South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 to 2021 Habitats Regulation Assessment

South East river basin district Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 to 2021 Habitats Regulation Assessment

March 2016

Executive summary

The Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for the South East River Basin District (RBD) provides an overview of the range of flood risks from different sources across the nine catchments of the RBD and more specifically from local flood sources in the one Flood Risk Area (FRA) of Brighton and Hove. The one FRA was identified as having higher local flood risk by the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments. The RBD catchments are defined in the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and based on the natural configuration of bodies of water (rivers, estuaries, lakes etc.).

The FRMP provides a range of objectives and programmes of measures identified to address risks from all flood sources. These are drawn from the many risk management authority plans already in place together with a range of further strategic developments for the FRMP ‘cycle’ period of 2015 to 2021. The range of measures in the South East RBD FRMP, are reported under the following types of flood management action:

Types of flood management measures % of RBD measures Prevention – e.g. land use policy, relocating people at risk etc. 15% Protection – e.g. various forms of asset or property-based protection 48% Preparedness – e.g. awareness raising, forecasting and warnings 26% Recovery and review – e.g. the ‘after care’ from flood events 7% Other – any actions not able to be categorised yet 4%

The purpose of the HRA is to report on the likely effects of the FRMP on the network of sites that are internationally designated for nature conservation (European sites), and the HRA has been carried out at the level of detail of the plan. Many measures do not have any expected physical effects on the ground, and have been screened out of consideration including most of the measures under the categories of Prevention, Preparedness, Recovery and Review. Others that may have effects but are in catchments that do not have any designated European sites have also been screened out of consideration.

Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have for a long time been addressing the range of flood risks through a range of plans and actions. Much of the South East RBD FRMP presents measures that are ongoing from existing plans, which have already been subject to HRA. RMAs have considered the effects of these existing plan measures on European sites in published HRAs where required. These measures, their effects and agreed actions to mitigate the effects have been summarised under relevant RBD catchments and FRAs within this report. Where RMAs have identified new flood risk management priorities for the next FRMP cycle period between 2015 and 2021, then the measures to implement these have been considered alongside existing plan measures in this HRA.

The following table summarises the numbers of measures that the HRA has considered:

FRMP RMA plans Screened out Measures from New cycle 1 measures existing plans measures1 SE RBD catchments 138 119 28 FRA Brighton and Hove 5 4 0 Total 143 (48%) 123 (41%) 28 (10%)

The HRA has been carried out for the set of measures for each RBD catchment that address main river, sea and reservoir flooding alongside any measures volunteered by RMAs that address local flooding and thus form a ‘RBD plan’ within the FRMP. Measures within FRAs that address high risk of local flooding in these areas have been considered in the HRA as separate ‘FRA plans’ within the FRMP. Both ‘RDB plan’ and ‘FRA plans’ are further considered in-combination by the HRA. The findings are a summary of the risks to European sites and an indication of the need for future HRAs at a project level when developing local actions, as well as considering how to avoid and mitigate any residual risks to European sites. For the South East RBD FRMP, the main conclusions from the stages of assessment across the 2 RMA plans of the FRMP are as follows:

A determination was made to screen out measures that would not have physical effects on any European sites.

The effects of the measures from existing plans include effects of measures to address coastal flooding from SMPs, measures to address main-river flooding from CFMPs and measures to address local flooding from local strategies. Existing controls and mitigation from these plans include: for SMPs, development of coastal strategies, accompanied by more detailed HRAs for relevant SMP Policy Areas; and for CFMPs and Local Strategies more detailed appraisal and assessment on plans or projects arising out of the plans to demonstrate meeting the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (Habitats Regulations).

The effects of the measures that are for new flood risk management priorities for the next FRMP cycle period of 2015 to 2021 have been considered within this strategic-plan level HRA as far as they can be assessed at this high level. This HRA considers the range of mitigation options that may be applicable. It is concluded that the measures are expected to be able to be avoided or mitigated as part of their development as local actions, and all measures have been identified as capable of being fully mitigated. It can therefore be concluded that at the plan level there is sufficient scope for ensuring no likely significant effects during its implementation. The detail of the controls and mitigation required will be assessed as part of requirements to meet consents under planning and other consenting mechanisms as part of a project level HRA, some of which may need to proceed to appropriate assessment in order to gather the necessary level of detail.

The HRA considers the potential for in-combination effects with other plans and projects. Given the level of information currently available, the assessment has identified the plans where the greatest risk of in-combination effects occur, but a detailed assessment can only

1 Measures across several catchments are counted up for each catchment for HRA purposes which may be a different figure than reported in the FRMP. be undertaken at the project level when details of location and design of measures are known. Key external plans to consider for in-combination effects are:

 Local Plans – plans of local planning authorities to determine consent for proposed developments including FCRM ‘Protection’ types of development and which require HRA for developments affecting European sites  Water Resource Management Plans – plans to manage the supply of water to communities by Water Companies.  River Basin Management Plans – plans that seek to ensure the objectives of water dependent European Sites are maintained.  Marine Plans – plans to manage the sustainable use of marine resources for inshore areas.

This HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower tier strategies, plans or projects that implement measures. This plan-level HRA does not give any weight to subsequent lower-tier plans or projects and their HRA outcomes.

As local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope and scale are known, this may identify additional effects on European sites that have not been assessed here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial scale of plan. CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Introducing this report ...... 6 1.2 Background to the FRMPs ...... 7 1.3 The South East RBD FRMP ...... 7 1.4 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment ...... 9 2 European sites in the South East RBD ...... 11 2.1 European sites that could be affected by the FRMP...... 12 2.2 European sites and their status for FRMPs ...... 12 2.3 European sites and their management ...... 13 3 Approach to the HRA ...... 15 3.1 Description of the FRMP programmes of measures ...... 15 3.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 16 3.3 Screening out catchments where no European Sites are present ...... 16 3.4 Screening out measures that would not have physical effects ...... 16 3.5 Considering measures from existing plans ...... 17 3.6 Considering new measures for FRMP cycle 1 ...... 18 3.7 Considering the need for further stages of assessment ...... 18 4 South East River Basin District Catchments HRA ...... 20 4.1 Summary of Measures ...... 20 4.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 22 4.3 Consideration of results and conclusion ...... 45 5 Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area HRA ...... 49 5.1 Summary of Measures ...... 49 5.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 50 6 In combination effects with other plans and projects ...... 52 6.1 RBD and FRA FRMPs ...... 52 6.2 In-combination effects between RBD FRMPs ...... 53 6.3 In-combination effects with external plans ...... 53 7 Conclusion and Future HRAs ...... 56 Annex A: Table A1 – HRA screening table for the FRMP measure categories

Table A2 – Management catchments and European sites in the SE RBD

Table A3 – Mitigation and control measures Annex B: SE RBD European sites 1 Introduction

1.1 Introducing this report This report sets out the results of a strategic plan-level Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) into the likely significant effects on designated ‘European sites’ of the Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for the South East River Basin District, published in December 2015. The HRA report has been prepared by the Environment Agency on behalf of the collective Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) that have responsibilities for information being published within the FRMP, and are thus the ‘competent authorities’ for the HRA of their respective published information, as follows:

 Information on flooding from main river, sea and reservoirs being published for the catchments of the river basin district (RBD) are the responsibility of the Environment Agency (for English catchments).

 Information on flooding from local sources being published for any Flood Risk Area (FRA) is the collective responsibility of Lead Local Flood Authorities within the FRA.

In preparing the HRA report the Environment Agency has consulted with Natural England (for English catchments) and Natural Resources Wales (for Welsh catchments). The Lead Local Flood Authorities in Flood Risk Areas are ‘competent authorities’ for HRA of their FRMP information and have agreed that this report will meet their HRA requirements.

FRMPs are new strategic plans for implementing the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 and the existing National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy for England. They have been developed for each of the River Basin Districts (RBDs) and Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) and draw together information from a range of existing strategies and plans that are in place and continue to be maintained by Risk Management Authorities. The HRA has been carried out at the level of detail published in the FRMP and takes into account HRAs that have already been undertaken for measures in existing plans, and at the level of detail provided by these existing plans. Whilst a HRA at this strategic level cannot obtain the level of detail necessary for in-depth assessment, the HRA summarises the likely risks and potential need for controls and mitigation and the range of generic mitigation options available, which will then proceed through further consideration once measures are developed as specific local actions. In this way, this high-level HRA will be helpful for future HRAs that consider the effects on European sites at a project level.

The report describes each of the main stages and results of the FRMP HRA as follows:

 Describing the network of European sites within the RBD (chapter 2)  The approach to the HRA (chapter 3)  Screening and assessing likely significant effects (chapters 4,5)  Appropriate assessment, alternative solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) (chapters 4,5)  Conclusion and future HRAs (chapter 7)

1.2 Background to the FRMPs Flood risk management plans (FRMPs) highlight the hazards and risks from rivers, the sea, surface water, groundwater and reservoirs and set out how risk management authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, will manage flood risk. They are required by the European Union Floods Directive and the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. The FRMPs must be reviewed and reissued every six years to describe progress.

The Environment Agency is required to prepare FRMPs for all of England covering flooding from main rivers, the sea and reservoirs. Lead Local Flood Authorities (county councils and unitary authorities) must prepare flood risk management plans for flood risk areas (there are ten flood risk areas in England) where the risk of flooding from local sources is significant as identified in Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments.

The 2015-2021 period will be the first cycle of the FRMPs, however RMAs already plan for flooding and a large proportion of the FRMP measures are taken from existing plans that have already been consulted on and published. This includes plans such as Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) as well as Local Flood Risk Management Strategies that have been developed by local authorities. Some further strategic developments have been included for the 2015-2021 first cycle of the FRMP that build on existing plans and seek to address the key objectives of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, such as: strengthening joint working of RMAs, developing more integrated management of the water environment, and updated priorities from any new understanding of flood risks including the implications of climate change.

1.3 The South East RBD FRMP The South East River Basin District covers an area of 10,500km2 and includes the counties of Hampshire, East and West Sussex. It also includes about half of Kent and parts of Wiltshire and Surrey. The river basin district comprises nine catchments.

The coastline of the River Basin District is varied and has many iconic features. These include the dramatic cliffs around Beachy Head, Dover and the Seven Sisters in East Sussex, as well as the natural harbours of Langstone, Portsmouth and Chichester. There are broad expanses of sand and dunes near Rye and Camber and the famous pebble beach and piers of Brighton.

The Isle of Wight is a unique feature within the River Basin District and even with its relatively small coastline has all of the wider catchments features, including the iconic Needles on the West of the Island, the marshes at Bembridge and the sandy beaches at Sandown. The majority of the basin drains into the English Channel with the exception of the Stour which discharges into the North Sea. Some of the individual catchments still retain much of their natural character, whereas others have been significantly modified over time as a result of industry, navigation and agriculture. Parts of the South East River Basin District are heavily urbanised with a population of more than 3.7 million. Major urban centres include Brighton and Hove, Portsmouth, Southampton and Ashford. In recent years there has been notable flooding across the basin, with severe flood events occurring in the autumn of 2000, winter of 2008, summer of 2012 and again during the winter storms of 2013/14. These flood events had significant impacts on some communities, businesses and infrastructure as well as the natural environment. With a changing climate it is predicted that there may be more extremes in the weather, leading to more frequent and severe events like these. The South East RBD is made up of 9 management catchments (see map in Figure 1 below). Figure 1: South East RBD catchments and Flood Risk Area

The South East RBD FRMP sets out the objectives and measures that have been drawn by risk management authorities from existing plans or newly developed for the FRMP cycle period of 2015-2021. Existing measures in the South East RBD FRMP are derived from the following source plans:

 Shoreline Management Plans (SMP)  Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs)  Local Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMS) developed by LLFAs.

The FRMP is divided into the separate plans that are the responsibility of different risk management authorities, as follows:

 Measures within the 9 RBD catchments of the South East RBD that the Environment Agency is responsible for, and  Measures within the Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area (FRA) for local sources of flooding that fall within the Adur and Ouse catchment. Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority are responsible for these measures. 1.4 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment In England, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, commonly termed the Habitats Regulations, implements the European Union Habitats Directive (Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna, and certain elements of the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). This legislation provides the legal framework for the protection of habitats and species of European importance in England.

Sites protected under the Habitats Regulations comprise Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), candidate SACs (cSAC), Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and, as a matter of government policy, to potential Special Protection Areas (pSPA) and Ramsar sites (sites designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention for their internationally important wetlands). These sites are referred to collectively as in this report as ‘European sites’.

Regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations requires that a ‘competent authority’ must consider the requirements of Habitats Directive in exercising any of its functions. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive defines the requirements for assessment of plans and projects potentially affecting European sites. This requires that a competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent or authorisation for a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, must carry out an appropriate assessment. The term commonly referred to for the assessment process is ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’.

The SE FRMP is considered to fit within the definitions of a ‘plan’ as defined by the Habitats Directive, and requires a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The FRMP is a high- level planning document for the SE River Basin District (RBD) (see map in Figure 1), therefore potential impacts of the plan on European sites across the RBD are difficult to determine. Given the geographic scale and nature of the plan, the HRA has been tailored to be appropriate for the spatial area of coverage and the strategic nature of the plan.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment has followed a framework of four distinct stages, only moving to the next stage if required by the results of that stage of the assessment. The four stages are:

Stage 1: Screening and Likely Significant Effects is the process which initially identifies the likely impacts upon a European Site of a plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and considers whether these impacts may be significant. This stage also includes the development of mitigation to avoid or reduce any possible effects.

Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment is the detailed consideration of the impact on the integrity of the European Site of the plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, with respect to the site’s conservation objectives and its structure and function. This is to determine whether there is objective evidence that adverse effects on the integrity of the site can be excluded. This stage also includes the development of mitigation to avoid or reduce any possible effects.

Stage 3: Assessment of alternative solutions is the process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan or project that would avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the European Site, should avoidance or mitigation be unable to avoid adverse effects.

Stage 4: Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse effects remain is made with regard to whether or not the plan or project is necessary for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and, if so, of any required compensatory measures. 2 European sites in the South East RBD

Within the South East RBD there are 36 SACs, 14 SPAs, and 11 Ramsar sites. Some of the sites have more than one designation such as Arun Valley, parts of which are designated as SPA, SAC and Ramsar. There is a proposed extension and name change to one SPA and proposed Ramsar which is currently with Defra (‘Dungeness to Pett Level’; proposed name change to ‘Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SPA’ and proposed Ramsar site of the same name). This name change has not resulted in the SPA being double counted within the FRMP. There is also a proposed marine SPA and Ramsar site which is currently being consulted upon (Solent and Dorset Coast SPA). The proposed Ramsar and marine SPA are included in the figures provided above. Figure 2 shows a map of the South East RBD with the European sites and the management catchments of the SE RBD.

Figure 2 - Map of the European sites in the South East River Basin District

Although most of the European sites contain a variety of habitat types, broadly speaking they could be described as coastal and marine sites and freshwater sites (comprising rivers such as the Itchen SAC and wetlands such as the Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar). The terrestrial sites are much smaller in area in comparison and generally comprise habitat such as woodlands and grasslands.

Natura sites include Sandwich Bay SAC, which is a long sweeping inlet of the sea between Ramsgate and Deal. The coastal area consists of sand flats with their associated salt marshes and coastal sand dunes. The Sandwich Flats stretch for about five miles (8 km) along the coast. Dungeness SAC and Dungeness to Pett Level SPA, is of international conservation importance for its geomorphology, plant and invertebrate communities and birdlife. The proposed Ramsar site includes the entire SPA (including proposed extensions) as well as additional areas of grazing marsh, drainage channels, canals, shingle beaches, sand dunes and ponds.

The coastline along the west of the district is heavily designated with international designations for birds and their habitat including Solent and Southampton SPA/Ramsar site, Solent Maritime SAC and Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar site. It also contains important wetland sites such as Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA and Ramsar and Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC.

The Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar is a large low lying area, which drains to the sea. Water level management is fundamental in helping to restore and maintain the site in favourable condition. The Ramshorn Snail and Fen Raft Spider are supported. The freshwater mollusc Anisus vorticulus is a European Protected Species whose range is very restricted – largely being confined to the Arun Valley and Pevensey Levels, which are SAC designated.

The River Itchen is a SAC. The geology (chalk and sandy beds based) make this lowland catchment an important haven for wildlife within which many SAC species are found including salmon, native crayfish, southern damselfly, otters, bullhead, lamprey and water voles.

Annex B contains a summary of the European sites present within South East RBD. Table A2 in Annex A presents a summary of the European sites present within the management catchments of the South East RBD. In a number of cases European sites cross over the boundary of two or more management catchments, therefore a number of European site names / designations may appear against more than one management catchment.

2.1 European sites that could be affected by the FRMP The South East FRMP is a long term plan for the water environment, which could potentially affect both water dependent and non water-dependent European sites and their qualifying features.

It is not possible from the outset to rule out, at the RBD scale, any (water-dependent or non water-dependent) European sites from being affected by the South East FRMP. The HRA (in particular Sections 4.2 and 5.2 for the FRA) reviews the European sites by management catchment, and determines whether any of the measures within the catchments are likely to lead to significant effects on European sites.

2.2 European sites and their status for FRMPs The South East RBMP provides summary information on the current status and baseline for water-dependent European sites as part of its monitoring data.

European sites in England, with the occasional exception, are also designated as SSSIs. Natural England monitors the conditions of SSSIs and their component units using six reportable condition categories: favourable; unfavourable recovering; unfavourable no change; unfavourable declining; part destroyed and destroyed. The current status of water-dependent European site protected areas for the South East RBD is summarised in table 1 below. This gives the current area of water-dependent SSSI units of European protected areas in different condition categories as currently recorded on Natural England’s designated site data system. SSSI units underpin European protected areas and Natural England only collects data at a SSSI unit level. When SSSI units are in favourable condition, they are deemed to be meeting their conservation objectives.

The table shows that for the South East RBD, 45% of water-dependent SSSI units of European protected area sites are currently not compliant with the condition requirements.

Table 1 Status of water-dependent European Sites based on assessment of SSSIs units for the South East RBD (Extract from Natural England databases August 2015)

Condition South East RBD (ha) Favourable 20,482 Destroyed / Part destroyed 0 Unfavourable declining 182 Unfavourable no change 406 Unfavourable recovering 15,875

Total Area Unfavourable 16,463

% Unfavourable 45

2.3 European sites and their management As part of a new strategic approach to managing all England’s European sites, new measures needed to achieve favourable conservation status for all European sites in England have been developed by Natural England in partnership with the Environment Agency. These are collectively referred to as Site Improvement Plans (SIPs), and are being developed by the Improvement Programme for England’s Natura 2000 sites (IPENS). SIPs were published for all European sites in England in 20152.

With reference to relevant SIP’s for England's Natura 2000 Sites, common pressures on units in the South East region transitional and coastal water bodies include water pollution, air pollution resulting in atmospheric nitrogen deposition, invasive species and commercial marine and estuarine fisheries. Coastal squeeze, changes in species distributions and direct impact from 3rd parties are marginally less common. Whilst less common pressures include inappropriate water levels and ditch management, scrub and weed control, recreational marine and estuarine fisheries, public access/disturbance, overgrazing, change in land management and physical modification. For freshwater sites common pressures include water pollution, inappropriate water levels and ditch management, with less common pressures including invasive species, inappropriate scrub and weed control, overgrazing and public access/disturbance.

2 Site Improvement Plans for the South East River Basin District can be found on: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/6287197783195648

The South East FRMP recognises SIPs include actions where flood risk management is specifically a mechanism for their delivery.

Measures from within the SIPs within the South East RBD have been considered as part of the development of measures within the RBMP, so that they will contribute to objectives for WFD Natura 2000 Protected Areas in the RBD. 3 Approach to the HRA

The steps undertaken to complete the HRA are as follows:  describe the plan and the measures proposed  screen and assess the likely significance of any effects on European sites  consider need for further stages of assessment (i.e. appropriate assessment, alternative solutions and IROPI)  determine a plan-level conclusion

3.1 Description of the FRMP programmes of measures

The South East River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) is a joint publication of several plans required under the Flood Risk Regulations that are the separate responsibilities of specific Risk Management Authorities (RMAs), as follows:

 South East River Basin District catchments (Environment Agency)  Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area (LLFA within the FRA)

3.1.1 River Basin District Catchments FRMPs for the River Basin District (RBD) are being published by the Environment Agency (for English catchments) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) (for Welsh catchments), and are focused on measures principally to address flood sources from main river, the sea and reservoirs. The measures have been divided into catchments based on the River Basin Management Plans (where they are called ‘management catchments’).

Production of the FRMPs for the RBDs is the legal duty of the Environment Agency and NRW. Where any voluntary information on local sources of flooding within RBD catchments has been provided by LLFAs, these are published by joint agreement in the RBD FRMP. The Environment Agency and NRW are also the competent authority under the Habitats Regulations for the RBD FRMPs.

3.1.2 Flood Risk Areas FRMPs for Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) are being published by the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) where the FRAs lie within their administrative boundaries. Production of the FRMPs for the FRAs are the legal duty of the respective LLFAs. The LLFAs responsible for the FRA FRMPs are also the competent authority under the Habitats Regulations.

Where a RBD includes one or more FRA, as is the case for the South East RBD, the measures that have been developed specifically for these FRA FRMPs are presented and assessed separately.

3.1.3 Applying HRA In applying the HRA process, each RMA plan has been assessed separately. A final summary of conclusions and recommendations for future HRAs is provided that also draws on a high-level summary of the potential for in-combination effects of the FRMP with other key plans. 3.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects This first stage of the HRA process requires consideration of screening and likely significant effects of measures on European Sites. The tasks undertaken to complete this are as follows, and set out in more detail below:

 screening out catchments where no European Sites are present  screening out measures that would not have physical effects  considering measures from existing plans, with mitigation / controls already agreed in HRAs for any likely significant effects, or in some cases potential adverse effect on site integrity  considering new measures and their likely significant effects, with mitigation / controls where considered necessary  conclusion from screening and likely significant effects.

The results of these tasks for each RMA’s plan of the FRMP are provided in the following chapters:

 Chapter 4: SE River Basin District catchments  Chapter 5: Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area

3.3 Screening out catchments where no European Sites are present Where there are no European sites present in a catchment, it was determined that no further consideration of measures in the catchment is required. Given the level of detail in the plan where the FRMP measures are mainly strategic in nature and are not specific on their precise location, there is insufficient details to consider downstream or down drift effects beyond the catchment. However, such screening for cross-catchment effects will be a requirement in assessing local plans and projects.

3.4 Screening out measures that would not have physical effects Every measure included within the FRMP is categorised according to one of the following 4 categories, accompanied by an M-code:

 Prevention (M2) - reducing the impacts of flooding through land use and development policy, relocation of assets at risk, or measures to divert the hazard to avoid harm.  Protection (M3) - protecting people from the risk of flooding; for example, by the maintenance, refurbishment of existing defences or building new defences.  Preparedness (M4) - by taking actions that prepare people for flooding; for example, by improving awareness of flood risk, or by providing warning and forecasting for floods.  Recovery and review (M5) - supporting recovery after flooding has happened and reviewing how things can be improved; for example, by improving the availability of recovery services such as providing temporary accommodation.  Other (M6) – measures not fitting in to any of the above categories. Further definitions of each of the measures are set out in the FRMP according to a second tier of M-codes. For example, Prevention (M2) includes the second tier measure, M22, which is defined as “Prevention, removal or relocation measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas or to relocate receptors to areas of lower risk”. These measure definitions have been used as the basis for the initial screening out of the measures that require no for further consideration within the HRA.

The measure codes and their definitions are included as Table A1 (in Annex A to this document). Measures under ‘Preparedness’ (M4) and ‘Recovery and review’ (M5) will not result in development, demolition or changes of management ‘on the ground’ that could result in effects on European Sites. These were therefore screened out from any further consideration. Similarly, under the ‘Prevention’ category (M2), only the removal or relocation of receptors from flood prone areas could potentially affect European sites. The measures that have been screened in to the assessment are set out below and have been highlighted in Table A1:  M22 – Prevention – removal or relocation (category)  M3 – Protection – all sub-categories  M6 – Other – not yet defined.

3.5 Considering measures from existing plans Risk Management Authorities have a range of plans in place for developing and implementing measures related to flooding from main river (in Catchment Flood Management Plans), to flooding from the sea (in Shoreline Management Plans) and related to local sources of flooding (e.g. in Local Flood Risk Management Strategies). These plans have been subject to HRA where relevant, and have reported on the effects on European Sites consistent with the level of detail of the plans.

For this HRA, these existing HRAs have been used to summarise the effects of measures from existing plans that are now set out under specific RBD catchments or FRAs. For many RBD catchments and FRAs there are multiple existing plans covering the geographic area but also some existing plans that are split across RBD catchments or FRAs. Nonetheless we have separated out the ‘screened in’ measures from individual existing plans and referenced the specific HRA results that apply to them.

The results from existing HRAs have considered the extent that they remain valid since they were published. This has been done by checking the status of the relevant European sites that were considered within the source plan’s HRA for any changes to site designations since the date of the HRA publication. The criteria were agreed with Natural England and comprised: whether there were any new / additional site designations, any changes in site boundaries, changes in designated site features, or any significant changes in site conditions.

The HRA results from Shoreline Management Plans are relatively recent with most published between 2010 and 2011. The HRA results from Catchment Flood Management Plans are a little older with most published between 2008 and 2010. The HRA results from Local Flood Risk Management Strategies are the most recent with the first ones being published around 2012 and most being published much more recently. One of the main reasons for a likely change from when the effects of plan measures were reported in HRAs is where there have been boundary changes to European sites or to the scope of condition of the interest features of the sites i.e. specific habitats, species etc. Where we have been advised that such changes have occurred and are significant then this has triggered further consideration of the validity of the existing HRA results that we have relied upon.

3.6 Considering new measures for FRMP cycle 1 In reviewing the range of measures across existing plans covering all sources of flooding, Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have taken the opportunity to put forward further strategic developments for the next 6 year cycle of the FRMP. These ‘new measures’ focus on: strengthening the joint working of RMAs across all flood sources; developing more integrated management of the water environment as set out in the River Basin Management Plans and other related plans; and updating flood risk information to help manage risks with communities.

For this HRA we have reviewed the set of new measures that have been ‘screened in’ for each catchment. As they are mostly ‘strategic’ measures without specific information on location or the form of action that would be developed on the ground, we have considered a range of factors that would give rise to any likely risks from this set of measures in a specific catchment, which includes:

 their general proximity in the catchment to European sites  whether they aim to address sources of flooding that are local, or main river or related to the coast  the mix of types of new measures within the catchment denoted by their M-codes (i.e. whether they are mainly maintenance, or channel works, or new solutions).

