Axbridge

Neighbourhood Plan

HABITAT REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

June 2020

1

This report was prepared by Somerset Ecology Services (a Somerset County Council consultancy) on behalf of Axbridge Town Council, as the 'competent authority' under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

Copyright The maps in this report are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Somerset County Council)(100038382)(2020)

2

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Methodology ...... 5 3. Characteristics and Description of the Natura 2000 Sites ...... 9 4. Stage 1: Test of Likely Significant Effect ...... 16 5. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment...... 27 6. Conclusion ...... 31

3 1. Introduction

1 This report details the findings of the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) process of the Axbridge Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 14 consultation [the ‘Neighbourhood Plan’]. As the ‘competent authority’ under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Axbridge Town Council is required to assess the Neighbourhood Plan through the HRA process as policies and site allocations in the plans can potentially affect Natura 2000 sites.

2 The Neighbourhood Plan sets out the Town Council’s vision and strategic objectives which states that: “Axbridge is unique. It will need to respond positively to the Environment and Climate Change Emergency. The town will need to accommodate sustainable housing and employment growth. These challenges will be met by ensuring that new developments meet sound sustainable objectives whilst ensuring that opportunities for appropriate housing and business, focussed on the needs of the community are delivered. The vibrant community spirit, historic background and local countryside, so valued by its residents will be preserved and enhanced’.

3 A neighbourhood plan should support the strategic development needs set out in the Local Plan and plan positively to support local development (as outlined in paragraph 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework)1 In this case the Axbridge Neighbourhood Plan should support policy in the Sedgemoor District Council Local Plan 2011 - 2032.

4 Natura 2000 sites include European Sites - Special Protection Areas (SPA) classified under the EC Birds Directive 1979 and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated under the EC Habitats Directive 1992, and, as a matter of Government policy, all Ramsar sites as if they are fully designated European Sites for the purpose of considering development proposals that may affect them.

5 The definition of ‘Habitat Regulations Assessment’ is simply an assessment, which must be appropriate to its purpose under the Habitats Directive and Regulations. According to The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, regulation 63 (1) before authorising a plan, which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, and is not connected to the management of the site, the Council shall assess the implications for the site in view of its conservation objectives.

6 The purpose of HRA of land use plans is to ensure that protection of the integrity of European sites (Natura 2000 sites) is a part of the planning process at a regional and local level. The requirement for Appropriate Assessment of plans or projects is outlined in Article 6(3) and (4) of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC

1 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/what-is-neighbourhood- planning/what-is-a-neighbourhood-plan-and-what-is-its-relationship-to-a-local-plan/

4 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (known as the ‘Habitats Directive’).

2. Methodology

Process 7 Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations requires a competent authority, before deciding to undertake or give consent for a plan or project which (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or project), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, to make an ‘appropriate assessment’ of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of its conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment, the competent authority may proceed with or consent to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.

8 All plans and projects should identify any such possible effects early in the plan/project making process and then either alter the plan/project to avoid them or introduce mitigation measures to the point where no adverse effects remain. The competent authority is to agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, having obtained the opinion of the general public.

9 There are effectively four stages to the assessment. Stage 1 is the assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project having a significant effect on a European site or its features. This is the trigger for the need for an Appropriate Assessment as set out in Regulation 63(1). The Appropriate Assessment (Stage 2) is the detailed consideration of the potential effects of the plan or project in relation to the conservation objectives for the European Site to determine if there is likely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the site (i.e. an effect that would compromise the site meeting its conservation objectives). Providing it can be demonstrated that with appropriate mitigation measures, the plan or project would not give rise to an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site, the plan or project can proceed.

10 Where, however, this cannot be demonstrated or there is uncertainty, the Assessment would then need to consider if there were any other alternatives to the plan or project (Stage 3) that would not give rise to adverse effects on integrity of the European site. If there are no alternatives, Stage 4 would then, consider if there are any imperative reasons of overriding public interest and whether there were any compensatory measures that might be required.

11 Stage 1, the ‘significance’ test, of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process, acts as a

5 coarse filter for all proposed plans or projects which are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site (whether or not the effect is likely to be adverse or beneficial) so directing (English Nature, 1999) conservation interest of the site to be at the forefront of decision-making.

12 The preliminary considerations of the HRA process is to consider and record the features for which the site has been selected and the conservation objectives for the site. In all cases, the following need to be recorded:

 What are the SAC/SPA/Ramsar’s qualifying interest features?  What are the SAC/ SPA’s conservation objectives?  What other relevant site information is available? e.g. site (SSSI, NNR, SAC/SPA, European Marine site) management plans; list of operations which may cause damage or deterioration.

13 A ‘likely significant effect’ is any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that may affect the conservation objectives of the features for which the site was designated but excluding trivial or inconsequential effects. Permanent reductions in habitat area or species populations are likely to be significant unless they are very small scale. (English Nature, 1999) In some cases the loss of 0.01% an area of habitat has been considered significant by the Secretary of State (Chapman & Tyldesley, 2016). The magnitude of the impact needs to be considered in judging what is significant.

14 Natural England (English Nature, 1999) set out considerations for carrying out Stage 1 of the HRA process, the test of significance. The principle guidance states that ‘Consideration of ‘likely significant effect’ will have practical and legal consequences and must be based on sound judgement and bear scientific or expert scrutiny.’ In addition, ‘Proposals having no, or de minimis, effects can be progressed without further consideration under the Habitats Regulations although reasons for reaching this decision must be justified and recorded.’

15 However, Natural England (English Nature, 1999) state that, ‘… if a clear judgement cannot be made on the basis of available information, then an appropriate assessment [Stage 2 of the HRA process] will be required’.

