropriate assessment stage. Suggested extensions mineral workings in Hampshire. The potential expansion or intensification of mineral to existing mineral activities at these locations could potentially impact on sites of international importance (FINAL) sites(NE) for nature conservation. Column 5 of the screening matrix refers to project level assessment. However, we would advise that the Minerals and Waste Plan should Hampshire Mineral Proposal Suitability Study (made available online as part of identify the least environmentally damaging options to fulfil its allocation, adopting the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants on behalf the hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement set out in of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature conservation Se PPS9. We recommend that the implications of this proposal should be fully assessed constraints on making provision for extensions to sand and gravel sites . The pt through the Minerals and Waste Plan’s HRA. HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment where relevant. 2013
Question 35: This matter will need to be carefully evaluated in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Suggested extensions of the plan and we therefore welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. to existing mineral Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version sites 1), March 2011, that Question 35 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. (RSPB) 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Question 35: The proposal to create an additional area of working adjacent to Bramshill Quarry It is due to the confusion regarding the titles of the columns that it has Suggested extensions is of particular concern, as the site forms part of Bramshill SSSI and Thames Basin been assumed that without presenting evidence we presume that all to existing mineral Heaths SPA. We would disagree with the HRA Screening Report conclusion at this impacts can be avoided at screening. We merely suggest that there are sites (NE) (response stage that significant effects can be avoided, as it is not supported by evidence. This obvious changes that could potentially be introduced to the policy at to reg 25 will need full Appropriate Assessment before decisions on potential selection to ensure screening to avoid or mitigation some of the more straightforward consultation that the Council is in a position to legally adopt the Plan. The Interim Minerals and impacts. It is clear from column 5 that we intend on carrying out AA document) Waste Sustainability Appraisal has identified that there is a significant negative impact on this policy, and the sites that it nominates. from the proposal, due to its location within the SSSI and SPA, whereas other sites have been assessed as of lower impact on biodiversity. Therefore, we would question Comments regarding specific allocated sites are noted and will be taken the necessity to allocate this site in order to deliver the Plan allocation. forward for further consideration in the AA.
With regard to Mortimer Quarry Extension, Natural England has previously Habitats commented in response to a recent planning application.
The consultation document has suggested 3 sites as being suitable and sustainable R
locations for further mineral working. The proposal to create an additional area of egulations working adjacent to Bramshill Quarry is of particular concern, as the site forms part of Bramshill SSSI and Thames Basin Heaths SPA. We would disagree with the HRA Screening Report conclusion that significant effects can be avoided through various development criteria, as it is not supported by evidence. This will need full Appropriate Assessment Assessment before decisions on potential selection to ensure that the Council is in a position to legally adopt the Plan. The Interim Minerals and Waste Sustainability Appraisal has identified that there is a significant negative impact from the proposal, due to its location within the SSSI and SPA, whereas other sites have been assessed as of lower impact on biodiversity. Therefore, we would question the necessity to allocate R
this site in order to deliver the Plan allocation. As set out in the screening report, we ecord would agree that further more detailed assessment is also required through HRA to assess the potential impacts of the proposed Bleak Hill and Mortimer Quarry sites. Appendices
Question 36: New We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects local sand and gravel Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. allocations Question 36 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment (FINAL) (RSPB) further on this matter when this document is published for consultation.
Question 37: New We consider that each of these sites needs to be carefully considered as part of the Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Se local sand and gravel Habitats Regulations Assessment of the plan. We therefore welcome the conclusion can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. pt allocations in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations 2013 111 112 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations (RSPB) – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that Question 37 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
Question 37: New Natural England made detailed comments on this question in the response to the ‘Have It is due to the confusion regarding the titles of the columns that it has local sand and gravel your say’ consultation. Particular concerns were expressed in relation to the proposed been assumed that without presenting evidence we presume that all Assessment allocations(NE) Purple Haze allocation, due to potential hydrological and recreational impacts on impacts can be avoided at screening. We merely suggest that there are (including response Dorset heath N2K sites, on which Natural England expressed the view, that that it obvious changes that could potentially be introduced to the policy at to reg 25 would be difficult or not possible to avoid through mitigation, as well as issues relating screening to avoid or mitigation some of the more straightforward consultation to impacts on European Protected Species and BAP habitats. Detailed comments impacts. It is clear from column 5 that we intend on carrying out AA R
document) were also made on the potential impacts on European sites of the proposed allocations on this policy, and the sites that it nominates. ecord for Roeshot, Hamble Airfield and Forest Lodge Farm. We would agree that further evidence and assessment of these sites is required through the next iteration of HRA screening. We would disagree with the HRA Screening Report conclusion that It is not HCCs belief that HRA relates to the parts of the regulations Appendices significant effects can be avoided through various development criteria, as it is not that provides protection to EPS (those listed under Annex IV of the supported by evidence. Habs directive), other than where they are also listed within Annex II, Natural England has particular concerns about the proposed Purple Haze allocation, and included within the reason for which the site is designated. Article for the following reasons: 6(2) of Habitats Directive makes specific reference to plans that affect SACs not Annex IV species. HCC is aware of its duty relating to (FINAL) 1. Effect on Dorset heath N2K sites: The primary concern relates to the potential effect of engaging with the 3 tests, which only apply where an offence under the proposal on the Dorset Heathlands SPA, the Dorset Heaths SAC and the Dorset Reg 41 (1) and (2) has been proven, which cannot be dealt with at this Heathlands Ramsar site. We consider that the proposal would have significant effects on all strategic level. Therefore consideration of Nightjars within the HRA of these Dorset heath N2K sites and believe that in practice these impacts would be difficult will only be given in the context of shared territories/ foraging with Se or not possible to avoid through mitigation. The northern part of the sites forms a major the SPA, and judging the significance of effect on the European sites, pt part of the catchment of Ebblake Bog SSSI, one of the component sites of the Dorset heath and consideration of EPS only where they are also listed as Annex II 2013 N2K sites and the quality of the bog is dependent on the natural hydrology of its catchment. species for any particular site. If the proposal is to be progressed it would need to be demonstrated that mitigation could be achieved that would overcome the problem of the alteration to a major part of the catchment of Ebblake Bog. Detailed hydrological work would be needed but we do not see The potential contradictory policies with respect to the governments how it would be possible to replicate artificially the natural hydrological features of the open habitat policy will be looked at further, and addressed within the catchment, either during operation or subsequently (with or without landfill) and therefore AA. avoid adverse effect on the Dorset heath N2k sites (particularly the SAC and Ramsar). In these circumstances the part of the possible allocation forming the catchment of Ebblake Bog could not be implemented or be part of a statutory plan. Comments regarding specific allocated sites are noted and will be taken forward for further consideration in the AA, however; 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Secondly, the proposal would displace current recreational activity on the site to designated Roeshot - implication to SSSI will only be considered within this assessment heathlands, a recent visitor survey having shown that Ringwood Forest receives a large number if it is likely to also implication the features of European sites - Burton of visitors. The Dorset heath N2K sites and the internationally designated New Forest would common SSSI does not form part of a European site. Implication of impacts be likely to receive a good proportion of these visits. We consider it would be extremely to SSSI formed part of the Needs assessment. Potential in combination difficult to provide mitigation that would avoid an adverse effect on the Dorset heath N2K impacts with other minerals and waste AND local development have already sites. An equivalent area of new alternative greenspace capable of supporting and attracting been identified at this site, and will be considered further. a similar level and type of public access would be needed. Cutty Brow - implication to SSSI will only be considered within this A further potential effect is on nightjar, one of the SPA qualifying features. Given the assessment if it is likely to also implication the features of European sites. proximity of the proposed allocation site to the SPA, is quite possible that individual nightjar Implication of impacts to SSSI formed part of the Hampshire Mineral Proposal territories might include both parts of the SPA at Ebblake Bog and parts of the proposed Suitability Study.
allocation at Purple Haze. In addition, birds with territories within the SPA may use the Habitats proposed allocation site for foraging. In both cases, there would be impacts on the SPA from Hamble Airfield - The Brent Goose and wader Strategy has already revealed the proposal. that this site does not provide any grazing habitat for these species. However, it does provide great potential for habitat creation/habitat opportunities. R
2. Biodiversity considerations: These relate firstly to the high biodiversity interest of Ringwood Implications to the SSSI as suggested will be considered within the AA. egulations Forest, with the Purple Haze area supporting several nightjar territories as well as habitat suitable for European Protected Species, sand lizard and smooth snake. Consideration must Forest Lodge - Implications to the SSSIs as suggested will be considered therefore be given at the Plan level to Habitats Regulations tests relating to EPS and how within the AA. these might be applied in the light of potential mitigation and relevant caselaw. Secondly, Assessment the forestry plantations on Dorset heathland (including Ringwood Forest) have been identified as the critical area nationally for the re-establishment of open habitats if the objectives of the Government’s open habitat policy (‘When to convert woods and forests to open habitat in England: Government policy: March 2010’) are to be achieved. Thus in the absence of sand and gravel winning at Purple Haze the prospect is that the extent of heathland within R
the allocation site would be substantially increased. We consider that the quality of heathland ecord restored following mineral winning would be much lower than that of heathland on the natural geology, established following the rotational removal of plantation. Appendices
Roeshot, Christchurch: The site adjoins Burton Common SSSI and further assessment will need to establish the potential for indirect impacts on Burton Common SSSI, in particular the hydrology. The Minerals and Waste Plan HRA will need to consider the proposed allocation in the context of potential housing development south of the railway and the implications of the proposal in combination with this and the Dorset (FINAL) aggregate proposal immediately to the west on patterns of recreation and visitor use both on the Dorset Heaths and in the New Forest. The New Forest national Park Authority should also be consulted as the proposal adjoins the National Park boundary. Se pt 2013 113 114 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Cutty Brow, Longparish: Natural England recommends that further information should be provided to ensure that there is no adverse hydrological impact on the River Test SSSI.
Hamble Airfield, Hamble: Natural England recommends that it should be established Assessment whether Brent Geese use this site. The Plan should consider potential impacts on the Solent Maritime SAC and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site and the Lee on Solent to Itchen Valley Site of Special Scientific Interest, including hydrological impact. R ecord Forest Lodge Farm, Hardley: As stated in the consultation document, the Proposed Preferred Area is adjacent to the New Forest SSSI, close to the New Forest SAC and SPA, as well as being within 1km of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA, SAC, Appendices SSSI and Ramsar, Solent Maritime SAC and Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI. Potential impacts will need careful assessment and consideration, including hydrological connectivity. The New Forest National Park Authority should also be consulted as the site lies within the setting of the National Park. (FINAL)
Question 38: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Windfall Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. opportunities for Question 38 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and sand and gravel Species Regulations 2010. Se extraction pt 2013
(RSPB)
Question 38: Natural England considers that windfall sites should be subject to the same rigorous Noted - as stated within the screening matrix be believe that inclusion of Windfall examination as sites which may already be allocated. Although the consultation refers policy approach set out in Question 3 provides strong direction on the opportunities for to consideration of ‘other environmental and amenity criteria’, new proposals will need appropriate levels of assessment. sand and gravel to include appropriate levels of assessment including, where necessary, HRA. extraction (NE)
Question 43: With regard to the Michelmersh Area of Search for brick-making clay, the consultation Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Identification of document and the Mineral Proposal Suitability Study should recognise that the identified can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. areas of search for sites are within the 7.5km foraging zone for barbestelle bats around Mottisfont Bats brick-making clay SAC / SSSI and potential impacts on habitats of value for foraging bats will need to (NE) be addressed in the HRA. Key requirements are to maintain any areas of broadleaved woodland, unimproved grassland, marsh or wetland within the bats’ foraging area. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Question 48: Oil and We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects gas activity Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Question 48 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010.
Question 50: Specific We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects safeguarding of Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Bordon/Whitehill Question 50 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. (RSPB) Habitats
Question 50: Specific Natural England recommends that site considerations in the consultation document Noted. Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA in which these particular safeguarding of and the Mineral Proposal Suitability Study should also include protection of the South concerns will be addressed. R
Bordon/Whitehill Downs National Park and its setting and the range of nearby sites of national / egulations (NE) (response to international importance: Broxhead and Kingsley Commons SSSI / Wealden Heaths reg 25 consultation Phase II SPA, Shortheath Common SSSI / SAC, Woolmer Forest SSSI / SAC and document) Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA, East Hampshire Hangers and Wick Wood & Worldham SSSI. Potential impacts would need to be fully addressed through Sustainability Appraisal / Habitats Regulations Assessment should the Council wish to progress any Assessment mineral extraction option in this area.
As noted in the consultation document, the safeguarding of the area will also have significant implications for the Whitehill-Bordon Eco-town development and should R
involve close consultation with East Hampshire District Council. New development ecord is likely to rely on the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs), which need to be secured in perpetuity in order to provide necessary mitigation for impacts on European designated sites. If potential SANGs land is safeguarded or Appendices utilised for minerals development, alternative sites would need to be found that would function at least as well.
Natural England has previously recommended that the HRA should consider impacts on the various European sites in the area, including Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA, (FINAL) Shortheath Common SAC, Woolmer Forest SAC and East Hampshire Hangers. This should also consider that new development associated with the Whitehill-Bordon Eco-town is likely to rely on the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces Se (SANGs), which need to be secured in perpetuity in order to provide necessary pt mitigation for impacts on European designated sites. If potential SANGs land is 2013 115 116 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations safeguarded or utilised for minerals development, alternative sites would need to be found that would function at least as well.
Question 54: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Aggregate recycling Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Assessment capacity Question 54 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We acknowledge that more information is required to (RSPB) determine the possible range of impacts associated with the construction and operation of recycling facilities. These impacts will vary depending on the location of such facilities R
and we consider that a constraints based approach should be adopted in respect of the ecord location of such sites. We would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment further on this matter when the Appropriate Assessment is published for consultation. Appendices Question 56: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects Maximising existing Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. waste facilities Question 56 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. (RSPB) (FINAL)
Question 57: Type of We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects waste infrastructure Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Se required (RSPB) Question 57 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and pt Species Regulations 2010. 2013
Question 57: Type of The screening report refers to assessments at the planning application stage. However, The HRA process is essential in producing a plan that will not have any waste infrastructure the HRA should ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the Plan to deliver the adverse impacts in its delivery. The assessment will be carried out in such a required (NE) minerals target without adverse effect on the integrity of European sites. ways as to to determine to a suitable level of certainty that the plan can be delivered without impacts to the European sites, and to put in place safeguards in order that planning applications arising as a result of the plan are presented in such a way as to ensure that mitigation identified at this stage are implemented, and that other potential impacts (to European sites) are fully assessed, avoided and mitigated.
Question 59: Where We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects to locate waste Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. management Question 59 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and activities (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010. We would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment further on this matter when this document is published for consultation. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Question 63: Making We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects provision for Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. London's landfill Question 63 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and requirements Species Regulations 2010. We would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment further on this matter when this document is published for consultation. (RSPB)
Question 64: New We consider that this site needs to be carefully considered as part of the Habitats Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant effects landfill capacity for Regulations Assessment of the plan. We therefore welcome the conclusion in the can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. non-hazardous Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – wastes in Hampshire Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that Question 64 requires Appropriate Habitats Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We (RSPB) would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment further on this matter when this document is published for consultation. R egulations
Question 64: New With regard to the three sites suggested for landfill, please see previous comments on Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA. landfill capacity for Purple Haze at Question 37. Blue Haze is an established site, but proposals for any non-hazardous proposals for surcharging or expansion of the site would need to consider impacts on wastes in Hampshire the surrounding Ringwood Forest Area; again please see the general comments at Assessment (NE) Question 37 in relation to the adjacent Purple Haze site. We would agree that further evidence and assessment of these sites is required at HRA screening; it cannot be concluded at this stage that the application of development criteria will avoid likely significant effect. Squabb Wood Landfill, Romsey is within the 7.5km foraging zone R
for barbestelle bats around Mottisfont Bats SAC / SSSI and potential impacts on ecord habitats of value for foraging bats will need to be addressed in the HRA. Key requirements are to maintain any areas of broadleaved woodland, unimproved grassland, marsh or wetland within the bats’ foraging area. Appendices
Question 65: We disagree with the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted - as mentioned within version 1 of the screening report, we will look Considering other Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that to adding international sites to the constraints, therefore negating the need proposals for landfill Question 65 does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of for further examination. However, if this is not possible, we agree that this Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We consider that as this proposal does exclude policy approach will need to be taken forward into the full Appropriate (FINAL) (RSPB) nature conservation sites from development, it could result in a negative impact on assessment of this plan. those sites in terms of increased air & water pollution, noise, vibration and habitat loss. We consider that this matter should therefore be‚ screened-in‛ to the requirement for Appropriate Assessment. Se pt 2013 117 118 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 65: Natural England welcomes the identification of guidelines against which the assessment Noted - as mentioned within version 1 of the screening report, we will look Considering other of sites will be assessed. However, we consider that this should include criteria for to adding international sites to the constraints, therefore negating the need proposals for landfill designated sites of biodiversity importance. Although the suggested criteria include for further examination. However, if this is not possible, we agree that this (NE) the requirement that development proposals will lead to an improvement in biodiversity, policy approach will need to be taken forward into the full Appropriate the first requirement is protect the existing biodiversity interest of the site, consistent assessment of this plan. Assessment with the approach in PPS9.
Section 2.2.1 As stated in the Screening Report, it is a requirement of the Habitats Regulations that All in-combination assessment will also look at cumulative effects. In-combination the likelihood of significant effects must be considered alone or in-combination, either R
assessment of policy with other proposals within the plan or with other plans or projects. Although All effort has been given to give strategic direction where possible within ecord approaches paragraph 22 of this section of the Screening Report refers to category ‘A’ effects as policy wording, explanatory text, and site allocations. The iterative HRA being ‘very low risk’ the HRA should consider whether impacts which are small in process will help develop these areas. However, as a strategic document, it themselves could have combined or cumulative effects. To comply with the Habitats is not possible to specify every aspect of delivery requirements due to the Appendices Regulations, the HRA should be able to clearly state that there is no likely significant nature of the plan and the need to be flexible to account for windfall sites effect from in-combination effects. and new technologies.
Paragraph 25 states that for category ‘C6’ effects, no further in-combination assessment is required at this stage as the policy approach is not sufficiently refined to identify (FINAL) specific areas. We would recommend that the Plan should give strategic direction on minerals and waste delivery requirements as far as possible, to avoid environmental impacts, and that the HRA should be revisited and revised as more specific policy information becomes available. Se pt 2013 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 119
Date: 4 October 2010
Our ref: HCC / Policy/ M&WDF Your ref: PLAN/HMWDF/HRA
Ms E Butcher Planning Policy South East Environment Department Region Hampshire County Council 2nd Floor The Castle Cromwell House Winchester 15 Andover Road SO23 8UD Winchester By email only, no hard copy to follow SO23 7BT
Tel: 0300 060 2514 Dear Emily
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Methodology and Baseline Draft Report, September 2010
Thank you for your letter of 10 September 2010, consulting Natural England concerning the above, and for the opportunity to discuss this at our meeting on 21 September 2010. I would like to make the following comments on the HRA Methodology and Draft Baseline Report.
1. Natural England welcomes this document in setting out the County Council’s overall approach to protecting and enhancing European sites through the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan process. It will be a valuable reference to guide all the future stages of HRA and in informing the production of the plan.
2. I presume the logo for the South Downs National Park Authority, as one of the plan-making authorities within the plan area, will be added to the front cover in due course.
Section 1 Introduction
3. Page 5, Natural England agrees that HRA should be a ‘living document’, being produced through an iterative process. It is important that the evidence base is kept up to date and the HRA will need to be revisited and refined as more detailed information becomes available.
4. Page 7, Table 1.1. – You may wish to add that for stage 3, involving imperative reasons of overriding public interest, a further task is to notify the Secretary of State before adopting a plan in these circumstances and the Secretary of State will decide whether to give effect to the plan.
Section 2 Assessment Methodology
5. This clearly sets out the process of HRA, including the need to provide an appropriate level of detail, dealing with uncertainty and adopting a precautionary approach, which is a fundamental requirement of the Habitats Directive.
6. Page 10, It is recommended that line 3 is amended to ‘ ....not include general or specific proposals which would not be likely to fail ....’
1 | P a g e
120 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Section 3 Undertaking the Habitats Regulations Process
7. Table 3.1 usefully identifies the potential for minerals and waste activities to have a range of impacts on European sites. However, on page 19, 5c air pollution, it should be noted that air pollution also leads to acid / nutrient deposition, causing changes to soil / water chemistry. Also, on page 21, 7b out-competition by non-native species, examples of activities would also include waterborne non-native species arising through minerals and waste operations.
8. The HRA stages described in section 3 are consistent with Natural England’s internal draft guidance. However, in setting out the counteracting measures on page 26, I recommended that you include the distinction between ‘mitigation measures’ which are avoidance, cancellation and reduction measures, and ‘compensatory measures’ which are only considered in circumstances where, there being no alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest have been established as to why a plan or project should proceed notwithstanding a negative assessment of the implications for a European site. The ‘compensatory measures’ are designed to ensure the coherence of the Natura 2000 network is protected where adverse effects on site integrity cannot be ruled out. However, compensatory measures are not mitigation measures, even if proposed as integral to a plan or project, and cannot be considered until after regulation 62, considerations of overriding public interest.
9. On page 35, introduction of counter-acting measures (including addition of appropriate caveats and policies), it is recommended for clarity that this is amended to ‘Introduction of mitigation measures (avoidance, cancellation and reduction measures, including addition of appropriate caveats and policies)’ to avoid any possible confusion with ‘compensatory measures’ (please see above). With regard to the examples given in the bullet points, I would suggest that a caveat may be needed to the effect that it will be necessary to distinguish between what is potential ‘mitigation’ or ‘enhancement’ in each particular case.
Section 4 European sites relevant to the plan area
10. Natural England agrees that sites relevant to the plan area have been identified in the draft report. Although a general buffer zone of 10km from the edge of the plan area has been used, as referred to on page 38, in helping to identify relevant European sites, this distance in itself is not significant, and the draft document recognises the importance of applying flexibility to this distance to reflect specific mineral / waste impacts, the hydrological / ecological linkages with designated sites and sensitivities of European site features of interest. Specific consideration should be given to any major waste installations such as energy from waste plants.
11. Page 39, paragraph 78, refers to the level of information which may be available at the strategic level. What is expected is a robust assessment, based on information which can reasonably be obtained and identifying risks as far as reasonably foreseeable; this may include primary research. Where appropriate, it is necessary to put in force a legally enforceable framework with the aim of preventing effects from materialising.
Section 5 Condition and Conservation Status of the sites
12. The maps on pages 49-51 provide a very useful overview of the condition of European sites. The reference on page 52, paragraph 89, to seeking opportunities for improvement of sites is welcome, but it should be made clear that site management is the legal responsibility of owners / occupiers, so improvements could not be considered as mitigation unless the improvements were above and beyond what is necessary to achieve or maintain favourable condition.
Section 6 Existing pressures and management issues on the sites
13. It is recommended that the map on page 54 should focus on key land management plans relevant to European sites to avoid over-complexity. Examples may include National Park / AONB management plans, catchment management plans and Shoreline Management Plans. It may, however, be difficult to capture all relevant land management plans on a map and so a list map be appropriate to supplement the map. It is suggested that a map showing Biodiversity Opportunity Areas could also be added to indicate the potential areas for expanding the European site interest features. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 121
Section 7 Potential effects on European sites
14. Table 7.1, page 55, provides a summary of issues potentially affecting European sites. It is, however, difficult to exclude potential impacts at the strategic stage, when the level of impact is uncertain. For example, woodlands and scrub could be affected by changes to hydrology and non-toxic contamination, including air pollution, although this is not shown in the table. Similarly, bat habitats may be affected by changes in hydrology or toxic / non-toxic contamination. It is therefore recommended that either table 7.1 is revised to reflect the necessary precautionary or the information is merged with the site specific vulnerabilities and sensitivities in Appendix E.
15. Page 59, Natural England welcomes the recognition that further information will be required to update and refine the HRA. With regard to the examples given in table 7.2, management measures to deal with traffic emissions could include specified traffic routes / means of transport. Further information on air quality mitigation is likely to be available through the work being undertaken by PUSH authorities. Measures to deal with surface water run-off from landfill would include on-site containment / filtration systems to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency.
Appendices
16. Natural England welcomes the inclusion of information on site units and descriptions in Appendices A and B, also the overview of site condition in Appendix D. Appendix C, Conservation objectives for the European sites, currently only contains the conservation objectives for the River Itchen SAC. As you have mentioned, appendix C will need to be inputted with the detailed information you are gathering for other European sites and updated as necessary with the work that Natural England is doing on condition assessment. We also welcome the systematic consideration of European site vulnerabilities and sensitivities in Appendix E. Appendix F adequately reflects the necessary audit trail for completion of different stages in the HRA process.
In conclusion, Natural England is satisfied with the outline methodology and baseline draft report, subject to the points of detail referred to above. I hope these comments are of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
Environmental Planning Adviser Western Area Government Team, South East Region Direct line: 01962 840001, Email: [email protected]
Natural England is here to conserve and enhance the natural environment, for its intrinsic value, the wellbeing and enjoyment of people and the economic prosperity that it brings
122 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Date: 5 April 2011 Our ref: SEG.61.04.001 Your ref:
Emily Butcher South East Planning and Development Region Environment Department 2nd Floor Elizabeth II Court West Cromwell House The Castle 15 Andover Road Winchester Winchester SO23 8UD SO23 7BT By email only, no hard copy to follow Tel: 0300 060 2514
Dear Emily
PLANNING FOR MINERALS & WASTE: HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT (HRA) SCREENING REPORT
Thank you for your email of 2 March 2011, consulting Natural England concerning the above. We would like to make the following comments on the Screening Report. For ease of reference, these include re-iteration of various points on Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) previously made in Natural England’s response of 24 March 2011 to the ‘Have your say on Planning for Hampshire’s Minerals and Waste, February 2011’ consultation document.
General points:
1. HRA methodology: Sections 1, Introduction, and 2.1 correctly identify the process of assessment to be undertaken at the screening stage. These follow the HRA Methodology and Baseline Draft Report, September 2010, on which Natural England commented on 4 October 2010.
2. The Screening Report has concluded, in the fifth column of the screening matrix, that the approach can be changed at screening stage to avoid likely significant effects, based on information listed on page 7 of the consultation document. However, Natural England disagrees with conclusions at this stage that likely significant effect can be avoided as this is not supported by detailed evidence presented in the HRA Screening Report. We recommend that this is addressed at the next iteration of the HRA and also that full Appropriate Assessment is undertaken prior to site selection to ensure that the Council is in a position to legally adopt the Plan.
3. As well as stating that likely significant effect can be avoided, it is also stated in column 6 that Appropriate Assessment is required on issues such as: Questions 11 (restoration schemes), 12 (taking responsibility for Hampshire’s waste), 14 and 15 (reducing reliance on road transport), 28 (need for new wharf capacity), 34 & 35 (extensions to mineral sites), 36 & 37 (sand and gravel allocations), 46 (supply of chalk), 48 (oil and gas), 50 (Whitehill Bordon), 54 (aggregate recycling), 56 (maximising existing waste facilities). However, Appropriate Assessment only applies where it is not possible to demonstrate through HRA Screening that likely significant effect will be avoided.
4. The Screening Report defers in many cases to assessment at the planning application level. However, it is essential that the Plan HRA is as rigorous as reasonably possible at the strategic
1 | P a g e
Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 123
level to eliminate the potential for adverse effect on the integrity of European sites. Please see further comment at question 3 below.
Comments on individual questions in the screening matrix:
Q3 Protection of European nature conservation designations Natural England agrees that the policy approach to explain the requirements of HRA does not in itself have a likely significant effect on European sites. However, we would stress that it is of primary importance that the Minerals and Waste Plan is itself compliant with the Habitats Regulations, rather than relying on project level assessment, which is referred to in a number of sections of the HRA. This requires as rigorous an assessment as can reasonably be undertaken at the strategic level and adopting the precautionary approach embedded in the Directive and Regulations. This is to remove potential impacts that could arise from the amount or location of development at the higher level where possible.
It is essential that the HRA of the Plan informs the selection of minerals and waste sites, so that options are chosen which are capable of implementation without adverse effects on the integrity of European or international sites. The Plan should give clarity on any necessary controls, such as policy caveats or mitigation necessary, to ensure that the development proposals can proceed in accordance with the Regulations and that the Plan is found to be sound and deliverable. Therefore, Natural England does not consider that paragraph 3.12 of the consultation document ‘where potential impacts are identified, measures are put in place to either avoid, reduce or potentially compensate for the impact’ fully reflects the requirements of the Habitats Regulations to avoid potential impacts through assessment at the plan level.
This should include the relocation of development allocations where necessary to alternative sites that would avoid adverse impact, as well as guidance on any necessary mitigation requirements. The inclusion of site allocations within a plan is a material consideration in the determination of a planning application, and it is for this reason that HRA at plan level is required, to ensure that the principle of development is not established where adverse effects upon the integrity of European sites cannot be ruled out.
In the fifth column of the Screening matrix, consideration should be included of the potential effects from minerals and waste development on air pollution due to additional road traffic passing close to designated sites, which may occur at some distance from the development. The impacts of recreational displacement causing potential additional pressure on designated sites should also be referred to.
Q5 Landscape designations The suggested policy approach is that minerals and waste development should not take place in National Parks and AONBs unless there are exceptional reasons for this to occur, any negative impacts are reduced to a minimum and the need for the development outweighs any negative impact. The policy approach to safeguard nationally protected landscapes is in itself welcome, and the policy will help to safeguard European sites within the protected landscape areas, shown on map 3 of the ‘Have your say’ consultation document. However, the policy approach focuses attention on non-protected landscape areas to deliver the Plan targets. We therefore recommend that the strategic HRA needs to consider the effects of the policy, by assessing whether there is sufficient available flexibility to deliver the Plan’s minerals and waste targets from land outside the protected landscapes, without adversely affecting the integrity of European sites that are outside protected landscape areas. We recommend that this is not left until planning application stage.
We would however generally support the further policy development, referred to in column 5, relating to the requirements set out in question 3.
Q7 & 8 Protection of the open countryside The second bullet point in the fourth column states that ‘It is noted that the land use, traffic etc change are not likely to be significantly different to the existing situation (e.g. redundant agricultural buildings, local traffic etc)’. Whilst this may be true in many cases, the HRA should consider whether in individual circumstances there are any potential indirect impacts on European sites e.g. hydrology or significant changes in the levels or re-direction of road traffic close to European sites.
124 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Q 14 Whether wharves and rail depots Hampshire provide increased opportunities for the sustainable transport of minerals and waste The expansion of wharves could have significant impacts environmental impacts on the interest features of designated sites through encroachment or disturbance. Localised impacts on air quality due to increased traffic around wharves would also need to be considered and use of conveyors, although potentially reducing Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements, may have noise impacts particularly in quieter locations such as Langstone Harbour, that would need to be assessed.
The consultation document suggests that individual wharfs can be ‘regenerated’ by redevelopment for alternative uses if they are no longer needed or are relocated elsewhere. However, alternative uses such as housing are likely to generate significant recreational disturbance impacts on the interest features of designated sites. We would wish to see the HRA address appropriate alternative uses which may be encouraged to maintain the coastline as an environmental and recreational resource, managing the dynamic nature of the coast through collaboration between organisations and across administrative boundaries. In particular, this will need to respond to climate change pressures and rising sea levels, and ensure the protection and enhancement of highly valued and designated wildlife habitats and landscapes found along the coast. The Plan should take account of emerging policies in other relevant plans and national guidance to ensure that proposals are sustainable in the medium to long term. These will include Shoreline Management Plans, Estuary Management Plans, Coastal Habitat Management Plans, Catchment Management Plans, Coastal Defence Strategies and Harbour Management Plans, also reflecting national guidance.
Q15 Expansion of wharf or rail depot sites Natural England considers that the stock of existing wharf infrastructure should be maintained as part of a long term strategy to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to deal with future increases in demand for marine-sourced aggregates. The expansion of existing wharves will inevitably result in impacts on the nearby coastal / marine environment. Any expansion of a wharf is likely to involve one of a number of developments, including land reclamation, dredging, additional marine infrastructure, all of which will have an impact. However, this impact of most of concern is in areas where existing wharfs are already located in ‘natural’ and environmentally sensitive areas, as opposed to wharfs located in heavily industrialised areas. These potential impacts would need to be fully assessed through HRA.
Q16 Co-location of minerals and waste development to reduce transport impacts Natural England would in principle support the co-locating minerals and waste development to reduce transport impacts. However, if the Plan is to give strategic direction as to where the co- located facilities are to be provided, this should be considered as part of the Plan’s HRA. The final column of the screening matrix refers only to European sites within important landscape areas. However, all relevant European sites should be considered whether or not these are located within important landscape areas.
Q17 Managing the impacts of transporting minerals and waste on local communities We would advise that HRA should consider the potential impacts of air pollution due to increased traffic from development on all roads which pass within 200m of a European, where there is likely to be a significant increase in traffic, which may be at some distance from new development itself. It should also be recognised that critical levels for sensitive habitats may be equally or more stringent than those required for human health.
Q24 Adequate and steady supply of aggregates Column 5 of the screening matrix refers to consideration of this issue at the planning application stage. However, the HRA should ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the Plan to deliver the minerals target without adverse effect on the integrity of European sites.
Q26 Safeguarding Hampshire's existing wharves Many of Hampshire’s wharves are immediately adjacent to designated sites of national and international importance for nature conservation. Natural England considers that existing wharves should be maintained, so as not to compromise future ability to import and process marine Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 125
aggregates. As pointed out in the consultation document, there are likely to be major difficulties in expanding or relocating wharves to currently undeveloped areas, without significant environmental and social impacts, including those associated with infrastructure or additional dredging requirements. There may be opportunities to relocate wharfs onto existing hard standing structures such as scrap metal yards / old boat working facilities. However, any proposals will need to satisfy the tests of the Habitats Regulations.
Conversion of any redundant wharves to housing and associated infrastructure that gives residents access to the waterside is liable to increase recreational disturbance on designated sites and would be a likely significant effect. The completion of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project later this year will provide additional information on recreational pressures affecting designated coastal sites. We would advocate that the County Council gives consideration to the potential for disused wharves to provide supplementary habitats to designated sites. The HRA should address these issues at the strategic level.
Q27 Encouraging the greater use of marine-dredged sand and gravel through the maintenance and maximisation of capacity at Hampshire's wharves As set out in response to question 26, Natural England considers that existing wharves should be retained and utilised. However, if maximisation of capacity is expected to involve additional infrastructure or extension of wharves, any potential impacts on adjacent designated sites would need to be assessed through HRA.
Q28 Meeting the need for new capacity at wharves through extensions to appropriate sites or through the potential development of a new wharf on suitable and available commercial or military port land in the Portsmouth Harbour or Southampton Water Natural England would be concerned about any proposals which could have adverse impacts on sensitive designated sites, which may result from impacts such as loss of intertidal mud and saltmarsh, impacts on hydrodynamics and sediment budget from dredging and new infrastructure, bird disturbance and loss of feeding / roosting habitat. We would wish to see the Minerals and Waste Plan provide a clear presumption against such development. We would therefore support the retention and utilisation of existing wharves, rather than extending wharves or developing entirely new sites. As mentioned above, we would advocate that the County Council gives consideration within the Minerals and Waste Plan to the potential for disused wharves to provide supplementary habitats to designated sites. We would advocate that the Minerals and Waste Plan should set out a strategic vision for wharf sites across Hampshire, underpinned by a thorough evidence base. We would agree that this issue is a likely significant effect which should be addressed through more detailed assessment at the strategic level.
Q33 and 34 Approaches to meeting the need for a local supply of sand and gravel and identifying suitable and sustainable extension sites Natural England acknowledges that there may be economic or other advantages in extending existing mineral workings, but this may not be the most sustainable environmental option, due to the environmentally sensitive location of many existing mineral workings in Hampshire. The potential expansion or intensification of mineral activities at these locations could potentially impact on sites of international importance for nature conservation. Column 5 of the screening matrix refers to project level assessment. However, we would advise that the Minerals and Waste Plan should identify the least environmentally damaging options to fulfil its allocation, adopting the hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement set out in PPS9. We recommend that the implications of this proposal should be fully assessed through the Minerals and Waste Plan’s HRA.
Q35 Sites suggested as potential extension sites The consultation document has suggested 3 sites as being suitable and sustainable locations for further mineral working. The proposal to create an additional area of working adjacent to Bramshill Quarry is of particular concern, as the site forms part of Bramshill SSSI and Thames Basin Heaths SPA. We would disagree with the HRA Screening Report conclusion that significant effects can be avoided through various development criteria, as it is not supported by evidence. This will need full Appropriate Assessment before decisions on potential selection to ensure that the Council is in a position to legally adopt the Plan. The Interim Minerals and Waste Sustainability Appraisal has identified that there is a significant negative impact from the proposal, due to its location within the SSSI and SPA, whereas other sites have been assessed as of lower impact on biodiversity. 126 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Therefore, we would question the necessity to allocate this site in order to deliver the Plan allocation. As set out in the screening report, we would agree that further more detailed assessment is also required through HRA to assess the potential impacts of the proposed Bleak Hill and Mortimer Quarry sites.
Q37 Suggested new local sand and gravel allocations Natural England made detailed comments on this question in the response to the ‘Have your say’ consultation. Particular concerns were expressed in relation to the proposed Purple Haze allocation, due to potential hydrological and recreational impacts on Dorset heath N2K sites, on which Natural England expressed the view, that that it would be difficult or not possible to avoid through mitigation, as well as issues relating to impacts on European Protected Species and BAP habitats. Detailed comments were also made on the potential impacts on European sites of the proposed allocations for Roeshot, Hamble Airfield and Forest Lodge Farm. We would agree that further evidence and assessment of these sites is required through the next iteration of HRA screening. We would disagree with the HRA Screening Report conclusion that significant effects can be avoided through various development criteria, as it is not supported by evidence.
Q38 Approach to windfall local sand and gravel extraction Natural England considers that windfall sites should be subject to the same rigorous examination as sites which may already be allocated. Although the consultation refers to consideration of ‘other environmental and amenity criteria’, new proposals will need to include appropriate levels of assessment including, where necessary, HRA.
Q43 Areas of search for brick-making clay With regard to the Michelmersh Area of Search for brick-making clay, the consultation document and the Mineral Proposal Suitability Study should recognise that the identified sites are within the 7.5km foraging zone for barbestelle bats around Mottisfont Bats SAC / SSSI and potential impacts on habitats of value for foraging bats will need to be addressed in the HRA. Key requirements are to maintain any areas of broadleaved woodland, unimproved grassland, marsh or wetland within the bats’ foraging area.
Q50 Soft sand reserves at Bordon Whitehill identification and safeguarding Natural England has previously recommended that the HRA should consider impacts on nthe various European sites in the area, including Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA, Shortheath Common SAC, Woolmer Forest SAC and East Hampshire Hangers. This should also consider that new development associated with the Whitehill-Bordon Eco-town is likely to rely on the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs), which need to be secured in perpetuity in order to provide necessary mitigation for impacts on European designated sites. If potential SANGs land is safeguarded or utilised for minerals development, alternative sites would need to be found that would function at least as well.
Q57 Type of waste infrastructure required, Q58 Waste management facilities & Q60 Suitable types of land for waste management The screening report refers to assessments at the planning application stage. However, the HRA should ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the Plan to deliver the minerals target without adverse effect on the integrity of European sites.
Q64 Suggested sites provide opportunities to meet landfill capacity needs up to 2030 With regard to the three sites suggested for landfill, please see previous comments on Purple Haze at Question 37. Blue Haze is an established site, but proposals for any proposals for surcharging or expansion of the site would need to consider impacts on the surrounding Ringwood Forest Area; again please see the general comments at Question 37 in relation to the adjacent Purple Haze site. We would agree that further evidence and assessment of these sites is required at HRA screening; it cannot be concluded at this stage that the application of development criteria will avoid likely significant effect. Squabb Wood Landfill, Romsey is within the 7.5km foraging zone for barbestelle bats around Mottisfont Bats SAC / SSSI and potential impacts on habitats of value for foraging bats will need to be addressed in the HRA. Key requirements are to maintain any areas of broadleaved woodland, unimproved grassland, marsh or wetland within the bats’ foraging area.
Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 127
Q65 Approach to considering the location of new or extended landfills which might be proposed by waste operators Natural England welcomes the identification of guidelines against which the assessment of sites will be assessed. However, we consider that this should include criteria for designated sites of biodiversity importance. Although the suggested criteria include the requirement that development proposals will lead to an improvement in biodiversity, the first requirement is protect the existing biodiversity interest of the site, consistent with the approach in PPS9.
Section 2.2.1 In-combination assessment of policy approaches As stated in the Screening Report, it is a requirement of the Habitats Regulations that the likelihood of significant effects must be considered alone or in-combination, either with other proposals within the plan or with other plans or projects. Although paragraph 22 of this section of the Screening Report refers to category ‘A’ effects as being ‘very low risk’ the HRA should consider whether impacts which are small in themselves could have combined or cumulative effects. To comply with the Habitats Regulations, the HRA should be able to clearly state that there is no likely significant effect from in-combination effects.
Paragraph 25 states that for category ‘C6’ effects, no further in-combination assessment is required at this stage as the policy approach is not sufficiently refined to identify specific areas. We would recommend that the Plan should give strategic direction on minerals and waste delivery requirements as far as possible, to avoid environmental impacts, and that the HRA should be revisited and revised as more specific policy information becomes available.
I hope these comments are helpful. Should you wish to discuss any points raised in this response, please do not hesitate in contacting me.
Yours sincerely
Environmental Planning Adviser Western Area Government Team, South East Region Direct line: 01962 840001, Email: [email protected]
Natural England is here to conserve and enhance the natural environment, for its intrinsic value, the wellbeing and enjoyment of people and the economic prosperity that it brings 128 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Date: 2nd August 2011
Cromwell House Mr N Massie nd Hampshire County Council 2 Floor 15 Andover Road Elizabeth II Court West Winchester The Castle SO23 7BT Winchester SO23 8UD Tel: 07770682564
By email only – no hard copy
Dear Neil
Habitat Regulations Screening Report – Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan
Thank you for your letter of 28 June consulting us on the second version of the above.
Please note that formal consultation regarding this document should be emailed to Natural England at [email protected], or sent to:
Natural England Consultation Service Hornbeam House Electra Way Crewe Business Park Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ
Reading through the report raised a few issues which are not concerned with the consideration of the Habitat Regulations and I have therefore requested the draft plan itself and fed our concerns back through Melissa on that directly. These concerns would be better dealt with through strategic environmental assessment and should not be taken to be any less important to comments made here, they are baseline environmental concerns that need to be dealt with prior to assessment under the Habitat Regulations.
The focus on the Habitat Regulations rather than wider environmental assessment appears to be weakening the consideration of nationally protected sites. Furthermore, whilst policy to protect sites from windfall developments is being developed it is not clear, at this time, from any of the documentation that the policies are informing the development of the allocated sites through any meaningful level of assessment at the screening stage, please see my comments on Annex B in this regard. It is clear in the SEA regulations that a reasoned justification for the options chosen must be provided. The work on screening for the habitat regulations seems to have pre-empted this.
There currently appears to be a reliance on policy to prevent impacts instead of assessment, which is not in the spirit of SEA/SA at this level. This is evident in the fact that there is a policy to protect European designations, which are covered by law and therefore should not need explanation in policy to ensure appropriate consideration. If evidence gathering has taken place for the first stage of the plan, considering the features of the European sites likely to be affected and their conservation objectives,(as advised in DCLGs Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment document of August 2006) it should be added to the report. This would Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 129
ensure that the information to allow the authority to consider potential impacts is close at hand and easier to discuss, offering greater confidence that work is heading in the right direction.
Please find below specific examples of Natural England’s concerns.
Table 2.4 Policies screened out from having a significant effect
The question as to whether an appropriate assessment is required often relies on draft policy ENV 2 to screen out possible impacts at application stage, which may leave the authority in a position where it is unable to deliver its plan.
Draft policy MIN 3 safeguarding exisiting rail depots - evidence as to whether the policy could affect sites protected under the Habitat Regulations is entirely possible for the authority to provide as the sites are existing and this should allow for assessment to be undertaken before the policy is screened out. At this time the removal of the policy from further consideration lacks a suitable evidence base by just referring to draft policy ENV 2.
Draft Policy MIN 5 aims to maximise aggregate recycling but without knowing where this currently takes place this policy could be used to support continued use of plants which are currently on protected sites, such as at Eversley Common. There is no assessment of the potential allocated sites either, to see which of them, if any, could be used to bring forward greater capacity to allow delivery against this policy. The current document appears to lead to this policy being screened out, leaving the authority in a situation where there is the potential that it cannot deliver against it.
There are also places within the report where statements are made without the necessary evidence. For example, under Draft Policy MIN 8 the impact resulting from transportation arising from the plan is said to be likely to be de minimis, but no reasoning is provided. This raises concern that the matter has not been given due regard. The conclusion may well be correct, if extraction is likely to be less than has historically been the case and the increase in transportation movements is a small percentage of background levels around sites, but it is not clear that such consideration has been given.
Under Draft Policy MIN 10 it is planned to have a landbank of permissions for seven years supply of sand and gravel. If the sites to provide this landbank are not further assessed at the planning stage, as discussed above, there is not reasonable assurance that this will be possible and that allocated sites will be deliverable. Further to this, under the column Is appropriate assessment required? Reference is made to safeguarding european sites from rail depot relocation. This has presumably been cut and pasted rom elsewhere and not developed against the policy, giving more evidence of the lack of development of the screening opinion.
Table 2.5 Emerging Policies Screened in
Yateley Heath Wood extension is now included, following the consultation on further potential allocated sites. The evidence does not support the conclusion that there is no potential to change the policy to reduce effect. The statement in the following column states that further assessment is required to establish where the impacts may arise, such an assessment may highlight the potential to change the policy to reduce effects.
Whilst Natural England does not object out right to mineral extraction on designated sites where a short term impact may allow for restoration to a much improved habitat, this will need to be clearly demonstrated at the first opportunity to prevent our objecting to any policy or plan. The following should also be considered in determining the level of impact: The features of interest of all designations relevant to the site and likely impacts upon them, including the hydrological regime where it supports the interest. The total area of the site impacted at any one time -this should not be an increase in the extent impacted at designation where extraction is already taking place on a site, so as to ensure that the site’s interest is maintained The level of assurance of the required restoration being delivered - we would suggest that 50% of heathland landscape areas be returned to dwarf shrub heath communities. We can work with landowners/operators to find a mutually agreeable site manager if this is not within their capabilities. 130 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
The previous management of the site - where public money has been used to finance the management of a site to improve its condition the investment should not be lost by clearing the area for extraction. Any Forest Design Plan - where this includes areas of clear fell during the time of the Minerals Plan careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring no net loss in habitat for Annex 1 birds during the 3-4 years in which clearfelled areas are of value. This may result in the need for provision of compensatory habitat elsewhere on a site during the period of extraction.
With regard to Draft Policy MIN 7 – provision of new wharf capacity, I note that this policy is not in the draft plan. Please confirm that this has been removed and is not an omission.
Natural England supports the consideration of impacts under Draft Policy MIN 11 and the conclusion that site allocations for sand and gravel will require appropriate assessment. However, we note that under the type of impact listed for Purple Haze it has already been considered that the changes to the hydrological regime for Ebblake Bog are unlikely to be replicated through a mitigation scheme. This suggests that this site should have been screened out of the plan at the options stage. Further to this the potential need for an alternative area for recreation (to ensure that no displacement to the Dorest Heaths SPA takes place) may bring the feasibility of the site in to question. We trust that this matter is in discussion with the landowners/extraction companies to ensure that appropriate development criteria can be written into the plan, should the hydrological issue be overcome.
Whilst not a matter for this screening report it is worth mentioning with regard to Draft Policy WAS 17 that the fact that Squabb Wood is mapped partly as ancient/semi natural woodland replanted is not taken into account. This is an irreplacable habitat and should be considered directly, not just against the needs of the Mottisfont bats. To my knowledge the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment so far only considers minerals sites and therefore the wider impacts of the waste policies have not been assessed.
The consideration of Purple Haze under Draft Policy WAS 17 considers that encouraging recreational use of the site may be an issue due to its proximity to the Dorset Heaths SAC. The use of the Country Park may well be offering an alternative to the heathland SAC/SPA and increasing its potential to do so would be a positive impact on the european designations.
Appendix A
The comments relating to our previous consultation response offer little assurance that our concerns have been dealt with, as illustrated by our comments above. It is not adequate to respond to say that implications to SSSIs will not be considered in the HRA, the authority should be considering them and a needs assessment does not meet the needs of the Strategic Environmental Assessment regulations or Sustainability Appraisal in which these sites should be being considered. The current assessment of February 2011 does not develop the assessment beyond the needs assessment and therefore does not adequately consider the designated sites. Nor does it assess the waste policies.
With regard to the response to our comments under Q37 and the consideration of european protected species. The Annex IV species for which Dorset Heaths SAC is designated is the great crested newt. This species is also listed in Annex II of the directive and therefore habitat regulations assessment does apply.
Appendix B - Table B.1
This table causes concern as some of the decisions have been made on erroneous information.
Redlands Farm is not in an AONB (though it would be an unsuitable site due to the hydrological link with the adjacent SSSI and NNR). Bickton is not in the New Forest National Park
For other sites the choice of the option chosen is not clear. For example, with regard to Yateley Heath Wood Extension, we would advise that the extraction of material across an SPA is a lesser Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 131
impact than extraction within an SPA. It is therefore not an adequate reason to remove a site as an option in favour of a site which is in an SPA.
Whilst BAP gain seems to be a key consideration on heathland sites it is not considered positively for the Warsash area and no reason is given for why Hamble airfield is considered more sustainable. Why is this?
Sites at Sherfield English have been ruled out due to possible cumulative impacts on the A27, thus leaving the option of a site with possible impacts to SSSI and SPA sites. We would advise that this assessment needs to provide the evidence base used to come to this decision and the weighting given to the different factors.
I hope that these comments have been helpful and look forward to working with you further on this. Should you wish to discuss any of the comments please do get in touch.
Yours sincerely
Vanessa Burley Lead Advisor Land Use Operations Team Tel:. 0300 060 3899
132 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
B.5 Alternative options
49 An integral part of the Appropriate Assessment (AA) stage is that where necessary(22), the assessor should define how adverse effects will be avoided through firstly, avoidance, and secondly, mitigation. Avoidance measures in this respect may include delivering alternative development sites. These considerations as part of the AA stage are separate to the need to consider alternatives after the AA stage, and as part of the IROPI considerations (Reg. 103).
50 Consultation comments received following the first screening report also drew attention to the principles in national planning policy (PPS7) which seeks to prevent harm to biodiversity interests. PPS9 principle (vi) in particular emphasises that where granting planning permission would result in significant harm to those interests, local planning authorities will need to be satisfied that the development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. In the absence of any such alternatives, local planning authorities should ensure that, before planning permission is granted, adequate mitigation measures are put in place.
51 The Appropriate Assessment undertaken to support the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan will assess whether the proposed development sites (allocations) would result in significant harm. It is important to report that the competent authorities(23) have already shown that they are satisfied that this development cannot reasonably be located on any alternative sites that would result in less or no harm. The minerals sites proposed in the emerging Plan have already been selected from a set of alternative options. Thus there are other minerals sites that have not been taken forward in the plan for reasons including Sustainability Appraisal criteria, deliverability constraints etc. (See Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan - Integrated Sustainability Appraisal report Section 3.5.2 (Cabinet Version - September 2011) for a full explanation of how options were identified. The Sustainability Appraisal criteria include consideration of biodiversity issues, including long-term benefits and opportunities to improve the baseline conditions in a locality (e.g. through heathland restoration or improved land management).
52 The tables below summarise this process of considering alternative site options, and this is illustrated in the subsequent maps. Full information is provided in more details in the following studies:
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan - Integrated Sustainability Appraisal report (Cabinet Version - September 2011) - includes details of eliminated sites.
Hampshire Mineral Proposal (Sand and Gravel, Brick Making Clay, Wharves and Rail Depots) Suitability Study - includes details of eliminated sites. Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan - Interim Minerals and Waste Proposals Sustainability Appraisal - includes details of all sites not eliminated as a result of earlier sieving.
Minerals and Waste Plan Integrated Sustainability Appraisal Report - includes details of eliminated sites
Assessment of Need for Waste Management Facilities in Hampshire - Landfill, and Surcharging report
53 If the Appropriate Assessment concludes that there are adverse effects on integrity that cannot be avoided or mitigated, the 'alternative' site options identified to date could in principle be revisited.
22 Avoidance measures only need to be considered if any of the assessed sites were concluded through screening and AA to have adverse effects that need to be avoided. 23 Hampshire County Council and the joint plan-making authorities for the plan area Table B.13 Alternative sand and gravel site options
Proposed site allocation and 'market area' Alternative options in market area Reason for selecting proposed site allocation and discounting alternative options
Extension: Bleak Hill III sharp sand & gravel Avon Valley area: Bleak Hill represents an opportunity for an (west Hampshire)- Avon Valley (see map 3 extension which is preferable to a new below) Land at Bickton Ash 'A' & 'B', Bickton extraction site in principle. Bickton Corner, Bickton The existing operation at Bleak Hill serves Hucklesbrook 'A', North Gorley the market well. Land at North Gorley Sites eliminated at an early stage are located in the New Forest National Park (except Land at Bickton (Bickton Farm), Bickton for Ramley Farm which is outside boundary Land at Bickton Ash 'C', Bickton but reserve considered to be too small) Midgham Farm 'A', 'B' and 'C' Difficult to assess the operation of
Midgham Farm 'D', Midgham Downton Manor Farm itself as site not Habitats Midgham Farm, Bickton commenced (i.e unable to assess impacts Midgham Farm 'F', Bickton of potential extension).
Cobley Wood Farm 'B', Harbridge (eliminated at early stage) R egulations Cobley Wood Farm 'A', Harbridge (eliminated at early stage)
Coastal Forest area:
Walkford and Beckley Farms, New Milton Assessment Yeatton Farm, Hordle Ashley Manor Farm, New Milton Leagreen Farm 'A', Milford on Sea
Downton Manor Farm Extension, Milford on Sea R ecord Avon Tyrell Extension, Sopley (eliminated at early stage) Ramley Farm, Upper Pennington (eliminated at early stage) Little Ramley Farm, Pennington (eliminated at early stage) Appendices Pylewell Park, Pylewell Estate, Lymington (eliminated at early stage) Gordleton Farm, Bowling Green (eliminated at early stage) Battramsley Farm (eliminated at early stage) (FINAL) Extension: Yateley Heath Wood Extension, North East Hampshire: Yateley Heath Wood Extension represents Blackbushe (sharp sand & gravel) (north east an opportunity for an extension which is Hampshire) (see map 3 below) Busta Farm extension (north of Busta triangle) preferable to a new extraction site in
Warren Hill Plantation 2, Hartfordbridge principle. Se Warren Hill Plantation 3a and b Opportunities identified to enhance pt biodiversity at Yateley Heath Wood 2013 133 134 Habitats Proposed site allocation and 'market area' Alternative options in market area Reason for selecting proposed site allocation and discounting alternative options
North Hampshire (see map): Extension through the restoration of the R egulations site (linked to Biodiversity Opportunity Redlands farm A, Ashford Hill Area adjacent to the extension area). Redlands farm C, Ashford Hill Warren Hill Plantation 3a and b reserve not sufficient, plus extraction would involve
Redlands farm B, Ashford Hill (eliminated at early stage) Assessment potential transport across Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Redlands Farm B is located less than 150m from Ashford Hill Woods and Meadow SSSI which contains ancient woodland. R
Option available to serve North Hampshire ecord market more sustainably than Redlands Farm sites (see Mortimer Quarry, West End below). Appendices
Extension: Mortimer Quarry, West End (sharp North East Hampshire (see map): Mortimer Quarry Extension represents an sand and gravel) (north Hampshire) (see map opportunity for an extension which is 3 below) Busta Farm extension (north of Busta triangle) preferable to a new extraction site in (FINAL) Warren Hill Plantation 2, Hartfordbridge principle. Warren Hill Plantation 3a and b Opportunities identified to enhance biodiversity at Mortimer Quarry Extension through the restoration of the site (linked North Hampshire (see map): Se to Biodiversity Opportunity Area adjacent pt to the extension area). Redlands farm A, Ashford Hill 2013 Redlands farm B, Ashford Hill Warren Hill Plantation 3a and b reserve not Redlands farm C, Ashford Hill sufficient, plus extraction would involve potential transport across Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Redlands Farm B is located less than 150m from Ashford Hill Woods and Meadow SSSI which contains ancient woodland. Option available to serve north east Hampshire market more sustainably by Yateley Heath Wood Extensions (see above).
New site: Roeshot Hill, Christchurch (sharp Avon Valley area (see map): Biodiversity at Roeshot could be sand and gravel) (west Hampshire) (see map significantly enhanced due to the 3 below) Land at Bickton Ash 'A' & 'B', Bickton opportunities for nature conservation Proposed site allocation and 'market area' Alternative options in market area Reason for selecting proposed site allocation and discounting alternative options
Bickton Corner, Bickton enhancement and linkages to wider Hucklesbrook 'A', North Gorley environmental designations. Land at North Gorley Potential opportunities to enhance the Land at Bickton (Bickton Farm), Bickton landscape at Roeshot through the restoration of the site in the longer term. Land at Bickton Ash 'C', Bickton Midgham Farm 'A', 'B' and 'C' Opportunities for biodiversity, land and Midgham Farm 'D', Midgham soils and public access enhancement Midgham Farm, Bickton associated with this proposal. Midgham Farm 'F', Bickton Cobley Wood Farm 'B', Harbridge (eliminated at early stage) Eliminated sites are located in the New Forest National Park (except forRamley
Cobley Wood Farm 'A', Harbridge (eliminated at early stage) Habitats Farm which is outside boundary but reserve considered to be too small). Difficult to assess the operation of
Coastal Forest area (see map): Downton Manor Farm itself as site not R commenced (i.e unable to assess impacts egulations of extension). Avon Tyrell Extension, Sopley (eliminated at early stage) Walkford and Beckley Farms, New Milton Yeatton Farm, Hordle Assessment Ashley Manor Farm, New Milton Leagreen Farm 'A', Milford on Sea Downton Manor Farm Extension, Milford on Sea Ramley Farm, Upper Pennington (eliminated at early stage) R
Little Ramley Farm, Pennington (eliminated at early stage) ecord Pylewell Park, Pylewell Estate, Lymington (eliminated at early stage)
Gordleton Farm, Bowling Green (eliminated at early stage) Appendices Battramsley Farm (eliminated at early stage)
New site: Cutty Brow (sharp sand and gravel) North Hampshire (see map): Cutty Brow strategically located (on A303)
(north Hampshire) (see map 3 below) Redlands farm A, Ashford Hill to serve wider markets beyond north (FINAL) Redlands farm B, Ashford Hill Hampshire. Redlands farm C, Ashford Hill Redlands Farm B in Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Se pt 2013 135 136 Habitats Proposed site allocation and 'market area' Alternative options in market area Reason for selecting proposed site allocation and discounting alternative options
New site: Hamble Airfield (sharp sand and South coast: There only a limited number of R egulations gravel) (south Hampshire) (see map 3 below) opportunities in southern Hampshire for Pickwell Farm, Old Netley the extraction of sharp sand and gravel, and Land North of Portsmouth Road (A-F), Old Netley a number of these are located on the Hamble Peninsular, but these have been
Brownwich and Chilling Farms, Warsash Assessment ruled out as they are not considered to be Daedalus Airfield, Gosport (eliminated at early stage) deliverable (see table 17.1, Integrated Hound Farm, Hound (eliminated at early stage) Sustainability Appraisal Report, September Hamble Holt, Hound (eliminated at early stage) 2011). Hamble Airfield is considered Hedge End Strategic Development Area (eliminated at early stage) R
to be the most sustainable of the proposals ecord South (other): in southern Hampshire and on the peninsular. The proposal Roke Manor Farm Extension, Shootash Appendices Halterworth A, Whitenap, Romsey (eliminated at early stage) offers potential opportunities to enhance the biodiversity, the land and soils and Halterworth B, Whitenap, Romsey (eliminated at early stage) public access. Difficult to assess the operation of Roke Manor Farm itself as site not commenced (FINAL) (i.e unable to assess impacts of extension).
New site: Purple Haze Ringwood Forest (soft No alternative soft sand sites in the market area (see map) No alternative soft sand sites in the market area sand) (west Hampshire) (see map 3 below) Se pt
New site: Forest Lodge Farm (soft sand) Glebe Farm, Sherfield English Potential opportunities identified to 2013 (south Hampshire) (see map 3 below) Post Hill Farm, Sherfield English improve biodiversity in the area by linking the site to the New Forest Coast Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA) through restoration of the site. The sites nominated in the Sherfield English area would need to be accessed via the A27, which already has two existing minerals and waste sites- risk of cumulative impacts of a further site operating on the A27. Table B.14 Alternative brick-making clay area of search site options
Proposed identified area of search Alternative options
Michelmersh brickworks No alternative sites to serve brick-making works in Michelmersh
Selborne brickworks No alternative sites to serve brick-making works in Selborne
Table B.15 Alternative non-hazardous landfill site options
Proposed site allocation Alternative options Reason for selecting proposed site allocation and discounting alternative options
Increased void capacity at Blue Haze landfill near Ringwood No alternative void in acceptable location available during plan Assessment of need for Waste Management Habitats period in the County (Purple Haze (see below) not available Facilities in Hampshire: Landfill and in short-medium term) Surcharging Report Version 4 Nov 2011
Increased void capacity at Squabb Wood landfill near Romsey Bunny Lane, Timsbury Assessment of need for Waste Management R Facilities in Hampshire: Landfill and egulations Surcharging Report Version 4 Nov 2011
Bunny Lane option eliminated on landscape
grounds. Assessment
Longer term capacity at Purple Haze near Ringwood No alternative void in acceptable location available during latter Assessment of need for Waste Management part of plan period in the County. Facilities in Hampshire: Landfill and
Surcharging Report Version 4 Nov 2011 R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 137 138 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Map 1 Nominated sand and gravel extraction sites showing sites eliminated following initial assessment of deliverability Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 139
Map 2 Nominated sand and gravel extraction sites showing sites eliminated following sustainability appraisal 140 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Map 3 Nominated sand and gravel extraction sites showing proposed site allocations and location within Hampshire (in relation to market areas) Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 141
B.6 Scope & method for Appropriate Assessment
Introduction
54 Following on from this stage one assessment of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste plan, the 12 elements of the plan, identified through screening as having likely significant effects (either alone or in combination) which cannot be avoided or mitigated by taking account of the measures described above (see Amending the plan/ option), OR through application of the precautionary principle (section 2.6) need to be assessed against the conservation objectives of European sites to demonstrate as to whether the element of the plan would not adversely effect the integrity of European sites. This is addressed through the further stages of the Habitat Regulations Assessment known as Appropriate Assessment.
55 As explained in the methodology report(24), the first step in undertaking the Appropriate Assessment (AA) is agreeing its scope.
56 The aim of this scoping section is to inform the consultation process with nature conservation consultees and help to guide the discussions about the assessment. The scope and method of an appropriate assessment will be agreed with Natural England (and other nature conservation consultees) as required.
57 This scoping stage goes further than screening for significant effects. It is the process of determining the content and extent of matters that should be covered by the appropriate assessment, and the environmental information required to enable a competent authority to assess and make decisions on it.
Scoping always follows a screening decision that an AA is required. Its aim is to identify more precisely what impacts the AA should cover and to ensure the appropriate information is gathered to ensure the AA can be carried out. It helps ensure the final AA is complete and accurate. Scoping should address any gaps in knowledge about the site, external conditions and potential impacts highlighted during screening(25).
58 The key elements of the scoping exercise are:
1. Agreeing the consultation period 2. Agreeing the AA methodology 3. Summary of the evidence base 4. Agreeing the plan elements subject to AA 5. Further research or survey work needed
1. Agreeing the consultation period
59 Under the provisions of regulation 102(2)(26) the planning authority must consult the nature conservation body (Natural England) and have regard to any representations made. Because a specific period is not prescribed by the regulations, it is necessary to consult ‘within such reasonable time as the plan-making authority may specify’. It is proposed that Natural England will be consulted on the draft HRA Record (incorporating AA) in support of the 'Publication' (i.e. pre-submission) version of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan DPD for four weeks in Autumn 2011. This period is to be agreed with Natural England.
24 See: Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan: Assessment under the Habitats Regulations (Methodology & Baseline Report). The latest draft report is available from Hampshire County Council (County Planning Service). 25 Dodd A.M., Cleary B.E., Dawkins J.S., Byron H.J., Palframan L.J. and Williams G.M. (2007) The Appropriate Assessment of Spatial Plans in England: a guide to why, when and how to do it (The RSPB, Sandy). 26 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 142 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
2. Agreeing the Appropriate Assessment methodology
60 This has already been undertaken- see Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan: Assessment under the Habitats Regulations (Methodology & Baseline Report). The method should be ‘appropriate’, i.e. fit for purpose, effective and compliant with the Regulations. The methodology was agreed with Natural England in October 2010 (see attached letter at the end of this appendix).
3. Summary of the evidence base
61 Guidance suggests the scoping should include a summary of the evidence base, including a list of sites and the elements of the plan to be considered, and the schedule of site interest features their condition, vulnerabilities etc. Any relevant background reports and data sets should also be referred to (acknowledging that these may change over time). For background information and evidence of the minerals and landfill site options see B.5 'Alternative options'.
62 One of the functions of the scoping process is to ensure that all the necessary information is correctly identified. The information can be grouped under the following headings:
Up-to-date information on the affected European sites; Detailed information on relevant plans and projects; and Detailed information on likely impacts identified at screening.
63 The evidence base about the European sites and plans and projects is provided in Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan: Assessment under the Habitats Regulations (Methodology & Baseline Report). This information has been drawn upon to inform table C.1 below. Information about likely impacts is shown in the screening matrices (see table 2.5 for the emerging policy approaches which will be taken forward to full AA).
4. Agreeing the plan elements to subject to Appropriate Assessment
64 Table C.1 below lists all 9 elements of the plan (parts of the emerging policy approaches or supporting text) which will be subject to Appropriate Assessment, the broad areas of impacts identified and how they relate to the European sites (by nature of their location or sensitivities). The relevant references to policy numbers are also shown. This scope has been concluded from the findings of the screening exercises reported in this document. Nature conservation consultees will be asked to comment on the decision to exclude/ include certain emerging plan elements/impacts/European sites as reported herein. The scoping stage seeks to ensure the AA focuses only on these likely significant impacts and the European sites that have been scoped in, and is robust enough to answer the question of whether the plan would have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European sites.
5. Further research or survey work needed
65 The scoping stage should identify any further research or survey work required before assessment of adverse effects can be concluded. The table below indicates where we have identified further gaps in knowledge to be addressed (about the site, external conditions and potential impacts that have been highlighted during screening). The table below suggests what must be done to gather the information necessary to fill in those gaps. Table B.16 Summary of information needed for Appropriate Assessment (identified during scoping)
Policy approaches & Relevant reference European Sites (type of Relevant research on potential Relevant plans and projects Further research? likely significant effect info needed) impacts (info needed) (info needed for in-combination assessment) Identified extensions to Policy 20 Habitat Relevant research into: Existing operations Recreational survey existing minerals sites. requirements of Disturbance effects of minerals around Harbridge information (Bramshill area); Sand and gravel extraction breeding bird Drove; Bleak Hill III operations on European bird Opportunities for long term potentially giving rise to: interests; species; Planned new habitat gain (BOAs, Yateley Heath Distribution of Disturbance effects of road development around conservation objectives). Wood Non-physical relevant birds on transport on relevant features of Harbridge Drove; Mortimer Quarry disturbance (bird European Sites European interest (mainly birds) Planned biodiversity species) (and use of Effects of restoration afteruses improvements/ habitat
Changes to surrounding sites); on European bird species; creation; Habitats hydrology Distribution of key Effects of changes in water levels Planned new (dewatering, water habitats on on heathland habitat; development around -use, restoration European Sites; Mortimer Quarry (and
Effects of fragmentation of R
proposals) Hydrological heathland habitats; relevant traffic egulations Direct physical loss connections Risk of direct mortality of bird assessments). of habitat (Thames between site and species; Hart District Council Basin Heaths SPA) European Sites; Effects of changes to local air land use plans. Recreational Relevant quality/ traffic noise on heathland New Forest District Assessment disturbance component SSSIs vegetation and breeding birds. Council land use plans; (displacement) and SSSI units Air quality plans and where they Basingstoke & Deane Non/toxic (including current demonstrates parts of Hampshire land use plans. contamination condition and area at or nearing capacity
(Vehicle emissions) conservation R
Biological objectives); ecord disturbance Current recreational usage Appendices on-sites and wider area; Distance of key habitats on
European Sites (FINAL) from roads. Identified new site Policy 20 Habitat Relevant research into: Existing operations Recreational survey
allocations for sand and requirements of Effects of noise and visual around Harbridge information (Bramshill area); Se
gravel extraction breeding bird Drove; pt Roeshot disturbance on breeding birds; Opportunities for long term
potentially giving rise to: interests; habitat gain (BOAs, 2013 conservation objectives) 143 144 Habitats Policy approaches & Relevant reference European Sites (type of Relevant research on potential Relevant plans and projects Further research? likely significant effect info needed) impacts (info needed) (info needed for in-combination R
assessment) egulations
Physical loss of Cutty Brow Distribution of Effects of restoration afteruses Planned new habitat (Thames Hamble Airfield relevant birds on on breeding birds (see above); development around Basin Heaths SPA, Forest Lodge Farm European Sites Effects of changes in water levels Harbridge Drove; Dorset Heaths (and use of Assessment Purple Haze on heathland habitat; Planned biodiversity SPA) surrounding sites); Effects of fragmentation of improvements/ habitat Physical damage to Distribution of key heathland habitats; creation; habitat habitats on Risk of direct mortality of bird Planned new Changes to European Sites; species; development around R
Hydrology Hydrological Effects of changes to local air Mortimer Quarry (and ecord Non-physical connections quality/ traffic noise on heathland relevant traffic disturbance between site and vegetation and breeding birds. assessments). Appendices (recreation, noise European Sites; Air quality plans and where they Hart District Council visual) Relevant demonstrates parts of Hampshire land use plans. component SSSIs area at or nearing capacity New Forest District and SSSI units Council land use plans; (including current Basingstoke & Deane (FINAL) condition and land use plans. conservation Solent disturbance and objectives); mitigation project Current Se
recreational usage pt on-sites and wider 2013 area; Distance of key habitats on European Sites from roads. Policy approaches & Relevant reference European Sites (type of Relevant research on potential Relevant plans and projects Further research? likely significant effect info needed) impacts (info needed) (info needed for in-combination assessment) Identified site and area of Policy 21 Habitat Relevant research into: Existing operations Nature of operations (clay search for brick-making requirements of around Michelmersh extraction). clay sites. Brick-making barbastelle bats; Effects of noise and light on Test Valley Borough clay extraction giving rise Distribution of foraging and commuting of Council's LDF to: barbastelle bats Barbastelle bats; Mottisfont Bat SAC (and use of Effects of removal of vegetation management plan Noise and light surrounding sites); on Barbastelle bats disturbance Relevant (Barbastelle bat component SSSIs species) and SSSI units Non-physical (including current Habitats disturbance condition and Damage to habitat conservation (fragmentation) objectives). R egulations
Planning for additional Policy 28 and N/A N/A Existing operations at Nature of operations waste management sites considered to be Guidance on applying the capacity (recycling and Policy 32 suitable to extension Habitats Regulations to Assessment recovery) and additional /surcharging Waste Management Facilities landfill capacity Needs assessments (Environment Agency)- (non-hazardous waste), including buffer zones potentially giving rise to: Air quality study (Open
University for Hampshire R Physical damage to County Council and PUSH ecord habitat Physical loss of Appendices habitat Non-physical disturbance (noise, visual)
Non/toxic (FINAL) contamination (water pollution) Changes in
hydrology Se
Biological pt
disturbance 2013 145 146 Habitats Policy approaches & Relevant reference European Sites (type of Relevant research on potential Relevant plans and projects Further research? likely significant effect info needed) impacts (info needed) (info needed for in-combination R
assessment) egulations Support for maximising/ Policy 26 (i, ii, Identify European sites Relevant research into: Existing development Assessment of needs extending capacity at that may be effected (if Effects arising from industrial Other county waste assessment to establish likely suitable inert waste iii) spatial steer established) processes plans location of extensions Assessment recycling facilities and Control and mitigation measure Needs assessment existing waste to counter industry effects management sites (incl. involving ancillary development), potentially R
giving rise to: ecord Changes to Hydrology (increase of Appendices impermeable surfaces) Non-physical disturbance (noise, vibration, visual, (FINAL) human) Non-toxic contamination Se (vehicle and plant pt emissions) 2013 Principle of encouraging Policy 26 (i, ii, Current Recreational use/pressures of District land use plans Needs assessment - waste management recreational usage Urban South Hampshire? (Urban South identification of likely infrastructure close to iii) on sites and wider Hampshire) location of extension/ urban areas and planned area; Effects of impacts from industrial maximisation development areas to processes Existing /Planned reduce distance waste Identify European development travels. Steer towards sites that may be RSS - South East Plan strategic urban locations effected (if spatial PUSH air quality work steer established) Strategic Traffic (focused around south Assessment and north east Hampshire and near to the sources and markets for waste management). Potentially giving rise to: Policy approaches & Relevant reference European Sites (type of Relevant research on potential Relevant plans and projects Further research? likely significant effect info needed) impacts (info needed) (info needed for in-combination assessment)
Non-physical disturbance (noise, vibration, displaced recreation) Non/toxic contamination Direct physical loss of habitat Biological disturbance Physical damage to Habitats habitat
Identified additional Policy 32 Proximity of Relevant research into: Existing waste Guidance on applying the R non-hazardous landfill allocated sites to management licences, Habitats Regulations to egulations capacity at identified sites, vulnerable colonies Effects of attracting gulls/ IPC authorisations, Waste Management Facilities potentially giving rise to: of breeding birds; corvids on habitats and bird discharge consents, (Environment Agency)- European sites that species, and zone of influence; abstraction licences, including buffer zones.