General proximity was considered by narrowing down the set of measures within a catchment to those that were closer in general and more likely to be connected to European sites by the hydrology of the catchment rather than applying specific buffer distances to individual measures.

3.7 Considering the need for further stages of assessment HRA steps were carried out for each RBD catchment of the RBD plan that is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. Further HRA steps were carried out for each FRA (by catchment) that is the responsibility of respective Lead Local Flood Authorities. The determination for each catchment or FRA that there are no likely significant effects to European sites, is based on the following assumptions:

 that this HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower tier strategies, plans or projects that implement measures, nor does it give any weight to their outcomes. Consideration of potential impacts and options available to mitigate for those impacts should assist, but not influence or constrain any lower-tier assessments.  that as local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope and scale are known, that this may identify additional effects on European Sites that have not been assessed here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial scale of plan.

4 South East River Basin District Catchments HRA

This chapter sets out the results of carrying out the HRA on the measures for the South East RBD catchments that are for flooding from main river, sea and reservoirs and for local flooding sources outside of Flood Risk Areas. This is the FRMP information for which the Environment Agency is the FRMP ‘statutory authority’ and HRA ‘competent authority’. The Flood Risk Area FRMP information for which other RMAs have responsibility has been considered separately in later chapters of the HRA (see sections 5 and 6).

This section covers the following stages of the assessment:  Summary of measures being assessed  Screening and assessment of likely significant effects  Consideration of results and conclusion

4.1 Summary of Measures The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for each of the 9 management catchments within the SE RBD FRMP.

Figure 3 - Map of the South East river basin district and management catchments

A summary of the measures and their screening is given below for each catchment.

Table 2: Summary of measures by catchment

Management Number of measures related to types 1 Number of new measures and 1 1

Catchment of existing plans known level of detail

measures measures

of measures measures of of new European of

Number of Number (out) in screened Number plans from existing Number cycle for measures Number Sites Catchments with no screened in measures All catchments have some screened in measures. Catchments with all measures from existing plans Rother 19 19 3 from CFMPs 0 5 (13) 16 from SMPs Sub-total 19 19 3 from CFMPs 0 (13) 16 from SMPs % all 7% 7% (n/a) measures Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP SE RBD 7 (15) 0 7 7 strategic/proximity unknown 61 Wide Adur and 12 (8) 9 2 from CFMPs 3 3 not in proximity 4 Ouse 7 from SMPs Arun and 22 15 6 from CFMPs 7 6 not in proximity 18 Western (11) 9 from SMPs 1 specific/in proximity Streams

Cuckmere 19 (9) 13 8 from CFMPs 6 6 not in proximity 3 and 4 from SMPs Pevensey 1 from LLFA plans Levels Test and 8 (32) 5 1 from SMPs 3 3 specific/in proximity 11 Itchen 4 from LLFA plans East 8 (14) 7 1 from SMPs/other EA plans 1 1 not in proximity 9 Hampshire 6 from LLFA plans

Isle of Wight 2 (6) 2 2 from CFMPs 0 7

New Forest 3 (13) 2 2 from SMPs 1 1 specific/in proximity 7

Stour 47 47 22 from CFMPs 0 16 (17) 21 from SMPs 4 from LLFA plans Sub-total 128 100 40 from CFMPs 28 16 not in proximity (125) 45 from SMPs 7 strategic/proximity unknown 15 from LLFA plans 5 specific/in proximity % all 45% 35% 10% 16 (6%) 7 (2%) 5 (2%) measures2 Overall 147 119 43 from CFMPs 28 see above Total (138) 61 from SMPs 15 from LLFA plans % all 52% 42% 43 (15%) 61 (21%) 15 (5%) 10% see above measures2 1 all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets 2 all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures 'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment) 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide 3 Measures across several catchments are counted up for each catchment for HRA purposes which may be a higher figure than reported in the FRMP. Of the total of 285 measures 52% have been screened in for HRA consideration (48% screened out). All management catchments within the SE RBD have some screened in measures and are considered further. There are 22 measures that are RBD-wide and are considered in section 4.2.4.9. There are no measures from neighbouring river basin districts that were included in SE RBD catchments.

4.1.1 Risks from existing plan measures 42% of all FRMP measures (excluding Flood Risk Areas) are screened in and from existing plans, 15% are from CFMPs and 21% from SMPs. Most risks are from SMP measures where adverse effects identified in the SMP HRA for specific policy areas are being addressed.

Most risks to European Sites that are being addressed by existing plans relate to the (21%) measures in SMPs, and more specifically where the SMP is managing likely adverse effects, such as in the catchments of Rother, East Hampshire and New Forest.

4.1.2 Risks from new measures 10% of all FRMP measures (excluding Flood Risk Areas) are screened in and new measures, 2% are strategic without locations, 6% are not in proximity to any European Sites and 2% are more specific improvements that are in proximity to sites. The most likely risks will be related to the development of local actions for the specific improvements in the next FRMP cycle and can be found in the Test and Itchen and New Forest catchment and to a lesser extent in the Arun and Western Streams and Isle of Wight catchments.

4.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects The management catchments that make up the SE RBD FRMP are set out in table 3 below. The colour coding in the table summarises the nature and source of the bundle of measures, which forms the basis for how each management catchment has been assessed. The following sub-sections consider each of the management catchments in turn.

Table 3 Management Catchments of the SE RBD /FRMP

Management Catchment Management Catchments Category Management catchments with no None European Sites present. Management catchments with no None ‘screened in’ measures. Management catchments with all - Rother measures from existing plans. Management catchments with new - Isle of Wight - Arun & Western Streams measures. - New Forest - Adur & Ouse - Test and Itchen - Cuckmere & Pevensey Levels - East Hampshire - Stour

4.2.1 Management catchments with no European sites present

All management catchments within the South East RBD have European sites present, therefore no management catchments have been ruled out of further consideration on this basis.

4.2.2 Management Catchments with no ‘screened in’ measures

All management catchments within the South East RBD have screened in measures, therefore no management catchments have been ruled out of further consideration on this basis.

4.2.3 Management Catchments with all measures from existing plans

The following management catchments in the South East FRMP do not contain any FRMP new measures; they contain only measures from existing plans.

This plan has already been subject to consultation and assessment, including HRA. The HRA conclusions for those source plans have been referred to in each case.

4.2.3.1 Rother Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 4 0 0 19 13

The Rother management catchment contains 4 European sites. There are no new measures within this catchment; all of the 32 measures are from existing plans.

There are eight measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. There are five measures which relate to recovery and review. These are screened out.

South Foreland to Beachy Head Shoreline Management Plan

One Rother District Council protection measure under the ‘Fairlight Cove coastal protections works’ comprises works to increase the rock protection at the base of the cliffs to decrease erosion is some 1km alongshore of the Hastings Cliffs SAC and 2km updrift of the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA. The SMP identified no likely significant effect for this policy unit due to distance from the European sites and the west to east drift direction.

One Environment Agency led protection measure for the replacement of Tillingham Sluice is some 20km upstream of Dungeness to Pett Level SPA, proposed Ramsar and Dungeness SAC. The Hythe Ranges Sea Defences is some 25km updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to enhance the operation and maintenance of Marshlands Tidal Basin to the south of Dymchurch. This is some 4km alongshore of the Dungeness SAC and proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SPA and Ramsar and some 30km updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC. One Shepway District Council led protection measure for shingle recycling from Folkestone to Hythe to maintain the existing sea defences, is some 15km updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC.

One Environment Agency led protection measure for the Hythe Ranges sea defences, is some 15km updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC.

One Shepway District Council protection measure comprises works to improve the Coronation Parade structure in Folkestone and prevent future cliff erosion is some 10k updrift of the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC

One Environment Agency led ‘other’ measure is to assess the strategic requirement for habitat creation as a result of implementing short, medium and long term polices of the South Foreland to Beachy Head Shoreline Management Plan on European sites. This high level assessment is not likely to lead to significant effects.

One Environment Agency led protection measure at Nook Point to Cliff End, under ‘Pett Shingle Recycling’ is an existing operation, which is subject to annual review with Natural England under the Habitats Regulations of potential impacts on the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA (including the extension), and proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay pRamsar.

One Environment Agency led protection measure at Broomhill Sands under ‘The Broomhill Sands Coastal Defence scheme’ has already been consented following an assessment under the Habitats Regulations, which considered the pSPA extension and pRamsar as material considerations, with construction due for completion in December 2015.

One Environment Agency led protection measure adjacent to Broomhill Sands which is the refurbishment of Jurys Gap Tidal Basin is currently undergoing consent under the Habitats Regulations with no Likely Significant Effect identified from the works.

One Shepway District Council led protection measure for ‘Greatstone Dunes Management’ is within the Dungeness SAC. The measure comprises the ongoing maintenance of fencing to retain sand within the dune network to maintain stability, which is subject to existing agreement with Natural England and is considered not to have a likely significant effect on the European interest features.

Three Environment Agency led protection measures comprised of Rother Tidal Walls East, Lydd Ranges Sea Defences and Romney Sands Sea Defences are currently being progressed together as a package subject to project level Habitats Regulations Assessment further to the Folkestone to Cliff End Coastal Defence Strategy IROPI case, regarding Dungeness SAC and the proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay pSPA and pRamsar.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to continue maintenance of shingle recycling from the Denge Beach Management Plan at Dungeness to Jury’s Gap, is currently subject to annual agreement with Natural England. This has been considered within the consented Broomhill Sands Habitats Regulations Assessment and the consented Broomhill Sands Extension. The shingle recycling to Dungeness Power Station as part of the same measure is already consented as part of the current Denge Beach Management Plan which is reviewed annually subject to consideration of potential impacts on Dungeness SAC and the proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay SPA extension and Ramsar.

One Environment Agency led protection measures, ‘Littlestone beach recharge’ is for a capital recharge which will be informed by the current Denge Beach Management Plan. This site is within the proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay pSPA and pRamsar and adjacent to the Dungeness SAC.

An Appropriate Assessment was carried out as part of the SMP. The Appropriate Assessment concluded that implementation of the SMP:

 may have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dungeness to Pett SPA;  will have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dungeness SAC;  will not have a likely significant effect on the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC, Hastings Cliffs SAC or the Pevensey Levels Ramsar site;  will not have any adverse effects as a result of in-combination effects with other plans and programmes.

Consequently, an application was made to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider the case for Overriding Public Interest. This case was accepted by Defra who consequently confirmed that they had no objections to the intention to approve the SMP. Compensatory measures are to be developed by the Regional Habitat Creation Programme. Consideration of additional impacts on the pSPA and pRamsar will be a material consideration in the development of the proposals and will be considered at the project level.

Rother and Romney Catchment Flood Management Plan

Two existing protection measures are to undertake maintenance. One is to carry out in- channel maintenance work such as weed cutting and desilting along the main river and another measure to carry out maintenance of existing flood risk management assets, including existing sluices, embankments, reservoirs, pumping stations, flood gates, and sea defences are subject to existing agreements relative to the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and proposed Ramsar and Dungeness SAC about the mouth of the River Rother which are reviewed annually with Natural England.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to investigate options to reinstate storage of flood water within the flood plain of the Rother Valley may have effects on the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay Ramsar. The Rother and Romney CFMP HRA identifies that the increase in flooding that would occur in the Rural Rother would be carried out via a managed approach and done in consultation with Natural England.

The CFMP HRA, could not conclude that there will not be a likely significant effect on the Dungeness SAC and Dungess SPA and Ramsar site. However, following an appropriate assessment, it was concluded that the CFMP would not adversely affect the integrity of the European sites.

Proposed Mitigation: Some existing measures cannot be put into effect until more detailed appraisal and assessment has taken place at project level to show they have met the requirements of the Habitat Regulations, and to take account of the material consideration of the pSPA and pRamsar.

Some existing measures are currently subject to project level HRA that is assessing the detailed measures and identifying appropriate mitigation where necessary. The Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) for the FoCES requires that appropriate compensatory habitat needs to be secured before the schemes under it can progress. The conclusions need to be considered relative to the additional interest features for the Lydd Ranges Sea Defences and Romney Sands Sea Defences resulting from the proposed extension (and name change of the Dungeness to Pett Level SPA to the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay), including the proposed Ramsar designation which was not considered by the FoCES due to uncertainty on boundary at the time of its writing.

4.2.4 Management Catchments with New Measures

4.2.4.1 Isle of Wight Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 7 0 3 2 3

The Isle of Wight management catchment contains 7 European sites. In total there are 8 measures for the catchment, 3 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European Sites present protect habitats including maritime cliff and slope, coastal and flood plain grazing marsh, lowland heathland, saline lagoons, intertidal mudflats, coastal sand dunes, intertidal flats and seagrass beds and coastal vegetated shingle. The Solent and Southampton Water is designated as a Ramsar site and as a Special Protection Area, as it supports internationally important numbers of wintering waterfowl and various rare invertebrates and plants.

New measures There are three new plan measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

Existing measures – Isle of Wight Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) There are two existing measures which relate to prevention. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

One existing protection measure is located on the Lukely Brook, which is a tributary of the River Medina, some 1km upstream of the Solent & Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar sites and Solent Maritime SAC. The scope of the works includes consideration of upstream flood storage, raised defences and property level protection.