16 A decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C-323/17)) means that mitigation (avoidance and reduction) measures may no longer be taken into account by competent authorities at the HRA “screening stage” i.e. when judging whether a proposed plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site.2

2 ‘… the CJEU has confirmed previously in Briels that protective measures forming part of that project aimed at avoiding or reducing any direct adverse effects for the site can be relied upon at the appropriate assessment stage of the HRA process, in order to conclude that a project does not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.

6

17 Stage 1, the ‘test of significance’ needs to consider the following:

o What potential hazards are likely to affect the interest features? Are the interest features potentially exposed to the hazard?

o Is the potential scale or magnitude of any effect likely to be significant alone or in combination with other projects or plans?

18 The proposed Neighbourhood Plan is looked at in isolation and in combination with plans or projects within the vicinity of the European Site that have the likelihood for a significant effect.

19 For the purpose of completeness, projects where planning applications had been submitted to or which are consented but not built with the potential to affect the identified European sites were considered.

20 If any of the identified pathways of potential effects to the European and / or Ramsar Sites from the proposed development either alone or in-combination are considered likely to be significant then a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment would need to be carried out.

21 The Appropriate Assessment (Stage 2) is the detailed consideration of the potential effects of the plan or project in relation to the conservation objectives for the European Site to determine if there is likely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the site (i.e. an effect that would compromise the site meeting its conservation objectives). Providing it can be demonstrated that with appropriate mitigation measures, the plan or project would not give rise to an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site, the plan or project can proceed.

22 Where, however, this cannot be demonstrated or there is uncertainty, the Assessment would then need to consider, under regulation 64, if there were any other alternatives to the plan or project (Stage 3) that would not give rise to adverse effects on integrity of the European site. If there are no alternatives, Stage 4 would then, consider if there are any imperative reasons of overriding public interest and whether there were any compensatory measures that might be required.

(Freeths, http://www.freeths.co.uk/2018/04/19/environmental-bulletin-spring-2018/#menu)

7 Table 1 Stages of Habitats Regulations Assessment

Stage Description

The process to identify the likely impacts of a project upon an Test of Likely international site, either alone or in combination with other plans 1 Significant Effect and projects and consider whether the impacts are likely to be (TOLSE) significant. (Specific mitigation (avoidance and reduction) measures are no longer taken into account at the HRA “screening stage”)

The consideration of the impacts on the integrity of the international site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with regard to the site’s structure and function and its conservation Appropriate objectives. Where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of 2 Assessment potential mitigation is carried out to determine if there is an overall adverse effect on the integrity of the site. If these mitigation options cannot avoid adverse effects, then development consent can only be given if stages 3 and 4 are followed.

Examining alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project Assessment of 3 to establish whether there are solutions that would avoid or have a Alternative Solutions lesser effect on European sites.

Assessment where no alternative solution exists and where adverse Imperative reasons impacts remain. The process to assess whether the development is 4 of over-riding public necessary for IROPI and, if so, the compensatory measures needed interest (IROPI) to maintain the overall coherence of the site or integrity of the European site network.

Precautionary Approach 23 When carrying out this screening, it must be viewed as a coarse filter and therefore a ‘Precautionary Approach’ has been taken in the assessment of significant effect. The EC Guidance sets out a number of principles as to how to approach decision making during the process. The primary one is the ‘Precautionary Principle’, which requires that the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites should prevail where there is uncertainty. In other words, if the answer is ‘don’t know’ an adverse impact is assumed. This is the case throughout the HRA process.

24 Once potential impacts have been identified, their significance will be considered. A judgement about significance is made in relation to the conservation objectives and targets using the Precautionary Principle.

8 Definitions 25 “Significant” is interpreted as an effect likely to adversely affect a Natura 2000 site’s integrity. A useful definition of what a significant effect is contained in an English Nature guidance note3 on the subject: “…any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that may affect the conservation objectives of the features for which the site was designated, but excluding trivial or inconsequential effects.”

26 “Integrity” is described in ODPM Circular 06/20054: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation as 'the site’s coherence, ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of species for which it was classified' (ODPM Circular 06/2005, para. 20).

27 Significance will vary from site to site according to conservation sensitivities and magnitude of the potential impact. Assessment is triggered by likelihood not certainty in line with precautionary principle. (European Communities, 2000) Therefore, the assessment considers whether effects are ‘likely’ and ‘significant’ and not every conceivable effect or fanciful possibility. The Waddensee tests are used:

 Would the effect undermine the conservation objectives for the site?  Can significant effects be excluded on the basis of objective information?

28 Significant effects are also determined in-combination with other plans or projects and take account of cumulative effects.

3. Characteristics and Description of the Natura 2000 Sites

Introduction 30. This section identifies which Natura 2000 sites are potentially affected

31. Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) are designated due to the presence or providing ecological support to habitats, listed in Annex I, and species, listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).

32. Special Protection Areas (SPA) are designated for bird species listed under Article 4 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).

33. Ramsar sites are important wetland sites that have been designated under the Ramsar

3 English Nature. 1999. Habitats Regulation Guidance Note 3: The Determination of Likely Significant Effect under The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. 4 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-and-geological-conservation-circular-06-2005

9 Convention on Wetlands 1971. Under Government policy, as set out in Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, they are to be treated as Natura 2000 sites.

Identification of Natura 2000 sites 34. The following Natura 2000 sites have component sites present within the geographic area administered by Axbridge Town Council or neighbouring parish councils:

 North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC  Mendip Woodlands SAC  Mendip Limestone Grasslands SAC

Ecological Zones of Influence 35. Natura 2000 sites are designated for both species and habitat features. Conservation objectives and targets relate to maintaining the integrity of these features. This section describes how ‘Ecological Zones of Influence’ (EZI) are arrived at for each of the Natura 2000 sites potentially affected by the implementation of actions within the Neighbourhood Plan. These are areas outside the designated Natura 2000 site, which nonetheless if affected can adversely impact on the integrity of the site’s conservation objectives. For example, bat flight lines and feeding areas supporting a designated roost site if lost may affect the viability of the population.