Physical loss are vulnerable due Potential to prevent and minimise planning permissions Assessment Physical damage to hydrological impacts with engineered or etc applicable to Biological connectivity procedural measures; Squabb Wood Disturbance Existing Effects of contamination landfill,and Blue Haze (Predation - pests recreational (leachate, surface water landfill. and vermin) pressure within discharges, landfill gas flare and Other waste plans R ecord Non/Toxic country park, and dust); New Forest District, contamination (air likely displaced New Forest National
and water pressure on park and Dorset county Appendices pollution, nutrient European sites local plans enrichment) New Forest recreation Non-physical studies disturbance (noise and visual) (FINAL) Se pt 2013 147 148 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Appendix C Summary of earlier concerns raised by nature conservation consultees
Consultation to date
As explained in the second Screening Report (Version 2), Hampshire County Council (HCC) undertook a targeted consultation for five weeks between March and April 2011 on the first version of the screening report. The HCC response to this consultation is summarised in table F3. This initial consultation was followed up with another targeted consultation on version 2 in June and July 2011 and The HCC response to this consultation is summarised in table F2.
These consultations were followed up with another targeted consultation in September and October 2011, when Natural England (NE), Environment Agency (EA); Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Hampshire & IOW Wildlife Trust (HWT) were invited to comment on the third version of the screening report. Consultees provided comments and these are summarised in the table C2 below.
Further consultee comments were received following public consultation on proposed modifications of the Plan (22nd October - 17th December 2012). The summary of this consultation are summarised in Table C.1. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 149
Table C.1 Summary of consultee comments following the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan proposed changes consultation October - December 2012
'HMWP' Consultee comment HCC Response Policy and consultee
Vision We would advise a change to the bullet point regarding protection ‘Sensitive habitats’ have a wider interpretation of the environment with the additional wording and deletion than international and nationally designated sites shown in bold italics; as defined within Policy 3. Protecting and “Protecting and conserving the New Forest and South Downs National conserving is already covered within the Parks and other valued landscapes. Likewise the sensitive nationally paragraph. and internationally designated habitats like such as the Thames Basin Heaths SAC will be protected and enhanced and our archaeological and historical heritage will be treated similarly.”
Paragraph 2.33 Note the change of wording as this reflects the position that both Noted Bramshill and Purple Haze extraction sites may be subject to conditions at application stage which could limit the material available.
Policy 4 Welcome modifications regarding designated landscapes. Noted
Policy 20 Would advise additional clarification in the wording to conform This clarification is already more appropriately with Policy 20 i, that the full extent of extraction of both Purple provided within the development considerations Haze and Bramshill sites could be limited by Appropriate for these sites. Assessment as set out in Habitat Regulations. Reference critical in same paragraph 2.33 should therefore reflect this position.
Policy 20 i. 2) Monitoring indicated that the sites identified in 2) and 3) are It is HCCs opinion that the sites are still and 3) unlikely to be delivered to meet local need and demand to meet deliverable, even if a reduced level of resource is landbank requirements; as this reflects the position that both required as a result of development considerations Bramshill and Purple Haze may be subject to Appropriate or at the planning application stage. Assessment at application which could limit the material available. Both sites would contribute to meeting a local need and demand.
Paragraph 6.70 We note the inclusion of “including the Hartfordbridge Flats Noted management area which” for clarification in the relevant development considerations in respect of Bramshill.
Policy 32 Additional text provided any proposal addresses the relevant This issue is already covered in the Development development considerations outlined in ‘Appendix A – Site consideration for this site – hydrological allocations’ and unless regarding Purple Haze, we do not advise assessments will guide the working of the site to for the benefit of developers and mindful of the need to plan ensure that impacts to the European site are fully positively, additional clarification of Purple Haze site in Appendix considered. Dry working of the site is considered A as follows: most likely at this stage, but other forms of To explicitly state in proposed land-use that all workings, including working cannot be ruled out as technology temporary workings, shall be above groundwater levels supporting the advances cannot be ruled out. wetland features of the designated sites at Ebblake Bog.
Development First point to include after Ramsar site. …….. Displacement of recreation, impacts to off-site considerations use of SPA birds and hydrological impacts have - Purple Haze (including the provision of sustainable measures to prevent displacement already been adequately addressed within the of recreational use affecting these sites) development considerations and previously found adequate by Natural England. Second point to be reworded as……. 150 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
'HMWP' Consultee comment HCC Response Policy and consultee
Provision of suitable alternative habitat, of adequate extent and location, to maintain the integrity of nearby SPA/ Ramsar* for qualifying bird species and for maintaining populations and distributions of European protected species.
Third point to include……
Protection of the water flows, quality and levels of the underlying aquifer, groundwater and surface water (including the containment of sediment run-off) and safeguard the hydrological regime and integrity of Ebblake Bog SAC.
HRA Working at Purple Haze being above and not adversely affecting This issue is already covered in the Development Paragraph 87 the groundwater that supports Ebblake Bog, part of the Dorset consideration for this site – hydrological (Purple Haze) Heaths SAC, SPA and Ramsar site and Bramfield site also being assessments will guide the working of the site to worked dry with limited water take. ensure that impacts to the European site are fully considered. Dry working of the site is considered most likely at this stage, but other forms of working cannot be ruled out as technology advances cannot be ruled out.
Paragraph 4.11 Although not a proposed modification, in compliance with This is already addressed within Policy 3 (see paragraph 118 of the NPF, following designations should also paragraph 4.12 and part a of policy). be included:
Potential SPA Possible SAC Proposed Ramsar sites; Sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential SPA, possible SAC and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.
Paragraph 4.14 Although not a proposed modification, it should be noted that This is HCC stance on the designations. local nature reserves although created by the same legislation as SSSI should not be regarded as nationally important. “Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) (where they correspond with SSSIs)” should be deleted.
Paragraph 4.18 Although not a proposed modification, should note the existence Noted – this has been addressed in paragraph of the Nature Improvement Area (NIA) – South Downs Way 4.14 ahead which lies solely within the South Downs National Park. In compliance with the NPPF paragraph 157, the Plan should show how the NIA will be supported where appropriate.
Policy 3 Although not a proposed modification, notwithstanding paragraph This policy has not changed since previous 4.19, Policy 3 is not now considered HRA compliant. To make support from Natural England. This point is it compliant additional wording should be included to protect the addressed within the Policy – see para 4.19. integrity of internationally designated site. To add at the end of Policy 3…… Proposals which effect the integrity of international sites will not be permitted. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 151
'HMWP' Consultee comment HCC Response Policy and consultee
Bramshill Would wish to see the accompanying map from Bramshill Quarry The red line cannot be changed at this stage of Quarry extension (Appendix A insert map 1) show the Trusts nature plan development, and it has been proven reserve excluded from the development area. through the HRA that retaining it will not have (HWT) Trust is seeking removal of the development proposals for an impact on the integrity of the European site, Bramshill Quarry extension from the Plan as we do not believe nor the positive management of it. that this site can be delivered.
Paragraph 4.60 Concerned wording of the additional text regarding bird-strike All such cases would be taken on a case by case does not reflect the proper consultation process with the airport situation and is not a blanket approach. (RSPB) operator, or the fact that each site’s restoration and risk of bird-strike should be determined on its own merits. (Current The wording for this section has been amended wording implies there is a blanket approach across the entire through a proposed additional modification to area). the Plan DC33 as part of the schedule of Welcome need for progressive working and restoration but would proposed modifications to he HMWP (October suggest revising text to reflect the fact that bird-strike is about 2012) and subsequently in pre hearing changes risk management. It is not feasible to prevent all birds from using for the second stage of hearings - DC214. This open water bodies (regardless of whether the water body is a is documented in the scheduled of further nature conservation afteruse) as roosting sites or possible to proposed changes to the HMWP (Feb 2013). ‘ensure birds cannot roost in and around water bodies’. Should also include the terminology ‘Airfield Safeguarding Zones’ to reflect the proper approach to such areas. We further recommend that reference to ‘prevent open water bodies becoming bird roosts....’ should be replaced with ‘minimise the risk of bird strike on open water bodies.’ Proposed wording……. ‘The issue of risk to aircraft from bird-strike is an important consideration which may restrict the location of workings and/or affect the design of restoration schemes. Some areas of open water may be created but careful use of inert fill and other design and engineering techniques can lead to creation of wetland habitats that offer lower bird-strike risk and are also of greater value for biodiversity.’
Michelmersh As part of the revised allocation is still within a Source Protection Noted. The Hampshire Authorities and the EA site allocation Zone 1 we would recommend that the deleted text detailing had detailed discussions on this issue following requirements for a Source Protection Zone 1 should be reinstated. the end of the first stage of the hearings. DC96 The text was reinstated and amended (see (EA) schedule of further proposed modifications - Feb 2013) See DC234.
This issue was also discussed at the second stage of the hearings where agreement was noted by the inspector.
DC98 To make the Plan sound we would suggest that the deleted text Noted. The Hampshire Authorities and the EA is reinstated. This would help to provide protection to the had detailed discussions on this issue following (EA) groundwater and abstraction from pollution. the end of the first stage of the hearings.
The text was not deleted - it was moved, see DC236 in schedule of proposed further changes (Feb 2013)
This issue was also discussed at the second stage of the hearings where agreement was noted by the inspector. 152 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
'HMWP' Consultee comment HCC Response Policy and consultee
DC193 In line with Southern Water, the proposed modification does not Noted. The Hampshire Authorities and the EA go far enough in order to protect drinking water supplies. An had detailed discussions on this issue following (EA) additional bullet point is required to be added to the list of the end of the first stage of the hearings. development considerations; Amendment to DC were proposed (see schedule The restoration of the site will need to be compatible with of further changes - ref DC250. the re-designated Source Protection Zone status of the site following excavation, as advised by the Environment This issue was also discussed at the second stage Agency. of the hearings where agreement was noted by the inspector. Also suggest that the definition of the term “low level restoration” is expanded upon within the document. In line with EA’s Position on restoration, landfilling as a method of restoration would be unacceptable due to the status of the site changing to Source Protection Zone 1. Only limited soil restoration would be acceptable provided that a risk assessment shows that the activity would not cause pollution to groundwater. Table C.2 Summary of consultee comments following version 3 screening report October 2011
'HMWP' Policy and Consultee comment HCC Response consultee
Policy 19 Aggregate Policies that have been screened out that we believe should be screened in Noted. However, HCC feel that the uncertainty about the location Wharves and rail deposits We agree with the comments that the impacts arising from this policy to the and scale of the development cannot be determined to provide such European sites will depend on how this policy is implemented. This will depend an assessment, and that the evidence shows that the need for such (HWT) on if this will be implemented though existing permissions or though new planning development is low, and therefore the justification for the B category permissions. Whilst it is recognised that new planning permissions will need to is valid. undertake their own HRA at the application stage we would consider that the potential impacts arising from these, should be looked at as part of an in- combination assessment at this minerals plan stage. One key aspects we would consider that needs assessing for Wharfs is the in combination impacts on the Shoreline Management plans and Coastal Defence strategies for these areas. As
such we would wish to see this Policy included within those screened in for further Habitats assessment. so these sites can be assessed in the strategic context.
We therefore disagree with the categories chosen. R egulations Policy 20 Sand and gravel Policies that have been screened out that we believe should be screened in Noted - However HCC only wish to appropriately assess sites or development (in part) We note that sections of this policy have been screened out and sections screened elements of policies that are likely to have significant effects. in. We believe that this leads to confusion and would like to see the whole policy (HWT) assessed as part of the HRA. Assessment
Policy 21: Brick-making Policies that have been screened out that we believe should be screened in Noted - this is a slight error in the presentation of the justification. Clay development It is noted that for Selborne Brickworks this has been screened out under Category Both sites have been taken forward for Appropriate Assessment.
B and yet in the justification section you mention that European sites may be R
(HWT) affected. As such Its considered that this should be screened in to enable furthe ecord
It is noted that under the same Policy 21 for Michelmersh Brickworks you have Appendices categorised this as C2 an option that could indirectly affect a Europeans site.
Whilst it is recognised that both Selbourne and Michelmersh are very different sites and will have different impacts it is questioned why one is in and the other
not when its recognised that both may have impacts on European sites. (FINAL)
Policy 26: Recycling, Policies that have been screened out that we believe should be screened in Noted - However HCC only wish to appropriately assess sites or recovery and landfill Some aspects of this policy have been screened in and some screened out leading elements of policies that are likely to have significant effects.
capacity to confusion we would wish to see all aspects screened in and considered. Se pt
(HWT) 2013 153 154 Habitats 'HMWP' Policy and Consultee comment HCC Response consultee R
Policy 8 Restoration Amendments to policies to ensure policies can be screened out Noted - this will be taken forward as a consideration for the egulations Whilst we acknowledge and agree with the reasons for screening this policy out, Appropriate Assessment. (HWT) we would wish to see an amendment to wording of this policy or to the accompanying text. Assessment We note that whilst the restoration and aftercare of these sites is mentioned, there is no mention of the funding of the long term maintenance requirements and that developers would be expected to contribute towards these. Whilst it is recognised Policy 13 covers planning obligations we would wish to see a reference to this within the policy. We ask that it is highlighted as a amendment under the HRA R
to ensure that any restoration work in relation to avoidance/mitigation for impacts ecord to the European sites is fully funded. This will ensure it is achievable and viable over the long-term. Appendices
Policy 11 Managing impacts Amendments to policies to ensure policies can be screened out Noted - this will be taken forward as a consideration for the from Traffic To ensure that this is able to be screened out we would wish to see an amendment Appropriate Assessment. to the policy. To make the policy clearer we would wish to see a reference to the (HWT) Environmental impacts. These are described in the screening Table 2.4 and we (FINAL) would wish to see these included within the policy or accompanying text. In particular those where it states “Air pollution, disturbance from noise and vibration from minerals and waste traffic - will be most significant where European sites are within 200m of the roads down which minerals and waste traffic passes” Se pt Policy 13 Planning Amendments to policies to ensure policies can be screened out The reliance on Policy 13 relates to the requirement for conditions 2013 conditions and obligations Whilst we acknowledge and agree with the reasons for screening this policy out. and planning obligations such as s106 agreements, which are used to However we are concerned over the reliance on the Community Infrastructure provide long-term management or maintenance of compensation (HWT) Levy (CIL). This is due to the nature of CIL. It is our understanding that CIL areas. This use of obligations will still be valid under the proposed cannot be ring fenced for particular uses and therefore would not be able to be changes, and does not refer to CIL. used for funding towards measures that may be required to avoid or mitigate impacts to the European sites. We believe that this should be recognised within the policy and alternative funding mechanisms also considered.
Policy 23: Oil and gas Amendments to policies to ensure policies can be screened out Noted. However, HCC feel that all the policies should be considered development Whilst we acknowledge the reasons for screening this policy out, but would wish in conjunction with each other. Whilst Policy 23 does imply that to see an amendment to wording of this policy or to the accompanying text. development may in some circumstances outweigh environmental (HWT) impacts, the hierarchal weighting provided by Policy 2 with respect It is of concern that the first sentence implies that impacts to the environment to European sites would ensure that this is unlikely to be relevant will be outweighed if the development demonstrates a need. In terms of the where impacts to European sites are likely. European sites there is a clear process which has to be followed for a development to show its in the overriding public interest. 'HMWP' Policy and Consultee comment HCC Response consultee
We therefore consider that this policy needs amending to show clarity of the need to take this approach with regards to impacts to the European sites.
Policy 20 Sand and gravel Additional comments on the HRA assessments for those policies screened in Most of the sites within Policy 20 have been assessed within the development (in part) See also our comments above relating to this policy. As you are aware from our Appropriate Assessment. previous correspondence the Trust has serious concerns over the inclusion of a (HWT) number of sites proposed within this policy. We would wish to see a full Appropriate assessment being undertaken for all of these sites. The red line and therefore the area of the site has not been reduced. However, the total mineral resource has been reduced from 1.75 As you are aware from our previous correspondence and meetings with yourselves million tonnes to 1 million tonnes, which reflects the inclusion of the we have made you aware of our lease on the land known as Hartfordbridge flats development consideration that states that areas of higher nature which farms part of your proposals for Bramshill Quarry Extension. We are conservation value will have to be excluded and buffered'. This will Habitats therefore extremely concerned and disappointed that this area is still shown on include any area within the red line that would conflict with the your maps in Appendix E Bramshill Quarry Extension as an allocated site. We conservation objectives of the SPA and cannot be progressively extracted and restored without causing effects to the SPA. Due to strongly object to this. R
the Plan period, and the uncertainty of when this site may come egulations For Purple Haze we agree that a full Appropriate assessment is required. As part forward it is best placed that this is determined accurately at the point of this would wish to see an assessment of this site made in relation the recreational of delivery. We fully appreciate the value of Hartfordbridge Flats, and disturbance issues for Dorset heaths. It needs to be checked to confirm if this would expect that this area would fall within the areas of higher value
site or the adjacent Moors Valley Country park are currently or plan to be used that will be excluded and buffered. The retention of the red line Assessment as part of the measures for avoidance or mitigation in relation to recreational boundary provides development management control over aspect of impacts to the Dorset heaths SAC. This could have implications for the minerals mitigation and securing long-term management, as we are mindful extractions proposed for this site. that the management plan agreement that HWT has at this site is a fixed term, and would benefit from having longer-term prospects and
ties with other areas within the site that would be similarly managed. R ecord
Policy 16 Safeguarding - Queries relating to the screening categories Noted, and agreed. Changes will be made to the next iteration of the Appendices minerals infrastructure We are unsure why this has been given a category B for Oil and Gas where for screening assessment. all other aspects of this policy they are categorised as A4 and A5. It is considered (HWT) that all aspects of this policy should be consistent. In our view the potential impacts from oil and gas are the same as those from the other aspects of this
policy. (FINAL)
General points In conclusion Noted - please see above comments. We welcome the overall approach to the HRA and have provided the above
comments to ensure that the impacts to the European sites are fully considered Se
and avoided where possible. pt 2013 155 156 Habitats 'HMWP' Policy and Consultee comment HCC Response consultee R
(HWT) egulations We are however extremely concerned that Bramshill Quarry Extension is still being shown as an allocated site despite our confirmation that we have a lease on the area know as Hertfordbridge flats. We strongly object to this still being included within the plan. Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 Table C.3 Summary of consultee comments following version 2 screening report June 2011
'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Policy approaches & likely significant effect Policy 8 has been significantly tightened since this version of the Plan. Inappropriate or unmanaged access to restored sites could also lead to physical Specific reference to long-term management and (in the ENV9 - minerals disturbance to priority species on site or on adjacent sites supporting Annex I or implementation plan) the requirement for planning ahead and the restoration Schemes other regularly occurring migratory species. principle of ensuring the European site objectives (where relevant) (RSPB) are the primary focus for such scheme should ensure that this is addressed.
Relevant plans and projects The implementation plan set out the other land-uses that the objectives Surrounding land use should be considered when determining suitable after-use for restored sites need to consider, including National Parks. The options. Therefore, where they exist, local authority SPA mitigation strategies policy specifies that land identified as required as compensatory habitat ENV9 - minerals should also be used to identify SANG networks in the surrounding area. Where for European sites would be considered in the same way as European Habitats restoration Schemes appropriate, this should extend to plans and strategies beyond the county border. sites - this will ensure that such networks, where they do exist, should (RSPB) The correct title of the Solent recreation research project is the “Solent Disturbance be a material consideration in both scale and location of development, and Mitigation Project”. but in the design and implementation of restoration schemes. R egulations
Policy approaches & likely significant effect Policy has significantly changed, and is more clearly linked to protection The list of potential impacts arising from non-road based transportation does not from environmental impacts. Policy supporting text clearly states that adequately reflect the potential impacts of expansion/intensification of wharf that opportunities for alternative transport depends on the nature and Assessment activities within and adjacent to coastal European sites, which could also include location of the sites and mix of development. Cross referenced with COM6 - increased use of changes to hydrology, physical disturbance and direct (long-term) loss of habitat Policy 9, impacts arising from these measures will be adequately rail depots and wharves & (including SPA supporting habitats/features). managed non-road transportation (RSPB)
Further impacts arising from the use of conveyor(identified within the screening R
report) have also not been fully identified, including: fragmentation; ecord severance/barrier and edge effects. Appendices
Further research? Noted - these issues have been looked at and used across the board It is acknowledged in the HRA screening report that intensification/expansion of and used wherever relevant - this was a clear error - there is more COM6 - increased use of Hampshire’s wharves could conflict with a number of coastal European sites. information in this version of the screening table with respect to the steer on wharf expansion that the needs assessment gives to this rail depots and wharves & Table 2.5 lists a number of important issues for consideration within the AA, (FINAL) non-road transportation which do not appear to be reflected in Table C.1, such as “Examination of needs assessment. (RSPB) assessment to assess the spatial steer of ‘expansion of suitable sites’”. These should be translated into the scoping report. Se pt 2013 157 158 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R
COM7 – limiting road Policy approaches & likely significant effect Policy has significantly changed, and is more clearly linked to protection egulations transport impacts by good Air pollution and non-physical disturbance should be included in the list of likely from environmental impacts. Generic transport issues arising from access to road networks significant effects of increased pressure on the road networks as a result of this site proposals and the application of the strategic road network will (RSPB) policy. look at this issue more closely. Assessment
MIN1 & MIN3 - Relevant plans and projects Noted. safeguarding areas around Reference may also be necessary to the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project minerals sites (RSPB) results and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA Delivery Framework. R ecord MIN3 - (NE) Evidence as to whether the policy could affect sites protected under the Habitat Noted. However, we consider that the continued use of existing sites Regulations is entirely possible for the authority to provide as the sites are existing can be screened out of assessment due to the strict industry and Appendices and this should allow for assessment to be undertaken before the policy is screened development management controls that are in place. out. At this time the removal of the policy from further consideration lacks a suitable evidence base by just referring to draft policy ENV 2.
MIN5 - (NE) Draft Policy MIN 5 aims to maximise aggregate recycling but without knowing Noted. However, we consider that the continued use of existing sites (FINAL) where this currently takes place this policy could be used to support continued can be screened out of assessment due to the strict industry and use of plants which are currently on protected sites, such as at Eversley Common. development management controls that are in place. This policy is an There is no assessment of the potential allocated sites either, to see which of them, in principle policy and will be seen as part of the whole framework of if any, could be used to bring forward greater capacity to allow delivery against the draft Plan, which include those that will look at the deliverability Se
this policy. The current document appears to lead to this policy being screened of any proposal within the restrictions imposed by European sites. pt out, leaving the authority in a situation where there is the potential that it cannot 2013 deliver against it.
MIN7 – extensions to / Policy approaches & likely significant effect Water based transportation can't be considered within the Plan, as the new wharves (RSPB) Physical disturbance (e.g. direct disturbance to feeding/roosting birds from licensing of such vessels is already subject to the HRA regulatory water-based transportation and other wharf activities) should also be assessed. regime. Further consideration of this issue is provided within this iteration of the screening report to clarify your point.
MIN7 – extensions to / With regard to Draft Policy MIN 7 – provision of new wharf capacity, I note that There are no policies within the Plan that set out a requirement for new wharves (RSPB) this policy is not in the draft Plan. Please confirm that this has been removed and new wharf sites. is not an omission.
MIN8 - (NE) There are also places within the report where statements are made without the Noted and addressed within the latest iteration. necessary evidence. For example, under Draft Policy MIN 8 the impact resulting from transportation arising from the Plan is said to be likely to be de minimis, but no reasoning is provided. This raises concern that the matter has not been given due regard. The conclusion may well be correct, if extraction is likely to be less 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
than has historically been the case and the increase in transportation movements is a small percentage of background levels around sites, but it is not clear that such consideration has been given.
MIN10 – prioritising Policy approaches & likely significant effect It is not possible to determine which existing site would be suitable minerals site extensions Extensions to existing minerals sites could lead to direct physical disturbance to (in terms of location or need) for extension other than the ones that (RSPB) breeding, feeding or roosting SPA species, particularly given that a number of have been put forward in the Plan. It should be recognised that this existing sites are within or close to European sites. Other impacts such as policy is an in principle policy only and that extensions that would fragmentation and edge effects could also occur and should be assessed. have such effects would be contrary to Policy 2.
MIN10 – prioritising Under Draft Policy MIN 10 it is planned to have a landbank of permissions for All sites that will be considered 'land bank' consist of existing permitted minerals site extensions seven years supply of sand and gravel. If the sites to provide this landbank are not sites (which are not pertinent to this HRA Assessment for reasons Habitats (NE) further assessed at the planning stage, as discussed above, there is not reasonable given above) and the proposed sites that are put forward under Policy assurance that this will be possible and that allocated sites will be deliverable. 20 which have been considered within this HRA - nearly all are going Further to this, under the column 'Is appropriate assessment required?' Reference forward to AA. The principle of 'landbank' does not require assessing, R
is made to safeguarding European sites from rail depot relocation. This has only the sites that have been designed to fulfil this requirement. egulations presumably been cut and pasted from elsewhere and not developed against the policy, giving more evidence of the lack of development of the screening opinion.
MIN11 – extensions Policy approaches & likely significant effect It is not possible to determine which existing site would be suitable Assessment (RSPB) Extensions to existing minerals sites could lead to direct physical damage to habitat (in terms of location or need) for extension other than the ones that and physical disturbance to SPA species, particularly given that a number of existing have been put forward in the Plan, the majority of which are all going sites are within or close to European sites. Other impacts such as fragmentation forward to AA. These consideration will be picked up in those and edge effects could also occur and should be assessed. We question the assessments.
identification of recreation as a form of non-physical disturbance, and direct the R
Council to our overarching comment about consistency/clarity of descriptions of ecord likely significant effects within Table C.1 as a whole Appendices
MIN11 – extensions Reference must also be made to any Forest Design Plans or other management Noted - these plans have been part of our assessment to date, and (RSPB) plans for allocation sites, in order to assess the impacts on bird populations over therefore the lack of reference was a clear error. the extraction period. This is particularly important for areas of rotational forestry. (FINAL)
MIN11 – new sites (RSPB) other Noted - this was a clear error. It is unclear why the list of likely significant effects and relevant plans/research
differs from those identified for extensions. Se pt 2013 159 160 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R
The potential impacts of the new proposed minerals sites are in many cases the egulations same as those of the proposed extensions, given that each includes sites within or with close proximity to European sites. Therefore, unless there is clear justification for differences, the likely significant effects and relevant plans/research for each should closely reflect each other, including the additional issues we have identified above. Assessment
In respect of Purple Haze, additional reference should be made to relevant Dorset Heathland mitigation strategies which identify SANGs in the surrounding area. R ecord MIN11 - (NE) Natural England supports the consideration of impacts under Draft Policy MIN We disagree that such a potential issue should have screened out this 11 and the conclusion that site allocations for sand and gravel will require sites, as counteracting measures such as those that are considered appropriate assessment. However, we note that under the type of impact listed within this current version should adequately ensure that these impact Appendices for Purple Haze it has already been considered that the changes to the hydrological does not arise. The full consultation with landowners/industry is more regime for Ebblake Bog are unlikely to be replicated through a mitigation scheme. appropriate to when the site comes forward as we would not want to This suggests that this site should have been screened out of the plan at the options restrict the potential in light of available best practice. The principles stage. Further to this the potential need for an alternative area for recreation (to of provision of appropriate alternative recreation and avoidance of ensure that no displacement to the Dorest Heaths SPA takes place) may bring the the northern part of the site as set out in development considerations (FINAL) feasibility of the site in to question. We trust that this matter is in discussion with will provide strong framework for future discussions. the landowners/extraction companies to ensure that appropriate development criteria can be written into the plan, should the hydrological issue be overcome. Se pt MIN12 – windfall sites other Noted - however, given that windfall sites cannot be given any spatial 2013 (RSPB) As emphasised in our response to the Have Your Say consultation, windfall sites steer other than the underlying mineral resource area, it is not possible that come forward for minerals extraction must be appraised with the same level to apply these identified effects to any European sites. However, it is of scrutiny as is applied to potential sand and gravel allocations. Therefore, the recognised that these effects have the potential for harm, and Policy list of likely significant effects and relevant plans/research should be broadened 2, 3, 4, 8 9 and 11 work together to ensure that windfall sites coming to reflect those set out under Policy MIN11. forward are proposed on a scale and in locations that are robust. The plan does propose nearly enough sites/material to supply the landbank, and windfall sites would have to demonstrate the need in light of this, reducing the probability of windfall sites coming forward.
MIN17 – oil and gas Policy approaches & likely significant effect This has been done in the latest version of the screening, and it has exploration (RSPB) The screening report suggests that oil and gas exploration proposals could occur been considered insignificant. across the Plan area and do involved limited land-take. Therefore, the likely significant effects should be broadened to reflect this, including direct physical loss of habitat and physical disturbance. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
WAS7 – management of Policy approaches & likely significant effect Noted liquid waste (RSPB) We would question whether toxic contamination should be included in the list of likely significant effects.
WAS10 – strategic location Policy approaches & likely significant effect Noted. This policy has changed somewhat, but the broad principle of new waste management Displaced recreation could lead to direct physical disturbance to European sites, remain within Policy 28 which will be assessed within the AA. development (RSPB) particularly heathland sites. This should be considered further in the Appropriate Displaced recreation is set out as a implication within the Assessment. implementation plan for Policy 2.
WAS17 - non-hazardous Policy approaches & likely significant effect Noted biodegradable landfill We note that the European Sites column identifies “Existing recreational pressure Habitats capacity (RSPB) with the country park and likely displaced pressure on European sites” as an issue requiring further assessment. We assume that this relates specifically to the Purple
Haze site. This should be clarified and the likely significant effects expanded to R include physical disturbance in order to properly reflect the potential issue of egulations displacement of recreation from this site onto nearby European sites.
WAS17 - non-hazardous Whilst not a matter for this screening report it is worth mentioning with regard Noted. Policy 2 specifically protects ancient woodland against no net Assessment biodegradable landfill to Draft Policy WAS17 that the fact that Squabb Wood is mapped partly as loss and therefore will be a significant issue for the applicant to address capacity (NE) ancient/semi natural woodland replanted is not taken into account. This is an when this site comes forward. irreplacable habitat and should be considered directly, not just against the needs of the Mottisfont bats. To my knowledge the Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic
Environmental Assessment so far only considers minerals sites and therefore the R wider impacts of the waste policies have not been assessed. ecord
WAS17 - non-hazardous The consideration of Purple Haze under Draft Policy WAS 17 considers that Noted Appendices biodegradable landfill encouraging recreational use of the site may be an issue due to its proximity to capacity (NE) the Dorset Heaths SAC. The use of the Country Park may well be offering an alternative to the heathland SAC/SPA and increasing its potential to do so would be a positive impact on the European designations. (FINAL) Yateley Heath Wood - Yateley Heath Wood extension is now included, following the consultation on Noted - this will be taken forward to the AA. emerging policies screened further potential allocated sites. The evidence does not support the conclusion In that there is no potential to change the policy to reduce effect. The statement in
the following column states that further assessment is required to establish where Se
(NE) the impacts may arise, such an assessment may highlight the potential to change pt
the policy to reduce effects. 2013 161 162 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R
Whilst Natural England does not object out right to mineral extraction on egulations designated sites where a short term impact may allow for restoration to a much improved habitat, this will need to be clearly demonstrated at the first opportunity to prevent our objecting to any policy or plan. The following should also be considered in determining the level of impact: Assessment
I. The features of interest of all designations relevant to the site and likely impacts upon them, including the hydrological regime where it supports the interest.
II. The total area of the site impacted at any one time - this should not be an increase R
in the extent impacted at designation where extraction is already taking place on ecord a site, so as to ensure that the site’s interest is maintained Appendices III. The level of assurance of the required restoration being delivered - we would suggest that 50% of heathland landscape areas be returned to dwarf shrub heath communities. We can work with landowners/operators to find a mutually agreeable site manager if this is not within their capabilities. (FINAL) IV. The previous management of the site - where public money has been used to finance the management of a site to improve its condition the investment should not be lost by clearing the area for extraction. Se
V. Any Forest Design Plan - where this includes areas of clear fell during the time of pt
the Minerals Plan careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring no net loss 2013 in habitat for Annex 1 birds during the 3-4 years in which clearfelled areas are of value. This may result in the need for provision of compensatory habitat elsewhere on a site during the period of extraction.
Appendix A - Table A1 The comments relating to our previous consultation response offer little assurance Your comments have been noted and passed to those conducting the (V2.) that our concerns have been dealt with, as illustrated by our comments above. It ISA. These issues were considered during the ISA process. is not adequate to respond to say that implications to SSSIs will not be considered (NE) in the HRA, the authority should be considering them and a needs assessment Where Annex VI species are also Annex II these will be considered does not meet the needs of the Strategic Environmental Assessment regulations within the HRA. Our original comments still stand. or Sustainability Appraisal in which these sites should be being considered. The current assessment of February 2011 does not develop the assessment beyond the needs assessment and therefore does not adequately consider the designated sites. Nor does it assess the waste policies. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
With regard to the response to our comments under Q37 and the consideration of European protected species. The Annex IV species for which Dorset Heaths SAC is designated is the great crested newt. This species is also listed in Annex II of the directive and therefore habitat regulations assessment does apply.
Appendix B - Table B.1 This table causes concern as some of the decisions have been made on erroneous Noted. HCC acknowledge that Redlands Farm is not in an AONB information. and have amended this to reflect that it is actually located less than (NE) 150m from Ashford Hill Woods and Meadow SSSI which contains I. Redlands Farm is not in an AONB (though it would be an unsuitable site due to ancient woodland. the hydrological link with the adjacent SSSI and NNR).
II. Bickton is not in the New Forest National Park. Habitats
Appendix B - Table B.1 For other sites the choice of the option chosen is not clear. For example, with This has been dealt with within the ISA - please see Table 7.8 (section R regard to Yateley Heath Wood Extension, we would advise that the extraction of 7.2.1.1) and Section 7.2.2 of the ISA.(27) egulations (NE) material across an SPA is a lesser impact than extraction within an SPA. It is therefore not an adequate reason to remove a site as an option in favour of a site which is in an SPA. Assessment
Appendix B - Table B.1 Whilst BAP gain seems to be a key consideration on heathland sites it is not There are only a limited number of opportunities in Southern considered positively for the Warsash area and no reason is given for why Hamble Hampshire for the extraction of sharp sand and gravel, and a number (NE) airfield is considered more sustainable. Why is this? of these are located on the Hamble peninsular, but these have been
ruled out as they are not considered to be deliverable (see Table 17.1, R Integrated Sustainability Appraisal Report) ecord Appendices Appendix B - Table B.1 Sites at Sherfield English have been ruled out due to possible cumulative impacts This evidence will be presented within the ISA. on the A27, thus leaving the option of a site with possible impacts to SSSI and (NE) SPA sites. We would advise that this assessment needs to provide the evidence base used to come to this decision and the weighting given to the different factors. (FINAL) Se pt 2013
27 Minerals and Waste Plan Integrated Sustainability Appraisal Report 163 164 Habitats Table C.4 Summary of consultee comments following initial (version 1) screening report March 2011
'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and R egulations consultee
Question 3: The We support the proposed changes but would like to see added that this will also include Agree. The approach as drafted refers to 'proposals for minerals and protection of demonstrating how any proposed restoration will not have an impact on the European waste development'. It will need to be made clear that this 'development' European nature sites (either directly or indirectly) . refers to all stages (construction, operation, afteruses etc). Assessment conservation designations Restoration topic paper.
(HWT) R ecord
Question 3: The Natural England agrees that the policy approach to explain the requirements of HRA Careful judgements have been made as to which policy approaches
protection of does not in itself have a likely significant effect on European sites. However, we would could rely on policy approach Question 3 to prevent impacts to Appendices European nature stress that it is of primary importance that the Minerals and Waste Plan is itself European sites. This method is only used where category C6 is conservation compliant with the Habitats Regulations, rather than relying on project level assessment, identified, and there are no means of establishing quantum, or spatial designations which is referred to in a number of sections of the HRA. This requires as rigorous an steer on any development that may be supported by the policy approach assessment as can reasonably be undertaken at the strategic level and adopting the in question. There are seemingly similar policy approaches that do not
(NE) precautionary approach embedded in the Directive and Regulations. This is to remove rely solely on this policy approach, and other measures/assessment (FINAL) potential impacts that could arise from the amount or location of development at the will be carried out. higher level where possible. European sites and other designation formed a central part of the site It is essential that the HRA of the Plan informs the selection of minerals and waste selection process and thus ensured that the Plan process engages Se sites, so that options are chosen which are capable of implementation without adverse sufficiently with the inherent avoidance principle of the Habitat pt effects on the integrity of European or international sites. The Plan should give clarity regulations.- Version 2 of the screening assessment will include an 2013 on any necessary controls, such as policy caveats or mitigation necessary, to ensure annex setting out the site selection process - The opportunities to avoid that the development proposals can proceed in accordance with the Regulations and impacts by relocating development to alternative locations will be that the Plan is found to be sound and deliverable. Therefore, Natural England does addressed in this document (see Appendix B). not consider that paragraph 3.12 of the consultation document ‘where potential impacts are identified, measures are put in place to either avoid, reduce or potentially compensate The issue of traffic levels arising from plan policies has already been for the impact’ fully reflects the requirements of the Habitats Regulations to avoid raised as an issue. It is intended that traffic patterns over the Plan period potential impacts through assessment at the Plan level. will be looked at (Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) study) in conjunction with all European sites, and not just those directly adjacent This should include the relocation of development allocations where necessary to to nominated sites. alternative sites that would avoid adverse impact, as well as guidance on any necessary mitigation requirements. The inclusion of site allocations within a plan is a material The exact detailed policy wording will be established at the next stage consideration in the determination of a planning application, and it is for this reason in order to explain the requirements of the regulation and how the that HRA at plan level is required, to ensure that the principle of development is not applications will be assessed. NE's comments with regards to specific established where adverse effects upon the integrity of European sites cannot be ruled potential impacts are noted. out. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
In the fifth column of the Screening Matrices, consideration should be included of the potential effects from minerals and waste development on air pollution due to additional road traffic passing close to designated sites, which may occur at some distance from the development. The impacts of recreational displacement causing potential additional pressure on designated sites should also be referred to.
Question 5: Whilst we recognise your reasoning for C6 with “This approach reduces the ‘area of The issue of potential issues arising from adopting a blanket buffer will Landscape search’ for new facilities (by applying a 'blanket buffer' across large proportion of the be revisited in the next iteration of the Screening Report. designations county), potentially limiting the options for new development to avoid impacts on European sites by relocating elsewhere in Hampshire.” The Trust does not agree with We understand that the wording of the screening tables and the (HWT) it. We believe there would still be options available elsewhere. reasoning within each one may be confusing. We try to identify those Habitats areas that we feel have potential to be changed at screening stage, and those which we feel will need to be addressed at full AA - we did not Regarding the text included under “can this approach be changed at a screening stage intend to suggest that (without evidence) that application of measures R
to avoid likely significant affects”, this is confusing. would definitely prevent all significant effects from occurring. This will egulations be clarified in the next iteration of the screening assessment.
Where I think you are proposing policy changes to the European sites policy by 'This policy approach' refers to the policy under consideration, namely
including a reference to “where they are within areas of important landscape features Question 5. HWT's comments on the requirement to change this policy Assessment any effects on sensitive European sites will be adequately considered, avoided and/or are noted and this will be revisited in the next iteration of the Screening mitigated at the planning application stage” We believe that this does not need to be Report. included as the European sites policy already contains safeguards by saying “the potential impacts of minerals and waste development need to be considered thoroughly to
prevent significant impacts inconsistent with the Habitat regulations” R ecord
Where you say “However, to ensure proper and effective application of Policy approach Appendices 3 (as above) in this context, this policy approach should be altered.” I am not sure if “this policy approach” is referring to alterations to Policy 3 (the European sites policy” or the landscape policy. (FINAL) Where you say that “It is suggested that the policy approach determines circumstances under which proposals trigger the need to consider the requirements set out in Question 3”. We believe that potential impacts onto the European sites wherever they are,
whether in an area of landscape importance or not would be the trigger for a habitat Se
regulations assessment. As such no changes to policy three (on European sites) are pt
needed. We also believe that as there is an adequate policy for the protection of 2013 European sites then there is also not need to alter the policy on landscapes. 165 166 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 5: The suggested policy approach is that minerals and waste development should not take Noted - as stated within the screening matrix, we will consider this Landscape place in National Parks and AONBs unless there are exceptional reasons for this to further. However HWT believe that enough options would remain designations (NE) occur, any negative impacts are reduced to a minimum and the need for the development outside of the designated landscape. outweighs any negative impact. The policy approach to safeguard nationally protected landscapes is in itself welcome, and the policy will help to safeguard European sites Assessment within the protected landscape areas, shown on map 3 of the ‘Have your say’ NB - The approach follows the provisions within MPS1 in which, with consultation document. respect to European Nature Conservation sites, the MPA have to take account of the advice within PPS9', whereas with respect to National Parks However, the policy approach focuses attention on non-protected landscape areas to and AONBs, MPAs are instructed to 'not permit major development.... except R
deliver the Plan targets. We therefore recommend that the strategic HRA needs to in exceptional circumstances', and therefore the inflexibility results from ecord consider the effects of the policy, by assessing whether there is sufficient available national policy. flexibility to deliver the Plan’s minerals and waste targets from land outside the protected landscapes, without adversely affecting the integrity of European sites that are outside Appendices protected landscape areas. We recommend that this is not left until planning application stage. We would however generally support the further policy development, referred to in column 5, relating to the requirements set out in Question 3.
Question 7 & 8: The We note that this policy approach includes “Appropriate minerals and waste Noted - this will be considered further in the next iteration of the (FINAL) protection of the management activity should not be excluded from countryside locations”. Your Screening report. open countryside assessment category classified this as C6 “Options, policies or proposals which depend on how the policies etc are implemented in due course, for example, through the (HWT) development management process. There is a theoretical possibility that if implemented Se in one or more particular ways, the proposal could possibly have a significant effect pt on a European site”. One of the reasons given for this is “By not excluding facilities 2013 in the countryside, this approach does not preclude uses which maybe close to SACs (e.g. Shortheath Common); SPAs (e.g. Thames Basin Heaths); Ramsar sites (e.g. Dorset Heaths, New Forest)”.
Whilst it is good to see the recognition of safeguarding the European and Ramsar sites we believe that Policy 3 ( protection of the European sites) with the amendments suggested above should be sufficient to steer development away from the European sites. We believe the ecological importance of a site is not determined by whether a site is greenfield or brownfield as important wildlife habitats and species can be found on both. As such we would want to see the ecological importance of a site protected and enhanced regardless of whether brownfield or greenfield. We feel that the current proposed policies for the protection of designated sites for nature conservation (European, national and local) should provide for the protection of these.This is subject to the comments we have made on them. As such further restrictions are in our view not necessary for ecological reasons. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Regarding the text included under “can this approach be changed at a screening stage to avoid likely significant affects”, our comments given under Question 5 above apply to this also as it’s the same text.
Question 7 & 8: The The second bullet point in the fourth column states that ‘It is noted that the land use, Noted - as stated within the screening matrix we believe that inclusion protection of the traffic etc change are not likely to be significantly different to the existing situation (e.g. of policy approach set out in Question 3 provides strong direction on open countryside redundant agricultural buildings, local traffic etc)’. Whilst this may be true in many the appropriate levels of assessment for individual circumstances. (NE) cases, the HRA should consider whether in individual circumstances there are any potential indirect impacts on European sites e.g. hydrology or significant changes in Further screening work will include additional information gathering Habitats the levels or re-direction of road traffic close to European sites. on potential impacts arising from different broad categories of waste operation, which may help inform statements regarding to the land-use
implications (and the significance of any likely impacts - see assessment R
of relevant waste policy approaches). egulations
Question 11: We agree with you categorising this as C6 and with your first two justifications for this. Noted - Further screening work will include additional information Restoration schemes However with the third justification “It must be stressed that biodiversity objectives gathering on which restoration uses are unlikely to be compatible with
are compatible with all other aims, and opportunity to include biodiversity in most European conservation objectives (the scope/ detail of this work is to Assessment (HWT) schemes can contribute to conservation objectives for European sites”. We would raise yet to be established). caution with this statement. It needs to be recognised that not all biodiversity opportunities would be compatible. Only those compatible the European sites Noted - further consideration of this wording and approach will be conservation objectives should be considered. given in the next iteration of the Screening Report. R ecord
We agree also with the proposed suggestions for included under “can this approach Noted - wording will be more appropriate in the next iteration.
be changed at a screening stage to avoid likely significant affects”. Appendices
We also agree with the conclusion that an Appropriate assessment may be required. However we would also recommend that an assessment is undertaken on the restoration
proposals as well as construction etc. (FINAL)
Question 11: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant
Restoration schemes Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Se
(RSPB) Question 11 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and pt
Species Regulations 2010. 2013 167 168 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 12: Taking We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant responsibility for Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Hampshire's waste Question 12 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010. Assessment
Question We disagree with the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Agree. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant 13:Managing waste Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided. from outside Question 13 does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Hampshire Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We consider that as this proposal has the R
potential to increase traffic (particularly HGV traffic), it could have a cumulative It is important that the draft policy is clear that managing waste from ecord (RSPB) impact in terms of increased air pollution, which can have a negative impact on the outside Hampshire does not necessarily equate to a net-increase in sensitive habitats and species for which Hampshire’s European nature conservation traffic impacts (this is a practice which already takes place in the sites are designated. We consider that this matter should therefore be‚ screened-in‛ to commercial waste management sector). Further screening work will Appendices the requirement for Appropriate Assessment. include additional information gathering on where it is understood waste 'imported' into Hampshire is likely to come from, and the implications of this (drawing upon a Strategic Transport Assessment undertaken in support of the emerging Plan). The scope/ detail of this work is to be established however. (FINAL)
Question 14 & 15: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Reducing reliance on Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. road transport Questions 14 and 15 require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Se pt Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. (RSPB) 2013
Question 14: The expansion of wharves could have significant impacts environmental impacts on The issue of traffic levels arising from plan policies has already been Reducing reliance on the interest features of designated sites through encroachment or disturbance. Localised raised as an issue. It is intended that traffic patterns over the Plan period road transport(NE) impacts on air quality due to increased traffic around wharves would also need to be will be looked at (Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) study) in (including response considered and use of conveyors, although potentially reducing Heavy Goods Vehicle conjunction with all European sites, and not just those directly adjacent to reg 25 (HGV) movements, may have noise impacts particularly in quieter locations such as to nominated sites. This will form part of the Appropriate Assessment consultation Langstone Harbour, that would need to be assessed. we identified will be carried out on this policy. document) 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
The issues surrounding the use of conveyors will be assessed within the AA. The consultation document suggests that individual wharfs can be ‘regenerated’ by redevelopment for alternative uses if they are no longer needed or are relocated Regarding the second point, it must be clarified that this Plan does not elsewhere. However, alternative uses such as housing are likely to generate significant itself provide the policy mechanism for regeneration of wharves - it recreational disturbance impacts on the interest features of designated sites. We would just states that this is a realistic prospect. The City Councils' have their wish to see the HRA address appropriate alternative uses which may be encouraged own development plans (LDFs) which address such matters (including to maintain the coastline as an environmental and recreational resource, managing the accompanying HRAs). The scope and remit of this Plan is to recognise dynamic nature of the coast through collaboration between organisations and across the pressures facing wharf land and provide appropriate safeguards. administrative boundaries. In particular, this will need to respond to climate change NE's comment is noted therefore, but will not be addressed in this pressures and rising sea levels, and ensure the protection and enhancement of highly HRA as the matters raised are beyond the scope of Waste/ Mineral valued and designated wildlife habitats and landscapes found along the coast. The Plan Planning Authorities' responsibilities. NE may wish to pick this issue Habitats should take account of emerging policies in other relevant plans and national guidance up with other relevant Planning Authorities however. to ensure that proposals are sustainable in the medium to long term. These will include Shoreline Management Plans, Estuary Management Plans, Coastal Habitat Management R
Plans, Catchment Management Plans, Coastal Defence Strategies and Harbour egulations Management Plans, also reflecting national guidance.
Question 15: The expansion of existing wharves will inevitably result in impacts on the nearby coastal Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Assessment Reducing reliance on / marine environment. Any expansion of a wharf is likely to involve one of a number effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. road transport (NE) of developments, including land reclamation, dredging, additional marine infrastructure, Specific issues raised will be addressed within the AA. (including response all of which will have an impact. However, this impact of most of concern is in areas to reg 25 where existing wharfs are already located in ‘natural’ and environmentally sensitive
consultation areas, as opposed to wharfs located in heavily industrialised areas. These potential R document) impacts would need to be fully assessed through Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats ecord Regulations Assessment. For further comments on wharf extensions or new sites, please see the response at Question 28. Appendices
Natural England considers that the stock of existing wharf infrastructure should be maintained as part of a long-term strategy to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to deal with future increases in demand for marine-sourced aggregates. The expansion of existing wharves will inevitably result in impacts on the nearby coastal / marine (FINAL) environment. Any expansion of a wharf is likely to involve one of a number of developments, including land reclamation, dredging, additional marine infrastructure, all of which will have an impact. However, this impact of most of concern is in areas
where existing wharfs are already located in ‘natural’ and environmentally sensitive Se
areas, as opposed to wharfs located in heavily industrialised areas. These potential pt impacts would need to be fully assessed through HRA. 2013 169 170 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 16: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Please note that the screening matrix indicates that we have not Co-locating waste Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that screened this policy approach as requiring further assessment. management facilities Question 16 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010. Assessment
Question 16: Natural England would in principle support the co-locating minerals and waste If we consider at a later stage that there is enough strategic direction Co-locating waste development to reduce transport impacts. However, if the Plan is to give strategic being provided within the plan as to the location of such co-location management facilities direction as to where the co-located facilities are to be provided, this should be we will revisit whether the policy approach will be assessed within the (NE) considered as part of the Plan’s HRA. Appropriate Assessment. R ecord The final column of the screening matrix refers only to European sites within important Noted - this is an error, and refers to many of the similar comments landscape areas. However, all relevant European sites should be considered whether in the 4th and 5th columns in this table. or not these are located within important landscape areas. Appendices
Question 17: We disagree with the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Nature conservation does not have to be included within the text, this Limiting the impacts Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that is because restricting 'highways impacts' (as the general term used here) from the Question 17 does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of includes all impacts arising from traffic. This policy does not lead to transportation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We consider that as this proposal only seeks development nor does it provide a steer to location/routing of traffic. (FINAL) minerals (RSPB) to prevent traffic having an impact on communities and does not offer any protection for nature conservation sites, it could have an indirect impact in terms of increased air pollution in the vicinity of designated sites. We consider that this matter should However, the Plan should endeavour to make clear what is meant by Se therefore be 'screened-in‛ to the requirement for Appropriate Assessment. highways impacts (including those which have environmental impacts pt i.e. air pollution, traffic noise etc). Furthermore, information arising 2013 from a strategic assessment (scope/detail of which is yet to be fully established) of traffic across Hampshire will be presented in the HRA.
Question 17: Particular consideration should be given to sites of national and international importance Please see response to Question 5 with regards to policy development Limiting the impacts for nature conservation and to nationally important landscapes. These should receive providing protection to Landscape and Biodiversity designations. from the the highest levels of protection and a logical approach demonstrated within the Plan, transportation of with necessary avoidance and mitigation measures to steer the DPD process. Further research will be required to ascertain the evidence and minerals (NE) likelihood that vehicles using the main minerals and waste lorry route (including response We would advise that HRA should consider the potential impacts of air pollution due could have air pollution impacts on sensitive habitats. The Strategic to reg 25 to increased traffic from development on all roads which pass within 200m of a Transport Assessment for the Plan will assess the overall net-increases consultation European, where there is likely to be a significant increase in traffic, which may be at in vehicle movements (and any localised increases in movements), and document) some distance from new development itself. It should also be recognised that critical this will be assessed in relation to the proximity of European Sites. The levels for sensitive habitats may be equally or more stringent than those required for scope/ detail of this work is yet to be established. human health. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Question 24: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Please note that the screening matrix indicates that we have not Adequate and steady Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that screened this policy approach as requiring further assessment. supply of aggregates Question 24 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010.
Question 24: Column 5 of the screening matrix refers to consideration of this issue at the planning Noted - work on the 'contingency' in terms of minerals supply for Adequate and steady application stage. However, the HRA should ensure that there is sufficient flexibility Hampshire is ongoing (i.e to establish what would happen if demand supply of aggregates in the Plan to deliver the minerals target without adverse effect on the integrity of for minerals is greater than planned provision allows for). (NE) European sites.
Question 26: This matter will need to be carefully evaluated in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Please note that the screening matrix indicates that we have not
Safeguarding of of the plan and we therefore welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & screened this policy approach as requiring further assessment. Habitats existing wharves Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that Question 26 requires Appropriate Assessment under the (RSPB) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. R egulations
Question 26: Many of Hampshire’s wharves are immediately adjacent to designated sites of national A Wharves & Depots Needs Assessment (made available online as part of Safeguarding of and international importance for nature conservation. Natural England considers that the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants existing wharves existing wharves should be maintained, so as not to compromise future ability to import on behalf of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature Assessment and process marine aggregates. As pointed out in the consultation document, there conservation constraints on making provision for new, additional wharf (NE) are likely to be major difficulties in expanding or relocating wharves to currently capacity (including extensions of existing wharves, areas of search). undeveloped areas, without significant environmental and social impacts, including The HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment where relevant. those associated with infrastructure or additional dredging requirements. There may be opportunities to relocate wharfs onto existing hard standing structures such as scrap Regarding the second point, to reiterate, this Plan does not itself provide R
metal yards / old boat working facilities. However, any proposals will need to satisfy the policy mechanism for the conversion/ regeneration of wharves. ecord the tests of the Habitats Regulations. The City Councils' have their own development plans (LDFs) which address such matters (including accompanying HRAs). NE's comment on future alternative uses of wharves is noted therefore, but will not Appendices Conversion of any redundant wharves to housing and associated infrastructure that be addressed in this HRA as the matters raised are beyond the scope gives residents access to the waterside is liable to increase recreational disturbance on of Waste/ Mineral Planning Authorities' responsibilities. NE may wish designated sites and would be a likely significant effect. The completion of the Solent to pick this issue up with other relevant Planning Authorities however. Disturbance and Mitigation Project later this year will provide additional information (FINAL) on recreational pressures affecting designated coastal sites. We would advocate that the County Council gives consideration to the potential for disused wharves to provide supplementary habitats to designated sites. The HRA should address these issues at the strategic level. Se pt 2013 171 172 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations Question 27: Existing This matter will need to be carefully evaluated in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Please note that the screening matrix indicates that we have not capacity to land of the plan and we therefore welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & screened this policy approach as requiring further assessment marine-dredged sand Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version and gravel 1), March 2011, that Question 27 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Assessment (RSPB)
Question 27: Existing Any expansion of a wharf is likely to involve one of a number of developments, A Wharves & Depots Needs Assessment (made available online as part of R
capacity to land including land reclamation, dredging, additional marine infrastructure, all of which will the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants ecord marine-dredged sand have an impact. However, this impact of most of concern is in areas where existing on behalf of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature and gravel wharfs are already located in ‘natural’ and environmentally sensitive areas, as opposed conservation constraints on making provision for new, additional wharf to wharfs located in heavily industrialised areas. These potential impacts would need capacity (including extensions of existing wharves, areas of search). Appendices (NE) to be fully assessed through HRA. If maximisation of capacity is expected to involve The HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment where relevant. additional infrastructure or extension of wharves, any potential impacts on adjacent designated sites would need to be assessed through HRA. The draft policy should clarify what 'maximisation of capacity' is likely to mean in land-use terms, and this will be taken forward for AA if at As set out in response to question 26, Natural England considers that existing wharves a later stage we believe that provision of the protection of Question 3 (FINAL) should be retained and utilised. However, if maximisation of capacity is expected to does not adequately provide protection in this case. involve additional infrastructure or extension of wharves, any potential impacts on adjacent designated sites would need to be assessed through HRA. Se
Question 28: Need These matters will need to be carefully evaluated in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant pt for new wharf of the Plan and we therefore welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. 2013 capacity Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that Question 28 requires Appropriate Assessment under the (RSPB) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
Question 28: Need Natural England would be concerned about any proposals which could have adverse A Wharves & Depots Needs Assessment (made available online as part of for new wharf impacts on sensitive designated sites, which may result from impacts such as loss of the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants capacity (NE) intertidal mud and saltmarsh, impacts on hydrodynamics and sediment budget from on behalf of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature (including response dredging and new infrastructure, bird disturbance and loss of feeding / roosting habitat. conservation constraints on making provision for new, additional wharf to reg 25 We would wish to see the Minerals and Waste Plan provide a clear presumption against capacity (including extensions of existing wharves, areas of search). consultation such development. We would therefore support the retention and utilisation of existing The HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment where relevant, document) wharves, rather than extending wharves or developing entirely new sites. [...] As indicated but will not be iterated in whole within this assessment. in the consultation document, Kendall’s Wharf Extension lies within Langstone Harbour SSSI, Ramsar Site SPA and Solent Maritime SAC and if included in the As mentioned above, this Plan does not itself provide the policy Minerals and Waste Plan will require Habitats Regulations Assessment in order to mechanism for the conversion/ regeneration of wharves. The City 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
demonstrate that any potential scheme can be delivered without adverse effect on the Councils' have their own development plans (LDFs) which address integrity of designated sites. such matters (including accompanying HRAs). NE's comment on future alternative uses of wharves is noted therefore, but will not be Natural England is unable to offer further comment on proposals referred to in the addressed in this HRA as the matters raised are beyond the scope of consultation document for areas of search the Southampton and Portsmouth Areas. Waste/ Mineral Planning Authorities' responsibilities. NE may wish We would be happy to comment when further information is available. to pick this issue up with other relevant Planning Authorities however.
Natural England would be concerned about any proposals which could have adverse The policy area outlined by Question 26 provides clear steer on impacts on sensitive designated sites, which may result from impacts such as loss of retaining existing wharves. intertidal mud and saltmarsh, impacts on hydrodynamics and sediment budget from dredging and new infrastructure, bird disturbance and loss of feeding / roosting habitat. We would wish to see the Minerals and Waste Plan provide a clear presumption against Habitats such development. We would therefore support the retention and utilisation of existing wharves, rather than extending wharves or developing entirely new sites. R
As mentioned above, we would advocate that the County Council gives consideration egulations within the Minerals and Waste Plan to the potential for disused wharves to provide supplementary habitats to designated sites. We would advocate that the Minerals and Waste Plan should set out a strategic vision for wharf sites across Hampshire,
underpinned by a thorough evidence base. We would agree that this issue is a likely Assessment significant effect which should be addressed through more detailed assessment at the strategic level.
Question 28: Need One concern we have is the potential for the development of these wharves. It is A Wharves & Depots Needs Assessment (made available online as part of
for new wharf important that any proposed development does not involve the reclamation of intertidal the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants R capacity (EA) areas, as the majority of Southampton Water and Portsmouth Harbour are designated on behalf of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature ecord (response to reg 25 conservation areas. We would support any appropriate developments that were conservation constraints on making provision for new, additional wharf consultation land-based. Another concern is the operational impacts that may/will arise from the capacity (including extensions of existing wharves, areas of search). Appendices document) construction processes. The HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment where relevant.
We are also confident that the policy area outlined within Question 3
will provide protection to European sites for any development in the (FINAL) areas described.
Question 33: Sand We disagree with the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Agree. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Se and gravel hierarchy Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. pt
Question 33 does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of 2013 (RSPB) Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We consider that as this proposal supports 173 174 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations extensions to existing minerals sites, a number of which coincide with or are closely related to internationally designated nature conservation sites, it could have a negative impact on the sensitive habitats and species for which these sites are designated, through increased noise, dust, vibration and habitat loss. We consider that this matter should therefore be‚ 'screened-in' to the requirement for Appropriate Assessment. Assessment
Question 34: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Suggested extensions Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. to existing mineral Question 34 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and R
sites Species Regulations 2010. ecord
(RSPB) Appendices
Question 33 & 34: Natural England acknowledges that there may be economic or other advantages in The potential effects of site extensions to existing sites have been Sand and gravel extending existing mineral workings, but this may not be the most sustainable considered through other policies (Questions 34 & 35), and those sites hierarchy & environmental option, due to the environmentally sensitive location of many existing will be subject to the Appropriate Assessment stage. Suggested extensions mineral workings in Hampshire. The potential expansion or intensification of mineral (FINAL) to existing mineral activities at these locations could potentially impact on sites of international importance sites(NE) for nature conservation. Column 5 of the screening matrix refers to project level Hampshire Mineral Proposal Suitability Study (made available online as part assessment. However, we would advise that the Minerals and Waste Plan should identify of the Have your Say consultation) prepared by independent consultants the least environmentally damaging options to fulfil its allocation, adopting the hierarchy on behalf of the plan-making authorities has examined the nature Se pt of avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement set out in PPS9. We conservation constraints on making provision for extensions to sand recommend that the implications of this proposal should be fully assessed through the and gravel sites. The HRA will draw on the findings in this Assessment 2013 Minerals and Waste Plan’s HRA. where relevant.
Question 35: This matter will need to be carefully evaluated in the Habitats Regulations Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Suggested extensions of the plan and we therefore welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. to existing mineral Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version sites 1), March 2011, that Question 35 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. (RSPB) 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Question 35: The proposal to create an additional area of working adjacent to Bramshill Quarry It is due to the confusion regarding the titles of the columns that it has Suggested extensions is of particular concern, as the site forms part of Bramshill SSSI and Thames Basin been assumed that without presenting evidence we presume that all to existing mineral Heaths SPA. We would disagree with the HRA Screening Report conclusion at this impacts can be avoided at screening. We merely suggest that there are sites (NE) (response stage that significant effects can be avoided, as it is not supported by evidence. This obvious changes that could potentially be introduced to the policy at to reg 25 will need full Appropriate Assessment before decisions on potential selection to ensure screening to avoid or mitigation some of the more straightforward consultation that the Council is in a position to legally adopt the Plan. The Interim Minerals and impacts. It is clear from column 5 that we intend on carrying out AA document) Waste Sustainability Appraisal has identified that there is a significant negative impact on this policy, and the sites that it nominates. from the proposal, due to its location within the SSSI and SPA, whereas other sites have been assessed as of lower impact on biodiversity. Therefore, we would question Comments regarding specific allocated sites are noted and will be taken the necessity to allocate this site in order to deliver the Plan allocation. forward for further consideration in the AA.
With regard to Mortimer Quarry Extension, Natural England has previously Habitats commented in response to a recent planning application.
The consultation document has suggested 3 sites as being suitable and sustainable R
locations for further mineral working. The proposal to create an additional area of egulations working adjacent to Bramshill Quarry is of particular concern, as the site forms part of Bramshill SSSI and Thames Basin Heaths SPA. We would disagree with the HRA Screening Report conclusion that significant effects can be avoided through various development criteria, as it is not supported by evidence. This will need full Appropriate Assessment Assessment before decisions on potential selection to ensure that the Council is in a position to legally adopt the Plan. The Interim Minerals and Waste Sustainability Appraisal has identified that there is a significant negative impact from the proposal, due to its location within the SSSI and SPA, whereas other sites have been assessed as of lower impact on biodiversity. Therefore, we would question the necessity to allocate R
this site in order to deliver the Plan allocation. As set out in the screening report, we ecord would agree that further more detailed assessment is also required through HRA to assess the potential impacts of the proposed Bleak Hill and Mortimer Quarry sites. Appendices
Question 36: New We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant local sand and gravel Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. allocations Question 36 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment (FINAL) (RSPB) further on this matter when this document is published for consultation.
Question 37: New We consider that each of these sites needs to be carefully considered as part of the Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Se
local sand and gravel Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Plan. We therefore welcome the conclusion effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. pt allocations in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations 2013 175 176 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations (RSPB) – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that Question 37 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
Question 37: New Natural England made detailed comments on this question in the response to the ‘Have It is due to the confusion regarding the titles of the columns that it has local sand and gravel your say’ consultation. Particular concerns were expressed in relation to the proposed been assumed that without presenting evidence we presume that all Assessment allocations(NE) Purple Haze allocation, due to potential hydrological and recreational impacts on Dorset impacts can be avoided at screening. We merely suggest that there are (including response heath N2K sites, on which Natural England expressed the view, that that it would be obvious changes that could potentially be introduced to the policy at to reg 25 difficult or not possible to avoid through mitigation, as well as issues relating to impacts screening to avoid or mitigation some of the more straightforward consultation on European Protected Species and BAP habitats. Detailed comments were also made impacts. It is clear from column 5 that we intend on carrying out AA R
document) on the potential impacts on European sites of the proposed allocations for Roeshot, on this policy, and the sites that it nominates. ecord Hamble Airfield and Forest Lodge Farm. We would agree that further evidence and assessment of these sites is required through the next iteration of HRA screening. We would disagree with the HRA Screening Report conclusion that significant effects can It is not HCCs belief that HRA relates to the parts of the regulations Appendices be avoided through various development criteria, as it is not supported by evidence. that provides protection to EPS (those listed under Annex IV of the Natural England has particular concerns about the proposed Purple Haze allocation, Habs directive), other than where they are also listed within Annex II, for the following reasons: and included within the reason for which the site is designated. Article 6(2) of Habitats Directive makes specific reference to plans that affect 1. Effect on Dorset heath N2K sites: The primary concern relates to the potential SACs not Annex IV species. HCC is aware of its duty relating to (FINAL) effect of the proposal on the Dorset Heathlands SPA, the Dorset Heaths SAC and engaging with the 3 tests, which only apply where an offence under the Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site. We consider that the proposal would have Reg 41 (1) and (2) has been proven, which cannot be dealt with at this significant effects on all of these Dorset heath N2K sites and believe that in practice strategic level. Therefore consideration of Nightjars within the HRA these impacts would be difficult or not possible to avoid through mitigation. The will only be given in the context of shared territories/ foraging with Se pt northern part of the sites forms a major part of the catchment of Ebblake Bog SSSI, the SPA, and judging the significance of effect on the European sites, one of the component sites of the Dorset heath N2K sites and the quality of the bog and consideration of EPS only where they are also listed as Annex II 2013 is dependent on the natural hydrology of its catchment. If the proposal is to be species for any particular site. progressed it would need to be demonstrated that mitigation could be achieved that would overcome the problem of the alteration to a major part of the catchment of Ebblake Bog. Detailed hydrological work would be needed but we do not see how it The potential contradictory policies with respect to the governments would be possible to replicate artificially the natural hydrological features of the open habitat policy will be looked at further, and addressed within the catchment, either during operation or subsequently (with or without landfill) and AA. therefore avoid adverse effect on the Dorset heath N2k sites (particularly the SAC and Ramsar). In these circumstances the part of the possible allocation forming the catchment of Ebblake Bog could not be implemented or be part of a statutory plan. Comments regarding specific allocated sites are noted and will be taken forward for further consideration in the AA, however; 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Secondly, the proposal would displace current recreational activity on the site to Roeshot - implication to SSSI will only be considered within this assessment designated heathlands, a recent visitor survey having shown that Ringwood Forest if it is likely to also implication the features of European sites - Burton receives a large number of visitors. The Dorset heath N2K sites and the internationally common SSSI does not form part of a European site. Implication of impacts designated New Forest would be likely to receive a good proportion of these visits. to SSSI formed part of the Needs assessment. Potential in combination We consider it would be extremely difficult to provide mitigation that would avoid impacts with other minerals and waste AND local development have already an adverse effect on the Dorset heath N2K sites. An equivalent area of new alternative been identified at this site, and will be considered further. greenspace capable of supporting and attracting a similar level and type of public access would be needed. Cutty Brow - implication to SSSI will only be considered within this assessment A further potential effect is on nightjar, one of the SPA qualifying features. Given if it is likely to also implication the features of European sites. Implication of the proximity of the proposed allocation site to the SPA, is quite possible that impacts to SSSI formed part of the Hampshire Mineral Proposal Suitability Study.
individual nightjar territories might include both parts of the SPA at Ebblake Bog Habitats and parts of the proposed allocation at Purple Haze. In addition, birds with territories within the SPA may use the proposed allocation site for foraging. In both cases, there Hamble Airfield - The Brent Goose and wader Strategy has already revealed would be impacts on the SPA from the proposal. that this site does not provide any grazing habitat for these species. However, R
it does provide great potential for habitat creation/habitat opportunities. egulations Implications to the SSSI as suggested will be considered within the AA. 2. Biodiversity considerations: These relate firstly to the high biodiversity interest of Ringwood Forest, with the Purple Haze area supporting several nightjar territories as well as habitat suitable for European Protected Species, sand lizard and smooth snake. Forest Lodge - Implications to the SSSIs as suggested will be considered Assessment Consideration must therefore be given at the Plan level to Habitats Regulations tests within the AA. relating to EPS and how these might be applied in the light of potential mitigation and relevant caselaw. Secondly, the forestry plantations on Dorset heathland (including Ringwood Forest) have been identified as the critical area nationally for the re-establishment of open habitats if the objectives of the Government’s open habitat R
policy (‘When to convert woods and forests to open habitat in England: Government ecord policy: March 2010’) are to be achieved. Thus in the absence of sand and gravel winning at Purple Haze the prospect is that the extent of heathland within the allocation site would be substantially increased. We consider that the quality of Appendices heathland restored following mineral winning would be much lower than that of heathland on the natural geology, established following the rotational removal of plantation.
Roeshot, Christchurch: The site adjoins Burton Common SSSI and further assessment (FINAL) will need to establish the potential for indirect impacts on Burton Common SSSI, in particular the hydrology. The Minerals and Waste Plan HRA will need to consider the proposed allocation in the context of potential housing development south of the Se railway and the implications of the proposal in combination with this and the Dorset pt aggregate proposal immediately to the west on patterns of recreation and visitor use 2013 177 178 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations both on the Dorset Heaths and in the New Forest. The New Forest national Park Authority should also be consulted as the proposal adjoins the National Park boundary.
Cutty Brow, Longparish: Natural England recommends that further information should be provided to ensure that there is no adverse hydrological impact on the River Assessment Test SSSI.
Hamble Airfield, Hamble: Natural England recommends that it should be established whether Brent Geese use this site.The Plan should consider potential impacts on the R
Solent Maritime SAC and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site and ecord the Lee on Solent to Itchen Valley Site of Special Scientific Interest, including hydrological impact. Appendices
Forest Lodge Farm, Hardley: As stated in the consultation document, the Proposed Preferred Area is adjacent to the New Forest SSSI, close to the New Forest SAC and SPA, as well as being within 1km of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA, SAC, SSSI and Ramsar, Solent Maritime SAC and Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI. Potential impacts will need careful assessment and consideration, including hydrological (FINAL) connectivity. The New Forest National Park Authority should also be consulted as the site lies within the setting of the National Park. Se Question 38: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant pt Windfall Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. 2013 opportunities for Question 38 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and sand and gravel Species Regulations 2010. extraction
(RSPB)
Question 38: Natural England considers that windfall sites should be subject to the same rigorous Noted - as stated within the screening matrix be believe that inclusion Windfall examination as sites which may already be allocated. Although the consultation refers of policy approach set out in Question 3 provides strong direction on opportunities for to consideration of ‘other environmental and amenity criteria’, new proposals will need the appropriate levels of assessment. sand and gravel to include appropriate levels of assessment including, where necessary, HRA. extraction (NE) 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Question 43: With regard to the Michelmersh Area of Search for brick-making clay, the consultation Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Identification of document and the Mineral Proposal Suitability Study should recognise that the identified effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. areas of search for sites are within the 7.5km foraging zone for barbestelle bats around Mottisfont Bats brick-making clay SAC / SSSI and potential impacts on habitats of value for foraging bats will need to (NE) be addressed in the HRA. Key requirements are to maintain any areas of broadleaved woodland, unimproved grassland, marsh or wetland within the bats’ foraging area.
Question 48: Oil and We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant gas activity Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Question 48 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010. Habitats
Question 50: Specific We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant safeguarding of Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. R
Bordon/Whitehill Question 50 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and egulations Species Regulations 2010. (RSPB) Assessment Question 50: Specific Natural England recommends that site considerations in the consultation document Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA in which these particular safeguarding of and the Mineral Proposal Suitability Study should also include protection of the South concerns will be addressed. Bordon/Whitehill(NE) Downs National Park and its setting and the range of nearby sites of national / (response to reg 25 international importance: Broxhead and Kingsley Commons SSSI / Wealden Heaths consultation Phase II SPA, Shortheath Common SSSI / SAC, Woolmer Forest SSSI / SAC and R document) Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA, East Hampshire Hangers and Wick Wood & Worldham ecord SSSI. Potential impacts would need to be fully addressed through Sustainability Appraisal / Habitats Regulations Assessment should the Council wish to progress any mineral extraction option in this area. Appendices
As noted in the consultation document, the safeguarding of the area will also have significant implications for the Whitehill-Bordon Eco-town development and should involve close consultation with East Hampshire District Council. New development is likely to rely on the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs), (FINAL) which need to be secured in perpetuity in order to provide necessary mitigation for impacts on European designated sites. If potential SANGs land is safeguarded or utilised for minerals development, alternative sites would need to be found that would Se function at least as well. pt 2013 179 180 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations
Natural England has previously recommended that the HRA should consider impacts on the various European sites in the area, including Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA, Shortheath Common SAC, Woolmer Forest SAC and East Hampshire Hangers. This should also consider that new development associated with the Whitehill-Bordon Assessment Eco-town is likely to rely on the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs), which need to be secured in perpetuity in order to provide necessary mitigation for impacts on European designated sites. If potential SANGs land is safeguarded or utilised for minerals development, alternative sites would need to be R
found that would function at least as well. ecord
Question 54: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Aggregate recycling Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. Appendices capacity Question 54 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We acknowledge that more information is required to (RSPB) determine the possible range of impacts associated with the construction and operation of recycling facilities. These impacts will vary depending on the location of such facilities and we consider that a constraints based approach should be adopted in respect of the (FINAL) location of such sites. We would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment further on this matter when the Appropriate Assessment is published for consultation.