One existing protection measure is on the Monktonmead brook, within Ryde on the north coast of the Isle of Wight, adjacent to the Solent & Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar sites. The measure proposes to investigate and implement an option to reduce ongoing blockage of the outfall.

The Isle of Wight CFMP HRA concluded a likely significant effect from taking further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future. Predicted impacts identified comprised a potential risk of increased erosion of inter-tidal habitats at low tide from increased channel conveyance. The CFMP identified uncertainty as to whether adverse effects on site integrity would occur, with the caveat for additional assessment required at scheme level.

Proposed Mitigation: The protection measure at Ryde has been developed at scheme level, with support from Natural England provided on the draft Habitats Regulations Assessment, which concludes no likely significant effect on the eelgrass beds or overwintering bird populations within the intertidal area from the options for maintaining outfall capacity, conditional on mitigating any effect from scour at detailed design stage.

4.2.4.2 New Forest Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 7 1 0 2 13

The New Forest management catchment contains 7 European sites. In total there are 17 measures for the catchment, 1 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European Sites protect areas covering around half of the catchment. There are 2 Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites, which include the Solent and Southampton Water as well as the New Forest itself, 2 Special Areas of Conservation which again includes the Solent Maritime and the New Forest. Many of these sites support important wetland habitats and species sensitive to changes in water levels and flow. There is also the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA which protects feeding and roosting sites for three tern species of bird.

New measures One protection measure at Bartley is within or in close proximity to the New Forest SAC/SPA/ Ramsar site. This measure is investigating the potential for attenuating flood waters through the creation of upstream storage alongside of other options. There is the potential for changes in water level and flow as a result of this measure which could present a low risk of disturbance to SAC and Ramsar features in particular from prolonged flooding and increased turbidity. The final solutions for these measures are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented, and these measures will be subject to subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level. Project level control through the consenting process for these measures, and associated requirements for consideration of project level HRA (see sub-section below – Project Level Control and Mitigation) will ensure these measures will not result in adverse effect on the European sites. Given the avoidance and mitigation options available to ensure adequate project-level controls are in place, the above strategic plan-level measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on the European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing measures

There are 11 existing plan measures which relate to preparedness and 2 to prevention. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

North Solent Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Two protection measures at Totton and Hythe are investigating options for improving the standard of protection of coastal defences. The measures are in proximity or within the Solent Maritime SAC and the Solent & Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar sites and the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA. There is the potential for footprint and coastal squeeze effects on salt marsh and mud flat and their use by birds for both roosting and feeding. An adverse effect on salt marsh and mud flat and their use by birds from coastal squeeze from policies which seek to sustain or improve the standard of protection and footprint impacts was identified by the North Solent SMP HRA. This is likely to be relevant to these measures. There may be additional effects on high level roosts, and with regards to the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA, which have not been assessed as part of the North Solent SMP. Proposed Mitigation and compensation: The effects occurring on salt marsh and mud flat resulting from coastal squeeze, have been assessed under the North Solent SMP Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and IROPI case, with impacts arising from Epoch 1, mitigated through compensatory habitat which is currently establishing, further to the Medmerry managed realignment scheme.

The Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) for the North Solent SMP has been signed off on the condition that the regional habitat creation programme records likely impacts and subsequent habitat requirements and to identifies suitable sites for creation of habitat to compensate for the adverse effects. The detail on location of compensatory and mitigatory habitat for Natura effects shall come from scheme level assessment.

The SMP was able to identify through reference to Cox (2009b), that the network of feeding and roost sites within the SPA/Ramsar site is important, not necessarily individual feeding and roost sites alone, but that there were potential losses of high tide roost sites within certain policy units. However a detailed assessment of potential effects on high level roosts was not within the ambit of the North Solent SMP HRA. A study is currently underway to supplement the North Solent SMP to identify where high level roosts occur, to inform scheme level assessment of impact and mitigation for high level roosts. The SMP HRA suggests that “the loss of habitat function can be mitigated through habitat management, for example, creating new shingle islands within the estuaries or removing scrub and woodland to create new areas for roosting. In addition, artificial roost and breeding sites can be substituted by use of pontoons, although it is questionable whether these artificial sites are of the same ecological value (Cox, 2009).” 4.2.4.3 East Hampshire European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 9 1 0 7 14

The East Hampshire management catchment contains 9 European sites. In total there are 22 measures for the catchment, 1 of which is a new measure.

The water dependent European sites within the catchment include the Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton SPA/Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone SPA/Ramsar, Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar, and Solent and Isle of Wight lagoons SAC. These are important wetland habitats that support species sensitive to changes in water levels, quantity and quality.

New measures One protection measure is located at Petersfield on a tributary of the River Rother, which is some 30km upstream of the Arun Valley SPA and Ramsar within the adjacent Arun and Western Stream management catchment. Given the distance downstream to the European sites, it is determined that this new measure is not likely to lead to significant effects.

The final solution for this measure is not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain how or where this measures is implemented, and will be subject to subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level.

At this strategic-plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified. (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A.3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the new measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing measures There are 6 existing plan measures which relate to prevention and 8 existing plan measures which relate to preparedness. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

Portsmouth Flood Risk Management Strategy One ‘Other’ measure led by Portsmouth Unitary Authority, to consider options for the Farlington Marshes future management relative to the adjacent M27, which is privately owned by the Highways Agency. Four protection measures led by Portsmouth Unitary Authority as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) are located at Southsea, North Portsea Island, Tipner and Portchester Castle, adjacent to the Portsmouth Harbour SAC, SPA and Ramsar site and proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA. All measures are to improve the standard of protection in line with the Portsea Island and Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategies under the Portsmouth Flood Risk Management Strategy. The measure at North Portsea Island is to sustain and improve the standard of protection where viable, linking with regeneration opportunities. The measure at Tipner (Harbour Way to Twyford Avenue), is for a privately owned defence dependent upon development to deliver an improved standard, with a statutory requirement to maintain the coastal defences to minimise the risk of any potential contaminates entering Portsmouth Harbour water body. The measure at Portchester Castle is to improve the coastal defences against flooding to the existing community, and the A27, in conjunction with the Trafalgar Wharf development. An adverse effect on salt marsh and mud flat and their use by birds from coastal squeeze from policies which seek to sustain or improve the standard of protection and footprint impacts was identified by the North Solent SMP HRA. This is likely to be relevant to this measure. There may be additional effects on high level roosts, which have not been assessed as part of the North Solent SMP.

The risks to European sites result from coastal management measures. These have been assessed at the strategic level by HRAs for the Portsea Island and Porchester to Emsworth strategies. These both concluded an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites as a result of coastal squeeze effects. The HRAs demonstrated that there were ‘no alternatives’ to the preferred solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and public safety. Compensatory habitat is provided as part of the Medmerry managed realignment scheme.

Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategy One existing protection measure at Farlington Marshes is located within the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar site and adjacent to the Solent Maritime SAC. This measure is an investigation into the potential to carry out the recommendations of the Portchester to Emsworth strategy of tidal defence realignment and improvements, following completion of the high roost study being carried out by the coastal partnership. The Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategy identifies that any potential managed realignment route would be determined following further study, data collection to determine the exact area of freshwater loss and inter-tidal habitat gain and appraisal. Should this prove viable, the realignment will need review and assessment as part of the North Solent SMP update process. The coastal cell currently has a policy of hold the line for all three epochs with the potential for managed realignment in epoch 2 or 3 pending further studies.

The Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment concluded an adverse effect on site integrity for the Portsmouth Harbour SAC, SPA and Ramsar site due to coastal squeeze losses and small/direct losses as a result of ‘hold the line’ options. The HRA demonstrated that there were ‘no alternatives’ to the preferred solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and public safety. Compensatory habitat is provided as part of the Medmerry managed realignment scheme.

North Solent Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) One Environment Agency led protection measure is located at Wallington. This measure is to investigate options to reduce tidal flooding and the installation of flap valves on surface water drainage outlets. This measure is located adjacent to the Portsmouth Harbour SAC, SPA and Ramsar site and some 5km from the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA. There is the potential for footprint and coastal squeeze effects on salt marsh and mud flat and their use by birds for both roosting and feeding. An adverse effect on salt marsh and mud flat and their use by birds from coastal squeeze from policies which seek to sustain or improve the standard of protection and footprint impacts was identified by the North Solent SMP HRA. This is likely to be relevant to this measure. There may be additional effects on high level roosts, and with regards to the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast marine SPA, which have not been assessed as part of the North Solent SMP.

Proposed Mitigation and compensation: The effects occurring on salt marsh and mud flat resulting from coastal squeeze, have been assessed under the North Solent SMP Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and IROPI case, with impacts arising from Epoch 1, mitigated through compensatory habitat which is currently establishing, further to the Medmerry managed realignment scheme.

The Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) for the North Solent SMP has been signed off on the condition that the regional habitat creation programme records likely impacts and subsequent habitat requirements and identifies suitable sites for creation of habitat to compensate for the adverse effects. The detail on location of compensatory and mitigatory habitat for Natura effects shall come from scheme level assessment.

Taking the above mitigation into account and with regards the Portsmouth Unitary Authority led schemes, the Portchester to Emsworth Coastal Defence Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment identified that the nature and scale of any compensatory habitat provision needed to be agreed with Natural England in advance of implementation of any schemes which represent ‘adverse effect’.

4.2.4.4 Test and Itchen Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 11 3 31 5 1

The Test and Itchen management catchment contains 11 European sites. In total there are 40 measures for the catchment, 34 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European sites within the catchment include The River Itchen, which is designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for its abundant and exceptionally rich aquatic flora and fauna. Present along the coast are the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC and proposed Dorset and Solent Coast marine SPA.

New measures There are six prevention measures. There are 22 preparedness measures and two recovery and review measures. These have all been screened out.

One protection measure at Romsey on the River Test occurs some 6km upstream of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC and proposed Dorset and Solent Coast marine SPA. The measure is to investigate options to include a tilting weir to help divert water around Romsey. The Emer Bog SAC is located some 3km to the east of Romsey, up the Tadburn Lake Stream. The measure has the potential to affect the structure and extent of bog habitats from changes to water levels, flow, velocity, water chemistry and the hydrological regime brought about by a reduction in frequency or duration of flooding over time

One protection measure at Winchester, in close proximity to the River Itchen SAC comprises an investigation into both temporary and permanent defences to protect central Winchester from fluvial flooding. This measure has the potential for effects from/on the potential direct loss/physical damage of in channel/bankside habitat, non-migratory fish, invertebrates and otters in the plan footprint, constraining habitat migration downstream, and potential noise and visual disturbance to mammals during any construction works.

One protection measure in the vicinity of Totton, to the west of Southampton is an investigation to increase of the capacity of the open watercourses, reinstate existing ditches and create of a new ditch to run parallel with Calmore Road, upstream of the the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar sites, the Solent Maritime SAC and the proposed Dorset and Solent Coast marine SPA.

The final solutions for these measures are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented, and these measures will be subject to subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level.

At this strategic-plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified. (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A.3 Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the new measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing measures

There is one prevention measures. This has been screened out.

North Solent Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) One ‘no measure’ in the vicinity of Totton, to the west of Southampton is located at Manor House Farm, on the River Test, which is immediately upstream of the current extent of the European sites. This measure is derived from the Selsey Bill to Hurst Spit SPA. The aim of this measure is to work with the Regional Habitat Creation Programme (RHCP) to create compensatory freshwater grazing marsh, as part of the requirements resulting from the implementation of the North Solent SMP. Should this prove viable, this will involve land acquisition, detailed design, construction and monitoring.

Southampton Flood Risk Management Strategy There are three protection actions led by Southampton City Council Unitary Authority. One is to designate structures/features that may play a role in flood risk management which are not directly owned or maintained by SCC or Environment Agency, and another protection measure aims to improve surface water management through a focus on hotspot locations within Southampton. The third measure is to retrofit SuDS schemes to reduce flood risk, improve the quality of surface water runoff and enhance amenity/biodiversity.

One protection measure led by the Southampton Unitary Authority as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) is to take forward the River Itchen Flood Alleviation Scheme to reduce flood risk through the implementation of an interim height flood wall along the west bank of the River Itchen, from Ocean Village for some 3km upstream. This measure is in close proximity to the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar sites, the Solent Maritime SAC and the proposed Dorset and Solent Coast marine SPA. The HRA for the Southampton Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management (CFERM) Strategy concluded no adverse effect for this frontage, but it did not assess potential impacts on the draft Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA.

The SMP was able to identify through reference to Cox (2009b), that the network of feeding and roost sites within the SPA/Ramsar site is important, not necessarily individual feeding and roost sites alone, but that there were potential losses of high tide roost sites within certain policy units. However a detailed assessment of potential effects on high level roosts was not within the ambit of the North Solent SMP HRA. A study is currently underway to supplement the North Solent SMP to identify where high level roosts occur, to inform scheme level assessment of impact and mitigation for high level roosts. The SMP HRA suggests that “the loss of habitat function can be mitigated through habitat management, for example, creating new shingle islands within the estuaries or removing scrub and woodland to create new areas for roosting. In addition, artificial roost and breeding sites can be substituted by use of pontoons, although it is questionable whether these artificial sites are of the same ecological value (Cox, 2009).” 4.2.4.5 Arun and Western Streams Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 18 7 0 15 11

The Arun and Western Streams management catchment contains 18 European sites. In total there are 33 measures for the catchment, 7 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European sites present include Pagham Harbour SPA and Ramsar and Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, Solent Maritime SAC and the draft Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA. Further inland up the River Arun is the freshwater Arun Valley SCI, SPA and Ramsar.