36. Habitats are affected directly from on-site loss due to damage or destruction from land use change. However, they can also be influenced by off-site factors such as hydrology. Where there are no significant off-site requirements in maintaining a sites habitat the EZI is the same as the Natura 2000 sites boundary. However, sites affected by air pollution will be assessed by distances set out below. All flora species are affected by airborne pollution, although some, such as lichens and bryophytes are more vulnerable.

37. Unlike habitats, species are not limited by the designated site boundary, yet its integrity may depend on habitat several kilometres from the site. For each Natura 2000 site, where a qualifying species is listed as a feature, a description is given, the potential impacts, which are likely to affect that species population’s integrity in terms of the site’s nature conservation objectives, and the methodology of how the EZI is formed.

North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC

Component Sites 38. The component sites for the North Somerset & Mendip Bats SAC are:

10  Compton Martin Ochre Mine SSSI  Banwell Caves SSSI  Banwell Ochre Mine SSSI  Brockley Hall Stables SSSI  King’s Wood and Urchin Wood SSSI  The Cheddar Complex SSSI  Wookey Hole SSSI

39. Only the Cheddar Complex SSSI component site is potentially affected by the Neighbourhood Plan although there are likely to be movements of individual horseshoe bats between the component sites.

Qualifying Features 40. The qualifying features present within the SSSI are:

 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia); Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone  Caves not open to the public  Rhinolophus hipposideros; Lesser horseshoe bat  Rhinolophus ferrumequinum; Greater horseshoe bat

41. Of the qualifying features it is considered that greater and lesser horseshoe bats would be affected as these species rely on the wider countryside in supporting the integrity of the population.

42. In addition, calcareous grassland could be significantly affected by increased leisure activity causing degradation to the habitat.

43. Caves not open to the public would not be significantly affected by increased leisure activity.

Potential Hazards 44. The main factors considered to potentially cause loss or decline in greater and lesser horseshoe bats from the proposed Plan include:

a) Loss or degradation of foraging habitat resulting in a reduction in food availability, particularly through loss of pasture and woodland

b) Loss, damage or fragmentation of flyways, through removal of habitat structure to facilitate development. Greater horseshoe bats will cross gaps in flight lines of up to

11 12 to 15 metres but are not crossed unless dark5. Gaps as little as 10 metres could prevent movement of lesser horseshoe bats along a flight line6;

c) Introduction of artificial lighting. Both horseshoe bats species are sensitive to artificial lighting, such as from street lamps7. Stone et al, (2009)8 has shown that lesser horseshoe bats are disrupted from flying along hedgerows by introduced artificial light levels above 0.04 Lux. It was also found that continued disruption increased the effect, i.e. lesser horseshoe bats do not become habituated to the presence of artificial lighting. This would therefore permanently affect their behaviour possibly having a significant effect on use of flight lines accessing feeding areas. Lacking data to the contrary it is considered that greater horseshoe bats would react in the same way.

d) Loss, damage or disturbance of night roosts. Night roosts are also particularly important, enabling bats to exploit feeding areas, which would not otherwise be possible due to energetic constraints. These roosts are used by horseshoe bats for resting, grooming, eating or sheltering in bad weather. Importantly some bats, especially pregnant females, can extend their foraging range from the maternity roost by using such roosts. Night roosts can be found in a wide range of structures, such as church porches, garden sheds, agricultural buildings and underground sites.9 Knight & Jones (2009)10 found that more than 75% of bats used night roosts away from the maternity site.

e) Strategic loss or disruption of key flyways between different roosts. The greater horseshoe bat is a wide-ranging species and individuals will migrate between component sites of the North Somerset and Mendip Bat SAC and other SACs such as Mells Valley SAC and Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC. Lesser horseshoe bats, although originally using caves the species now mainly uses open undisturbed loft spaces in old houses during the summer months but migrate to caves, such as Wookey Hole, during the winter period11

5 Billington, G. 2000. Radio tracking study of greater horseshoe bats at Mells, Near Frome, Somerset. Peterborough: English Nature 6 Schofield, H. W. 2008. The Lesser Horseshoe Bat Conservation Handbook. Ledbury: The Vincent Wildlife Trust; Brinkmann, R., Bach L, Biedermann, M., Dietz, M., Dense, C., Fiedler, W., Fuhrmann, M., Kiefer, A., Limpens, H., Niermann, I., Schorcht, W., Rahmel, U., Reiter, G., Simon, M., Steck, C. & Zahn, A. 2003. Crossing Points for Bats – limiting damage in habitat fragmentation by transport projects. Position Paper of the Wildlife Crossing Points Working Party. www.buero-brinkmann.de 7 Outen, A. R. 2002. The ecological effects of road lighting: in Sherwood, B., Cutler D. & Burton J. (eds.) 2002. Wildlife and Roads: The Ecological Impact. London: Imperial College Press; Bat Conservation Trust/Institute of Lighting Engineers. 2008. Bats and Lighting in the UK: Version 2. 8 Stone, E. L., Jones, G. & Harris, S. 2009. Street Lighting Disturbs Commuting Bats. Current Biology 19, 1123–1127, July 14, 2009 9 Schofield, H. W. 2008. The Lesser Horseshoe Bat Conservation Handbook. Ledbury: The Vincent Wildlife Trust 10 Knight, T & Jones, G. 2009. Importance of night roosts for bat conservation: roosting behaviour of the lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros. Endang Species Res. 8: 79–86, 2009. 11 Bat Conservation Trust/ BMT Cordah Limited. 2005. A Review and Synthesis of Published Information and Practical Experience on Bat Conservation within a Fragmented Landscape. The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire County Council & Countryside Commission for Wales; Kelleher, C. 2004. On the trail of the Horseshoe Bat. The

12

45. The main factors considered to potentially to cause loss or degradation of calcareous grasslands from the proposed Plan arise from an increased number of residents and tourists seeking leisure activity along footpaths through the habitat.