Question 56: We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Se Maximising existing Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. pt waste facilities Question 56 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and 2013 Species Regulations 2010. (RSPB)
Question 57: Type of We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted. Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant waste infrastructure Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. required (RSPB) Question 57 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee
Question 57: Type of The screening report refers to assessments at the planning application stage. However, The HRA process is essential in producing a plan that will not have waste infrastructure the HRA should ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in the Plan to deliver the any adverse impacts in its delivery. The assessment will be carried out required (NE) minerals target without adverse effect on the integrity of European sites. in such a ways as to to determine to a suitable level of certainty that the plan can be delivered without impacts to the European sites, and to put in place safeguards in order that planning applications arising as a result of the Plan are presented in such a way as to ensure that mitigation identified at this stage are implemented, and that other potential impacts (to European sites) are fully assessed, avoided and mitigated.
Question 59: Where We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant Habitats to locate waste Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. management Question 59 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and activities (RSPB) Species Regulations 2010. We would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment R
further on this matter when this document is published for consultation. egulations
Question 63: Making We welcome the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant provision for Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. London's landfill Question 63 requires Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Assessment requirements Species Regulations 2010. We would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment further on this matter when this document is published for consultation. (RSPB) R
Question 64: New We consider that this site needs to be carefully considered as part of the Habitats Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA unless likely significant ecord landfill capacity for Regulations Assessment of the plan. We therefore welcome the conclusion in the effects can be avoided in further iterations of the screening stage. non-hazardous Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Under the Habitats Regulations – wastes in Hampshire Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that Question 64 requires Appropriate Appendices Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We (RSPB) would greatly welcome the opportunity to comment further on this matter when this document is published for consultation. (FINAL)
Question 64: New With regard to the three sites suggested for landfill, please see previous comments on Noted - Will take forward draft policy for AA. landfill capacity for Purple Haze at Question 37. Blue Haze is an established site, but proposals for any non-hazardous proposals for surcharging or expansion of the site would need to consider impacts on Se wastes in Hampshire the surrounding Ringwood Forest Area; again please see the general comments at pt (NE) Question 37 in relation to the adjacent Purple Haze site. We would agree that further 2013 evidence and assessment of these sites is required at HRA screening; it cannot be 181 182 Habitats 'Have Your Say' Consultee comment HCC Response Question and consultee R egulations concluded at this stage that the application of development criteria will avoid likely significant effect. Squabb Wood Landfill, Romsey is within the 7.5km foraging zone for barbestelle bats around Mottisfont Bats SAC / SSSI and potential impacts on habitats of value for foraging bats will need to be addressed in the HRA. Key requirements are to maintain any areas of broadleaved woodland, unimproved grassland, Assessment marsh or wetland within the bats’ foraging area.
Question 65: We disagree with the conclusion in the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan – Assessment Noted - as mentioned within Version 1 of the Screening Report, we Considering other Under the Habitats Regulations – Screening Report (Version 1), March 2011, that will look to adding international sites to the constraints, therefore R
proposals for landfill Question 65 does not require Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of negating the need for further examination. However, if this is not ecord Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. We consider that as this proposal does exclude possible, we agree that this policy approach will need to be taken (RSPB) nature conservation sites from development, it could result in a negative impact on forward into the full Appropriate Assessment of this Plan. those sites in terms of increased air & water pollution, noise, vibration and habitat loss. Appendices We consider that this matter should therefore be‚ 'screened-in' to the requirement for Appropriate Assessment.
Question 65: Natural England welcomes the identification of guidelines against which the assessment Noted - as mentioned within Version 1 of the Screening Report, we (FINAL) Considering other of sites will be assessed. However, we consider that this should include criteria for will look to adding international sites to the constraints, therefore proposals for landfill designated sites of biodiversity importance. Although the suggested criteria include the negating the need for further examination. However, if this is not (NE) requirement that development proposals will lead to an improvement in biodiversity, possible, we agree that this policy approach will need to be taken the first requirement is protect the existing biodiversity interest of the site, consistent forward into the full Appropriate Assessment of this Plan. Se with the approach in PPS9. pt 2013
Section 2.2.1 As stated in the Screening Report, it is a requirement of the Habitats Regulations that All in-combination assessment will also look at cumulative effects. In-combination the likelihood of significant effects must be considered alone or in-combination, either assessment of policy with other proposals within the plan or with other plans or projects. Although paragraph approaches 22 of this section of the Screening Report refers to category ‘A’ effects as being ‘very All effort has been given to give strategic direction where possible low risk’ the HRA should consider whether impacts which are small in themselves within policy wording, explanatory text, and site allocations. The could have combined or cumulative effects. To comply with the Habitats Regulations, iterative HRA process will help develop these areas. However, as a the HRA should be able to clearly state that there is no likely significant effect from strategic document, it is not possible to specify every aspect of delivery in-combination effects. requirements due to the nature of the plan and the need to be flexible to account for windfall sites and new technologies Paragraph 25 states that for category ‘C6’ effects, no further in-combination assessment is required at this stage as the policy approach is not sufficiently refined to identify specific areas. We would recommend that the Plan should give strategic direction on minerals and waste delivery requirements as far as possible, to avoid environmental impacts, and that the HRA should be revisited and revised as more specific policy information becomes available. Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 183
Appendix D Detailed analysis for the Appropriate Assessment stage
D1 - Flooding
Table D1 - Flood risk
D2 - Policies 27 and Policy 29
Table D2 - Screening assessment of waste sites and areas
Table D3-D5 - Appropriate Assessment of existing waste sites and area with potential to increase capacity
Table D6-D10 - Appropriate Assessment of Waste sites and area nominated for non-employment land use
D3 - Policy 32
Table D11 - Appropriate Assessment of Squabb Wood landfill site allocation
D4 - Policy 22
Table D12 - Appropriate Assessment of Selborne Brickworks Clay extraction site allocation
D5 - Policy 20
Table D13 - Appropriate Assessment of Roeshot Sand and gravel extraction site allocation
D6 - Policies 20 and 32
Table D14 - Appropriate Assessment of Purple Haze sand and gravel and reserve landfill site allocation
D7 - Policy 22
Table D15 - Appropriate Assessment of Michelmersh Brickworks clay extraction site allocation
D8 - Policy 20
Table D16 - Appropriate Assessment of Bleak Hill extension sand and gravel extraction allocation
D9 - Policy 20
Table D17 - Appropriate Assessment of Hamble Airfield sand and gravel extraction site allocation 184 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
D10 - Policy 20
Table D18 - Appropriate Assessment of Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel extraction site allocation
D11 - Policy 20
Table D19 - Appropriate Assessment of Bramshill Quarry extension sand and gravel extraction site allocation D.1 Flooding
Table D.1 Summary of flood risk associated with each of the Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan site allocations based on the findings of the 2011 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Site SFRA Flood Risk Details
Basingstoke Sidings The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. The site overlies a principal aquifer so groundwater flooding should be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. However it is not thought that the development of the existing site would impact on controlled waters in respect of flood risk. However there are recorded flood incidents in the vicinity of the site which will need to be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application.
Bleak Hill Quarry Extension The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel workings are confirmed as ‘water compatible’ development. Therefore the site is appropriate in the context of table D.3 of PPS25. The site does overlie a secondary aquifer but groundwater flooding is not thought to be a major issue at this existing site. The site does not contain any controlled waters which could directly lead to a direct or indirect flood risk.
Bramshill Quarry Extension The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel workings are confirmed as ‘water Habitats compatible’ development. Therefore the site is appropriate in the context of table D.3 of PPS25. The site overlies a secondary aquifer but groundwater flooding is not thought to be a major issue at this existing site. R
The site does not contain any controlled waters which could lead to a direct or indirect flood risk. The site is considered to be ‘more’ susceptible to surface water egulations flooding. However, due to the scale and permeable nature of the proposed mineral sites in the HMWP, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience the operator and are unlikely to be significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a direct result of activities on site. Assessment
Cutty Brow The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel workings are confirmed as ‘water compatible’ development. Therefore the site is appropriate in the context of table D.3 of PPS25. The site overlies a principal aquifer so groundwater flooding should still be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. However it is not thought that the sites development would
impact on controlled waters in respect of flood risk. The site is considered to be ‘more’ susceptible to surface water flooding. However, due to the scale and R permeable nature of the proposed mineral sites in the HMWP, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience ecord the operator and are unlikely to be significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no
increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a direct result of activities on site. Appendices
Forest Lodge Home Farm The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel workings are confirmed as ‘water compatible’ development. Therefore the site is appropriate in the context of table D.3 of PPS25. The site overlies a secondary aquifer so groundwater flooding is not considered to be a significant issue but groundwater flooding should be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. The development of the site would not have an impact on controlled waters in relation to flood risk. (FINAL)
Hamble Airfield The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel workings are confirmed as ‘water compatible’ development. Therefore the site is appropriate in the context of table D.3 of PPS25. The site overlies a secondary aquifer so groundwater flooding is not considered to be a significant issue but groundwater flooding should still be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. Se The site does not have any controlled waters located within it. However there are local reports of flooding on Satchell Lane, but these incidents are not thought pt to be associated with the site. The site is considered to be ‘more’ susceptible to surface water flooding. However, due to the scale and permeable nature of the 2013 proposed mineral sites in the HMWP, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience the operator and are 185 186 Habitats Site SFRA Flood Risk Details
unlikely to be significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a direct result of activities on site. R egulations
Micheldever Station The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. The site overlies a principal aquifer so groundwater flooding should be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. The site would have no impact on controlled water which could lead to a direct or indirect flood risk. Assessment Michelmersh Brickworks The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. There are sensitivity issues related to hydrological characteristics of the soils and the proximity to Michelmersh. Whilst this fact should not prevent the site coming forward, the effect of the works on the function of the floodplain need to be carefully considered through further work. The most important aspect of the active working period regarding floodplains is the way spoil and topsoil are stored and moved around the site. There are few sites where excavation can be undertaken without some loss of floodplain storage. Excavation of material poses
particular problems in relation to floodplain storage. In order for a site to be worked safely, appropriate measures that mitigate against loss will need to be identified R ecord and implemented. Further work will be required to assess hydrological constraints on the site and these issues should be considered in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. The Michelmersh Brickworks site is essentially an extension to the existing brickworks site. So the risk associated has to be
considered but it is unlikely that extending the site for extraction of clay will have a significant impact on the potential flood risk as the sites are entirely within Appendices flood zone 1. The site would have no impact on controlled water which could lead to a direct or indirect flood risk. The site overlies a principal and secondary aquifer so groundwater flooding should be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application.
Mortimer Quarry Extension This site falls partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel extraction sites are classified as ‘water compatible’ development and are
therefore still appropriate within flood zones 2 and 3 as per table D.3 of PPS25. For this site, which is located within a range of flood zones, the sequential test (FINAL) should be applied as appropriate. The sequential approach should subsequently be applied to ensure that stockpiles and ancillary buildings are located in areas at least risk to avoid being adversely affected by flooding or increasing flood risk elsewhere. Mortimer Quarry Extension is also an existing site. Extending the quarry should not have a significant impact on the potential flood risk as only a small part of the site boundary falls into flood zones 2 and 3 so this can be factored into
any proposals. The site is considered to be ‘more’ susceptible to surface water flooding. However, due to the scale and permeable nature of the proposed mineral Se
sites in the HMWP, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience the operator and are unlikely to be pt
significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere 2013 as a direct result of activities on site.
Purple Haze The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel working are confirmed as ‘water compatible’ development. Therefore the site is appropriate in the context of table D.3 of PPS25. The site overlies a secondary aquifer so groundwater flooding is not considered to be a significant issue but groundwater flooding should be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. The site would have no impact on controlled water which could lead to a direct or indirect flood risk. The site is considered to be ‘more’ susceptible to surface water flooding. However, due to the scale and permeable nature of the proposed mineral sites in the HMWP, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience the operator and are unlikely to be significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a direct result of activities on site.
Roeshot This site falls partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel extraction sites are classified as ‘water compatible’ development and are therefore still appropriate within flood zones 2 and 3 as per table D.3 of PPS25. For this site, which is located within a range of flood zones, the Sequential test should be applied as appropriate. Roeshot Hill is a large site situated north of Highcliffe and the railway line, south of Waterditch and west of Burton Common. A river is located on the western boundary of the site and the site contains brooks and ditches. Because it is one of the larger proposed Hampshire Minerals & Waste Plan Minerals Site Allocations the sequential approach should ensure that stockpiles and ancillary buildings are located in areas of least risk to avoid being adversely affected by flooding or increasing flood risk elsewhere. The site overlies a secondary aquifer so groundwater flooding is not considered to be a significant issue but groundwater flooding should be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. The site is considered to be ‘more’ Site SFRA Flood Risk Details
susceptible to surface water flooding. However, due to the scale and permeable nature of the proposed mineral sites in the HMWP, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience the operator and are unlikely to be significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a direct result of activities on site.
Selborne Brickworks The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. Therefore the site is appropriate in the context of table D.3 of PPS25. The site does not overlie an aquifer so groundwater flooding is not an issue. The site is considered to be ‘more’ susceptible to surface water flooding. The impermeable nature of clay will need to be considered however due to the scale of the proposed brickworks in the HMWP, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience the operator and are unlikely to be significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a direct result of activities on site.
Whitehill & Bordon The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. In line with PPS25, sand and gravel working are confirmed as ‘water Opportunity compatible’ development. Therefore the site is appropriate in the context of table D.3 of PPS25. The site overlies a principal aquifer so groundwater flooding should be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. The town also contains some surface water and a watercourse runs
through the site (north to south). The location is considered to be ‘more’ susceptible to surface water flooding. However, due to the scale and permeable nature Habitats of the proposed mineral sites in the HMWP, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience the operator and are unlikely to be significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a direct result of activities on site. R Squabb Wood landfill The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and so is not considered to be at risk of fluvial flooding. PPS25 Table D.2 classifies landfill sites and sites used for waste egulations management facilities for hazardous waste as ‘more vulnerable’ developments, and so they are restricted to flood zones 1 and 2 (subject to the completion of the sequential test). Accordingly this extension to an existing site is considered appropriate in respect of fluvial flooding based on PPS25.The site overlies a secondary aquifer so groundwater flooding is not considered to be a significant issue but groundwater flooding should still be considered as an issue in any flood risk assessment as part of a planning application. There are no recorded local flooding incidents but the site is considered to be ‘more’ susceptible to surface water flooding. Assessment However, it is considered that any problems encountered from pluvial flooding are more likely to inconvenience the operator and are unlikely to be significant in assessing the suitability of sites, providing sufficient drainage is incorporated within the site to ensure there is no increased risk of flooding elsewhere as a direct result of activities on site. R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 187 188 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
D.2 Assessment of waste sites and areas
1 Table D.2 includes details of those sites identified in the 'Assessment of sites and areas' document within the evidence base(28). These sites are taken from section 5 (Existing sites) and section 7 (Other nominated sites) of that assessment. This table screens all of these sites within 500m of a EN site (or within 7.5 km of Mottisfont bats SAC) for the likelihood of significant effect on European sites. Where the likelihood of significant effect is identified, more detailed assessment of the sites has been carried out, and is summarised in tables D.3-D.11.
2 Though the Plan does not provide any allocated sites for waste development, the evidence provides steer on the likelihood of the location and scope of development. In addition to the policy steer towards urban areas within the 3 distinct geographical zones (north, east and south) which provides more certainty that sites falling into these categories will come forward.
3 'Existing sites' are sites that are currently permitted for waste uses, and have the potential to extend or expand to provide further waste management capacity during the plan period. These therefore have the most potential to come forward under Policy 27.
4 'Other nominated sites' are sites that have been identified as those most likely to have support 'in principle' for a waste use in the future and where no major deliverability issues have been identified (and therefore have the most potential to come forward under Policy 29).
28 Assessment of sites and Areas for Waste Management Facilities in Hampshire Table D.2 Sites within Assessment of sites and Areas for Waste Management Facilities
Site/potential identified Distance from Category of use Likely significant effect European site AA required? (m)
HRT 007 Hartley Wintney 0m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Thames Basin Heaths SPA HWRC, Springwell Lane, open areas (involving biological treatment) Hartley Wintney (Hart Extension could have effects, dependant on extent of new Depot) Category 2: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary development (possible CHP/green uses). The surroundings are YES open areas (not involving biological treatment) predominantly rural in nature and this development would therefore Increase of waste management potentially give rise to significant noise issues. Proximity to nearby capacity at existing site watercourses could give rise to water quality issues.
NFT 035 Former 62m Category 4: Activities requiring enclosed industrial Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar Habitats Marchwood Incinerator premises (large scale) and SPA Site, Bury Road, Marchwood Category: 5: Activities requiring enclosed building with Unlikely to result in significant land-use changes, though there may stack (small scale) be increased traffic impacts if capacity increases. Site noise increase NO R egulations Increase waste management likely to be minimal as capacity increase proposed is suggested as capacity at existing site an enclosed facility. Protection policies will prevent significant effects. Assessment HRT 027 Land at Warren 210m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Thames Basin Heaths SPA Heath, Bramshill open areas (involving biological treatment)
Increase aggregate recycling R
capacity at existing site Making permanent a temporary facility, with investment in facility YES ecord changes the nature of the development. Contiguous with SPA on all sides. Proposal is for open facilities, which could possibly lead to noise disturbance and dust issues. Appendices
HRT 021 Eversley Haulage 233m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Thames Basin Heaths SPA Park, Hook open areas (involving biological treatment) (FINAL) Increase waste management Category 4: Activities requiring enclosed industrial capacity at existing site premises (large scale) Potential to increase capacity at existing permanent facilities. YES Surrounded on all sides by TBH SPA, Castle Bottom to Yateley SSSI. Though no extension of the site has been promoted, increased Se capacity could potentially create noise, vibration and traffic impacts. pt 2013 189 190 Habitats Site/potential identified Distance from Category of use Likely significant effect European site AA required? (m) R egulations NFT 022 Blashford 267m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Avon Valley SPA/Ramsar, River Avon SAC Quarry, Ellingham open areas (involving biological treatment) Harbridge & Ibsley Capacity increases are likely to involve new machinery rather than increased land. Significant mitigation measures to prevent noise, NO Diversify waste management and dust are already in operation at the site. In conjunction with Assessment operations at existing site protection policies, it is unlikely that any effects will be significant
NFT 003, 021 & 060 Bury 306m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar R
Farm (Marchwood Quarry), open areas (involving biological treatment) and SPA ecord Marchwood
Diversify operations (landfill, Appendices former minerals extraction Likely development is diversification of existing operations only. operations etc.) at existing site Potential additional operations include in-vessel or windrow composting and the acceptance and storage of Incinerator Bottom NO Ash (IBA). Processed IBA is a useful aggregate, and is therefore unlikely to require disposal at this site. Storage and reuse of such (FINAL) waste can reduce landfill by up to 469,000 tonnes/year(29). Composting activities could give rise to pest and corvid/seagull activity which may have biological disturbance to SPA. Industry regulations and protection policies (especially Policy 9: Protecting Se public health, safety and amenity) will prevent significant effect. pt 2013
EHS 004 Spaniard Inn, 87m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Wealden Heaths Ph 2 SPA Liphook open areas (involving biological treatment)
Nominated site not allocated as Category 2: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary employment land open areas (not involving biological treatment) Though the site is not within the SPA, there is always the likelihood for the site to support off site foraging for the mobile birds that are YES Category 3: Activities requiring enclosed industrial the qualifying features of the SPA. Though the site is small, it could premises (small scale) support the integrity of the SPA in this way due to the presence of lowland mixed deciduous woodland and lowland heathland on site. Significant effects could arise from loss of habitat in use by mobile SPA qualifying bird species.
29 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/114416.aspx Site/potential identified Distance from Category of use Likely significant effect European site AA required? (m)
EHS 011 Army Cadet Site, 90m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Wealden Heaths Ph 2 SPA Greatham open areas (involving biological treatment) Though the site is not within the SPA, there is always the likelihood Nominated site not allocated as Category 2: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary for the site to support off site foraging for the mobile birds that are employment land open areas (not involving biological treatment) the qualifying features of the SPA. However, this site is unlikely to NO support SPA birds as there is no on-site habitat for off site foraging, Category 3: Activities requiring enclosed industrial and therefore is unlikely to give significant effects. premises (small scale)
ELH 020 Withys Meadow, 54m Category 2: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary River Itchen SAC
Dutton Lane, Eastleigh open areas (not involving biological treatment) Habitats
Nominated site not allocated as Category 3: Activities requiring enclosed industrial employment land premises (small scale) The sites lies directly adjacent to a small tributary of the River YES R
Itchen, which forms part of the SAC. Though the site is small, egulations Category 4: Activities requiring enclosed industrial construction impacts and washings from stored material may be premises (large scale) likely. Assessment HRT 017 Land at Minley, 120m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Thames Basin Heaths SPA Blackbushe open areas (involving biological treatment) Though the site is not within the SPA, there is always the likelihood Nominated site not allocated as Category 2: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary for the site to support off-site foraging for the mobile birds that employment land open areas (not involving biological treatment) are the qualifying features of the SPA. Though the site is small, it R
is likely to support SPA birds as it contains lowland heathland. ecord YES Category 3: Activities requiring enclosed industrial Significant effects could arise from loss of habitat of mobile SPA premises (small scale) qualifying bird species Appendices
Category 4: Activities requiring enclosed industrial premises (large scale)
SCC 012 / TTV 037 Site at (SCC 012) Category 2: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton water (FINAL) Redbridge Lane, Nursling, 263m and open areas (not involving biological treatment) SPA/Ramsar Southampton Category 3: Activities requiring enclosed industrial Very unlikely to be site issues due to its isolation from the European NO Se premises (small scale) site - noise issues are unlikely to be significant due to proximity to pt motorway and other industry. 2013 191 192 Habitats Site/potential identified Distance from Category of use Likely significant effect European site AA required? (m) R egulations Nominated site not allocated as (TTV 037) Category 4: Activities requiring enclosed industrial employment land 303m premises (large scale)
TTV 038 Land at 3774m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Mottisfont SAC Assessment Dunwood Nurseries, open areas (involving biological treatment) Romsey Though the site is not within the SAC, there is always the likelihood Category 2: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary for the site to support off-site foraging/commuting for the mobile Nominated site not allocated as open areas (not involving biological treatment) bats that are the qualifying features of the SAC. The site lies within R
employment land the 7.5km radius of Mottisfont Bat SAC, and is therefore sensitive YES ecord to foraging and commuting habitat loss. The site contains lowland mixed deciduous woodland which would have to be removed for the site to be deliverable, and removal of such habitat has been Appendices identified as having potential to effect the integrity of the SAC(30).
NFT 037 Totton Yard, 444m Category 1: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton water
Totton open areas (involving biological treatment) SPA/Ramsar (FINAL)
Nominated site not allocated as Category 2: Activities requiring open sites or ancillary The site is small, and relatively isolated from the European site, employment land open areas (not involving biological treatment) there is unlikely to be any direct impacts. Any potential additional NO noise and traffic impacts are unlikely to be significant due to its size Se Category 3: Activities requiring enclosed industrial relative to the surrounding industry. Environmental protection pt premises (small scale) policies within the Plan will provide sufficient protection. 2013
30 Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Mottisfont Bats SAC: Protocol for Planning Officers – A report to Natural England Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 193
5 Tables D.3-D.10 detail the Appropriate Assessment of those waste sites that were considered as likely to have likely significant effect, and would require more detailed appropriate assessment. 194 Habitats Table D.3 HRT 007 Hartley Wintney HWRC - Increase waste management capacity at existing site
Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on Mitigation If mitigation sites any European site integrity either alone or in is R egulations potentially combination with other plans or projects? implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out? Assessment
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Though site is not located within the SPA, there is always the possibility that the mobile bird species New waste sites can lead to loss of habitat/habitat that are qualifying features of the SPA could utilise
N/A YES R fragmentation as a result of land take and the area for foraging. However, this site does not ecord associated infrastructure development. support any habitat that would support foraging for the qualifying bird species. Appendices Noise pollution and vibration Traffic unlikely to be a significant effect, very close Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and to primary road network, and protection policies amenityrequires that proposals for minerals and waste Noise and vibration effects can be caused by would provide sufficient control/constraint to the developments that should not cause unacceptable noise activities associated with site operations during type of traffic increases that would have a significant impacts, and YES preparatory works and operation of the site Thames effect. Open nature of development could have (FINAL) Basin noise implications Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species constraints Heaths will prevent significant effects. SPA Se
Light pollution • European Unlikely to be significant. Likely development would Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and pt
nightjar not have requirement for out of hours working. amenityrequires proposals for minerals and waste 2013 Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting developments do not cause unacceptable lighting impacts. YES on site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and • Woodlark from and within the site. • Dartford Warbler Changes to water levels Likely development is not water dependant, and Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and therefore would have no demands on water resource. amenity requires proposals for waste developments that Activities associated with waste sites can affect should not cause an unacceptable impact on coastal, water levels in a variety of ways, including drying, Extension could result in loss of permeable ground, surface or groundwater, and flooding/storm water, changes in water level and though given the size of the development is unlikely stability, changes in surface water flow and to be significant, and is easily managed through Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species constraints YES groundwater flow and loss of groundwater protection policies will prevent significant effects, and implementation plan storage. These changes can result from for Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species construction and operational activities (information required to support submission) constraints will prevent significant effects. Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on Mitigation If mitigation sites any European site integrity either alone or in is potentially combination with other plans or projects? implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Changes in water quality Site lies adjacent to River Hart, that flows towards Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and SPA. Changes to the water quality of the river would amenity requires that proposals for waste developments Water quality can be affected by waste play significant part in the integrity of the SPA should not release emissions to water management during preparatory works, habitats. YES operational activities (for example as a result of The Environment Agency permitting requirements will ground investigation works, or industrial processes provide strict control over site operations and emissions. within a site) Habitats
Air pollution Traffic unlikely to be an effect, very close to primary Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and road network, and protection policies would provide amenity requires proposals for waste developments do R
Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic sufficient control/constraint to the type of traffic not release emission to air and egulations movements to and from waste management sites, increases that would have a significant effect. YES and by emissions from on-site activities. Policy 12: Managing traffic constraints will prevent significant effects. Assessment
Recreation-related impacts No existing use on site, existing footpaths on Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and opposite side of river unlikely to be effected (e.g. amenity requires that proposals for waste developments Recreation can be displaced on to areas vulnerable Through noise or odour) by likely development. be visually unobtrusive, and to not have unacceptable R to disturbance or pressure (by impacts to the amenity impacts. YES ecord amenity of footpaths and cycleways or areas of permissive access) Appendices
Dust Open nature of development could have dust Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and implications amenity requires that proposals for waste developments Dust deposition on ground and water from should not cause unacceptable dust impacts. operational activities can lead to contamination (FINAL) YES of nearby European sites The Environment Agency/EHO permitting requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions. Se pt 2013 195 196 Habitats Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on Mitigation If mitigation sites any European site integrity either alone or in is potentially combination with other plans or projects? implemented, R
affected can adverse egulations and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Soil contamination Likely development is unlikely to give rise to soil Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and Assessment contamination, however, leaching or spillage could amenityrequires that proposals for waste development Soil contamination can result from various on-site occur. However, given the size of the site and should not release emissions to land and, activities including industrial processes (e.g. those potential for this to happen, this is considered involving fuels, oils and solvents) unlikely to be significant. Policy 8: Protection of soils requires that waste
YES R
development not have an undue adverse impact on soils ecord
The Environment Agency permitting requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions. Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 Table D.4 HRT 027 Land at Warren Heath, Bramshill - Increase aggregate recycling capacity at existing site - permanent use of temporary facilities
Potential Impacts European sites Will the development have an adverse effect on any European If mitigation potentially affected site integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or is and qualifying projects? implemented, features Mitigation can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Physical Although the site not located within the SPA, there is always the disturbance/loss of possibility that it could be used as off-site foraging habitat for habitat qualifying bird species of the nearby SPA. However, the site does not support any habitat that would support foraging of qualifying bird New waste sites can lead species, and is therefore not likely to lead to significant effect
to loss of habitat/habitat N/A YES Habitats fragmentation as a result of landtake and associated infrastructure Thames Basin development Heaths SPA R egulations
• European nightjar Noise pollution and • Woodlark Traffic unlikely to be an effect, very close to primary road network, vibration • Dartford Warbler and protection policies would provide sufficient control/constraint to the type of traffic increases that would have a significant effect. Assessment Noise and vibration Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and effects can be caused by The open nature of the proposed increased capacity could potentially amenity requires that proposals for minerals and waste activities associated with have effects on qualifying bird species which are known to be developments should not cause unacceptable noise YES sand and gravel particularly vulnerable to noise and vibration and which are known impacts and Policy 3: Protection of habitats and R
extraction during to be present in the adjacent SSSI (hosts 6% of the total Dartford species constraints will prevent significant effects. ecord preparatory works and warbler territories across the SPA, 10% of the nightjar territories and operation of the site 14% of the woodlark territories). Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 197 198 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites Will the development have an adverse effect on any European If mitigation potentially affected site integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or is and qualifying projects? implemented, R
features Mitigation can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
The permanent nature of these facilities could have a significant effect, Assessment including those arising from in-combination effects with Eversley Quarry and Bramshill Quarry sand and gravel extractions. Uncertainty on these issues remain as the significance of these cannot be determined until the nature of proposed development is known. It is R
also not certain that any such proposal would come forward. ecord However, mitigation of such effects are required by Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species and the implementation plan associated with it, which may render any permanent provision of open Appendices facilities at this site undeliverable. Policy 27 is criteria led and this leads to a level of uncertainty in the likely development at this site, however the protection imposed by the framework of policies within the Plan are sufficient protection. (FINAL)
Light pollution Likely development would not have requirement for out of hours working. As nightjar (the only qualifying species that may be able to Light pollution can be use the site or its environs) is nocturnal it is unlikely that any effects Se
Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and pt caused by artificial would be significant.
amenity requires proposals for minerals and waste 2013 lighting on site as well as YES developments do not cause unacceptable lighting vehicle traffic impacts. movements to and from and within the site.
Changes to water levels Although the site overlies a secondary aquifer, likely development Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and would have very little water requirement, and therefore would have amenity requires proposals for waste developments YES no significant demands on water resource. do not cause and unacceptable impact on coastal, surface or groundwater and Potential Impacts European sites Will the development have an adverse effect on any European If mitigation potentially affected site integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or is and qualifying projects? implemented, features Mitigation can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Activities associated with waste sites can affect water levels in a variety of ways, including drying, Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species and flooding/storm water, implementation plan (information required to support changes in water level submission) constraints will prevent significant effects. and stability, changes in surface water flow and Habitats The Environment Agency permitting requirements will groundwater flow and provide strict control over site operations and loss of groundwater emissions. storage. These changes R
can result from egulations construction and operational activities
Changes in water There are no surface waters within the site, though there is potential Assessment quality to effect the underlying aquifer. However, there is a strong policy protection framework that prevents emissions to water, and together Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and Water quality can be with strong industry controls is unlikely to give rise to significant amenity requires that proposals for waste affected by waste effect developments should not release emissions to water R management during ecord preparatory works, YES The Environment Agency permitting requirements will operational activities for
provide strict control over site operations and Appendices example as a result of emissions. ground investigation works, or industrial processes within a site (FINAL) Air pollution Traffic unlikely to be an effect, very close to primary road network, Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and and protection policies would provide sufficient control/constraint amenity requires that proposals for waste YES to the type of traffic increases that would have a significant effect. developments should not release emissions to air and Se pt 2013 199 200 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites Will the development have an adverse effect on any European If mitigation potentially affected site integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or is and qualifying projects? implemented, R
features Mitigation can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution can result Assessment from vehicle traffic movements to and from Policy 12: Managing trafficconstraints will prevent waste management sites, significant effects. and by emissions from R
on-site activities. ecord
Recreation-related No existing use on site, existing footpaths around site unlikely to be Appendices impacts effected (e.g. through noise or odour) by likely development.
Recreation can be Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and displaced on to areas
amenity requires that proposals for waste (FINAL) vulnerable to disturbance YES developments be visually unobtrusive, and to not have or pressure by impacts to unacceptable amenity impacts. the amenity of footpaths and cycleways or areas of permissive access Se pt 2013 Dust The bird species which are the qualifying features of the SPA are not Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and known to be particularly sensitive to the impacts of dust. amenity requires that proposals for waste Dust deposition on developments should not cause unacceptable dust ground and water from impacts. operational activities can YES lead to contamination at The Environment Agency/EHO permitting nearby European sites requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions.
Soil contamination Likely development is unlikely to give rise to soil contamination, Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and however, leaching or spillage could occur. However, the qualifying amenity requires that proposals for waste YES bird species are not known to be particularly sensitive to the impacts developments should not release emissions to land and Potential Impacts European sites Will the development have an adverse effect on any European If mitigation potentially affected site integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or is and qualifying projects? implemented, features Mitigation can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Soil contamination can of soil contamination. As such, it is considered unlikely that any Policy 8: Protection of soils requires that waste result from various significant effects of this nature will result, because strict developments should not have an undue adverse impact on-site activities environmental controls would apply at the site, for example in relation on soils. including industrial to the disposal of waste water. processes (e.g. those The Environment Agency permitting requirements will involving fuels, oils and provide strict control over site operations and solvents) emissions. Habitats R egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 201 202 Habitats Table D.5 HRT 021 Eversley Haulage Park - increase waste management capacity at existing site
Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any European Mitigation If mitigation sites site integrity either alone or in combination with other plans is R egulations potentially or projects? implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out? Assessment
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat The site is not within the SPA, nor does it support any habitat that could be used off-site by foraging qualifying bird species New waste sites can lead to loss of habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of N/A YES R ecord landtake and associated infrastructure development Appendices
Noise pollution and vibration The open nature of the proposed increased capacity could potential Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety have effects on qualifying bird species which are known to be and amenity requires that proposals for Noise and vibration effects can be caused by particularly vulnerable to noise and vibration and the which are minerals and waste developments should
activities associated with sand and gravel Thames known to be present in the adjacent SSSI (hosts 6% of the total not cause unacceptable noise impacts. (FINAL) extraction during preparatory works and Basin Dartford warbler territories across the SPA, 10% of the nightjar operation of the site Heaths territories and 14% of the woodlark territories). The permanent The Environment Agency permitting SPA nature of these facilities could have a significant effect, including requirements will provide strict control over those arising from in-combination effects with Eversley Quarry and site operations and emissions. Se • European Bramshill Quarry sand and gravel extractions. Uncertainty on these pt
nightjar issues remain as the significance of these cannot be determined until 2013 the nature of proposed development is known. It is also not certain • Woodlark that any such proposal would come forward. However, mitigation of such effects are required (by Policy 3: Protection of habitats • Dartford and species (and the implementation plan associated with it) to be YES Warbler fully investigated, which may render any permanent provision of open facilities at this site undeliverable.
Policy 27 is criteria led and this leads to a level of uncertainty in the likely development at this site, however the protection imposed by the framework of policies within the Plan are sufficient protection.
Also, recent applications at this site have demonstrated that such development can be accommodated without significant effect.
Protection Policy 9: Protecting public health, safety and amenity will provide sufficient protection Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any European Mitigation If mitigation sites site integrity either alone or in combination with other plans is potentially or projects? implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Light pollution Likely development would not have requirement for out of hours Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety working. As nightjar (the only qualifying species that may use the and amenity requires that proposals for Light pollution can be caused by artificial site or its environs) is nocturnal it is unlikely that any effects would minerals and waste developments should YES lighting on site as well as vehicle traffic be significant. not cause unacceptable lighting impacts. movements to and from and within the site.
Changes to water levels Although the site overlies a secondary aquifer, likely development Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Habitats would have very little water requirement, and therefore would have and amenity requires that proposals for Activities associated with waste sites can affect no significant demands on water resource. waste developments should not cause and water levels in a variety of ways, including unacceptable impact on coastal, surface or R
drying, flooding/storm water, changes in water groundwater egulations YES level and stability, changes in surface water flow and groundwater flow and loss of The Environment Agency permitting groundwater storage. These changes can result requirements will provide strict control over from construction and operational activities site operations and emissions. Assessment
Changes in water quality There are no surface waters within the site, though there is potential Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety to effect the underlying aquifer. However, there is a strong policy and amenity requires that proposals for Water quality can be affected by waste protection framework that prevents emissions to water, and together waste developments should not release R
management during preparatory works, with strong industry controls is unlikely to give rise to significant emission to water ecord operational activities for example as a result of effect YES ground investigation works, or industrial The Environment Agency permitting processes within a site requirements will provide strict control over Appendices site operations and emissions
Air pollution The qualifying bird species of this SPA are not known to be Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety particularly sensitive to air pollution. In addition, the proposal for and amenity requires that proposals for (FINAL) Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic this site involves the extension/increased capacity of an existing site, waste developments should not release movements to and from waste management rather than the allocation of a new site with the associated additional emissions to air and YES sites, and by emissions from onsite activities. traffic movements. The Strategic Transport Assessment(31) reports Policy 12: Managing trafficconstraints will Se
that traffic volumes are expected to remain at current levels, pt indicating that the ongoing use of this site for the MRF should not prevent significant effects. 2013
31 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic assessment 203 204 Habitats Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any European Mitigation If mitigation sites site integrity either alone or in combination with other plans is potentially or projects? implemented, R
affected can adverse egulations and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA as a result of Assessment increased air pollution.
Recreation-related impacts The site does not contain any footpaths, cycle paths or or permissive access, and it is unlikely to result in displacement of recreation. Recreation can be displaced on to areas R ecord vulnerable to disturbance or pressure by N/A YES impacts to the amenity of footpaths and cycleways or areas of permissive access Appendices
Dust The bird species which are the qualifying features of the SPA are Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety not known to be particularly sensitive to the impacts of dust. and amenity requires that proposals for
Dust deposition on ground and water from waste development should not cause (FINAL) operational activities can lead to contamination unacceptable dust impacts. at nearby European sites YES The Environment Agency/EHO permitting requirements will provide strict control over Se site operations and emissions pt 2013
Soil contamination The qualifying bird species are not known to be particularly sensitive to the impacts of soil contamination. As such, it is considered Soil contamination can result from various unlikely that any significant effects of this nature will result, because N/A YES onsite activities including industrial processes strict environmental controls would apply at the site, for example in (e.g. those involving fuels, oils and solvents) relation to the disposal of waste water. Table D.6 EHS 004 Spaniard Inn, Liphook - Nominated site not allocated as employment land -
Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat The Qualifying species of the SPA are woodland edge birds. Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species It is not expected that the site would support breeding birds provides sufficient protection for habitats linked to New waste sites can lead to loss of given the size, vegetation or structure of the site(32). It is the SPA. The implementation plan for the policy habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of likely to only support off-site foraging habitat for nightjar, sets requirement for survey data that will reliably YES landtake and associated infrastructure that are known to travel greater distances during dusk/dawn inform development management for the site. Habitats development forays for food, and therefore a level of uncertainty will remain for this site. Wealden R
Noise pollution and vibration Heaths Traffic unlikely to be an effect, very close to primary road Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and egulations SPA network, and protection policies would provide sufficient amenity requires that proposals for minerals and Noise and vibration effects can be caused by Annex 1 control/constraint to the type of traffic increases that would waste developments should not cause unacceptable activities associated with sand and gravel birds and have a significant effect. noise impacts and, extraction during preparatory works and regularly Assessment operation of the site occurring Open nature of development could have noise implications, Policy 12: Managing trafficconstraints will prevent migratory and the permanent nature of these facilities could have a significant effects. birds: significant effect Uncertainty on these issues remain as the • European significance of these cannot be determined until the nature nightjar of proposed development is known. It is also not certain R
• Woodlark that any such proposal would come forward. However, YES ecord • Dartford mitigation of such effects are required by Policy 3: Warbler Protection of habitats and species and the implementation plan associated with it, which may render any permanent Appendices provision of open facilities at this site undeliverable.
Policy 27 is criteria led and this leads to a level of uncertainty in the likely development at this site, however the protection imposed by the framework of policies within the Plan are (FINAL) sufficient protection. Se pt 2013 32 Science for Conservation Management: European Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus - Breeding Success and Foraging Behaviour in Upland Coniferous Forests in Mid-Wales A collaborative project between A. V. Cross, Brecknock Wildlife Trust and the Forestry Commission in 2004 & 2005. 205 206 Habitats Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, R
affected can adverse egulations and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out? Assessment
Light pollution Likely development would not have requirement for out of Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and hours working. As nightjar (the only qualifying species that amenity requires that proposals for minerals and Light pollution can be caused by artificial may use the site or its environs) is nocturnal it is unlikely waste developments should not cause unacceptable YES lighting on site as well as vehicle traffic that any effects would be significant. lighting impacts. R
movements to and from and within the site. ecord
Changes to water levels Although the site overlies a principal aquifer, likely Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and Appendices development would have very little water requirement, and amenity requires that proposals for waste Activities associated with waste sites can affect therefore would have no significant demands on water developments should not cause an unacceptable water levels in a variety of ways, including resource. impact on coastal, surface or groundwater drying, flooding/storm water, changes in water
YES (FINAL) level and stability, changes in surface water flow The Environment Agency permitting requirements and groundwater flow and loss of groundwater will provide strict control over site operations and storage. These changes can result from emissions construction and operational activities Se pt
Changes in water quality Although the site overlies a principal aquifer, likely Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and 2013 development would have very little water requirement, and amenity requires that proposals for waste Water quality can be affected by waste therefore would have no significant demands on water developments should not release emissions to water. management during preparatory works, resource. YES operational activities for example as a result of The Environment Agency permitting requirements ground investigation works, or industrial will provide strict control over site operations and processes within a site emissions
Air pollution Traffic unlikely to be an effect, very close to primary road Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and network, and protection policies would provide sufficient amenity requires that proposals for waste Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic control/constraint to the type of traffic increases that would developments should not release emissions to air, movements to and from waste management have a significant effect. and YES sites, and by emissions from on-site activities. Policy 12: Managing trafficconstraints will prevent significant effects. Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts The site does not contain any footpaths, cycle paths or or permissive access, and it is unlikely to result in displacement Recreation can be displaced on to areas of recreation. vulnerable to disturbance or pressure by N/A YES impacts to the amenity of footpaths and cycleways or areas of permissive access Habitats
Dust Open nature of development could have dust implications, Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and however, The species that are the qualifying features of the amenity requires that proposals for waste R
Dust deposition on ground and water from SPA are not known to be sensitive to the effects of dust. developments should not cause unacceptable dust egulations operational activities can lead to contamination impacts. at nearby European sites YES The Environment Agency/EHO permitting requirements will provide strict control over site Assessment operations and emissions
Soil contamination The species that are the qualifying features of the SPA are Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and not known to be sensitive to the effects of Soil amenity requires that proposals for waste R
Soil contamination can result from various contamination. development should not release emissions to land, ecord on-site activities including industrial processes and (e.g. those involving fuels, oils and solvents) Policy 8: Protection of soils requires that waste Appendices development should not have an undue adverse YES impact on soils.
The Environment Agency permitting requirements will provide strict control over site operations and (FINAL) emissions Se pt 2013 207 208 Habitats Table D.7 ELH 020 Withys Meadow, Dutton Lane, Eastleigh - Nominated site not allocated as employment land
Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the development have an adverse effect on any European site Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or projects? is R egulations features implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out? Assessment
Physical disturbance/loss of Though the proposed site would not have any direct habitat loss, storage Policy 10: Protecting public habitat of fine material could lead to smothering of the available habitat with health, safety and amenity and impervious silts, to which the qualifying features of the SAC would be strict industry controls will provide New waste sites can lead to loss extremely sensitive. This stretch of the River is currently 'unfavourable no sufficient protection R ecord of habitat/habitat fragmentation change' due to the current inappropriate water levels, inappropriate weirs as a result of landtake and dams and other structures, invasive freshwater species, siltation, water YES
associated infrastructure abstraction, water pollution - agriculture/run off, water pollution - Appendices development discharge. As with water quality below, the environmental agency will require adherence to permitting standards that will prevent siltation, in River Itchen SAC addition to the strict requirement of Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and amenity. Lowland chalk river (FINAL) Noise pollution and vibration The qualifying features of the SAC are not known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public effects of noise and vibration. health, safety and amenity Southern Damselfly Noise and vibration effects can requires that proposals for minerals
be caused by activities associated and waste developments should not Se YES with sand and gravel extraction Bullhead cause unacceptable noise impacts pt
during preparatory works and 2013 operation of the site
Light pollution The qualifying features of the SAC are not known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public effects of light. The likely development would not have requirement for health, safety and amenity Light pollution can be caused by out of hours working. requires proposals for minerals and artificial lighting on site as well waste developments do not cause YES as vehicle traffic movements to unacceptable lighting impacts. and from and within the site. Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the development have an adverse effect on any European site Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or projects? is features implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels The qualifying features of the SAC are very sensitive to changes in the Policy 10: Protecting public water level of the river and it's tributaries. The close proximity of the site health, safety and amenity Activities associated with waste to the river, and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common requires that proposals for waste sites can affect water levels in a with the SAC indicates that water quality impacts cannot be ruled out. It developments should not cause and variety of ways, including drying, is unlikely that the proposed development would require any changes to unacceptable impact on coastal, flooding/storm water, changes the structure of the river, and provision of sufficient buffer and protection surface or groundwater, and Policy in water level and stability, of the riparian habitat would be a requirement under Policy 3: Protection 3: Protection of habitats and changes in surface water flow of habitats and species. The likely development would have very little species and implementation plan Habitats and groundwater flow and loss water requirement, and therefore would have no significant demands on (information required to support YES of groundwater storage. These water resource. submission) constraints will prevent changes can result from significant effects. R
construction and operational egulations activities The Environment Agency permitting requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions Assessment
Changes in water quality The qualifying features of the SAC are very sensitive to changes in the Policy 10: Protecting public water quality of the river and it's tributaries. The close proximity of the health, safety and amenity Water quality can be affected by site to the river and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common requires that proposals for waste R
waste management during with the SAC indicates that water quality impacts cannot be ruled out. developments should not release ecord preparatory works, operational The likely development would have very little water requirement, and emissions to water. activities for example as a result therefore would have no significant demands on water resource. In YES of ground investigation works, addition, all operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency The Environment Agency Appendices or industrial processes within a permitting standards. permitting requirements will provide site strict control over site operations and emissions (FINAL) Air pollution A large part of the section of the river is in close proximity to the strategic Policy 10: Protecting public road network. Though it is not clear if the unfavourable condition is health, safety and amenity linked to air quality issues, an increase in deposition of pollution as a requires that proposals for waste YES result of additional vehicle traffic may be harmful to the integrity of the developments should not release Se SAC. However, HGV movement are already permitted under the current emissions to air and pt 2013 209 210 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the development have an adverse effect on any European site Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or projects? is features implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution can result from use of the site, and it is unlikely, given the urban nature of the site that Policy 12: Managing Assessment vehicle traffic movements to and the likely changes to traffic patterns would create a significant effect, trafficconstraints will prevent from waste management sites, significant effects. and by emissions from onsite activities. R ecord
Recreation-related impacts The site does not contain any footpaths, cycle paths or or permissive
access, and it is unlikely to result in displacement of recreation. Appendices Recreation can be displaced on to areas vulnerable to disturbance or pressure by N/A YES impacts to the amenity of footpaths and cycleways or areas (FINAL) of permissive access
Dust The qualifying features of the SAC are likely to be sensitive to the effects Policy 10: Protecting public Se of dust, however, Policy 10: Protection public health, safety and amenity health, safety and amenity pt Dust deposition on ground and requires that development should not cause unacceptable dust impacts, requires that proposals for waste 2013 water from operational activities which, (coupled with the requirements of Policy 3: Protection of developments should not cause can lead to contamination at habitats and species will ensure that measures such as buffering are unacceptable dust impacts. nearby European sites provided to eliminate the risk to the water environment YES The Environment Agency/EHO permitting requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions
Soil contamination The qualifying features of the SAC are likely to be sensitive to the effects Policy 10: Protecting public of soil contamination, and given the very close proximity of the river to health, safety and amenity Soil contamination can result the site, it indicates that soil contamination issues cannot be ruled out. requires that proposals for waste from various on-site activities However, strict industry controls regulate the management of the waste development should not release YES including industrial processes that is likely to be handled on site, and the provisions of Policy 10: emissions to land and (e.g. those involving fuels, oils and solvents) Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the development have an adverse effect on any European site Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying integrity either alone or in combination with other plans or projects? is features implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Protecting public health, safety and amenity clearly require Policy 8: Protection of soils development should not release emissions to water. requires that waste development not have an undue adverse impact on soils.
The Environment Agency permitting requirements will provide
strict control over site operations Habitats and emissions R egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 211 212 Habitats Table D.8 HRT 017 Land at Minley, Blackbushe - Nominated site not allocated as employment land
Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any European site integrity either Mitigation If mitigation sites alone or in combination with other plans or projects? is R egulations potentially implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out? Assessment
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat The qualifying species of the SPA are woodland edge birds. It is not expected that the Policy 3: Protection of site would support breeding birds given the size, vegetation or structure of the site.(33) habitats and species provides New waste sites can lead to loss of It is likely to only support offsite foraging habitat for nightjar, that are known to travel sufficient protection for habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result habitats linked to the SPA. The R greater distances during dusk/dawn forays for food, and therefore a level of uncertainty ecord of landtake and associated infrastructure with respect to this will remain for this site. The adjacent SSSI is currently unfavourable implementation plan for the development declining, as a result of inappropriate management, with encroachment of scrub and policy sets requirement for YES bracken, which is likely to mean that SPA qualifying birds would not be found at this survey data that will reliably Appendices site. However, recent management changes could mean that if this site comes forward inform development for development the quality of the management may have given rise to an increase in management for the site Thames the number of these birds. Therefore impacts associated with off-site use at this Basin development site will remain uncertain until the time that a proposal comes forward. (FINAL) Heaths Noise pollution and vibration SPA The open nature of the proposed increased capacity could potential have effects on qualifying bird species which are known to be particularly vulnerable to noise and Noise and vibration effects can be vibration and the which are known to be present in the adjacent SSSI (hosts 6% of the
• European Se caused by activities associated with sand total Dartford warbler territories across the SPA, 10% of the nightjar territories and
nightjar pt and gravel extraction during preparatory 14% of the woodlark territories). The permanent nature of these facilities could give
• Woodlark 2013 rise to significant effect, including those arising from in-combination effects with works and operation of the site • Dartford Eversley Quarry and Bramshill Quarry sand and gravel extractions. Uncertainty on Warbler Policy 3: Protecting public these issues remain as the significance of these cannot be determined until the nature health, safety and amenity of proposed development is known. It is also not certain that any such proposal would requires that proposals for YES come forward. However, mitigation of such effects are required (by Policy3: Protection minerals and waste of habitats and species and the implementation plan associated with it) to be fully developments should not cause investigated, which may render any permanent provision of open facilities at this site unacceptable noise impacts undeliverable.
Also, recent applications at this site have demonstrated that such development can be accommodated without significant effect. Protection Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and amenity will provide sufficient protection
33 Science for Conservation Management: European Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus - Breeding Success and Foraging Behaviour in Upland Coniferous Forests in Mid-Wales A collaborative project between A. V. Cross, Brecknock Wildlife Trust and the Forestry Commission in 2004 & 2005. Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any European site integrity either Mitigation If mitigation sites alone or in combination with other plans or projects? is potentially implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Light pollution Likely development would not have requirement for out of hours working. As nightjar Policy 10: Protecting public (the only qualifying species that may be able to use the site or its environs) is nocturnal health, safety and amenity Light pollution can be caused by artificial it is unlikely that any effects would be significant. requires that proposals for lighting on site as well as vehicle traffic minerals and waste YES movements to and from and within the developments should not cause site. unacceptable lighting impacts. Habitats Changes to water levels Although the site overlies a secondary aquifer, likely development would have very little Policy 10: Protecting public water requirement, and therefore would have no significant demands on water resource. health, safety and amenity Activities associated with waste sites can requires that proposals for R
affect water levels in a variety of ways, waste developments should not egulations including drying, flooding/storm water, cause and unacceptable impact changes in water level and stability, on coastal, surface or changes in surface water flow and groundwater. YES groundwater flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes can The Environment Agency Assessment result from construction and operational permitting requirements will activities provide strict control over site operations and emissions R ecord Changes in water quality Though the site overlies a principal aquifer, the qualifying features of the SPA are not Policy 10: Protecting public known to be sensitive to the effects of changes to water quality. It is therefore unlikely health, safety and amenity Water quality can be affected by waste that that significant effects will arise through this. requires that proposals for Appendices management during preparatory works, waste developments should not operational activities for example as a release emissions to water. result of ground investigation works, or YES industrial processes within a site The Environment Agency permitting requirements will (FINAL) provide strict control over site operations and emissions Se pt 2013 213 214 Habitats Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any European site integrity either Mitigation If mitigation sites alone or in combination with other plans or projects? is potentially implemented, R
affected can adverse egulations and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Air pollution The qualifying bird species of the SPA are not known to be particularly sensitive to air Policy 10: Protecting public Assessment pollution. In addition, the site is located directly onto the Strategic Road Network, and health, safety and amenity Air pollution can result from vehicle is unlikely to create any significant change in the volumes using the A30 that runs requires that proposals for traffic movements to and from waste through the section of the SPA in this area. waste developments should not management sites, and by emissions release emissions to air, and
YES R
from on-site activities. ecord Policy 12: Managing trafficconstraints will prevent significant effects. Appendices
Recreation-related impacts The site does not contain any footpaths, cycle paths or or permissive access, though a Policy 10: Protecting public footpath joins the B3013 which is earmarked for access to the site. Displacement of health, safety and amenity Recreation can be displaced on to areas recreation arising from loss of amenity of the footpath may occur, though as this requires that proposals for (FINAL) vulnerable to disturbance or pressure by footpath is already through the SPA the displacement is unlikely to result in net gain waste developments should not YES impacts to the amenity of footpaths and activity in a more vulnerable area. The amenity of the area will be protected by Policy be visually obtrusive, and not cycleways or areas of permissive access 10: Protecting public health, safety and amenity, and it is therefore expected that have unacceptable amenity users of the road will retain the access currently enjoyed. impacts. Se pt
Dust The species that are the qualifying features of the SPA are not known to be sensitive Policy 10: Protecting public 2013 to the effects of dust. Additionally, it has been recommended that due to the proximity health, safety and amenity Dust deposition on ground and water of the nearby houses, that an enclosed unit is used at this site. It is therefore considered requires that proposals for from operational activities can lead to that no significant effect would arise from the effects of dust. waste developments should not contamination at nearby European sites cause unacceptable dust impacts. YES The Environment Agency/EHO permitting requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any European site integrity either Mitigation If mitigation sites alone or in combination with other plans or projects? is potentially implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Soil contamination The species that are the qualifying features of the SPA are not known to be sensitive Policy 10: Protecting public to the effects of soil contamination. health, safety and amenity Soil contamination can result from requires that proposals for various on-site activities including Additionally, it has been recommended that due to the proximity of the nearby houses, waste development should not industrial processes (e.g. those involving that an enclosed unit is used at this site. It is therefore felt that no significant effect release emissions to land and fuels, oils and solvents) would arise from the effects of soil contamination. Policy 8: Protection of soils requires that waste
development should not have Habitats YES an undue adverse impact on soils R
The Environment Agency egulations permitting requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 215 216 Habitats Table D.9 SCC 012/ TTV 037 Site at Redbridge Lane, Nursling, Southampton - Nominated site not allocated as employment land
Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is R egulations potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, affected and can adverse qualifying effects on the features European site be ruled out? Assessment
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Though the site is not within the SPA/Ramsar, there is Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species always the possibility that the site could be used by the provides sufficient protection for habitats linked to New waste sites can lead to loss of qualifying bird species for off-site foraging or shelter during the SPA. The implementation plan for the policy habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of Solent bad weather on the Solent. The site is not known to support sets requirement for survey data that will reliably YES R ecord landtake and associated infrastructure Maritime such off-site foraging, though it is possible that during the inform development management for the site development SAC, Solent interim that such interest could develop.
and Appendices Southampton Noise pollution and vibration water The qualifying species are known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and SPA/Ramsar effects of noise and vibration. However, given the distance amenity requires that proposals for minerals and Noise and vibration effects can be caused by from the SPA/Ramsar, (>250m) and the proximity of the waste developments should not cause unacceptable
activities associated with sand and gravel Common teal motorway and the urban sprawl, it is unlikely that this site noise impacts YES (FINAL) extraction during preparatory works and would result in significant effects from noise or vibration. operation of the site Brent goose
Ringed plover Se
Light pollution The qualifying species are known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and pt
Mediterranean effects of light. However, given the distance from the amenity requires that proposals for minerals and 2013 Light pollution can be caused by artificial gull SPA/Ramsar, (>250m) and the proximity of the motorway waste developments should not cause unacceptable YES lighting on site as well as vehicle traffic and the urban sprawl, it is unlikely that this site would result lighting impacts. movements to and from and within the site. Black-tailed in significant effects from light. godwit
Changes to water levels Little tern The qualifying species are known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and effects of changes to water levels, especially in the tidal area amenity requires that proposals for waste Activities associated with waste sites can Roseate tern of the River Test and foreshore. The Foreshore area of developments should not cause an unacceptable affect water levels in a variety of ways, the River Test (Eling and Bury Marshes) are suffering from impact on coastal, surface or groundwater, and including drying, flooding/storm water, Common tern changes in water level and stability, changes Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species and YES in surface water flow and groundwater flow Sandwich tern implementation plan (information required to and loss of groundwater storage. These support submission) constraints will prevent changes can result from construction and significant effects. operational activities Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, affected and can adverse qualifying effects on the features European site be ruled out?
coastal squeeze brought about by the hard defences The Environment Agency permitting requirements upstream, and therefore water levels upstream in the River will provide strict control over site operations and Test are unlikely to exacerbate this effect. However, the emissions likely development would have very little water requirement, and therefore would have no significant demands on water resource.
Changes in water quality The qualifying species are known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and Habitats effects of changes to water quality, especially in the tidal amenity requires that proposals for waste Water quality can be affected by waste area of the River Test and foreshore. However, it is developments should not release emissions to water. management during preparatory works, sufficient distance away from the river to imply that water
YES R
operational activities for example as a result quality would not be effected. The Environment Agency permitting requirements egulations of ground investigation works, or industrial will provide strict control over site operations and processes within a site emissions
Air pollution The qualifying species are known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and Assessment effects of changes to air pollution. However, the site is amenity requires proposals for waste developments Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic sufficient distance away from the river,and within such do not release emission to air,and movements to and from waste management close proximity to the motorway and urban sprawl to imply YES sites, and by emissions from on-site activities. that changes to the local air quality around the site would Policy 12: Managing trafficconstraints will prevent R
not be significant. significant effects. ecord
Recreation-related impacts The site does not provide any footpaths or rights of way. N/A Appendices Though the site may be used for local recreation permission Recreation can be displaced on to areas access, this use is unlikely to be transferred to the coastal vulnerable to disturbance or pressure by areas due to the distance away from the SPA/Ramsar. YES impacts to the amenity of footpaths and cycleways or areas of permissive access (FINAL)
Dust The qualifying species are known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and effects of changes to air pollution. However, the site is amenity requires that proposals for waste Se
YES pt sufficient distance away from the coast to imply that effects development should not cause unacceptable dust from dust around the site would not be significant. impacts. 2013 217 218 Habitats Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, R
affected and can adverse egulations qualifying effects on the features European site be ruled out?
Dust deposition on ground and water from The Environment Agency/EHO permitting Assessment operational activities can lead to requirements will provide strict control over site contamination at nearby European sites operations and emissions
Soil contamination The qualifying species are known to be sensitive to the Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and R ecord effects of changes to soil contamination. However, the site amenity requires that proposals for waste Soil contamination can result from various is sufficient distance away from the coast to imply that development should not release emissions to land on-site activities including industrial processes effects from soil contamination around the site would not and Appendices (e.g. those involving fuels, oils and solvents) be significant. Policy 8: Protection of soils requires that waste development should not have an undue adverse YES impact on soils (FINAL) The Environment Agency permitting requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions Se pt 2013 Table D.10 TTV 038 Land at Dunwood Nurseries, Romsey - Nominated site not allocated as employment land
Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Though the site does not lie within the SAC, it does lie within Sufficient weight for the conservation of the 7.5km the 7.5km radius of the SAC that is known to support the radius is provided within Policy 3: Protection of New waste sites can lead to loss of foraging and commuting of the roost, and therefore, impacts habitats and species and the implementation plan, habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of to the 'flightlines' could result in impacts on the integrity of and the emphasis on thorough surveys, mitigation, landtake and associated infrastructure the SAC(34). In order for the site to be deliverable, an area of enhancement and compensation ensures that inclusion
development woodland that can be identified as lowland mixed deciduous of the site within the scope of Policy 28 is sound. Habitats woodland (and therefore might be utilised by the bats) would have to be removed in part, and it may result in a loss of YES connectivity or important foraging habitat. R egulations Certainty with respect to the impact cannot be obtained at this stage, and it would require surveying of the woodland and Mottisfont compensatory habitat being provided if it can't be proved that Bats SAC the habitat isn't being used by the bats. Assessment
Barbastelle Noise pollution and vibration Bats The bats that are the qualifying feature of the SAC are not Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and known to be sensitive to the effects of noise and vibration amenity requires that proposals for minerals and Noise and vibration effects can be caused during foraging and commuting. Also, being active during waste developments should not cause unacceptable R
by activities associated with sand and gravel dusk/dawn and night-time, it is unlikely that operations would noise impacts. YES ecord extraction during preparatory works and significantly effect bat activity. operation of the site Appendices
Light pollution All bat species are sensitive to the effects of light, and Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and Barbastelle Bats will avoid areas that are lit, including open amenity requires that proposals for minerals and Light pollution can be caused by artificial areas and hedgerows/woodland. waste developments do not cause unacceptable
YES (FINAL) lighting on site as well as vehicle traffic lighting impacts. movements to and from and within the site. Se pt 2013
34 Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Mottisfont Bats SAC: Protocol for Planning Officers – A report to Natural England 219 220 Habitats Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, R
affected can adverse egulations and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Being being active during dusk/dawn and night-time and also Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species Assessment rely on winter hibernation, it is unlikely that operations would provides sufficient control to ensure that if the surveys have significant effects during the most sensitive parts of the required under the policy (detailed in the year. Periods during spring and Autumn when both lighting implementation plan) flag this as an issue, mitigation may be used, and bats are active could prove sensitive. in the form of restricting hours of lighting could be R
imposed. ecord The nature of the operations mean that the site is unlikely to require lighting other than in these periods. Appendices
Changes to water levels Foraging Barbastelle bats are reliant less on large open rivers Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and than they are the small tributaries, ditches and wetland amenity requires that proposals for waste Activities associated with waste sites can associated with the catchments(35). Water levels could developments should not cause and unacceptable affect water levels in a variety of ways, therefore be critical to the for retention of the habitat on which impact on coastal, surface or groundwater, and Policy (FINAL) including drying, flooding/storm water, they rely. 3: Protection of habitats and species and changes in water level and stability, changes implementation plan (information required to in surface water flow and groundwater flow However, the likely development would have very little water support submission) constraints will prevent YES and loss of groundwater storage. These requirement, and therefore would have no significant demands significant effects. Se changes can result from construction and on water resource. pt operational activities The Environment Agency permitting requirements 2013 will provide strict control over site operations and emissions
Changes in water quality The water quality of rivers can have a significant effect on bats Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and species, as it would result in a decrease in the density and range amenity requires that proposals for waste Water quality can be affected by waste of insect species that bat species rely on. Barbastelle bats are developments should not release emissions to water management during preparatory works, not necessarily associated with large rivers, but are associated and will prevent significant effects. operational activities for example as a result with smaller rivers and the wetland around them(36) Water YES of ground investigation works, or industrial Quality of the River Test is graded good, but does suffer from The Environment Agency permitting requirements processes within a site will provide strict control over site operations and effects of agricultural run-off and siltation(37). emissions
35 Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Mottisfont Bats SAC: Protocol for Planning Officers – A report to Natural England 36 Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Mottisfont Bats SAC: Protocol for Planning Officers – A report to Natural England 37 Natural England's SSSI citations Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, affected can adverse and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
Air pollution The qualifying species are not known themselves to be overly Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and sensitive to air pollution, but the habitats on which they rely amenity requires that proposals for waste Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic on for foraging especially does have such sensitivities. developments should not release emissions to air and movements to and from waste management sites, and by emissions from onsite However, the site lies directly adjacent to the local road Policy 12: Managing trafficconstraints will prevent YES activities. network, and it is unlikely (when compared to the volumes of significant effects. traffic generated by the nearby landfill) that the volumes of
traffic generated by the development would give rise to a Habitats significant increase, and thus no significant rise in air pollution. R
Recreation-related impacts Two footpath go through this site, and it could therefore lead egulations to displacement of recreational activity. N/A Recreation can be displaced on to areas vulnerable to disturbance or pressure by However, the distance from the SAC would imply that there YES impacts to the amenity of footpaths and would be no displacement to the SAC cycleways or areas of permissive access Assessment
Dust The foraging and commuting routes of Barbastelle bats are Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and not know to be sensitive to the effects of dust. amenity requires that proposals for waste R
Dust deposition on ground and water from developments should not cause unacceptable dust ecord operational activities can lead to impacts. contamination at nearby European sites YES The Environment Agency/EHO permitting Appendices requirements will provide strict control over site operations and emissions
Soil contamination The foraging and commuting routes of Barbastelle bats are Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and (FINAL) not know to be sensitive to the effects of soil contamination. amenity requires that proposals for waste Soil contamination can result from various development should not release emissions to land on-site activities including industrial and Policy 8: Protection of soils requires that waste YES processes (e.g. those involving fuels, oils development not have an undue adverse impact on Se and solvents) soils pt 2013 221 222 Habitats Potential Impacts European Will the development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation sites European site integrity either alone or in combination is potentially with other plans or projects? implemented, R
affected can adverse egulations and effects on the qualifying European site features be ruled out?
The Environment Agency permitting requirements Assessment will provide strict control over site operations and emissions R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 D.3 Squabb Wood
Table D.11 Squabb Wood Landfill, Romsey (landfill of non-hazardous biodegradable wastes)
Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Squabb Wood Landfill, Romsey (landfill of non-hazardous biodegradable wastes)
Physical Mottisfont Bats SAC The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of habitats YES disturbance/loss of approximately 5km outside of the SAC, and and species requires minerals and waste proposals to habitat Barbastelle bats landfill activities here would not result in any prove that there will be no undue adverse effects on Habitats direct physical loss of habitat within the European sites, including consideration of impacts to Landfill sites can lead to boundaries of the SAC. However, bats are areas outside of the EU site, where it may effect the loss or damage to known to travel up to 7.5km away from this SAC integrity of the EU Site.
habitat/habitat for foraging, and specific hedgerows and tree R fragmentation as a result lines tend to be used as ‘flightlines(38)(39). The development considerations for the landfill at egulations of landtake and associated Therefore, it is possible that the bats may be Squabb Wood in Appendix A of the Plan includes a infrastructure affected by disturbance to or loss of offsite requirement for the consideration of the foraging and development or foraging or commuting areas if any of these tree commuting of Mottisfont bats.
construction effects. lines, hedgerows or areas of open water where Assessment foraging may take place are located within or The intention to restore the site after landfill has ceased adjacent to the landfill site. to retain “undulating wooded landform” may offer some long term opportunities for new habitat provision to It is not possible at this stage to determine what support the bat population.
impacts are likely, as the scope of development R is uncertain. The potential use by the Mottisfont ecord bat population of any of these habitat features
present within the proposed landfill site would Appendices need to be assessed at the planning application stage for landfill proposals at the Squabb Wood site. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 38 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan – Screening Report, Version 2 (June 2011) 39 Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Mottisfont Bats SAC: Protocol for Planning Officers – A report to Natural England 223 224 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Physical New Forest SAC The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies N/A YES disturbance/loss of approximately 5km outside of the SAC, and habitat Oligotrophic waters containing landfill activities here would not result in any Assessment very few minerals of sandy plains direct physical loss of habitat within the Landfill sites can lead to •Oligotrophic to mesotrophic boundaries of the SAC. loss or damage to standing waters with vegetation habitat/habitat of the Littorelletea uniflorae The qualifying features of the SAC are not likely R
fragmentation as a result and/or of the to be affected by the proposed landfill activities ecord of landtake and associated Isoeto-Nanojuncetea at Squabb Wood, as they are mainly habitats infrastructure •Northern Atlantic wet heaths rather than transient species such as birds which development or with cross-leaved heath may travel for foraging/roosting. Appendices construction effects. •European dry heaths •Molinia meadows on Great crested newts are known to travel up to calcareous, peaty or 500km from breeding ponds. However the clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion distance from the SAC means that populations caeruleae) supported by the SAC are unlikely to be effected (FINAL) •Depressions on peat substrates by any development in this area. European of the Rhynchosporion Protected Species are provided protection under •Atlantic acidophilous beech Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species forests with Ilex and sometimes Se also Taxus in the shrublayer pt •Asperulo-Fagetum beech 2013 forests •Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains •Bog woodland •Transition mires and quaking bogs •Alkaline fens •Southern damselfly •Stag beetle •Great crested newt Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Physical New Forest SPA The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies The Minerals and Waste Plan Policy 3: Protection of disturbance/loss of approximately 5km outside of the SPA, and habitats and species requires minerals and waste habitat Annex 1 birds and regularly landfill activities here would not result in any proposals to prove that there will be no significant Landfill sites can lead to occurring migratory birds: direct physical loss of habitat within the adverse effects on European sites. It also loss or damage to boundaries of the SPA. habitat/habitat • European nightjar Although the specific locations of offsite includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite fragmentation as a result • Hen harrier roosting, foraging and feeding sites of the foraging of the Qualifying species of birds of nearby of landtake and associated • Eurasian hobby qualifying bird species are unknown, most of the SPA/Ramsars. infrastructure • Woodlark qualifying features of this SPA migrate south of development or • Honey buzzard the UK over winter, and are therefore only The intention to restore the site after landfill has ceased Habitats construction effects. • Wood warbler present in the summer months. While Dartford to retain “undulating wooded landform” may offer some • Dartford warbler warbler remains in the UK year-round, it is very long term opportunities for new habitat provision to dependent on heathland habitats and is therefore support some of the SPA qualifying bird populations, R
unlikely to use sites up to 5km from the SPA e.g. the Honey buzzard. egulations such as Squabb Wood. The European nightjar is known to travel some distance for foraging (which it does at dusk on night-flying insects and moths), generally along edge habitats such as riverbanks and forest edges. The Squabb Wood Assessment landfill site is adjacent to Squabb Wood to the north and east and appears to have woodland along most of its western edge, as well as possibly having a small strip of wooded land in the R
southern corner of the site. The Honey buzzard ecord feeds on bee and wasp nests generally in wooded areas. As such, adverse effects from landfill operations at the Squabb Wood landfill site Appendices relating to loss or disturbance to off-site habitats supporting New Forest SPA bird species from the Squabb Wood landfill site cannot be ruled out. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 225 226 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Physical New Forest Ramsar The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies N/A YES disturbance/loss of Ramsar Criterion 1: approximately 5km outside of the Ramsar, and habitat • Valley mires and wet heaths are landfill activities here would not result in any Assessment Landfill sites can lead to found throughout the site and direct physical loss of habitat within the loss or damage to are of outstanding scientific boundaries of the Ramsar. The qualifying habitat/habitat interest. features of the Ramsar site are not likely to be fragmentation as a result • The mires and heaths are affected by offsite disturbance as they are mainly R
of landtake and associated within catchments whose habitats rather than transient species such as ecord infrastructure uncultivated and undeveloped birds which may travel for foraging/roosting. development or state buffer the mires against construction effects. adverse ecological change. Appendices • This is the largest concentration of intact valley mires of their type in Britain.
Ramsar Criterion 2: (FINAL) • The site supports a diverse assemblage of wetland plants and animals including several nationally rare species. Se • Seven species of nationally rare pt plant are found on the site, as 2013 are at least 65 British Red Data Book species of invertebrate.
Ramsar Criterion 3: • The mire habitats are of high ecological quality and diversity and have undisturbed transition zones. • The invertebrate fauna of the site is important due to the concentration of rare and scarce wetland species. Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
The whole site complex, with its examples of semi-natural habitats is essential to the genetic and ecological diversity of southern England.