New measures All of the new measures are protection measures.

Three Environment Agency led measures at Horsham; replace the manual sluice gate with a fixed weir; and in partnership with West Sussex County Council at Billingshurst develop and implement actions from a Surface Water Management Plan; and Loxwood, investigate options for reducing flood risk. All measures are located some 15-30km upstream of the Arun Valley SCI, SPA and Ramsar. Three Arun District Council led measures at Kingston Gorse, Rustington and East Preston are on small watercourses, which discharge to the open coast. The nearest alongshore European site is some 50km to the east, at Pevensey Levels SCI, whilst against the easterly current the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA at Middleton-on-Sea is some 6 to10km to the west.

Due to the distance of these measures to the European sites it is determined that these new measures are not likely to lead to significant effects on the European sites.

One Environment Agency led measure is to work in partnership with Southern Water to investigate options to reduce flood risk to properties in Emsworth from the West Brook and the Nore Farm Stream. The small water bodies within Emsworth drain into the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC. These are large intertidal areas dominated by coastal processes rather than minor fluvial inputs. This means that the system is likely to be more resilient and robust to fluvial flood events. It is not thought that any works would significantly affect site integrity as the catchment sizes are small and so there will be limited volumes of fluvial floodwaters to deal with. In addition, with rising sea levels, the freshwater inputs to the system will continue to be an important component of the site. This measure is a duplication of an existing measure, but to include partnership working. The final solutions for these measures are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented, and these measures will be subject to subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level.

Existing measures There is one existing plan measure which relates to prevention and ten existing plan measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect There are 13 existing protection measures and 2 ‘other’ measures.

Arun and Western Streams Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

One Environment Agency led measure is to investigate options to reduce flood risk to properties in Emsworth associated with the West Brook and the Nore Farm Streams. These are small water bodies, which drain into the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC.

One West Sussex County Council led measure is to identify solutions through a Surface Water Management Plan, which will help manage the fluvial flood risk and the surface water flood risk on the Manhood Peninsula. The Arun CFMP HRA identifies that watercourses in the Coastal Plain Unit do not drain into Pagham or Chichester Harbour and there are no foreseen flood risk management activities for surface, sewer or groundwater flooding that will be undertaken in the land adjacent to the Pagham Harbour in this Policy Unit.

One Environment Agency led protection measure north of Bognor Regis is to assess sustainable and integrated flood risk management solutions for the Aldingbourne Rife catchment, some 3km upstream of where this discharges through a coastal outfall into the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA.

One Environment Agency led protection measure at Arundel is located some 10km downstream of the Arun SAC, SPA and Ramsar.

One Environment Agency led protection measure in partnership with West Sussex County Council aims to improve surface water flood risk in combination with small scale flood risk at Angmering. The watercourse discharges well downstream of the Arun Valley SCI, SPA and Ramsar, with no pathway of impact.

One Environment Agency led protection measure to consider the implementation of the ‘Lower Tidal River Arun Strategy’ through the withdrawal of maintenance from flood defences in reaches of the Arun above Arundel.

The Arun CFMP HRA concluded that adverse effects on the Arun Valley SCI, SPA and Ramsar could be avoided by continuing to protect the site. For other sites the effect of the plan was uncertain due to the lack of detail on how the policies will be implemented. The CFMP was signed off on the basis that it sets a strategic direction for flood risk management, but this could not be implemented until more detailed assessment and appraisal has taken place on plans and projects arising out of the CFMP to demonstrate that they have met the requirements of the Habitat Regulations.

Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) There are 9 measures from the Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan. One Environment Agency led protection measure to recharge the existing beach at Climping is some kilometre alongshore from the European site.

Two Environment Agency led protection measures are located within or adjacent to Pagham Harbour SPA and Ramsar. The measure at Sidlesham is currently investigating inland bank improvements. The measure at Pagham village is currently investigating options to improve the standard of protection for low lying areas.

One Chichester District Council protection measure is to investigate options for coastal erosion management for Selsey, Bracklesham and East Wittering. Effects on the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA may need to be considered. This is part of ongoing beach management with habitats regulations assessment in place.

There are two ‘No measures’. One of these relates to continued environmental monitoring at Medmerry. The other ‘No measure’ relates to consideration of discontinuing coastal maintenance between Emsworth in the west through to the River Arun in the west.

Two Arun District Council led protection measures include groyne replacement at Aldwick and the maintenance of beach condition and width at Middleton on Sea.

One Environment Agency led protection measure at Elmer comprises beach management works including repairs to breakwaters. These measures are adjacent to or within the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA.

The HRA of the Beachy Head to Selsey Bill SMP concluded that there will not be any adverse effects on the integrity of European sites from the proposed policy options, but it did not assess potential impacts on the draft Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA. It is recommended that project level assessment is required to rule out any potential impacts on the new marine site.

Proposed Mitigation: Measures are considered to be consistent with the higher level assessment undertaken for the CFMP and SMP, and relevant strategies on the basis that they cannot be put into effect until more detailed appraisal and assessment has taken place on them to show they have met the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

Where measures have previously been assessed under the Habitats Regulations or did not have any interconnectivity with a European site, these will need to be reviewed for likely significant effect relative to the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA.

4.2.4.6 Adur and Ouse Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 4 3 1 9 7

The Adur & Ouse management catchment contains 4 European sites. In total there are 20 measures for the catchment, 4 of which are new measures.

European sites are located on high ground throughout the catchment, with Ashdown Forest SAC and SPA on the sandstone of the high weald, and Castle Hill SAC and Lewes Downs SAC on the chalk down land overlooking Brighton and Lewes respectively. There is limited fluvial connectivity to these European sites. The nearest water dependent European site to the east of the management catchment with connectivity is the Pevensey Levels SAC, located some 20km to the east.

New measures One Lewes District Council led prevention measure comprises monitoring of cliffs between Saltdean and Newhaven to inform erosion modelling prevention. This is screened out.

Two West Sussex County Council led protection measures are to develop surface water management plans for Hassocks and for Lancing with associated works. The nearest alongshore European site is some 40km to the east of Lancing, at Pevensey Levels SCI, whilst against the easterly current, the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA at Middleton-on-Sea is some 20km to the west. Hassocks is some 20km upstream of the coast to the east of Lancing.

One Environment Agency led protection measure is to reduce flooding in the Barcombe area on the River Ouse through wetland habitat creation, delivered through partnership as the Middle Ouse WFD Mitigation and Wetland Habitat Creation. This measure on the River Ouse is some 15km downstream of the Ashdown Forest SAC and SPA.

Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the European sites, these new measures are not likely to lead to significant effects.

Existing measures There are sixteen existing measures. There are five measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. There are two measures which relate to prevention. These are screened out.

Adur Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) One Environment Agency led protection measure is to improve the banks of Ferring Rife against flood risk resulting from tide locking.

The nearest alongshore European site is some 50km to the east, at Pevensey Levels SCI, whilst against the easterly current, the proposed Solent and Dorset Coast Marine SPA at Middleton-on-Sea is some 10km to the west. An HRA was not required for the Adur CFMP due to the absence of any European sites within the catchment.

Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

Five Environment Agency led protection measures include (from west to east) beach recharge between Shoreham and Lancing under the ‘Shoreham and Lancing Coastal Defences Beach Management Plan’; the improvement of tidal walls through the ‘Shoreham Adur Tidal Walls scheme; ongoing beach management and recycling at Seaford; an improved standard of protection against flooding at Newhaven and the standard of flooding sustained upstream at Southease.

Two Worthing Borough Council led protection measures comprise the maintenance and improvement of coastal defences at both Worthing and Goring by sea, through the replacement of timber groynes.

One combined Lewes District and Arun District Council protection measure comprises monitoring of cliff retreat to inform future proactive management of risks at Peacehaven.

The HRA of the Beachy Head to Selsey Bill SMP concluded that there will not be any adverse effects on the integrity of European sites from the proposed policy options.

4.2.4.7 Cuckmere and Pevensey Levels Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 3 6 2 13 7

The Cuckmere & Pevensey Levels management catchment contains 3 European sites. In total there are 28 measures for the catchment, 8 of which are new measures.

The water dependent European sites present include the Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar site. At the eastern extent of the catchment along the coast is the Hastings Cliffs SAC. The interest features comprised of successional development of vegetation of Hastings Cliff SAC are supported by the actively eroding soft cliffs.

New measures One Environment Agency led prevention measure comprises the investigation of options for future coastal defences following the end of the Pevensey Coastal Defence contract along the Eastbourne, Pevensey Bay and Bexhill coastal frontages. However this is due to end in 2025 so will not result in any change within this FRMP cycle and has been screened out of the assessment.

One Environment Agency led prevention measure comprises the desilting of some of the key watercourses on the Pevensey Levels to aid conveyance, improve the SSSI and tackle invasive species. This measure is considered necessary for the conservation management of the interest features of the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar site and in line with the Pevensey Levels SSSI Water Level Management Plan which should support the interest features of the SCI and Ramsar site. Due to the measure being necessary for the management of the interest features of the site, this measure has been screened out of the assessment.

One Environment Agency led prevention measure comprises an appraisal of the future capacity of the Combe Haven sea outfall at Bulverhythe and St Leonards. Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the European sites, this new measure is not likely to lead to significant effects.

Three Environment Agency led protection measures along the Cuckmere River or its tributaries include the review of the water level control structure at Upper Dicker, investigation of opportunities to reduce flood risk and provide environmental enhancement from the Knockhatch Stream, which flows west from Horsham and provision of improved flood risk at Alfriston and West Dean. Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar, it is determined that these new measures are not likely to lead to significant effects.

One Environment Agency led protection measures is located some 8km upstream of the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar site, around the headwaters of the Langley Sewer. This measure is to investigate flow restrictions in Polegate and propose solutions to reduce flood risk. Due to the distance upstream of the European sites and the localised nature of the measure, it is determined that this new measures is not likely to lead to significant effects. One Hastings District Council led protection measures to undertake coastal defence works from the Southern Water Outfall to the Pier in Hastings. Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the Hastings Cliff SAC, it is determined that this new measure is not likely to lead to significant effects.

Existing measures There are 20 existing measures. There are seven measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. These are screened out.

Cuckmere and Sussex Havens CFMP Two East Sussex County Council led prevention measures comprise surface water management plans and localised actions at Hailsham and Heathfield. Heathfield is in the upper River Cuckmere with no interconnectivity with the European sites. Hailsham is some 1km from the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar and so exhibits potential interconnectivity with this measure.

Two Environment Agency led protection measures comprise the identification of obsolete structures in Bexhill, to encourage their removal by developers and the identification of any local flow restrictions in Hastings.

One East Sussex County Council led protection measures with support from the Environment Agency is to implement the action plan from the Bexhill surface water management plan to reduce the risk of surface water flooding for Bexhill.

One Environment Agency led protection measure is to extend Egerton Park Coastal Outfall.

Two Environment Agency led protection measures along the upper Cuckmere River are to improve flood risk at Hellingly, Grovebridge and Horam through increased flood storage including an investigation into a flood attenuation reservoir on the Bull River.

The HRA for the Cuckmere and Sussex Havens CFMP concluded that the effects of the policies on the integrity of the European sites were uncertain. Key risks were associated with the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar site, while it was concluded that there were no likely significant effects on the Hastings Cliffs SAC. The CFMP was considered to provide a strategic direction for flood risk management on the basis that the policies could not be given effect without further HRA of the projects and plans arising out of the CFMP.

South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP

Two Environment Agency led protection measures comprise regular shingle recycling as required from Sovereign Harbour (Eastbourne) to Cooden (Bexhill) under the Pevensey Bay PPP, and at Bulverhythe Sea Defences.

One Hastings District Council led protection measure is to undertake coastal defence works.

One Eastbourne District Council led protection measure is to undertake beach management coastal defence works at Eastbourne.

The HRA of the SMP concluded that there will not be any adverse effects on the integrity of the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar site or the Hastings Cliffs SAC from the proposed policy options.

East Sussex Flood Risk Management Strategy

One measure is led by East Sussex County Council to carry out a Town Centre Surface Water Assessment for Eastbourne. There is no pathway of impact on the Hastings Cliffs SAC. Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the European sites, this existing measure is not likely to lead to significant effects.

Proposed Mitigation: Cuckmere and Sussex Havens CFMP HRA identifies uncertainty of adverse effect on site integrity on the Pevensey Levels SCI and Ramsar with the following caveat, as agreed with Natural England, that it cannot be put into effect until more detailed appraisal and assessment has been undertaken on plans or projects arising out of it to show they have met the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

4.2.4.8 Stour Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 16 0 11 47 6

The Stour management catchment contains 16 European sites. In total there are 64 measures for the catchment, 11 of which are new measures. The water dependent European sites present include Thanet Coast, Sandwich Bay and Stodmarsh which are all designated Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). There is also the Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC.

New measures There are 11 new plan measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

Existing measures There are 6 existing plan measures which relate to recovery and review. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

Stour Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

There are 17 protection measures and 5 ‘other’ measures derived from the Stour CFMP. All measures are led by the Environment Agency.