Ecological Zone of Influence (EZI) 62. Where horseshoe bats are present a buffer around the maternity roost site area is formed. The area is derived from technical guidance on the SAC, which is based on the ecology of horseshoe bats and produced using field survey and radio tracking data (e.g. Jones & Billington, 1999; Rush & Billington, 201312) and uses the methodology established in the Technical Guidance for horseshoe bats in the technical guidance for the species in the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC (Burrows, 201913). This forms the EZI for horseshoe bats. (see Figure 1 below)

Mendip Woodlands SAC

Component Sites 49 The component sites for the Mendip Woodlands SAC are:

 Asham Wood SSSI  Ebbor Gorge SSSI  Rodney Stoke SSSI  Cheddar Wood SSSI

50 Only the Cheddar Wood component site is likely to be affected by the Neighbourhood Plan.

Qualifying Features 51 The qualifying features present within the SSSI are

 Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines; mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes.

Natterer, May 2004; Schofield, H., Messenger, J., Birks, J. & Jermyn, D. 2003. Foraging and Roosting Behaviour of Lesser Horseshoe Bats at Ciliau, Radnor. Ledbury: The Vincent Wildlife Trust. 12 Jones, Dr. G. & Billington, G. 1999. Radio tracking study of Greater Horseshoe bats at Cheddar, North Somerset. Taunton: English Nature; Rush,T. & Billington, G. 2013. Cheddar Reservoir 2: Radio tracking studies of greater horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats, June and August 2013. Witham Friary: Greena Ecological Consultancy. 13 Burrows, L. 2019. North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC): Guidance on Development. Version 2.1. Taunton: Somerset County Council

13 Figure 1: Ecological Zone of Influence of the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC

Ecological Zone of Influence 55. The habitat therefore may be influenced outside the SAC by dust and air pollution. Bryophyte and lichen species are sensitive to decreases in air quality14. Therefore, the

14Bignall, K., Ashmore, M. & Power, S. 2004. The ecological effects of diffuse air pollution from road transport. English Nature Research Report No. 580. Peterborough: English Nature; Bignall, K. L., Ashmore, M. R., Headley, A. D., Stewart, K. & Weigert, K. 2007. Ecological impacts of air pollution from road transport on local vegetation. Applied Geochemistry 22, 6, June 2007, 1265–1271

14 Ecological Zone of Influence (EZI) for the Cheddar Complex is a buffer of 200 metres of the designated site’s boundary.

Potential Hazards 56. Tilio-Acerion [Lime -maple] forests of slopes, screes and ravines have a rich variety of other trees and shrubs are present, including elm and, locally, small-leaved lime. Cheddar Wood is an ancient woodland site stocked with coppice consisting of Smallleaved Lime, Ash, Pedunculate Oak and Hazel. Field Maple occurs throughout in small quantities, while Whitebeam, Yew, Wych Elm and Wild Service-tree are less common. Three woodland types can be distinguished: (i) Ash-Field Maple, (ii) Calcareous Pedunculate Oak-Hazel- Ash, (iii) Pedunculate Oak-Ash-Small-leaved Lime. The latter type has a very restricted distribution and Cheddar Wood provides one of the best and most extensive British examples.

57. The main factors considered to potentially cause loss or decline in the lime-maple woodland from the proposed Plan include:

a) Woodland habitat would be vulnerable to habitat deterioration and loss from increased trampling from an increased number of visitors using footpaths through the SAC. Visitors could include those walking, including with dogs, and potentially off-road cyclists.

b) The woodland contains bryophytes and lichens which are sensitive to changes in air quality. The habitat therefore may be influenced outside the SAC by dust and air pollution. Air pollution from traffic may have eutrophication effects, which would impact on species composition in the sward. 200 metres is the distance from a road where nitrogen deposition is expected to occur in the Habitat Regulations Assessment of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (Land Use Consultants, 200615). Bignall et al, (2004)16 consider that 150 metres air quality returns to background levels. The greater distance is used, as a precautionary approach is required.

Mendip Limestone Grasslands SAC

Component Sites 58. The component sites for the Mendip Limestone Grasslands SAC are:

 Crook Peak to Shute Shelve Hill SSSI

15 Land Use Consultants. 2006. Habitats Regulations Report of the Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy: Screening Report. Taunton: South West Regional Assembly. 16 Bignall, K., Ashmore, M. & Power, S. 2004. The ecological effects of diffuse air pollution from road transport. English Nature Research Report No. 580. Peterborough: English Nature.

15  Uphill Cliff SSSI  Brean Down SSSI

Qualifying Features  European dry heaths  Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia); Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone  Caves not open to the public  Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines; Mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes*  Rhinolophus ferrumequinum; Greater horseshoe bat

59. It is unlikely that SAC habitat on any of these sites would be visited by new residents considering the distance from Cheddar on a regular basis and any impacts are likely to be insignificant in terms of visitor numbers. The SAC is therefore not considered further within this assessment.

60. Greater horseshoe bats would be affected as for the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC above.

4. Stage 1: Test of Likely Significant Effect

Introduction 61. The draft Neighbourhood Plan sets out Axbridge Town Council’s policies for sustainable development which includes social, economic and environmental objectives.

62. Each policy will be assessed against each of the qualifying features of the Natura 2000 site’s, identified in this report, in terms of ‘significant effects’ on those features. Many actions are likely to have a neutral or positive effect on each site feature and are therefore are likely to be eliminated at this stage of the HRA process as they would not have any significant effect on a Natura 2000 site.

63. “Significant” is interpreted as an effect likely to adversely affect a Natura 2000 site’s integrity. “Integrity” is described in ODPM Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation as 'the site’s coherence, ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of species for which it was classified' (ODPM Circular 06/2005, para. 20).