Noise pollution and Mottisfont Bats SAC The qualifying features of this site are bats, which Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and YES vibration Barbastelle bats may be vulnerable to the effects of amenity requires proposals for minerals and waste
noise/vibration and the Squabb Wood landfill developments do not cause unacceptable noise, dust, Habitats Noise and vibration site lies within 7.5km of the SAC, which is the lighting, vibration or odour impacts. effects can be caused by distance bats are known to travel for foraging activities associated with with specific hedgerows and tree lines used as These measures should also help to ensure that noise R
landfill including (e.g. ‘flightlines’ in the area. However, the effects of and dust do not affect the bat population, but egulations machinery used for site noise and vibration on the bat population is development considerations for this site specifically preparation), operation of unlikely to be significant, unless noise occurs at includes a requirement for the consideration of the the site (e.g. from vehicles dusk or after, and there are tree lines, hedgerows foraging and commuting of Mottisfont bats. transporting landfill waste, or areas of open water within the landfill site machinery associated with where the bats may commute or forage. Assessment management and maintenance of the site, and certain after-uses, for example if development R
occurs on the site. ecord
Noise pollution and New Forest SAC (qualifying The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies The Minerals and Waste Plan Policy 10: Protecting YES Appendices vibration features as above) approximately 5km outside of the SAC. The public health, safety and amenity requires proposals qualifying features of the SAC are not likely to for minerals and waste developments do not cause be affected by noise or vibration associated with unacceptable noise, dust, lighting, vibration or odour the proposed landfill activities at Squabb Wood, impacts. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 227 228 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Noise and vibration as they are mainly habitats rather than transient effects can be caused by species such as birds which may travel for activities associated with foraging/roosting. Assessment landfill including (e.g. machinery used for site preparation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles R
transporting landfill waste, ecord machinery associated with management and maintenance of the site, Appendices and certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site. (FINAL) Noise pollution and New Forest SPA The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies The Minerals and Waste Plan Policy 3: Protection of YES vibration approximately 5km outside of the SPA, and habitats and species requires minerals and waste Annex 1 birds and regularly landfill activities here would not result in any proposals to prove that there will be no adverse effects Noise and vibration occurring migratory birds: noise impacts within the boundaries of the SPA. on European sites, including where development outside Se effects can be caused by • European nightjar of the boundary may effect the integrity of the EU site. pt activities associated with • Hen harrier As described above, it is uncertain whether some Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and 2013 landfill including (e.g. • Eurasian hobby of the SPA birds would be using the Squabb amenity requires that development does not cause machinery used for site • Woodlark Wood landfill site or adjacent woodland for unacceptable noise or vibration impacts. preparation), operation of • Honey buzzard foraging, roosting or breeding, which would be the site (e.g. from vehicles • Wood warbler in the summer months (only the Dartford These measures should also help to ensure that noise transporting landfill waste, • Dartford warbler warbler remains in the UK year-round, but as it and dust do not affect the SPA bird populations. machinery associated with is very dependent on heathland habitats it is management and unlikely to use sites up to 5km from the SPA). maintenance of the site, Therefore, adverse effects on the integrity of the and certain after-uses, for SPA relating to noise disturbance of some of the example if development SPA qualifying bird species from the Squabb occurs on the site. Wood landfill site cannot be ruled out.
Noise pollution and New Forest Ramsar site The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies N/A YES vibration approximately 5km outside of the Ramsar, and landfill activities here would not result in any Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Noise and vibration (qualifying features as above) noise and vibration impacts on the Ramsar. The effects can be caused by qualifying features of the Ramsar site are not activities associated with likely to be affected by offsite disturbance as they landfill including (e.g. are mainly habitats rather than transient species machinery used for site such as birds which may travel for preparation), operation of foraging/roosting. the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting landfill waste, machinery associated with management and Habitats maintenance of the site, and certain after-uses, for example if development R
occurs on the site. egulations
Light pollution Mottisfont Bats SAC The qualifying features of this site are bats, which The Minerals and Waste Plan Policy 10: Protecting YES Barbastelle bats may be vulnerable to the effects of light pollution public health, safety and amenity requires that Light pollution can be as they forage after dark, and the Squabb Wood proposals for minerals and waste developments do not Assessment caused by artificial lighting landfill site lies within 7.5km of the SAC, which cause unacceptable lighting impacts. on site as well as vehicle is the distance bats are known to travel for traffic movements to and foraging, with specific hedgerows and tree lines The development considerations for the Squabb Wood from and within the site. used as ‘flightlines’ in the area. However, the landfill site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) includes R
effect of light pollution on the bat population is a requirement for the consideration of the foraging and ecord unlikely to be significant, unless it occurs at dusk commuting of Mottisfont bats or after, and there are tree lines, hedgerows or areas of open water within the landfill site where Appendices the bats may commute or forage.
Light pollution New Forest SAC The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies N/A YES approximately 5km outside of the SAC. The Light pollution can be (qualifying features as above) qualifying features of the SAC are not likely to (FINAL) caused by artificial lighting be affected by light pollution associated with the on site as well as vehicle proposed landfill activities at Squabb Wood, as traffic movements to and they are mainly habitats rather than transient from and within the site. species such as birds which may travel for Se foraging/roosting. pt 2013 229 230 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Light pollution New Forest SPA The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies The Minerals and Waste Plan Policy 3: protection of YES approximately 5km outside of the SPA, and habitats and species requires minerals and waste Light pollution can be Annex 1 birds and regularly landfill activities here would not result in any proposals to prove that there will be no adverse effects Assessment caused by artificial lighting occurring migratory birds: light impacts within the boundaries of the SPA. on European sites. on site as well as vehicle • European nightjar As described above, it is uncertain whether some traffic movements to and of the SPA birds would be using the Squabb Policy 10: Protection public health, safety and from and within the site. • Hen harrier Wood landfill site or adjacent woodland for amenity requires minerals and waste development to R
• Eurasian hobby foraging, roosting or breeding in the summer prove no impact from unacceptable lighting impacts. ecord • Woodlark months (only the Dartford warbler remains in Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species includes • Honey buzzard the UK year-round, but as it is very dependent a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging • Wood warbler on heathland habitats it is unlikely to use sites of the Qualifying species of birds of nearby Appendices • Dartford warbler up to 5km from the SPA). Therefore, adverse SPA/Ramsars. effects on the integrity of the SPA relating to light disturbance to some of the SPA qualifying bird species from the Squabb Wood landfill site cannot be ruled out. (FINAL)
Light pollution New Forest Ramsar site The Squabb Wood Landfill site lies N/A YES approximately 5km outside of the Ramsar, and Light pollution can be (qualifying features as above) landfill activities here would not result in any Se caused by artificial lighting light pollution impacts on the Ramsar. The pt on site as well as vehicle qualifying features of the Ramsar site are not 2013 traffic movements to and likely to be affected by offsite disturbance as they from and within the site. are mainly habitats rather than transient species such as birds which may travel for foraging/roosting. Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Mottisfont Bats SAC The proposed landfill development at Squabb N/A YES Wood is approximately 1km from the River Activities associated with Barbastelle bats Test. landfill can affect water Changes to water levels in the nearby River Test levels in a variety of ways, and associated water bodies are unlikely to occur including changes in water as a result of landfill at the Squabb Wood site, level and stability, changes as there are no natural waterbodies at the site at in surface water flow and present, and displacement of water will not take groundwater flow and loss place as a result of landfill operations. In of groundwater storage. addition, the maintenance of an appropriate Habitats These changes can result hydrological regime is not required to maintain from operational activities the integrity of this SAC. Therefore, any impacts as well as certain after on hydrology from landfill at Squabb Wood are R
uses. not expected to have an adverse effect on the egulations integrity of this SAC.
Changes to water levels New Forest SAC The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies N/A YES approximately 5km outside of the SAC. The Activities associated with (qualifying features as above) qualifying features of the SAC are not likely to Assessment landfill can affect water be affected by any changes in water levels levels in a variety of ways, resulting from the proposed landfill at Squabb including changes in water Wood, as the SAC is not located downstream level and stability, changes from the site. R
in surface water flow and ecord groundwater flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes can result Appendices from operational activities as well as certain after uses. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 231 232 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Changes to water levels Solent Maritime SAC The proposed landfill development at Squabb N/A YES • Estuaries Wood is approximately 1km from the River Test, Activities associated with • Spartina swards and there is a stream running from the Squabb Assessment landfill can affect water • Atlantic salt meadows Wood site towards the Test, joining it levels in a variety of ways, • Sandbanks approximately 5km north of the Solent Maritime including changes in water • Mudflats and sandflats SAC. The qualifying features of the SAC include level and stability, changes • Coastal lagoons rare species of plants and invertebrates which R
in surface water flow and • Annual vegetation of drift lines may be sensitive to changes in water levels. ecord groundwater flow and loss • Perennial vegetation of stony However, changes to water levels in the nearby of groundwater storage. banks River Test and associated water bodies are These changes can result • Salicornia and other annuals unlikely to occur as a result of landfill at the Appendices from operational activities colonising mud and sand Squabb Wood site, as there are no natural as well as certain after • Shifting dunes along the waterbodies at the site at present, and uses. shoreline with European marram displacement of water will not take place as a grass result of landfill operations. In light of this, and • Desmoulin’s whorl snail due to the distance of the landfill from the SAC, (FINAL) it can be concluded that any effects on water levels will be minimal, and would not adversely affect the qualifying features. Se pt 2013 Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Solent and Southampton The proposed landfill development at Squabb N/A YES Water SPA Wood is approximately 1km from the River Test, Activities associated with Annex 1 birds and regularly and there is a stream running east from the landfill can affect water occurring migratory birds: Squabb Wood site towards the Test, joining it levels in a variety of ways, • Common Teal approximately 5km north of the Solent and including changes in water • Brent Goose Southampton Water SPA. The qualifying level and stability, changes • Ringed Plover features of the SPA include species of bird which in surface water flow and • Mediterranean Gull may be sensitive to changes in the habitat groundwater flow and loss • Black-tailed Godwit resulting from changes to water levels. However, of groundwater storage. • Little Tern changes to water levels in the nearby River Test Habitats These changes can result • Roscate Tern and associated water bodies are unlikely to occur from operational activities • Common Tern as a result of landfill at the Squabb Wood site, as well as certain after • Sandwich Tern as there are no natural waterbodies at the site at R
uses. present, and displacement of water will not take egulations place as a result of landfill operations. In light of this, and due to the distance of the landfill from the SPA, it can be concluded that any effects on water levels will be minimal, and would not adversely affect the qualifying features. Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 233 234 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Changes to water levels Solent and Southampton The proposed landfill development at Squabb N/A YES Water Ramsar Wood is approximately 1km from the River Test, Activities associated with and there is a stream running from the Squabb Assessment landfill can affect water Ramsar Criterion 1: Wood site towards the Test, joining it levels in a variety of ways, approximately 5km north of the Solent and including changes in water The site is one of the few major Southampton Water Ramsar. The qualifying level and stability, changes sheltered channels between a features of the SPA include wetland habitats, and R
in surface water flow and substantial island and mainland associated plants and birds which may be ecord groundwater flow and loss in European waters, exhibiting sensitive to changes in the habitat resulting from of groundwater storage. an unusual strong double tidal changes to water levels. However, changes to These changes can result flow and has long periods of water levels in the nearby River Test and Appendices from operational activities slack water at high and low tide. associated water bodies are unlikely to occur as as well as certain after It includes many wetland a result of landfill at the Squabb Wood site, as uses. habitats characteristic of the there are no natural waterbodies at the site at biogeographic region: saline present, and displacement of water will not take lagoons, saltmarshes, estuaries, place from landfill operations. In light of this, (FINAL) intertidal flats, shallow coastal and due to the distance of the landfill from the waters, grazing marshes, Ramsar, it can be concluded that any effects on reedbeds, coastal woodland and water levels will be minimal, and would not rocky boulder reefs. adversely affect the qualifying features. Se pt
Ramsar Criterion 2: 2013
The site supports an important assemblage of rare plants and invertebrates. At least 33 British Red Data Book invertebrates and at least eight British Red Data Book plants are represented on site.
Ramsar Criterion 4:
Species with peak counts in winter: 51343 waterfowl.
Ramsar Criterion 5: Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Ringed Plover, dark bellied brent goose, Eurasian teal, black-tailed godwit.
Changes in water quality Mottisfont Bats SAC Changes to water quality may occur as a result The development considerations for the Squabb Wood YES of the proposed landfill activities at Squabb site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include to Water quality can be Barbastelle bats Wood, at the nearby River Test and tributaries, ‘protect the water quality and recharge of the source affected by landfill during as there is a stream which runs from just east of protection zone, principal aquifer and the River Test and
preparatory works, the Squabb Wood site to the River Test which its tributaries’ Habitats operational activities and may be used by Barbastelle bats for foraging or after-use of the site, for commuting. Barbastelle bats are sensitive to example as a result of changes in water quality, as it may affect their R
ground investigation diet through reducing populations of small egulations works, industrial processes insects such as moths, flies and beetles. In the within a site, or Mottisfont locality, the River Test and its development of a site after tributaries may be a particularly important source the landfill closes. of food(40). However, all landfill operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency Assessment water quality permitting standards. The EA would be consulted when the planning application for this site is received by the MPA, and enforcement of legislation would take place R
at this stage to ensure that the landfill has no ecord adverse effects on the water environment. Therefore, the potential for landfill operations processes at Squabb Wood to affect water quality Appendices in the River Test and tributaries and in turn have an adverse effect on the Mottisfont Bats SAC is very low.
Changes in water quality New Forest SAC The qualifying features of the SAC are not likely N/A YES (FINAL) to be affected by any changes in water quality (qualifying features as above) resulting from the proposed landfill at Squabb Wood, as the SAC is not located downstream in the same catchment as the site. Se pt 2013
40 Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Mottisfont Bats SAC: Protocol for Planning Officers – A report to Natural England 235 236 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Water quality can be affected by landfill during preparatory works, Assessment operational activities and after-use of the site, for example as a result of ground investigation R
works, industrial processes ecord within a site, or development of a site after the landfill closes. Appendices
Changes in water quality New Forest SPA The Squabb Wood Landfill development lies The development management considerations for the YES approximately 5km outside of the SPA. As Squabb Wood site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan)
Water quality can be Annex 1 birds and regularly described above, it is uncertain whether some of include appropriate measures to ‘Protect the underlying (FINAL) affected by landfill during occurring migratory birds: the SPA birds would be using the Squabb Wood aquifers, water quality & flow regime of the River Test' preparatory works, • European nightjar landfill site or adjacent woodland and operational activities and • Hen harrier waterbodies for foraging, roosting or breeding after-use of the site, for • Eurasian hobby in the summer months (only the Dartford Se example as a result of • Woodlark warbler remains in the UK year-round, but as it pt ground investigation • Honey buzzard is very dependent on heathland habitats it is 2013 works, industrial processes • Wood warbler unlikely to use sites up to 5km from the SPA). within a site, or • Dartford warbler Therefore, adverse effects on the integrity of the development of a site after SPA relating to changes in water quality from the landfill closes. the Squabb Wood landfill site have the potential to occur. However, all landfill operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency water quality permitting standards. The EA would be Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
consulted when the planning application for this site is received by the LPA, and enforcement of legislation would take place at this stage to ensure that the landfill has no adverse effects on the water environment. Therefore, the potential for landfill operations processes at Squabb Wood to affect water quality in the River Test and tributaries and in turn have an adverse effect on the New Forest SPA qualifying bird species is
very low. Habitats
Changes in water quality New Forest Ramsar site The Squabb Wood landfill development site lies N/A YES approximately 5km outside of the Ramsar site. R
Water quality can be (qualifying features as above) The qualifying features of the Ramsar site are egulations affected by landfill during not likely to be affected by any changes in water preparatory works, quality resulting from the proposed landfill at operational activities and Squabb Wood, as the Ramsar site is not located after-use of the site, for downstream in the same catchment as the site. example as a result of Assessment ground investigation works, industrial processes within a site, or development of a site after R
the landfill closes. ecord
Changes in water quality Solent Maritime SAC The proposed landfill development at Squabb The development considerations for the Squabb Wood YES Appendices Wood is approximately 1km from the River Test, site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) provides a (qualifying features as above) and there is a stream running east from the Squabb Wood site towards the Test, joining it approximately 5km north of the Solent Maritime SAC. The qualifying features of the SAC include (FINAL) rare species of plants and invertebrates, which may be sensitive to changes in water quality. However, all landfill operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency water quality Se pt 2013 237 238 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Water quality can be permitting standards. The EA would be requirement to‘Protect the underlying aquifers, water affected by landfill during consulted when the planning application for this quality & flow regime of the River Test' preparatory works, site is received by the LPA, and enforcement of Assessment operational activities and legislation would take place at this stage to ensure after-use of the site, for that the landfill has no adverse effects on the example as a result of water environment. Therefore, the potential for ground investigation landfill operations processes at Squabb Wood to R
works, industrial processes affect water quality in the River Test and ecord within a site, or tributaries and in turn have an adverse effect on development of a site after the Solent Maritime SAC is very low. the landfill closes. Appendices
Changes in water quality Solent and Southampton The proposed landfill development at Squabb The development considerations for the Squabb Wood YES Water SPA Wood is approximately 1km from the River Test, site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) provides a
Water quality can be and there is a stream running east from the requirement to ‘protect the water quality and recharge (FINAL) affected by landfill during (qualifying features as above) Squabb Wood site towards the Test, joining it of the source protection zone, principal aquifer and the preparatory works, approximately 5km north of the Solent and River Test and its tributaries’ operational activities and Southampton Water SPA. The qualifying after-use of the site, for features of the SPA include species of bird, Se example as a result of which may be sensitive to changes in water pt ground investigation quality. The Lower Test Valley SSSI which is a 2013 works, industrial processes component of the SPA is currently in within a site, or ‘unfavourable condition’. Although there is some development of a site after distance of the landfill from the SPA, the the landfill closes. potential for effects on water quality cannot be ruled out. However, all landfill operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency water quality permitting standards. The EA would be Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
consulted when the planning application for this site is received by the LPA, and enforcement of legislation would take place at this stage to ensure that the landfill has no adverse effects on the water environment. Therefore, the potential for landfill operations processes at Squabb Wood to affect water quality in the River Test and tributaries and in turn have an adverse effect on the Solent and Southampton Water SPA is very
low. Habitats
Changes in water quality Solent and Southampton The proposed landfill development at Squabb The development considerations for the Squabb Wood YES Water Ramsar Wood is approximately 1km from the River Test, site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) provides a R
Water quality can be and there is a stream running from the Squabb requirement to‘Protect the underlying aquifers, water egulations affected by landfill during (qualifying features as above) Wood site towards the River Test, joining it quality & flow regime of the River Test' preparatory works, approximately 5km north of the Ramsar. The operational activities and qualifying features of the Ramsar include wetland after-use of the site, for habitats, and associated plants and birds, which example as a result of may be sensitive to changes in the habitat Assessment ground investigation resulting from changes in water quality. The works, industrial processes Lower Test Valley SSSI which is a component within a site, or of the Ramsar is currently in ‘unfavourable development of a site after condition’. Although there is some distance of R
the landfill closes. the landfill from the Ramsar site, the potential ecord for effects on water quality cannot be ruled out. However, all landfill operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency water quality Appendices permitting standards. The EA would be consulted when the planning application for this site is received by the MPA, and enforcement of legislation would take place at this stage to ensure that the landfill has no adverse effects on the (FINAL) water environment. Therefore, the potential for landfill operations processes at Squabb Wood to affect water quality in the River Test and tributaries and in turn have an adverse effect on Se the Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar is pt very low. 2013 239 240 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Air pollution Mottisfont Bats SAC The proposed landfill development at Squabb The Waste and Minerals Plan Policy 10: Protecting YES Air pollution can result Wood is designed to accommodate public health, safety and amenity requires proposals from vehicle traffic Barbastelle bats non-hazardous biodegradable waste from within for minerals and waste developments to demonstrate Assessment movements to and from Hampshire. There is potential for air pollution that they would not have unacceptable pollution impacts. landfill site, and by resulting from the landfill, as a result of emissions emissions from the landfill released through the breakdown of biodegradable itself (e.g. methane) as well organic matter, and through potential for R
as other onsite activities. increased lorry movements as a result of the ecord Effects may also be landfill operation. associated with any The Strategic Transport Assessment(41) states development taking place that the site will work as a continuation of the Appendices on the site after the landfill existing landfill. The site is located on the A27, has closed. from which all vehicles access the site, and although this route does not pass through the SAC, it connects onto other roads which do including the A36 and the B3084. However, (FINAL) although vehicle movements are not limited as a condition of the current planning permission, the Strategic Transport Assessment reports that traffic volumes are expected to remain at current Se levels, indicating that the ongoing use of this site pt for landfill should not have an adverse effect on 2013 the integrity of the SAC as a result of increased air pollution.
41 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution New Forest SAC The proposed landfill development at Squabb N/A YES Air pollution can result Wood is designed to accommodate from vehicle traffic (qualifying features as above) non-hazardous biodegradable waste from within movements to and from Hampshire. There is potential for air pollution landfill site, and by resulting from the landfill, as a result of sulphur emissions from the landfill released through the breakdown of biodegradable itself (e.g. methane) as well organic matter, and through potential for as other onsite activities. increased lorry movements as a result of the Effects may also be landfill operation. However, due to the distance
associated with any of the SAC from the Squabb Wood site, it is Habitats development taking place unlikely that any increases in air pollution on the site after the landfill resulting from the landfill activities would have has closed. a significant effect on the integrity of the site. R
Some of the plant species which are the egulations qualifying features of the New Forest SAC are sensitive to the nitrogen deposition associated with traffic. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment(42) states that lorries serving the landfill site will continue to use the A27, with Assessment only 20% of vehicles on this route approaching the site from the west where the New Forest SAC is located. The current traffic levels are expected to continue, with no increase. In R
addition, the A27 is more than 500m from this ecord SAC at its closest point, so the potential for significant adverse effects related to air pollution from traffic associated with this landfill site can Appendices be ruled out. (FINAL) Se pt 2013
42 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment 241 242 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Air pollution New Forest SPA The proposed landfill development at Squabb N/A YES Air pollution can result Wood is designed to accommodate from vehicle traffic Annex 1 birds and regularly non-hazardous biodegradable waste from within Assessment movements to and from occurring migratory birds: Hampshire. There is potential for air pollution landfill site, and by • European nightjar resulting from the landfill, as a result of sulphur emissions from the landfill • Hen harrier released through the breakdown of biodegradable itself (e.g. methane) as well • Eurasian hobby organic matter, and through potential for R
as other onsite activities. • Woodlark increased lorry movements as a result of the ecord Effects may also be • Honey buzzard landfill operation. However, due to the distance associated with any • Wood warbler of this SPA from the Squabb Wood site, it is development taking place • Dartford warbler unlikely that any increases in air pollution Appendices on the site after the landfill resulting from the landfill activities would have has closed. a significant effect on the integrity of the site. The Strategic Transport Assessment(43) also states that lorries serving the landfill site will continue to use the A27, with only 20% of (FINAL) vehicles on this route approaching the site from the west where the New Forest SPA is located. The current traffic levels are expected to continue, with no increase. In addition, the A27 Se is more than 500m from this SPA at its closest pt point, so the potential for significant adverse 2013 effects related to air pollution from traffic associated with this landfill site can be ruled out.
43 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution New Forest Ramsar site The proposed landfill at Squabb Wood is N/A YES Air pollution can result designed to accommodate non-hazardous from vehicle traffic (qualifying features as above) biodegradable waste from within Hampshire. movements to and from There is potential for air pollution resulting from landfill site, and by the landfill, as a result of sulphur released emissions from the landfill through the breakdown of biodegradable organic itself (e.g. methane) as well matter, and through potential for increased lorry as other onsite activities. movements as a result of the landfill operation. Effects may also be However, due to the distance of the Ramsar from
associated with any the Squabb Wood site, it is unlikely that any Habitats development taking place increases in air pollution resulting from the on the site after the landfill landfill activities would have a significant effect has closed. on the integrity of the site. (44) R
The Strategic Transport Assessment egulations highlights that lorries serving the landfill site will use the A27, with only 20% coming from the west where the New Forest Ramsar is located. The current traffic levels are expected to continue, with no increase. In addition, the A27 Assessment is more than 500m from the Ramsar site at its closest point, so the potential for in-combination effects related to nitrogen deposition from traffic can be discounted. R ecord Recreation-related Mottisfont Bats SAC The Squabb Wood site is not used recreationally N/A YES impacts at present, and therefore use of the site for Barbastelle bats landfill would not displace current users onto Appendices other European sites. The Minerals and Waste Plan does not specify that the Squabb Wood site would have any public access provision on restoration. (FINAL) Se pt 2013
44 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment 243 244 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Restoration of landfill sites often involves creating sites for recreation use Assessment which can impact on European sites as a result of physical disturbance (e.g. from R
erosion/trampling) as well ecord as contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as noise Appendices pollution.
Recreation-related New Forest SAC The Squabb Wood site is not used recreationally N/A YES impact at present, and therefore use of the site for (FINAL) (qualifying features as above) additional landfill would not displace current Restoration of landfill sites users onto other European sites. often involves creating The Minerals and Waste Plan does not specify sites for recreation use that the Squabb Wood site would have any public Se which can impact on access provision on restoration. pt European sites as a result 2013 of physical disturbance (e.g. from erosion/trampling) as well as contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as noise pollution. Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related New Forest SPA The Squabb Wood site is not used recreationally N/A YES impacts at present, and therefore use of the site for Annex 1 birds and regularly additional landfill would not displace current Restoration of landfill sites occurring migratory birds: users onto other European sites. often involves creating • European nightjar The Minerals and Waste Plan does not specify sites for recreation use • Hen harrier that the Squabb Wood site would have any public which can impact on • Eurasian hobby access provision on restoration. European sites as a result • Woodlark of physical disturbance • Honey buzzard
(e.g. from • Wood warbler Habitats erosion/trampling) as well • Dartford warbler as contributing to other types of impacts assessed R
above, such as noise egulations pollution.
Recreation-related New Forest Ramsar site The Squabb Wood site is not used recreationally N/A YES impacts at present, and therefore use of the site for Assessment (qualifying features as above) additional landfill would not displace current Restoration of landfill sites users onto other European sites. often involves creating The Minerals and Waste Plan does not specify sites for recreation use that the Squabb Wood site would have any public R
which can impact on access provision on restoration. ecord European sites as a result of physical disturbance (e.g. from Appendices erosion/trampling) as well as contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as noise pollution. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 245 246 Habitats Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on R
plans or projects? the European site be egulations ruled out?
Dust Mottisfont Bats SAC Although this SAC is located more than 500m Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and YES Dust deposition on from the Squabb Wood landfill development, amenity requires minerals and waste development to ground and water from Barbastelle bats the bats which are the qualifying feature of the prove no impact from unacceptable dust impact. This Assessment landfill activities can lead SAC are known to travel up to 7.5km outside of should also help to ensure dust does not have an adverse to contamination at nearby the boundaries of the SAC for feeding, foraging effect on integrity of the Mottisfont Bats SAC. European sites. and roosting. If the bats travel within the immediate vicinity of the Squabb Wood landfill The development considerations also includes a R
site, they may be adversely affected by dust requirement for the consideration of the foraging and ecord deposition, for example if this occurs at their commuting of Mottisfont bats. feeding sites. The landfill site is located approximately 4.5km from the SAC, so is well Appendices within the area used by the bats (foraging females travel an average of 5.5km during the breeding season, and further at other times). However, the locations of the specific offsite areas used by the bats are unknown, so there is uncertainty (FINAL) attached to this potential effect.
Dust New Forest All of these European sites are located more than N/A YES Dust deposition on SAC/SPA/Ramsar site 500m from the Squabb Wood landfill site; Se ground and water from therefore dust deposition would not be expected pt landfill activities can lead (qualifying features as above) to affect site integrity. 2013 to contamination at nearby European sites.
Soil Contamination Mottisfont Bats SAC The qualifying feature of the Mottisfont Bats N/A YES SAC is not known to be particularly sensitive to Soil contamination can (qualifying features as above) soil contamination. As such, it is considered occur when landfill sites unlikely that any significant effects will result are located in close from the proposed landfill site in relation to soil proximity to Natura 2000 contamination, particularly considering the sites, through either stringent environmental controls that would contaminants released apply at the site. whilst the landfill is operational, or through contaminants introduced during the restoration process. Potential Impacts European sites potentially Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is affected and qualifying adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can features either alone or in combination with other adverse effects on plans or projects? the European site be ruled out?
Soil Contamination New Forest These sites are all located more than 500m from N/A YES SAC/SPA/Ramsar site the Squabb Wood landfill site; therefore soil Soil contamination can contamination effects would not be expected to occur when landfill sites (qualifying features as above) affect site integrity, particularly considering the are located in close stringent environmental controls that would proximity to Natura 2000 apply at the site. sites, through either contaminants released whilst the landfill is operational, or through Habitats contaminants introduced during the restoration process. R egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 247 248 Habitats D.4 Selborne Brickworks
Table D.12 Selborne Brickworks, (brick-making clay extraction) R egulations Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is features plans or projects implemented,
can adverse Assessment effects on the European site be ruled out?
Selborne Brickworks, (brick-making clay extraction) R ecord Physical disturbance/loss of habitat East Hampshire Hangers The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 500m outside of the SAC, N/A YES
SAC and clay extraction here would not result in any direct physical loss of Appendices habitat within the boundaries of the SAC. The qualifying feature of the New minerals sites can lead to loss of habitat/habitat • Semi-natural dry grasslands SAC is its plant communities, and therefore any off-site loss of habitat fragmentation as a result of extraction for landtake and and shrub facies on calcareous would not affect the integrity of the site. associated infrastructure development. substrates (important orchid
sites) (FINAL)
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Woolmer Forest SAC The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 500m outside of the SAC, N/A YES
and clay extraction here would not result in any direct physical loss of Se
• Natural dystrophic lakes and habitat within the boundaries of the SAC. The qualifying feature of the pt
New minerals sites can lead to loss of habitat/habitat ponds SAC is its plant communities, and therefore any off-site loss of habitat 2013 fragmentation as a result of extraction for landtake and would not affect the integrity of the site. associated infrastructure development. • European Dry Heaths
• Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion
• North Atlantic wet heaths with Cross-Leaved Heath
• Transition mires and quaking bogs
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Wealden Heaths SPA The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 500m outside of the SPA, N/A YES and clay extraction here would not result in any direct physical loss of habitat within the boundaries of the SPA. The qualifying features of this Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is features plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
New minerals sites can lead to loss of habitat/habitat Annex 1 birds and regularly SPA are woodland birds which would not be expected to travel significant fragmentation as a result of extraction for landtake and occurring migratory birds: distances offsite for foraging, roosting or breeding. As such, adverse associated infrastructure development. impacts relating to disturbance of bird species from the Selborne • European nightjar Brickworks site are not considered likely.
• Woodlark
• Dartford Warbler Habitats
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Shortheath Common SAC The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 500m outside of the SAC, N/A YES R
and clay extraction here would not result in any direct physical loss of egulations • Transition mires and habitat within the boundaries of the SAC. The qualifying feature of the New minerals sites can lead to loss of habitat/habitat quaking bogs SAC is its plant communities, and therefore any off-site loss of habitat fragmentation as a result of extraction for landtake and would not effect on the integrity of the site. associated infrastructure development. • European dry heaths Assessment
• Bog woodland
Noise pollution and vibration East Hampshire Hangers The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 500m outside of the SAC, N/A YES R
SAC and clay extraction here would not result in any noise pollution or ecord vibration within the boundaries of the SAC. The qualifying feature of Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities (qualifying features as above) the SAC is its plant communities, and therefore any noise and pollution Appendices associated with clay extraction during preparatory works associated with the proposed clay extraction would not effect on the (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of integrity of the site. the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for example if (FINAL) development occurs on the site.
Noise pollution and vibration Wealden Heaths SPA The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 2km from the Wealden N/A YES Se Heaths SPA. Whilst the ground-nesting birds which are the qualifying pt (qualifying features as above) features of the site are sensitive to noise pollution and vibration, it is considered unlikely that any noise and pollution associated with the 2013 249 250 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is features plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities proposed clay extraction would affect the integrity of the site, due to the Assessment associated with clay extraction during preparatory works distance of the SPA from the noise source. (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading R
material) and certain after-uses, for example if ecord development occurs on the site. Appendices Noise pollution and vibration Other European Sites The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 1.5km outside of all other N/A YES European Sites, and as such any noise and pollution associated with the proposed clay extraction would not affect the integrity of the sites. Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities associated with clay extraction during preparatory works (FINAL) (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for example if Se development occurs on the site. pt 2013
Light pollution East Hampshire Hangers The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 500m outside of the SAC. N/A YES SAC However, the qualifying feature of the SAC is its plant communities, and therefore any light pollution associated with the proposed clay extraction Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting on (qualifying features as above) would not affect the integrity of the site. site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from and within the site.
Light pollution Other European Sites The Selborne Brickworks site lies more than 1.5km outside of all other N/A YES European Sites, and as such any light pollution associated with the proposed clay extraction would not affect the integrity of these sites and Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting on their qualifying features. site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from and within the site. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is features plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels East Hampshire Hangers There is some potential for clay extraction at Selborne Brickworks to N/A YES SAC affect water levels along the Oakhanger Stream and tributaries, which runs directly adjacent to and through the East Hampshire Hangers SAC. Activities associated with clay extraction can affect water (qualifying features as above) Changes to water levels in the SAC may occur as a result of clay extraction levels in a variety of ways, including drying, at this site as there are several drains which run from west of Selborne flooding/storm water, changes in water level and Brickworks to Oakhanger Stream. It is not clear to what extent the stability, changes in surface water flow and groundwater maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to maintain flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes the integrity of this SAC. However, this extraction site is expected to be Habitats can result from operational activities as well as certain worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table unless other methods can be used after uses. that does not cause impacts to the hydrology of the area, and it unlikely that appropriate hydrological regime is required to maintain the integrity R
of this SAC. Therefore, the extraction at Selborne Brickworks is not egulations expected to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.
Changes in water quality East Hampshire Hangers There is some potential for clay extraction at Selborne Brickworks to N/A YES SAC affect water quality along the Oakhanger Stream and tributaries, which runs directly adjacent to and through the East Hampshire Hangers SAC. Assessment Water quality can be affected by clay extraction during (qualifying features as above) Changes to water quality may occur as a result of clay extraction, at the preparatory works, operational activities and after-use nearby Oakhanger Stream and tributaries, as there are several drains of the site, for example as a result of ground investigation which run from west of Selborne Brickworks to Oakhanger Stream. works, industrial processes within a site, dewatering or R
development/reclamation of a site after extraction has It is not clear to what extent the maintenance of consistent water quality ecord ceased. is required to maintain the integrity of this SAC. However, the extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table unless other methods can be used that does not cause impacts to the hydrology of Appendices the area), which means there would be no pathways for the clay extraction to affect water quality in nearby waterways. In addition, all extraction operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency water quality permitting standards. The EA would be consulted when the planning application for this site is received by the LPA, and enforcement of (FINAL) legislation would take place at this stage to ensure that the extraction has no adverse effects on the water environment. Therefore, the potential for clay extraction processes at the Selborne Brickworks site to affect water quality in the River Test and tributaries is very low. Se pt 2013 251 252 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is features plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution East Hampshire Hangers This SAC is the closest to the Selbourne Brickworks site, but is still over N/A YES Assessment SAC 500m from it. Policy 22 in the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan states that proposed extraction of clay at the Selborne site is for use at the Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic movements (qualifying features as above) adjoining Selborne Brickworks only. As such, no additional vehicle to and from clay extraction sites, and by emissions from movements are predicted as a result of the proposed extraction(45), and R
onsite activities. Effects may also be associated with any no adverse effects on the integrity of any European site(s) are predicted ecord development taking place on the site after extraction as a result of air pollution. activities have ceased. Appendices
Recreation-related impacts East Hampshire Hangers This SAC is the closest to the Selbourne Brickworks site, but is still over N/A YES SAC 500m from it. The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that the Selborne Brickworks site is to be restored for ‘agriculture'. The Selborne site does Restoration of minerals sites after extraction has ceased (qualifying features as above) not attract any recreational use at present, and it is private agricultural (FINAL) often involves creating sites for recreation use which land with no PROW. As such, no increased recreational impacts on the can impact on European sites as a result of physical SAC or any other European sites are expected to result from either the disturbance (e.g. from erosion/trampling) as well as extraction activities at the site, or its restoration. contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, Se such as noise pollution. pt 2013
Dust East Hampshire Hangers The East Hampshire Hangers SAC is over 500m from the Selborne N/A YES SAC Brickworks site; therefore dust effects would not be expected to affect site integrity. Dust deposition on ground and water from extraction (qualifying features as above) activities can lead to contamination at nearby European sites.
Dust Other European Sites There are no European sites located within 500m of the Selborne N/A YES Brickworks site; therefore dust effects would not be expected to affect integrity of any European sites.
45 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is features plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Dust deposition on ground and water from extraction activities can lead to contamination at nearby European sites.
Soil Contamination East Hampshire Hangers The qualifying feature of the SAC is likely to be sensitive to soil N/A YES SAC contamination as an unimproved grassland habitat. However, as the SAC
is more than 500m from the Selborne Brickworks to the SAC, it is Habitats Soil contamination can occur when clay extraction sites (qualifying features as above) considered unlikely that any adverse effects on its integrity will result are located in close proximity to Natura 2000 sites, from the proposed extraction site. through either contaminants released during the R
extraction process, or through contaminants introduced egulations during the restoration process.
Soil Contamination Other European Sites There are no European sites located within 500m of the Selborne N/A YES Brickworks site; therefore soil contamination would not be expected to Assessment affect site integrity. Soil contamination can occur when clay extraction sites are located in close proximity to Natura 2000 sites, through either contaminants released during the R
extraction process, or through contaminants introduced ecord during the restoration process. Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 253 254 Habitats D.5 Roeshot
Table D.13 Roeshot, Christchurch R egulations Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented,
features can adverse Assessment effects on the European site be ruled out?
Roeshot, Christchurch (sharp sand and gravel) R ecord Physical disturbance/loss of Avon Valley SPA Although the Roeshot site lies more than 500m outside of the Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of Yes
habitat • Gadwall boundaries of this SPA, and so sand and gravel extraction here would habitats and species requires minerals and Appendices • Bewick’s swan not result in any direct physical loss of habitat, it is possible that the waste proposals to not have significant birds which are the qualifying features of the SPA may be affected adverse effects on European sites. New minerals sites can lead to loss by disturbance to offsite breeding, foresting or roosting areas if any of habitat/habitat fragmentation are located within or adjacent to the Roeshot extraction site. The development considerations for the
as a result of extraction for Although the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set (FINAL) landtake and associated feeding sites of these bird species are unknown, they are likely to out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the infrastructure development. extend beyond the boundaries of the SPA; therefore adverse impacts protection of European site interests in relating to disturbance of bird species by activities at the Roeshot general. It also includes a requirement for
sand and gravel site cannot be ruled out. the consideration of the offsite foraging of Se
the Qualifying species of birds of nearby pt
SPA/Ramsars. 2013
Physical disturbance/loss of Avon Valley Ramsar Although the Roeshot site lies more than 500m outside of the Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of Yes habitat site boundaries of this Ramsar site, and so sand and gravel extraction habitats and species requires minerals and • The site shows a here would not result in any direct physical loss of habitat, it is waste proposals to not have undue adverse greater range of possible that the birds which are amongst the qualifying features of effects on European sites. New minerals sites can lead to loss habitats than any other the Ramsar site (e.g. black tailed godwit, gadwall, northern pintail) of habitat/habitat fragmentation chalk river in Britain, may be affected by disturbance to offsite breeding, foresting or The development considerations for the as a result of extraction for including fen, mire, roosting areas if any are located within or adjacent to the Roeshot Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set landtake and associated lowland wet grassland extraction site. Although the specific locations of offsite roosting, out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the infrastructure development. and small areas of foraging and feeding sites of these bird species are unknown, they protection of European site interests in woodland. are likely to extend beyond the boundaries of the Ramsar site; general. It also includes a requirement for • The site supports a therefore adverse impacts relating to disturbance of bird species by the consideration of the offsite foraging of diverse assemblage of activities at the Roeshot sand and gravel site cannot be ruled out. the Qualifying species of birds of nearby wetland flora and SPA/Ramsars. fauna including several nationally rare species. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of River Avon SAC The Roeshot sand and gravel site lies more than 500m outside of N/A Yes habitat • Water courses of the boundaries of this SAC, and the qualifying features of the SAC plain to montane levels are not likely to be affected by offsite habitat loss or disturbance as with the Ranunculion a result of minerals-related development at Roeshot - the Desmoulin’s New minerals sites can lead to loss fluitantis and whorl snail lives in wetland habitats such as marshes and swamps, of habitat/habitat fragmentation Callitricho-Batrachion which Roeshot is not, and the other qualifying species are most likely as a result of extraction for vegetation to be confined to locations within the river system within which the landtake and associated • Desmoulin’s whorl SAC is located, and this does not extend as far as Roeshot. Although Habitats infrastructure development. snail the River Mude flows adjacent to the western boundary of the • Sea lamprey extraction site, it is not connected to the River Avon (it arises at • Atlantic salmon Poors Common in Bransgore and flows south past Roeshot to the R
• Bullhead point at which it discharges into the sea). egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 255 256 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of New Forest SAC The Roeshot sand and gravel site lies more than 500m outside of Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of Yes Assessment habitat • Oligotrophic waters the boundaries of the SAC and so development here would not result habitats and species requires minerals and containing very few in any direct physical loss of habitat. Although most of the qualifying waste proposals to not have significant minerals of sandy features of the SAC are not likely to be affected by offsite disturbance adverse effects on European sites. Also, New minerals sites can lead to loss plains as they are habitats, there are also some species such as the great within the Implementation and Monitoring R
of habitat/habitat fragmentation • Oligotrophic to crested newt which may travel over longer distances outside of the Plan for Policy 3: Protection of habitats ecord as a result of extraction for mesotrophic standing boundaries of the SAC, and so disturbance to the habitats that they and species, there is a requirement for landtake and associated waters with vegetation use may be detrimental to the integrity of the SAC. The proximity recent and adequate surveys to reliably infrastructure development. of the Littorelletea of the River Mude immediately adjacent to the site increases the inform any discussion on the potential Appendices uniflorae and/or of chances of great crested newt being present, as they favour wetland impacts to biodiversity. the habitats. Isoeto-Nanojuncetea The development considerations for the • Northern Atlantic Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set wet heaths with out in Appendix A of the Plan) include (FINAL) cross-leaved heath appropriate measures to protect the New • European dry heaths Forest SAC. • Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or The intention to restore the site after Se clayey-silt-laden soils extraction has ceased for agriculture and pt (Molinion caeruleae) biodiversity (elements linking the site to the 2013 • Depressions on peat New Forest National Park) may offer some substrates of the long term opportunities for habitat provision. Rhynchosporion • Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer • Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests • Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains • Bog woodland • Transition mires and quaking bogs Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
• Alkaline fens • Southern damselfly • Stag beetle • Great crested newt
Physical disturbance/loss of New Forest SPA The Roeshot sand and gravel site lies more than 500m outside of Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of Yes habitat the SPA and so extraction here would not result in any direct physical habitats and species requires minerals and
Annex 1 birds and loss of habitat within the boundaries of the SPA. waste proposals to not have significant Habitats regularly occurring adverse effects on European sites. New minerals sites can lead to loss migratory birds: However, the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and of habitat/habitat fragmentation feeding sites of the various qualifying bird species are unknown, and The development considerations for the R
as a result of extraction for • European nightjar these may extend as far as the Roeshot extraction site. Although Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set egulations landtake and associated • Hen harrier some of the qualifying bird species such as the honey buzzard are out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the infrastructure development. • Eurasian hobby highly dependent on the woodland habitat, and so would not be protection of European site interests in • Woodlark expected to travel far outside of the wooded area of the New Forest, general. It also includes a requirement for • Honey buzzard other species such as the European nightjar are known to fly over the consideration of the offsite foraging of • Wood warbler longer distances to forage. Given that this species is particularly the Qualifying species of birds of nearby Assessment • Dartford warbler prevalent in the south western part of the New Forest(46) (near to SPA/Ramsars. the Roeshot site), the likelihood of their foraging areas being disturbed by extraction here is increased. The intention to restore the site after extraction has ceased for agriculture and R
biodiversity (elements linking the site ti the ecord New Forest National Park) may offer some long term opportunities for habitat provision. Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013
46 Footprint Ecology (2008) Changing Patterns of Visitor Numbers within the New Forest National Park, with Particualr Reference to the New Forest SPA. 257 258 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of New Forest Ramsar The Roeshot sand and gravel site lies more than 500m outside of Policy 3: Protection of habitats and Yes Assessment habitat site this Ramsar site and so extraction here would not result in any direct species requires minerals and waste physical loss of habitat within the boundaries of the Ramsar site. proposals to not have significant adverse Ramsar Criterion 1: effects on European sites. Also, within the New minerals sites can lead to loss • Valley mires and wet However, the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and Implementation and Monitoring Plan for R
of habitat/habitat fragmentation heaths are found feeding sites of the various qualifying bird species are unknown, and Policy 3: Protection of habitats and ecord as a result of extraction for throughout the site these may extend as far as the Roeshot extraction site. species, there is a requirement for recent landtake and associated and are of outstanding and adequate surveys to reliably inform any infrastructure development. scientific interest. discussion on the potential impacts to Appendices • The mires and heaths biodiversity, and Policy 3 itself implies a are within catchments heavier weight in general with respect to whose uncultivated European sites. and undeveloped state buffer the mires The development considerations for the (FINAL) against adverse Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set ecological change. out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the • This is the largest protection of European site interests in concentration of intact general. It also includes a requirement for Se valley mires of their the consideration of the offsite foraging of pt type in Britain. the Qualifying species of birds of nearby 2013 SPA/Ramsars. Ramsar Criterion 2: • The site supports a The intention to restore the site after diverse assemblage of extraction has ceased for agriculture and wetland Plants and biodiversity (elements linking the site to the animals including New Forest National Park) may offer some several nationally rare long term opportunities for habitat provision. species. • Seven species of nationally rare Plant are found on the site, as are at least 65 British Red Data Book species of invertebrate.
Ramsar Criterion 3: Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
• The mire habitats are of high ecological quality and diversity and have undisturbed transition zones. • The invertebrate fauna of the site is
important due to the Habitats concentration of rare and scarce wetland species. R
• The whole site egulations complex, with its examples of semi-natural habitats is essential to the genetic and ecological Assessment diversity of southern England. R
Noise pollution and vibration Avon Valley SPA Although the qualifying features of the SPA are bird species, which Policy 3: Protection of habitats and Yes ecord are particularly vulnerable to noise and vibration, the SPA is located species requires minerals and waste (qualifying features as more than 500m from the Roeshot sand and gravel site; therefore proposals to not have significant adverse Noise and vibration effects can be above) noise and vibration effects are not considered likely to have an effects on European sites. Appendices caused by activities associated with adverse effect on site integrity. It is possible that there may be sand and gravel extraction during adverse effects if there are feeding, foraging or roosting sites adjacent In addition, Policy 10: Protecting public preparatory works (e.g. machinery to the extraction site; however the location of these sites is unknown. health, safety and amenity requires used for site excavation), operation In addition, the bird species which are the qualifying features of this proposals for minerals and waste of the site (e.g. from vehicles SPA are likely to migrate south for the winter month in most cases, developments not to cause unacceptable (FINAL) transporting aggregates and meaning that any potential impacts are likely to be largely restricted noise, dust, lighting, vibration or odour machinery associated with to the summer months. impacts. crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for Se example if development occurs on pt the site. 2013 259 260 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration Avon Valley Ramsar The Ramsar site is located more than 500m from the Roeshot sand Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of Yes Assessment site and gravel site and the majority of the qualifying features are not habitats and species requires minerals and sensitive to these types of disturbance. However, the bird qualifying waste proposals to not have significant Noise and vibration effects can be (qualifying features as species are sensitive to noise/vibration, and it is possible that there adverse effects on European sites. caused by activities associated with above) may be adverse effects of this nature if there are feeding, foraging R
sand and gravel extraction during or roosting sites adjacent to the extraction site; however the location In addition, Policy 10: Protecting public ecord preparatory works (e.g. machinery of these sites is unknown. In addition, the bird species which are health, safety and amenity requires used for site excavation), operation amongst the qualifying features of this Ramsar site are likely to proposals for minerals and waste of the site (e.g. from vehicles migrate south for the winter month in most cases, meaning that any developments not to cause unacceptable Appendices transporting aggregates and potential impacts are likely to be largely restricted to the summer noise or vibration impacts. machinery associated with months. crushing, tipping and loading The development considerations for the material) and certain after-uses, for Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set example if development occurs on out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the (FINAL) the site. protection of European site interests in general. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of the Qualifying species of birds of nearby Se SPA/Ramsars. pt 2013
Noise pollution and vibration River Avon SAC The SAC is located more than 500m from the Roeshot sand and N/A Yes gravel site and the majority of the qualifying features are not sensitive (qualifying features as to these types of disturbance. Although the qualifying fish species Noise and vibration effects can be above) may be particularly sensitive to the effects of vibration, these species caused by activities associated with are not expected to be found within close proximity of Roeshot – sand and gravel extraction during although there is a river (the River Mude) adjacent to the western preparatory works (e.g. machinery boundary of the site, this is not connected with the River Avon. used for site excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration New Forest SAC This SAC is located more than 500m from the Roeshot sand and Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of Yes gravel site and the majority of the qualifying features are not sensitive habitats and species requires minerals and (qualifying features as to these types of disturbance. However, some of the qualifying waste proposals to not have undue adverse Noise and vibration effects can be above) features of the SAC are transient species (e.g. the great crested newt), effects on European sites. caused by activities associated with which may experience adverse effects if they move within closer sand and gravel extraction during proximity of the extraction site. In addition, Policy 10: Protecting public preparatory works (e.g. machinery health, safety and amenity requires used for site excavation), operation proposals for minerals and waste Habitats of the site (e.g. from vehicles developments not to cause unacceptable transporting aggregates and noise, dust, lighting, vibration or odour machinery associated with impacts. R
crushing, tipping and loading egulations material) and certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site. Assessment
Noise pollution and vibration New Forest SPA Although the qualifying features of the SPA are bird species, which Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of Yes are particularly vulnerable to noise and vibration, the SPA is located habitats and species requires minerals and (qualifying features as more than 500m from the Roeshot sand and gravel site. However, waste proposals to not have undue adverse Noise and vibration effects can be above) a number of these bird species are known to travel far enough for effects on European sites. R
caused by activities associated with feeding, foraging and roosting that they may still experience the ecord sand and gravel extraction during effects of noise and vibration from the site. Most of the species In addition, Policy 10: Protecting public preparatory works (e.g. machinery migrate south for the winter, therefore potential effects would be health, safety and amenity requires used for site excavation), operation significantly less likely than in the summer months, and some of the proposals for minerals and waste Appendices of the site (e.g. from vehicles species are nocturnal (e.g. the nightjar) and so are less likely to be developments not to cause unacceptable transporting aggregates and disturbed by noise and vibration from onsite operations. noise or vibration impacts. machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading The development considerations for the material) and certain after-uses, for Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set (FINAL) example if development occurs on out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the the site. protection of European site interests in general. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of Se pt the Qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. 2013 261 262 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration New Forest Ramsar The Ramsar site is located more than 500m from the Roeshot sand Policy 3: Protection and enhancement of Yes Assessment site and gravel site, and the majority of the qualifying features are not habitats and species requires minerals and sensitive to these types of disturbance. However, a number of bird waste proposals to not have undue adverse Noise and vibration effects can be (qualifying features as species are included in the qualifying features of the site, which are effects on European sites. caused by activities associated with above) sensitive to noise and vibration, and these may travel far enough for R
sand and gravel extraction during feeding, foraging and roosting that they could still experience the In addition, Policy 10: Protecting public ecord preparatory works (e.g. machinery effects of noise and vibration from the site. Most of the bird species health, safety and amenity requires used for site excavation), operation migrate south for the winter, therefore potential effects would be proposals for minerals and waste of the site (e.g. from vehicles significantly less likely than in the summer months. developments not to cause unacceptable Appendices transporting aggregates and noise, dust, lighting, vibration or odour machinery associated with impacts. crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for The development considerations for the example if development occurs on Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set (FINAL) the site. out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the protection of European site interests in general. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of Se the Qualifying species of birds of nearby pt SPA/Ramsars. 2013
Light pollution Avon Valley SPA This SPA is located more than 500m from the Roeshot, reducing Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light pollution. and amenity requires proposals for minerals (qualifying features as However, some of the qualifying bird species may travel as far as the and waste developments to demonstrate that Light pollution can be caused by above) Roeshot site for breeding, roosting and foraging, therefore may still they would not have unacceptable pollution artificial lighting on site as well as be affected by any artificial lighting used onsite. However, the extent impacts. vehicle traffic movements to and to which artificial lighting would be used is currently unknown. from and within the site. The development considerations for the Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the protection of European site interests in general. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of the Qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Light pollution Avon Valley Ramsar This Ramsar site is located more than 500m from the Roeshot, Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes site reducing the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light and amenity requires proposals for minerals pollution. However, some of the qualifying bird species may travel and waste developments to demonstrate that Light pollution can be caused by (qualifying features as as far as the Roeshot site for breeding, roosting and foraging, they would not have unacceptable pollution artificial lighting on site as well as above) therefore may still be affected by any artificial lighting used onsite. impacts. vehicle traffic movements to and However, the extent to which artificial lighting would be used is from and within the site. currently unknown. The development considerations for the
Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set Habitats out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the protection of European site interests in general. It also includes a requirement for R
the consideration of the offsite foraging of egulations the Qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars.
Light pollution River Avon SAC The SAC is located more than 500m from the Roeshot sand and N/A Yes Assessment gravel site and the qualifying features are either not sensitive to light (qualifying features as pollution or would not travel as far as the Roeshot site as it is not Light pollution can be caused by above) hydrologically connected to the River Avon . artificial lighting on site as well as R
vehicle traffic movements to and ecord from and within the site. Appendices Light pollution New Forest SAC This SAC is located more than 500m from the Roeshot, reducing Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light pollution. and amenity requires proposals for minerals (qualifying features as However, some of the qualifying species such as the great crested and waste developments to demonstrate that Light pollution can be caused by above) newt may travel outside of the boundaries of the SAC, as far as the they would not have unacceptable pollution artificial lighting on site as well as Roeshot site, therefore may still be affected by any artificial lighting impacts. (FINAL) vehicle traffic movements to and used onsite. However, the extent to which artificial lighting would from and within the site. be used is currently unknown. Se pt 2013 263 264 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Light pollution New Forest SPA This SPA is located more than 500m from the Roeshot, reducing Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes Assessment the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light pollution. and amenity requires proposals for minerals (qualifying features as However, some of the qualifying bird species may travel as far as the and waste developments to demonstrate that Light pollution can be caused by above) Roeshot site for breeding, roosting and foraging, therefore may still they would not have unacceptable pollution artificial lighting on site as well as be affected by any artificial lighting used onsite. However, the extent impacts. R
vehicle traffic movements to and to which artificial lighting would be used is currently unknown. ecord from and within the site. The development considerations for the Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the Appendices protection of European site interests in general. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of the Qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. (FINAL)
Light pollution New Forest Ramsar This Ramsar site is located more than 500m from the Roeshot, Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes site reducing the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light and amenity requires proposals for minerals Se pollution. However, some of the qualifying bird species may travel and waste developments to demonstrate that pt Light pollution can be caused by (qualifying features as as far as the Roeshot site for breeding, roosting and foraging, they would not have unacceptable pollution 2013 artificial lighting on site as well as above) therefore may still be affected by any artificial lighting used onsite. impacts. vehicle traffic movements to and However, the extent to which artificial lighting would be used is from and within the site. currently unknown. The development considerations for the Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the protection of European site interests in general. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of the Qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Avon Valley SPA The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required The development considerations for this Yes to maintain the integrity of this SPA. The Roeshot sand and gravel sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A (qualifying features as extraction site is approximately 2.1km to the east of the Avon Valley of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Activities associated with sand and above) SPA, and although Roeshot is directly adjacent to the River Mude, the water quality and recharge of the gravel extraction can affect water neither this river nor any other flows from the extraction site towards underlying aquifers and the surface water, levels in a variety of ways, including the Avon Valley SPA. However, the Roeshot site does overly a including Donkey Bottom and the River drying, flooding/storm water, secondary aquifer in common with the SPA. Although the extraction Mead. changes in water level and stability, site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless Habitats changes in surface water flow and other methods can be used without significant effects to hydrology), Consultation with the Environment Agency groundwater flow and loss of it is likely that due to the relatively large size of the proposed with regards to any Planning application groundwater storage. These extraction site, processing (which is likely to require water) would coming forward at this site should help to R
changes can result from operational occur onsite, increasing the potential for impacts resulting from water ensure that adverse impacts on the water egulations activities as well as certain after abstraction. environment are avoided. uses. However, exact details of the hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the Roeshot site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with Planning applications (e.g. Assessment proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). R ecord Changes to water levels Avon Valley Ramsar The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required The development considerations for this Yes site to maintain the integrity of this Ramsar site. The Roeshot sand and sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A gravel extraction site is approximately 2.1km to the east of the Avon of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Appendices Activities associated with sand and (qualifying features as Valley Ramsar site, and although Roeshot is directly adjacent to the the water quality and recharge of the gravel extraction can affect water above) River Mude, neither this river nor any other flows from the extraction underlying aquifers and the surface water, levels in a variety of ways, including site towards the Ramsar site. However, the Roeshot site does overly including Donkey Bottom and the River drying, flooding/storm water, a secondary aquifer in common with the Ramsar site. Although the Mead. changes in water level and stability, extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water (FINAL) changes in surface water flow and table(unless other methods can be used without significant effects Consultation with the Environment Agency groundwater flow and loss of to hydrology) , it is likely that due to the relatively large size of the with regards to any Planning application groundwater storage. These proposed extraction site, processing (which is likely to require water) coming forward at this site should help to changes can result from operational would occur onsite, increasing the potential for impacts resulting ensure that adverse impacts on the water Se activities as well as certain after from water abstraction. environment are avoided. pt uses. 2013 265 266 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
However, exact details of the hydrological connectivity between the Assessment Ramsar site and the Roeshot sand and gravel site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with Planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual R
groundwater depths, flow and gradient). ecord
Changes to water levels River Avon SAC The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required The development considerations for this Yes Appendices to maintain the integrity of this SAC. The Roeshot sand and gravel sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A (qualifying features as extraction site is approximately 2.1km to the east of the River Avon of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Activities associated with sand and above) SAC, and although Roeshot is directly adjacent to the River Mude, the water quality and recharge of the gravel extraction can affect water neither this river nor any other flows from the extraction site towards underlying aquifers and the surface water, levels in a variety of ways, including the SAC. However, the Roeshot site does overly a secondary aquifer including Donkey Bottom and the River (FINAL) drying, flooding/storm water, in common with the SAC. Although the site is expected to be worked Mead. changes in water level and stability, ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless other methods can be used changes in surface water flow and without significant effects to hydrology), it is likely that due to the Consultation with the Environment Agency groundwater flow and loss of relatively large size of the proposed extraction site, processing (which with regards to any Planning application Se groundwater storage. These is likely to require water) would occur onsite, increasing the potential coming forward at this site should help to pt changes can result from operational for impacts resulting from water abstraction. ensure that adverse impacts on the water 2013 activities as well as certain after environment are avoided. uses. However, exact details of the hydrological connectivity between the SAC and the Roeshot site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with Planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels New Forest SAC The wetland and heathland habitats of this SAC are vulnerable to The development considerations for this Yes low flows, particularly in summer, and the Roeshot site overlies a sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A (qualifying features as common secondary aquifer with the SAC. However, the New Forest of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Activities associated with sand and above) SAC covers a large area of approximately 28,000 hectares and the the water quality and recharge of the gravel extraction can affect water sand and gravel site is not located within close proximity of any rivers underlying aquifers and the surface water, levels in a variety of ways, including flowing towards the SAC. Although the site is expected to be worked including Donkey Bottom and the River drying, flooding/storm water, ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table(unless other methods can be used Mead. changes in water level and stability, without significant effects to hydrology), it is likely that due to the Habitats changes in surface water flow and relatively large size of the proposed extraction site, processing (which Consultation with the Environment Agency groundwater flow and loss of is likely to require water) would occur onsite, increasing the potential with regards to any Planning application groundwater storage. These for impacts resulting from water abstraction. However, hydrological coming forward at this site should help to R
changes can result from operational connectivity between the SAC and the Roeshot extraction site is ensure that adverse impacts on the water egulations activities as well as certain after uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is environment are avoided. uses. submitted with Planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Assessment
Changes to water levels New Forest SPA The qualifying features of this SPA are vulnerable to changes in water The development considerations for this Yes levels as the condition of the qualifying bird species is affected by sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A (qualifying features as the condition of the vegetation and soils at the site. The Roeshot of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Activities associated with sand and above) site overlies a common secondary aquifer with the SPA; however, the water quality and recharge of the R
gravel extraction can affect water the New Forest SPA covers a large area of approximately 28,000 underlying aquifers and the surface water, ecord levels in a variety of ways, including hectares and the Roeshot site is not located within close proximity including Donkey Bottom and the River drying, flooding/storm water, of any rivers flowing towards the SPA. Although the site is expected Mead. changes in water level and stability, to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table, it is likely that due to Appendices changes in surface water flow and the relatively large size of the proposed extraction site, processing Consultation with the Environment Agency groundwater flow and loss of (which is likely to require water) would occur onsite, increasing the with regards to any Planning application groundwater storage. These potential for impacts resulting from water abstraction. However, coming forward at this site should help to changes can result from operational hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the Roeshot ensure that adverse impacts on the water activities as well as certain after extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information environment are avoided. (FINAL) uses. and data is submitted with Planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Se pt 2013 267 268 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels New Forest Ramsar The qualifying features of this Ramsar site are vulnerable to changes The development considerations for this Yes Assessment site in water level, and the Roeshot site overlies a common secondary sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A aquifer with the Ramsar site. However, the New Forest Ramsar site of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Activities associated with sand and (qualifying features as covers a large area of approximately 28,000 hectares and the minerals the water quality and recharge of the gravel extraction can affect water above) site is not located within close proximity of any rivers flowing towards underlying aquifers and the surface water, R
levels in a variety of ways, including the Ramsar site. Although the site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. including Donkey Bottom and the River ecord drying, flooding/storm water, above the water table (unless other methods can be used without Mead. changes in water level and stability, significant effects to hydrology), it is likely that due to the relatively changes in surface water flow and large size of the proposed extraction site, processing (which is likely Consultation with the Environment Agency Appendices groundwater flow and loss of to require water) would occur onsite, increasing the potential for with regards to any Planning application groundwater storage. These impacts resulting from water abstraction. However, hydrological coming forward at this site should help to changes can result from operational connectivity between the Ramsar site and the Roeshot extraction ensure that adverse impacts on the water activities as well as certain after site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data environment are avoided. uses. is submitted with Planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the (FINAL) depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient).
Changes in water quality Avon Valley SPA The qualifying features of this SPA are known to be sensitive to Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes Se changes in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Roeshot and amenity requires proposals for minerals pt
(qualifying features as extraction site to the SPA (approximately 2.1km) and the fact that it and waste developments to demonstrate that 2013 Water quality can be affected by above) overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the SPA indicates that they would not have unacceptable pollution sand and gravel extraction during water quality impacts as a result of sand and gravel extraction here impacts. preparatory works, operational cannot be ruled out. However, the Roeshot extraction site is expected activities and after-use of the site, to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table ), unless other methods The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground can be used without significant effects to hydrology, which should sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A investigation works, industrial decrease the potential for impacts on water quality. Hydrological of the Plan) include a requirement to protect processes within a site, dewatering connectivity between the SPA and the Roeshot site is uncertain until the water quality and recharge of the or development/reclamation of a more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with underlying aquifers and the surface water, site after extraction has ceased. Planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent including Donkey Bottom and the River of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual Mead. groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Consultation with the Environment Agency with regards to any Planning application coming forward at this site should help to ensure that adverse impacts on the water environment are avoided Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
However, all extraction operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment Agency would be consulted on any Planning application coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment. Habitats Changes in water quality Avon Valley Ramsar The qualifying features of this Ramsar site are known to be sensitive Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes site to changes in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Roeshot and amenity requires proposals for minerals extraction site to the Ramsar site (approximately 2.1km) and the fact and waste developments to demonstrate that R
Water quality can be affected by (qualifying features as that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the Ramsar site they would not have unacceptable pollution egulations sand and gravel extraction during above) indicates that water quality impacts as a result of sand and gravel impacts. preparatory works, operational extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, the Roeshot extraction activities and after-use of the site, site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table), unless The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground other methods can be used without significant effects to hydrology, sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A investigation works, industrial which should decrease the potential for impacts on water quality. of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Assessment processes within a site, dewatering Hydrological connectivity between the Ramsar site and the Roeshot the water quality and recharge of the or development/reclamation of a site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data underlying aquifers and the surface water, site after extraction has ceased. is submitted with Planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the including Donkey Bottom and the River depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works Mead. R
to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). ecord Consultation with the Environment Agency However, all extraction operations would need to adhere to with regards to any Planning application Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the coming forward at this site should help to Appendices Environment Agency would be consulted on any Planning application ensure that adverse impacts on the water coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within environment are avoided which sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 269 270 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality River Avon SAC The qualifying features of this SAC are known to be sensitive to Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes Assessment changes in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Roeshot and amenity requires proposals for minerals (qualifying features as extraction site to the SAC (approximately 2.1km) and the fact that and waste developments to demonstrate that Water quality can be affected by above) it overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the SAC indicates they would not have unacceptable pollution sand and gravel extraction during that water quality impacts as a result of sand and gravel extraction impacts. R
preparatory works, operational here cannot be ruled out. However, the Roeshot extraction site is ecord activities and after-use of the site, expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table), unless other The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground methods can be used without significant effects to hydrology, which sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A investigation works, industrial should decrease the potential for impacts on water quality. of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Appendices processes within a site, dewatering Hydrological connectivity between the SAC and the Roeshot site is the water quality and recharge of the or development/reclamation of a uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is underlying aquifers and the surface water, site after extraction has ceased. submitted with Planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the including Donkey Bottom and the River depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works Mead. to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). (FINAL) Consultation with the Environment Agency However, all extraction operations would need to adhere to with regards to any Planning application Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the coming forward at this site should help to Environment Agency would be consulted on any Planning application ensure that adverse impacts on the water Se coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within environment are avoided pt which sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place 2013 without causing harm to the water environment.
Changes in water quality New Forest SAC The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes changes in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Roeshot and amenity requires proposals for minerals (qualifying features as site to the SAC and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in and waste developments to demonstrate that Water quality can be affected by above) common with the SAC indicates that water quality impacts as a result they would not have unacceptable pollution sand and gravel extraction during of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, impacts. preparatory works, operational the Roeshot extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above activities and after-use of the site, the water table), which should decrease the potential for impacts on The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground water quality. Hydrological connectivity between the SAC and the sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A investigation works, industrial extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information of the Plan) include a requirement to protect processes within a site, dewatering and data is submitted with Planning applications (e.g. proposals the water quality and recharge of the or development/reclamation of a regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from underlying aquifers and the surface water, site after extraction has ceased. investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow including Donkey Bottom and the River and gradient). Mead. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
However, all extraction operations would need to adhere to Consultation with the Environment Agency Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the with regards to any Planning application Environment Agency would be consulted on any Planning application coming forward at this site should help to coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within ensure that adverse impacts on the water which sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place environment are avoided without causing harm to the water environment. Habitats Changes in water quality New Forest SPA The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes changes in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Roeshot and amenity requires proposals for minerals (qualifying features as site to the SPA and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in and waste developments to demonstrate that R
Water quality can be affected by above) common with the SPA indicates that water quality impacts as a result they would not have unacceptable pollution egulations sand and gravel extraction during of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, impacts. preparatory works, operational the Roeshot Hill extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. activities and after-use of the site, above the water table), which should decrease the potential for The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground impacts on water quality. Hydrological connectivity between the sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A investigation works, industrial SPA and the extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site of the Plan) include a requirement to protect Assessment processes within a site, dewatering specific information and data is submitted with Planning applications the water quality and recharge of the or development/reclamation of a (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and underlying aquifers and the surface water, site after extraction has ceased. data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater including Donkey Bottom and the River depths, flow and gradient). Mead. R ecord However, all extraction operations would need to adhere to Consultation with the Environment Agency Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the with regards to any Planning application Environment Agency would be consulted on any Planning application coming forward at this site should help to Appendices coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within ensure that adverse impacts on the water which sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place environment are avoided without causing harm to the water environment. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 271 272 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality New Forest Ramsar The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes Assessment site changes in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Roeshot and amenity requires proposals for minerals site to the Ramsar site and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer and waste developments to demonstrate that Water quality can be affected by (qualifying features as in common with the Ramsar site indicates that water quality impacts they would not have unacceptable pollution sand and gravel extraction during above) as a result of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. impacts. R
preparatory works, operational However, the Roeshot extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ ecord activities and after-use of the site, (i.e. above the water table), which should decrease the potential for The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground impacts on water quality. Hydrological connectivity between the sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A investigation works, industrial Ramsar site and the extraction site is uncertain until more detailed of the Plan) include should include a Appendices processes within a site, dewatering site specific information and data is submitted with Planning requirement to protect the water quality and or development/reclamation of a applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of recharge of the underlying aquifers and the site after extraction has ceased. excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual surface water, including Donkey Bottom and groundwater depths, flow and gradient). the River Mead. (FINAL) However, all extraction operations would need to adhere to Consultation with the Environment Agency Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the with regards to any Planning application Environment Agency would be consulted on any Planning application coming forward at this site should help to coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within ensure that adverse impacts on the water Se which sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place environment are avoided pt without causing harm to the water environment. 2013
Air pollution Avon Valley SPA The southern part of the Avon Valley SPA is crossed by the A35 to The development considerations for the Yes the west of the Roeshot site – this is the key route for access to and Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set (qualifying features as from the extraction site, with 80% of the traffic being expected to out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the Air pollution can result from above) travel on the A35 westbound into Dorset. Further north, fragments production of a freight management Plan to vehicle traffic movements to and of the SPA (units of the River Avon SSSI) are adjacent to the A338 consider transportation issues. from sand and gravel extraction which is linked to the A35 and may provide a route for ongoing sites, and by emissions from onsite travel northwards from that road. These SSSI units are in Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety activities. Effects may also be unfavourable condition (some recovering, some no change) and and amenity requires proposals for minerals associated with any development although it is not clear whether their condition is linked to air quality and waste developments to demonstrate that taking place on the site after issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional they would not have unacceptable pollution extraction activities have ceased. vehicle traffic along the A338 may be particularly harmful to the impacts. integrity of the SPA. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment(47) found that the development of the Roeshot sand
47 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimates traffic movements, 80% are expected to travel west along the A35 into Dorset, with the remaining 20% travelling east along the A35. Based on the existing traffic movements on the A35 west of the Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,378 vehicles), this represents a relatively very small increase of 0.4%. Any increase in vehicle movements on
the A338 is likely to be significantly less as only a proportion (if any) Habitats of the vehicle movements would involve the use of this road. It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A338 and A35 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse R
impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution. egulations
Air pollution Avon Valley Ramsar The southern part of the Avon Valley Ramsar site is crossed by the The development considerations for the Yes site A35 to the west of the Roeshot site – this is the key route for access Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set to and from the extraction site, with 80% of the traffic being expected out in Appendix A of the Plan) include Air pollution can result from (qualifying features as to travel on the A35 westbound into Dorset. Further north, consideration of transportation issues. Assessment vehicle traffic movements to and above) fragments of the Ramsar site (units of the River Avon SSSI) are from sand and gravel extraction adjacent to the A338 which is linked to the A35 and may provide a Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety sites, and by emissions from onsite route for ongoing travel northwards from that road. These SSSI and amenity requires proposals for minerals activities. Effects may also be units are in unfavourable condition (some recovering, some no and waste developments to demonstrate that R
associated with any development change) and although it is not clear whether their condition is linked they would not have unacceptable pollution ecord taking place on the site after to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result impacts. extraction activities have ceased. of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. However, the Strategic Appendices Transport Assessment found that the development of the Roeshot sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimates traffic movements, 80% are expected to travel west along the A35 into (FINAL) Se pt 2013 273 274 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Dorset, with the remaining 20% travelling east along the A35. Based Assessment on the existing traffic movements on the A35 west of the Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,378 vehicles), this represents a relatively very small increase of 0.4%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A338 is likely to be significantly less as only a proportion (if any) R
of the vehicle movements would involve the use of this road. It is ecord therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A338 and A35 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased air Appendices pollution.