To provide an overview before considering how the measures fit with this, the Stour CFMP HRA (2008) identifies no likely significant effect from policies on Sandwich Bay SAC, Thanet Coast SAC or Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC. However likely significant effects are identified in summary from ‘a range of unspecified water management and flood risk management actions and alterations to existing maintenance regimes’ that could affect the following sites, as follows:

 Stodmarsh SAC, SPA & Ramsar (Policy 6 – take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere (which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction eg for habitat inundation))  Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA & Ramsar (Policy 3 – continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline))’

Impacts from the above policies are identified as resulting from potential changes to water chemistry, changes to turbidity and simplification of habitat/communities, changes in surface water flooding, changes in flow and velocity and changes in hydrological regime.

The measures are as follows:

Three protection measures comprise review of flood risk management options at South Ashford under the ‘South Ashford Flood Alleviation Scheme’, a new replacement trash screen for a culvert at Kennington, Ashford under the ‘Kennington Stream Trash Screen’ and investigations into the proposed conveyance improvements work and the option for a high flow channel at Sevington Mill under the ‘Ashford conveyance improvements’. These measures are some 25km upstream of the Stodmarsh SAC/SPA/Ramsar.

One protection measure on the Little Stour River to improve standard of protection to properties at Littlebourne and Wickhambreaux is some seven kilometres upstream of the confluence with the River Stour, which is some 6km downstream of the Stodmarsh SAC/SPA/Ramsar on a fluvially dominated system. The measures are located some 25km upstream of the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar and Sandwich Bay SAC. One protection measure comprises a seven year desilt of a small section of the River Dour within Dover town under the ‘River Dour Desiliting at Bridge Street’.

One protection measure is to undertake feasibility studies for potential flood risk management schemes on the Great Stour and Little Stour Rivers, involving storage, structure alterations, flood defence construction and relief channels under the ‘Great and Little Stour Flood Alleviation Schemes’.

Three protection measures comprise catchment wide maintenance of main river, ongoing maintenance of existing flood risk management assets and Great Stour flood wall repairs from Grove Ferry to Sandwich.

Four protection measures comprise refurbishment of the Stour pumping stations, Stonar Cut penstocks, Hacklinge and Worth Minnis pumping station and Seasalter Pumping Station. Hacklinge and Worth Minnis are both within or adjacent to the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar, whilst Worth Minnis is adjacent to the Outer Thames Estuary SPA and Thanet Coast SAC;

Three protection measures comprise CCTV surveys of culverts with clearance of debris and asset maintenance on the Plenty Brook at Herne and at Kite Farm adjacent to the Swalecliffe Brook at Tankerton, with the final measure on the Gorrel Stream Culvert. Measures are upstream of Swalecliffe SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar;

One protection measure within the Lower Stour is comprised of investigation into silt build up on the Lower Stour, with dredging carried out where appropriate under the ‘Lower Stour conveyance activities’; Upstream of Sandwich Bay SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar;

Two ‘other’ measures comprise review of Stodmarsh Water Level Management Plan for the Stodmarsh SSSI, and review of the Sandwich to Hacklinge Marshes Water Level Management Plan for the SSSI of the same name, to ensure the areas are being managed most effectively. The respective SSSI’s coincide with the Stodmarsh SAC, SPA and Ramsar and the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar and Sandwich Bay SAC.

Three ‘other’ measures comprise modelling studies to look at options to achieve WFD objectives on the River Wingham, Ash Levels and Lampen Stream. Despite their being inter connectivity from the Lampen Stream to the Stodmarsh SAC/SPA/Ramsar, due to the high level nature of these measures, these measures are not likely to lead to significant effects.

Despite the potential for likely significant effects at scheme level, given the project level controls in place, the CFMP HRA concluded that the plan is not likely to adversely affect the integrity of the European sites.

Isle of Grain to South Foreland Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

There are 20 protection measures and 1 ‘other’ measure derived from the SMP. Measures are variously led by the Environment Agency, Canterbury District Council, Dover District Council and Thanet District Council.

The measures are as follows: One Environment Agency led ‘other’ measure is to assess the strategic requirement for habitat creation as a result of implementing short, medium and long term polices of the South Foreland to Beachy Head Shoreline Management Plan on European sites. Three Environment Agency led protection measures include maintenance of current shingle levels along the coastline to the south of Sandwich Bay, shingle recycling between Reculver and Minnis Bay and Sandwich Bay Estate and Sandown Castle and shingle recharge between the Northern Sea Wall and Pegwell Bay to Deal. These measures are coincident or in proximity to Sandwich Bay SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar. Three Dover District Council led protection measures are to maintain current shingle levels along the coastline to the south of Sandown Castle at Deal and Kingsdown, with timber groyne replacement from Walmer to Kingsdown. These measures are between some 0-5km updrift of the Sandwich Bay SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar. Five Thanet District Council led protection measures comprise refurbishment of assets as follows: refurbishment or replacement of concrete groynes around the Thanet coastline; repairs or replacement of existing assets within Broadstairs Harbour, Viking Bay to Dumpton Gap and East of Epple to Westgate Bay, where some sea wall toe improvement work will also be included; and refurbishment of the groyne which has toe protection provided by steel sheet piles, under the ‘Broadstairs Harbour Flood Defence Scheme’. Measures are adjacent or in proximity to Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar and SPA and Thanet Coast SAC. One Thanet District Council led protection measure on Ramsgate main beach is to install timber groynes to stabilise the beach, reduce recycling costs and hold much more material at the north of the area of concern where insufficient material is naturally held. Measure is some 1km alongshore and 1.5km west of Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar. The Thanet Coast SAC is adjacent. Three Canterbury District Council led protection measures comprise shingle works as follows: shingle recharge at Seasalter and Tankerton and recycling of shingle at Herne Bay. Works at Seasalter are likely within or adjacent to the Swale SPA and Ramsar. Works at Tankerton are likely within or adjacent to Tankerton Slopes and Swalecliffe SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar and Outer Thames Estuary SPA. Herne Bay is some 1km alongshore of Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar and is adjacent to the Outer Thames Estuary SPA. Four Canterbury District Council led protection measures comprise refurbishment of assets as follows: Reculver seawall refacing, rock protection at the west end to prevent outflanking and grouting/block replacement to the Towers Apron; Replacement of the steel sheet piling at Whitstable Harbour that forms the sea defence and also some gates and associated flood defence structures; New timber groynes and beach recycling in stages to ensure protection to the seawall from Hampton to Bishopstone; and improvement where feasible to the existing groynes, with the possibility of toe reinforcement to protect the seawall, and beach recycling to the east of Hampton Pier under ‘Studd Hill and Hampton coastal defence works. One joint Canterbury District Council and Environment Agency led protection measure repeats the above measure to reconstruct the sea wall at Whitstable, relative to the condition of the piling. Works at Whitstable Harbour are adjacent to the Outer Thames Estuary SAC and The Swale SPA/Ramsar, whilst works at Reculver and from Hampton to Bishopstone are respectively adjacent to Thanet Coast SAC and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA. The Isle of Grain to South Foreland SMP HRA (SMP HRA) identifies no likely significant effect from policies which seek to hold the line or support no active intervention on the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA and Ramsar. The SMP HRA recommends where no defences currently occur in front of the cliffs that these sections follow a policy of no active intervention. With regards the Sandwich Bay SAC and Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC, the policies within the SMP HRA were agreed as not likely to have significant environmental effects.

Kent Surface Water Management Plan Four Kent County Council led protection measures are to investigate options to reduce surface water flood risk in the Church Street area of Deal, Whitstable, Margate and Dover. Given these interventions are focused on the management of urban surface water flooding there will be no likely significant effect on European sites. Proposed Mitigation:

Stour Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

The Stour CFMP HRA identifies avoidance measures for implementation through an action plan to ensure that the plan has no adverse effect on integrity of European sites of Stodmarsh SAC, SPA & Ramsar and Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA & Ramsar. The HRA highlights that its assessment at the plan level does not remove the need for an assessment at the project level and that: “If a project is not consistent with the plan then a new Stage 3 Habitats Regulations Assessment may be required. Furthermore, a project may be entirely consistent with this plan but still require further Appropriate Assessment as detail emerging at the scheme-design stage may identify additional impacts that have not been assessed here. Any project arising out of the plan will ensure any adverse effects on integrity of European site are avoided.” Isle of Grain to South Foreland Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

The SMP HRA identifies that if influences acting on the site, result in making the conservation status of the habitat less favourable than it was before, then deterioration can be considered to have occurred. This implies that scheme level assessment should be a consideration in determining whether the above conclusions can be sustained. The SMP HRA identifies that geomorphological and ecological surveys are likely to be required to inform conditions necessary to best maintain site integrity and to increase the understanding of sediment flux and habitat change through sea level rise for subsequent work.

4.2.4.9 District Wide New Measures European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 61 7 15 0 0

The South East District contains 61 European sites as explained within section 2.1. In total there are 22 measures for the district, all of which are new measures

This section identifies measures which occur over the district.

New measures

There are 5 measures which relates to prevention, 8 measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness and 2 measures which relates to recovery and review. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

There are 7 Environment Agency led protection measures which are high level and generic and uniformly are unlikely to result in physical changes on the ground. These include the assessment of whole life costs to set the optimum regime for maintaining and replacing assets; identification of the most suitable maintenance regime for different catchments; implement measures from strategic plans; identify potential options and promote works to reduce the likelihood of flooding in areas where modelling has shown that there is an unacceptable risk, or that have flooded in the past; review land allocation, de-culverting and flood storage opportunities; incorporate climate change allowances into flood risk management works; identify where natural flood management can help adapt to impacts of climate change.

Given the general scope and the strategic scale of the measures, the FRMP does not specify or constrain how or where measures are implemented. The measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

4.3 Consideration of results and conclusion The assessment of likely significant effects has been carried out for each catchment in turn. The risks to European sites for those measures drawn from existing plans have been considered with reference to existing HRAs and existing controls in place. The potential risks arising from new strategic priorities for the next FRMP cycle have also been considered.

In all catchments the conclusions are that likely significant effects can be avoided or mitigated by appropriate controls and actions that are currently in place or will be in place at a project level, when local actions are developed to implement the plan.

4.3.1 Risks from existing plan measures 74% of measures are from existing plans, of which 53% are from CFMPs and 22% from SMPs. Most risks are from SMP measures where adverse effects identified in the SMP HRA for specific policy areas are being addressed. All risk management authorities responsible for implementing the measures in the FRMP that are sourced from the existing CFMPs and SMPs, where risks to Europeans sites have been identified, are required to take account of the HRAs of those plans (as identified in section 4.2 above) and any mitigation proposals or statements made within them. Most risks to European sites that are being addressed by existing plans relate to the (22%) measures in SMPs, and more specifically where the SMP is managing likely adverse effects, such as in the catchments of Rother, East Hampshire and New Forest.

4.3.2 Risks from new measures 21% of measures are new, of which 12% are strategic, 6% are not in proximity to any European sites and 3% are more specific improvements that are in proximity to sites. The most likely risks will be related to the development of local actions for the specific improvements in the next FRMP cycle and can be found in the Test and Itchen and New Forest catchment and to a lesser extent in the Arun and Western Streams and Isle of Wight catchments.

4.3.3 Control and Mitigation for main risks from new cycle 1 measures Controls The principal controls for the development of local actions from new FRMP measures that are more specific and are in the proximity of European sites comprise the consenting procedures in place to assess proposed actions in order to authorise implementation. Actions involving construction or creation of new, or changes to, alteration or improvement of existing flood defence structures affecting main river are likely to require planning permission. In some cases, flood risk management may ordinarily be permitted development. Other types of actions may require controls under Flood Defence Consents from the Environment Agency for main rivers or Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for non- main watercourses.

Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for project level HRA is determined through the planning process, the required information is submitted with the planning application, with the assessment being the responsibility of the local planning authority as competent authority. A determination is made in consultation with Natural England. Even where the action would normally be permitted development, approval of the local planning authority is required where a development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site.

As part of these consenting mechanisms, the measures cannot receive approval to proceed until it has been demonstrated that they will not result in adverse effects on integrity of any affected European sites. Or, where an adverse effect cannot be avoided, a case for ‘Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest’ (IROPI) that includes the identification of compensatory measures is approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Table A3 in Annex A provides additional detail on the consenting processes and the consideration of the Habitats Regulations as they relate to measures to address flooding from the various flooding sources (e.g. main river, ordinary watercourses, tidal, reservoir).