64. Significance will vary from site to site according to conservation sensitivities and magnitude of the potential impact. Assessment is triggered by likelihood not certainty in

16 line with precautionary principle17. Therefore, the assessment considers whether effects are ‘likely’ and ‘significant’ and not every conceivable effect or fanciful possibility. The ‘Waddensee’ tests are used:

 Would the effect undermine the conservation objectives for the site?  Can significant effects be excluded on the basis of objective information?

65. Significant effects are also determined in-combination with other plans or projects and take account of cumulative effects (see Chapter 5 following).

Analysis of Effects on Natura 2000 Sites 66. This section will consider the likely direct, indirect or secondary impacts of each action listed against priorities, identified as potentially having a significant effect in the previous chapter on the integrity of the designated site.

67. The determination of ‘favourable condition’18 of a site is separate from the judgement of effect upon integrity. For example, there may be a time-lag between a plan being implemented and a consequent adverse effect upon integrity becoming manifest in the condition assessment. In such cases, a plan may have an adverse effect upon integrity even though the site remains in favourable condition.

68. In addition, and in order to secure the long-term presence and stability of Natura 2000 sites and the network, climate change should be a key consideration in the application of Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA). Consideration should be given as to whether the plan inhibits in any way the potential of species to adapt to climate change.

Management for Nature Conservation Purposes 69. The Neighbourhood Plan does not introduce any management measures for nature conservation purposes at this stage.

Plan Analysis 52 This screening assessment considers whether the proposed development is directly connected with or necessary to the management of the European site, for nature conservation. It also checks whether the proposed development would be likely to have an effect and whether the effect could be significant, alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

17 European Communities. 2000. Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of the Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 18 ‘Favourable condition’ means that the Natura 2000 site’s features are being adequately conserved and is meeting the site is meeting its 'conservation objectives', however, there is scope for the enhancement of these sites

17 53 A decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C-323/17)) means that mitigation (avoidance and reduction) measures may no longer be taken into account by competent authorities at the HRA “screening stage” i.e. when judging whether a proposed plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site.19

54 Table 2 analyses the policies in the Axbridge Neighbourhood Plan and for each of these gives an assessment of its potential impact on Natura 2000 sites. Those policies that have a potential significant effect are highlighted in Orange. Each policy is considered individually, i.e. not mitigated by another policy in the plan or the Sedgemoor Local Plan.

Table 2: Plan Analysis Policy Brief Description Potential Risk SAC Comment to Horseshoe Affected by Bats and Policy Woodland / Grassland Habitats HD-1 Providing affordable homes to meet None likely None No significant effect likely – identified need policy is criteria for the Development proposals that provide provision of affordable affordable housing will be supported housing where they: • offer a range of tenures including social housing and shared ownership • give priority for occupation to meet local needs and the needs of qualifying young people • are based on an objective, transparent assessment of parish needs • are part of a mix of different housing types • support schemes which provide long- term affordability for eligible households.

HD-2 Encouraging small scale and infill Loss and or North Potential significant effect – development degradation of Somerset Developments will result in Development proposals for residential habitat and Mendip loss and or degradation of use will only be supported if they: Bats SAC functionally linked habitat • make use of brownfield sites where Loss, damage or used Greater and Lesser possible or, fragmentation of Horseshoe bats for • are for small scale projects preferably flyways commuting and or hunting, of no more than 10 dwellings, and especially in Zones 3, 4 and • take advantage of preferred Introduction of 5.

19 ‘… the CJEU has confirmed previously in Briels that protective measures forming part of that project aimed at avoiding or reducing any direct adverse effects for the site can be relied upon at the appropriate assessment stage of the HRA process, in order to conclude that a project does not adversely affect the integrity of the European site. (Freeths, http://www.freeths.co.uk/2018/04/19/environmental-bulletin-spring-2018/#menu)

18 Policy Brief Description Potential Risk SAC Comment to Horseshoe Affected by Bats and Policy Woodland / Grassland Habitats development sites as identified through artificial lighting. the Axbridge Neighbourhood Increases in use of Plan process. footpaths within the Mendip Woodlands SAC and Mendip Limestone Grasslands are considered to be insignificant when considered alone.

HD-3 Promoting good quality design None likely None No significant effect likely – As set out in the Axbridge Town Design the policy concerns the Statement development proposals will design of buildings be supported if they: • positively contribute to the distinctive setting and characteristics of the town • ensure the provision of an appropriate mix of housing sizes, property types and tenures • use designs which make homes more easily adaptable for lifetime use • demonstrate high quality design and environmental standards.

HD-4 Meeting community needs None likely None No significant effect likely – Development proposals will be the policy concerns supported, where relevant, if they: meeting the needs of the • take an integrated approach to community housing and community facilities • act to maintain and enhance local retail/commercial activity • enhance, or do not inhibit, access to the surrounding countryside • support provision or shared provision for occupants to work from home • support provision for live/work development.

C&I-1 Settlement Boundaries and Hard None likely None No significant effect likely – Infrastructure the policy is for the support Development proposals will be of proposals to ensure that supported where they: infrastructure and the • demonstrate no significant adverse town’s identity is protected impacts on drainage, sewerage, from development road infrastructure or that suitable mitigation measures are provided • preserve and enhance the distinctive self-contained character of the

19 Policy Brief Description Potential Risk SAC Comment to Horseshoe Affected by Bats and Policy Woodland / Grassland Habitats community • protect the town’s identity, maintaining the green spaces eastwards towards Cheddar and westwards towards Cross.