Air pollution River Avon SAC The southern part of the River Avon SAC is crossed by the A35 to The development considerations for the Yes the west of the Roeshot site – this is the key route for access to and Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set
(qualifying features as from the extraction site, with 80% of the traffic being expected to out in Appendix A of the Plan) include (FINAL) Air pollution can result from above) travel on the A35 westbound into Dorset. Further north, fragments consideration of transportation issues. vehicle traffic movements to and of the SAC (units of the River Avon SSSI) are adjacent to the A338 from sand and gravel extraction which is linked to the A35 and may provide a route for ongoing Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety sites, and by emissions from onsite travel northwards from that road. These SSSI units are in and amenity requires proposals for minerals Se activities. Effects may also be unfavourable condition (some recovering, some no change) and and waste developments to demonstrate that pt associated with any development although it is not clear whether their condition is linked to air quality they would not have unacceptable pollution 2013 taking place on the site after issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional impacts. extraction activities have ceased. vehicle traffic along the A338 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Roeshot sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimates traffic movements, 80% are expected to travel west along the A35 into Dorset, with the remaining 20% travelling east along the A35. Based on the existing traffic movements on the A35 west of the Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,378 vehicles), this represents a relatively very small increase of 0.4%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A338 is likely to be significantly less as only a proportion (if any) of the vehicle movements would involve the use of this road. It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A338 and A35 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from increased air pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution New Forest SAC Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions The development considerations for the Yes required to support the integrity of this site as nitrogen deposition Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set (qualifying features as can cause compositional changes over time. Levels of acid out in Appendix A of the Plan) include Air pollution can result from above) deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone are already exceeding consideration of transportation issues. vehicle traffic movements to and critical loads at this SAC, indicating that any increase in air pollution from sand and gravel extraction from vehicle traffic travelling to and from the Roeshot sand and Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety sites, and by emissions from onsite gravel site may be particularly harmful. Two major roads, the A31 and amenity requires proposals for minerals activities. Effects may also be and the A35 cut through the middle of the SAC, and the A35 leads and waste developments to demonstrate that Habitats associated with any development directly towards the Roeshot site, meaning that it is highly likely to they would not have unacceptable pollution taking place on the site after be a key route to and from the site. A small fragment of the SAC impacts. extraction activities have ceased. (also part of the New Forest SSSI) is adjacent to the A35 in close R
proximity to the east of the site. Many of the New Forest SSSI units egulations which are included in the SAC and are adjacent to these routes are classed as being in unfavourable recovering condition. Although it is not clear whether the condition of these SSSI units is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A31 or A35 may be particularly Assessment harmful to the integrity of the SAC. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Roeshot sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimates traffic R
movements, 80% are expected to travel west along the A35 into ecord Dorset, with the remaining 20% travelling east along the A35 (it is these eastbound journeys which would travel through the SAC). Based on the existing traffic movements on the A35 east of the Appendices Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,415 vehicles), this represents a relatively very small increase of 0.1%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A31 is unlikely as this road is further from the extraction site and is not expected to accommodate vehicle movements associated with the site. It is therefore considered that (FINAL) the additional vehicle traffic along the A31 and A35 through the New Forest SAC would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from increased air pollution. Se pt 2013 275 276 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution New Forest SPA Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions The development considerations for the Yes Assessment required to support the integrity of this site as nitrogen deposition Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set (qualifying features as can cause compositional changes over time. Levels of acid out in Appendix A of the Plan) include Air pollution can result from above) deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone are already exceeding consideration of transportation issues. vehicle traffic movements to and critical loads at this SPA, indicating that any increase in air pollution R
from sand and gravel extraction from vehicle traffic travelling to and from the Roeshot sand and Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety ecord sites, and by emissions from onsite gravel site may be particularly harmful. Two major roads, the A31 and amenity requires proposals for minerals activities. Effects may also be and the A35 cut through the middle of the SPA, and the A35 leads and waste developments to demonstrate that associated with any development directly towards the Roeshot site, meaning that it is highly likely to they would not have unacceptable pollution Appendices taking place on the site after be a key route to and from the site. Many of the New Forest SSSI impacts. extraction activities have ceased. units which are included in the SPA and are adjacent to these routes are classed as being in unfavourable recovering condition. Although it is not clear whether the condition of these SSSI units is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result (FINAL) of additional vehicle traffic along the A31 or A35 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Roeshot sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic Se movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimates traffic pt movements, 80% are expected to travel west along the A35 into 2013 Dorset, with the remaining 20% travelling east along the A35 (it is these eastbound journeys which would travel through the SPA). Based on the existing traffic movements on the A35 east of the Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,415 vehicles), this represents a relatively very small increase of 0.1%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A31 is unlikely as this road is further from the extraction site and is not expected to accommodate vehicle movements associated with the site. It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A31 and A35 through the New Forest SPA would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution New Forest Ramsar Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions The development considerations for the Yes site required to support the integrity of this site as nitrogen deposition Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set can cause compositional changes over time. Levels of acid out in Appendix A of the Plan) include Air pollution can result from (qualifying features as deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone are already exceeding consideration of transportation issues. vehicle traffic movements to and above) critical loads at this Ramsar site, indicating that any increase in air from sand and gravel extraction pollution from vehicle traffic travelling to and from the Roeshot Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety sites, and by emissions from onsite sand and gravel site may be particularly harmful. Two major roads, and amenity requires proposals for minerals activities. Effects may also be the A31 and the A35 cut through the middle of the Ramsar site, and and waste developments to demonstrate that Habitats associated with any development the A35 leads directly towards the Roeshot site, meaning that it is they would not have unacceptable pollution taking place on the site after highly likely to be a key route to and from the site. Many of the New impacts. extraction activities have ceased. Forest SSSI units which are included in the Ramsar site and are R
adjacent to these routes are classed as being in unfavourable egulations recovering condition. Although it is not clear whether the condition of these SSSI units is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A31 or A35 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found Assessment that the development of the Roeshot sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimates traffic movements, 80% are expected to travel west along the A35 into Dorset, with the remaining 20% R
travelling east along the A35 (it is these eastbound journeys which ecord would travel through the Ramsar site). Based on the existing traffic movements on the A35 east of the Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,415 vehicles), this represents a relatively very small increase of Appendices 0.1%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A31 is unlikely as this road is further from the extraction site and is not expected to accommodate vehicle movements associated with the site. It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A31 and A35 through the New Forest Ramsar site would not be of a (FINAL) sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased air pollution. Se pt 2013 277 278 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Dorset Heaths SAC Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions The development considerations for the Yes Assessment • Northern Atlantic required to support the integrity of this site. Levels of acid Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set wet heaths with deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone are already exceeding out in Appendix A of the Plan) include Air pollution can result from cross-leaved heath. critical loads at this SAC, indicating that any increase in air pollution consideration of transportation issues. vehicle traffic movements to and • European dry heaths from vehicle traffic travelling to and from the Roeshot sand and R
from sand and gravel extraction • Depressions on peat gravel site may be particularly harmful. The A338, which is in fairly Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety ecord sites, and by emissions from onsite substrates of the close proximity of the Roeshot site, and which is linked to the A35 and amenity requires proposals for minerals activities. Effects may also be Rhynchosporion (the main route for traffic to and from the site) crosses the SAC in and waste developments to demonstrate that associated with any development a number of areas. These units of the Dorset Heaths SSSI are they would not have unacceptable pollution Appendices taking place on the site after generally in unfavourable condition, and although it is not clear impacts. extraction activities have ceased. whether their condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. The Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of (FINAL) the Roeshot sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimated traffic movements, 80% are expected to travel west along the A35 into Dorset, with the remaining 20% travelling east along Se the A35. The westbound A35 connects to the A338; therefore a pt proportion of the 80% of vehicle movements on this road may 2013 connect onto the A338 and therefore cross fragments of the SAC. Based on the existing traffic movements on the A35 west of the Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,378 vehicles), increase in traffic on that road is very small, at 0.4%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A338 is likely to be significantly less as only a proportion (if any) of the vehicle movements would connect onto this road from the A35. It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from increased air pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Dorset Heathlands Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions The development considerations for the Yes SPA required to support the integrity of this site. Levels of acid Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set • European Nightjar deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone are already exceeding out in Appendix A of the Plan) include Air pollution can result from critical loads at this SPA, indicating that any increase in air pollution consideration of transportation issues. vehicle traffic movements to and • Hen Harrier from vehicle traffic travelling to and from the Roeshot sand and from sand and gravel extraction • Merlin gravel site may be particularly harmful. The A338, which is in fairly Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety sites, and by emissions from onsite • Woodlark close proximity of the Roeshot site, and which is linked to the A35 and amenity requires proposals for minerals activities. Effects may also be • Dartford Warbler (the main route for traffic to and from the site) crosses the SPA in and waste developments to demonstrate that Habitats associated with any development a number of areas. These units of the Dorset Heaths SSSI are they would not have unacceptable pollution taking place on the site after generally in unfavourable condition, and although it is not clear impacts. extraction activities have ceased. whether their condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in R
deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along egulations the A338 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. The Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Roeshot sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimated traffic movements, 80% are expected to travel west along Assessment the A35 into Dorset, with the remaining 20% travelling east along the A35. The westbound A35 connects to the A338; therefore a proportion of the 80% of vehicle movements on this road may connect onto the A338 and therefore cross fragments of the SPA. R
Based on the existing traffic movements on the A35 west of the ecord Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,378 vehicles), increase in traffic on that road is very small, at 0.4%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A338 is likely to be significantly less as only a Appendices proportion (if any) of the vehicle movements would connect onto this road from the A35. It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 279 280 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Dorset Heathlands Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions The development considerations for the Yes Assessment Ramsar site required to support the integrity of this site. Levels of acid Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set • Dwarf shrub heath - deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone are already exceeding out in Appendix A of the Plan) include Air pollution can result from lowland critical loads at this Ramsar site, indicating that any increase in air consideration of transportation issues. vehicle traffic movements to and • Fen, marsh and pollution from vehicle traffic travelling to and from the Roeshot R
from sand and gravel extraction swamp sand and gravel site may be particularly harmful. The A338, which Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety ecord sites, and by emissions from onsite • Assemblage and is in fairly close proximity of the Roeshot site, and which is linked and amenity requires proposals for minerals activities. Effects may also be population of rare &c to the A35 (the main route for traffic to and from the site) crosses and waste developments to demonstrate that associated with any development species of wetland the Ramsar site in a number of areas. These units of the Dorset they would not have unacceptable pollution Appendices taking place on the site after flora and invertebrates. Heaths SSSI are generally in unfavourable condition, and although impacts. extraction activities have ceased. it is not clear whether their condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. The Strategic Transport Assessment (FINAL) found that the development of the Roeshot sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Of these estimated traffic movements, 80% are expected to travel west along the A35 into Dorset, with the remaining Se 20% travelling east along the A35. The westbound A35 connects to pt the A338; therefore a proportion of the 80% of vehicle movements 2013 on this road may connect onto the A338 and therefore cross fragments of the Ramsar site. Based on the existing traffic movements on the A35 west of the Roeshot site (12 hour average of 18,378 vehicles), increase in traffic on that road is very small, at 0.4%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A338 is likely to be significantly less as only a proportion (if any) of the vehicle movements would connect onto this road from the A35. It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased air pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts Avon Valley SPA The Plan specifies that the Roeshot site is to be restored for The intention to restore the site to agriculture Yes agricultural use with some access and biodiversity elements. Although after extraction has ceased but including (qualifying features as this may result in increased recreation activities near to this SPA, it some access elements may offer some long Restoration of minerals sites after above) would also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this term opportunities to relieve any recreation extraction has ceased often and other European sites by providing additional recreation space pressure at nearby European sites. involves creating sites for in the area. recreation use which can impact on The development considerations for the
European sites as a result of Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set Habitats physical disturbance (e.g. from The Roeshot site has a by-way running through the centre of the site out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the erosion/trampling) as well as (no. 737), and it is adjacent to a bridleway to the north of the site. requirement for Public Rights of Way contributing to other types of Users of these routes may be displaced if the amenity of these routes (Byways Nos. 736, 737, 734a) to be R
impacts assessed above, such as is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, the safeguarded. egulations noise pollution. chances of this leading to additional pressure on the Avon Valley SPA in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the different characteristics of the SPA to the area around Roeshot . Assessment
Recreation-related impacts Avon Valley Ramsar The Plan specifies that the Roeshot site is to be restored for The intention to restore the site to agriculture Yes site agricultural use with some access and biodiversity elements. Although after extraction has ceased but including this may result in increased recreation activities near to this Ramsar some access elements may offer some long R
Restoration of minerals sites after (qualifying features as site, it would also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure term opportunities to relieve any recreation ecord extraction has ceased often above) on this and other European sites by providing additional recreation pressure at nearby European sites. involves creating sites for space in the area. recreation use which can impact on The development considerations for the Appendices European sites as a result of The Roeshot site has a by-way running through the centre of the site Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set physical disturbance (e.g. from (no. 737), and is adjacent to a bridleway to the north of the site. out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the erosion/trampling) as well as Users of these routes may be displaced if the amenity of these routes requirement for Public Rights of Way contributing to other types of is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, the (Byways Nos. 736, 737, 734a) to be impacts assessed above, such as chances of this leading to additional pressure on the Avon Valley safeguarded. (FINAL) noise pollution. Ramsar site in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the different characteristics of the Ramsar site to the area around Roeshot. Se pt 2013 281 282 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts River Avon SAC The Plan specifies that the Roeshot site is to be restored for The intention to restore the site to agriculture Yes Assessment agricultural use with some access and biodiversity elements. Although after extraction has ceased but including (qualifying features as this may result in increased recreation activities near to this SAC, it some access elements may offer some long Restoration of minerals sites after above) would also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this term opportunities to relieve any recreation extraction has ceased often and other European sites by providing additional recreation space pressure at nearby European sites. R
involves creating sites for in the area. ecord recreation use which can impact on The development considerations for the European sites as a result of The Roeshot site has a by-way running through the centre of the site Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set physical disturbance (e.g. from (no. 737), and is adjacent to a bridleway to the north of the site. out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the Appendices erosion/trampling) as well as Users of these routes may be displaced if the amenity of these routes requirement for Public Rights of Way contributing to other types of is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, the (Byways Nos. 736, 737, 734a) to be impacts assessed above, such as chances of this leading to additional pressure on the River Avon safeguarded. noise pollution. SAC in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the different characteristics of the SAC to the area around Roeshot (FINAL) .
Recreation-related impacts New Forest SAC The Plan specifies that the Roeshot site is to be restored for The intention to restore the site to agriculture Yes Se agricultural use with some access and biodiversity elements. Although after extraction has ceased but including pt (qualifying features as this may result in increased recreation activities near to this SAC, it some access elements may offer some long 2013 Restoration of minerals sites after above) would also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this term opportunities to relieve any recreation extraction has ceased often and other European sites by providing additional recreation space pressure at nearby European sites. involves creating sites for in the area. recreation use which can impact on The development considerations for the European sites as a result of The Roeshot site has a by-way running through the centre of the site Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set physical disturbance (e.g. from (no. 737), and is adjacent to a bridleway to the north of the site. out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the erosion/trampling) as well as Users of these routes may be displaced if the amenity of these routes requirement for Public Rights of Way contributing to other types of is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, the (Byways Nos. 736, 737, 734a) to be impacts assessed above, such as chances of this leading to additional pressure on the New Forest safeguarded. noise pollution. SAC in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the far larger scale of the New Forest SAC – any additional pressure from reduced amenity along these small routes is unlikely to have a significant effect on levels of recreation within the SAC as a whole. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts New Forest SPA The Plan specifies that the Roeshot site is to be restored for The intention to restore the site to agriculture Yes agricultural use with some access and biodiversity elements. Although after extraction has ceased but including (qualifying features as this may result in increased recreation activities near to this SPA, it some access elements may offer some long Restoration of minerals sites after above) would also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this term opportunities to relieve any recreation extraction has ceased often and other European sites by providing additional recreation space pressure at nearby European sites. involves creating sites for in the area. recreation use which can impact on The development considerations for the
European sites as a result of The Roeshot site has a by-way running through the centre of the site Roeshot sand and gravel extraction site (set Habitats physical disturbance (e.g. from (no. 737), and is adjacent to a bridleway to the north of the site. out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the erosion/trampling) as well as Users of these routes may be displaced if the amenity of these routes requirement for Public Rights of Way contributing to other types of is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, the (Byways Nos. 736, 737, 734a) to be R
impacts assessed above, such as chances of this leading to additional pressure on the New Forest safeguarded. egulations noise pollution. SPA in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the far larger scale of the New Forest SPA – any additional pressure from reduced amenity along these small routes is unlikely to have a significant effect on levels of recreation within the SPA as a whole. Assessment
Recreation-related impacts New Forest Ramsar The Plan specifies that the Roeshot site is to be restored for The intention to restore the site to agriculture Yes site agricultural use with some access and biodiversity elements. Although after extraction has ceased but including this may result in increased recreation activities near to this Ramsar some access elements may offer some long R
Restoration of minerals sites after (qualifying features as site, it would also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure term opportunities to relieve any recreation ecord extraction has ceased often above) on this and other European sites by providing additional recreation pressure at nearby European sites. involves creating sites for space in the area. recreation use which can impact on The development considerations for the Appendices European sites as a result of The Roeshot site has a by-way running through the centre of the site Roeshot Hill sand and gravel extraction site physical disturbance (e.g. from (no. 737), and is adjacent to a bridleway to the north of the site. (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include erosion/trampling) as well as Users of these routes may be displaced if the amenity of these routes the requirement for Public Rights of Way contributing to other types of is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, the (Byways Nos. 736, 737, 734a) to be impacts assessed above, such as chances of this leading to additional pressure on the New Forest safeguarded. (FINAL) noise pollution. Ramsar site in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the far larger scale of the New Forest Ramsar site – any additional pressure from reduced amenity along these small routes is unlikely to have a significant effect on levels of recreation within Se the Ramsar site as a whole. pt 2013 283 284 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with is and qualifying other Plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Dust Avon Valley All of these European sites are located more than 500m from the Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes Assessment SPA/Ramsar site, Roeshot sand and gravel site; therefore dust effects would not be and amenity requires proposals for minerals River Avon SAC, expected to affect site integrity, particularly considering the relatively and waste developments to demonstrate that Dust deposition on ground and New Forest SAC and small size of the extraction site. In addition, the relatively high they would not have unacceptable pollution water from extraction activities can New Forest moisture content of sand and gravel deposits means that dust impacts. R
lead to contamination at nearby SPA/Ramsar site. generation is likely to be lower than at other types of extraction sites. ecord European sites. (qualifying features as above) Appendices
Soil Contamination Avon Valley Due to the distance between the Roeshot sand and gravel site and Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety Yes SPA/Ramsar site, these European sites, it is considered unlikely that any significant and amenity requires proposals for minerals River Avon SAC, effects will result from soil contamination, particularly as the site and waste developments to demonstrate that (FINAL) Soil contamination can result from New Forest SAC and would be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table. In addition, strict they would not have unacceptable pollution various onsite activities including New Forest environmental controls would apply at the site, e.g. in relation to the impacts. industrial processes (e.g. those SPA/Ramsar site. disposal of waste water. involving fuels, oils and solvents) Se and landfill operation (e.g. (qualifying features as pt leachate). above) 2013 D.6 Purple Haze
Table D.14 Purple Haze (soft sand, sharp sand and gravel and reserved for landfill)
Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Purple Haze (soft sand, sharp sand and gravel and reserved for landfill)
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat River Avon SAC The Purple Haze site lies more than 500m outside of the N/A Yes Habitats boundaries of this SAC, and the qualifying features of the • Water courses of plain to SAC are not likely to be affected by offsite habitat loss New minerals extraction or landfill sites can lead to loss montane levels with the or disturbance as a result of minerals-related development
of habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of landtake Ranunculion fluitantis and at Purple Haze - the Desmoulin’s whorl snail lives in R and associated infrastructure development. Callitricho-Batrachion wetland habitats such as marshes and swamps, which egulations vegetation Purple Haze is not, and the other qualifying species are • Desmoulin’s whorl snail most likely to be confined to locations within the river • Sea lamprey system within which the SAC is located, and this does
• Atlantic salmon not extend as far as Purple Haze. Assessment • Bullhead
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Avon Valley SPA Although the Purple Haze site lies more than 500m Policy 3: Protection and Yes
outside of the boundaries of this SPA, and so sand and enhancement of habitats R • Gadwall gravel extraction or landfill here would not result in any and species requires ecord New minerals extraction or landfill sites can lead to loss • Bewick’s swan direct physical loss of habitat, it is possible that the birds minerals and waste proposals
of habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of landtake which are the qualifying features of the SPA may be to not have significant Appendices and associated infrastructure development. affected by disturbance to offsite breeding, foraging or adverse effects on European roosting areas if any are located within or adjacent to the sites. Purple Haze site. Although the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and feeding sites of these bird
species are unknown, they are likely to extend beyond the (FINAL) boundaries of the SPA; therefore adverse impacts relating to disturbance of bird species by activities at the Purple Haze site cannot be ruled out. Se pt 2013 285 286 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
However, these bird species are not known for feeding The development Assessment on forested heathland/scrubby heath as they generally considerations for the Purple rely on flood meadows or marginal habitats, and avoid Haze site (set out in areas where no clear sightlines are available (avoidance Appendix A of the Plan) of predation). It is therefore unlikely that this site would include the protection of R
form an important or significant offsite foraging area for Avon Valley SPA interests in ecord qualifying species. particular. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite Appendices foraging of the qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. (FINAL) Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Avon Valley Ramsar site Although the Purple Haze site lies more than 500m Policy 3: Protection and Yes outside of the boundaries of this Ramsar site, and so sand enhancement of habitats • The site shows a greater and gravel extraction or landfill here would not result in and species requires New minerals extraction or landfill sites can lead to loss range of habitats than any any direct physical loss of habitat, it is possible that the minerals and waste proposals Se of habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of landtake other chalk river in Britain, birds which are amongst the qualifying features of the to not have undue adverse pt and associated infrastructure development. including fen, mire, lowland Ramsar site may be affected by disturbance to offsite effects on European sites. 2013 wet grassland and small areas breeding, foraging or roosting areas if any are located of woodland. within or adjacent to the Purple Haze site. Although the The development • The site supports a diverse specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and feeding considerations for the Purple assemblage of wetland flora sites of these bird species are unknown, they are likely to Haze site (set out in and fauna including several extend beyond the boundaries of the Ramsar site; Appendix A of the Plan) nationally rare species. therefore adverse impacts relating to disturbance of bird include the protection of • Gadwall species by activities at the Purple Haze site cannot be Avon Valley Ramsar in • Northern pintail ruled out. particular. It also includes a • Black-tailed godwit requirement for the However, these bird species are not known for feeding consideration of the offsite on forested heathland/scrubby heath as they generally foraging of the qualifying rely on flood meadows or marginal habitats, and avoid species of birds of nearby areas where no clear sightlines are available (avoidance SPA/Ramsars. of predation). It is therefore unlikely that this site would form an important or significant offsite foraging area for qualifying species. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Dorset Heaths SAC Although the Purple Haze site lies within 500m of the N/A Yes boundaries of the SAC, the qualifying features of the SAC • Northern Atlantic wet are not transient species which may be affected by offsite New minerals extraction or landfill sites can lead to loss heaths with cross-leaved disturbance. However, the hydrological connection to the of habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of landtake heath. SAC may be affected, and changes to this regime may and associated infrastructure development. lead to habitat change or loss. This is discussed below. • European dry heaths Habitats • Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion R egulations
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Dorset Heathlands SPA Although the Purple Haze site lies outside of the Policy 3: Protection and Yes boundaries of this SPA, and so sand and gravel extraction enhancement of habitats • European Nightjar or landfill here would not result in any direct physical loss and species requires Assessment New minerals extraction or landfill sites can lead to loss of habitat, it is possible that the birds which are the minerals and waste proposals of habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of landtake • Hen Harrier qualifying features of the SPA may be affected by to not have undue adverse and associated infrastructure development. disturbance to offsite breeding, foraging or roosting areas effects on European sites. • Merlin if any are located within or adjacent to the Purple Haze site. The particularly close proximity of fragments of the The development R
• Woodlark SPA to the boundary of the Purple Haze site increases considerations for the Purple ecord the potential for such effects - Ebblake Bog SSSI lies only Haze site (set out in • Dartford Warbler 200m to the west of Purple Haze and is already classed Appendix A of the Plan) as being in unfavourable condition, meaning that any include the protection the Appendices disturbance to bird species from extraction activities or Dorset Heathlands SPA in landfill could be particularly harmful to the integrity of particular. It also includes a the SPA. requirement for the consideration of the offsite Although the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging of the qualifying (FINAL) foraging and feeding sites of these bird species are species of birds of nearby unknown, they are likely to extend beyond the boundaries SPA/Ramsars. of the SPA; therefore adverse impacts relating to Se disturbance of bird species by activities at the Purple Haze pt site cannot be ruled out. 2013 287 288 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Given the distance from the SPA, it is likely that only The implementation plan for Assessment nightjar, merlin and hen harrier would utilise the area, and Policy 30 requires that for it is sub-optimal habitat for foraging merlin (not 'open'). this site, the area to be Minimising the area being worked, and phased approach worked at any one time will to work and restored, should result only in temporary need to be minimised (by R
disturbance, followed by long-term gain as open heathland utilising progressive ecord will provided optimal foraging habitat for all of these restoration and a reduced species 'open' area), with potentially compensatory areas of Appendices In addition, the hydrological connection to the SPA may greenspace being provided. be affected, and changes to this regime may lead to habitat change or loss. This is discussed below. (FINAL) Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Dorset Heathlands The Purple Haze site lies outside of the Ramsar site N/A Yes Ramsar site boundaries, and the qualifying features of the Ramsar site are not transient bird species which may be affected by New minerals extraction or landfill sites can lead to loss • Dwarf shrub heath - offsite disturbance. However, the hydrological connection Se of habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of landtake lowland to the Ramsar may be affected, and changes to this regime pt and associated infrastructure development. may lead to habitat change or loss. This is discussed 2013 • Fen, marsh and swamp below.
• Assemblage and population of rare species of wetland flora and invertebrates.
Noise pollution and vibration River Avon SAC The Purple Haze site is located more than 500m from N/A Yes the boundaries of this SAC; therefore the qualifying (Qualifying features as features and site integrity is not likely to be affected by above) noise pollution or vibration. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities associated with landfill and sand and gravel extraction during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site. Habitats
Noise pollution and vibration Avon Valley SPA The Purple Haze site is located more than 500m from Policy 10: Protecting public Yes R
the boundaries of the SPA and so sand and gravel health, safety and amenity egulations (Qualifying features as extraction or landfill here would not result in any direct requires proposals for Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities above) noise pollution or vibration, it is possible that the birds minerals and waste associated with landfill and sand and gravel extraction • Bewick’s swan which are amongst the qualifying features of the SPA may developments to demonstrate during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site be affected by noise or vibration at offsite breeding, that they would not have excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles • Gadwell foraging or roosting areas if any are located within or unacceptable pollution Assessment transporting aggregates and machinery associated with adjacent to the Purple Haze site. Although the specific impacts. crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain locations of offsite roosting, foraging and breeding sites after-uses, for example if development occurs on the of these bird species are unknown, they are likely to The development site. extend beyond the boundaries of the SPA; therefore considerations for the Purple R
adverse effects relating to disturbance of bird species by Haze site (set out in ecord activities at the Purple Haze site cannot be ruled out. Appendix A of the Plan) include reference to protect However, these bird species are not known for feeding the amenity of nearby Appendices on forested heathland/scrubby heath as they generally residents. These measures rely on flood meadows or marginal habitats, and avoid should also help to ensure areas where no clear sightlines are available (avoidance that noise and dust do not of predation). It is therefore unlikely that this site would affect the SPA bird form an important or significant offsite foraging area for populations. (FINAL) qualifying species. Se pt 2013 289 290 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
The development Assessment considerations for the Purple Haze site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the protection the R
Dorset Heathlands SPA in ecord particular. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite Appendices foraging of the qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. (FINAL) Noise pollution and vibration Avon Valley Ramsar site The Purple Haze site is located more than 500m from The development Yes the boundaries of the Ramsar site and so sand and gravel considerations for the Purple (Qualifying features as extraction or landfill here would not result in any direct Haze site (set out in Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities above) noise pollution or vibration, it is possible that the birds Appendix A of the Plan) Se associated with landfill and sand and gravel extraction which are amongst the qualifying features of the Ramsar include reference to protect pt during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site • Bewick’s swan site may be affected by noise or vibration at offsite the amenity of nearby 2013 excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles breeding, foraging or roosting areas if any are located residents. These measures transporting aggregates and machinery associated with • Gadwell within or adjacent to the Purple Haze site. Although the should also help to ensure crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and that noise and dust do not after-uses, for example if development occurs on the • Black tailed godwit breeding sites of these bird species are unknown, they are affect the Ramsar bird site. likely to extend beyond the boundaries of the Ramsar populations. site; therefore adverse effects relating to disturbance of bird species by activities at the Purple Haze site cannot be ruled out.
However, these bird species are not known for feeding on forested heathland/scrubby heath as they generally rely on flood meadows or marginal habitats, and avoid areas where no clear sightlines are available (avoidance of predation). It is therefore unlikely that this site would form an important or significant offsite foraging area for qualifying species. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration Dorset Heaths SAC Although the Purple Haze site is located within 500m of N/A Yes the boundaries of this SAC, the qualifying features are (Qualifying features as mainly habitats which would not be affected by noise Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities above) pollution and vibration. associated with landfill and sand and gravel extraction during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with Habitats crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site. R egulations
Noise pollution and vibration Dorset Heathlands SPA The qualifying features of this SPA are bird species, which Policy 10: Protecting public Yes are particularly vulnerable to noise pollution and vibration, health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as and the Purple Haze site is located within 500m of the requires proposals for Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities above) SPA (some fragments of the SPA such as Ebblake Bog minerals and waste Assessment associated with landfill and sand and gravel extraction SSSI are as close as 200m from the site); therefore adverse developments to demonstrate during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site impacts from noise and vibration associated with sand that they would not have excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles and gravel extraction and/or landfill operations cannot unacceptable pollution transporting aggregates and machinery associated with be ruled out. However, this will be affected by currently impacts. R
crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain uncertain factors such as exact nature of onsite activities ecord after-uses, for example if development occurs on the and the hours of operation, which will not be known until The development site. the planning application stage. The development considerations for the Purple considerations will ensure that sufficient area to the north Haze site (set out in Appendices of the allocated site is provided to protect the amenity of Appendix A of the Plan) local residents. This will have an added benefit of include reference to protect providing further buffer to the SPA, that will allow scope the amenity of nearby for the requirements set out in Policy 10 residents. These measures should also help to ensure (FINAL) that noise and dust do not affect the SPA bird populations. Se pt 2013 291 292 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration Dorset Heathlands Although the Purple Haze site is located within 500m of N/A Yes Assessment Ramsar site this Ramsar site, the qualifying features are mainly habitats which would not be affected by noise pollution and Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities (Qualifying features as vibration. associated with landfill and sand and gravel extraction above) R
during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site ecord excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain Appendices after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site.
Light pollution River Avon SAC This SAC is located more than 500m from the Purple N/A Yes (FINAL) Haze site; therefore site integrity is not likely to be affected (Qualifying features as by light pollution. Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting on above) site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from Se and within the site. pt 2013
Light pollution Avon Valley SPA The Purple Haze site is located more than 500m from Policy 10: Protecting public Yes the boundaries of the SPA and so sand and gravel health, safety and amenity Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting on (Qualifying features as extraction or landfill here would not result in any direct requires proposals for site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from above) light pollution, however, it is possible that the birds which minerals and waste and within the site. are amongst the qualifying features of the SPA may be developments to demonstrate affected by light pollution at offsite breeding, foraging or that they would not have roosting areas if any are located within or adjacent to the unacceptable lighting Purple Haze site. Although the specific locations of impacts. offsite roosting, foraging and breeding sites of these bird species are unknown, they are likely to extend beyond the boundaries of the SPA; therefore adverse effects relating to light disturbance of bird species by activities at the Purple Haze site cannot be ruled out. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
The development considerations for the Purple Haze site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include reference to protect the Avon Valley SPA. It also includes a requirement for
the consideration of the Habitats offsite foraging of the qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. R egulations
Light pollution Avon Valley Ramsar site The Purple Haze site is located more than 500m from Policy 10: Protecting public Yes the boundaries of the Ramsar site and so sand and gravel health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as extraction or landfill here would not result in any direct requires proposals for Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting on above) light pollution, however, it is possible that the birds which minerals and waste Assessment site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from are amongst the qualifying features of the Ramsar site developments to demonstrate and within the site. may be affected by light pollution at offsite breeding, that they would not have foraging or roosting areas if any are located within or unacceptable pollution adjacent to the Purple Haze site. Although the specific impacts. R
locations of offsite roosting, foraging and breeding sites ecord of these bird species are unknown, they are likely to The development extend beyond the boundaries of the Ramsar site; considerations for the Purple therefore adverse effects relating to light disturbance of Haze site (set out in Appendices bird species by activities at the Purple Haze site cannot Appendix A of the Plan) be ruled out. include reference to protect the Avon Valley Ramsar. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the (FINAL) offsite foraging of the qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. Se pt 2013 293 294 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Light pollution Dorset Heaths SAC The Purple Haze site is located within 500m of this SAC. N/A Yes Assessment However, the qualifying features are mainly habitats and (Qualifying features as are not known to be sensitive to light pollution. Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting on above) site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from R
and within the site. ecord
Light pollution Dorset Heathlands SPA The Purple Haze site is located within 500m of this SPA, Policy 10: Protecting public Yes Appendices with some fragments as close as 200m from the site health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as (Ebblake Bog SSSI) and the qualifying bird species are requires proposals for Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting on above) sensitive to visual disturbances, therefore adverse impacts minerals and waste site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from in relation to light pollution cannot be ruled out. developments to demonstrate and within the site. However, this will be affected by currently uncertain that they would not have (FINAL) factors such as the hours of site operation and the extent unacceptable pollution of artificial lighting use onsite, which will not be known impacts. until the planning application stage. The development Se considerations for the Purple pt Haze site (set out in 2013 Appendix A of the Plan) include reference to protect the Dorset Heathlands SPA. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of the qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars.
Light pollution Dorset Heathlands The Purple Haze site is located within 500m of this N/A Yes Ramsar site Ramsar site; however, the qualifying features are mainly habitats and are not known to be sensitive to light Light pollution can be caused by artificial lighting on (Qualifying features as pollution. site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from above) and within the site. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels River Avon SAC The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime Consultation with the Yes is required to maintain the integrity of this SAC. The Environment Agency with (Qualifying features as Purple Haze site is located approximately 1.2km to the regards to any planning Activities associated with sand and gravel extraction can above) west of the River Avon SAC, and there are no other rivers application coming forward affect water levels in a variety of ways, including drying, flowing from closer to the site into the River Avon. at this site should help to flooding/storm water, changes in water level and However, the Purple Haze site overlies a secondary ensure that adverse impacts stability, changes in surface water flow and groundwater aquifer in common with the SAC. Although this on the water environment are flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above avoided. Habitats can result from operational activities as well as certain the water table as the allocation (4 million tonnes within after uses. the plan period) has been based on a calculation on the The development basis of dry working (unless other method can be used considerations for this sand R
that do not impact the hydrology of the area), it is not and gravel site (set out in egulations known whether sand and gravel processing (which may Appendix A of the Plan) require water abstraction) will take place onsite or ‘protect the water quality and elsewhere. Exact details of the hydrological connectivity recharge of the underlying between the SAC and the Purple Haze site is uncertain aquifer, ground water and the until more detailed site specific information and data is surface water, Assessment submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). R ecord Changes to water levels Avon Valley SPA The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime Consultation with the Yes is required to maintain the integrity of this SPA. The Environment Agency with (Qualifying features as Purple Haze site is located approximately 1.2km to the regards to any planning Appendices Activities associated with sand and gravel extraction can above) west of the Avon Valley SPA, and there are no other application coming forward affect water levels in a variety of ways, including drying, rivers flowing from closer to the site into the River Avon. at this site should help to flooding/storm water, changes in water level and However, the Purple Haze site overlies a secondary ensure that adverse impacts stability, changes in surface water flow and groundwater aquifer in common with the SPA. Although this on the water environment are flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above avoided. (FINAL) can result from operational activities as well as certain the water table as the allocation (4 million tonnes within after uses. the plan period) has been based on a calculation on the Se pt 2013 295 296 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
basis of dry working(unless other methods can be used The development Assessment that do not impact the hydrology of the area), it is not considerations for this sand known whether processing (which may require water and gravel site (set out in abstraction) will take place onsite or elsewhere. Exact Appendix A of the Plan) details of the hydrological connectivity between the SPA ‘protect the water quality and R
and the Purple Haze site is uncertain until more detailed recharge of the underlying ecord site specific information and data is submitted with aquifer, ground water and the planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth surface water. and extent of excavation, and data from investigation Appendices works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient).
Changes to water levels Avon Valley Ramsar site The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime Consultation with the Yes
is required to maintain the integrity of this Ramsar site. Environment Agency with (FINAL) (Qualifying features as The Purple Haze site is located approximately 1.2km to regards to any planning Activities associated with sand and gravel extraction can above) the west of the Avon Valley Ramsar site and there are no application coming forward affect water levels in a variety of ways, including drying, other rivers flowing from closer to the site into the River at this site should help to flooding/storm water, changes in water level and Avon. However, the Purple Haze site overlies a secondary ensure that adverse impacts Se stability, changes in surface water flow and groundwater aquifer in common with the Ramsar site. Although this on the water environment are pt flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above avoided. 2013 can result from operational activities as well as certain the water table as the allocation (4 million tonnes within after uses. the plan period) has been based on a calculation on the The development basis of dry working (unless other method can be used considerations for this sand that do not impact the hydrology of the area), it is not and gravel site (set out in known whether processing (which may require water Appendix A of the Plan) abstraction) will take place onsite or elsewhere. Exact ‘protect the water quality and details of the hydrological connectivity between the recharge of the underlying Ramsar site and the Purple Haze site is uncertain until aquifer, ground water and the more detailed site specific information and data is surface water. submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Dorset Heaths SAC The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime Consultation with the Yes is required to maintain the integrity of this SAC. The Environment Agency with (Qualifying features as Purple Haze site is located approximately 200m to the regards to any planning Activities associated with sand and gravel extraction can above) east of the nearest fragment of the Dorset Heaths SAC, application coming forward affect water levels in a variety of ways, including drying, and the Purple Haze site overlies a secondary aquifer in at this site should help to flooding/storm water, changes in water level and common with the SAC. It is likely that there is ensure that adverse impacts stability, changes in surface water flow and groundwater connection to the hydrological regime of the nearby on the water environment are flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes Ebblake bog within the red line area or close by. avoided. Habitats can result from operational activities as well as certain Although this extraction site is expected to be worked after uses. ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table as the allocation (4 million The development tonnes within the plan period) has been based on a considerations for this sand R
calculation on the basis of dry working(unless other and gravel site (set out in egulations method can be used that do not impact the hydrology of Appendix A of the Plan) the area), uncertainty with respect to the scale and scope ‘protect the water quality and of impacts exists as it is not known whether processing recharge of the underlying of sand and gravel (which may require water abstraction) aquifer, ground water and the will take place onsite or elsewhere. surface water. Assessment
Exact details of the hydrological connectivity between the SAC and the Purple Haze site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted R
with planning applications. No further information is ecord available at this stage of the planning process, as only detailed borehole data would provided further detail on groundwater flows and connectivity, which is considered Appendices unreasonable and preemptive level of detail. Given the land ownership of the area, data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient will be straightforward to obtain, and will inform the extent and scale of extraction at this site in order to (FINAL) prevent impacts to hydrological regimes that support the SAC. Se pt 2013 297 298 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Dorset Heathlands SPA The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime Consultation with the Yes Assessment is required to maintain the integrity of this SPA. The Environment Agency with (Qualifying features as Purple Haze site is located approximately 200m to the regards to any planning Activities associated with sand and gravel extraction can above) east of the nearest fragment of the SPA, and the Purple application coming forward affect water levels in a variety of ways, including drying, Haze site overlies a secondary aquifer in common with at this site should help to R
flooding/storm water, changes in water level and the SPA. It is likely that there is connection to the ensure that adverse impacts ecord stability, changes in surface water flow and groundwater hydrological regime of the nearby Ebblake bog within on the water environment are flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes the red line area or close by. Although this extraction site avoided. can result from operational activities as well as certain is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table Appendices after uses. as the allocation (4 million tonnes within the plan period) The development has been based on a calculation on the basis of dry considerations for this sand working (unless other method can be used that do not and gravel site (set out in impact the hydrology of the area), uncertainty with respect Appendix A of the Plan) to the scale and scope of impacts exists as it is not known ‘protect the water quality and (FINAL) whether processing of sand and gravel (which may require recharge of the the water abstraction) will take place onsite or elsewhere. underlying aquifer, ground water and surface water'. Exact details of the hydrological connectivity between Se the SPA and the Purple Haze site is uncertain until more pt detailed site specific information and data is submitted 2013 with planning applications. No further information is available at this stage of the planning process, as only detailed borehole data would provided further detail on groundwater flows and connectivity, which is considered unreasonable and a preemptive level of detail. Given the land ownership of the area, data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient will be straightforward to obtain, and will inform the extent and scale of extraction at this site in order to prevent impacts to hydrological regimes that support the SAC. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Dorset Heathlands The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime Consultation with the Yes Ramsar site is required to maintain the integrity of this Ramsar. The Environment Agency with Purple Haze site is located approximately 200m to the regards to any planning Activities associated with sand and gravel extraction can (Qualifying features as east of the nearest fragment of the Dorset Heaths SAC, application coming forward affect water levels in a variety of ways, including drying, above) and the Purple Haze site overlies a secondary aquifer in at this site should help to flooding/storm water, changes in water level and common with the Ramsar. It is likely that there is ensure that adverse impacts stability, changes in surface water flow and groundwater connection to the hydrological regime of the nearby on the water environment are flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes Ebblake bog within the red line area or close by. avoided. Habitats can result from operational activities as well as certain Although this extraction site is expected to be worked after uses. ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table as the allocation (4 million The development tonnes within the plan period) has been based on a considerations for this sand R
calculation on the basis of dry working (unless other and gravel site (set out in egulations method can be used that do not impact the hydrology of Appendix A of the Plan) the area), uncertainty with respect to the scale and scope ‘protect the water quality and of impacts exists as it is not known whether processing recharge of the underlying of sand and gravel (which may require water abstraction) aquifer ground water and the will take place onsite or elsewhere. surface water'. Assessment
Exact details of the hydrological connectivity between the Ramsar and the Purple Haze site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is R
submitted with planning applications. No further ecord information is available at this stage of the planning process, as only detailed borehole data would provided further detail on groundwater flows and connectivity, Appendices which is considered unreasonable and preemptive level of detail. Given the land ownership of the area, data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient will be straightforward to obtain, and will inform the extent and scale of extraction (FINAL) at this site in order to prevent impacts to hydrological regimes that support the Ramsar. Se pt 2013 299 300 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality River Avon SAC The qualifying features of this site are known to be Policy 10: Protecting public Yes Assessment sensitive to changes in water quality. The fairly close health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as proximity of the Purple Haze site to the SAC and the fact requires proposals for Water quality can be affected by sand and gravel above) that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the minerals and waste extraction during preparatory works, operational SAC indicates that water quality impacts as a result of developments to demonstrate R
activities and after-use of the site, for example as a result sand and gravel extraction or landfill here cannot be ruled that they would not have ecord of ground investigation works, industrial processes out. However, the Purple Haze sand and gravel extraction unacceptable pollution within a site, dewatering or development/reclamation site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water impacts. of a site after extraction has ceased. table) as the allocation (4 million tonnes within the plan Appendices period) has been based on a calculation on the basis of The development dry working (unless other methods can be used that do considerations for this sand not impact the hydrology of the area). All extraction and and gravel site (set out in landfill operations would need to adhere to Environment Appendix A of the Plan) Agency permitting standards. In addition, the ‘protect the water quality and (FINAL) Environment Agency would be consulted on any planning recharge of the underlying application coming forward at this site and would set the aquifer ground water and the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction would surface water’. be permitted to take place without causing harm to the Se water environment. However, hydrological connectivity Consultation with the pt between the SAC and the site is uncertain until more Environment Agency with 2013 detailed site specific information and data is submitted regards to any planning with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the application coming forward depth and extent of excavation, and data from at this site should help to investigation works to determine actual groundwater ensure that adverse impacts depths, flow and gradient). No further information is on the water environment are available at this stage of the planning process, as only avoided. detailed borehole data would provided further detail on groundwater flows and connectivity, which is considered unreasonable and preemptive level of detail. Given the land ownership of the area, data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient will be straightforward to obtain, and will inform the extent and scale of extraction at this site in order to prevent impacts to hydrological regimes that support the Ramsar. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality Avon Valley SPA The qualifying features of this site are known to be Policy 10: Protecting public Yes sensitive to changes in water quality. The fairly close health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as proximity of the Purple Haze site to the SPA and the fact requires proposals for Water quality can be affected by sand and gravel above) that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the minerals and waste extraction during preparatory works, operational SPA indicates that water quality impacts as a result of developments to demonstrate activities and after-use of the site, for example as a result sand and gravel extraction or landfill here cannot be ruled that they would not have of ground investigation works, industrial processes out. However, the Purple Haze extraction site is expected unacceptable pollution within a site, dewatering or development/reclamation to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) as the impacts. Habitats of a site after extraction has ceased. allocation (4 million tonnes within the plan period) has been based on a calculation on the basis of dry working. The development All extraction and landfill operations would need to considerations for this sand R
adhere to Environment Agency permitting standards. In and gravel site (set out in egulations addition, the Environment Agency would be consulted Appendix A of the Plan) on any planning application coming forward at this site ‘protect the water quality and and would set the boundaries within which sand and recharge of the underlying gravel extraction would be permitted to take place without aquifer, ground water and the causing harm to the water environment. However, surface water’. Assessment hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information Consultation with the and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. Environment Agency with proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, regards to any planning R
and data from investigation works to determine actual application coming forward ecord groundwater depths, flow and gradient). No further at this site should help to information is available at this stage of the planning ensure that adverse impacts process, as only detailed borehole data would provided on the water environment are Appendices further detail on groundwater flows and connectivity, avoided. which is considered unreasonable and preemptive level of detail. Given the land ownership of the area, data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient will be straightforward to (FINAL) obtain, and will inform the extent and scale of extraction at this site in order to prevent impacts to hydrological regimes that support the Ramsar. Se pt 2013 301 302 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality Avon Valley Ramsar site The qualifying features of this site are known to be Policy 10: Protecting public Yes Assessment sensitive to changes in water quality. The fairly close health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as proximity of the Purple Haze site to the Ramsar site and requires proposals for Water quality can be affected by sand and gravel above) the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common minerals and waste extraction during preparatory works, operational with the Ramsar site indicates that water quality impacts developments to demonstrate R
activities and after-use of the site, for example as a result as a result of sand and gravel extraction or landfill here that they would not have ecord of ground investigation works, industrial processes cannot be ruled out. However, the Purple Haze extraction unacceptable pollution within a site, dewatering or development/reclamation site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water impacts. of a site after extraction has ceased. table) as the allocation (4 million tonnes within the plan Appendices period) has been based on a calculation on the basis of The development dry working (unless other methods can be used that do considerations for this sand not impact the hydrology of the area). All extraction and and gravel site (set out in landfill operations would need to adhere to Environment Appendix A of the Plan) Agency permitting standards. In addition, the ‘protect the water quality and (FINAL) Environment Agency would be consulted on any planning recharge of the underlying application coming forward at this site and would set the aquifer, ground water and the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction would surface water’. be permitted to take place without causing harm to the Se water environment. However, hydrological connectivity Consultation with the pt between the Ramsar site and the site is uncertain until Environment Agency with 2013 more detailed site specific information and data is regards to any planning submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals application coming forward regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data at this site should help to from investigation works to determine actual groundwater ensure that adverse impacts depths, flow and gradient). No further information is on the water environment are available at this stage of the planning process, as only avoided. detailed borehole data would provided further detail on groundwater flows and connectivity, which is considered unreasonable and preemptive level of detail. Given the land ownership of the area, data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient will be straightforward to obtain, and will inform the extent and scale of extraction at this site in order to prevent impacts to hydrological regimes that support the Ramsar. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality Dorset Heaths SAC The qualifying features of this site are known to be Policy 10: Protecting public Yes sensitive to changes in water quality. The close proximity health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as of the Purple Haze site to the Ramsar site (some requires proposals for above) fragments are as close as 200m from Purple Haze) and minerals and waste Water quality can be affected by sand and gravel the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common developments to demonstrate extraction during preparatory works, operational with the Ramsar site indicates that water quality impacts that they would not have activities and after-use of the site, for example as a result as a result of sand and gravel extraction or landfill here unacceptable pollution of ground investigation works, industrial processes cannot be ruled out. However, the Purple Haze extraction impacts. Habitats within a site, dewatering or development/reclamation site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water of a site after extraction has ceased. table) (unless other methods can be used that do not The development impact the hydrology of the area) and all extraction and considerations for this sand R
landfill operations would need to adhere to Environment and gravel site (set out in egulations Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Appendix A of the Plan) Environment Agency would be consulted on any planning ‘protect the water quality and application coming forward at this site and would set the recharge of the underlying boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction would aquifer, ground water and the be permitted to take place without causing harm to the surface water’. Assessment water environment. However, hydrological connectivity between the Ramsar site and the extraction site is Consultation with the uncertain until more detailed site specific information and Environment Agency with data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. regards to any planning R
proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, application coming forward ecord and data from investigation works to determine actual at this site should help to groundwater depths, flow and gradient). No further ensure that adverse impacts information is available at this stage of the planning on the water environment are Appendices process, as only detailed borehole data would provided avoided. further detail on groundwater flows and connectivity, which is considered unreasonable and preemptive level of detail. Given the land ownership of the area, data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater (FINAL) depths, flow and gradient will be straightforward to obtain, and will inform the extent and scale of extraction at this site in order to prevent impacts to hydrological regimes that support the Ramsar. Se pt 2013 303 304 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution River Avon SAC Fragments of this SAC are within close proximity of the Policy 10: Protecting public Yes Assessment strategic road network which may be used to reach the health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as Purple Haze site – the A31crosses the Avon Valley requires proposals for above) (Bickton-Christchurch) and River Avon System SSSIs minerals and waste Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic movements (both of which are part of this SAC) to the west of developments to demonstrate R
to and from sand and gravel extraction or landfill sites, Ringwood, and the A338 also crosses the Avon Valley that they would not have ecord and by emissions from onsite activities. Effects may (Bickton-Christchurch) SSSI in a number of places unacceptable pollution also be associated with any development taking place between Fordingbridge and Ringwood. These SSSI units impacts. on the site after extraction activities have ceased. are mainly in unfavourable recovering condition, and Appendices although it is not clear whether this is linked to air quality Opportunities may exist to issues, an increase in deposition of pollutants as a result utilise the existing conveyor of additional vehicle traffic along the A31 and/or A338 system which is in place in may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. the local area to serve existing However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that extraction sites, thus reducing (FINAL) the development of the Purple Haze site is likely to result the use of HGVs. However, in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 this cannot be specified at in and 50 out). Given that access to the site will be via this strategic level. the B3081, which connects to the A31 to the south (which Se in turn connects to the A338), it is considered that a pt reasonable proportion of these 100 additional vehicle 2013 movements will use these routes. However, the baseline traffic data for the B3081 shows that the additional traffic would equate to a small increase of just 1% on the southbound carriageway of that road. The resulting increase on the A31 and A338 would therefore be even smaller as only some of the traffic would connect onto these routes and because they are more major roads with higher vehicle counts to start with (although exact figures were not available for routes other than the B3081). On this basis, it is considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A31 and A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from increased air pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Avon Valley SPA Fragments of this SPA are within close proximity of the Policy 10: Protecting public Yes strategic road network which may be used to reach the health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as Purple Haze site – the A31crosses the Avon Valley requires proposals for Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic movements above) (Bickton-Christchurch) and River Avon System SSSIs minerals and waste to and from sand and gravel extraction or landfill sites, (both of which are part of this SPA) to the west of developments to demonstrate and by emissions from onsite activities. Effects may Ringwood, and the A338 also crosses the Avon Valley that they would not have also be associated with any development taking place (Bickton-Christchurch) SSSI in a number of places unacceptable pollution on the site after extraction activities have ceased. between Fordingbridge and Ringwood. These SSSI units impacts. Habitats are mainly in unfavourable recovering condition, and although it is not clear whether this is linked to air quality Opportunities may exist to issues, an increase in deposition of pollutants as a result utilise the existing conveyor R
of additional vehicle traffic along the A31 and/or A338 system which is in place in egulations may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. the local area to serve existing However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that extraction sites, thus reducing the development of the Purple Haze site is likely to result the use of HGVs. However, in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 this cannot be specified at in and 50 out). Given that access to the site will be via this strategic level. Assessment the B3081, which connects to the A31 to the south (which in turn connects to the A338), it is considered that a reasonable proportion of these 100 additional vehicle movements will use these routes. However, the baseline R
traffic data for the B3081 shows that the additional traffic ecord would equate to a small increase of just 1% on the southbound carriageway of that road. The resulting increase on the A31 and A338 would therefore be even Appendices smaller as only some of the traffic would connect onto these routes and because they are more major roads with higher vehicle counts to start with (although exact figures were not available for routes other than the B3081). On this basis, it is considered that the additional vehicle traffic (FINAL) along the A31 and A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution. Se pt 2013 305 306 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Avon Valley Ramsar site Fragments of this Ramsar site are within close proximity Policy 10: Protecting public Yes Assessment of the strategic road network which may be used to reach health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as the Purple Haze site – the A31crosses the Avon Valley requires proposals for Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic movements above) (Bickton-Christchurch) and River Avon System SSSIs minerals and waste to and from sand and gravel extraction or landfill sites, (both of which are part of this Ramsar site) to the west developments to demonstrate R
and by emissions from onsite activities. Effects may of Ringwood, and the A338 also crosses the Avon Valley that they would not have ecord also be associated with any development taking place (Bickton-Christchurch) SSSI in a number of places unacceptable pollution on the site after extraction activities have ceased. between Fordingbridge and Ringwood. These SSSI units impacts. are mainly in unfavourable recovering condition, and Opportunities may exist to Appendices although it is not clear whether this is linked to air quality utilise the existing conveyor issues, an increase in deposition of pollutants as a result system which is in place in of additional vehicle traffic along the A31 and/or A338 the local area to serve existing may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar extraction sites, thus reducing site. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found the use of HGVs. However, (FINAL) that the development of the Purple Haze site is likely to this cannot be specified at result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per this strategic level. day (50 in and 50 out). Given that access to the site will be via the B3081, which connects to the A31 to the south Se (which in turn connects to the A338), it is considered that pt a reasonable proportion of these 100 additional vehicle 2013 movements will use these routes. However, the baseline traffic data for the B3081 shows that the additional traffic would equate to a small increase of just 1% on the southbound carriageway of that road. The resulting increase on the A31 and A338 would therefore be even smaller as only some of the traffic would connect onto these routes and because they are more major roads with higher vehicle counts to start with (although exact figures were not available for routes other than the B3081). On this basis, it is considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A31 and A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased air pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Dorset Heaths SAC Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental Policy 10: Protecting public Yes conditions required to support the integrity of this site. health, safety and amenity (Qualifying features as Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone requires proposals for Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic movements above) are already exceeding critical loads at this SAC, indicating minerals and waste to and from sand and gravel extraction or landfill sites, that any increase in air pollution from vehicle traffic developments to demonstrate and by emissions from onsite activities. Effects may travelling to and from the Purple Haze site may be that they would not have also be associated with any development taking place particularly harmful. A number of routes in the vicinity unacceptable pollution on the site after extraction activities have ceased. of the site cross fragments of the SAC – the B3081 which impacts. Habitats is the main route to and from the Purple Haze site is Opportunities may exist to directly adjacent to the Verwood Heaths SSSI, the A31 utilise the existing conveyor to the north of Ferndown crosses the Slop Bog and system which is in place in R
Uddens Heath SSSI and the St Leonards and St Ives the local area to serve existing egulations Heaths SSSI is directly adjacent to the A31 and A338 extraction sites, thus reducing where they meet to the south west of Ringwood. These the use of HGVs. However, SSSI units of the Dorset Heaths are mainly in this cannot be specified at unfavourable recovering condition, and although it is not this strategic level. clear whether their condition is linked to air quality issues, Assessment any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the B3081, A338 and/or A31 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment R
found that the development of the Purple Haze site is ecord likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Access to the site will be via the B3081, and because this road connects to the A31 to Appendices the south (which in turn connects to the A338), it is considered that a reasonable proportion of these 100 additional vehicle movements will use these A roads for onward travel. However, the baseline traffic data for the B3081 shows that the additional traffic would equate to (FINAL) a small increase of just 1% on the southbound carriageway Se pt 2013 307 308 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
of that road. The resulting increase on the A31 and A338 Assessment would therefore be even smaller as only some of the traffic would connect onto these routes and because they are more major roads with higher vehicle counts to start with (although exact figures were not available for routes R
other than the B3081). On this basis, it is considered that ecord the additional vehicle traffic along the B3081, A31 and A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from Appendices increased air pollution.
Air pollution Dorset Heathlands SPA Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental Policy 10: Protecting public Yes conditions required to support the integrity of this site. health, safety and amenity
(Qualifying features as Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone requires proposals for (FINAL) above) are already exceeding critical loads at this SPA, indicating minerals and waste Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic movements that any increase in air pollution from vehicle traffic developments to demonstrate to and from sand and gravel extraction or landfill sites, travelling to and from the Purple Haze site may be that they would not have and by emissions from onsite activities. Effects may particularly harmful. A number of routes in the vicinity unacceptable pollution Se also be associated with any development taking place of the site cross fragments of the SPA – the B3081 which impacts. pt on the site after extraction activities have ceased. is the main route to and from the Purple Haze site is Opportunities may exist to 2013 directly adjacent to the Verwood Heaths SSSI, the A31 utilise the existing conveyor to the north of Ferndown crosses the Slop Bog and system which is in place in Uddens Heath SSSI and the St Leonards and St Ives the local area to serve existing Heaths SSSI is directly adjacent to the A31 and A338 extraction sites, thus reducing where they meet to the south west of Ringwood. These the use of HGVs. However, SSSI units of the Dorset Heathlands are mainly in this cannot be specified at unfavourable recovering condition, and although it is not this strategic level. clear whether their condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the B3081, A338 and/or A31 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Purple Haze site is likely to result in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Access to the site will be via the B3081, and because this road connects to the A31 to the Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
south (which in turn connects to the A338), it is considered that a reasonable proportion of these 100 additional vehicle movements will use these A roads for onward travel. However, the baseline traffic data for the B3081 shows that the additional traffic would equate to a small increase of just 1% on the southbound carriageway of that road. The resulting increase on the A31 and A338
would therefore be even smaller as only some of the Habitats traffic would connect onto these routes and because they are more major roads with higher vehicle counts to start with (although exact figures were not available for routes R
other than the B3081). On this basis, it is considered that egulations the additional vehicle traffic along the B3081, A31 and A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution. Assessment
Air pollution Dorset Heathlands Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental Policy 10: Protecting public Yes Ramsar site conditions required to support the integrity of this site. health, safety and amenity Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen deposition and ozone requires proposals for Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic movements (Qualifying features as are already exceeding critical loads at this Ramsar site, minerals and waste R
to and from sand and gravel extraction or landfill sites, above) indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle developments to demonstrate ecord and by emissions from onsite activities. Effects may traffic travelling to and from the Purple Haze site may be that they would not have also be associated with any development taking place particularly harmful. A number of routes in the vicinity unacceptable pollution on the site after extraction activities have ceased. of the site cross fragments of the Ramsar site – the B3081 impacts. Appendices which is the main route to and from the Purple Haze site is directly adjacent to the Verwood Heaths SSSI, and the Opportunities may exist to A31 to the north of Ferndown crosses the Slop Bog and utilise the existing conveyor Uddens Heath SSSI. These SSSI units of the Dorset system which is in place in Heathlands are mainly in unfavourable recovering the local area to serve existing (FINAL) condition, and although it is not clear whether their extraction sites, thus reducing condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in the use of HGVs. However, deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle this cannot be specified at traffic along the B3081, A338 and/or A31 may be this strategic level. Se particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. pt However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that 2013 309 310 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
the development of the Purple Haze site is likely to result Assessment in a total of 100 two-way traffic movements per day (50 in and 50 out). Access to the site will be via the B3081, and because this road connects to the A31 to the south (which in turn connects to the A338), it is considered that R
a reasonable proportion of these 100 additional vehicle ecord movements will use these A roads for onward travel. However, the baseline traffic data for the B3081 shows that the additional traffic would equate to a small increase Appendices of just 1% on the southbound carriageway of that road. The resulting increase on the A31 and A338 would therefore be even smaller as only some of the traffic would connect onto these routes and because they are more major roads with higher vehicle counts to start with (FINAL) (although exact figures were not available for routes other than the B3081). On this basis, it is considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the B3081, A31 and A338 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse Se impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased pt air pollution. 2013
Recreation-related impacts River Avon SAC and Avon This site is known to support a substantial amount of The development Yes Valley SPA/Ramsar site permissive access, that would be at risk of displacement consideration for this site during operations at this site. Ensuring that the current requires that the existing Restoration of minerals sites after extraction has ceased (Qualifying features as level of use is maintained in the local area (and not informal recreation is often involves creating sites for recreation use which above) displaced onto sensitive areas) during operations, by maintained and managed, and can impact on European sites as a result of physical minimising the area disturbed, and by providing alternative that the recreational use of disturbance (e.g. from erosion/trampling) as well as greenspace will be key to this effect not impacting the the Moors Valley Country contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, integrity of the SAC. Though some uncertainty will park is protected and such as noise pollution. remain as existing visitor numbers are unknown, it was enhanced. felt that the assessment required to fully address the issue of alternative greenspace was best left until application stage due to the time that could lapse before the site comes forward, and would be a pre-emptive level of detail at this stage. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
After sand and gravel extraction has ceased, this site is The implementation plan for proposed to be restored by non-hazardous landfill to Policy 20, now states that original ground levels. The site’s final use will include a 'Where recreational combination of deciduous woodland planting, heathland, displacement or similar nature conservation areas, enhanced recreational areas environmental effects are and public open space, linked to the Moors Valley considered an issue, Country Park. As such, the restoration of the site may minimising the area being
lead to increased recreation activities in the vicinity of worked will be a key Habitats these European sites; however all of these sites are located consideration of the some distance from Purple Haze (approximately 1.2km principles of design. Areas of at the closest point) so potential impacts such as noise alternative greenspace may be R
would not be expected to affect them. In addition, the required.' egulations provision of additional recreation space will help to relieve any pressure from recreation on these European sites. Minimising the 'open' Quarry area, and through progressive restoration are ways in which this can be achieved. Assessment
Recreation-related impacts Dorset Heaths SAC and This site is known to support a substantial amount of The development Yes Dorset Heathlands permissive access, that would be at risk of displacement consideration for this site R
SPA/Ramsar site during operations at this site. Ensuring that the current requires that the existing ecord Restoration of minerals sites after extraction has ceased level of use is maintained in the local area (and not informal recreation is often involves creating sites for recreation use which (Qualifying features as displaced onto sensitive areas) during operations, by maintained and managed, and can impact on European sites as a result of physical above) minimising the area disturbed, and by providing alternative that the recreational use of Appendices disturbance (e.g. from erosion/trampling) as well as greenspace will be key to this effect not impacting the the Moors Valley Country contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, integrity of the SAC. Though some uncertainty will park is protected and such as noise pollution. remain as existing visitor numbers are unknown, it was enhanced. felt that the assessments required to fully address the issue of alternative greenspace was best left until application (FINAL) stage due to the time that could lapse before the site comes forward and would be a pre-emptive level of detail at this stage. Se pt 2013 311 312 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
After sand and gravel extraction has ceased, this site is The implementation plan for Assessment proposed to be restored by non-hazardous landfill to Policy 20, now states that original ground levels or by inert fill to agreed level. The 'Where recreational site’s final use will include a combination of deciduous displacement or similar woodland planting, heathland, nature conservation areas, environmental effects are R
enhanced recreational areas and public open space, linked considered an issue, ecord to the Moors Valley Country Park. As such, the minimising the area being restoration of the site may lead to increased recreation worked will be a key activities in the vicinity of these European sites which all consideration of the Appendices have fragments as close as 200m from the Purple Haze principles of design. Areas of site. Impacts such as noise may travel over such alternative greenspace may be distances. These heathland sites are popular uses such as required'. dog walking, and are already under pressure from recreation. However, the provision of additional Any areas identified as being (FINAL) recreation space within close proximity of the heaths will required to counter any help to relieve the existing recreation pressure in the long impacts to the integrity of term. European sites are considered within Policy 3: Protection Se of habitats and species. pt 2013
Dust River Avon SAC and Avon All of these European sites are located more than 500m N/A Yes Valley SPA/Ramsar site from the Purple Haze site; therefore dust effects would not be expected to affect site integrity. Dust deposition on ground and water from extraction (Qualifying features as activities can lead to contamination at nearby European above) sites. Movement of dust particles can also be caused by onsite vehicle movements. Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Dust Dorset Heaths SAC and Although these European sites all lie within 500m of the Policy 10: Protecting public Yes Dorset Heathlands Purple Haze site and could potentially be affected by the health, safety and amenity SPA/Ramsar site impacts of dust, the strict environmental controls that requires proposals for would be in place mean that adverse effects on site minerals and waste Dust deposition on ground and water from extraction (Qualifying features as integrity are not considered likely. In addition, sand and developments to demonstrate activities can lead to contamination at nearby European above) gravel deposits generally have a relatively high moisture that they would not have sites. Movement of dust particles can also be caused content, meaning that levels of dust generation caused by unacceptable pollution by onsite vehicle movements. extraction are likely to be reasonably low. impacts. Habitats
The development considerations for this sand R
and gravel site (set out in egulations Appendix A of the Plan) already include a requirement to protect the amenity of residents and local businesses which should help to reduce Assessment effects on these European sites. R
Soil Contamination River Avon SAC and Avon Although these European sites all lie within 500m of the Policy 10: Protecting public Yes ecord Valley SPA/Ramsar site Purple Haze site and could potentially be affected by soil health, safety and amenity contamination, adverse impacts are not considered likely requires proposals for Soil contamination can result from various onsite (Qualifying features as due to the fact that the site would be worked ‘dry’ i.e. minerals and waste Appendices activities including industrial processes (e.g. those above) above the water table (unless other methods can be used developments to demonstrate involving fuels, oils and solvents) and landfill operation that do not impact the hydrology of the area) and because that they would not have (e.g. leachate). it is likely that (due to the small scale of the site) unacceptable pollution processing would occur offsite. In addition, strict impacts. environmental controls would apply at the site, e.g. in (FINAL) relation to the disposal of waste water. Se pt 2013 313 314 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites potentially Will the mineral development have an adverse effect Mitigation If mitigation affected and qualifying on any European site integrity either alone or in is features combination with other plans or projects implemented, R
can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Soil Contamination Dorset Heaths SAC and Due to the distance between the Purple Haze site and Policy 10: Protecting public Yes Assessment Dorset Heathlands these European sites, it is considered unlikely that any health, safety and amenity SPA/Ramsar site significant effects will result from soil contamination, requires proposals for Soil contamination can result from various onsite particularly as the site would be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above minerals and waste activities including industrial processes (e.g. those (Qualifying features as the water table (unless other methods can be used that developments to demonstrate R
involving fuels, oils and solvents) and landfill operation above) do not impact the hydrology of the area). In addition, that they would not have ecord (e.g. leachate). strict environmental controls would apply at the site, e.g. unacceptable pollution in relation to the disposal of waste water. impacts. Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 D.7 Michelmersh Brickworks
Table D.15 Michelmersh Brickworks, Michelmersh (brick-making clay extraction)
Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is affected and plans or projects implemented, qualifying can adverse features effects on the European site be ruled out?
Michelmersh Brickworks, Michelmersh (brick-making clay extraction)
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Mottisfont The Michelmersh Brickworks site lies more than 2km outside of the Policy 3: Protection and enhancement YES Habitats Bats SAC SAC, and clay extraction here would not result in any direct physical of habitats and species requires minerals loss of habitat within the boundaries of the SAC. However, bats are and waste proposals to prove that there New minerals sites can lead to loss of Barbastelle bats known to travel up to 7.5km away from this SAC for foraging, and will be no significant adverse effects on (48) habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result specific hedgerows tend to be used as ‘flightlines’ . Therefore, it European sites. R of extraction for landtake and associated is possible that the bats may be affected by disturbance to or loss of egulations infrastructure development. offsite foraging or commuting areas as there are areas of pasture and The development considerations for the hedgerows located within the extraction site. extraction at Michelmersh Brickworks site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include
A habitat survey undertaken by the Hampshire Biodiversity a requirement for the consideration of the Assessment Information Centre in 2010 at the adjoining existing Michelmersh foraging and commuting of Mottisfont clay extraction site highlighted hedgerows, native broad-leaved trees bats. This requirement should be expanded and grassland, all of which may be used for foraging and commuting to specify that loss of any hedgerows, by the bat population(49). commuting or foraging areas used by the
Mottisfont bat population should be R avoided within the extraction site, or ecord The potential use by the Mottisfont bat population of any of these replaced above or beyond the length or
habitat features present within the proposed extraction site would area lost. Appendices need to be assessed at the planning application stage for extraction proposals at the Michelmersh Brickworks site. The intention to restore the site after extraction has ceased for “agriculture, biodiversity and amenity uses” may offer
some long term opportunities for new (FINAL) habitat provision to support the bat population. Se pt 2013 48 Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan – Screening Report, Version 2 (June 2011) 49 Jonathan Cox Associates (2010) Mottisfont Bats SAC: Protocol for Planning Officers – A report to Natural England 315 316 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is affected and plans or projects implemented, R
qualifying can adverse egulations features effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration Mottisfont The qualifying features of this site are bats, which may be vulnerable Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES Assessment Bats SAC to the effects of noise/vibration. However, as the SAC lies more safety and amenity requires proposals for than 500m from the Michelmersh Brickworks site, the effects of noise minerals and waste developments do not Noise and vibration effects can be caused Barbastelle bats and vibration on the bat population is not considered to be cause unacceptable noise, or vibration by activities associated with clay extraction significant. impacts. R
during preparatory works (e.g. machinery ecord used for site excavation), operation of the The development considerations for the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting extraction at Michelmersh Brickworks site aggregates and machinery associated with (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include Appendices crushing, tipping and loading material) and reference to protecting the amenity of certain after-uses, for example if nearby residential properties. These development occurs on the site. measures should also help to ensure that noise and vibration do not affect the bat population. (FINAL)
Light pollution Mottisfont The Mottisfont Bats SAC is located more than 500m from the Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES Bats SAC Michelmersh Brickworks but there is potential for light pollution to safety and amenity requires minerals and Se affect the qualifying feature of the site through affecting their foraging waste development to prove no impact pt Light pollution can be caused by artificial Barbastelle bats grounds, which stretch up to 7.5km from the SAC. However, the from unacceptable lighting impacts. 2013 lighting on site as well as vehicle traffic current permission for clay extraction at this site only permits movements to and from and within the extraction for 8 weeks of the year, and limits the time of extraction The development considerations for the site. to 0800 – 1730 hours during spring, which is during daylight hours. extraction at Michelmersh Brickworks site In addition, no external lighting is permitted at this site without (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include planning permission. As such, light pollution is not considered likely a requirement to protect European sites. to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. They also include a specific requirement for the consideration of the foraging and commuting of Mottisfont bats. However, they could also include reference to “Appropriate light suppression measures to reduce light pollution from the site, and control the use of lighting at the site in order to minimise the impact on bats. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is affected and plans or projects implemented, qualifying can adverse features effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Mottisfont There is some potential for clay extraction at Michelmersh Brickworks N/A YES Bats SAC to affect water levels along the River Test and tributaries, which runs adjacent to the Mottisfont Bats SAC and within the 7.5 km foraging Activities associated with clay extraction Barbastelle bats area. Changes to water levels in the nearby River Test may occur as can affect water levels in a variety of ways, a result of clay extraction at this site as there is a canalised river which including drying, flooding/storm water, runs from just east of the Michelmersh Brickworks to the River Test. changes in water level and stability, However, this extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above changes in surface water flow and the water table (unless other methods can be used that do not impact Habitats groundwater flow and loss of groundwater the hydrology of the area), and maintaining water levels is not a storage. These changes can result from specific factor required to maintain the integrity of this SAC. operational activities as well as certain after Therefore, the extraction at Michelmersh Brickworks is not expected R
uses. to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. egulations
Changes in water quality Mottisfont Changes to water quality may occur as a result of clay extraction, at Policy 10: Protecting Public Health, YES Bats SAC the nearby River Test and tributaries, as there is a canalised river Safety and Amenity requires proposals which runs from just east of the Michelmersh Brickworks to the River for minerals and waste developments do Assessment Water quality can be affected by clay Barbastelle bats Test. Barbastelle bats are sensitive to changes in water quality, as it not cause unacceptable noise, dust, lighting, extraction during preparatory works, may affect their diet through reducing populations of small insects vibration or odour impacts. operational activities and after-use of the such as moths, flies and beetles. In the Mottisfont locality, the River site, for example as a result of ground Test and its tributaries may be a particularly important source of food The development considerations for the R
investigation works, industrial processes . extraction at Michelmersh Brickworks site ecord within a site, dewatering or (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include development/reclamation of a site after However, the extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above appropriate measures to ‘protect the water extraction has ceased. the water table) (unless other methods can be used that do not impact quality and recharge of the source Appendices the hydrology of the area) and all extraction operations would need protection zone, principal aquifer and to adhere to Environment Agency water quality permitting standards. surface water' The EA would be consulted when the planning application for this site is received by the MPA, and enforcement of legislation would take place at this stage to ensure that the extraction has no adverse (FINAL) effects on the water environment. Therefore, the potential for clay extraction processes at the Michelmersh Brickworks site to affect water quality in the River Test and tributaries is very low. Se pt 2013 317 318 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is affected and plans or projects implemented, R
qualifying can adverse egulations features effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Mottisfont The proposed extraction of clay at the Michelmersh site is for use at N/A YES Assessment Bats SAC the adjoining Michelmersh Brickworks. As such, no additional vehicle movements are predicted as a result of the proposed extraction(50), Air pollution can result from vehicle traffic Barbastelle bats and no significant effects on the SAC are predicted as a result of air movements to and from clay extraction pollution. R
sites, and by emissions from onsite ecord activities. Effects may also be associated with any development taking place on the site after extraction activities have ceased. Appendices
Recreation-related impacts Mottisfont The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that the Michelmersh N/A YES Bats SAC Brickworks site is to be restored for ‘agriculture, biodiversity and amenity uses’. The Michelmersh Brickworks site already attracts some (FINAL) Restoration of minerals sites after Barbastelle bats local recreational use, with a PRoW running through the site from extraction has ceased often involves north to south, and a cycle way adjacent to the western boundary, creating sites for recreation use which can therefore it is unlikely that restoration of the Brickworks site would impact on European sites as a result of result in increased recreation activities. Due to the distance of the Se physical disturbance (e.g. from proposed site from the SAC, the low likelihood that clay extraction pt erosion/trampling) as well as contributing at Michelmersh Brickworks or its restoration would increase recreation 2013 to other types of impacts assessed above, levels in the vicinity, and given that most recreation activities are likely such as noise pollution. to take place during daylight hours, adverse effects on the bat population associated with recreation activities in or adjacent to the proposed site are not expected to result from site restoration.