Mitigation Implementation of measures at the subsequent tier of plan or project, if deemed likely to result in significant effect on one or more European sites, may need to include mitigation to avoid or reduce potential effects. Specification of mitigation should be tailored to the specifics of a project, and to the sites and features potentially affected, through the project level HRA process and through consultation with Natural England ideally early in a project’s appraisal and design. That way, mitigation can be incorporated into the way that the project is designed and built, tailored to the specifics of the site/s and their qualifying features, and therefore be most effective in avoiding or reducing potential adverse effects. Project-level mitigation for European site species would consider the potential impacts arising from construction and operation of the project / measure, alongside any site specific sensitivities of the affected species. Depending on the nature of the project, identification of the use of habitats in proximity by qualifying species and the functioning role of those supporting habitats affected, may either be established by existing data / studies or may need to be established through site survey. Construction-related mitigation should consider managing the timing of activities to avoid ecologically sensitive periods, such as breeding, over-wintering or migratory passage periods for birds, or migratory periods for anadromous fish. The exact timings for these construction ‘windows’ may vary for different sites in the RBD, depending on the presence, distribution and proximity of qualifying species present. Avoidance or reduction of visual or noise disturbance to species may also consider the use of techniques such as screening, segregation or establishing buffer zones, recognising that some species may be more vulnerable or sensitive than others (for example different bird species can vary in their flight response). For potential construction impacts on habitats, such as loss of habitat or physical damage, key construction-focused mitigation should focus on the avoidance of working on, or in proximity to sensitive habitats, and development of site sensitive construction techniques. This may for example include avoiding heavy plant usage in particular areas, or screening / creation of buffer zones to avoid any disturbance or physical damage. This can be informed through site specific / project-level HRA, and supporting survey where necessary, to establish the presence, nature and sensitivities of potentially affected habitats. For potential operational effects, sensitive and sympathetic design can minimise or avoid effects, such as appropriate location or layout of any structures (set-back from sensitive habitats) or minimising footprints where possible. Project-level HRA should also consider potential changes in physical processes, such as changes to flows / velocities and the physical regime, and potential water quality changes, for example due to the addition or removal of a structure or a changed profile of the riparian zone / channel banks. Such effects, as identified through the HRA, should inform a project’s appraisal and the building of suitable mitigation into the design.

4.3.4 Conclusion The assessment above has considered the FRMP information in RBD catchments that the Environment Agency are responsible for and has screened the measures as having no likely significant effect. This is concluded in light of the range of avoidance and mitigation measures available. Regulatory controls will identify any risks to European sites when the actions required to implement the measures are developed. The FRMP itself also makes it clear that before any measures in the plan are implemented they must be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations by the relevant competent authority. This is already the case for measures from existing plans where HRAs have identified risks to European sites and where any adverse effects that cannot be ruled out have been addressed through appropriate mitigation and compensatory provision. It is concluded that at this strategic-plan level, the measures are screened as being not likely to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects (see chapter 6). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites). Lower-tier assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in this high- level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. 5 Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area HRA

This section sets out the results of carrying out the HRA on the measures for the Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area that are for flooding from local sources (ordinary watercourses surface water, groundwater, etc.) and are the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) within the Flood Risk Area. This is the FRMP information for which these LLFAs are the FRMP ‘statutory authority’ and HRA ‘competent authority’. This section covers the following stages of the assessment:

 Summary of measures being assessed  Screening and assessment of likely significant effects  Consideration of results and conclusion.

5.1 Summary of Measures The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for the Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area (FRA) as illustrated in Figure 3 below. An overall summary of the LLFA FRA measures is presented in Table 4.

Figure 3 Map of the European sites in the Brighton and Hove FRA within the Adur and Ouse Management Catchment

Table 4 Summary of Brighton and Hove FRA measures by catchment

Management Number of measures related to Number of new measures

Catchment types of existing plans and known level of detail

of of of of new of

umber

N measuresscreened in(out) Number measuresfrom existing plans Number measuresfor cycle 1 Number European Sites Catchments with no screened in measures All FRA catchments have some screened in measures. Catchments with all measures from existing plans All FRA catchments have new measures. Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP Adur and 4 4 4 from Brighton and Hove 0 1 Ouse (5) SWMP

Overall Total 4 4 4 from Local Strategies 0 (5) 2 % all measures 44% 44% 44% from Local Strategies 0%

1 - all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets. 2 - all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures. 'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment). 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide.

Of the total of 9 measures, 4 (44%) have been screened in for HRA consideration, and 5 (56%) screened out.

5.1.1 Risks from existing plans measures All 4 measures are from existing plans, all of which are from the Brighton and Hove surface water management plan (SWMP) which cover parts of the Adur and Ouse management catchment.

5.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects

5.2.1 Adur and Ouse Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 1 0 2 4 3

The Brighton and Hove Flood Risk Area (FRA) falls within the Adur & Ouse management catchment, that contains 4 European sites. However the FRA only contains one: Castle Hill SAC, which overlays the north eastern boundary of the FRA, with the settlement of Woodingdean to the west. The Castle Hill SAC supports semi-natural dry grassland on chalk substrate including an important assemblage of rare orchids. Threats within the Site Improvement Plan for the site include undergrazing, fertiliser use and atmospheric nitrogen deposition. New measures

There are two new measures which relate to prevention. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

Existing measures - Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority Surface Water Management Plan

There is one existing plan measure which relates to prevention and two plan measures which relate to public awareness and preparedness. These measures have been screened out of consideration of likely significant effect.

There are 4 existing protection measures as follows:

There is 1 Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority led protection measure, which is to implement the recommended works from Brighton Marina to River Adur Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy. This occurs along the shoreline over some 3km from the European site.

There are 3 Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority led protection measures, which are to implement minor works to improve surface water management within urbanised, lower lying areas at Bevendean, Patcham and Caren Avenue over 3km from the European site.

Given the lack of any inter connectivity to the European sites, it is determined that these existing measures are not likely to lead to significant effects.

5.2.2 Conclusion At this strategic-plan level of the Brighton and Hove FRA the measures are screened as being not likely to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects (see chapter 6). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites). Lower-tier assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in this high-level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

6 In combination effects with other plans and projects

The Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations require competent authorities to consider the assessment of effects on a European site in combination with other plans or projects. The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the FRMP has demonstrated that, for those measures where there is a potential effect on a European site, there is insufficient detail available at this stage to understand the site-specific context in terms of location or outline design of the flood risk management solution to be able to assess the likely effects in the detail necessary to advise on site-specific avoidance and mitigation required. Rather, the assessment has set out the range of avoidance, mitigation and control measures that can be applied, and there is enough confidence in the breadth and type of measures available to screen out likely significant effects for the purposes of plan-level assessment.

The application of HRA requirements at the project or lower-tier plan level will take place when a greater level of detail will be available. Given the lack of available information on the location and design of solutions and therefore the associated effects, we are also unable to meaningfully assess the in-combination effects with other plans and projects. This section has therefore set out the types of plans and projects where interactions are possible and more detailed consideration of these will be required in the HRAs for projects or lower tier plans.

The potential for in-combination effects lies with the following potential interactions:

 The RBD FRMP with the FRA FRMP  Between different RBD FRMPs  The RBD FRMP with other external plans within the RBD.

The in combination effects with existing Risk Management Authority plans during the period of the plan, including Shoreline Management Plans, Catchment Flood Management Plans and Local Strategies, have been considered as part of the FRMP assessments undertaken within each RBD catchment and flood risk area (see previous sections). This is because the FRMP has already considered how the objectives and measures of these existing plans combine and relate to the 6 year cycle 2015 to 2021 of the FRMP.

6.1 RBD and FRA FRMPs FRAs geographically overlay one or more RBD catchments and as distinct ‘plans’ addressing local flood sources may have measures that coincide with wider RBD catchment measures addressing flooding from main rivers, sea and reservoirs. Together these measures have the potential to cause in-combination effects on nearby European sites depending on their nature, location and relationship. At the strategic-plan level of the HRA such in-combination effects on specific European sites in unable to be considered. Instead the HRA highlights where risks of in-combination effects may in general be higher and which project level assessments should consider further as follows:

 Most FRAs are in urban areas where there are less European sites present so most measures are less likely to be in proximity to them  Most measures in FRAs are drawn from existing plans (local strategies and surface water management plans) that will have considered their flood management measures alongside any in the same strategic area under CFMPs and SMPs, including any in-combination effects on European sites in any HRA.  The combination of measures with highest risks of in-combination effects not considered under existing plans, will be where there are specific improvement measures that are new in the FRMP under both the RBD catchment (main river/sea flooding) and the FRA (local flooding) that are in close proximity to each other and a European site.

6.2 In-combination effects between RBD FRMPs The South East RBD shares a border with two other RBDs:

 South West  Thames There are some European sites that span these borders of the South East RBD.

In general more FRMP measures are located close to where the risks of flooding to people and property are greatest and as a result less are located close to the water shed margins of catchments that are the borders of RBDs. There are however, catchment or RBD wide measures that relate to these borders and often involve working with natural processes. At this level of the plan, the nature of such measures on any specific European sites that cross RBD borders are not sufficient to identify effects and such measures are considered to result in no likely significant effects to cross border European sites. Such effects may be important for lower tier plans and project level assessments to consider when more details of the measures and the effects are known.

6.3 In-combination effects with external plans Potential for in-combination effects with external plans will depend on the specific locations and design of actions or measures arising from the FRMP, external plan or project. Nevertheless, a number of plans that could give rise to projects that have the potential to contribute to an in-combination effect have been identified.

At this stage, given the uncertainty of location and design of measures in the FRMP, there is limited value in examining other plans in detail and speculating on where interactions might occur. The approach taken was to identify key plans that should be considered in the HRAs for projects or lower tier plans or strategies, as described below. However, this is not a definitive list; there are a range of plans and projects that will need to be taken account of in the HRAs for lower-tier plans projects, when considering potential in-combination effects.

Local Plans: Local Plans set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment, adapting to climate change and securing good design. During their development and before they are adopted, plans will be subject to an HRA where there is the potential for significant effects on a European site or sites. Other local plans that may be relevant to also consider relate to transport, minerals and waste. Water Resource Management Plans: Water Companies including Southern Water, Portsmouth Water, Affinity Water (formerly Veolia) an South East Water produce respective water resource plans for the South East region.

South East Water, Water Resources Management Plan. 2013, comprises the majority of Kent and East Sussex. The Habitats Regulations Assessment of this plan screens out any potential significant effects for the south east river basin district.

Affinity Water (formerly Veolia), draft Water Resources Management Plan, 2013, comprises the towns of Folkestone and Dover, together with surrounding rural areas including Romney Marsh and Dungeness in Kent. The Habitats Regulations Assessment for this plan has not yet been completed. However the final plan identifies that as part of the options appraisal work on the Dungeness peninsular, that the abstraction level is significantly lower than historic patterns and this appears to minimise the abstraction impact on these key areas, with a future licence change proposed to restrict future daily and peak abstraction capability, in conjunction with relocating two disused wells to maintain security of supply. This is likely to benefit the interest features of the Dungeness SAC and Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and proposed Ramsar site, through improving resilience to changes in the level of water

Portsmouth Water, Draft Water Resources Management Plan, 2014, comprises part of Hampshire and West Sussex. There are not likely to be any in combination effects with the FRMP resulting from the ‘Havant Thicket Winter Storage Reservoir Option A’. However there is a potential benefit from this to ‘Manage pollution from rural areas’ as a result of reduced nitrogen load once the reservoir is operational. The Habitats Regulations Assessment identifies no likely significant effect on the Solent Maritime SAC, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, from the ‘Havant Thicket Winter Storage Reservoir Option A’ scheme, as a result of the control measures identified as follows: Subject to monitoring and performance testing, annual reviews and the formal five-year review cycle, which monitors the performance of the WRMP and allows for adjusted demand forecasts.

Southern Water Services Limited, Water Resources Management Plan (SWWRMP), 2014, comprises various areas across the district, including the Isle of Wight, half of Hampshire and West Sussex, and parts of East Sussex and Kent. There are not likely to be any in combination effects with the FRMP resulting from groundwater abstraction for flow augmentation on the Candover Stream, which is a tributary of the River Itchen, despite this causing a change to the natural level of the water. However the control measures may contribute to improving habitat through physical modifications. The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for the SWWRMP, identifies no likely significant effects on the River Itchen SAC, resulting from groundwater abstraction for flow augmentation on the Candover Stream, from the following impacts, as a result of the control measures identified.

River Basin Management Plan (RBMP): RBMPs set statutory objectives for river, lake, groundwater, estuarine and coastal water bodies and summarise the measures needed to achieve them. Because water is linked to land, they also inform decisions on land-use planning. The RBD that provides the spatial boundary for the FRMP is the same as that used for the RBMP. The planning timeframe is also the same, so the plan for the period 2015-21 is currently being prepared. Water-dependent European sites are designated as “Protected Areas” under the Water Framework Directive, and the RBMPs include measures to ensure that the objectives for these areas are achieved. While it is unlikely that the plan will result in a significant effect on a European site, an HRA is being undertaken to identify any risks and unanticipated effects.

Marine Plans: Marine plans set out priorities and directions for future development within the plan area, inform sustainable use of marine resources and help marine users understand the best locations for their activities, including where new developments may be appropriate. Marine plans are proposed for the inshore and offshore areas of England. Only interactions with the inshore plan would be expected. Marine plans are required to be produced by 2021, but to date there is no draft plan for ‘South East Inshore’ and therefore it is not possible to consider the potential for in-combination effects further.

7 Conclusion and Future HRAs

This HRA has been carried out at the level of published detail in the FRMP. For measures from existing plans, the HRA has summarised the results from existing HRAs of these plans. For any new strategic measures provided for the new FRMP cycle (2015-2021), the HRA has considered the effects at a strategic level, as local actions will be developed at lower tiers of plans or projects. The HRA has determined a conclusion for each of the two RMA plans: South East RBD FRMP and the Brighton and Hove FRA FRMP. The HRA provides a basis to identify options to avoid or mitigate for impacts to give confidence that the FRMP can be screened as having no likely significant effect. The HRA also makes clear that these will require further case-specific consideration during determination of any authorisations or consents by the relevant competent authority as to their effects on European sites, and then inform the appropriate mechanisms to be applied to secure any mitigation required.