C&I-2 Protecting utilities, infrastructure and Loss and or North Potential significant effect – community coherence degradation of Somerset the policy promotes a rate Development proposals will be habitat and Mendip of growth which would supported where they: Bats SAC potentially involve land • Lead to a rate of growth which matches Loss, damage or take and opportunities for housing needs in the parish and fragmentation of sport which if pitches are facilitates the integration of new flyways required would also lead to residents into the community. the loss and or degradation • Contribute to the enhancement or Introduction of of functionally linked extension of the facilities identified in our artificial lighting. horseshoe bat habitat consultations as key to a strong sense of community, e.g. the Town Hall, The Square, The Furlong, The Church Rooms • Maintain or improve facilities for the wide variety of groups and activities in the community which create sporting, leisure, artistic, educational, and caring opportunities at all age levels. • Demonstrate sufficient capacity in the school, doctors’ surgery, drainage, roads or any other service that is a concern of the town’s residents, to accommodate the new development. Where it has been identified by the relevant authority that improvements are required to services and infrastructure, development proposals will be supported where • They are implemented alongside the necessary improvements to the infrastructure to support them. • Prior to occupation of a development site, the necessary improvements have been completed.

C&I-3 Economic resilience and sustainability None likely None No significant effect likely – of the community the policy is for Development proposals will be sustainability and self- supported where they containment • Allow for transition change of use from residential back to commercial. • Enhance the image of Axbridge as a business location.

20 Policy Brief Description Potential Risk SAC Comment to Horseshoe Affected by Bats and Policy Woodland / Grassland Habitats • Increase self-containment, reduce the need to travel and are accessible by sustainable transport. • Follow locally generated sustainability guidelines, for example as identified in the Sedgemoor Local Plan, on renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable transport, and where they further support adaptation to climate change with regard to flooding, extreme weather, green infrastructure, and biodiversity. • Demonstrate that significant adverse impact on current provision of building use for commercial or retail activity is avoided, or that suitable mitigation measures are in place. • Maintain or promote retail provision, especially in the Square and High Street, that complements the existing retail provision and/or promotes the unique town’s environment to visitors.

H&NE- Natural Environment None likely None No significant effect likely – 1 Development proposals will be the policy concerned with supported where they: the protection and • demonstrate that there are no enhancement of the significant impacts on the natural natural environment environment (landscape, biodiversity and habitats) or where impacts are identified these are satisfactorily mitigated against, • are of a scale, mass and density appropriate to their landscape setting, • enhance the natural environment where there is the opportunity to do so, • provide for appropriate planting which can enrich the biodiversity of the area such as locally ‘indigenous’ trees and hedges (secured through planning conditions or planning permissions).

H&NE- Assets of Community Value None likely None No significant effect likely – 2 Proposals that will result in loss of or the policy concerned with change to an identified asset of the protection of existing community value or in significant harm assets of community value to a feature of community value will be strongly resisted. The Square is regarded as a key community asset. Other key

21 Policy Brief Description Potential Risk SAC Comment to Horseshoe Affected by Bats and Policy Woodland / Grassland Habitats features are detailed in the Axbridge Town Design Statement (see Appendix 1, 16. for a list of heritage and community assets). H&NE- Heritage Environment None likely None No significant effect likely – 3 Any designated historic heritage assets the policy concerned with in the town and their settings will be the protection of the conserved and enhanced for their historic environment historic significance and their importance to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place. This includes both above and below ground, listed buildings, and any monuments that may be scheduled or in the conservation area Consideration of developments that affect non-designated historic assets will take account of the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the surrounding heritage assets (see Appendix 1, 16. for a list of heritage and community assets).

H&NE- High Quality Design None likely None No significant effect likely – 4 New development must be sympathetic the policy concerned with to the historic built character and sympathetic design landscape of the town. As set out in the Town Design Statement (Appendix 1) development proposals will be supported where they are of high-quality design, enhance visual amenity of the setting and avoid any adverse visual impact on locally valued character and on neighbouring properties to the proposed development site.

H&NE- Town Views None likely None No significant effect likely – 5 Development proposals that block or the policy concerned with infringe identified town views are not views supported, especially where they damage the visual integrity of the Conservation area. New, high quality medium and long views should be integrated into new developments to provide visual linkage to the surrounding environmental context.

22 Policy Brief Description Potential Risk SAC Comment to Horseshoe Affected by Bats and Policy Woodland / Grassland Habitats T-1 Car Parking Loss and or North Potential significant effect – • Support the County Council policy on degradation of Somerset Additional car parking sites car parking habitat and Mendip involve land take that could • Support further acquisitions if Bats SAC also lead to the loss and or appropriate sites become available Loss, damage or degradation of functionally • Encourage and support requests for fragmentation of linked horseshoe bat new off-road parking flyways habitat • Resist reductions in existing parking unless appropriate replacements are Introduction of offered. artificial lighting.

T - 2 New Development Parking None likely None No significant effect likely – Development proposals for residential the policy concerns use will be supported if they provide compliance with the parking in line with the Somerset County County’s Parking Strategy Council Policies Parking Strategy 2013.

T - 3 Footpath Provision None likely None No significant effect likely – All new housing developments should the policy concerns the provide safe pedestrian access to link requirement for footpath with existing or proposed footpaths links from developments. ensuring that residents can walk safely to Potential for affecting bus horseshoe bats is included stops, schools and other facilities. in Policy HD-2 and T – 1 above

T - 4 Crossing the Bypass Degradation and Mendip No significant effect likely – Realistic proposals to improve access to or loss of habitat Limestone improved access is likely to Hillside across the bypass will be due to trampling Grasslands increase leisure of supported. SAC footpaths through the SACs both by existing and Mendip future residents, but this is Woodlands not considered significant SAC alone.

T -5 Road Safety None likely None No significant effect likely – New development proposals will be the policy concerns an supported if they undertake an accurate assessment of road safety assessment of the impact on road use measures and mitigate against negative impacts through traffic calming and road safety initiatives. Ideally these initiatives are to be in place before new residents take ownership

23 55 Appendix 4 of the Neighborhood Plan contains a list of Sites proposed for development in the Town. The proposed sites have the potential to adversely affect habitat used by horseshoe bats of the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC. These are assessed in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Site Proposals NP Ref. No. Location Area Band Comment APO1 Sunneymead, Cheddar 0.124ha B Residential garden with a number of trees Road and shrubs on site. Unlikely to be significant alone.