Other The Michelmersh Brickworks site already attracts some local N/A YES European sites recreational use, with a PRoW running through the site from north to south, and a cycle way adjacent to the western boundary. The users of these routes may be displaced through increased extraction activities at Michelmersh, but it is considered unlikely that this would create increased recreational pressure on European sites in the vicinity, as suitable alternative PRoW exist nearby.
50 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is affected and plans or projects implemented, qualifying can adverse features effects on the European site be ruled out?
Dust Mottisfont There are no European sites located within 500m of the Michelmersh N/A YES Bats SAC Brickworks site; therefore dust effects would not be expected to affect site integrity. Dust deposition on ground and water Barbastelle bats from extraction activities can lead to contamination at nearby European sites. Habitats Soil Contamination Mottisfont The qualifying feature of the SAC is not known to be particularly N/A YES Bats SAC sensitive to soil contamination. As such, and due to the distance from the Michelmersh Brickworks to the SAC, it is considered unlikely R
Soil contamination can occur when clay Barbastelle bats that any significant effects will result from the proposed extraction egulations extraction sites are located in close site. proximity to Natura 2000 sites, through either contaminants released during the extraction process, or through contaminants introduced during the Assessment restoration process. R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 319 320 Habitats D.8 Bleak Hill Extension Phase 3
Table D.16 Bleak Hill Quarry Extension, Harbridge (sharp sand and gravel) R egulations Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented,
features can adverse Assessment effects on the European site be ruled out?
Bleak Hill Quarry Extension, Harbridge (sharp sand and gravel) R ecord Physical disturbance/loss of habitat River Avon SAC Bleak Hill Quarry lies more than 500m outside of the boundaries of this N/A YES
SAC, and the qualifying features of the SAC are not likely to be affected Appendices • Water courses of by offsite habitat loss or disturbance as a result of minerals-related New minerals sites can lead to loss of plain to montane levels development here - the Desmoulin’s whorl snail lives in wetland habitats habitat/habitat fragmentation as a with the Ranunculion such as marshes and swamps, which Bleak Hill Quarry is not, and the result of extraction for landtake and fluitantis and other qualifying species are most likely to be confined to locations within
associated infrastructure development. Callitricho-Batrachion the river system within which the SAC is located, and this does not (FINAL) vegetation extend as far as Bleak Hill Quarry.
• Desmoulin’s whorl
snail Se pt
• Sea lamprey 2013
• Atlantic salmon
• Bullhead
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Avon Valley SPA Although the Bleak Hill Quarry site lies more than 500m outside of the Policy 3: Protection and YES boundaries of this SPA, and so ongoing sand and gravel extraction here enhancement of habitats and New minerals sites can lead to loss of • Gadwall would not result in any direct physical loss of habitat, it is possible that species requires minerals and waste habitat/habitat fragmentation as a the birds which are the qualifying features of the SPA may be affected proposals to not have undue adverse result of extraction for landtake and • Bewick’s swan by disturbance to offsite breeding, foresting or roosting areas if any are effects on European sites. associated infrastructure development. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
located within or adjacent to the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site. The The development considerations for Avon Valley SSSI units which are closest to Bleak Hill Quarry are mainly the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel classed as being in unfavourable recovering condition, although the extraction site (set out in Appendix reason for this is unclear. As such, any disturbance from this sand and A of the Plan) includes a requirement gravel site may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. for the consideration of the offsite Although the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and feeding foraging of the qualifying species of sites of these bird species are unknown, they are likely to extend beyond birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars.
the boundaries of the SPA; therefore adverse impacts relating to Habitats disturbance of bird species by ongoing activities at the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site cannot be ruled out. R
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Avon Valley Ramsar Although the Bleak Hill Quarry site lies more than 500m outside of the Policy 3: Protection and YES egulations site boundaries of this Ramsar site, and so ongoing sand and gravel extraction enhancement of habitats and here would not result in any direct physical loss of habitat, it is possible species requires minerals and waste New minerals sites can lead to loss of • The site shows a that the birds which are amongst the qualifying features of the Ramsar proposals to not have significant habitat/habitat fragmentation as a greater range of site may be affected by disturbance to offsite breeding, foresting or adverse effects on European sites. result of extraction for landtake and habitats than any other roosting areas if any are located within or adjacent to the Bleak Hill Assessment associated infrastructure development. chalk river in Britain, Quarry extraction site. The Avon Valley SSSI units which are closest The development considerations for including fen, mire, to Bleak Hill Quarry are mainly classed as being in unfavourable the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel lowland wet grassland recovering condition, although the reason for this is unclear. As such, extraction site (set out in Appendix and small areas of any disturbance from this sand and gravel site may be particularly harmful A of the Plan) include the protection R
woodland. to the integrity of the Ramsar site. Although the specific locations of of nature conservation interests in ecord offsite roosting, foraging and feeding sites of these bird species are general. It also includes a • The site supports a unknown, they are likely to extend beyond the boundaries of the Ramsar requirement for the consideration of diverse assemblage of site; therefore adverse impacts relating to disturbance of bird species by the offsite foraging of the qualifying Appendices wetland flora and ongoing activities at the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site cannot species of birds of nearby fauna including several be ruled out. SPA/Ramsars. nationally rare species. (FINAL) Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Dorset Heaths SAC The Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site lies more than 500m outside N/A YES of the boundaries of the SAC, and the qualifying features of the SAC • Northern Atlantic are not transient species which may be affected by offsite disturbance. wet heaths with Se cross-leaved heath. pt 2013 321 322 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
New minerals sites can lead to loss of • European dry heaths Assessment habitat/habitat fragmentation as a result of extraction for landtake and • Depressions on peat associated infrastructure development. substrates of the Rhynchosporion R ecord
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Dorset Heathlands Although the Bleak Hill Quarry site lies more than 500m outside of the Policy 3: Protection and YES SPA boundaries of this SPA, and so ongoing sand and gravel extraction here enhancement of habitats and Appendices would not result in any direct physical loss of habitat, it is possible that species requires minerals and waste New minerals sites can lead to loss of • European Nightjar the birds which are the qualifying features of the SPA may be affected proposals to not have significant habitat/habitat fragmentation as a by disturbance to offsite breeding, foresting or roosting areas if any are adverse effects on European sites. result of extraction for landtake and • Hen Harrier located within or adjacent to the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site. associated infrastructure development. Although the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and feeding The development considerations for (FINAL) • Merlin sites of these bird species are unknown, they are likely to extend beyond the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel the boundaries of the SPA; therefore adverse impacts relating to extraction site (set out on Appendix • Woodlark disturbance of bird species by ongoing activities at the Bleak Hill Quarry A of the Plan) includes a requirement sand and gravel site cannot be ruled out. for the consideration of the offsite Se pt • Dartford Warbler foraging of the qualifying species of Given the distance from the SPA, it is likely that only nightjar, merlin birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. 2013 and hen harrier would utilise the area, and it is sub-optimal habitat for foraging merlin (not 'open'). Minimising the area being worked, and phased approach to work and restored, should result only in temporary disturbance, followed by long-term gain as open heathland will provided optimal foraging habitat for all of these species
In addition, the hydrological connection to the SPA may be affected, and changes to this regime may lead to habitat change or loss. This is discussed below.
Physical disturbance/loss of habitat Dorset Heathlands The Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site lies more than 500m outside N/A YES Ramsar site of the Ramsar site boundaries, and the qualifying features of the Ramsar site are not transient bird species which may be affected by offsite • Dwarf shrub heath - disturbance. lowland Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
New minerals sites can lead to loss of • Fen, marsh and habitat/habitat fragmentation as a swamp result of extraction for landtake and associated infrastructure development. • Assemblage and population of rare &c species of wetland flora and invertebrates. Habitats
Noise pollution and vibration River Avon SAC The SAC is located more than 500m from the Bleak Hill Quarry sand N/A YES and gravel site, and the majority of the qualifying features are not sensitive R
(Qualifying features as to these types of disturbance, so noise and vibration effects are not egulations Noise and vibration effects can be above) considered likely to have an adverse effect on site integrity. caused by activities associated with sand and gravel extraction during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of the Assessment site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for R
example if development occurs on the ecord site. Appendices Noise pollution and vibration Avon Valley SPA The qualifying features of this site are bird species and are thus Policy 10: Protecting public YES particularly vulnerable to the effects of noise/vibration. Although, the health, safety and amenity requires (Qualifying features as SPA lies more than 500m from Bleak Hill Quarry, it is possible that the proposals for minerals and waste above) qualifying bird species may be affected if they travel outside the developments to demonstrate that boundaries of the SPA to breeding, foraging or roosting sites within or they would not have unacceptable (FINAL) adjacent to Bleak Hill Quarry. The locations of these sites are unknown; pollution impacts. however the potential for noise/vibration to affect these species in offsite areas cannot be ruled out. Se pt 2013 323 324 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise and vibration effects can be Given the distance from the SPA, it is likely that only nightjar, merlin The development considerations for Assessment caused by activities associated with and hen harrier would utilise the area, and it is sub-optimal habitat for the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel sand and gravel extraction during foraging merlin (not 'open'). Minimising the area being worked, and extraction site (set out in Appendix preparatory works (e.g. machinery used phased approach to work and restored, should result only in temporary A of the Plan) includes a requirement for site excavation), operation of the disturbance, followed by long-term gain as open heathland will provided for the considerations off the offsite R
site (e.g. from vehicles transporting optimal foraging habitat for all of these species foraging/breeding of the qualifying ecord aggregates and machinery associated species of nearby SPA/Ramsars. with crushing, tipping and loading In addition, the hydrological connection to the SPA may be affected, material) and certain after-uses, for and changes to this regime may lead to habitat change or loss. This is Appendices example if development occurs on the discussed below. site.
Noise pollution and vibration Avon Valley Ramsar Some of the qualifying features of this site are vulnerable to the effects Policy 10: Protecting public YES (FINAL) site of noise/vibration. However, the Ramsar site lies more than 500m from health, safety and amenity requires the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site and its qualifying features are proposals for minerals and waste Noise and vibration effects can be (Qualifying features as therefore not expected to be affected in this way. developments to demonstrate that caused by activities associated with above) they would not have unacceptable Se sand and gravel extraction during pollution impacts. pt preparatory works (e.g. machinery used 2013 for site excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site.
Noise pollution and vibration Dorset Heaths SAC The SAC is located more than 500m from the Bleak Hill Quarry sand N/A YES and gravel site, and the majority of the qualifying features are not sensitive (Qualifying features as to these types of disturbance, so noise and vibration effects are not above) considered likely to have an adverse effect on site integrity. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise and vibration effects can be caused by activities associated with sand and gravel extraction during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading Habitats material) and certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site. R egulations
Noise pollution and vibration Dorset Heathlands The qualifying features of this site are bird species and are thus Policy 10: Protecting public YES SPA particularly vulnerable to the effects of noise/vibration. However, the health, safety and amenity requires SPA lies more than 500m from the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site and proposals for minerals and waste Noise and vibration effects can be (Qualifying features as its qualifying features are therefore not expected to be affected in this developments to demonstrate that Assessment caused by activities associated with above) way. they would not have unacceptable sand and gravel extraction during pollution impacts. preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of the R
site (e.g. from vehicles transporting ecord aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for Appendices example if development occurs on the site.
Noise pollution and vibration Dorset Heathlands Some of the qualifying features of this site are vulnerable to the effects Policy 10: Protecting public YES (FINAL) Ramsar site of noise/vibration. However, the Ramsar site lies more than 500m from health, safety and amenity requires the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site and its qualifying features are proposals for minerals and waste (Qualifying features as therefore not expected to be affected in this way. developments to demonstrate that above) they would not have unacceptable Se pollution impacts. pt 2013 325 326 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise and vibration effects can be Assessment caused by activities associated with sand and gravel extraction during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation of the R
site (e.g. from vehicles transporting ecord aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for Appendices example if development occurs on the site.
Light pollution Avon Valley These European sites are all located more than 500m from the Bleak Policy 10: Protecting public YES (FINAL) SPA/Ramsar site, Hill Quarry sand and gravel site, so in most cases adverse impact are not health, safety and amenity requires River Avon SAC, likely. However, for the SPA and Ramsar sites where birds are amongst proposals for minerals and waste Light pollution can be caused by Dorset Heathlands the qualifying features, it is possible that these bird species may be developments to demonstrate that artificial lighting on site as well as SPA/Ramsar site affected if they travel outside the boundaries of the SPA to breeding, they would not have unacceptable Se vehicle traffic movements to and from and Dorset Heaths foraging or roosting sites within or adjacent to Bleak Hill Quarry. The pollution impacts. pt and within the site. SAC locations of these sites are unknown, as is the extent to which artificial 2013 lighting would be used on the site; however the potential for light (Qualifying features as pollution to affect these species in offsite areas cannot be ruled out. above) Given the distance from the SPA, it is likely that only nightjar, merlin and hen harrier would utilise the area, and it is sub-optimal habitat for foraging merlin (not 'open'). Minimising the area being worked, and phased approach to work and restored, should result only in temporary disturbance, followed by long-term gain as open heathland will provided optimal foraging habitat for all of these species
In addition, the hydrological connection to the SPA may be affected, and changes to this regime may lead to habitat change or loss. This is discussed below. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels River Avon SAC The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to Consultation with the Environment YES maintain the integrity of this SAC. The Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site Agency with regards to any planning (Qualifying features as is approximately 1.2km to the west of the River Avon SAC, although application coming forward at this Activities associated with sand and above) there are no other rivers flowing from closer to the extraction site into site should help to ensure that gravel extraction can affect water levels the River Avon. In addition, Bleak Hill Quarry overlies a secondary adverse impacts on the water in a variety of ways, including drying, aquifer in common with the SAC. Although this extraction site is environment are avoided. flooding/storm water, changes in water expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless other level and stability, changes in surface methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of the area), a The development considerations for Habitats water flow and groundwater flow and small processing facility is already in use at the site and this would be this sand and gravel site (set out in loss of groundwater storage. These expected to remain in use if extraction activities here are ongoing; Appendix A of the Plan) ‘protect the changes can result from operational however it is not known to what extent this requires water to be water quality and recharge of the R
activities as well as certain after uses. abstracted at the location. Exact details of the hydrological connectivity underlying aquifer, ground water and egulations between the SAC and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is uncertain until more surface water’. detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Assessment
Changes to water levels Avon Valley SPA The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to Consultation with the Environment YES maintain the integrity of this SPA. The Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site Agency with regards to any planning (Qualifying features as is approximately 1.2km to the west of the Avon Valley SPA, although application coming forward at this R
Activities associated with sand and above) there are no other rivers flowing from closer to the extraction site into site should help to ensure that ecord gravel extraction can affect water levels the River Avon. In addition, Bleak Hill Quarry overlies a secondary adverse impacts on the water in a variety of ways, including drying, aquifer in common with the SPA. Although this extraction site is environment are avoided. flooding/storm water, changes in water expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless other Appendices level and stability, changes in surface methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of the area), a The development considerations for water flow and groundwater flow and small processing facility is already in use at the site and this would be this sand and gravel site (set out in loss of groundwater storage. These expected to remain in use if extraction activities here are ongoing; Appendix A of the Plan) ‘protect the changes can result from operational however it is not known to what extent this requires water to be water quality and recharge of the activities as well as certain after uses. abstracted at the location. Exact details of the hydrological connectivity underlying aquifer, ground water and (FINAL) between the SPA and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is uncertain until more surface water'. detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater Se depths, flow and gradient). pt 2013 327 328 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Avon Valley Ramsar The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to Consultation with the Environment YES Assessment site maintain the integrity of this Ramsar site. The Bleak Hill Quarry Agency with regards to any planning extraction site is approximately 1.2km to the west of the Avon Valley application coming forward at this Activities associated with sand and (Qualifying features as Ramsar site, although there are no other rivers flowing from closer to site should help to ensure that gravel extraction can affect water levels above) the extraction site into the River Avon. In addition, Bleak Hill Quarry adverse impacts on the water R
in a variety of ways, including drying, overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the Ramsar site. Although environment are avoided. ecord flooding/storm water, changes in water this extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water level and stability, changes in surface table (unless other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology The development considerations for water flow and groundwater flow and of the area), a small processing facility is already in use at the site and this sand and gravel site (set out in Appendices loss of groundwater storage. These this would be expected to remain in use if extraction activities here are Appendix A of the Plan) ‘protect the changes can result from operational ongoing; however it is not known to what extent this requires water to water quality and recharge of the activities as well as certain after uses. be abstracted at the location. Exact details of the hydrological underlying aquifer, ground water and connectivity between the Ramsar site and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is surface water'. uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is (FINAL) submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Se
Changes to water levels Dorset Heaths SAC The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to Consultation with the Environment YES pt
maintain the integrity of this SAC. The Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site Agency with regards to any planning 2013 (Qualifying features as is approximately 1.2km to the east of the Dorset Heaths SAC, and application coming forward at this Activities associated with sand and above) although there are no rivers flowing from the extraction site towards the site should help to ensure that gravel extraction can affect water levels SAC, Bleak Hill Quarry overlies a secondary aquifer in common with adverse impacts on the water in a variety of ways, including drying, the SAC. Although this extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ environment are avoided. flooding/storm water, changes in water i.e. above the water table (unless other methods can be used that do not level and stability, changes in surface impact the hydrology of the area), a small processing facility is already The development considerations for water flow and groundwater flow and in use at the site and this would be expected to remain in use if extraction this sand and gravel site (set out in loss of groundwater storage. These activities here are ongoing; however it is not known to what extent this Appendix A of the Plan) ‘protect the changes can result from operational requires water to be abstracted at the location. Exact details of the water quality and recharge of the activities as well as certain after uses. hydrological connectivity between the SAC and the Bleak Hill Quarry underlying aquifer, ground water and site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is surface water'. submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Dorset Heathlands The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to Consultation with the Environment YES SPA maintain the integrity of this SPA. The Bleak Hill Quarry extraction site Agency with regards to any planning is approximately 1.2km to the east of the Dorset Heathlands SPA, and application coming forward at this Activities associated with sand and (Qualifying features as although there are no rivers flowing from the extraction site towards the site should help to ensure that gravel extraction can affect water levels above) SPA, Bleak Hill Quarry overlies a secondary aquifer in common with adverse impacts on the water in a variety of ways, including drying, the SPA. Although this extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ environment are avoided. flooding/storm water, changes in water i.e. above the water table (unless other methods can be used that do not level and stability, changes in surface impact the hydrology of the area), a small processing facility is already The development considerations for Habitats water flow and groundwater flow and in use at the site and this would be expected to remain in use if extraction this sand and gravel site (set out in loss of groundwater storage. These activities here are ongoing; however it is not known to what extent this Appendix A of the Plan) ‘protect the changes can result from operational requires water to be abstracted at the location. Exact details of the water quality and recharge of the R
activities as well as certain after uses. hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the Bleak Hill Quarry underlying aquifer, ground water and egulations site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is surface water’. submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Assessment
Changes to water levels Dorset Heathlands The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to Consultation with the Environment YES Ramsar site maintain the integrity of this Ramsar site. The Bleak Hill Quarry Agency with regards to any planning extraction site is approximately 1.2km to the east of the Dorset application coming forward at this Activities associated with sand and (Qualifying features as Heathlands Ramsar site, and although there are no rivers flowing from site should help to ensure that R
gravel extraction can affect water levels above) the extraction site towards the Ramsar site, Bleak Hill Quarry overlies a adverse impacts on the water ecord in a variety of ways, including drying, secondary aquifer in common with the Ramsar site. Although this environment are avoided. flooding/storm water, changes in water extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table level and stability, changes in surface (unless other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of The development considerations for Appendices water flow and groundwater flow and the area), a small processing facility is already in use at the site and this this sand and gravel site (set out in loss of groundwater storage. These would be expected to remain in use if extraction activities here are Appendix A of the Plan) ‘protect the changes can result from operational ongoing; however it is not known to what extent this requires water to water quality and recharge of the activities as well as certain after uses. be abstracted at the location. Exact details of the hydrological underlying aquifer, ground water and connectivity between the Ramsar site and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is surface water’. (FINAL) uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Se pt 2013 329 330 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality River Avon SAC The qualifying features of this SAC are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public YES Assessment in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Bleak Hill Quarry health, safety and amenity requires (Qualifying features as extraction site to the SAC (approximately 1.2km) and the fact that it proposals for minerals and waste Water quality can be affected by sand above) overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the SAC indicates that developments to demonstrate that and gravel extraction during water quality impacts as a result of ongoing sand and gravel extraction they would not have unacceptable R
preparatory works, operational here cannot be ruled out. However, the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction pollution impacts. ecord activities and after-use of the site, for site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) (unless example as a result of ground other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of the area) Consultation with the Environment investigation works, industrial and all extraction operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency with regards to any planning Appendices processes within a site, dewatering or Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment Agency application coming forward at this development/reclamation of a site after would be consulted on any planning application coming forward at this site should help to ensure that extraction has ceased. site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction adverse impacts on the water would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment are avoided. environment. However, exact details of the hydrological connectivity (FINAL) between the SAC and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is uncertain until more The development considerations for detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning this sand and gravel site (set out in applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, Appendix A of the Plan) ‘protect the and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater water quality and recharge of the Se depths, flow and gradient). underlying aquifer, ground water and pt surface water’. 2013
Changes in water quality Avon Valley SPA The qualifying features of this SPA are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public YES in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Bleak Hill Quarry health, safety and amenity requires (Qualifying features as extraction site to the SPA (approximately 1.2km) and the fact that it proposals for minerals and waste Water quality can be affected by sand above) overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the SPA indicates that developments to demonstrate that and gravel extraction during water quality impacts as a result of ongoing sand and gravel extraction they would not have unacceptable preparatory works, operational here cannot be ruled out. However, the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction pollution impacts. activities and after-use of the site, for site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) (unless example as a result of ground other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of the area) Consultation with the Environment investigation works, industrial and all extraction operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency with regards to any planning processes within a site, dewatering or Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment Agency application coming forward at this development/reclamation of a site after would be consulted on any planning application coming forward at this site should help to ensure that extraction has ceased. site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction adverse impacts on the water would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment are avoided. environment. However, exact details of the hydrological connectivity Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
between the SPA and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is uncertain until more The development considerations for detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning this sand and gravel site (set out in applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, Appendix A of the Plan) include and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater ‘protect the water quality and depths, flow and gradient). recharge of the underlying aquifer, ground water and surface water’ . Habitats Changes in water quality Avon Valley Ramsar The qualifying features of this Ramsar site are known to be sensitive to Policy 10: Protecting public YES site changes in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Bleak Hill health, safety and amenity requires Water quality can be affected by sand Quarry extraction site to the Ramsar site (approximately 1.2km) and the proposals for minerals and waste R
and gravel extraction during (Qualifying features as fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the Ramsar site developments to demonstrate that egulations preparatory works, operational above) indicates that water quality impacts as a result of ongoing sand and gravel they would not have unacceptable activities and after-use of the site, for extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, the Bleak Hill Quarry pollution impacts. example as a result of ground extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) investigation works, industrial (unless other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of Consultation with the Environment processes within a site, dewatering or the area) and all extraction operations would need to adhere to Agency with regards to any planning Assessment development/reclamation of a site after Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment application coming forward at this extraction has ceased. Agency would be consulted on any planning application coming forward site should help to ensure that at this site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel adverse impacts on the water extraction would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the environment are avoided. R
water environment. However, exact details of the hydrological The development considerations for ecord connectivity between the Ramsar site and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is this sand and gravel site (set out in uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is Appendix A of the Plan) include submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth ‘protect the water quality and Appendices and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine recharge of the underlying aquifer, actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). ground water and surface water’.
Changes in water quality Dorset Heaths SAC The qualifying features of this SAC are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public YES (FINAL) in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Bleak Hill Quarry health, safety and amenity requires (Qualifying features as extraction site to the SAC (approximately 1.2km) and the fact that it proposals for minerals and waste above) overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the SAC indicates that developments to demonstrate that water quality impacts as a result of ongoing sand and gravel extraction they would not have unacceptable Se here cannot be ruled out. However, the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction pollution impacts. pt 2013 331 332 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Water quality can be affected by sand site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) (unless Consultation with the Environment Assessment and gravel extraction during other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of the area) Agency with regards to any planning preparatory works, operational and all extraction operations would need to adhere to Environment application coming forward at this activities and after-use of the site, for Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment Agency site should help to ensure that example as a result of ground would be consulted on any planning application coming forward at this adverse impacts on the water R
investigation works, industrial site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction environment are avoided. ecord processes within a site, dewatering or would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water The development considerations for development/reclamation of a site after environment. However, exact details of the hydrological connectivity this sand and gravel site (set out in extraction has ceased. between the SAC and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is uncertain until more Appendix A of the Plan) include Appendices detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning ‘protect the water quality and applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, recharge of the underlying aquifer, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater ground water and surface water’. depths, flow and gradient). (FINAL) Changes in water quality Dorset Heathlands The qualifying features of this SPA are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public YES SPA in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Bleak Hill Quarry health, safety and amenity requires extraction site to the SPA (approximately 1.2km) and the fact that it proposals for minerals and waste Water quality can be affected by sand (Qualifying features as overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the SPA indicates that developments to demonstrate that Se and gravel extraction during above) water quality impacts as a result of ongoing sand and gravel extraction they would not have unacceptable pt preparatory works, operational here cannot be ruled out. However, the Bleak Hill Quarry extraction pollution impacts. 2013 activities and after-use of the site, for site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) (unless example as a result of ground other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of the area) Consultation with the Environment investigation works, industrial and all extraction operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency with regards to any planning processes within a site, dewatering or Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment Agency application coming forward at this development/reclamation of a site after would be consulted on any planning application coming forward at this site should help to ensure that extraction has ceased. site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction adverse impacts on the water would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment are avoided. environment. However, exact details of the hydrological connectivity The development considerations for between the SPA and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is uncertain until more this sand and gravel site (set out in detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning Appendix A of the Plan) include applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, ‘protect the water quality and and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater recharge of the underlying aquifer, depths, flow and gradient). ground water and surface water’. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality Dorset Heathlands The qualifying features of this Ramsar site are known to be sensitive to Policy 10: Protecting public YES Ramsar site changes in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Bleak Hill health, safety and amenity requires Quarry extraction site to the Ramsar site (approximately 1.2km) and the proposals for minerals and waste Water quality can be affected by sand (Qualifying features as fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the Ramsar site developments to demonstrate that and gravel extraction during above) indicates that water quality impacts as a result of ongoing sand and gravel they would not have unacceptable preparatory works, operational extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, the Bleak Hill Quarry pollution impacts. activities and after-use of the site, for extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) example as a result of ground (unless other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of Consultation with the Environment Habitats investigation works, industrial the area) and all extraction operations would need to adhere to Agency with regards to any planning processes within a site, dewatering or Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment application coming forward at this development/reclamation of a site after Agency would be consulted on any planning application coming forward site should help to ensure that R
extraction has ceased. at this site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel adverse impacts on the water egulations extraction would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the environment are avoided. water environment. However, exact details of the hydrological The development considerations for connectivity between the Ramsar site and the Bleak Hill Quarry site is this sand and gravel site (set out in uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is Appendix A of the Plan) include submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth ‘protect the water quality and Assessment and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine recharge of the underlying aquifer, actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). ground water and surface water’. R
Air pollution River Avon SAC Fragments of the River Avon SAC are adjacent to the A338 to the north, Policy 10: Protecting public YES ecord east and south of the Bleak Hill Quarry site. These SSSI units are mainly health, safety and amenity requires (qualifying features as in unfavourable condition and although it is not clear whether their proposals for minerals and waste Air pollution can result from vehicle above) condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of developments to demonstrate that Appendices traffic movements to and from sand pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may be they would not have unacceptable and gravel extraction sites, and by particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. However, the Strategic pollution impacts. emissions from onsite activities. Transport Assessment found that the allocation of the Bleak Hill Quarry Effects may also be associated with any sand and gravel site for ongoing use is likely to result in the continuation development taking place on the site of current levels of vehicle movements to and from the site – an (FINAL) after extraction activities have ceased. estimated total of 104 two-way traffic movements per day (52 in and 52 out) - rather than any increase in traffic volume. It is a condition of the existing planning permission at the site that all site vehicles use an internal haul road, before moving onto Hartbridge Drove where they are only Se allowed to travel in a southerly direction towards the B3081. Although pt the B3081 links to the A338 and therefore a significant proportion of 2013 333 334 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
the site traffic is likely to travel onwards via this road, there will be no Assessment additional vehicle traffic on top of the current levels, therefore adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from increased air pollution are not considered likely.
Air pollution Avon Valley SPA Fragments of the Avon Valley SPA are adjacent to the A338 to the east Policy 10: Protecting public YES R ecord and south of the Bleak Hill Quarry site. These SSSI units are mainly in health, safety and amenity requires (qualifying features as unfavourable condition and although it is not clear whether their proposals for minerals and waste
Air pollution can result from vehicle above) condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of developments to demonstrate that Appendices traffic movements to and from sand pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may be they would not have unacceptable and gravel extraction sites, and by particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. However, the Strategic pollution impacts. emissions from onsite activities. Transport Assessment found that the allocation of the Bleak Hill Quarry Effects may also be associated with any sand and gravel site for ongoing use is likely to result in the continuation development taking place on the site of current levels of vehicle movements to and from the site – an (FINAL) after extraction activities have ceased. estimated total of 104 two-way traffic movements per day (52 in and 52 out) - rather than any increase in traffic volume. It is a condition of the existing planning permission at the site that all site vehicles use an internal haul road, before moving onto Hartbridge Drove where they are only Se allowed to travel in a southerly direction towards the B3081. Although pt
the B3081 links to the A338 and therefore a significant proportion of 2013 the site traffic is likely to travel onwards via this road, there will be no additional vehicle traffic on top of the current levels, therefore adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution are not considered likely.
Air pollution Avon Valley Ramsar Fragments of the Avon Valley Ramsar site are adjacent to the A338 to Policy 10: Protecting public YES site the east and south of the Bleak Hill Quarry site. These SSSI units are health, safety and amenity requires mainly in unfavourable condition and although it is not clear whether proposals for minerals and waste Air pollution can result from vehicle (qualifying features as their condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition developments to demonstrate that traffic movements to and from sand above) of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may they would not have unacceptable and gravel extraction sites, and by be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. However, the pollution impacts. emissions from onsite activities. Strategic Transport Assessment found that the allocation of the Bleak Effects may also be associated with any Hill Quarry sand and gravel site for ongoing use is likely to result in the development taking place on the site continuation of current levels of vehicle movements to and from the after extraction activities have ceased. site – an estimated total of 104 two-way traffic movements per day (52 in and 52 out) - rather than any increase in traffic volume. It is a Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
condition of the existing planning permission at the site that all site vehicles use an internal haul road, before moving onto Hartbridge Drove where they are only allowed to travel in a southerly direction towards the B3081. Although the B3081 links to the A338 and therefore a significant proportion of the site traffic is likely to travel onwards via this road, there will be no additional vehicle traffic on top of the current levels, therefore adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from
increased air pollution are not considered likely. Habitats
Air pollution Dorset Heaths SAC Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions required Policy 10: Protecting public YES to support the integrity of this site. Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen health, safety and amenity requires R
(qualifying features as deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads at this SAC, proposals for minerals and waste egulations Air pollution can result from vehicle above) indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle traffic travelling developments to demonstrate that traffic movements to and from sand to and from the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site may be particularly they would not have unacceptable and gravel extraction sites, and by harmful. The A338, which is in fairly close proximity of the Bleak Hill pollution impacts. emissions from onsite activities. Quarry site, crosses the SAC in a number of areas to the south of Bleak Effects may also be associated with any Hill Quarry. These units of the Dorset Heaths SSSI are generally in Assessment development taking place on the site unfavourable condition, and although it is not clear whether their after extraction activities have ceased. condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. However, the Strategic R
Transport Assessment found that the allocation of the Bleak Hill Quarry ecord sand and gravel site for ongoing use is likely to result in the continuation of current levels of vehicle movements to and from the site – an estimated total of 104 two-way traffic movements per day (52 in and 52 Appendices out) - rather than any increase in traffic volume. It is a condition of the existing planning permission at the site that all site vehicles use an internal haul road, before moving onto Hartbridge Drove where they are only allowed to travel in a southerly direction towards the B3081. Although the B3081 links to the A338 and therefore a significant proportion of (FINAL) the site traffic is likely to travel onwards via this road, there will be no additional vehicle traffic on top of the current levels, therefore adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from increased air pollution are not considered likely. Se pt 2013 335 336 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Dorset Heathlands Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions required Policy 10: Protecting public YES Assessment SPA to support the integrity of this site. Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen health, safety and amenity requires deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads at this SPA, proposals for minerals and waste Air pollution can result from vehicle (qualifying features as indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle traffic travelling developments to demonstrate that traffic movements to and from sand above to and from the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site may be particularly they would not have unacceptable R
and gravel extraction sites, and by harmful. The A338, which is in fairly close proximity of the Bleak Hill pollution impacts. ecord emissions from onsite activities. Quarry site, crosses the SPA in a number of areas to the south of Bleak Effects may also be associated with any Hill Quarry. These units of the Dorset Heaths SSSI are generally in development taking place on the site unfavourable condition, and although it is not clear whether their Appendices after extraction activities have ceased. condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the allocation of the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site for ongoing use is likely to result in the continuation (FINAL) of current levels of vehicle movements to and from the site – an estimated total of 104 two-way traffic movements per day (52 in and 52 out) - rather than any increase in traffic volume. It is a condition of the existing planning permission at the site that all site vehicles use an internal Se haul road, before moving onto Hartbridge Drove where they are only pt allowed to travel in a southerly direction towards the B3081. Although 2013 the B3081 links to the A338and therefore a significant proportion of the site traffic is likely to travel onwards via this road, there will be no additional vehicle traffic on top of the current levels, therefore adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution are not considered likely.
Air pollution Dorset Heathlands Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions required Policy 10: Protecting public YES Ramsar site to support the integrity of this site. Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen health, safety and amenity requires deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads at this Ramsar proposals for minerals and waste Air pollution can result from vehicle (qualifying features as site, indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle traffic developments to demonstrate that traffic movements to and from sand above) travelling to and from the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site may they would not have unacceptable and gravel extraction sites, and by be particularly harmful. The A338, which is in fairly close proximity of pollution impacts. emissions from onsite activities. the Bleak Hill Quarry site, crosses the Ramsar site in a number of areas Effects may also be associated with any to the south of Bleak Hill Quarry. These units of the Dorset Heaths development taking place on the site SSSI are generally in unfavourable condition, and although it is not clear after extraction activities have ceased. whether their condition is linked to air quality issues, any increase in Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A338 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the allocation of the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site for ongoing use is likely to result in the continuation of current levels of vehicle movements to and from the site – an estimated total of 104 two-way traffic movements per day (52 in and 52 out) - rather than any increase in traffic volume. It is
a condition of the existing planning permission at the site that all site Habitats vehicles use an internal haul road, before moving onto Hartbridge Drove where they are only allowed to travel in a southerly direction towards the B3081. Although the B3081 links to the A338 and therefore a R
significant proportion of the site traffic is likely to travel onwards via egulations this road, there will be no additional vehicle traffic on top of the current levels, therefore adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased air pollution are not considered likely.
Recreation-related impacts River Avon SAC The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that the Bleak Hill Quarry site is The intention to restore the site after YES Assessment to be restored for public access and biodiversity afteruses. Although extraction has ceased for recreation (Qualifying features as this may result in increased recreation activities near to this SAC, it would use may offer some long-term Restoration of minerals sites after above) also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this and other opportunities to relieve any extraction has ceased often involves European sites by providing additional recreation space in the area. recreation pressure at nearby R
creating sites for recreation use which European sites including this SAC. ecord can impact on European sites as a The Bleak Hill Quarry site is surrounded by a network of Public Rights result of physical disturbance (e.g. from of Way, including one which runs down the western boundary of the erosion/trampling) as well as site (footpath no. 43), and so users may be displaced if the amenity of Appendices contributing to other types of impacts these routes is affected by ongoing sand and gravel extraction activities. assessed above, such as noise pollution. However, the chances of this leading to additional pressure on the River Avon SAC in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the different characteristics of the SAC to the area around Bleak Hill Quarry and the fact that the site is already in use for sand and gravel (FINAL) extraction. Se pt 2013 337 338 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts Avon Valley SPA The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that the Bleak Hill Quarry site is The intention to restore the site after YES Assessment to be restored for public access and biodiversity afteruses. Although extraction has ceased for recreation (Qualifying features as this may result in increased recreation activities near to this SPA, it would use may offer some long term Restoration of minerals sites after above) also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this and other opportunities to relieve any extraction has ceased often involves European sites by providing additional recreation space in the area. recreation pressure at nearby R
creating sites for recreation use which European sites including this SPA. ecord can impact on European sites as a The Bleak Hill Quarry site is surrounded by a network of Public Rights result of physical disturbance (e.g. from of Way, including one which runs down the western boundary of the erosion/trampling) as well as site (footpath no. 43), and so users may be displaced if the amenity of Appendices contributing to other types of impacts these routes is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, assessed above, such as noise pollution. the chances of this leading to additional pressure on the Avon Valley SPA in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the different characteristics of the SPA to the area around Bleak Hill Quarry and the fact that the site is already in use for sand and gravel extraction. (FINAL)
Recreation-related impacts Avon Valley Ramsar The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that the Bleak Hill Quarry site is The intention to restore the site after YES site to be restored for public access and biodiversity afteruses. Although extraction has ceased for recreation Se this may result in increased recreation activities near to this Ramsar site, use may offer some long term pt Restoration of minerals sites after (Qualifying features as it would also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this and opportunities to relieve any 2013 extraction has ceased often involves above) other European sites by providing additional recreation space in the area. recreation pressure at nearby creating sites for recreation use which European sites including this Ramsar can impact on European sites as a The Bleak Hill Quarry site is surrounded by a network of Public Rights site. result of physical disturbance (e.g. from of Way, including one which runs down the western boundary of the erosion/trampling) as well as site (footpath no. 43), and so users may be displaced if the amenity of contributing to other types of impacts these routes is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, assessed above, such as noise pollution. the chances of this leading to additional pressure on the Avon Valley Ramsar site in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the different characteristics of the Ramsar site to the area around Bleak Hill Quarry and the fact that the site is already in use for sand and gravel extraction. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts Dorset Heaths SAC The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that the Bleak Hill Quarry site is The intention to restore the site after YES to be restored for public access and biodiversity afteruses. Although extraction has ceased for recreation (Qualifying features as this may result in increased recreation activities near to this SAC, it would use may offer some long term Restoration of minerals sites after above) also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this and other opportunities to relieve any extraction has ceased often involves European sites by providing additional recreation space in the area. recreation pressure at nearby creating sites for recreation use which European sites including this SAC. can impact on European sites as a The Bleak Hill Quarry site is surrounded by a network of Public Rights result of physical disturbance (e.g. from of Way, including one which runs down the western boundary of the Habitats erosion/trampling) as well as site (footpath no. 43), and so users may be displaced if the amenity of contributing to other types of impacts these routes is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, assessed above, such as noise pollution. the chances of this leading to additional pressure on the Dorset Heaths R
SAC in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the egulations distance between the SAC and the Bleak Hill Quarry site and the fact that the site is already in use for sand and gravel extraction.
Recreation-related impacts Dorset Heathlands The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that the Bleak Hill Quarry site is The intention to restore the site after YES Assessment SPA to be restored for public access and biodiversity afteruses. Although extraction has ceased for recreation this may result in increased recreation activities near to this SPA, it would use may offer some long term Restoration of minerals sites after (Qualifying features as also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this and other opportunities to relieve any extraction has ceased often involves above) European sites by providing additional recreation space in the area. recreation pressure at nearby R
creating sites for recreation use which European sites including this SPA. ecord can impact on European sites as a The Bleak Hill Quarry site is surrounded by a network of Public Rights result of physical disturbance (e.g. from of Way, including one which runs down the western boundary of the erosion/trampling) as well as site (footpath no. 43), and so users may be displaced if the amenity of Appendices contributing to other types of impacts these routes is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, assessed above, such as noise pollution. the chances of this leading to additional pressure on the Dorset Heathlands SPA in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the distance between the SPA and the Bleak Hill Quarry site and the fact that the site is already in use for sand and gravel extraction. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 339 340 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts Dorset Heathlands The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that the Bleak Hill Quarry site is The intention to restore the site after YES Assessment Ramsar site to be restored for public access and biodiversity afteruses. Although extraction has ceased for recreation this may result in increased recreation activities near to this Ramsar site, use may offer some long term Restoration of minerals sites after (Qualifying features as it would also offer potential opportunities to relieve pressure on this and opportunities to relieve any extraction has ceased often involves above) other European sites by providing additional recreation space in the area. recreation pressure at nearby R
creating sites for recreation use which European sites including this Ramsar ecord can impact on European sites as a The Bleak Hill Quarry site is surrounded by a network of Public Rights site. result of physical disturbance (e.g. from of Way, including one which runs down the western boundary of the erosion/trampling) as well as site (footpath no. 43), and so users may be displaced if the amenity of Appendices contributing to other types of impacts these routes is affected by sand and gravel extraction activities. However, assessed above, such as noise pollution. the chances of this leading to additional pressure on the Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site in terms of recreation space are considered to be small due to the distance between the Ramsar site and the Bleak Hill Quarry site and the fact that the site is already in use for sand and gravel (FINAL) extraction.
Dust Avon Valley These European sites are all located more than 500m from the Bleak N/A YES Se SPA/Ramsar site, Hill Quarry sand and gravel site, and so pollution from dust is not pt River Avon SAC, considered likely to have an adverse effect on their integrity. In addition, 2013 Dust deposition on ground and water Dorset Heathlands the relatively high moisture content of sand and gravel deposits means from extraction activities can lead to SPA/Ramsar site that dust generation is likely to be lower than at other types of extraction contamination at nearby European and Dorset Heaths sites. sites. SAC
(Qualifying features as above)
Soil Contamination Avon Valley Due to the distance between the Bleak Hill Quarry sand and gravel site N/A YES SPA/Ramsar site, and these European sites, it is considered unlikely that any significant River Avon SAC, effects will result from soil contamination, particularly as the site would Dorset Heathlands be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless other methods can be SPA/Ramsar site used that do not impact the hydrology of the area). In addition, strict and Dorset Heaths environmental controls would apply at the site, e.g. in relation to the SAC disposal of waste water. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Soil contamination can result from (Qualifying features as various onsite activities including above) industrial processes (e.g. those involving fuels, oils and solvents) and landfill operation (e.g. leachate). Habitats R egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 341 342 Habitats D.9 Hamble Airfield
Table D.17 Hamble Airfield, Hamble-le-Rice R egulations Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented,
features can adverse Assessment effects on the European site be ruled out?
Hamble Airfield, Hamble-le-Rice (sharp sand and gravel) R ecord Physical disturbance/loss of Solent and Although the Hamble Airfield site lies outside of the SPA and so sand Policy 3: Protection and YES
habitat Southampton Water and gravel extraction there would not result in any direct physical loss enhancement of habitats and species Appendices SPA of habitat within the boundaries of the SPA, it is possible that the birds requires minerals and waste proposals which are qualifying features of the SPA may be affected by disturbance to not have significant adverse effects New minerals sites can lead to loss Annex 1 birds and to offsite breeding, foresting or roosting areas if any are located within on European sites. of habitat/habitat fragmentation as regularly occurring or adjacent to the Hamble Airfield site. The Lincegrove and Hacketts
a result of extraction for landtake migratory birds: Marshes and the Lee-on-the-Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSIs (which are The development considerations for this (FINAL) and associated infrastructure the closest fragments of this SPA to Hamble Airfield) are both classed sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix development. • Common Teal as being in unfavourable recovering condition, and although the reason A of the Plan) include “protection of for this is unclear, any disturbance caused by a nearby minerals site may Solent and Southampton Water SPA”.
• Brent Goose be harmful to site integrity. It also includes a requirement for the Se
consideration of the offsite foraging of pt
• Ringed Plover the qualifying species of birds of nearby 2013 Data showing the locations for important Brent Geese roosting and SPA/Ramsars. (51) • Mediterranean Gull feeding sites showed that there are none overlapping with the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site; however, there is a site within close proximity The intention to restore the site after • Black-tailed Godwit to the east which is known to be used by Brent Geese. Although not extraction has ceased for grazing and part of the SPA, disturbance to this offsite area could have an adverse nature conservation interests may offer • Little Tern impact on site integrity as Brent Geese are a qualifying feature of the some long term opportunities for SPA. In addition, the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and habitat provision. • Roscate Tern feeding sites of other qualifying bird species are unknown although Tern and Gull species do feed widely around the Solent, beyond the boundaries • Common Tern of the SPA. As such, adverse impacts relating to disturbance of bird species from the operations at the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site • Sandwich Tern cannot be ruled out.
51 Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, November 2010. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of Solent and Although the Hamble Airfield site lies outside of the boundaries of the Policy 3: Protection and YES habitat Southampton Water Ramsar site, and so sand and gravel extraction here would not result in enhancement of habitats and species Ramsar site any direct physical loss of habitat, it is possible that the bird species which requires minerals and waste proposals are amongst the qualifying features of the Ramsar site may be affected to not have significant adverse effects New minerals sites can lead to loss Ramsar Criterion 1: by disturbance to offsite breeding, foresting or roosting areas if any are on European sites. of habitat/habitat fragmentation as located within or adjacent to the extraction site. a result of extraction for landtake The site is one of the The development considerations for this and associated infrastructure few major sheltered sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix Habitats development. channels between a Data showing the locations for important Brent Geese roosting and A of the Plan) include “protection of substantial island and feeding sites showed that there are none within close proximity of, or Solent and Southampton Water SPA”. mainland in European overlapping with, the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site; however It also includes a requirement for the R
waters, exhibiting an there is a site within close proximity to the east which is known to be consideration of the offsite foraging of egulations unusual strong double used by Brent Geese. Although not part of the Ramsar site, disturbance the qualifying species of birds of nearby tidal flow and has long to this offsite area could have an adverse impact on site integrity as Brent SPA/Ramsars. periods of slack water Geese are a qualifying feature of the Ramsar site. In addition, the specific at high and low tide. locations of offsite roosting, foraging and feeding sites of other bird The intention to restore the site after Assessment It includes many species are unknown. As such, adverse impacts relating to disturbance extraction has ceased for grazing and wetland habitats of bird species from the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site cannot be nature conservation interests may offer characteristic of the ruled out. some long term opportunities for biogeographic region: habitat provision. saline lagoons, R
saltmarshes, estuaries, ecord intertidal flats, shallow coastal waters, grazing marshes, reedbeds, Appendices coastal woodland and rocky boulder reefs.
Ramsar Criterion 2: (FINAL) Se pt 2013 343 344 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
The site supports an Assessment important assemblage of rare plants and invertebrates. At least 33 British Red Data R
Book invertebrates ecord and at least eight British Red Data Book plants are represented Appendices on site.
Ramsar Criterion 4:
Species with peak (FINAL) counts in winter: 51343 waterfowl.
Ramsar Criterion 5: Se pt
Ringed Plover, dark 2013 bellied brent goose, Eurasian teal, black-tailed godwit.
Physical disturbance/loss of Solent Maritime SAC The Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site lies outside of the boundaries N/A YES habitat of this SAC and so development here would not result in any direct • Estuaries physical loss of habitat. The qualifying features of the SAC are not likely to be affected by offsite disturbance as they are mainly habitats rather New minerals sites can lead to loss • Spartina swards than transient species such as birds which may travel for of habitat/habitat fragmentation as foraging/roosting. a result of extraction for landtake • Atlantic salt and associated infrastructure meadows development. • Sandbanks Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
• Mudflats and sandflats
• Coastal lagoons
• Annual vegetation of drift lines Habitats • Perennial vegetation of stony banks R
• Salicornia and other egulations annuals colonising mud and sand
• Shifting dunes along Assessment the shoreline with European marram grass
• Desmoulin’s whorl R
snail ecord Appendices Noise pollution and vibration Solent and The proposed sand and gravel extraction site at Hamble Airfield is located Policy 3: Protection and YES Southampton Water within 500m of the SPA, and the qualifying features are bird species enhancement of habitats and species SPA which are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. As such, adverse requires minerals and waste proposals impacts cannot be ruled out. to not have significant adverse effects (qualifying features as on European sites. (FINAL) above) Se pt 2013 345 346 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise and vibration effects can be Policy 10:Protecting public health, Assessment caused by activities associated with safety and amenity requires proposals sand and gravel extraction during for mineral and waste development to preparatory works (e.g. machinery demonstrate that they would not have used for site excavation), operation unacceptable pollution impacts. R
of the site (e.g. from vehicles ecord transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, tipping and loading material) and Appendices certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site.
Noise pollution and vibration Solent and The proposed sand and gravel extraction site at Hamble Airfield is located Policy 3: Protection and YES (FINAL) Southampton Water within 500m of the Ramsar site, and the qualifying features include bird enhancement of habitats and species Ramsar site species which are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. As such, requires minerals and waste proposals Noise and vibration effects can be adverse impacts cannot be ruled out. to not have significant adverse effects caused by activities associated with (qualifying features as on European sites. Se sand and gravel extraction during above) pt preparatory works (e.g. machinery Policy 10:Protecting public health, 2013 used for site excavation), operation safety and amenity requires proposals of the site (e.g. from vehicles for mineral and waste development to transporting aggregates and demonstrate that they would not have machinery associated with crushing, unacceptable pollution impacts. tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for example if The development considerations for this development occurs on the site. sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include “protection of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA”. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of the qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration Solent Maritime SAC Although the SAC lies within 500m of the Hamble Airfield sand and N/A YES gravel site, the qualifying features are mainly habitats rather than species (qualifying features as such as birds which may be sensitive to noise/vibration; therefore Noise and vibration effects can be above) operations at Hamble Airfield are not considered likely to have an adverse caused by activities associated with impact on site integrity. sand and gravel extraction during preparatory works (e.g. machinery used for site excavation), operation Habitats of the site (e.g. from vehicles transporting aggregates and machinery associated with crushing, R
tipping and loading material) and egulations certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site.
Light pollution Solent and The Hamble Airfield site is located within 500m of the SPA, and the Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES Assessment Southampton Water qualifying bird species are sensitive to visual disturbances, therefore safety and amenity requires proposals SPA adverse impacts in relation to light pollution cannot be ruled out. for minerals and waste developments to Light pollution can be caused by However, this will be affected by currently unknown factors such as the demonstrate that they would not have artificial lighting on site as well as (qualifying features as hours of site operation and the extent of artificial lighting that would be unacceptable pollution impacts. R
vehicle traffic movements to and above) in place, which will not be known until the planning application stage. ecord from and within the site. The development considerations for this sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include “protection of Appendices the Solent and Southampton Water SPA”. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of the qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 347 348 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Light pollution Solent and The Hamble Airfield site is located within 500m of the Ramsar site, and Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES Assessment Southampton Water the qualifying species are sensitive to visual disturbances, therefore adverse safety and amenity requires proposals Ramsar site impacts in relation to light pollution cannot be ruled out. However, this for minerals and waste developments to Light pollution can be caused by (qualifying features as will be affected by currently unknown factors such as the hours of site demonstrate that they would not have artificial lighting on site as well as above) operation and the extent of artificial lighting that would be in place, which unacceptable pollution impacts. R
vehicle traffic movements to and will not be known until the planning application stage. ecord from and within the site. The development considerations for this sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include “protection of Appendices the Solent and Southampton Water SPA”. It also includes a requirement for the consideration of the offsite foraging of the qualifying species of birds of nearby SPA/Ramsars. (FINAL)
Light pollution Solent Maritime SAC The Hamble Airfield site is located within 500m of the SAC. However, N/A YES the qualifying features are mainly habitats and are not known to be Se (qualifying features as sensitive to light pollution. pt Light pollution can be caused by above) 2013 artificial lighting on site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from and within the site. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Solent and The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to The development considerations for this YES Southampton Water maintain the integrity of this SPA. The Hamble Airfield extraction site sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix SPA overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the SPA and is located A of the Plan) include a requirement to Activities associated with sand and within fairly close proximity of the River Hamble which flows towards ‘protect the water quality and recharge gravel extraction can affect water (qualifying features as the SPA. However, the Hamble Airfield site is expected to be worked of the ground water and surface water levels in a variety of ways, including above) ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless alternative technologies can be drying, flooding/storm water, used without causing impacts to the hydrological regime), and it is likely Consultation with the Environment changes in water level and stability, that due to the small size of the extraction site, processing (which is likely Agency with regards to any planning Habitats changes in surface water flow and to require water abstraction) would not occur onsite. However, application coming forward at this site groundwater flow and loss of hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the Hamble Airfield should help to ensure that adverse groundwater storage. These extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information impacts on the water environment are R
changes can result from operational and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding avoided. egulations activities as well as certain after the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works uses. to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient).
Changes to water levels Solent and The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to The development considerations for this YES Assessment Southampton Water maintain the integrity of this Ramsar site. The proposed extraction site sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix Ramsar site overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the Ramsar site and is A of the Plan) include a requirement to Activities associated with sand and (qualifying features as located within fairly close proximity of the River Hamble which flows ‘protect the water quality and recharge gravel extraction can affect water above) towards the Ramsar site. However, the Hamble Airfield site is expected of the ground water and surface water R
levels in a variety of ways, including to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless alternative ecord drying, flooding/storm water, technologies can be used without causing impacts to the hydrological Consultation with the Environment changes in water level and stability, regime), and it is likely that due to the small size of the extraction site, Agency with regards to any planning changes in surface water flow and processing (which is likely to require water abstraction) would not occur application coming forward at this site Appendices groundwater flow and loss of onsite. However, hydrological connectivity between the Ramsar site and should help to ensure that adverse groundwater storage. These the extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information impacts on the water environment are changes can result from operational and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding avoided. activities as well as certain after the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works uses. to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). (FINAL) Se pt 2013 349 350 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Solent Maritime SAC The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to The development considerations for this YES Assessment maintain the integrity of this SAC. The proposed extraction site overlies sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix (qualifying features as a secondary aquifer in common with the SAC and is located within fairly A of the Plan) include appropriate Activities associated with sand and above) close proximity of the River Hamble which flows towards the SAC. measures to protect the underlying gravel extraction can affect water However, the Hamble Airfield site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. aquifer. R
levels in a variety of ways, including above the water table (unless other methods can be used that do not ecord drying, flooding/storm water, impact the hydrology of the area), and it is likely that due to the small Consultation with the Environment changes in water level and stability, size of the extraction site, processing (which is likely to require water Agency with regards to any planning changes in surface water flow and abstraction) would not occur onsite. However, hydrological connectivity application coming forward at this site Appendices groundwater flow and loss of between the SAC and the extraction site is uncertain until more detailed should help to ensure that adverse groundwater storage. These site specific information and data is submitted with planning applications impacts on the water environment are changes can result from operational (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data avoided. activities as well as certain after from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow uses. and gradient). (FINAL)
Changes in water quality Solent and The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES Southampton Water in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Hamble Airfield site safety and amenity requires proposals Se SPA to the SPA and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common for minerals and waste developments to pt Water quality can be affected by with the SPA indicates that water quality impacts as a result of sand and demonstrate that they would not have 2013 sand and gravel extraction during (qualifying features as gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, the Hamble Airfield unacceptable pollution impacts. preparatory works, operational above) extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) activities and after-use of the site, (unless other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground the area) and all extraction operations would need to adhere to sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix investigation works, industrial Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment A of the Plan) include a requirement to processes within a site, dewatering Agency would be consulted on any planning application coming forward ‘protect the water quality and recharge or development/reclamation of a at this site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel of the ground water and surface water. site after extraction has ceased. extraction would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment Hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the Consultation with the Environment extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information Agency with regards to any planning and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding application coming forward at this site the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works should help to ensure that adverse to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). impacts on the water environment are avoided. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality Solent and The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES Southampton Water in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Hamble Airfield site safety and amenity requires proposals Ramsar site to the Ramsar site and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in for minerals and waste developments to Water quality can be affected by common with the Ramsar site indicates that water quality impacts as a demonstrate that they would not have sand and gravel extraction during result of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, unacceptable pollution impacts. preparatory works, operational the Hamble Airfield extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. activities and after-use of the site, above the water table) (unless other methods can be used that do not The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground impact the hydrology of the area) and all extraction operations would sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix Habitats investigation works, industrial need to adhere to Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, A of the Plan) include a requirement to processes within a site, dewatering the Environment Agency would be consulted on any planning application ‘protect the water quality and recharge or development/reclamation of a coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within which of the ground water and surface water'. R
site after extraction has ceased. sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place without egulations causing harm to the water environment. Hydrological connectivity Consultation with the Environment between the Ramsar site and the extraction site is uncertain until more Agency with regards to any planning detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning application coming forward at this site applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, should help to ensure that adverse Assessment and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater impacts on the water environment are depths, flow and gradient). avoided. R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 351 352 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality Solent Maritime SAC The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES Assessment in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Hamble Airfield site safety and amenity requires proposals (qualifying features as to the SAC and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in common for minerals and waste developments to Water quality can be affected by above) with the SAC indicates that water quality impacts as a result of sand and demonstrate that they would not have sand and gravel extraction during gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, the Hamble Airfield unacceptable pollution impacts. R
preparatory works, operational extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) ecord activities and after-use of the site, (unless other methods can be used that do not impact the hydrology of The development considerations for this for example as a result of ground the area) and all extraction operations would need to adhere to sand and gravel site (set out in Appendix investigation works, industrial Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the Environment A of the Plan) include a requirement to Appendices processes within a site, dewatering Agency would be consulted on any planning application coming forward ‘protect the water quality and recharge or development/reclamation of a at this site and would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel of the ground water and surface water'. site after extraction has ceased. extraction would be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment. However, hydrological connectivity between the Consultation with the Environment SAC and the extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific Agency with regards to any planning (FINAL) information and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. application coming forward at this site proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from should help to ensure that adverse investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and impacts on the water environment are gradient). avoided. Se pt 2013 Air pollution Solent and Levels of acid deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads The development criteria for this sand YES Southampton Water at this SPA, indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle and gravel site, as set out in the Minerals SPA traffic travelling to and from the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site and Waste Plan, include the requirement Air pollution can result from vehicle may be particularly harmful. Fragments of the SPA are within close to consider traffic issues and propose traffic movements to and from sand (qualifying features as proximity of parts of the strategic road network that may be used to measures to address reasonable impacts and gravel extraction sites, and by above) access the site – the A3024 crosses the southern part of the Lower Test from traffic generated by the proposal. emissions from onsite activities. Valley SSSI and the northern part of the Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI Effects may also be associated with (both of which are part of the SPA) and the A35 crosses a fragment of Policy 10: Protecting public health, any development taking place on the SPA adjacent to Northam (this area is not a SSSI). The Lower Test safety and amenity requires proposals the site after extraction activities Valley SSSI also abuts the western edge of the M271. The Lower Test for minerals and waste developments to have ceased. Valley SSSI units which are crossed by the A3024 and which abut the demonstrate that they would not have M271 are in favourable condition; however the unit of the Eling and unacceptable pollution impacts. Bury Marshes SSSI which is also crossed by the A3024 is in unfavourable condition and bird numbers are declining. Although it is not clear whether the condition of the SSSI is linked to air quality issues, an increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
the A3024 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 60 two-way traffic movements per day (30 in and 30 out). The Assessment assumed that the vast majority (80%) of the traffic movements to and from the site would exit on Hamble Lane (the B3397) and then access the M27 via a small portion of the A3024 which leads
to junction 8 of the M27, and that the remainder would route onto the Habitats A3025 into Southampton. This indicates that only a small proportion of the additional traffic generated is therefore expected to travel on the remainder of the A3024 (excluding the small stretch between Hamble R
Lane and the M27), the M271 or the A35. In terms of the additional egulations traffic on the A3024 leading to junction 8 of the M27, the Strategic Transport Assessment states that there would be an increase of 5.12% in the HGV daily movements as a result of this site being developed. This is a small proportion, below the 10% threshold at which impacts may be significant, and this stretch of the road is also more than 200m Assessment from the SPA. Although it feeds onto the M27 which does cross fragments of the SPA, the percentage increase in HGV numbers on that route will be considerably smaller still. Indeed, the Strategic Transport Assessment concluded that there was not likely to be any material impact R
on traffic flows on the M27 as a result of this site. It is therefore ecord considered that any additional vehicle traffic along these roads would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution. Appendices
Air pollution Solent and Levels of acid deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads The development criteria for this sand YES Southampton Water at this Ramsar site, indicating that any increase in air pollution from and gravel site, as set out in the Minerals Ramsar site vehicle traffic travelling to and from the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel and Waste Plan, include the requirement site may be particularly harmful. Fragments of the Ramsar site are within to consider traffic issues and propose (FINAL) (qualifying features as close proximity of parts of the strategic road network that may be used measures to address reasonable impacts above) to access the site – the A3024 crosses the southern part of the Lower from traffic generated by the proposal. Test Valley SSSI and the northern part of the Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI (both of which are part of the Ramsar site) and the A35 crosses a Se fragment of the Ramsar site adjacent to Northam (this area is not a SSSI). pt The Lower Test Valley SSSI also buffers the western edge of the M271. 2013 353 354 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution can result from vehicle The Lower Test Valley SSSI units which are crossed by the A3024 and Policy 10: Protecting public health, Assessment traffic movements to and from sand which buffer the M271 are in favourable condition; however the unit of safety and amenity requires proposals and gravel extraction sites, and by the Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI which is also crossed by the A3024 is for minerals and waste developments to emissions from onsite activities. in unfavourable condition and bird numbers here are declining. Although demonstrate that they would not have Effects may also be associated with it is not clear whether the condition of the SSSI is linked to air quality unacceptable pollution impacts. R
any development taking place on issues, an increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional ecord the site after extraction activities vehicle traffic along the A3024 may be particularly harmful to the integrity have ceased. of the Ramsar site. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site is likely Appendices to result in a total of 60 two-way traffic movements per day (30 in and 30 out). The Assessment assumed that the vast majority (80%) of the traffic movements to and from the site would exit on Hamble Lane (the B3397) and then access the M27 via a small portion of the A3024 which leads to junction 8 of the M27, and that the remainder would route onto (FINAL) the A3025 into Southampton. This indicates that only a small proportion of the additional traffic generated is therefore expected to travel on the remainder of the A3024 (excluding the small stretch between Hamble Lane and the M27), the M271 or the A35. In terms of the additional Se traffic on the A3024 leading to junction 8 of the M27, the Strategic pt Transport Assessment states that there would be an increase of 5.12% 2013 in the HGV daily movements as a result of this site being developed. This is a small proportion, below the 10% threshold at which impacts may be significant, and this stretch of the road is also more than 200m from the Ramsar site. Although it feeds onto the M27 which does cross fragments of the Ramsar site, the percentage increase in HGV numbers on that route will be considerably smaller still. Indeed, the Strategic Transport Assessment concluded that there was not likely to be any material impact on traffic flows on the M27 as a result of this site. It is therefore considered that any additional vehicle traffic along these roads would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased air pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Air pollution Solent Maritime SAC Levels of acid deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads The development criteria for this sand YES at this SAC, indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle and gravel site, as set out in the Minerals (qualifying features as traffic travelling to and from the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site and Waste Plan, include the requirement Air pollution can result from vehicle above) may be particularly harmful. Fragments of the SAC are within close to consider traffic issues and propose traffic movements to and from sand proximity of parts of the strategic road network that may be used to measures to address reasonable impacts and gravel extraction sites, and by access the site – the A3024 crosses the southern part of the Lower Test from traffic generated by the proposal. emissions from onsite activities. Valley SSSI and the northern part of the Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI
Effects may also be associated with (both of which are part of the SAC) and the A35 crosses a fragment of Policy 10: Protecting public health, Habitats any development taking place on the SAC adjacent to Northam (this area is not a SSSI). In addition, the safety and amenity requires proposals the site after extraction activities M27 crosses part of the SAC to the north east of the Hamble Airfield for minerals and waste developments to have ceased. site (this part of the SAC is not a SSSI) and the Lower Test Valley SSSI demonstrate that they would not have R
(part of the SAC) also buffers the western edge of the M271. The Lower unacceptable pollution impacts. egulations Test Valley SSSI units which are crossed by the A3024 and which buffer the M271 are in favourable condition; however the unit of the Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI which is also crossed by the A3024 is in unfavourable condition. Although it is not clear whether the condition of these SSSI units is linked to air quality issues, an increase in deposition of pollutants Assessment as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A3024 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 60 two-way traffic movements R
per day (30 in and 30 out). The Assessment assumed that the vast ecord majority (80%) of the traffic movements to and from the site would exit on Hamble Lane (the B3397) and then access the M27 via a small portion of the A3024 which leads to junction 8 of the M27, and that the remainder Appendices would route onto the A3025 into Southampton. This indicates that only a small proportion of the additional traffic generated is therefore expected to travel on the remainder of the A3024 (excluding the small stretch between Hamble Lane and the M27), the M271 or the A35. In terms of the additional traffic on the A3024 leading to junction 8 of the M27, the (FINAL) Strategic Transport Assessment states that there would be an increase of 5.12% in the HGV daily movements as a result of this site being Se pt 2013 355 356 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
developed. This is a small proportion, below the 10% threshold at which Assessment impacts may be significant, and this stretch of the road is also more than 200m from the SAC. Although it feeds onto the M27 which does cross fragments of the SAC, the percentage increase in HGV numbers on that route will be considerably smaller still. Indeed, the Strategic Transport R
Assessment concluded that there was not likely to be any material impact ecord on traffic flows on the M27 as a result of this site. It is therefore considered that any additional vehicle traffic along these roads would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity Appendices of the SAC from increased air pollution.
Air pollution River Itchen SAC Fragments of this SAC are within close proximity of parts of the strategic The development criteria for this sand YES road network that may be used to access the site – to the north east the and gravel site, as set out in the Minerals
M27 crosses the River Itchen SSSI which is part of the SAC and the M3 and Waste Plan, include the requirement (FINAL) Air pollution can result from vehicle also crosses the SAC further north (this part is not a SSSI). The River to consider traffic issues and propose traffic movements to and from sand Itchen SSSI unit which is crossed by the M27 is classed as being in measures to address reasonable impacts and gravel extraction sites, and by unfavourable recovering condition. Although it is not clear whether the from traffic generated by the proposal. emissions from onsite activities. condition of this SSSI unit is linked to air quality issues, any increase in Se Effects may also be associated with deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the Policy 10: Protecting public health, pt any development taking place on M27 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. safety and amenity requires proposals 2013 the site after extraction activities for minerals and waste developments to have ceased. demonstrate that they would not have unacceptable pollution impacts. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Hamble Airfield sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 60 two-way traffic movements per day (30 in and 30 out). The Assessment assumed that the vast majority (80%) of the traffic movements to and from the site would exit on Hamble Lane and then access the M27 leading to the wider motorway network and that the remainder would route onto the A3025 into Southampton. Although
the M27, which is likely to accommodate the bulk of the additional traffic Habitats generated, does cross parts of the SAC, the anticipated increase in vehicle numbers is relatively small – the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the increase in vehicle numbers on the link road to the M27 would R
be 5.12%, and when this is put into the context of the existing vehicle egulations numbers on the M27 itself, which will be significantly higher than on the link road, the additional vehicle traffic along the M27 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from increased air pollution. Indeed, the Strategic Transport Assessment concluded that there was not likely to be any material impact on traffic Assessment flows on the M27 as a result of this site.
Recreation-related impacts Solent and The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this sand and gravel site is N/A YES R
Southampton Water to be restored for a combination of grazing/nature conservation and ecord SPA open space once extraction has ceased. Although this may result in an increase in visitor numbers in the area, the site is far enough from this Restoration of minerals sites after (qualifying features as SPA that recreation-related disturbances would not be expected. In Appendices extraction has ceased often involves above) addition, the provision of recreation space as the site is restored may creating sites for recreation use provide long-term opportunities to relieve visitor pressure on nearby which can impact on European sites European sites. as a result of physical disturbance (e.g. from erosion/trampling) as (FINAL) well as contributing to other types A PRoW (footpath no. 1) runs directly adjacent to the east of the site, of impacts assessed above, such as and another is in close proximity to the north west (footpath no. 6), and noise pollution. users of these routes may be displaced if their amenity is affected by extraction activities. However, there is a relatively dense network of local Se PRoWs, which are mainly located away from the SPA; therefore this is pt not expected to result in additional disturbance at the SPA. 2013 357 358 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts Solent and The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this sand and gravel site is N/A YES Assessment Southampton Water to be restored for a combination of grazing/nature conservation and Ramsar site open space once extraction has ceased. Although this may result in an Restoration of minerals sites after increase in visitor numbers in the area, the site is far enough from any extraction has ceased often involves (qualifying features as European sites that recreation-related disturbances would not be R
creating sites for recreation use above) expected. In addition, the provision of recreation space as the site is ecord which can impact on European sites restored may provide long-term opportunities to relieve visitor pressure as a result of physical disturbance on nearby European sites. (e.g. from erosion/trampling) as Appendices well as contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as A PRoW (footpath no. 1) runs directly adjacent to the east of the site, noise pollution. and another is in close proximity to the north west (footpath no. 6), and users of these routes may be displaced if their amenity is affected by extraction activities. However, there is a relatively dense network of local (FINAL) PRoWs, which are mainly located away from the Ramsar site; therefore this is not expected to result in additional disturbance at the SPA. Se
Recreation-related impacts Solent Maritime SAC The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this sand and gravel site is N/A YES pt to be restored for a combination of grazing/nature conservation and 2013 (qualifying features as open space once extraction has ceased. Although this may result in an Restoration of minerals sites after above) increase in visitor numbers in the area, the site is far enough from any extraction has ceased often involves European sites that recreation-related disturbances would not be creating sites for recreation use expected. In addition, the provision of recreation space as the site is which can impact on European sites restored may provide long-term opportunities to relieve visitor pressure as a result of physical disturbance on nearby European sites. (e.g. from erosion/trampling) as well as contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as A PRoW (footpath no. 1) runs directly adjacent to the east of the site, noise pollution. and another is in close proximity to the north west (footpath no. 6), and users of these routes may be displaced if their amenity is affected by extraction activities. However, there is a relatively dense network of local PRoWs, which are mainly located away from the SAC; therefore this is not expected to result in additional disturbance at the SPA. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Dust Solent and Although these European sites all lie within approximately 300m of the Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES Southampton Water Hamble Airfield site and could potentially be affected by the impacts of safety and amenity requires proposals SPA/Ramsar Site dust, the relatively small scale of the extraction activities proposed at the for minerals and waste developments to Dust deposition on ground and and Solent Maritime site and the strict environmental controls that would be in place mean demonstrate that they would not have water from extraction activities can SAC that adverse effects on site integrity are not considered likely. In addition, unacceptable pollution impacts. lead to contamination at nearby sand and gravel deposits generally have a relatively high moisture content, European sites. (qualifying features as meaning that levels of dust generation are likely to be reasonably low.
above) Habitats
Soil Contamination Solent and Although these European sites all lie within 500m of the Hamble Airfield Policy 10: Protecting public health, YES R
Southampton Water sand and gravel site and could potentially be affected by soil safety and amenity requires proposals egulations SPA/Ramsar Site contamination, adverse impacts are not considered likely due to the fact for minerals and waste developments to Soil contamination can result from and Solent Maritime that the site would be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table and because demonstrate that they would not have various onsite activities including SAC it is likely that (due to the small scale of the site) processing would occur unacceptable pollution impacts. industrial processes (e.g. those offsite. In addition, strict environmental controls would apply at the site, involving fuels, oils and solvents) (qualifying features as e.g. in relation to the disposal of waste water. Assessment and landfill operation (e.g. leachate). above) R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 359 360 Habitats D.10 Forest Lodge Home Farm
Table D.18 Forest Lodge Home Farm, Hardley (soft sand/sharp sand and gravel) R egulations Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented,
features can adverse Assessment effects on the European site be ruled out?
Forest Lodge Home Farm, Hardley (soft sand/sharp sand and gravel) R ecord Physical disturbance/loss of Solent and Although the Forest Lodge Home Farm site lies more than 500m outside Policy 3: Protection and enhancement
habitat Southampton Water of the SPA, and so sand and gravel extraction here would not result in of habitats and species requires Appendices SPA any direct physical loss of habitat within the boundaries of the SPA, it minerals and waste proposals to not have New minerals sites can lead to loss is possible that the birds which are the qualifying features of the SPA significant adverse effects on European of habitat/habitat fragmentation as Annex 1 birds and may be affected by disturbance to offsite breeding, foresting or roosting sites. a result of landtake and associated regularly occurring areas if any are located within or adjacent to the Forest Lodge Home
infrastructure development. migratory birds: Farm extraction site. The Hythe and Calshot Marshes SSSI (a fragment The development considerations for the (FINAL) of this SPA which is close to Forest Lodge Home Farm) is classed as Forest Lodge Farm sand and gravel • Common Teal being in unfavourable declining condition, and although the reason for extraction site (set out in Appendix A of this is unclear, it is known that bird numbers there are declining. This the Plan) include appropriate measures
• Brent Goose indicates that any physical disturbance caused by a nearby sand and to protect the Solent and Southampton Se
gravel extraction site may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Water SPA and roosting and foraging pt
• Ringed Plover SPA. areas used by qualifying bird species. 2013 YES • Mediterranean Gull Data showing the locations for important Brent Geese roosting and The intention to restore the site after feeding sites(52) showed that there are none within close proximity of, extraction has ceased for grazing, • Black-tailed Godwit or overlapping with, the Forest Lodge Farm sand and gravel site. The recreation and nature conservation specific locations of the offsite roosting, foraging and feeding sites of interests may offer some long term • Little Tern other qualifying bird species are unknown; however Tern and Gull opportunities for habitat provision. species are known to feed widely around the Solent, beyond the (53) • Roscate Tern boundaries of this SPA . In addition, the Forest Lodge Farm extraction site is located only around 880m from the nearest part of the • Common Tern SPA. As such, adverse impacts relating to disturbance of bird species from the Forest Lodge sand and gravel site cannot be ruled out, although • Sandwich Tern any such impacts are less likely during the winter months when most of these bird species migrate further south (some such as the Mediterranean gull remain in the UK during winter).