The strategic nature of the FRMP limits the extent to which in-combination effects can be considered. Nevertheless, the potential for in-combination effects has been considered and a summary of the plans that will be important for assessments at project level to consider have been identified.

The HRA conclusions for the FRMP is that there is sufficient scope for future avoidance and mitigation to have confidence that the plan can be screened out of any likely significant effects. This is based on controls already in place for measures from existing plans (with agreed HRAs and the necessary avoidance, mitigation or compensation secured), and controls that projects will have in place when developing local actions for any new strategic measures in the FRMP.

Future HRAs should make specific reference to this strategic-plan HRA for risks related to the ‘screened in’ measures where they are considered close enough to European sites to need detailed consideration at project level. Future HRAs should also make specific reference to HRAs for existing plans with agreed controls in place, and to any further controls and mitigation in this strategic HRA related to any new strategic developments for the new cycle of the FRMP.

This HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower-tier strategies, plans or projects that implement measures, including the need for detailed appropriate assessment where required.

ANNEX A

Table A1 HRA screening table for the FRMP measure categories

Measure Measure description Screened Justification code in or out M2 Prevention M21 Prevention, avoidance measure to prevent the location of new or additional Out Comprises prevention and avoidance measures receptors in flood prone areas such as land use planning policies or regulation therefore unlikely to result in physical intervention. M22 Prevention, removal or relocation measure to remove receptors from flood In Removal or relocation measures may involve prone areas or to relocate receptors to areas of lower risk physical intervention, with potential for effects on European sites where these interventions are in proximity. Screened in on a precautionary basis. M23 Prevention, reduction measures to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse Out Flood risk prevention / reduction / adaption to consequences in the event of a flood actions or buildings, public networks etc buildings etc will not result in physical interventions affecting European sites. M24 Prevention, other prevention measures to enhance flood risk prevention (may Out Flood risk modelling / assessment will not result in include flood risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, physical interventions affecting European sites. maintenance programmes or policies etc) M3 Protection M31 Natural flood management/run off and catchment management. Measures to In reduce the flow into natural or artificial drainage systems such as overland flow interceptors and/or storage, enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in- channel, flood plan works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. M32 Water flow regulation. Measures involving physical intervention to regulate In flows such as construction modification or removal of water retaining structures Measures comprise physical activities or (e.g. dams or other on-line storage areas) or development of existing flow interventions resulting in actual changes on the regulation rules and which have significant impact on the hydrological regime. ground or effects on flows / movement of water M33 Channel, coastal and floodplain works. Measures involving physical In and changes to physical processes. interventions to freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal water and flood prone areas of land, such as construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics, management dykes etc. M34 Surface water management measures involving physical interventions to In reduce surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively in an urban environment such as enhancing artificial drainage capacity or through SuDS M35 Other measures to enhance protection against flooding which may include In Measure Measure description Screened Justification code in or out flood defences, asset maintenance programmes or policies. M4 Preparedness M41 Flood forecasting and warning. Measures to establish or enhance a flood Out forecasting or warning system. M42 Emergency event response planning/contingency planning measures to Out establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning Measures do not comprise or result in physical M43 Public awareness and preparedness. Measures to establish the public Out changes or interventions. awareness or preparedness for flood events. M44 Other measures to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to Out reduce adverse consequences. M5 Recovery and review M51 Recovery and review (planning for recovery and review phases is in principle Out part of preparedness) individual and society recovery, clean up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure etc). Health and mental health supporting Measures on the whole do not comprise or result actions, inc managing stress disaster financial assistance (grants, tax) inc in physical changes or interventions. Measures disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, temporary or involving physical activity are focused on permanent, relocation, other. restoration at a local level, i.e. buildings etc., none M52 Environmental recovery, clean up and restoration activities (with several sub- Out of which considered likely to result in physical topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous material effects on European sites. containers). M53 Other recovery, review and lessons learnt from flood events, insurance Out policies. M6 Other M61 Other measures not fitting in to any of the other categories (M2-4) or their sub- In M61 code includes a variety of different kinds of categories. measures, but includes measures such as habitat creation, floodplain restoration, managed realignment. Therefore screened in on a precautionary basis.

Table A2 Management Catchments and European sites in the SE RBD / FRMP

Management European Site Management European Site Catchment Catchment Adur and Ouse  Ashdown Forest (SAC) New Forest  The New Forest (SAC)  Castle Hill (SAC)  New Forest (SPA)  Lewes Downs (SAC)  New Forest (Ramsar)  Ashdown forest (SPA)  Solent & Isle of Wight Lagoons (SAC)  Solent Maritime (SAC)  Solent & Southampton Water (SPA)  Solent & Southampton Water (Ramsar) Arun and  Arun Valley (SAC) Rother  Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment (SAC) Western  Arun Valley (SPA)  Dungeness (SAC) Streams  Arun Valley (Ramsar)  Hastings Cliffs (SAC)  Butser Hill (SAC)  proposed Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay  Duncton to Bignor Escarpment (SAC) (SPA)  East Hampshire Hangers (SAC)  proposed ‘Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay  Ebernoe Common (SAC) (Ramsar)  Kingley Vale (SAC)  The Mens (SAC)  Rook Clift (SAC)  Singleton and Cocking Tunnels (SAC)  Woolmer Forest (SAC)  Solent Maritime (SAC)  Wealden Heaths Phase II (SPA)  Chichester and Langstone Harbours (SPA)  Chichester and Langstone Harbours (Ramsar)  Pagham Harbour (SPA)  Pagham Harbour (Ramsar)  Solent and Dorset Coast marine (SPA) Management European Site Management European Site Catchment Catchment Cuckmere and  Hastings Cliff (SAC) Stour  Blean Complex (SAC) Pevensey  Pevensey Levels (SAC)  Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment (SAC) Levels  Pevensey Levels (Ramsar)  Stodmarsh (SAC)  Stodmarsh (SPA)  Stodmarsh (Ramsar)  Thanet Coast (SAC)  Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay (SPA)  Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay (Ramsar)  Parkgate Down (SAC)  Sandwich Bay (SAC)  Tankerton Slopes and Swalecliffe (SAC)  Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs (SAC)  Wye & Crundale Downs (SAC)  Lydden & Temple Ewell Downs (SAC)  The Swale (SPA)  The Swale (Ramsar) East Hampshire  Butser Hill (SAC) Test and Itchen  Mottisfont Bats (SAC)  Solent & Isle of Wight Lagoons (SAC)  Emer Bog (SAC)  Solent Maritime (SAC)  Salisbury Plain (SAC)  Chichester and Langstone Harbours (SPA)  The New Forest (SAC)  Chichester and Langstone Harbours (Ramsar)  New Forest (SPA)  Portsmouth Harbour (SPA)  New Forest (Ramsar)  Portsmouth Harbour (Ramsar)  Solent Maritime (SAC)  Solent & Southampton Water (SPA)  River Itchen (SAC)  Solent & Southampton Water (Ramsar)  Porton Down (SPA)  Solent and Dorset Coast marine (SPA)  Solent & Southampton Water (SPA)  Solent & Southampton Water (Ramsar)  Solent and Dorset Coast marine (SPA) Isle of Wight  Briddlesford Copses (SAC)  Isle of Wight Downs (SAC) Management European Site Management European Site Catchment Catchment  South Wight Maritime (SAC)  Solent & Isle of Wight Lagoons (SAC)  Solent Maritime (SAC)  Solent & Southampton Water (SPA)  Solent & Southampton Water (Ramsar)  Solent and Dorset Coast marine (SPA)

Table A3 Mitigation and Control Measures Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing flood Measures to address flooding defence structures and main river channels / floodplain generally require planning permission from the local from rivers (main river) planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

 Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Smaller scale measures for flood defence works, improvements or alterations to main river channels, and measures comprising maintenance, such as replacement, repair or refurbishment of existing structures, may not require planning permission, but fall under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effect is predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.

Measures to flooding from  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing flood rivers (ordinary watercourses) defence structures and ordinary watercourse river channels / floodplain generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main river requires Ordinary Watercourse Consent from either the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) or Internal Drainage Board (IDB). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the LLFA / IDB as competent authority.  Smaller scale measures for flood defence works, improvements or alterations to all other watercourses that aren’t main river, and measures comprising maintenance, such as replacement, repair or refurbishment of existing structures, may fall under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission. Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing coastal / Flooding from the Sea tidal flood defence structures and estuary / coastal frontage (above mean low water) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works below the mean high water spring tidal limit (including the waters of every estuary, river or channel where the tide flows up to the mean high water spring tide limit) require a Marine Works Licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application. The HRA is determined by the MMO as competent authority.  Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Maintaining coast protection works does not require a marine licence when carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency or a coast protection authority, provided the activity is carried out within the existing boundaries of the works being maintained. Some coast protection works maintenance activities also do not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing coastal / Coastal erosion tidal flood defence structures and estuary / coastal frontage (above mean low water) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works below the mean high water spring tidal limit require a Marine Works Licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application. The HRA is determined by the MMO as competent authority.  Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority. Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations  Maintaining coast protection works does not require a marine licence when carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency or a coast protection authority, provided the activity is carried out within the existing boundaries of the works being maintained. Some coast protection works maintenance activities also do not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing structures Surface water flooding to address surface water flooding (e.g. culverts, drainage ditches / channels) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address surface water flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Defence Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river / ordinary watercourses).  Measures involving maintaining existing structures to address surface water flooding may not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures to address groundwater flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Groundwater flooding Defence Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river / ordinary watercourses).  Measures to address groundwater flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Defence Sewer flooding Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations river / ordinary watercourses).  Measures to address sewer flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding by sewerage undertakers may fall within their Permitted Development powers under authority The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  New reservoirs / impounding structures, or alterations or removals of existing structures, require an Impoundment Flooding from reservoirs Licence from the Environment Agency (Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by Water Act 2003), Environment Act 1995, Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the licensing application process, with HRA determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Measures involving construction / creation of new reservoirs / impounding structures, or changes to / alteration / of existing structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority. Annex B – South East RBD European sites SPA, SAC, Area Site ID Name of Site Ramsar (ha)*

UK0030366 Arun Valley SAC 487 UK0030080 Ashdown Forest SAC 2729 UK0013697 Blean Complex SAC 523 UK0030328 Briddlesford Copses SAC 167 UK0030103 Butser Hill SAC 239 UK0012836 Castle Hill SAC 115 UK0030330 Dover to Kingsdown Cliffs SAC 185 UK0030138 Duncton to Bignor Escarpment SAC 214 UK0013059 Dungeness SAC 3241 UK0012723 East Hampshire Hangers SAC 572 UK0012715 Ebernoe Common SAC 235 UK0030147 Emer Bog SAC 37 UK0012835 Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment SAC 187 UK0030165 Hastings Cliffs SAC 182 UK0016254 Isle of Wight Downs SAC 458 UK0012767 Kingley Vale SAC 201 UK0012832 Lewes Downs SAC 146 UK0012834 Lydden and Temple Ewell Downs SAC 63 UK0030334 Mottisfont Bats SAC 197 UK0030338 Parkgate Down SAC 7 UK0030367 Pevensey Levels SAC 3585 UK0012599 River Itchen SAC 304 UK0030058 Rook Clift SAC 11 UK0012683 Salisbury Plain SAC 21466 UK0013077 Sandwich Bay SAC 1137 UK0030337 Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC 2 UK0017073 Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC 38 UK0030059 Solent Maritime SAC 11243 UK0030061 South Wight Maritime SAC 19866 UK0030283 Stodmarsh SAC 565 UK0013107 Thanet Coast SAC 2816 UK0012716 The Mens SAC 205 UK0012557 The New Forest SAC 29254 UK0030304 Woolmer Forest SAC 670 UK0012831 Wye and Crundale Downs SAC 111 candidate UK0030378 Tankerton Slopes and Swalecliffe SAC 13 UK9020281 Arun Valley SPA 530 UK9012181 Ashdown Forest SPA 3207 UK9011011 Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA 5811 UK9012091 Dungeness to Pett Level3 SPA 1479 UK9011031 New Forest SPA 27998 UK9020309 Outer Thames Estuary SPA 379268 UK9012041 Pagham Harbour SPA 629 UK9011101 Porton Down SPA 1562 UK9011051 Portsmouth Harbour SPA 1250 UK9011061 Solent and Southampton Water SPA 5401 UK9012121 Stodmarsh SPA 481 UK9012071 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA 1881 UK9012011 The Swale SPA 6510 UK9012132 Wealden Heaths Phase 2 SPA 2057 Proposed Marine

Solent and Dorset Coast SPA UK11004 Arun Valley Ramsar 530 UK11013 Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar 5811 UK11047 The New Forest Ramsar 27998 UK11052 Pagham Harbour Ramsar 629 UK11053 Pevensey Levels Ramsar 3585 UK11055 Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar 1250 UK11063 Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar 5306 UK11066 Stodmarsh Ramsar 481 UK11070 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar 2182 UK11071 The Swale Ramsar 6510 Area denoted is for the entire designated area rather than the area within the RBD boundary.

3 Proposed name change to ‘Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SPA’ and extension, including proposed Ramsar site of same name.

www.gov.uk/environment-agency

LIT 10249