APO2 Hazeldene 0.22ha B Residential garden with mature hedgerows. Unlikely to be significant alone provided mitigation for the equivalent value of habitat loss is provided either on site or through financial contribution to habitat enhancement offsite.

APO3 Land adjacent to 0.039ha C Grassed area of private road. Unlikely to be Compton Lane significant.

APO4 Holly Tree Cottage, 0.25ha B Residential garden with mature Cheddar Road hedgerows. Unlikely to be significant alone provided mitigation for the equivalent value of habitat loss is provided either on site or through financial contribution to habitat enhancement offsite.

Other Relevant Plans or Projects

56 Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires a HRA of ‘…any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect there on, either individually or in combination with other plan or projects’. Therefore, it is necessary to identify plans and projects that may have ‘in- combination’ affecting the Nature 2000 sites, which are the focus of this assessment.

57 The assessment of significant effects for the Neighbourhood Plan needs to take account of the impact in combination with other plans and projects. For Natura 2000 sites where it is unlikely that the Neighbourhood Plan on its own will require a stage 2 Appropriate Assessment in relation to that site, it has been necessary to consider whether ‘in- combination’ effects are likely to result in an Appropriate Assessment being required.

58 The guidance states that only those that are considered most relevant should be collected for ‘in combination’ testing - an exhaustive list could render the assessment

24 exercise unworkable. Given that there is, unmitigated, potential for a significant effect from policy in the Neighbourhood Plan the following are projects are considered to potentially act in combination with the application site: a) Land to The South Of, Houlgate Way, Axbridge - outline planning permission (appearance layout, scale, landscaping reserved matters) for the erection of up to 53 dwellings (30% affordable dwellings) and creation of access. Greater and lesser Horseshoe bats are present particularly on the southern boundary. The area available as shown in the Illustrative masterplan amounts to the equivalent value of 0.93ha of optimal habitat for Lesser Horseshoe bats resulting in a net gain of 0.17ha. With regard to potential for a significant effect on the Mendip Limestone Grasslands the Habitats Regulations Assessment stated ‘Access to limestone grassland is not direct off-road route and on the other side of embankments and a cutting of the A371. A public right of way crosses the bottom slopes of Shute Shelve about 230m to the north as the crow flies. However, there is a direct right of way link to the Strawberry Line cycle route which lies in between the right of way and the application site. It is considered that the Strawberry Line is more likely to be used than the footpath within the SAC and therefore, given the size of the proposed development its green infrastructure provision, there is unlikely to be significant effects from increased trampling due to increased use. b) Mendip View, Cheddar Road, Axbridge, BS26 2DL - for the erection of up to 20 dwellings (35% affordable) and creation of vehicular access, on the site of existing dwelling and outbuildings (to be demolished). No mitigating habitat is proved with the development and results in a net loss of 0.17ha. c) Steart Farm - proposed housing development of up to 60 houses on site previously given permission for Sainsbury’s store. There is potential for the proposed development to sever the traditional flight used by Greater Horseshoe bats recorded in 1999 and confirmed by field surveys for this application. A Habitat Regulations Assessment identified that 0.97ha of replacement habitat would be required to mitigate the loss of that used by Greater Horseshoe bats; a 10-metre corridor around the eastern and northern (bordering this application) boundaries; and street lighting with red lamps would be required to avoid a significant effect. d) Steart Bushes, Hannay Road, Cheddar - Outline planning permission, with some matters reserved, for the erection of 9 dwellings, creation of vehicular access and associated works. Currently, there is no replacement habitat within proposed plan for horseshoe bats. Recent surveys have shown the presence of both Greater and Lesser Horseshoe bats on the site. A Habitats Regulations Assessment shows the proposed development resulting in a loss equivalent to 0.15ha of optimal Greater Horseshoe bat habitat. e) A Habitats Regulations Assessment for North of Howell Lane, Upper New Road,

25 Cheddar carried out in respect of recreational effects on the Mendip Woodlands SAC- The development proposals comprise residential development of up to 150 dwellings, public open space and other associated infrastructure. Application to be submitted. The site is located 850 metres from the southern end of Wood Lane which is accessible by public right of way and by crossing the A371. It is unlikely that many new residents would access the track leading to the Mendip Woods given that the habitat creation on site to replace the value lost along with the proximity of Cheddar Reservoir is more accessible. It is unlikely that residents would access the rights of way in the Mendip Limestone Grasslands north of Axbridge only occasionally and are in any case more likely to use the Strawberry Line cycle / footpath in this area, which runs to the west of the development site. No significant in-combination effect is predicted. With regard to horseshoe bats habitat it is predicted that there would be a small net gain of 0.3ha from the development and therefore would not act in combination with any habitat loss affecting the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC from the assessed application.

f) Lower New Road, Cheddar - an outline application for the erection of up to 115 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and a vehicular access point off Lower New Road. All matters are reserved except for the access. Replacement habitat is provided with a deficit of 0.06ha of optimal habitat. Mitigation for street lighting required along the frontage of the site along Wedmore Road to south of the site access has been agreed. The site maintains the 1999 radio tracked route along the site’s northern boundary.

g) Round Oak Road, Cheddar - outline permission, with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of 110 dwellings, associated open space and play areas, landscaping, new pedestrian links, surface water attenuation, internal access roads and car parking and creation of access. Accessible replacement habitat of equivalent value to that lost to Horseshoe bats has been conditioned in the HRA. There is a small gain of 0.04ha of optimal Greater Horseshoe bat habitat.