52 Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy. Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, November 2010. 53 Solent Recreation and Disturbance Project: Winter Bird Survey, First Year Report (August 2009) Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
A requirement for detailed surveys to be carried out in appropriate seasons as part of any planning application coming forward at this site to assess the presence of Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar bird species at the Forest Lodge Farm site and include appropriate
mitigation measures to ensure no loss of Habitats or harm to the qualifying species is set out in the Implementation and Monitoring Plan for Policy 3. R egulations
Physical disturbance/loss of Solent and Although the Forest Lodge Home Farm site lies more than 500m outside Policy 3: Protection and enhancement habitat Southampton Water of the Ramsar site, and so sand and gravel extraction here would not of habitats and species requires Ramsar site result in any direct physical loss of habitat within the boundaries of the minerals and waste proposals to not have New minerals sites can lead to loss Ramsar site, it is possible that the bird species which are amongst the significant adverse effects on European Assessment of habitat/habitat fragmentation as Ramsar Criterion 1: qualifying features of the Ramsar site may be affected by disturbance sites. a result of landtake and associated to offsite breeding, foresting or roosting areas if any are located within infrastructure development. The site is one of the or adjacent to the Forest Lodge extraction site. The Hythe and Calshot The development considerations for the few major sheltered Marshes SSSI (a fragments of this Ramsar site which is close to Forest Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and YES R
channels between a Lodge Home Farm) is classed as being in unfavourable declining gravel extraction site (set out in ecord substantial island and condition, and although the reason for this is unclear, it is known that Appendix A of the Plan version 6) mainland in European bird numbers there are declining. This indicates that any physical include appropriate measures to protect waters, exhibiting an disturbance to bird species caused by a nearby sand and gravel extraction the Solent and Southampton Water SPA Appendices unusual strong double site may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. Solent and Southampton Water SPA and tidal flow and has long roosting and foraging areas used by periods of slack water qualifying bird species. at high and low tide. It (FINAL) Se pt 2013 361 362 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
includes many wetland Data showing the locations for important Brent Geese roosting and The intention to restore the site after Assessment habitats characteristic feeding sites showed that there are none within close proximity of, or extraction has ceased for grazing, of the biogeographic overlapping with, the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site. recreation and nature conservation region: saline lagoons, The specific locations of the offsite roosting, foraging and feeding sites interests may offer some long term saltmarshes, estuaries, of other qualifying bird species are unknown; however it is likely that opportunities for habitat provision. R
intertidal flats, shallow these will extend beyond the boundaries of this Ramsar site. In addition, ecord coastal waters, grazing the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is located only around A requirement for detailed surveys to be marshes, reedbeds, 880m from the nearest part of the SPA. As such, adverse impacts carried out in appropriate seasons as part coastal woodland and relating to disturbance of bird species from the Forest Lodge sand and of any planning application coming Appendices rocky boulder reefs. gravel site cannot be ruled out, although any such impacts are less likely forward at this site to assess the presence during the winter months when some of the qualifying bird species of of Solent and Southampton Water SPA Ramsar Criterion 2: this Ramsar site (such as the black-tailed godwit) migrate further south. and Ramsar bird species at the Forest Lodge Home Farm site and include The site supports an appropriate mitigation measures to (FINAL) important assemblage ensure no loss of or harm to the of rare plants and qualifying species is set out in the invertebrates. At least Implementation and Monitoring Plan for 33 British Red Data Policy 3. Se Book invertebrates and pt at least eight British 2013 Red Data Book plants are represented on site.
Ramsar Criterion 4:
Species with peak counts in winter: 51343 waterfowl.
Ramsar Criterion 5:
Ringed Plover, dark bellied brent goose, Eurasian teal, black-tailed godwit. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of Solent Maritime SAC The Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site lies more than 500m N/A habitat outside of the boundaries of this SAC and so development here would • Estuaries not result in any direct physical loss of habitat. The qualifying features New minerals sites can lead to loss of the SAC are not likely to be affected by offsite disturbance as they of habitat/habitat fragmentation as • Spartina swards are mainly habitats rather than transient species such as birds which may a result of landtake and associated travel for foraging/roosting. The qualifying species such as Desmoulin’s infrastructure development. • Atlantic salt meadows whorl snail favour wetland habitats such as marshes which are not found
within the Forest Lodge Home Farm site; therefore these species would Habitats • Sandbanks not be expected to be present at the extraction site and therefore vulnerable to physical disturbance or loss of offsite habitat. • Mudflats and R
sandflats egulations
• Coastal lagoons
• Annual vegetation of Assessment drift lines YES
• Perennial vegetation of stony banks R
• Salicornia and other ecord annuals colonising mud
and sand Appendices
• Shifting dunes along the shoreline with European marram
grass (FINAL)
• Desmoulin’s whorl snail Se pt 2013 363 364 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Physical disturbance/loss of New Forest SAC The Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site lies more than 500m Policy 3: Protection and enhancement Assessment habitat outside of the boundaries of the SAC and so development here would of habitats and species requires • Oligotrophic waters not result in any direct physical loss of habitat. Although most of the minerals and waste proposals to not have New minerals sites can lead to loss containing very few qualifying features of the SAC are not likely to be affected by offsite significant adverse effects on European of habitat/habitat fragmentation as minerals of sandy disturbance as they are habitats rather than transient species, there are sites. R
a result of landtake and associated plains also some species such as the great crested newt which may travel over ecord infrastructure development. longer distances outside of the boundaries of the SAC, and so The development considerations for the • Oligotrophic to disturbance to the habitats that they use may be detrimental to the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and mesotrophic standing integrity of the SAC. The relatively close proximity of the Forest Lodge gravel extraction site (set out in Appendices waters with vegetation Home Farm site to the SAC (approximately 680m away) means that the Appendix A of the Plan) include of the Littorelletea potential for such impacts cannot be ruled out; however the great crested appropriate measures to protect the New uniflorae and/or of the newt is largely nocturnal, which reduces the likelihood of adverse impacts Forest SAC. Isoeto-Nanojuncetea relating to disturbance. The intention to restore the site after (FINAL) • Northern Atlantic wet extraction has ceased for grazing, heaths with recreation and nature conservation cross-leaved heath interests may offer some long term opportunities for habitat provision. Se • European dry heaths YES pt 2013
• Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)
• Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion
• Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer
• Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
• Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains
• Bog woodland
• Transition mires and
quaking bogs Habitats
• Alkaline fens R
• Southern damselfly egulations
• Stag beetle
• Great crested newt Assessment
Physical disturbance/loss of New Forest SPA The Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site lies more than 500m Policy 3: Protection and enhancement habitat outside of the SPA and so extraction here would not result in any direct of habitats and species requires physical loss of habitat within the boundaries of the SPA. However, minerals and waste proposals to not have Annex 1 birds and R
New minerals sites can lead to loss regularly occurring the specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and feeding sites of significant adverse effects on European ecord of habitat/habitat fragmentation as migratory birds: the various qualifying bird species are unknown, and these may extend sites. a result of landtake and associated as far as the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site. Although some Appendices infrastructure development. • European nightjar of the qualifying bird species such as the honey buzzard are highly The development considerations for the dependent on the woodland habitat, and so would not be expected to Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and • Hen harrier travel far outside of the wooded area of the New Forest i.e. to this gravel extraction site (set out in extraction site, other species such as the European nightjar are known Appendix A of the Plan) include YES to fly over longer distances to forage. As such, offsite disturbance to appropriate measures to protect the New
• Eurasian hobby (FINAL) these species cannot be ruled out. Forest SPA. • Woodlark The intention to restore the site after
• Honey buzzard extraction has ceased for grazing, Se
recreation and nature conservation pt interests may offer some long term • Wood warbler 2013 opportunities for habitat provision. 365 366 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
• Dartford warbler A requirement for detailed surveys to be Assessment carried out in appropriate seasons as part of any planning application coming forward at this site to assess the presence of Solent and Southampton Water SPA R
and Ramsar bird species at the Forest ecord Lodge Home Farm site and include appropriate mitigation measures to ensure no loss of or harm to the Appendices qualifying species is set out in the Implementation and Monitoring Plan for Policy 3. (FINAL) Physical disturbance/loss of New Forest Ramsar The Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site lies more than 500m Policy 3: Protection and enhancement habitat outside of the boundaries of this Ramsar site and so development here of habitats and species requires Ramsar Criterion 1: would not result in any direct physical loss of habitat. However, the minerals and waste proposals to not have New minerals sites can lead to loss specific locations of offsite roosting, foraging and feeding sites of the significant adverse effects on European Se of habitat/habitat fragmentation as • Valley mires and wet various qualifying bird species are unknown, and these may extend as sites. pt a result of landtake and associated heaths are found far as the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site. In particular, 2013 infrastructure development. throughout the site and disturbance to habitat used by the Dartford warbler is particularly likely The development considerations for the are of outstanding as this species is present all year round (some other bird species found Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and scientific interest. here such as the hen harrier migrate south in the winter months). gravel extraction site (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include • The mires and heaths appropriate measures to protect the New YES are within catchments Forest Ramsar site. whose uncultivated and undeveloped state The intention to restore the site after buffer the mires against extraction has ceased for grazing, adverse ecological recreation and nature conservation change. interests may offer some long term opportunities for habitat provision. • This is the largest concentration of intact valley mires of their type in Britain. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Ramsar Criterion 2: A requirement for detailed surveys to be carried out in appropriate seasons as part • The site supports a of any planning application coming diverse assemblage of forward at this site to assess the presence wetland plants and of Solent and Southampton Water SPA animals including and Ramsar bird species at the Forest several nationally rare Lodge Home Farm site and include
species. appropriate mitigation measures to Habitats ensure no loss of or harm to the • Seven species of qualifying species is set out in the nationally rare plant are implementation plan Implementation R
found on the site, as and Monitoring Plan for Policy 3. egulations are at least 65 British Red Data Book species of invertebrate. Assessment Ramsar Criterion 3:
• The mire habitats are of high ecological quality and diversity R
and have undisturbed ecord transition zones. Appendices • The invertebrate fauna of the site is important due to the concentration of rare and scarce wetland (FINAL) species. Se pt 2013 367 368 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
• The whole site Assessment complex, with its examples of semi-natural habitats is essential to the genetic R
and ecological diversity ecord of southern England. Appendices Noise pollution and vibration Solent and The qualifying features of this SPA are bird species and are therefore Policy 3: Protection and enhancement Southampton Water particularly vulnerable to the effects of noise/vibration. Although the of habitats and species requires Noise and vibration effects can be SPA SPA lies more than 500m from the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction minerals and waste proposals to not have caused by activities associated with site, it is possible that the qualifying bird species may still be affected by significant adverse effects on European sand and gravel extraction during (qualifying features as noise/vibration if they make use of the area around Forest Lodge Home sites. (FINAL) preparatory works (e.g. machinery above) Farm for offsite breeding, foraging and roosting sites. used for site excavation), operation Policy 10: Protecting public health, of the site (e.g. from vehicles safety and amenity requires proposals YES transporting aggregates and for minerals and waste developments to Se machinery associated with crushing, demonstrate that they would not have pt tipping and loading material) and unacceptable pollution impacts. These 2013 certain after-uses, for example if measures should also help to ensure that development occurs on the site. noise and dust do not affect the qualifying bird species.
Noise pollution and vibration Solent and This Ramsar site is located more than 500m from the Forest Lodge Policy 3: Protection and enhancement Southampton Water Home Farm sand and gravel site, and the majority of the qualifying of habitats and species requires Ramsar site features are not sensitive to these types of disturbance. However, some minerals and waste proposals to not have of the qualifying features of the Ramsar site are bird species, which are significant adverse effects on European YES (qualifying features as particularly vulnerable to these types of impacts, and if they make use sites. above) of the area around Forest Lodge Home Farm for offsite breeding, foraging and roosting, adverse impacts may still occur. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise and vibration effects can be Policy 10: Protecting public health, caused by activities associated with safety and amenity requires proposals sand and gravel extraction during for minerals and waste developments to preparatory works (e.g. machinery demonstrate that they would not have used for site excavation), operation unacceptable pollution impacts. These of the site (e.g. from vehicles measures should also help to ensure that transporting aggregates and noise and dust do not affect the machinery associated with crushing, qualifying bird species. Habitats tipping and loading material) and certain after-uses, for example if development occurs on the site. R egulations
Noise pollution and vibration Solent Maritime SAC This SAC is located more than 500m from the Forest Lodge Home Policy 3: Protection and enhancement Farm sand and gravel site and the majority of the qualifying features are of habitats and species requires Noise and vibration effects can be (qualifying features as habitats and are therefore not sensitive to these types of disturbance. minerals and waste proposals to not have caused by activities associated with above) The qualifying species such as Desmoulin’s whorl snail favour wetland significant adverse effects on European Assessment sand and gravel extraction during habitats such as marshes which are not found within the Forest Lodge sites. preparatory works (e.g. machinery Home Farm site; therefore these species would not be expected to be used for site excavation), operation present at the extraction site and therefore vulnerable to noise Policy 10: Protecting public health, of the site (e.g. from vehicles pollution/vibration. safety and amenity requires proposals YES R
transporting aggregates and for minerals and waste developments to ecord machinery associated with crushing, demonstrate that they would not have tipping and loading material) and unacceptable pollution impacts. These certain after-uses, for example if measures should also help to ensure that Appendices development occurs on the site. noise and dust do not affect the qualifying bird species. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 369 370 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration New Forest SAC This SAC is located more than 500m from the Forest Lodge Home Policy 10: Protecting public health, Assessment Farm sand and gravel site and the majority of the qualifying features are safety and amenity requires proposals Noise and vibration effects can be (qualifying features as not sensitive to these types of disturbance. However, some of the for minerals and waste developments to caused by activities associated with above) qualifying features are transient species such as the great crested newt, demonstrate that they would not have sand and gravel extraction during which may be found in or adjacent to the Forest Lodge Home Farm unacceptable pollution impacts. These R
preparatory works (e.g. machinery site and may therefore be affected by noise/vibration. The fact that the measures should also help to ensure that ecord used for site excavation), operation great crested newt is largely nocturnal, should, however reduce the noise and dust do not affect the YES of the site (e.g. from vehicles likelihood of adverse impacts relating to noise/vibration from the site. qualifying bird species. These measures transporting aggregates and should also help to ensure that noise and Appendices machinery associated with crushing, vibration do not affect any great crested tipping and loading material) and newts that might be present on or near certain after-uses, for example if to the site. development occurs on the site. (FINAL)
Noise pollution and vibration New Forest SPA Although the qualifying features of the SPA are bird species, which are Policy 3: Protection and enhancement particularly vulnerable to noise and vibration, the SPA is located more of habitats and species requires Noise and vibration effects can be (qualifying features as than 500m from the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site. minerals and waste proposals to not have Se caused by activities associated with above) However, a number of these bird species are known to travel far enough significant adverse effects on European pt sand and gravel extraction during for breeding, foraging and roosting that they may still experience the sites. 2013 preparatory works (e.g. machinery effects of noise and vibration from the site. Most of the species migrate used for site excavation), operation south for the winter, therefore potential effects would be significantly Policy 10: Protecting public health, of the site (e.g. from vehicles less likely than in the summer months, and some of the species are safety and amenity requires proposals YES transporting aggregates and nocturnal (e.g. the nightjar) and so are less likely to be disturbed by for minerals and waste developments to machinery associated with crushing, onsite operations; however this type of impact cannot be ruled out. demonstrate that they would not have tipping and loading material) and unacceptable pollution impacts. These certain after-uses, for example if measures should also help to ensure that development occurs on the site. noise and dust do not affect the qualifying bird species. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Noise pollution and vibration New Forest Ramsar The Ramsar site is located more than 500m from the Forest Lodge Policy 10: Protecting public health, site Home Farm sand and gravel site and the majority of the qualifying safety and amenity requires proposals Noise and vibration effects can be features are not sensitive to these types of disturbance. However, a for minerals and waste developments to caused by activities associated with (qualifying features as number of bird species are included in the qualifying features of the site, demonstrate that they would not have sand and gravel extraction during above) which are sensitive to noise and vibration, and these may travel far unacceptable pollution impacts. These preparatory works (e.g. machinery enough for breeding, foraging and roosting that they could still measures should also help to ensure that used for site excavation), operation experience the effects of noise and vibration from the site. Most of the noise and dust do not affect the YES of the site (e.g. from vehicles bird species migrate south for the winter; therefore potential effects qualifying bird species. Habitats transporting aggregates and would be significantly less likely than in the summer months; however machinery associated with crushing, this type of impact cannot be ruled out. tipping and loading material) and R
certain after-uses, for example if egulations development occurs on the site.
Light pollution Solent and This SPA is located more than 500m from Forest Lodge Home Farm, Policy 10: Protecting public health, Southampton Water reducing the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light safety and amenity requires proposals Assessment Light pollution can be caused by SPA pollution. However, some of the qualifying bird species may travel as for minerals and waste developments to artificial lighting on site as well as far as the extraction site for breeding, roosting and foraging, therefore demonstrate that they would not have YES vehicle traffic movements to and (qualifying features as may still be affected by any artificial lighting used onsite. However, the unacceptable pollution impacts. from and within the site. above) extent to which artificial lighting would be used is currently unknown. R ecord
Light pollution Solent and This Ramsar site is located more than 500m from Forest Lodge Home Policy 10: Protecting public health, Southampton Water Farm, reducing the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light safety and amenity requires proposals Appendices Light pollution can be caused by Ramsar site pollution. However, some of the qualifying bird species may travel as for minerals and waste developments to artificial lighting on site as well as far as the extraction site for breeding, roosting and foraging, therefore demonstrate that they would not have YES vehicle traffic movements to and (qualifying features as may still be affected by any artificial lighting used onsite. However, the unacceptable pollution impacts. from and within the site. above) extent to which artificial lighting would be used is currently unknown. (FINAL)
Light pollution Solent Maritime SAC The SAC is located more than 500m from the Forest Lodge Home Farm N/A sand and gravel site and the qualifying features are either not sensitive (qualifying features as to light pollution or would not travel as far as the extraction sits. YES Se above) pt 2013 371 372 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Light pollution can be caused by Assessment artificial lighting on site as well as vehicle traffic movements to and from and within the site. R ecord Light pollution New Forest SAC This SAC is located more than 500m from Forest Lodge Home Farm, Policy 10: Protecting public health, reducing the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light safety and amenity requires proposals
Light pollution can be caused by (qualifying features as pollution. However, some of the qualifying species such as the great for minerals and waste developments to Appendices artificial lighting on site as well as above) crested newt may travel outside of the boundaries of the SAC, as far as demonstrate that they would not have vehicle traffic movements to and the extraction site, therefore may still be affected by any artificial lighting unacceptable pollution impacts. from and within the site. used onsite, particularly as this species is largely nocturnal. However, the extent to which artificial lighting would be used is currently unknown. The development considerations for the YES Forest Lodge Home Farm site requires (FINAL) that the offsite foraging and breeding areas for the qualifying bird species of the SPA/Ramsar are taken into consideration Se pt 2013 Light pollution New Forest SPA This SPA is located more than 500m from Forest Lodge Home Farm, Policy 10: Protecting public health, reducing the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light safety and amenity requires proposals Light pollution can be caused by (qualifying features as pollution. However, some of the qualifying bird species may travel as for minerals and waste developments to artificial lighting on site as well as above) far as the extraction site for breeding, roosting and foraging, therefore demonstrate that they would not have vehicle traffic movements to and may still be affected by any artificial lighting used onsite. However, the unacceptable pollution impacts. from and within the site. extent to which artificial lighting would be used is currently unknown. The development considerations for the YES Forest Lodge Home Farm site requires that the offsite foraging and breeding areas for the qualifying bird species of the SPA/Ramsar are taken into consideration Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Light pollution New Forest Ramsar This Ramsar site is located more than 500m from Forest Lodge Home Policy 10: Protecting public health, site Farm, reducing the likelihood of adverse impacts associated with light safety and amenity requires proposals pollution. However, some of the qualifying bird species may travel as for minerals and waste developments to Light pollution can be caused by (qualifying features as far as the extraction site for breeding, roosting and foraging, therefore demonstrate that they would not have artificial lighting on site as well as above) may still be affected by any artificial lighting used onsite. However, the unacceptable pollution impacts. vehicle traffic movements to and extent to which artificial lighting would be used is currently unknown. from and within the site. The development considerations for the YES
Forest Lodge Home Farm site requires Habitats that the offsite foraging and breeding areas for the qualifying bird species of the SPA/Ramsar are taken into R
consideration egulations
Changes to water levels Solent and The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to The development considerations for the Southampton Water maintain the integrity of this SPA. Although the Forest Lodge Home Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and Activities associated with sand and SPA Farm extraction site is not within close proximity of any rivers flowing gravel extraction site (set out in the Assessment gravel extraction can affect water towards the SPA, it overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the appendices of the Hampshire Minerals levels in a variety of ways, including (qualifying features as SPA. This extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the and Waste Plan) includes appropriate drying, flooding/storm water, above) water table (unless alternative technologies can be used without causing measures to protect the underlying changes in water level and stability, impacts to the hydrological regime), and it is likely that due to the small aquifer. R
changes in surface water flow and size of the Forest Lodge Home Farm site, processing (which is likely to YES ecord groundwater flow and loss of require water abstraction) would not occur onsite. However the exact Consultation with the Environment groundwater storage. These hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the Forest Lodge Home Agency with regards to any planning changes can result from operational Farm site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and application coming forward at this site Appendices activities as well as certain after data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding should help to ensure that adverse uses. the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works impacts on the water environment are to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). avoided. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 373 374 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels Solent and The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to The development considerations for the Assessment Southampton Water maintain the integrity of this Ramsar site. Although the Forest Lodge Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and Activities associated with sand and Ramsar site Home Farm extraction site is not within close proximity of any rivers gravel extraction site (set out in the gravel extraction can affect water flowing towards the Ramsar site, it overlies a secondary aquifer in appendices of the Hampshire Minerals levels in a variety of ways, including (qualifying features as common with the Ramsar site. This extraction site is expected to be and Waste Plan) include appropriate R
drying, flooding/storm water, above) worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless alternative technologies measures to protect the underlying ecord changes in water level and stability, can be used without causing impacts to the hydrological regime), and it aquifer. changes in surface water flow and is likely that due to the small size of the Forest Lodge Home Farm site, YES groundwater flow and loss of processing (which is likely to require water abstraction) would not occur Consultation with the Environment Appendices groundwater storage. These onsite. However the exact hydrological connectivity between the Ramsar Agency with regards to any planning changes can result from operational site and the Forest Lodge Home Farm site is uncertain until more application coming forward at this site activities as well as certain after detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning should help to ensure that adverse uses. applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, impacts on the water environment are and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater avoided. (FINAL) depths, flow and gradient).
Changes to water levels Solent Maritime SAC The maintenance of an appropriate hydrological regime is required to The development considerations for the maintain the integrity of this SAC. Although the Forest Lodge Home Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and Se Activities associated with sand and (qualifying features as Farm extraction site is not within close proximity of any rivers flowing gravel extraction site (set out in the pt gravel extraction can affect water above) towards the SAC, it overlies a secondary aquifer in common with the appendices of the Hampshire Minerals 2013 levels in a variety of ways, including SAC. This extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the and Waste Plan) include appropriate drying, flooding/storm water, water table (unless alternative technologies can be used without causing measures to protect the underlying changes in water level and stability, impacts to the hydrological regime), and it is likely that due to the small aquifer. changes in surface water flow and size of the Forest Home Lodge Farm site, processing (which is likely to YES groundwater flow and loss of require water abstraction) would not occur onsite. However the exact Consultation with the Environment groundwater storage. These hydrological connectivity between the SAC and the Forest Lodge Farm Agency with regards to any planning changes can result from operational site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is application coming forward at this site activities as well as certain after submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth should help to ensure that adverse uses. and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine impacts on the water environment are actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). avoided. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels New Forest SAC The wetland and heathland habitats of this SAC are vulnerable to low The development considerations for the flows, particularly in summer, and the Forest Lodge Home Farm site Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and Activities associated with sand and (qualifying features as overlies a common secondary aquifer with the SAC. However, the New gravel extraction site (set out in the gravel extraction can affect water above) Forest SAC covers a large area of approximately 28,000 hectares and appendices of the Hampshire Minerals levels in a variety of ways, including the minerals site is not located within close proximity of any rivers and Waste Plan) include appropriate drying, flooding/storm water, flowing towards the SAC. In addition, this extraction site is expected measures to protect the underlying changes in water level and stability, to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless alternative aquifer. changes in surface water flow and technologies can be used without causing impacts to the hydrological Habitats YES groundwater flow and loss of regime), and it is likely that due to the small size of the Forest Lodge Consultation with the Environment groundwater storage. These Farm site, processing (which is likely to require water abstraction) would Agency with regards to any planning changes can result from operational not occur onsite. However, hydrological connectivity between the SAC application coming forward at this site R
activities as well as certain after and the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is uncertain until more should help to ensure that adverse egulations uses. detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning impacts on the water environment are applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, avoided. and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Assessment
Changes to water levels New Forest SPA The qualifying features of this SPA are vulnerable to changes in water The development considerations for the level as the condition of the qualifying bird species is affected by the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and Activities associated with sand and (qualifying features as condition of the vegetation and soils at the site. The Forest Lodge gravel extraction site (set out in the gravel extraction can affect water above) Home Farm site overlies a common secondary aquifer with the SPA; appendices of the Hampshire Minerals R
levels in a variety of ways, including however, the New Forest SPA covers a large area of approximately and Waste Plan) include appropriate ecord drying, flooding/storm water, 28,000 hectares and the minerals site is not located within close proximity measures to protect the underlying changes in water level and stability, of any rivers flowing towards the SPA. In addition, this extraction site aquifer. changes in surface water flow and is expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless alternative Appendices groundwater flow and loss of technologies can be used without causing impacts to the hydrological Consultation with the Environment YES groundwater storage. These regime), and it is likely that due to the small size of the Forest Lodge Agency with regards to any planning changes can result from operational Farm site, processing (which is likely to require water abstraction) would application coming forward at this site activities as well as certain after not occur onsite. However, hydrological connectivity between the SPA should help to ensure that adverse uses. and the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is uncertain until more impacts on the water environment are (FINAL) detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning avoided. applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Se pt 2013 375 376 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes to water levels New Forest Ramsar The qualifying features of this Ramsar site are vulnerable to changes in The development considerations for the Assessment site water level, and the Forest Lodge Home Farm site overlies a common Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and Activities associated with sand and secondary aquifer with the Ramsar site. However, the New Forest gravel extraction site (set out in the gravel extraction can affect water (qualifying features as Ramsar site covers a large area of approximately 28,000 hectares and appendices of the Hampshire Minerals levels in a variety of ways, including above) the minerals site is not located within close proximity of any rivers and Waste Plan) include appropriate R
drying, flooding/storm water, flowing towards the Ramsar site. In addition, this extraction site is measures to protect the underlying ecord changes in water level and stability, expected to be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table (unless alternative aquifer. changes in surface water flow and technologies can be used without causing impacts to the hydrological
YES Appendices groundwater flow and loss of regime), and it is likely that due to the small size of the Forest Lodge Consultation with the Environment groundwater storage. These Farm site, processing (which is likely to require water abstraction) would Agency with regards to any planning changes can result from operational not occur onsite. However, hydrological connectivity between the application coming forward at this site activities as well as certain after Ramsar site and the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is uncertain should help to ensure that adverse uses. until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with impacts on the water environment are planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of avoided. (FINAL) excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient).
Changes in water quality Solent and The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, Se Southampton Water in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Forest Lodge Home safety and amenity requires proposals pt
Water quality can be affected by SPA Farm extraction site to the SPA and the fact that it overlies a secondary for minerals and waste developments to 2013 sand and gravel extraction during aquifer in common with the SPA indicates that water quality impacts as demonstrate that they would not have preparatory works, operational (qualifying features as a result of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, unacceptable pollution impacts. activities and after-use of the site, above) the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is expected to be worked for example as a result of ground ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table (unless alternative technologies can be The development considerations for the investigation works, industrial used without causing impacts to the hydrological regime) and all Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and processes within a site, dewatering extraction operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency gravel extraction site (set out in the or development/reclamation of a permitting standards. In addition, the Environment Agency would be appendices of the Hampshire Minerals YES site after extraction has ceased. consulted on any planning application coming forward at this site and and Waste Plan) include appropriate would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction would measures to protect the underlying be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water aquifer. environment. However, hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Consultation with the Environment Agency with regards to any planning application coming forward at this site should help to ensure that adverse impacts on the water environment are avoided. Habitats Changes in water quality Solent and The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, Southampton Water in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Forest Lodge Home safety and amenity requires proposals Water quality can be affected by Ramsar site Farm extraction site to the Ramsar site and the fact that it overlies a for minerals and waste developments to R
sand and gravel extraction during secondary aquifer in common with the Ramsar site indicates that water demonstrate that they would not have egulations preparatory works, operational (qualifying features as quality impacts as a result of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be unacceptable pollution impacts. activities and after-use of the site, above) ruled out. However, the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is for example as a result of ground expected to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table (unless alternative The development considerations for the investigation works, industrial technologies can be used without causing impacts to the hydrological Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and processes within a site, dewatering regime)) and all extraction operations would need to adhere to gravel extraction site (set out in the Assessment or development/reclamation of a Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the appendices of the Hampshire Minerals site after extraction has ceased. Environment Agency would be consulted on any planning application and Waste Plan) include appropriate YES coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within which measures to protect the underlying sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place without aquifer. R
causing harm to the water environment. However, hydrological ecord connectivity between the Ramsar site and the extraction site is uncertain Consultation with the Environment until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with Agency with regards to any planning planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of application coming forward at this site Appendices excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual should help to ensure that adverse groundwater depths, flow and gradient). impacts on the water environment are avoided. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 377 378 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality Solent Maritime SAC The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, Assessment in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Forest Lodge Home safety and amenity requires proposals Water quality can be affected by (qualifying features as Farm extraction site to the SAC and the fact that it overlies a secondary for minerals and waste developments to sand and gravel extraction during above) aquifer in common with the SAC indicates that water quality impacts demonstrate that they would not have preparatory works, operational as a result of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. unacceptable pollution impacts. R
activities and after-use of the site, However, the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is expected to ecord for example as a result of ground be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table (unless alternative technologies The development considerations for the investigation works, industrial can be used without causing impacts to the hydrological regime) and all Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and processes within a site, dewatering extraction operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency gravel extraction site (set out in the Appendices or development/reclamation of a permitting standards. In addition, the Environment Agency would be appendices of the Hampshire Minerals site after extraction has ceased. consulted on any planning application coming forward at this site and and Waste Plan) include appropriate YES would set the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction would measures to protect the underlying be permitted to take place without causing harm to the water aquifer. environment. However, hydrological connectivity between the SAC (FINAL) and the extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific Consultation with the Environment information and data is submitted with planning applications (e.g. Agency with regards to any planning proposals regarding the depth and extent of excavation, and data from application coming forward at this site investigation works to determine actual groundwater depths, flow and should help to ensure that adverse Se gradient). impacts on the water environment are pt avoided. 2013 Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality New Forest SAC The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Forest Lodge Farm safety and amenity requires proposals Water quality can be affected by (qualifying features as site to the SAC and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in for minerals and waste developments to sand and gravel extraction during above) common with the SAC indicates that water quality impacts as a result demonstrate that they would not have preparatory works, operational of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, the unacceptable pollution impacts. activities and after-use of the site, Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ for example as a result of ground (i.e. above the water table (unless alternative technologies can be used The development considerations for the investigation works, industrial without causing impacts to the hydrological regime)) and all extraction Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and Habitats processes within a site, dewatering operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency permitting gravel extraction site (set out in the or development/reclamation of a standards. In addition, the Environment Agency would be consulted appendices of the Hampshire Minerals site after extraction has ceased. on any planning application coming forward at this site and would set and Waste Plan) include appropriate YES R
the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction would be measures to protect the underlying egulations permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment. aquifer. However, hydrological connectivity between the SAC and the extraction site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is Consultation with the Environment submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth Agency with regards to any planning Assessment and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine application coming forward at this site actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). should help to ensure that adverse impacts on the water environment are avoided. R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 379 380 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality New Forest SPA The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, Assessment in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Forest Lodge Home safety and amenity requires proposals Water quality can be affected by (qualifying features as Farm site to the SPA and the fact that it overlies a secondary aquifer in for minerals and waste developments to sand and gravel extraction during above) common with the SPA indicates that water quality impacts as a result demonstrate that they would not have preparatory works, operational of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled out. However, the unacceptable pollution impacts. R
activities and after-use of the site, Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is expected to be worked ‘dry’ ecord for example as a result of ground (i.e. above the water table (unless alternative technologies can be used The development considerations for the investigation works, industrial without causing impacts to the hydrological regime) and all extraction Forest Lodge Farm sand and gravel processes within a site, dewatering operations would need to adhere to Environment Agency permitting extraction site (set out in the appendices Appendices or development/reclamation of a standards. In addition, the Environment Agency would be consulted of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste YES site after extraction has ceased. on any planning application coming forward at this site and would set Plan) include appropriate measures to the boundaries within which sand and gravel extraction would be protect the underlying aquifer. permitted to take place without causing harm to the water environment. However, hydrological connectivity between the SPA and the extraction Consultation with the Environment (FINAL) site is uncertain until more detailed site specific information and data is Agency with regards to any planning submitted with planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth application coming forward at this site and extent of excavation, and data from investigation works to determine should help to ensure that adverse actual groundwater depths, flow and gradient). impacts on the water environment are Se avoided. pt 2013 Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
Changes in water quality New Forest Ramsar The qualifying features of this site are known to be sensitive to changes Policy 10: Protecting public health, site in water quality. The fairly close proximity of the Forest Lodge Home safety and amenity requires proposals Water quality can be affected by Farm site to the Ramsar site and the fact that it overlies a secondary for minerals and waste developments to sand and gravel extraction during (qualifying features as aquifer in common with the Ramsar site indicates that water quality demonstrate that they would not have preparatory works, operational above) impacts as a result of sand and gravel extraction here cannot be ruled unacceptable pollution impacts. activities and after-use of the site, out. However, the Forest Lodge Home Farm extraction site is expected for example as a result of ground to be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table (unless alternative The development considerations for the investigation works, industrial technologies can be used without causing impacts to the hydrological Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and Habitats processes within a site, dewatering regime)) and all extraction operations would need to adhere to gravel extraction site (set out in the or development/reclamation of a Environment Agency permitting standards. In addition, the appendices of the Hampshire Minerals YES site after extraction has ceased. Environment Agency would be consulted on any planning application and Waste Plan) include appropriate R
coming forward at this site and would set the boundaries within which measures to protect the underlying egulations sand and gravel extraction would be permitted to take place without aquifer. causing harm to the water environment. However, hydrological Consultation with the Environment connectivity between the Ramsar site and the extraction site is uncertain Agency with regards to any planning until more detailed site specific information and data is submitted with application coming forward at this site planning applications (e.g. proposals regarding the depth and extent of should help to ensure that adverse Assessment excavation, and data from investigation works to determine actual impacts on the water environment are groundwater depths, flow and gradient). avoided. R
Air pollution Solent and Levels of acid deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads Policy 10: Protecting public health, ecord Southampton Water at this SPA, indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle safety and amenity requires proposals Air pollution can result from SPA traffic travelling to and from the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and for minerals and waste developments to vehicle traffic movements to and gravel site may be particularly harmful. Fragments of the SPA are within demonstrate that they would not have Appendices from sand and gravel extraction (qualifying features as close proximity of the strategic road network which may be used to unacceptable pollution impacts. sites, and by emissions from onsite above) reach the extraction site – in particular, the A35 crosses the southern activities. Effects may also be part of the Lower Test Valley SSSI and the northern part of the Eling associated with any development and Bury Marshes SSSI (both of which are part of the Solent and YES taking place on the site after Southampton Water SPA). The Lower Test Valley SSSI also abuts the (FINAL) extraction activities have ceased. western edge of the M271. In addition, the A3024 crosses a fragment of the SPA adjacent to Northam; however this road is across the other side of Southampton Water and so is unlikely to be used by vehicles travelling to and from the sand and gravel site. The Lower Test Valley Se SSSI units which are crossed by the A35 and which abut the M271 are pt in favourable condition; however the unit of the Eling and Bury Marshes 2013 381 382 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
SSSI which is also crossed by the A35 is in unfavourable condition and Assessment bird numbers here are declining. Although it is not clear whether the condition of the SSSI is linked to air quality issues, an increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A35 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. However, (54) R
the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of ecord the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 48 two-way traffic movements per day (24 in and 24 out), an increase of only 0.6% against existing traffic level on Fawley Road. Appendices Given that access to the extraction site will be via the A326 (connecting with the site via the unclassified Fawley Road) which is more than 200m from the SPA, and that only a proportion of the 48 two-way traffic movements will connect on to the A35 and/or M271 from the A326, depending on the destination of the vehicles, it is considered that the (FINAL) additional vehicle traffic along the these routes would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution. Se
Air pollution Solent and Levels of acid deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads Policy 10: Protecting public health, pt
Southampton Water at this Ramsar site, indicating that any increase in air pollution from safety and amenity requires proposals 2013 Air pollution can result from Ramsar site vehicle traffic travelling to and from the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand for minerals and waste developments to vehicle traffic movements to and and gravel site may be particularly harmful. Fragments of the Ramsar demonstrate that they would not have from sand and gravel extraction (qualifying features as site are within close proximity of the strategic road network which may unacceptable pollution impacts. sites, and by emissions from onsite above) be used to reach the extraction site – in particular, the A35 crosses the activities. Effects may also be southern part of the Lower Test Valley SSSI and the northern part of associated with any development the Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI (both of which are part of the Solent YES taking place on the site after and Southampton Water Ramsar site). The Lower Test Valley SSSI also extraction activities have ceased. buffers the western edge of the M271. In addition, the A3024 crosses a fragment of the Ramsar site adjacent to Northam; however this road is across the other side of Southampton Water and so is unlikely to be used by vehicles travelling to and from the sand and gravel site. The Lower Test Valley SSSI units which are crossed by the A35 and which buffer the M271 are in favourable condition; however the unit of the Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI which is also crossed by the A35 is in
54 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
unfavourable condition and bird numbers here are declining. Although it is not clear whether the condition of the SSSI is linked to air quality issues, an increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A35 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment(55) found that the development of the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 48 two-way traffic movements
per day (24 in and 24 out), an increase of only 0.6% against existing Habitats traffic level on Fawley Road. Given that access to the extraction site will be via the A326 (connecting with the site via the unclassified Fawley Road) which is more than 200m from the Ramsar site, and that only a R
proportion of the 48 two-way traffic movements will connect on to the egulations A35 and/or M271 from the A326, depending on the destination of the vehicles, it is considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the these routes would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased air pollution. Assessment
Air pollution Solent Maritime SAC Levels of acid deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads Policy 10: Protecting public health, at this SAC, indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle safety and amenity requires proposals Air pollution can result from (qualifying features as traffic travelling to and from the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and for minerals and waste developments to vehicle traffic movements to and above) gravel site may be particularly harmful. Fragments of the SAC are within demonstrate that they would not have R
from sand and gravel extraction close proximity of the strategic road network – which may be used to unacceptable pollution impacts. ecord sites, and by emissions from onsite reach the extraction site – in particular, the A35 crosses the southern activities. Effects may also be part of the Lower Test Valley SSSI and the northern part of the Eling associated with any development and Bury Marshes SSSI (both of which are part of the SAC). The Lower Appendices taking place on the site after Test Valley SSSI (part of the SAC) also buffers the western edge of the YES extraction activities have ceased. M271. In addition, the A3024 crosses a fragment of the SAC adjacent to Northam and the M27 crosses part of the SAC further to the south east; however these road are across the other side of Southampton Water and so are far less likely to be used by vehicles travelling to and from (FINAL) the sand and gravel site. The Lower Test Valley SSSI units which are crossed by the A35 and which buffer the M271 are in favourable condition; however the unit of the Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI which is also crossed by the A35 is in unfavourable condition. Although it is Se pt 2013
55 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment 383 384 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
not clear whether the condition of the SSSI is linked to air quality issues, Assessment an increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A35 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site is R
likely to result in a total of 48 two-way traffic movements per day (24 ecord in and 24 out), an increase of only 0.6% against existing traffic level on Fawley Road. Given that access to the extraction site will be via the A326 (connecting with the site via the unclassified Fawley Road) which Appendices is more than 200m from the SAC, and that only a proportion of the 48 two-way traffic movements will connect on to the A35 and/or M271 from the A326, depending on the destination of the vehicles, it is considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the these routes would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity (FINAL) of the SAC from increased air pollution.
Air pollution New Forest SAC Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions required Policy 10: Protecting public health, to support the integrity of this site as nitrogen deposition can cause safety and amenity requires proposals Se Air pollution can result from (qualifying features as compositional changes over time. Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen for minerals and waste developments to pt vehicle traffic movements to and above) deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads at this SAC, demonstrate that they would not have 2013 from sand and gravel extraction indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle traffic travelling unacceptable pollution impacts. sites, and by emissions from onsite to and from the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site may be activities. Effects may also be particularly harmful. Fragments of the SAC are within close proximity associated with any development of the strategic road network – the eastern edge of the SAC buffers the taking place on the site after A326 which is the main ’A’ road leading northwards from the Forest extraction activities have ceased. Lodge Home Farm site and so is the key route for vehicle movements YES to and from the site. In addition, the A35 and M27 cut through the middle of the SAC to the north west of the Forest Lodge Farm site. Many of the New Forest SSSI units which comprise these parts of the SAC are classed as being in favourable condition; however there are a number of units within close proximity of these roads that are in unfavourable recovering condition. Although it is not clear whether the condition of these SSSI units is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A326, A35 and M27 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SAC. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
development of the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 48 two-way traffic movements per day (24 in and 24 out). These would be expected to use the A326, because of its proximity to the site. Based on the existing traffic movements on the A326 (12 hour average of 14,936 vehicles including 945 HGVs), this represents a relatively very small increase of 0.3%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A35 and M27 will be even smaller as these
roads are further from the extraction site and therefore would at most Habitats accommodate only some of the additional vehicle movements (depending on their routes). It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A326, A35 and M27 would not be of a sufficient volume R
to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the SAC from increased egulations air pollution.
Air pollution New Forest SPA Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions required Policy 10: Protecting public health, to support the integrity of this site as nitrogen deposition can cause safety and amenity requires proposals Air pollution can result from (qualifying features as compositional changes over time. Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen for minerals and waste developments to Assessment vehicle traffic movements to and above) deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads at this SPA, demonstrate that they would not have from sand and gravel extraction indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle traffic travelling unacceptable pollution impacts. sites, and by emissions from onsite to and from the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site may be activities. Effects may also be particularly harmful. Fragments of the SPA are within close proximity R
associated with any development of the strategic road network – the eastern edge of the SPA buffers the ecord taking place on the site after A326 which is the main ’A’ road leading northwards from the Forest extraction activities have ceased. Lodge Home Farm site and so is the key route for vehicle movements to and from the site. In addition, the A35 and M27 cut through the Appendices YES middle of the SPA to the north west of the extraction site. Many of the New Forest SSSI units which comprise these parts of the SPA are classed as being in favourable condition; however there are a number of units within close proximity of these roads that are in unfavourable recovering condition. Although it is not clear whether the condition of these SSSI (FINAL) units is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A326, A35 and M27 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the SPA. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Se Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site is likely to result in a pt total of 48 two-way traffic movements per day (24 in and 24 out). These 2013 385 386 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
would be expected to use the A326, because of its proximity to the site. Assessment Based on the existing traffic movements on the A326 (12 hour average of 14,936 vehicles including 945 HGVs), this represents a relatively very small increase of 0.3%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A35 and M27 will be even smaller as these roads are further from the R
extraction site and therefore would at most accommodate only some ecord of the additional vehicle movements (depending on their routes). It is therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A326, A35 and M27 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse Appendices impacts on the integrity of the SPA from increased air pollution.
Air pollution New Forest Ramsar Minimal air pollution is one of the key environmental conditions required Policy 10: Protecting public health, site to support the integrity of this site as nitrogen deposition can cause safety and amenity requires proposals
Air pollution can result from compositional changes over time. Levels of acid deposition, nitrogen for minerals and waste developments to (FINAL) vehicle traffic movements to and (qualifying features as deposition and ozone are already exceeding critical loads at this Ramsar demonstrate that they would not have from sand and gravel extraction above) site, indicating that any increase in air pollution from vehicle traffic unacceptable pollution impacts. sites, and by emissions from onsite travelling to and from the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel activities. Effects may also be site may be particularly harmful. Fragments of the Ramsar site are within Se associated with any development close proximity of the strategic road network – the eastern edge of the pt taking place on the site after Ramsar site buffers the A326 which is the main ’A’ road leading 2013 extraction activities have ceased. northwards from the Forest Lodge Home Farm site and so is the key route for vehicle movements to and from the site. In addition, the A35 and M27 cut through the middle of the Ramsar site to the north west YES of the extraction site. Many of the New Forest SSSI units which comprise these parts of the Ramsar site are classed as being in favourable condition; however there are a number of units within close proximity of these roads that are in unfavourable recovering condition. Although it is not clear whether the condition of these SSSI units is linked to air quality issues, any increase in deposition of pollutants as a result of additional vehicle traffic along the A326, A35 and M27 may be particularly harmful to the integrity of the Ramsar site. However, the Strategic Transport Assessment found that the development of the Forest Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site is likely to result in a total of 48 two-way traffic movements per day (24 in and 24 out). These Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
would be expected to use the A326, because of its proximity to the site. Based on the existing traffic movements on the A326 (12 hour average of 14,936 vehicles including 945 HGVs), this represents a relatively very small increase of 0.3%. Any increase in vehicle movements on the A35 and M27 will be even smaller as these roads are further from the extraction site and therefore would at most accommodate only some of the additional vehicle movements (depending on their routes). It is
therefore considered that the additional vehicle traffic along the A326, Habitats A35 and M27 would not be of a sufficient volume to lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Ramsar site from increased air pollution. R
Recreation-related impacts Solent and The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this site is to be restored for N/A egulations Southampton Water grazing/recreation/nature conservation interests; therefore adverse Restoration of minerals sites after SPA effects associated with increased recreation activities near to this SPA extraction has ceased often involves are not expected to result from site restoration. However, this also creating sites for recreation use (qualifying features as means that any opportunities to relieve recreation pressure on sites such which can impact on European above) as the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar site by creating alternative Assessment sites as a result of physical greenspace nearby will not be maximised (although it is recognised that disturbance (e.g. from any such opportunities would be minimal given the relative sizes of the erosion/trampling) as well as Forest Lodge Home Farm site and the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar contributing to other types of site). R
impacts assessed above, such as YES ecord noise pollution. An off-road cycle way runs adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed sand and gravel site, and a PRoW (footpath no. 3a) is adjacent to the east of the site, users of which may be displaced if the amenity Appendices of these routes is affected by extraction activities. However, it is considered more likely that users would seek alternative recreation space to the west of the site, in the New Forest due to the closer proximity of that site and the presence of other walking and cycle paths, rather than additional pressure being placed on the Solent and Southampton (FINAL) Water SPA. Se pt 2013 387 388 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts Solent and The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this site is to be restored for N/A Assessment Southampton Water grazing/recreation/nature conservation interests; therefore adverse Restoration of minerals sites after Ramsar site effects associated with increased recreation activities near to this Ramsar extraction has ceased often involves site are not expected to result from site restoration. However, this also creating sites for recreation use (qualifying features as means that any opportunities to relieve recreation pressure on sites such R
which can impact on European above) as the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar site by creating alternative ecord sites as a result of physical greenspace nearby will not be maximised (although it is recognised that disturbance (e.g. from any such opportunities would be minimal given the relative sizes of the erosion/trampling) as well as Forest Lodge Home Farm site and the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar Appendices contributing to other types of site). impacts assessed above, such as YES noise pollution. An off-road cycle way runs adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed sand and gravel site, and a PRoW (footpath no. 3a) is adjacent to the east of the site, users of which may be displaced if the amenity (FINAL) of these routes is affected by extraction activities. However, it is considered more likely that users would seek alternative recreation space to the west of the site, in the New Forest due to the closer proximity of that site and the presence of other walking and cycle paths, rather Se than additional pressure being placed on the Solent and Southampton pt Water Ramsar site. 2013
Recreation-related impacts Solent Maritime SAC The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this site is to be restored for N/A grazing/nature conservation interests; therefore adverse effects associated Restoration of minerals sites after (qualifying features as with increased recreation activities near to this SAC are not expected to extraction has ceased often involves above) result from site restoration. However, this also means that any creating sites for recreation use opportunities to relieve recreation pressure on sites such as the New which can impact on European Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar site by creating alternative greenspace nearby sites as a result of physical will not be maximised (although it is recognised that any such YES disturbance (e.g. from opportunities would be minimal given the relative sizes of the Forest erosion/trampling) as well as Lodge Home Farm site and the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar site). contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as noise pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
An off-road cycle way runs adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed sand and gravel site, and a PRoW (footpath no. 3a) is adjacent to the east of the site, users of which may be displaced if the amenity of these routes is affected by extraction activities. However, it is considered more likely that users would seek alternative recreation space to the west of the site, in the New Forest due to the closer proximity of that site and the presence of other walking and cycle paths, rather
than additional pressure being placed on the Solent Maritime SAC. Habitats
Recreation-related impacts New Forest SAC The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this site is to be restored for N/A R
grazing/nature conservation interests; therefore adverse effects associated egulations Restoration of minerals sites after (qualifying features as with increased recreation activities near to this SAC are not expected to extraction has ceased often involves above) result from site restoration. However, this also means that any creating sites for recreation use opportunities to relieve recreation pressure on sites such as the New which can impact on European Forest SAC by creating alternative greenspace nearby will not be sites as a result of physical maximised (although it is recognised that any such opportunities would Assessment disturbance (e.g. from be minimal given the relative sizes of the Forest Lodge Farm site and erosion/trampling) as well as the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar site). contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as An off-road cycle way runs adjacent to the western boundary of the YES R noise pollution. proposed sand and gravel site, and a PRoW (footpath no. 3a) is adjacent ecord to the east of the site. Depending on whether extraction activities affect the amenity of these routes, users may be displaced and may as a result use other cycle routes/footpaths in the nearby New Forest, thereby Appendices increasing recreation pressure on the SAC. However, the small size of the footpath and cycle route indicate that levels of use are unlikely to be such that displacement of users to paths within the New Forest is likely to have a significant effect on site integrity e.g. through erosion/trampling or disturbance, particularly when considering the size (FINAL) of the New Forest SAC as a whole. Se pt 2013 389 390 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, R
features can adverse egulations effects on the European site be ruled out?
Recreation-related impacts New Forest SPA The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this site is to be restored for N/A Assessment grazing/nature conservation interests; therefore adverse effects associated Restoration of minerals sites after (qualifying features as with increased recreation activities near to this SPA are not expected to extraction has ceased often involves above) result from site restoration. However, this also means that any creating sites for recreation use opportunities to relieve recreation pressure on sites such as the New R
which can impact on European Forest SPA by creating alternative greenspace nearby will not be ecord sites as a result of physical maximised (although it is recognised that any such opportunities would disturbance (e.g. from be minimal given the relative sizes of the Forest Lodge Home Home erosion/trampling) as well as Farm site and the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar site). Appendices contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as An off-road cycle way runs adjacent to the western boundary of the YES noise pollution. proposed sand and gravel site, and a PRoW (footpath no. 3a) is adjacent to the east of the site. Depending on whether extraction activities affect the amenity of these routes, users may be displaced and may as a result (FINAL) use other cycle routes/footpaths in the nearby New Forest, thereby increasing recreation pressure on the SPA. However, the small size of the footpath and cycle route indicate that levels of use are unlikely to be such that displacement of users to paths within the New Forest is Se likely to have an effect on site integrity e.g. through erosion/trampling pt or disturbance, particularly when considering the size of the New Forest 2013 SPA as a whole.
Recreation-related impacts New Forest Ramsar The Minerals and Waste Plan specifies that this site is to be restored for N/A site grazing/nature conservation interests; therefore adverse effects associated Restoration of minerals sites after with increased recreation activities near to this Ramsar site are not extraction has ceased often involves (qualifying features as expected to result from site restoration. However, this also means that creating sites for recreation use above) any opportunities to relieve recreation pressure on sites such as the New which can impact on European Forest Ramsar site by creating alternative greenspace nearby will not be sites as a result of physical maximised (although it is recognised that any such opportunities would YES disturbance (e.g. from be minimal given the relative sizes of the Forest Lodge Farm site and erosion/trampling) as well as the New Forest SAC/SPA/Ramsar site). contributing to other types of impacts assessed above, such as noise pollution. Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an adverse effect on any Mitigation If mitigation potentially affected European site integrity either alone or in combination with other is and qualifying plans or projects implemented, features can adverse effects on the European site be ruled out?
An off-road cycle way runs adjacent to the western boundary of the proposed sand and gravel site, and a PRoW (footpath no. 3a) is adjacent to the east of the site. Depending on whether extraction activities affect the amenity of these routes, users may be displaced and may as a result use other cycle routes/footpaths in the nearby New Forest, thereby increasing recreation pressure on the Ramsar site. However, the small size of the footpath and cycle route indicate that levels of use are unlikely
to be such that displacement of users to paths within the New Forest Habitats is likely to have an effect on site integrity e.g. through erosion/trampling or disturbance, particularly when considering the size of the New Forest Ramsar site as a whole. R egulations
Dust Solent and All of these European sites are located more than 500m from the Forest N/A Southampton Water Lodge Home Farm sand and gravel site; therefore dust effects would Dust deposition on ground and SPA/Ramsar Site, not be expected to affect site integrity, particularly considering the water from extraction activities can Solent Maritime SAC relatively small size of the extraction site. In addition, the relatively high Assessment lead to contamination at nearby and New Forest moisture content of sand and gravel deposits means that dust generation European sites. In addition, dust SAC/SPA/Ramsar is likely to be lower than at other types of extraction sites. YES movements may be caused by site onsite vehicles. R ecord (qualifying features as above) Appendices
Soil Contamination Solent and Due to the distance between the Forest Lodge sand and gravel site and N/A Southampton Water these European sites, it is considered unlikely that any significant effects SPA/Ramsar Site, will result from soil contamination, particularly as the site would be Soil contamination can result from Solent Maritime SAC worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table. In addition, strict environmental (FINAL) various onsite activities including and New Forest controls would apply at the site, e.g. in relation to the disposal of waste industrial processes (e.g. those SAC/SPA/Ramsar water. YES involving fuels, oils and solvents) site and landfill operation (e.g. Se leachate). (qualifying features as pt above) 2013 391 392 Habitats D.11 Bramshill Quarry Extension
Table D.19 Bramshill Quarry Extension (sharp sand and gravel) R egulations Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European
features plans or projects site be ruled out? Assessment
Bramshill Quarry Extension (sharp sand and gravel)
Physical disturbance/loss Thames Basin Heaths Bramshill Quarry lies within the boundaries of Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species requires YES
of habitat SPA this SPA (within the Castle Bottom to Yateley minerals and waste proposals to not have significant R Heath SSSI). Therefore, the qualifying bird adverse effects on European sites. ecord Minerals sites can lead to • European nightjar species may be particularly vulnerable to physical
loss of habitat/habitat disturbance and habitat loss from activities The development considerations for the Bramshill Quarry Appendices fragmentation as a result of • Woodlark associated with sand and gravel extraction at the sand and gravel extraction site (set out in Appendix E of extraction for landtake and site. Extraction of sand and gravel within the the Plan) include: associated infrastructure • Dartford Warbler boundaries of the SPA could have a direct development. physical effect on any of the qualifying bird the appropriate measures to protection of European
species that may be present at the quarry, or they designations; and (FINAL) may also be indirectly affected by the loss of important areas of foraging of populations using ensuring that there is no net loss of foraging and breeding other parts of the SPA. areas used by the qualifying bird species - this will drive
avoidance and provision of alternative habitat (such as Se
opening up other areas of forestry) within the proposal; pt
Although the part of the Bramshill Quarry site and 2013 within which extraction will take place comprises only a very small proportion of the overall land restricting development on land that is of higher nature area of the SPA (52 ha compared to an overall conservation value and states that the land identified as area of 8,275ha), the SPA boundary comprises a Common land and is subject to Hampshire Wildlife Trust complex of smaller fragments of heathland. The management arrangements will fall within this exclusion proportion of the SPA fragment that the and buffer zone, as well as other high quality areas proposed quarry site is within is much smaller identified by best available data at the point of delivery than others. of the proposal thus avoiding the likely impacts identified and restricting development within the areas of rotational forestry). Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European features plans or projects site be ruled out?
In combination with existing mineral operations In light of this reduction in available extraction area, the in this vicinity, further fragmentation due to loss total mineral resource for this site has been reduced from of habitat at this site could have an adverse effect 1.75 million tonnes to 1 million tonnes. on integrity of the SPA. In addition, 6% of the total Dartford warbler territories in the SPA, 10% Natural England’s response to the HMWP HRA Screening of the nightjar territories and 14% of the Report v2(63) states that 50% of heathland landscape woodlark territories are found within the Castle areas should be returned to dwarf shrub heath Bottom to Yateley Heath SSSI, which the communities, and if there is any Forest Design Plan; where proposed extraction site lies within. (56) this includes areas of clear fell during the plan period careful consideration needs to be given to ensuring no
net loss in habitat for Annex 1 birds during the 3-4 years Habitats Part of the site allocation encompasses Unit 6 of in which clearfelled areas are of value. This may result in the Castle Bottom to Yateley SSSI. This is the need for provision of compensatory habitat elsewhere considered in unfavourable declining condition on a site during the period of extraction. (57) R
, as the lowland heathland habitat that it egulations contains is undergoing succession and bracken encroachment. However, a ten-year management This is addressed by the development considerations scheme (HWT(58)) has recently been agreed for above, and also a requirement within the implementation the area known as Hartfordbridge Flats (and is plan for Policy 9 that Natural England and other relevant Assessment common land). This area now that it is in positive nature conservation bodies to be consulted on the management, should be considered unfavourable restoration of all sites that lie within or adjacent to recovering, with favourable condition likely to be European site - deferring this to a later stage of decision reached within a few years. It is therefore making ensure that a premature judgement on the best considered that though this area forms only a outcomes for objectives for the SPA are not set out. R
very minor area of the overall SPA, development ecord here would be likely to result in physical disturbance to these birds, through direct physical impacts and/or loss of important habitats. Appendices (FINAL) Se
56 Thames Basin Heaths SPA: Access Management Plans. Part 1: Strategic Report (January 2007). pt
63 Natural England Response to Screening Report v2 (letter from Vanessa Burley dated 2nd August 2011) 2013 57 Natural England SSSI condition assessments 58 meeting dated 5th August 2011 393 394 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European R
features plans or projects site be ruled out? egulations
The red line boundary has been retained to provide significant planning control over land that would benefit The majority of the site allocation falls within from the gains that a mitigation and enhancement package Unit 13 of the Castle Bottom to Yateley SSSI would provide to the SPA objectives, as appropriate when Assessment which is considered in 'favourable' condition (59) this site comes forward. Given the short-term nature of as it is in managed rotational forestry (enshrined the existing management arrangement at Hartfordbridge in the Thames Basin Heaths Forest Design Plan) Flats, there would be significant benefits that would be and therefore provides habitats set out in the gained from have a larger, longer term management R
conservation objectives for the qualifying bird scheme. ecord species (having intermittent value for qualifying species for 3-4 year periods following It should be stressed that the red line within a site clearfelling). Though no detailed information on allocation does not equate to the boundary of extraction, Appendices the distribution of clearfelled areas and other and nor would it give expectation of this to a prospective habitat suitability is currently available, the Forest developer. Design Plan suggests that there are areas of suitability for the qualifying bird species within the unit, and it can be presumed that there are (FINAL) breeding and foraging qualifying species using this area. However, this will be a very changeable circumstance on this part of the site, given the rotational nature of suitable habitat. Se pt 2013
59 Natural England SSSI condition assessments Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European features plans or projects site be ruled out?
In Natural England’s letter Natural England Response to Screening Report v2(60), they stated that they would ‘not object outright to mineral extraction on designated sites where a short term impact may allow for restoration to a much improved habitat’, and listed considerations that would be required in these circumstances. This follows opinion in their representation to EIP of the HMWDF core strategy in 2006 which was that temporary nature of mineral extraction from
under conifer plantation in TBH meant that no Habitats long-term impacts to the SPA would occur ( with appropriate restoration and aftercare). It is therefore considered that development within R
the rotational forestry of Unit 13 of the SSSI egulations could be achieved without significant physical disturbance and habitat loss, provided that mitigation measures/considerations tightly control the potential effects. Assessment
There is potentially a significant lapse of time prior to when this site is likely to come forward (estimation of 2020), and this engenders uncertainty on the scale and scope of potential R
impacts. However, using existing evidence ecord provided for other similar developments (61) within this same SSSI which have been granted permission (within Busta Triangle, granted Feb. Appendices 2011) where a tight control of progressive extraction and restoration followed the pattern of clearfelling, was shown to not have significant impact on the integrity of the SPA(62). We can then be relatively certain that given the similarities (FINAL) within the developments, and the habitats in which they are situated that the outcomes would probably be similar. Se pt
60 (letter from Vanessa Burley dated 2nd August 2011) 2013 61 (see ref to certainty within section 2.2 para 9 of the Record) 62 Hampshire County Council- Habitat Regulations Assessment of proposals for extraction of sand and gravel at Eversley Quarry- Stage one - Screening November 2010) 395 396 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European R
features plans or projects site be ruled out? egulations
Noise pollution and Thames Basin Heaths The qualifying features of the SPA are bird Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species requires YES vibration SPA species, which are particularly vulnerable to noise minerals and waste proposals to not have significant and vibration. Because Bramshill Quarry is adverse effects on European sites. Assessment Noise and vibration effects (Qualifying features as located within the boundaries of the SPA, and can be caused by activities above) the qualifying bird species are known to be The development considerations for the Bramshill Quarry associated with sand and present in the SSSI within which the quarry is sand and gravel extraction site include: gravel extraction during located (6% of the total Dartford warbler preparatory works (e.g. territories in the SPA, 10% of the nightjar R the appropriate measures to protect European ecord machinery used for site territories and 14% of the woodlark designations, excavation), operation of territories(64)), adverse impacts of this nature the site (e.g. from vehicles resulting from the extension of the extraction Restricting (avoidance and buffering) development on Appendices transporting aggregates and site are likely. However, these potential effects land that is of higher nature conservation value and states machinery associated with are influenced by factors such as the hours of that the land which is identified as Common land and is crushing, tipping and site operation, which will not be known until the subject to Hampshire Wildlife Trust management loading material) and certain planning application stage – for example, the arrangements will fall within this exclusion and buffer after-uses, for example if nightjar is nocturnal. However, effects could zone, as well as other areas identified by best available (FINAL) development occurs on the potentially occur all year round as these bird data at the point of delivery of the proposal thus avoiding site. species remain in the UK throughout the year. the likely impacts identified and restricting development within the areas of rotational forestry). Se
In light of this reduction in available extraction area, the pt total mineral resource for this site has been reduced from 2013 1.75 million tonnes to 1 million tonnes.
Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and amenity requires minerals and waste development to prove no impact from unacceptable noise and vibration, including those in-combination with other development.
64 Thames Basin Heaths SPA: Access Management Plans. Part 1: Strategic Report (January 2007) Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European features plans or projects site be ruled out?
Light pollution Thames Basin Heaths Bramshill Quarry is located within the boundaries Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and YES SPA of the SPA, and the qualifying bird species are amenity requires proposals for minerals and waste Light pollution can be known to be present within the SSSI unit in developments to demonstrate that they would not have caused by artificial lighting (Qualifying features as which the quarry is located. One of the unacceptable pollution impacts. on site as well as vehicle above) qualifying bird species (the nightjar) is nocturnal, traffic movements to and so may be affected by artificial lighting if this is Due to the high potential for adverse effects on the from and within the site. to be used at the site. The other bird species are qualifying bird species, within the implementation plan diurnal and so should not be affected by light for Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species, there pollution. However, it is not yet known to what is a requirement for recent and adequate surveys to reliably extent artificial lighting would be used onsite, so inform any discussion on the potential impacts to
the potential for this type of effect is uncertain. biodiversity. Habitats In addition, light pollution would be less likely to occur in the summer months as artificial Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and lighting would be expected to be used far more amenity requires minerals and waste development to R
in the winter months, when the migratory species prove no impact from unacceptable light pollution, egulations such as nightjar would not be using the SPA. including those in-combination with other development.
Changes to water levels Thames Basin Heaths The qualifying features of this SPA are bird N/A YES SPA species and are not known to be sensitive to Assessment Activities associated with changing water levels. In addition, the Bramshill sand and gravel extraction (Qualifying features as Quarry extraction site is expected to be worked can affect water levels in a above) ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) and all extraction variety of ways, including operations would need to adhere to Environment R drying, flooding/storm Agency permitting standards. ecord water, changes in water level and stability, changes in surface water flow and Appendices groundwater flow and loss of groundwater storage. These changes can result from operational activities as well as certain after uses. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 397 398 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European R
features plans or projects site be ruled out? egulations
Changes in water quality Thames Basin Heaths The qualifying features of this SPA are bird N/A YES SPA species and are not known to be sensitive to Water quality can be changes in water quality. In addition, the affected by sand and gravel (Qualifying features as Bramshill Quarry extraction site is expected to Assessment extraction during above) be worked ‘dry’ (i.e. above the water table) and preparatory works, all extraction operations would need to adhere operational activities and to Environment Agency permitting standards. after-use of the site, for R
example as a result of ecord ground investigation works, industrial processes within a site, dewatering or Appendices development/reclamation of a site after extraction has ceased. (FINAL) Air pollution Thames Basin Heaths The qualifying bird species of this SPA are not The development considerations for the Bramshill Quarry YES SPA known to be particularly sensitive to air extension (set out in Appendix A of the Plan) include the Air pollution can result pollution. In addition, the proposal for this site consideration of additional traffic issues - any planning from vehicle traffic (Qualifying features as involves the extension of an existing extraction application would include a Traffic Impact Assessment. Se movements to and from above) site, rather than the allocation of a new site with pt sand and gravel extraction the associated additional traffic movements. 2013 sites, and by emissions from Vehicle movements to and from the site currently onsite activities. Effects travel via an internal road system, over the A30 may also be associated with (which runs through the SPA) to the processing any development taking plant at Warren Heath and onwards from there. place on the site after Although vehicle movements are not limited as extraction activities have a condition of the current planning permission, ceased. the Strategic Transport Assessment(65) reports that traffic volumes are expected to remain at current levels, indicating that the ongoing use of this site for sand and gravel extraction should not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA as a result of increased air pollution.
65 Hampshire County Council Strategic Transport and Traffic Assessment Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European features plans or projects site be ruled out?
Recreation-related Thames Basin Heaths The Thames Basin Heaths SPA is known to The development considerations for the Bramshill Quarry YES impacts SPA already be heavily used for informal recreation, sand and gravel extraction site (set out in Appendix A of and though the existing use of the site is not the Plan) include: Restoration of minerals sites (Qualifying features as known, the footpath to the east, and general open after extraction has ceased above) nature of the site would suggest that the allocated appropriate measures to protect European designations, often involves creating sites site is used. Displacement of this recreation for recreation use which can could put added pressure on other areas within exclude development on the land which is identified as impact on European sites as the SPA. Common land and is subject to Hampshire Wildlife Trust a result of physical management arrangements and to ensure long and disturbance (e.g. from Once extraction at this site has ceased, the short-term management is provided. erosion/trampling) as well proposal is to restore the site to forestry with Habitats as contributing to other heathland reversion for biodiversity benefits, To maintain and manage the existing informal recreational types of impacts assessed reflecting the qualities of the SPA. This proposal use - this would require up to date surveys on the existing above, such as noise should offer future opportunities for habitat use, and to be able to prove that mitigation could be R pollution. enhancement, potentially benefiting the qualifying imposed to incorporate the recreation within the existing egulations bird species of the SPA in the long-term. area.
It has been made a requirement in the implementation plan for Policy 9 - Restoration of quarries and waste Assessment developments that where site fall within or adjacent to European sites, that consultation with Natural England and other interested bodies will be required, deferring this to a later stage of decision making ensure that a premature judgement on the best outcomes or objectives for the R
SPA are not set out. ecord
Dust Thames Basin Heaths Bramshill Quarry is located within the boundaries Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and YES Appendices SPA of this SPA; however the bird species which are amenity requires proposals for minerals and waste Dust deposition on ground the qualifying features of the SPA are not known developments to demonstrate that they would not have and water from extraction (Qualifying features as to be particularly sensitive to the impacts of dust. unacceptable pollution impacts, including those activities can lead to above) In addition, sand and gravel deposits have a in-combination with other development. contamination at nearby relatively high moisture content and so dust levels (FINAL) European sites. from the site are likely to be lower than at other Bunding of the site as required by policy 9 as above and types of extraction sites. the development consideration 'protect the amenity of nearby homes' should help to prevent the travel of dust Se outside of the Bramshill Quarry site. pt 2013 399 400 Habitats Potential Impacts European Sites Will the mineral development have an Mitigation If mitigation is potentially affected adverse effect on any European site integrity implemented, can adverse and qualifying either alone or in combination with other effects on the European R
features plans or projects site be ruled out? egulations
Soil Contamination Thames Basin Heaths Bramshill Quarry is located within the boundaries Policy 10: Protecting public health, safety and YES SPA of this SPA; however the qualifying bird species amenity requires proposals for minerals and waste Soil contamination can are not known to be particularly sensitive to the developments to demonstrate that they would not have result from various onsite (Qualifying features as impacts of soil contamination. As such, it is unacceptable pollution impacts, including those Assessment activities including industrial above) considered unlikely that any significant effects in-combination with other development. processes (e.g. those of this nature will result, particularly as the site involving fuels, oils and would be worked ‘dry’ i.e. above the water table solvents) and landfill and because strict environmental controls would R
operation (e.g. leachate). apply at the site, for example in relation to the ecord disposal of waste water. Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 401
D.12 Wharves
6 Table D.20 includes details of those sites identified in the 'Needs Assessment for wharves and rail depots' document within the evidence base(66).
7 Though the evidence base indicates that there is no need to plan for additional wharf capacity over and above what is existing, the plan indicates that there could be some opportunities for additional capacity in suitable locations. This is considered under Policy 34 (Safeguarding potential minerals and waste wharf and rail depot infrastructure).
66 Needs assessment for wharves and rail depots in Hampshire (Land & Minerals Management Ltd, 2012) 402 Habitats Table D.20 Assessment of likely impacts arising from safeguarding of existing and long-term minerals and waste infrastructure - Policy 16 and 34
Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an
Adverse effect to R European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? egulations (m)
Western Docks 0.25km – Policy 16 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure. Though the screening of this safeguarding policy did not identify (Commercial Port) Solent that Policy 16 was likely to have significant effect given that the Maritime SAC policy does not allocate sites for any use, the sites identified have Assessment and Solent and been further examined to look at cross over issues and in Southampton combination effects of the altered Policy 34. SPA No further development is proposed by this policy, though some development at this site might occur through implementation of R ecord Policy 19 (Aggregate wharves and rail depots), which states that where possible existing wharves will be maximised and investment
in appropriate infrastructure and / or extension of appropriate Appendices wharf sites supported. However, the scale, extent and detail of any extension is unknown until (and if) any development proposals come forward on this site.
Though Policy 16 (Safeguarding Minerals Infrastructure) does not NO (FINAL) support development in any way, evidence (the Needs Assessment)(67) (supported by Policy 19) suggests that potential development of this site could increase the sustainability and efficiency of the site operation through improving storage and Se facilities such as aggregate recycling and bagging. This potentially pt further reduces the need and thus the likelihood of a new wharf 2013 development in other areas. In addition, the Needs Assessment does not identify any need for further wharf capacity in the Hampshire area within the Plan period.
Therefore there is significant implementation uncertainty over any development arising from safeguarding this site, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites.
67 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m)
Southampton Wharves - 0.2km - Solent Policy 16 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure – Though the screening of this safeguarding policy did not identify River Itchen (Dibles, and potential expansion infill between Burnley and that Policy 16 was likely to have significant effect given that the Leamouth, Burnley agg Southampton Leamouth aggregates. policy does not allocate sites for any use, the sites identified have wharves) SPA/Ramsar been further examined to look at cross over issues and in combination effects of the altered Policy 34.
No further development is proposed by this policy, though some development at these wharf sites might occur through implementation of Policy 19 (Aggregate wharves and rail depots), which states that where possible existing wharves will be maximised and investment in appropriate infrastructure and / or extension of
appropriate wharf sites supported. However, the scale, extent and Habitats detail of any extension is unknown until (and if) any development proposals come forward on this site. The majority of these wharves are safeguarded to retain the potential for minerals and waste to be R
handled, which is likely to reduce the need and thus the prospect egulations of additional wharf capacity in the area. NO Though Policy 16 (Safeguarding – minerals infrastructure) does not support development in any way, evidence (the Needs Assessment Assessment)(68) (supported by Policy 19) suggests that potential development of these wharf sites could increase the sustainability and efficiency of the site operation through improving storage and facilities such as aggregate recycling and bagging could be supported by the site. This potentially further reduces the for new wharf R
development in other areas. In addition, the Needs Assessment ecord does not identify any need for further wharf capacity in the Hampshire area within the Plan period. Appendices
Therefore there is significant implementation uncertainty over any development arising from safeguarding these wharf sites, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites. (FINAL) Se pt 2013
68 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) 403 404 Habitats Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m) R egulations Fareham Wharf Directly Policy 16 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure. Though the screening of this safeguarding policy did not identify Adjacent to that Policy 16 was likely to have significant effect given that the Portsmouth policy does not allocate sites for any use, the sites identified have Harbour been further examined to look at cross over issues and in SPA/Ramsar combination effects of the altered Policy 34. Assessment
No further development is proposed by this policy, though some development at this wharf site might occur through implementation of Policy 19 (Aggregate wharves and rail depots), which states that R
where possible existing wharves will be maximised and investment ecord in appropriate infrastructure and / or extension of appropriate wharf sites supported. However, the scale, extent and detail of any extension is unknown until (and if) any development proposals Appendices come forward on this site. The majority of this wharf site is safeguarded to retain the potential for minerals and waste to be handled, which is likely to reduce the need and thus the prospect of new wharf development in the area.
NO (FINAL) Though Policy 16 (Safeguarding – minerals infrastructure) does not support development in any way, evidence (the Needs Assessment)(69) (supported by Policy 19) suggests that potential development of this wharf site could increase the sustainability and Se efficiency of the site operation through improving storage and pt facilities such as aggregate recycling and bagging could be supported 2013 by the site. This potentially further reduces the for new wharf development in other areas. In addition, the Needs Assessment does not identify any need for further wharf capacity in the Hampshire area within the Plan period.
Therefore there is significant implementation uncertainty over any development arising from safeguarding these wharf sites, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites.
69 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m)
Kendalls Wharf Directly Policy 16 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure. Though the screening of this safeguarding policy did not identify adjacent - that Policy 16 was likely to have significant effect given that the Chichester and policy does not allocate sites for any use, the sites identified have Langstone been further examined to look at cross over issues and in Harbour combination effects of the altered Policy 34. SPA/Ramsar and Solent No further development is proposed by this policy, though some Maritime SAC development at this wharf site might occur through implementation of Policy 19 (Aggregate wharves and rail depots), which states that where possible existing wharves will be maximised and investment in appropriate infrastructure and / or extension of appropriate
wharf sites supported. However, the scale, extent and detail of any Habitats extension is unknown until (and if) any development proposals come forward on this site. The majority of this wharf site is safeguarded to retain the potential for minerals and waste to be R
handled, which is likely to reduce the need and thus the prospect egulations of new wharf development in the area.
Though Policy 16 (Safeguarding – minerals infrastructure) does not support development in any way, the Needs Assessment(70) NO Assessment (supported by Policy 19) suggests that potential development of this wharf site would increase the sustainability and efficiency of the site operation by improving the size of the landing facilities. However, it has already been identified in earlier HRA work that an extension at Kendalls wharf has potential to significantly affect R
the European sites it is adjacent to. The site is not specifically ecord identified within the plan as an extension site. Any proposal to extend the site will be need to meet the criteria set out in Policy 19. This includes criterion (c) which proposal will need to demonstrate, Appendices in line with the other policies in this Plan, that they do not pose unacceptable harm to the environment and local communities. Any proposal will also need to meet other relevant policies within the Plan (including Policy 3 (Protection of habitats and species)) and those within the City of Portsmouth’s Local Development (FINAL) Framework.
The Needs Assessment does not identify any requirement for further Se wharf facilities in the Hampshire area within the Plan period. pt 2013
70 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) 405 406 Habitats Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m) R egulations Therefore there is significant implementation uncertainty over any development arising from safeguarding this wharf site, and due to the safeguards in Policy 16 it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites. Assessment
Bedhampton Wharf 0.14km – Policy 16 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure. Though the screening of this safeguarding policy did not identify Solent that Policy 16 was likely to have significant effect given that the Maritime SAC policy does not allocate sites for any use, the sites identified have and Chichester been further examined to look at cross over issues and in R ecord and Langstone combination effects of the altered Policy 34. Harbour
SPA/Ramsar No further development is proposed by this policy, though some Appendices development at this wharf site might occur through implementation of Policy 19 (Aggregate wharves and rail depots), which states that where possible existing wharves will be maximised and investment in appropriate infrastructure and / or extension of appropriate wharf sites supported. However, the scale, extent and detail of any (FINAL) extension is unknown until (and if) any development proposals come forward on this site. The majority of this wharf site is safeguarded to retain the potential for minerals and waste to be
NO Se handled, which is likely to reduce the need and thus the prospect of additional or alternative wharf in the area. pt 2013 Though Policy 16 (Safeguarding – minerals infrastructure) does not support development in any way, evidence (the Needs Assessment)(71) (supported by Policy 19) suggests that potential development of this wharf site could increase the sustainability and efficiency of the site operation through improving storage and facilities such as aggregate recycling and bagging could be supported by the site. This potentially further reduces the for new wharf development in other areas.
In addition, the Needs Assessment does not identify any need for further wharf capacity in the Hampshire area within the Plan period.
71 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m)
Therefore there is significant implementation uncertainty over any development arising from safeguarding these wharf sites, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites.
Marchwood Wharves 1.6km Solent Policy 16 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure. Though the screening of this safeguarding policy did not identify and that Policy 16 was likely to have a significant effect given that the Southampton policy does not allocate sites for any use, the sites identified have SPA/Ramsar been further examined to look at cross over issues and in combination effects of the altered Policy 34. Habitats No further development is proposed by this policy, though some development at this wharf site might occur through implementation of Policy 19 (Aggregate wharves and rail depots), which states that R
where possible existing wharves will be maximised and investment egulations in appropriate infrastructure and / or extension of appropriate wharf sites supported. However, the scale, extent and detail of any extension is unknown until (and if) any development proposals come forward on this site. The majority of this site is safeguarded to retain the potential for minerals and waste to be handled, which Assessment NO is likely to reduce the need and thus the prospect of additional or alternative new wharf capacity in the area.
Though Policy 16 (Safeguarding – minerals infrastructure) does not R
support development in any way, evidence (the Needs ecord Assessment)(72) (supported by Policy 19) suggests that potential development of this wharf site could increase the sustainability and efficiency of the site operation through improving storage and Appendices facilities such as aggregate recycling and bagging could be supported by the site. This potentially further reduces the for new wharf development in other areas.
In addition, the Needs Assessment does not identify any need for (FINAL) further wharf capacity in the Hampshire area within the Plan period. Se pt 2013
72 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) 407 408 Habitats Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m) R egulations Therefore there is significant implementation uncertainty over any development arising from safeguarding these wharf sites, and it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites. Assessment
Marchwood Military Port Directly Policy 34 - Safeguarding principle of minerals and waste Although this area was initially screened out from further assessment adjacent to handling facility within potential future development. due to the fact that Policy 34 does not allocate the site for any use, Solent and it is a safeguarding policy, it was decided to test the potential impact Southampton of the safeguarding through Appropriate Assessment. R ecord SPA/Ramsar This area is currently a dedicated facility for the rapid transfer of military personnel and equipment. The Needs Assessment Appendices (73)identifies this site as having potential for conversion in whole or in part to other wharf facilities, and the policy allows for some consideration of the appropriateness for minerals and waste development within this. (FINAL) Though the site has existing wharf and landing facilities, the conversion of the site to commercial wharf facilities is likely to have potential effects on the European sites, including: Se NO the site is directly adjacent to the SPA and thus potential for pt permanent habitat loss through land-take; 2013 indirect habitat loss through damage; closer proximity of wharfside activity could cause disturbance effects thus removing the adjacent intertidal areas from available habitat (even though the land itself might not be lost), or possible construction-related disturbance
There is significant implementation uncertainty regarding whether development in any form at this site would arise, as decisions on the site being surplus to national defence requirements are still to be made, and would be also subject to the provisions of the New Forest District Local Plan.
73 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m)
Additionally, the Needs Assessment does not identify any requirement for further wharf facilities in the Hampshire area within the Plan period. Safeguarding this site for consideration of its appropriateness for minerals and waste handling if the site becomes released from current use in the future does not presume its development. Policy 34 does not support general development of the site nor does it influence development in spatial proximity to the European Sites.
Therefore there is significant development implementation uncertainty given that the policy does not allocate the site for any
use and due to the safeguards in Policy 3 (Protection of habitats Habitats and species). Taking these factors into account, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites from this policy. R egulations
Land to the north west of Within Solent Safeguarding principle for 15ha for mineral/waste Although this area was initially screened out from further assessment Hythe and handling facility within larger port proposal. due to the fact that Policy 34 does not allocate the site for any use, Southampton it is a safeguarding policy, it was decided to test the potential impact SPA/Ramsar of the safeguarding through Appropriate Assessment. Assessment
The Needs Assessment (74)identifies that commercially and economically this area has potential for conversion in whole or in part to port development which could include an element of R
minerals or waste wharf infrastructure. Such development is likely ecord to give rise to potentially significant impacts on European sites, including: NO Appendices
the site is within the SPA and will result in permanent habitat loss through land-take, which would require compensation; indirect habitat loss through damage; closer proximity of wharfside activity could cause disturbance (FINAL) effects thus removing the adjacent intertidal areas from available habitat (even though the land itself might not be lost);or
possible construction-related disturbance. Se pt 2013
74 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) 409 410 Habitats Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m) R egulations There is significant implementation uncertainty regarding whether development in any form at this site would arise, as there are significant environmental issues to address, development is subject to determination under the City of Southampton’s Local Plan, and due to the uncertain economic outlook. Assessment
Additionally, the Needs Assessment does not identify any requirement for further wharf facilities in the Hampshire area within the Plan period. Safeguarding this site for consideration of its R
appropriateness for minerals and waste handling if the site becomes ecord released from current use in the future does not presume its development. Policy 34 does not support general development of the site nor does it influence development in spatial proximity to Appendices the European Sites.
Therefore there is significant development implementation uncertainty given that the policy does not allocate the site for any use, and due to the safeguards in Policy 3 (Protection of habitats (FINAL) and species) alongside the supporting text to Policy 34 (Safeguarding potential minerals and waste wharf and rail depot infrastructure) relating to this site (paragraphs 6.223-6.224). Taking these factors into account, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no Se adverse effects on integrity of European sites from this policy. pt 2013
Land safeguarded in the 0.24 km – Safeguarding principle of minerals and waste handling Although this area was initially screened out from further assessment Southampton City Council Solent facility within wider port proposal. due to the fact that Policy 34 does not allocate the site for any use, Core Strategy for port use Maritime SAC it a safeguarding policy, it was decided to text the potential impact and Solent and of the safeguarding through Appropriate Assessment. Southampton SPA/Ramsar The Needs Assessment(75) identifies this area as having potential for conversion from its existing use in whole or in part for NO regeneration as part of the City Council’s plans. Such development has potential to give rise to significant effects on European sites, including:
the site is in close proximity to the SPA and SAC and thus potential for indirect habitat loss through damage;
75 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m)
closer proximity of wharfside activity could cause disturbance effects thus removing the adjacent intertidal areas from available habitat (even though the land itself might not be lost);or possible construction-related disturbance.
There is significant implementation uncertainty regarding whether development in any form at this site would arise for the following reasons: the location, timing, type and size of any such regeneration is unknown; development would be subject to determination under City of Southampton’s Local Plan; permitted development rights; and an uncertain economic outlook. Habitats
Additionally, the Needs Assessment does not identify any requirement for further wharf facilities in the Hampshire area within R
the Plan period. Safeguarding this site for consideration of its egulations appropriateness for minerals and waste handling if the site becomes released from current use in the future does not presume its development. Policy 34 does not support general development of
the site nor does it influence development in spatial proximity to Assessment the European Sites.
Therefore there is significant development implementation uncertainty given that the policy does not allocate the site for any
use and due to the safeguards in Policy 3 (Protection of habitats R
and species). Taking these factors into account, it is reasonable to ecord conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites from this policy. Appendices
Land at HM Naval Base Directly Safeguarding principle of minerals and waste handling Although this area was initially screened out from further assessment and commercial port land adjacent to facility within wider port proposal. due to the fact that Policy 34 does not allocate the site for any use, as safeguarded in Portsmouth it is a safeguarding policy, it was decided to test the potential impact (FINAL) Portsmouth City Council Harbour of the safeguarding through Appropriate Assessment. Core Strategy for SPA/Ramsar employment use The Needs Assessment(76) identified this area as having potential
for conversion from its existing use in whole or in part for Se
regeneration as part of the City Council’s plans Such development pt has potential to give rise to significant effects on European sites, 2013 including: 76 Needs Assessment for Wharves and Rail Depots in Hampshire (Land & Mineral Management Ltd, 2011) 411 412 Habitats Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m) R egulations the site is directly adjacent to the SPA and thus potential for permanent habitat loss through land-take; indirect habitat loss through damage; closer proximity of wharfside activity could cause disturbance Assessment effects thus removing the adjacent intertidal areas from available habitat (even though the land itself might not be lost), or maybe construction-related disturbance R
There is significant implementation uncertainty regarding whether ecord development in any form at this site would arise for the following reasons: the location, timing, type and size of any such development Appendices is unknown; development is subject to determination under City of Portsmouth’s Local Plan; permitted development rights and an uncertain economic outlook
Additionally, the Needs Assessment does not identify any (FINAL) requirement for further wharf facilities in the Hampshire area within the Plan period. Safeguarding this site for consideration of its appropriateness for minerals and waste handling if the site becomes
released from current use in the future does not presume its Se
development. Policy 34 does not support general development of pt
the site nor does it influence development in spatial proximity to 2013 the European Sites.
Therefore there is significant development implementation uncertainty given that the policy does not allocate the site for any use and due to the safeguards in Policy 3 (Protection of habitats and species). Taking these factors into account, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no adverse effects on integrity of European sites from this policy.
Fareham Depot Within 1 km – Policy 34 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure. No further development is proposed. The majority of this depot Portsmouth site is safeguarded to retain the potential for minerals and waste to Harbour be handled, which is likely to reduce the need and thus the prospect NO SPA/Ramsar of new rail depot/siding development elsewhere during the plan period. Site identified Distance from Relevant Policy Justification for assessment of whether there is likely to be an Adverse effect to European site adverse effect on integrity of any European sites integrity? (m)
Botley Depot 1km - Solent No further development is proposed. The majority of this depot maritime site is safeguarded to retain the potential for minerals and waste to be handled, which is likely to reduce the need and thus the prospect NO of new rail depot/siding development elsewhere during the plan Policy 34 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure. period.
Eastleigh East and West 0.46km – River No further development is proposed. The majority of this depot Depot Itchen SAC site is safeguarded to retain the potential for minerals and waste to be handled, which is likely to reduce the need and thus the prospect NO of new rail depot/siding development elsewhere during the plan Policy 34 - Safeguarding existing infrastructure. period. Habitats Totton rail sidings Within 1 km- There is significant implementation uncertainty about potential Solent and development in this area. The size and timing of any development, Southampton as well as the certainty that statutory rail authorities would support
NO R Water SPA and a proposal is unknown. egulations Ramsar; Solent Maritime SAC Policy 34 - Safeguarding possible future infrastructure.
Fratton Rail Sidings 1.8km – Solent There is significant implementation uncertainty about potential Maritime SAC; development in this area. The size and timing of any development, Assessment Chichester and as well as the certainty that statutory rail authorities would support Langstone a proposal is unknown. Harbour NO SPA/Ramsar The site is unlikely to cause significant harm to European sites due to its distance from the nearest European sites. Impacts such as R ecord noise, air pollution or dust would not be significant at this distance. Policy 34 – Safeguarding possible future infrastructure. Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 413 414 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 Appendix E Detailed information on avoidence and mitigation measures
Table E.1 Summary of changes resulting from the HRA process
Potential effect on site integrity Implemented change to the plan Outcome of change
Policy 20 - Bramshill Quarry – insert new development consideration in Appendix A Steering the form of mitigation that would need to be applied at this site, by generating a position of Ensure no net loss of foraging and breeding areas used by SPA qualifying bird species. avoidance of impacts before designing and implementing mitigation. By ensuring no net loss, the operator will have to avoid, protect, replace and compensate for any habitat loss that would effect breeding or foraging. The development consideration will require to be met to the legally recognised
Potential physical damage to the land standards in order for development to go ahead, Habitats supporting qualifying species within the reducing the uncertainty arising from unknown red line boundary at Bramshill Quarry quantum or location of development. extension Bramshill Quarry – insert new development consideration in Appendix A Steering the form of mitigation that would need to R egulations be applied at this site, by generating a position of Areas of higher nature conservation interest, including the Hartbridge Flats management area which requires avoidance of impacts before designing and exclusion from extraction and buffering. implementing mitigation. By avoiding the areas in which the qualifying species have permanent foraging and breeding areas, this will help prevent net loss of Assessment such habitat, and improve the value of cyclical clearance/restoration by donation.
Potential physical damage to Purple Haze - insert new development consideration in Appendix A Steering the form of mitigation that would need to Aquatic/more habitats within the Avon be applied at this site, by generating a position of R ecord Valley Exclusion from extraction and buffer of the northern end of the site to protect the local amenity of residents. avoidance of impacts before designing and implementing mitigation. By maintaining this area
within the red line, retains a flexibility for planning Appendices control to impose mitigation and management schemes (such as alternative greenspace).
Potential physical damage to European Policy 3: Protection of habitats and species. Part a to include areas identified to counteract ensure that all areas of land identified as required to
sites arising from safeguarding and prior adverse impacts on European sites counteract impacts on European sites (Such as (FINAL) extraction of SANG habitat SANGs) are given equal importance to European sites in decision making.
Uncertainly with respect to potential Roeshot - insertion of new development consideration in Appendix A Steering the scope of investigation that will be Se
physical damage to the offsite foraging necessary to define the scope of development. pt
areas for SPA/Ramsar qualifying bird impacts on the offsite foraging areas of the qualifying bird species of nearby SPA/Ramsar Impacts will be investigated at the point of proposal 2013 delivery to ensure that premature evidence is not used 415 416 Habitats Potential effect on site integrity Implemented change to the plan Outcome of change species due to unknown quantum or Bramshill Quarry - insertion of new development consideration in Appendix A location of development, or presence of R egulations impact. Ensure no net loss of foraging and breeding areas used by qualifying bird species of the SPA
Bleak Hill - insertion of new development consideration in Appendix A Assessment
impacts on the offsite foraging areas of the qualifying bird species of nearby SPA/Ramsar to guide development or inappropriate avoidance/mitigation. The development Hamble - insertion of new development consideration in Appendix A
consideration will require to be met to the legally R recognised standards in order for development to go ecord impacts on the offsite foraging areas of the qualifying bird species of nearby SPA/Ramsar ahead, reducing the uncertainty arising from unknown
quantum or location of development, or unknown Appendices scale or location of impact. Forest Lodge - insertion of new development consideration in Appendix A
Impacts on the offsite foraging areas for the qualifying bird species of nearby SPA/Ramsar (FINAL) Purple Haze - development criteria
impacts on the offsite foraging areas of the qualifying bird species of nearby SPA/Ramsar Se pt
General consideration required within supporting text of Policy 3. Highlights that the Plan addresses that impacts from 2013 development outside of European sites will be considered for the impacts on integrity of European sites.
Bramshill Quarry – insert new development consideration in Appendix A Removes the portion of land that is currently Site contains areas of higher nature conservation interest that will require exclusion and buffering The possible delay to the conservation considered of higher value within the SAP and is to objectives for Bramshill Quarry - be subject to a management plan for the next 10 years and inclusion of part of the site that is from consideration of extraction. Red line unaltered currently in favourable condition and to retain development management control if further Policy 9 now states that it is also important that where financial investment made by other environmental likely to be favourably managed mitigation on this portion is required or likely to result bodies and non-government organisations for the previous or current management of land, this is taken into in further benefits at the point of delivery consideration; Potential effect on site integrity Implemented change to the plan Outcome of change
Bramshill Quarry – insert new development consideration in Appendix A
Maintain and manage existing informal recreational use of the site.
Hamble –– insert new development consideration in Appendix A
Maintain and manage existing informal recreational use of the site.
Will ensure that recreational assessments are made at Purple Haze – insert new development considerations in Appendix A the pre-application stage to ensure that the most up Recreational displacement from to date information is used to design best possible allocated sites to European sites Maintenance and management of levels of permissive access and recreational use of the Moors Valley Country mitigation strategy - in combination with wording of vulnerable to such disturbance. Park via the B3081 Policy 20 implementation plan. Ensures that Habitats appropriate consideration of European site objectives. Protection and enhancement of the amenity and users of the Moors Valley Country Park and other local residents R egulations Policy 20 Implementation and Monitoring Plan now states
Where recreational displacement or similar environmental effects are considered an issue, minimising the area being worked will be a key consideration of the principles of design. Areas of alternative greenspace may be Assessment required.
Policy 9 now states (within Implementation and Monitoring Plan) R
Biodiversity restoration may involve restoration to a single type of habitat or to a number of different types of ecord Policy allows for single-use restoration, and will link Requiring 2 or more restoration types habitats (mosaic restoration). The type of restoration required will depend on the location of the site and the to the local objectives for biodiversity, which would may lead to impacts arising from biodiversity features which are associated with it and its surrounding area. Biodiversity restoration priorities will
be for European site conservation objectives where Appendices inappropriate management therefore be considered on a case by case basis. Some biodiversity objectives are compatible with other aims, and appropriate. opportunities to include biodiversity that can be incorporated in most schemes can where relevant contribute to conservation objectives for European sites.
Policy 3 now states Land provided as compensatory habitat for impacts (FINAL) to European sites would be afforded the same level Impacting on land already managed to The following sites, habitats and species will be protected in accordance with the level of their relative importance: of protection as European sites.
meet European site conservation Se sites identified counter act adverse effects on internationally designated sites (are given the same importance as Land that are already under active management to objectives pt the sites themselves) achieve European sites conservation objectives would given weight in planning decisions. 2013 417 418 Habitats Potential effect on site integrity Implemented change to the plan Outcome of change
and R egulations Policy 9 now states that
it is also important that where financial investment made by other environmental bodies and non-government organisations for the previous or current management of land, this is taken into consideration; Assessment
Policy 3 now states (within Implementation and Monitoring Plan) Ensures that the best possible aims for the site are Recreation impacts arising from achieved and that no impacts from inappropriate where sites fall within or adjacent to European sites, the statutory nature conservation body and other related restoration schemes within SPA restoration or management arises from this element R
bodies need to be involved in the development of restoration proposals ecord of a proposal.
Policy 9 now states Appendices
'..and should contribute to the delivery of local objectives for habitats, biodiversity...'
Policy 9 now states (within the implementation plan) (FINAL)
restoration to heathland will require a longer aftercare period due to the length of time heathland usually takes to establish;
nature conservation management may require an aftercare period of up to or in excess of 20 years (depending on Se pt the scheme); 2013
In some instances, restored sites require long-term management to maintain them and to ensure that restoration Successful and appropriate gains such as nature conservation and amenity are maximised. The plans will usually be managed by other Ensures that the best possible aims for the site are mitigation/restoration environmental organisations. It is important that long-term funding and management schemes are secured and achieved. established, as required, to ensure that the aftercare of sites is achievable and sustainable in the longer term.
and
Proposals for all mineral extraction and landfill sites must be accompanied by a restoration and aftercare scheme that provides comprehensive details of the following areas:
an assessment underlying conditions of existing habitats types as well as the wider environment of the local area;
presence of important habitats and species
and Potential effect on site integrity Implemented change to the plan Outcome of change
where sites fall within or adjacent to European sites, the statutory nature conservation body and other related bodies need to be involved in the development of restoration proposals
Forest Lodge Home Farm– insert new development consideration in Appendix A
Protection of the water quality and recharge of the underlying aquifer
Roeshot - insert new development consideration in Appendix A
Protection of the water quality and recharge of the underlying aquifers and the surface water including Donkey Bottom and the River Mude. Habitats
Steering the scope of investigation that will be Bleak Hill – insert new development consideration in Appendix A necessary to define the scope of development.
Impacts will be investigated at the point of proposal R
Protection of water quality and recharge of ground water and surface water egulations delivery to ensure that premature evidence is not used to guide development or inappropriate avoidance/mitigation. The development Purple Haze – insert new development consideration in Appendix A Potential water quality/hydrological consideration will require to be met to the legally issues arising from proposed new recognised standards in order for development to go Assessment 'Protection of the water quality and recharge of the underlying aquifer, groundwater and the surface water' quarries. ahead, reducing the uncertainty arising from unknown quantum or location of development, or unknown scale or location of impact. Ensures that hydrological Hamble – insert new development consideration in Appendix A assessment are more appropriately carried out in the
years leading up to development, to better inform the R
Protection of the water quality and recharge of the groundwater and surface water ecord design and development of the scheme, and the legally required monitoring.
Michelmersh Brickworks – insert new development consideration in Appendix A Appendices
protection of the water quality and recharge of the source protection zone, principal aquifer and of the River Test and its tributaries. (FINAL) Selborne – insert new development consideration in Appendix A
Protection of the water quality and recharge of the underlying aquifer, groundwater and surface water Se pt 2013 419 420 Habitats Potential effect on site integrity Implemented change to the plan Outcome of change
Potential water quality/hydrological Bramshill Quarry – insert new development consideration in Appendix A issues arising from extensions to R egulations existing quarries 'Protection of the water quality and recharge of the underlying aquifer and groundwater'
Potential water quality/hydrological Squabb – insert new development consideration in Appendix A issues arising from additional landfill Assessment requirements Protection of the underlying aquifers, water quality flow regime and River Test and its tributaries
Potential water quality/hydrological Micheldever Sidings – insert new development consideration in Appendix A R
issues arising from proposed new ecord sidings. 'Protection of the water quality and recharge of the underlying aquifer and groundwater' Appendices Potential water quality/hydrological Policy 10 now states (within implementation plan) issues (general) all minerals and waste developments must take into account the need to protect the flow and quality of coastal, surface and groundwater resources. There is also a need to protect the quality and yield of potable water resources. Minerals and waste developments will only be permitted if they are unlikely to have an unacceptable impacts on (FINAL) water resources and due regard is given to water conservation and efficiency. Supporting text for Policy 10 also states that
Non Hazardous landfill developments should not impact a principal aquifer and should be located outside Se Groundwater Protection Zones I, II and III. Mineral extraction and inert landfill will not be permitted in areas pt that overlie a principal aquifer and Groundwater Protection Zone I. The location of minerals and waste 2013 development in flood risk zones is considered in more detail in Policy 11 (Flood risk and prevention);
Uncertainty of proper application of Introduction of Appendix E - insertion of text mitigation measures as many dependant on investigation and implementation at The main development considerations are identified in the text accompanying each proposal map in this appendix. Giving appropriate weight to the development a lower level of decision making They should be addressed along with the other policies of the plan, and development should be designed, with considerations within Appendix E in order that the appropriate mitigation measures where applicable, to avoid or mitigate impacts on the environment and local avoidance, appropriate investigation and mitigation communities. that will be brought about by implementing these measures is appropriately managed at a lower level of At this stage it is too early to specify exactly how the considerations may be addressed. That will be done at the decision making, reducing the uncertainty arising from planning application stage which should present the most appropriate responses to those development considerations, an unknown scope of development or location or likely to include detailed site appraisals and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to identify all impacts scale of impacts. and how best to address them. All assessment information and suggested mitigation measures should be clearly identified and form part of pre-application discussions and consultation with the local community. Potential effect on site integrity Implemented change to the plan Outcome of change
Insertion of additional text into wording of policy 20, 22 and 32 to strengthen the requirement for the development consideration to be met in order to satisfy the policy.
'provided the proposals meet the development considerations outlined in Appendix A:'
Potential physical damage to Mottisfont Squabb Wood – insert new development consideration in Appendix A Steering the form of mitigation that would need to Bat SAC by removal of foraging and be applied at this site, by generating a position of commuting habitats within the 7.5km Impacts on the commuting or foraging of Mottisfont Bats avoidance of impacts before designing and zone surrounding the roost site implementing mitigation. Removal of uncertainty arising from unknown scope of development and Michelmersh Brickworks – insert new development consideration in Appendix A changes to bat behaviour over time (thus scale and location of impacts). This will ensure that the habitats
Impacts on the commuting or foraging of Mottisfont Bats outlined within the SAC management plan, or any Habitats future research are protected from net loss.
Scientific uncertainty about the Policy 3- implementation plan 2nd paragraph R
presence of SPA birds within the egulations Bramshill Quarry extension site. Best available data should be based on up to date survey (in appropriate season) and data searches, using most up to date survey, assessment and mitigation techniques. Assessment of impacts should integrate all relevant data relevant to the proposal.’ Ensures that impact assessment is based on best available information - For Bramshill Quarry, this should be interpreted (along with the policy) as being Assessment Policy 20 - implementation plan proportionate to the designation - high quality bird surveys require a long lead in time. Where recreational displacement or similar environmental effects are considered an issue, minimising the area being worked will be a key consideration of the principles of design. Areas of alternative greenspace may be R
required. ecord
Potential traffic effects arising from Policy 12 - amendments to policy specifically stating that traffic should not have environmental Policy has flexibility with respect to impacts on Appendices Policy 11, and site allocation policies effects, ensuring that all policy elements related also to environment European sites
Policy 10 now states (within implementation plan) Steering the scope of investigation that will be necessary to define the scope of development. the consideration of emissions to air should consider the proximity of proposals to areas which already require Impacts will be investigated at the point of proposal (FINAL) air quality improvement. This includes Air Quality Management Areas; delivery to ensure that premature evidence is not used Potential effects from air pollution to guide development or inappropriate the consideration of emissions to air and dust should consider the proximity of habitats and designated sites avoidance/mitigation. sensitive to increased loading. Se pt 2013 421 422 Habitats Potential effect on site integrity Implemented change to the plan Outcome of change
Policy 12 now states (within implementation plan) R egulations air quality and disturbance from noise and vibration will be most significant where sensitive areas, such as European designated sites, lie within 200m of roads down which minerals and waste traffic pass.
Supporting text for policy 12 also states that Assessment
Where the source of waste for a facility may arise from a range of geographic locations, the impact of developing a network of smaller facilities, rather than one larger central facility, should be assessed with respect to the likely transport impacts of both options on congestion, emissions, communities and sites of historic or ecological importance. R ecord Policy 10 now states: Ensures impacts are not considered in isolation
Minerals and waste development should not: ... Appendices
Cumulative impacts (arising from j) cause an unacceptable cumulative impact arising from the interactions between mineral and waste developments, traffic, or operations) between allocated and between mineral, waste and other forms of development. sites, unknown waste sites and other windfall sites The policy also sates that (FINAL)
the potential cumulative impacts of minerals and waste development and the way they relate to existing developments must be addressed to an acceptable standard. Se pt 2013 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 423
Appendix F Screening Report (Version 5)
1 The Partner Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities, as Competent Authority with respect to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan(‘the Plan’), and with all the legally delegated powers under the Habitats Regulations(77) have undertaken a Habitat regulations Assessment (HRA) during the preparation of the modifications version of the plan, in conjunction with Land Use Consultation (LUC). This report has been prepared on behalf of the partner authorities which are jointly preparing the plan.
2 Required under Regulation 102 of the Habitat Regulations, HRA is the process by which the Competent Authority undertakes in order to confidently conclude whether or not that a land-use plan would have a significant effect on the integrity of a European designated site. F.1 Introduction
3 The proposed modifications of the plan have been evaluated to determine whether there would be a significant change to the conclusions drawn in Screening 4 of this HRA as a result of these proposed modifications, and whether modifications to the Appropriate assessment carried out to support the Submission Version of the Plan.
4 This document reports on a ‘screening’ (stage one) assessment undertaken to assess the potential effects of proposed modifications to the Plan, and highlighting any necessary changes to the Appropriate Assessment of the submission version of the Plan. The draft plan is current awaiting public consultation on the ‘soundness’ following proposed modifications following the first stage of the public Examination (June 2012).
5 This is the fifth version of the screening report, which should be read in conjunction with Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening report Version 4 (February 2012) (Version 4). This report assesses the proposed modifications set out in Schedule of Draft Changes to the Submission Plan (post-hearings) October 2012 (Schedule of modifications)(78) ONLY, in order to refresh and update the findings set out in section 2.2 of Screening Report Version 4.
6 The detail of the overall screening process can be found in sections 1.1 and 2.1 of Screening Report Version 4.
7 The structure of this assessment follows that of the Schedule of Modifications, which should be cross referenced to understanding the detail and justification of the proposed change. Each modification has its own referencing code e.g. dC1, dC2 (draft Change 1, draft Change 2, etc.), and is designated as either a ‘Main’ or ‘Additional’ modification type.
8 Where paragraph numbers are referred to in the tables, this is based on paragraph numbers reflected in the submission version of the Plan.
77 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) 78 The schedule is available on the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan website at the following location: http://consult.hants.gov.uk/portal 424 Habitats F.2 Proposed modifications - general and contents
Table F.1 Screening 5 assessment of proposed modifications to the formatting and contents of the plan R egulations Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further
dC1 General None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No Assessment text.
dc2 General None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. R
dc3 General None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No ecord text.
dc3 Contents None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No Appendices text. (FINAL) Se pt 2013 F.3 Proposed modifications - Vision and spatial strategy
Table F.2 Screening 5 assessment of proposed modifications to the vision and spatial strategy
Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further
dc5 Paragraph 2.6 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No
dc6 Paragraph 2.8 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No
dc7 Paragraph 2.13 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No
dc8 Following paragraph 2.21 None, additional text that does not change the emphasis of the original text. Will not lead to additional development No Habitats or activity that would lead to significant impacts to European sites
dc9 Paragraph 2.24-2.25 (Vision) Vision now provides clearer and stronger steer to protect and conserve European sites No R egulations dc10 Paragraph 2.26 Additional text strengthens the commitment to resolve the particular difficulties that arise from cross-border issues No that might give rise to significant effects on European Sites
dc11 Paragraph 2.27 – 2.47(Spatial No material change to emphasis of original text. Will not lead to additional development or activity that would lead No Strategy) to significant impacts to European sites Assessment
dc12 Figure 3 and 4 (Spatial Strategy) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No
dc13 Key Diagram None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No R ecord dc14 Table 2.2 (What we need to get there) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No
dc15 Add new section following the end Submission plan and HRA took into consideration implication of NPPF. While this new policy 1 explicitly states that No Appendices of section 2, (after paragraph 2.50) the Hampshire Authorities will take a positive approach to minerals and waste development that reflects the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, it still contains sufficient caveats that should ensure that applications for development proposals would not be granted if they do not accord with the other policies in the Plan, or if they could have adverse effects that significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits, or if they should be restricted under
policies in the NPPF such as those relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives and/or designated (FINAL) as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
While policy 13 relating to planning conditions and obligations has been deleted (dC62), the supporting text to this
new policy 1 explains how and when they would be used in relation to this policy and the process of granting permission Se for minerals and waste development. This has not changed the emphasis of the original text. pt 2013 425 426 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed R
further egulations
This policy was not screened in the Screening matrix previously as it is a new policy. It is considered that this new policy is not likely to have a significant effect on European sites, and that it falls into Screening Category A5, because while it provides an overall steer about how the Hampshire Authorities will approach determination of minerals and waste development planning applications, the policy itself will not lead to development, as proposals will also be assessed Assessment against more specific policies, the effects of which have been assessed through the HRA (e.g. the Site Allocations within policies 20 and 21). R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 F.4 Proposed modifications - Protecting Hampshire's environment
Table F.3 Screening 5 assessment of proposed modifications to the section on protecting Hampshire's environment
Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further
dc16 Figure 6 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No
dc17 Climate change - Policy 1 (now policy 2) No material change as this clarifies the intention of the original text. Changes provides more positive No enhancement
dc18 Paragraph 3.5 (Introduction) No material change as this clarifies the intention of the original text. Change provides more positive No enhancement. Habitats
Addition could result in reduced traffic movements. R egulations dc19 Paragraph 3.11 (Habitats) No material change as these clarify the intention of the original text. No
dc20 Policy 3 (now policy 4) (Designated The additional text relating to small-scale waste management facilities may result in development occurring No
landscape) within European sites contained within the National Parks and AONBs (where before they were categorically Assessment excluded), which has the potential for effects on European sites. However, it is considered unlikely to have a significant effect due to the protection provided by policies 3 and 10 (using numbering brought by the Proposed Examination Changes).
dc21 Paragraph 3.28 (follow) (designated areas) No material change to the plan as previous assessment considered the implementation plan as an integral No R
element of the plan ecord
dc22 Policy 4 (Countryside) (now policy 5) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No Appendices
dc23 Paragraph 3.31 (Countryside) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan as an No integral part of the Submission version of the plan.
dc24 Paragraph 3.33 (Countryside) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan as an No integral part of the Submission version of the plan. (FINAL)
dc25 Paragraph 3.36 (Green Belt) The submission version of the HRA and the Plan took into consideration the implication of the NPPF, and No therefore this textual change is only clarification and results in no material change to the original assessment. Se
dc26 Policy 5 (Green belt) (now policy 6) The altered policy wording does not change the emphasis of the original text. No pt 2013 427 428 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed R
further egulations
The removal of the ‘time-limited development’ opens up the opportunity for permanent waste development within the green belt, which has the potential for effects on European sites. However, the protection policies (newly numbered 3 and 10) and the change to the supporting text ref dC35, will ensure that development is not permitted in a location where effects will cause significant harm to European sites. Assessment dc27 Following paragraph 3.37 (Green Belt) This policy still provides the protection outlined in the submission HRA. Despite the changes to the policy No with respect to infilling, the appropriateness of such activity is controlled by Policy 9 restoration of quarries and waste development R ecord dc28 Policy 6 (now policy 7) (Historic heritage) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No Appendices dc29 Before paragraph 3.40 (Heritage) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. No dc30 Paragraph 3.48 (Soils) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
Changes also provide greater protection of soils as a resource for future restoration (FINAL) dc31 Paragraph 3.52 (Restoration) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan as an No
integral part of the Submission version of the plan. Se pt
dc32 Paragraph 3.54 (Restoration) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan as an No 2013 integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc33 Paragraph 3.53 (Restoration) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan as an No integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc34 Paragraph 3.59 None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan as an No integral part of the Submission version of the plan. F.5 Proposed modifications - Maintaining Hampshire's communities
Table F.4 Screening 5 assessment of proposed modifications to the section on maintaining Hampshire's communities
Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further
dc35 Paragraph 4.3 (Introduction) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text.
dc36 Policy 9 (now policy 10) (Health) Changes relate to design details, and provide additional opportunities to avoid impacts on European No sites, through the reference to avoiding subsidence and migration of contaminants.
dc37 Paragraph 4.13 (Health) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No Habitats text.
dc38 Paragraph 4.14 (Health) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No R
text. egulations
dc39 After paragraph 4.15 (Health) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. Assessment dc40 Paragraph 4.16 (Health) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
dc41 After paragraph 4.18 (Health) The additional text strengthens and clarifies the environmental protection of the policy. No
dc42 Paragraph 4.22 (Flooding) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No R
text. ecord
dc43 Paragraph 4.23 (Flooding) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation No plan as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. Appendices
dc44 Paragraph 4.24 (Flooding) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text.
dc45 Paragraph 4.25 (Flooding) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation No (FINAL) plan as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan.
dc46 Paragraph 4.28 (Flooding) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation No
plan as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. Se pt
dc47 Policy 11 (now policy 12) (Managing traffic) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No 2013 text. 429 430 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed R
further egulations dc48 / dc49 Paragraphs 4.28-4.31 (Managing traffic) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc50 Policy 12 (now policy 13) (Design) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. Assessment dc51 Paragraphs 4.34-4.36 (Design) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan, in the context No of NPPF.
dc52 Paragraphs 4.39-4.41 and policy 13 (Minerals and While policy 13 relating to planning conditions and obligations has been deleted, the supporting text No R waste development management) to the new policy 1 (dC23) explains how and when they would be used in relation to this policy and ecord the process of granting permission for minerals and waste development. This has not changed the
emphasis of the original text. Appendices dc53 Paragraph 4.47 (Community benefits) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No (FINAL) Se pt 2013 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013 431
9 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original text. 432 Habitats F.6 Proposed modifications - Supporting Hampshire's economy
Table F.5 Screening 5 assessment of proposed modifications to the section on supporting Hampshire's economy R egulations Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be
assessed Assessment further
dc54 After paragraph 5.8 (Introduction) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
dc55 Paragraph 5.12 (Safeguarding resources) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No R ecord dc56 Policy 15 (Safeguarding resources) Although silica sand has been added to the mineral resources to be safeguarded, this policy was No categorised as A1/A5 in the Screening Report v4 because the policy itself will not directly lead to Appendices development, and the effects of minerals development within the Minerals Safeguarding Area have been considered and assessed for other policies in the Plan such as policies 20 and 21.
dc57 After paragraph 5.12 (Safeguarding resources) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
dc58 Policy 16 (Safeguarding minerals infrastructure) The addition provides further clarification and protection of the environment to the original text No (FINAL)
dc59 Following paragraph 5.16 (Safeguarding minerals None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No infrastructure) Se
dc60 Paragraph 5.17 (Safeguarding minerals infrastructure) The change makes additional constraint to the removal of wharf or depot use, further strengthening No pt safeguarding of land, and reducing the likelihood that new wharf sites would be required in the future. 2013
dc61 Following paragraph 5.18 (Safeguarding infrastructure) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan.
dc62 Paragraph 5.19 (Safeguarding minerals infrastructure) The deleted text has been moved to sit within the wording of policy 16, which as stated above, does No not change the HRA screening conclusion for policy 16.
dc63 Table 5.1 (Aggregate supply) Changes provide update to figures based on new information, and does not have any implication for No the location or scale of development within Hampshire.
dc64 Policy 17 (Aggregate supply) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text.
dc65 Paragraph 5.31 (Aggregate supply) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan.
dc66 Following paragraph 5.32 (Aggregate supply) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further dc67 Paragraph 5.34 (Aggregate supply) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc68 Paragraph 5.35 (Recycled aggregate) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc69 Paragraph 5.37 (Recycled aggregate) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc70 Paragraph 5.40 (Wharves and rail depots) This provides further clarification and strength to the policy by cross referencing to the protection No afforded by policy 3 (habitats and species). The statement ensures that it is inherent within the plan
that wharf development is constrained by the European sites. Habitats dc71 Policy 19 (Aggregate wharves and depots) Though similar wording was previously provided within the policy supporting text, there is now no No indication that development would be supported only where there is need. The certainty of causing
significant harm to European sites is high for this type of development, and therefore support should R not be given lightly, especially where no need has been demonstrated egulations dc72 Before paragraph 5.43 (Wharves and rail depots) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
The additional text at the end of the policy was previously provided in similar wording within the Assessment supporting text, however, it is no longer quite as stringent as it previously stated that new wharfs or rail depots would be supported ‘only’ if the need was demonstrated. Due to the proximity to the coastal European sites along South Hampshire, development of a new wharf has potential to signficantly affect one or more of these European sites. However, these effects cannot be determined until a
specific proposal comes forward at the planning application stage. It is considered that there are R sufficient safeguards within the HMWP to ensure that the potential effects of a new wharf (or rail ecord depot) proposal would be adequately considered when determining the planning application, and
measures included to avoid or mitigate any likely significant effects identified. Appendices dc73 Paragraph 5.44 (Wharves and rail depots) The text further clarifies the position that was assessed within the original HRA that the certainty of No development in these areas is relatively low given the lack of need for additional wharf capacity. (FINAL) dc74 Paragraph 5.49 (Wharves and rail depots) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. – this deleted text is balanced by the additional text in change dC79.
dc75 Paragraph 5.50 (Wharves and rail depots) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No Se pt dc76 Paragraph 5.51 (Land won) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No 2013 433 434 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be R
assessed egulations further dc77 Paragraph 5.54 (Land won) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc78 Policy 20 (Land won) . The changes in the policy clarifies steer the potential for development in any location within the No Assessment Minerals Resource area, increasing the scale and location of development that could come forward in the plan
The changes to this policy provide clarification that priority for provision of sand and gravel will be given first to extracting remaining reserves at sites that are already permitted, followed by extensions R ecord to existing sites, then new permissions at the identified allocated sites, and finally allowing for proposals that may come forward on new sites outside of those sites listed in the first three priorities, but only
where certain criteria are met such as if plan monitoring demonstrates a need in the local market. Two Appendices additional criteria have been added, but the
new text does not materially change the emphasis of the policy from that within the Submission Plan (FINAL) dc79 Paragraph 5.56 (Land won) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc80 Paragraph 5.57 (Land won) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No
as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. Se pt
dc81 Table 5.3 (Land won) Changes provide update to figures based on new information, and does not have any implication No 2013 location or scale of development within Hampshire dc82 Paragraph 5.58 (Land won) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc83 Paragraph 5.58 (Land won) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc84 Paragraph 5.59(Land won) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc85 Paragraph 5.60 (Land won) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc86 Paragraph 5.63 (Land won) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc87 Paragraph 5.63 (Land won) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further dc88 Paragraph 5.63 (Land won) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc89 Paragraph 5.64 (Land won) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc90 Following the end of section on local land-won None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No aggregate (After paragraph 5.64) text.
dc91 Following the end of section on local land-won The addition of this new policy on silica sand does not alter the location or scale of development at No Habitats aggregate (After paragraph 5.64) these two sites (Frithend and Kingsley Quarries) as both were already identified in Policy 20 in the first priority of existing sites for the provision of sand and gravel. The HRA of the submission Plan therefore assessed the potential effects of removal of soft sand at these two sites. This policy addition
changes the category of sand to be extracted to Silica sand, but the nature of the development and R egulations activity at these sites would not change, therefore the findings of the HRA would not be affected. dc92 Paragraph 5.65 (Clay) Change extends the period over which brick clay extraction will be needed. Yes (see below for Policy 22
Clay). Assessment dc93 Paragraph 5.66 (Clay) Change supports the potential for new brick clay sites to come forward. Yes (see below for Policy 22 Clay). R dc94 Paragraph 5.67 (Clay) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No ecord
dc95 Policy 21 (now policy 22) (Clay) Change extends the period over which development would occur at Michelmersh Brickworks, as well Yes (see below Appendices as requiring a greater amount of material (and thus area of land). In addition to the amendments of for Policy 22 the boundaries of the site allocation, this change equates to a significant change to the element previously Clay). assessed. dc96 Paragraph 5.68 (Clay) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No (FINAL) as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc97 Paragraph 5.69 (Clay) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. Se pt dc98 Paragraph 5.72 (Clay) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No 2013 as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. 435 436 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be R
assessed egulations further dc99 Paragraph 5.74 (Chalk) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. Assessment dc100 Paragraph 5.75 (Chalk) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc101 Paragraph 5.76 (Chalk) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No R dc102 Policy 23 (now policy 24) (Oil and gas) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No ecord
dc103 Paragraph 5.82 (Oil and Gas) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No Appendices as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc104 Paragraph 5.83 (Oil and gas) No dc105 Paragraph 5.84 (Oil and gas) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No (FINAL) dc106 Following paragraph 5.85 (Oil and gas) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. Se dc107 Title of section and paragraph 5.87 (Sustainable waste None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No pt management) text. 2013 dc108 Paragraphs 5.88 and 5.89 (Sustainable waste None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No management) text. dc109 Paragraph 5.94 (Sustainable waste management) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc110 Paragraph 5.98 (Sustainable waste management) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc111 Paragraph 5.99 (Sustainable waste management) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc112 Paragraph 5.100 (Sustainable waste management) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc113 Policy 24 (now policy 25) (Sustainable waste None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No management) Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further dc114 Paragraph 5.102 (sustainable waste management) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc115 Paragraph 5.103 (sustainable waste management) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc116 Paragraph 5.104 (sustainable waste management) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc117 Paragraph 5.106 (sustainable waste management) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No
text. Habitats dc118 After paragraph 5.111 (new paragraph) (safeguarding- None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No waste infrastructure) as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. R dc119 Policy 25 (now policy 26) (Safeguarding – waste None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No egulations infrastructure) dc120 Paragraph 5.112 (Safeguarding waste) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No Assessment dc121 Paragraph 5.114 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No landfill)) dc122 Paragraph 5.115 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
landfill)) R ecord dc123 Paragraph 5.116 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No landfill)) Appendices dc124 Paragraph 5.117 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No landfill)) text. dc125 Paragraph 5.118 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No landfill)) text. (FINAL) dc126 Paragraph 5.119 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No landfill)) Se dc127 Paragraph 5.120 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No pt landfill)) 2013 437 438 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be R
assessed egulations further dc128 Paragraph 5.121 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No landfill)) Assessment dc129 Table 5.5 (Waste capacity (and diversion from landfill)) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc130 Paragraph 5.122 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
landfill)) R ecord dc131 Table 5.6 (Waste capacity (and diversion from landfill)) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No Appendices dc132 Waste capacity – After Paragraph 5.123 (Waste capacity None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No (and diversion from landfill)) text. dc133 Paragraph 5.124 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
landfill)) (FINAL) dc134 Paragraph 5.125 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No landfill)) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical text.
change that does not change the emphasis of the Se
original text. pt 2013 dc135 Policy 26 (now policy 27) (Waste capacity (and None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No diversion from landfill)) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. dc136 Paragraph 5.129 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. Provides No landfill)) greater steer to developer to ensure that cumulative impacts to European sites are adequately considered dc137 Paragraph 5.130 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No landfill)) dc138 Paragraph 5.131 (Waste capacity (and diversion from None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No landfill)) text. dc139 Policy 27 (now policy 28) (Energy recovery None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No development) text. Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further dc140 Paragraph 5.134 (Energy recovery development) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc141 Paragraph 5.135 (Energy recovery development) None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc142 Paragraph 5.137-5.144 (Locating waste management) The change provides a more significant locational steer on development within Hampshire. Encouraging Yes waste development in the urban areas of north east and south Hampshire may concentrate new waste development within the coastal urban area. The main potential effects of noise and air pollution could
combine to produce significant effects and contribute to underlying trends that are already placing the Habitats coastal European sites under environmental stress.
However, changes to this supporting text (and policy 28 below) should significantly reduce waste traffic movements due to locating new facilities close to sources of waste arisings). R egulations
The original screening of all the sites put forward in the ‘Assessment of Sites and Areas for Waste Management Facilities in Hampshire’ that can be found in Section D.2 of the February 2012 submission version of the HRA record appendices will need to be revisited to ensure that this change does not alter the conclusions of the screening. Assessment dc143 Policy 28 (now policy 29) (Locations of waste The change provides a more significant locational steer on development within Hampshire. Encouraging No management) waste development in the urban ares of north east and south Hampshire may concentrate new waste R
development within the coastal urban area. The main potential effects of noise and air pollution from ecord waste development could combine to produce significant effects and contribute to underlying trends that are already placing the coastal European sites under environmental stress. Appendices However, changes to this policy should significantly reduce waste traffic movements (due to locating new facilities close to sources of waste arisings).
The original screening of all the sites put forward in the ‘Assessment of Sites and Areas for Waste Management Facilities in Hampshire’ that can be found in Section D.2 of the February 2012 submission (FINAL) version of the HRA record appendices will need to be revisited to ensure that this change does not alter the conclusions of the screening. Yes Se pt 2013 439 440 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be R
assessed egulations further
dC148 Paragraphs 5.145-155 (Locating waste management) Though this is a significant edit of the original wording, this element of the supporting text to new policy 29 still provides significant control of the appropriate location of all waste development, which is sufficient, alongside the protection Assessment policies of the plan to ensure that European sites are not significantly affected. dc144 Paragraph 5.145-5.155 (Locating waste management) Though this is a significant edit of the original wording, this element of the supporting text to new No policy 29 still provides significant control of the appropriate location of all waste development, which R ecord is sufficient, alongside the protection policies of the plan to ensure that European sites are not significantly affected. Appendices dc145 Paragraph 5.157 (CDE) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc146 Paragraph 5.158 (CDE) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. (FINAL) dc147 Paragraph 5.159 (CDE) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text.
dc148 Paragraph 5.161 (CDE) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No Se
text. pt 2013 dc149 Paragraph 5.162 (CDE) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc150 Policy 29 (now policy 30) (CDE) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan that does not No change the emphasis of the original text. dc151 Before paragraph 5.163 (after policy 29 (now policy Change provides greater clarification and emphasis on sustainability, providing greater environmental No 30) (CDE) protection. dc152 Paragraph 5.166 (Liquid waste) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc153 Policy 30 (now policy 31) (Liquid waste and waste water None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No management) text. dc154 Paragraph 5.169 (Liquid waste) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further dc155 Paragraph 5.170 (Non-hazardous landfill) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc156 Paragraph 5.171 (Non-hazardous landfill) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc157 Paragraph 5.172 (Non-hazardous landfill) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc158 Paragraphs 5.173 - 5.174(Non-hazardous landfill) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
dc159 Paragraph 5.175 (Non-hazardous landfill) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No Habitats text. dc160 Before paragraph 5.176 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No
text. R egulations dc161 Paragraph 5.176 and 5.177 (Non-hazardous waste Although the change makes the supporting text less specific in terms of movements of waste into and No landfill) out of Hampshire, and it supports the continuation of some imports of waste to landfill within Hampshire, it does not change the emphasis that there will be a decreasing amount of waste going to
landfill for disposal over the plan period. The impact of the associated changes to Policy 31 (now 32) Assessment is considered below. dc162 Paragraph 5.178 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. R dc163 Policy 31 (now policy 32) (Non hazardous waste While the change removes the reference to not making provision for import of London’s waste to No ecord landfill) landfill in Hampshire, due to the decreasing volume of waste likely to be imported from London over the plan period, and the decision-making hierarchy set out within the policy, this change is not Appendices considered to alter the HRA screening findings from the Screening Report v4 (Appendix B of the HRA Report), or the HRA findings for the potential extension to Squabb Wood landfill or new site at Purple Haze (Appendices D.3 and D.6). dc164 Paragraph 5.179 (but before moved paragraphs None, no material change as the submission version of the HRA considered the implementation plan No (FINAL) 5.176-5.177 described above) (Non hazardous landfill) as an integral part of the Submission version of the plan. dc165 Paragraph 5.180 (Hazardous and low level radioactive None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No waste) text. Se dc166 Paragraph 5.181 (Hazardous and LLR waste) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No pt text. 2013 441 442 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be R
assessed egulations further dc167 Paragraph 5.185 (Hazardous and LLR waste) None, None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan Assessment dc168 Paragraph 5.186 (Hazardous and LLR waste) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text. dc169 Paragraphs 5.188 – 5.189 (Hazardous and LLR waste) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No R ecord dc170 Paragraph 5.190 (Hazardous and LLR waste) None, None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
change only clarifies or expands the text of the Appendices Submission version of the plan. dc171 Policy 32 (now policy 33) (Hazardous and LLR waste) None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
dc172 Before paragraph 5.191 and following Policy 32 None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No (FINAL) (Hazardous & LLR waste) dc173 Paragraph 5.191 (Hazardous and LLR waste) None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No
text. Se pt 2013 F.7 Proposed modifications - Plan review and long term safeguarding
Table F.6 Screening 5 assessment of proposed modifications to the section on plan review and long term safeguarding
Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further
dc175 Section None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the original No text.
dc176 Paragraph 6.1-6.3 (Safeguarding of potential The issues relating to the potential for new wharves and rail depots are dealt with in the discussion No minerals and waste wharf and rail depot above on the individual policies (16 and 19), and below on the changes to policy 33 (now 34). infrastructure)
dc177 Policy 33 (now policy 34) (Safeguarding of potential The change makes the policy more specific in terms of particular sites whose appropriateness of to Yes Habitats minerals and waste wharf and rail depot be developed in the future for minerals and waste wharfs or rail depots (generally as part of a larger infrastructure) depot) will need to be considered if they become available or are released from their current uses.
As the sites are more spatially specific, the potential for them to be developed in the future for R
minerals and waste wharfs or rail depots needs to be assessed in terms of the potential for adverse egulations effects on the integrity of European sites.
dc178 Paragraph 6.5-6.7 (Safeguarding of potential Looking at the appropriateness of the above sites (under new Policy 34) with respect to the implication Yes
minerals and waste wharf and rail depot of the Habitats Regulations will inform whether the provisions set out in these amendments to Assessment infrastructure) paragraphs 6.5-6 are sufficient protection for European sites in relation to Policy 34. R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 443 444 Habitats F.8 Proposed modifications - Implementation monitoring and glossary
Table F.7 Screening 5 assessment of proposed modifications to the implementation, monitoring and glossary sections R egulations Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will require element of HMWP to be assessed further
Implementation Assessment
dc179 Section title None, formatting or slight textual / numerical change that does not change the emphasis No of the original text.
dC180 Paragraph 7.1 -7.3 None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the Plan. No R ecord Monitoring
dC181 Paragraph 8.1 - 8.6 None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the Plan. No Appendices
Glossary
dC182 Definition of major development None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the Plan. No (FINAL) dC183 Definition of sensitive receptors None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the Plan. No
dC184 Definition of Treatment None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the Plan. No Se pt 2013 F.9 Proposed modifications - Appendices A,B,C, D and E
Table F.8 Screening 5 assessment of proposed modifications to the plan appendices and Proposals Map
Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further
Appendix A – Site allocations
dc185 Paragraph 10 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No original text.
dc186 None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No original text. Habitats
dc187 Legend and supporting text None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No original text. R
dc188 Formatting None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No egulations original text.
dc189 Bramshill quarry extension None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. This change No provides specific protection of land that is in active management, and is therefore likely to be of Assessment significant value when the proposal for this site comes forward.
dc19- Cutty Brow None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
dc191 Forest Lodge Home Farm None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No R
original text. ecord
dc192 Micheldever None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No Appendices dc193 Michelmersh The updated boundary now uses land currently used as pasture (previous land was of Arable use). No
Loss of pasture land has potentially more significance as Barbastelle bats do use unimproved pasture Yes to forage over, and it decreases the certainty that adverse effects on integrity would not occur (as
the HRA Report found, see Appendix D.7). Evidence gathering regarding the use of the site by (FINAL) bats is currently underway, which will inform whether this site could be delivered by providing sufficient mitigation as per the development considerations.
Given the size, location relative to other areas of foraging and the good connectivity in the landscape, Se it is likely that even if bats are using this site that mitigation could be provided that would not pt decrease foraging areas, and therefore not affecting the population of Barbastelle bats at Mottisfont. 2013 445 446 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further R egulations dc194 Roeshot Change does not reduce the protection to European sites. No dc195 Whitehill-Bordon - Inset map 5 None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No
Appendix B – List of safeguarded minerals and waste sites Assessment dc196 Introduction None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No dc197 Safeguarded sites List None, change only clarifies or expands the text of the Submission version of the plan. No R
Appendix C – Implementation Plan ecord dc198 Section title None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No Appendices original text.
Table A
Table A - dc199-1 to All relevant changes under each policy None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No dc199-34 as noted in the schedule original text (FINAL)
Table B
Table B dc199-1 to All relevant changes under each policy None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No Se dc199-34 as noted in the schedule. original text. pt 2013 Appendix D – Monitoring Plan dC200 Appendix D None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No original text.
Appendix E – Relationship between old and new policies dC201 Appendix E None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No original text.
Appendix F – Supporting Documents dC202 Appendix F None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No original text.
Proposals (Policy) Map Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element of HMWP Change will require element to be assessed further dC203 Policy Map None, formatting or slight textual/numerical change that does not change the emphasis of the No original text. Habitats R egulations Assessment R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013 447 448 Habitats Regulations Assessment Record Appendices (FINAL) Sept 2013
Appendix G Screening Report (Version 6)
1 The Partner Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities, as Competent Authority with respect to the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (‘the Plan’), and with all the legally delegated powers under the Habitats Regulations(79) have undertaken a Habitat regulations Assessment (HRA) during the preparation of the modifications version of the plan, in conjunction with Land Use Consultation (LUC). This report has been prepared on behalf of the partner authorities which are jointly preparing the plan.
2 Required under Regulation 102 of the Habitat Regulations, HRA is the process by which the Competent Authority undertakes in order to confidently conclude whether or not that a land-use plan would have a significant effect on the integrity of a European designated site. G.1 Introduction
3 Modifications to the plan have been proposed following submission of the plan to the inspector in February 2013, and subsequent hearing in public in March 213. These were in addition to the modifications that were put out for public consultation in October 2012, which were subject to HRA within Screening 5 and the February 2013 version of the HRA.
4 These most recent modifications (Feb-April 2013) have been evaluated to determine whether there would be a significant change to the conclusions drawn in Screening 4 or Screening 5 of this HRA as a result of these proposed modifications, and whether modifications to the Appropriate Assessment are required to support the adopted version of the Plan.
5 This document reports on a ‘screening’ (stage one) assessment undertaken to assess the potential effects of these proposed modifications to the Plan, and highlighting any necessary changes to the Appropriate Assessment of the submission version of the Plan.
6 This is the sixth version of the screening report, which should be read in conjunction with Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening report Version 4 (February 2012) (Version 4). This report assesses the proposed modifications following the completion of the second stage of public hearings in March 2013 ONLY, in order to refresh and update the findings set out in section 2.2 of Screening Report Version 4, and Version 5.
7 The detail of the overall screening process can be found in sections 1.1 and 2.1 of Screening Report Version 4.
8 The structure of this assessment follows that of the Schedule of Modifications, which should be cross referenced to understanding the detail and justification of the proposed change. Each modification has its own referencing code e.g. dC1, dC2 (draft Change 1, draft Change 2, etc.), and is designated as either a ‘Main’ or ‘Additional’ modification type.
9 Where paragraph numbers are referred to in the tables, this is based on paragraph numbers reflected in the submission version of the Plan.
79 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) G.2 Proposed modifications
Table G.1 Screening 6 assessment of proposed modifications to the Plan
Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be assessed further
DC204 After paragraph 2.21 None - Clarification of process/fact. No
(Other plans and programmes) Habitats DC205 Paragraphs 2.24-2.25 Non – Strengthens position all AONB. Removal of specific mention of Thames Basin No heaths does not weaken support for the legal protection and protection within Policy 3 (Vision) provided to the designed site. R egulations DC206 Paragraph 2.26 None – Clarification of original understanding of policy. No
(Spatial Strategy) Assessment
DC207 Paragraphs 2.27-2.47 None – Clarification of original understanding of policy. No
(Spatial Strategy) R ecord
DC207 Key Diagram None – Clarification of original understanding of diagram. No Appendices DC209 Following paragraph 2.50 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text.
(Sustainable minerals and waste development) (FINAL) DC210 Figure 7 None – Clarification of original understanding of diagram. No
(formerly figure 6) Se pt
DC211 Paragraph 3.14 None – Provides better understanding of the hierarchy of designation. No 2013 449 450 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be R
assessed egulations further
(Habitats and wildlife) Assessment DC212 Paragraph 3.37 None – Supports appropriate restoration within green belt areas, and likely to support No original assumptions on providing enhancements through restoration. (South West Hampshire Green Belt) R ecord DC213 Paragraph 3.52 None – Supports modification DC211, and givens better scope to the considerations No needed in designing restoration - likely to support original assumptions on providing
(Restoration of quarries and landfills) enhancements through restoration. Appendices
DC214 Paragraph 3.54 None – Clarification of understanding of original policy stance – though provision of No open water in some areas would provide enhancement, it is unlikely that the integrity of
(Restoration of quarries and waste developments) European sites would be harmed where birds strike areas dictate this is not possible. (FINAL)
DC215 Paragraph 3.55 None – Provides support to the justifications provided for DC212. No Se
(Restoration of quarries and waste developments) pt 2013
DC216 Add to the end of paragraph 3.57 None – Clarification of original understanding of policy. No
(Restoration of quarries and waste developments)
DC217 Paragraph 4.14 None – Sensitive receptors does include flora and fauna, and 100m may not prevent all No impacts in all situation. However European sites are protected by legislation and Policy (Protecting health, safety and amenity) 3, and all site allocation within close proximity to European sites must ensure that.
DC218 Following paragraph 4.36 None – Links any development to objectives of local NIAs, which may have positive No outcomes for European Sites. (High quality design) Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be assessed further
DC219 Paragraph 4.28 None – Clarifies the position of national policy. No
(Managing traffic)
DC220 Paragraph 5.13 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text.
(Safeguarding - mineral
resources) Habitats
DC221 At the end of Paragraph 5.17 None – Constrains any potential change of use of wharves to ensure that need is being No R
met elsewhere. Does not promote new development. egulations (Safeguarding - minerals infrastructure)
DC222 Table 6.1 None – Change is factual and will not relate to further development. No Assessment
(Aggregate supply)
DC223 Paragraph 5.34 None – Strengthens the understanding of the monitoring and is unlikely to lead to further R
development. ecord (Aggregate supply) Appendices DC224 Paragraph 5.37 None – Minor textual change that clarifies the role of the Monitoring Plan. No
(Recycled and secondary aggregate) (FINAL) DC225 Paragraph 5.44 None – Though the change does not exclude isolated/countryside location for No development, the protection policies (Policy 3 especially) and legal protection of European (Aggregate wharves and rail depots) sites will ensure that this change does not increase the likelihood of impacts to the integrity of European sites. Se pt
DC226 Paragraph 5.50 None – Clarification of original understanding of policy. No 2013 451 452 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be R
assessed egulations further
(Aggregate wharves and rail depots) Assessment DC227 Policy 20 None – Sites added to section 1 are existing sites, and therefore addition is factual, and No therefore unlikely to give rise to additional development. (Local land-won aggregate) R ecord DC228 Table 6.3 None – Change is unlikely to result in further development. No
(Local land-won aggregate) Appendices
DC229 Paragraph 5.58 None – Factual statement, and is unlikely to result in further development. No
(Local land-won aggregate) (FINAL)
DC230 Paragraph 5.59 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No Se
(Local land-won aggregate) pt 2013
DC231 Following paragraph 5.64 None – Change is factual and will not result in development. No
(Silica sand development as covered by changes DC90)
DC232 Following paragraph 5.64 None – Change is clarification of previous modification, and is unlikely to result in further No development. (Silica sand development as covered by changes DC90)
DC233 Paragraph 5.66 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
(Clay) Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be assessed further
DC234 Paragraph 5.68 None – Change replaces text that has been previously assessed. No
(Clay)
DC235 Paragraph 5.69 None – Change strengthens need for Policy 3 to be adhered to when considering location No of traffic access. (Clay) Habitats DC236 Paragraph 5.72 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text.
(Clay) R egulations
DC237 Paragraph 5.73 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text.
(Clay) Assessment
DC238 After paragraph 5.101 before the policy None – Factual statement setting out responsibilities. No
(Sustainable waste management development) R ecord
DC239 Replacement paragraphs proposed through DC142 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No Appendices (Locating waste management development)
DC240 Paragraph 5.157 None – Factual addition to aid understanding of the policy. No (FINAL) (Construction, demolition and excavation waste)
DC241 After Paragraph 5.163 None – Factual addition to aid understanding of the policy, and clarification of the Policy. No Se Will not lead to further development. pt (Construction, demolition and excavation waste) 2013 453 454 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be R
assessed egulations further
DC242 Policy 30 (revised Policy 31) None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
(Liquid waste and waste water management) Assessment
DC243 Revised paragraphs for 6.1-6.4 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No R
(as set out in proposed change DC176) ecord
DC244 Revised paragraphs for 6.5-6.8 None – Factual addition to clarify NFDC policy background to the Plan policy. No Appendices
(as set out in proposed change DC178)
DC245 Proposed changes to paragraphs 7.1-7.3 None – Clarifies process of monitoring of Plan - will not lead to further development. No (FINAL)
(as covered by proposed change DC179)
(Implementation, Monitoring and Plan Review) Se pt 2013 DC246 Glossary and abbreviations None – Refining of definitions that clarifies policies within the Plan – will not lead to No further development.
DC247 Paragraph 10 None – Clarifies understanding of the meaning of the diagram. No
DC248 Forest Lodge Home Farm None – Reduces likelihood of recreational disturbance on the nearby European sites. No
DC249 Micheldever sidings None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
DC250 Michelmersh None – Provides further constraints regarding impacts to the source protection zone. No Unlikely to effect hydrology of nearby European sites.
DC251 Roeshot None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
DC252 Whitehill & Bordon None – Does not alter original understanding of the original text. No
DC253 Appendix B - Safeguarded list None – Will not lead to further development than that already assessed. No Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be assessed further
DC254 Policy 18, 21 and 30 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
DC255 Appendix E (Supporting documents) (previously in Appendix None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No F)
DC256 Paragraph 2.19 None – Aligns Plan to national policy on revocation of the South East Plan – will not No give rise to further development. (Other Plans and Programmes) Habitats DC257 Paragraphs 2.27 - 2.47 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
(Spatial Strategy) R egulations
DC258 Paragraphs 2.27 - 2.47 None – Provides clarification to original understanding of text – will not give rise to No further development. (Spatial Strategy) Assessment
DC259 Section title None – Gives a more accurate description of the nature of the policy. No
(Habitats and Wildlife) R ecord
DC260 Policy 5 None – Reinstates text that has already been assessed. No Appendices (Protection of the countryside)
DC261 Policy 9 None – Supports other policies within the Plan - will not result in further development. No (FINAL) (Restoration of quarries and waste developments)
DC262 Paragraph 4.14 None – Clarifies national policy, and refers to human receptors. No Se pt
(Protecting health, safety and amenity) 2013 455 456 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be R
assessed egulations further
DC263 Paragraph None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
5.13 Assessment
(Safeguarding - mineral
resources) R ecord
DC264 Paragraph 5.23 None – Updates figures, but will not lead to additional development No Appendices (Aggregate supply) Updates plan following revocation of the South East Plan.
DC265 Paragraph 5.24 None – Updates Plan following revocation of the South East Plan, and will not lead to No further development. (FINAL) (Aggregate supply)
DC266 Paragraph 5.26 None – Clarifies national policy. No Se pt
(Aggregate supply) 2013
DC267 Policy 19 None – Although the policy removes additional constraint to new development coming No forward, there remains adequate protection of European sites within the policy, within (Aggregate wharves and rail depots) Policy 3, and through legislation.
DC268 Paragraphs 5.43 None – Minor textual change to align rest of policy with above change. No
(Aggregate wharves and rail depots)
DC269 Paragraph 5.44 None – The change reflects the change to Policy 5 with respect to development within No the countryside or isolated areas. Although this may open up opportunities within or in (Aggregate wharves and rail depots) close proximity to European sites, protection in the form of Policies within the Plan, and legislation will ensure no effect on these sites. Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be assessed further
DC270 Paragraph 5.48 None – Clarifies original understanding of the text – will not give rise to further No development. (Aggregate wharves and rail depots)
DC271 Policy 20 None – Clarification of original understanding of Policy, strengthens reliance on No monitoring instead of specific reference to ‘need’. (Local land-won aggregate) Habitats DC272 Table 5.3 (6.3) None – Updates figures, but will not lead to further development. No
(Local land-won aggregate) R egulations
DC273 After Paragraph 5.59 None – Clarification of original understanding of policy. No
(Local land-won aggregate) Assessment
DC274 Paragraph 5.59 None – Adds clarification to original text without altering purpose of policy. No
(Local land-won aggregate) R ecord
DC275 Following Paragraph 5.59 None – Reinstatement of text previously assessed. No Appendices (Local land-won aggregate)
DC276 Paragraph 5.62 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No (FINAL) (Local land-won aggregate)
DC277 Following paragraph 5.64 – new section on Silica sand None – Updates to reflect a new understanding of national policy. Unlikely to lead to No Se additional development not already identified and assessed within the Plan. pt (Silica sand) 2013 457 458 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be R
assessed egulations further
DC278 Paragraph 5.71 None – Reinstatement of text previously assessed. No
(Clay) Assessment
DC279 After paragraph 5.101 before the policy None – Provides clarification on responsibilities – will not lead to additional development. No R
(Sustainable waste management development) ecord
DC280 Paragraph 5.156 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No Appendices
(Construction, demolition and excavation waste)
DC281 Paragraphs 5.157 None – Provides clarification to original text. No (FINAL)
(Construction, demolition and excavation waste)
Relates to proposed change DC240 Se pt 2013 DC282 Paragraph 5.160 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
(Construction, demolition and excavation waste)
DC283 Policy 30 None – Provides additional clarification on using inert materials in restoration. No
(Construction, demolition and excavation waste development)
DC284 Paragraphs 6.1-6.3 None – Clarifies original meaning of text, and strengthens the use of monitoring in No proving need. Will not change the likelihood of development coming forward, or weaken (Safeguarding potential minerals and waste wharf and rail depot the constraints to development. infrastructure) Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be assessed further
DC285 Policy 33 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
(now Policy 34) (Safeguarding potential minerals and waste wharf and rail depot infrastructure)
DC286 Paragraphs 6.5-6.8 None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No
(Safeguarding potential minerals and waste wharf and rail depot
infrastructure) Habitats
DC287 Glossary - None – Provides clarification to text within the Plan. No R egulations Add definition of Borrow pits.
DC289 Glossary - None – Provides clarification to text within the Plan. No Assessment
Include definition on Inert waste residues
DC290 Glossary - None – Provides clarification to text within the Plan. No R ecord Amended definition proposed through DC246 Appendices DC291 Glossary - None – Provides clarification to text within the Plan. No
Amend definition RSS. (FINAL) DC292 Michelmersh None – Provides additional strength to the requirements of development of this site. No Unlikely to effect European sites due to distance.
DC293 Whitehill & Bordon None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. Se pt
DC294 Appendix B (List of safeguarded sites) None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No 2013 459 460 Habitats Reference Policy / Paragraph Likelihood of the change altering previous HRA screening decision for element Change will of HMWP require element to be R
assessed egulations further
DC295 Appendix D (Relationship between old and new policies) None – Minor textual change that does not alter the meaning of the original text. No (previously in Appendix E) Assessment
Links to proposed changes DC201 R ecord Appendices (FINAL) Se pt 2013