h) Land at Holwell Lane, Cheddar (Phase 1 of the application site) for 90 new dwellings. Accessible replacement habitat of equivalent value to that lost to Horseshoe bats has been conditioned in the HRA. There is a small non-significant residual habitat requirement of 0.13 hectares (ha).

i) Land at Holwell Lane, Cheddar (Phase 2 of the application site) is a full Planning Application for the Erection of 134no. dwellings with access, public open space and associated infrastructure. The Design and Access Statement20 though states ‘The allocated development is to consist of around 150 dwellings with car parking, open space (including formal play space), as well as landscaping, SuDs

20 Turley. 2018. Design & Access Statement: Land North of Holwell Lane. As submitted.

26 attenuation and new vehicular access. Access will be taken via Bloor Homes Phase 1 development to the South. The total the submitted Illustrative masterplan offers the equivalent of 5.07ha for accessible optimal habitat replacement in mitigation. Therefore, there is a habitat gain to the equivalent of 0.43ha after adjustment by factors for temporal and delivery risk.

j) Yeo Valley, Axbridge Road, Cheddar - a mixed-use scheme comprising 100 residential units (Class C3), care/retirement facility (Class C3), extra care facility (Class C2), retail use (Class A1), nursery use (Class D1), business use (Class B1), and live/work units (Class C3/B1), with ancillary works including landscaping, access, parking and circulation space. A Habitats Regulations Assessment has been carried out as there are no residual losses or gains of habitat, the site being mostly pre-developed land. Possible in-combination effect through visitor access to Cheddar Woods, component site of the Mendip Woodlands SAC.

59 Overall currently there is a small gain from projects potentially acting in combination with the Neighbourhood Plan of 0.43ha. However, this gain falls well below the intended net gain for habitat of +10% from development if the Government’s aims for biodiversity enhancement is to be achieved21.

60 Without mitigation the proposed developments in the Neighbourhood Plan listed in Table 2 (not defined) and Table 3 above is likely to result in a reduction in the gain and could result in a an overall loss of habitat in combination with other projects for horseshoe bats from the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC.

5. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment

Introduction 61 The Appropriate Assessment considers the impacts on the integrity of the international site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with regard to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of potential mitigation is carried out to determine if there is an overall adverse effect on the integrity of the site. If these mitigation options cannot avoid adverse effects, then development consent can only be given if stages 3 and 4 are followed.

62 The assessment of adverse effects on the integrity of a site is undertaken in light of the conservation objectives for each site. ‘The integrity of a site is the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, which enables it to sustain the

21 https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/net-gain/supporting_documents/netgainconsultationdocument.pdf

27 habitat, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site has been classified’ (ODPM Circular, 06/2005).

63 EC guidance (European Commission, 2000) emphasis that site integrity involves its ecological functions and that the assessment of adverse effect should focus on and be limited to the site’s conservation objectives.

64 The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has confirmed previously in Briels that protective measures forming part of that project aimed at avoiding or reducing any direct adverse effects for the site can be relied upon at the appropriate assessment stage of the HRA process, in order to conclude that a project does not adversely affect the integrity of the European site22.

European Sites Potentially Affected

North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC

Conservation Objectives 65 Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ of each of the qualifying features. These include, subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

 The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species  The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats  The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species  The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely  The populations of qualifying species, and,  The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Qualifying Features Affected: Rhinolophus ferrumequinum; Greater Horseshoe bat

Condition 66 The latest survey available to the author was carried out by Jon Hill, Licensed Bat Handler, and Staff from Cheddar Gorge & Caves on Longleat Estate Property in Cheddar Gorge on Wednesday 20th, February 201323.

22 http://www.freeths.co.uk/2018/04/19/environmental-bulletin-spring-2018/#menu 23 NOTES

28

Table 4: Winter Counts of Horseshoe Gats in Cheddar Gorge Cave Greater Horseshoe Lesser Horseshoe Bats Bats Gough’s Cave Electricity Cupboard - 5 Entrance to bottom of - 5 Heartbreak Hill Milk Cave to Oxbow - 27 Gough’s Old Cave +650 17 Saye’s Hole - 7 Great Oone’s Hole - - Total +650 61

114. In 1996 there were 66 Greater Horseshoe bats were recorded roosting in the Cheddar complex caves. In May 1999 there were less than 100 individuals when the radio tracking was carried out (Jones & Billington, 1999). In June 2013 about 50 Greater Horseshoe bats were present. A further 19 were observed in August, including females with dependent young. There are no more up to date figures for maternity roost, but it is not likely to exceed 100 individuals (Rush & Billington, 2013).24

Mitigation Measures

Introduction 115. ‘Measures to avoid, cancel or reduce the effects of a plan on a European site (here referred to as avoidance measures, cancellation measures and reduction measures respectively) should be proposed as part of the plan and the plan making authority will take these into account in the appraisal, often collectively referred to as ‘mitigation measures’ (Tyldesley et al, 2012)

116. ‘Avoidance measures eliminate the likelihood of any effects on the European site. Cancellation measures have the effect of cancelling out potentially adverse effects on the European site before their effects are felt. Reduction measures are designed to reduce likely significant effects, perhaps to a level that is insignificant or in a way that makes them unlikely to occur.’ (Tyldesley et al, 2012)

117. Policies and projects that have been identified above as having uncertainty with regard

1 Unable to reach Long Hole and Great Oone’s Hole to do February Bat Count because Caving Instructor carrying an injury 2 Gough’s Old Cave higher count of Greater Horseshoe bats in February since it was much colder than January, the bats were in torpor and easier to count 3 It was warmer than usual during the January Bat Count. The Greater Horseshoe bats in Gough’s Old Cave were quite active and Jon Hill wanted to keep disturbance to a minimum- hence possibly undercounting 24 Jones, G. & Billington, G. 1999. Radio tracking study of Greater Horseshoe bats at Cheddar, North Somerset. Taunton: English Nature; Rush, T. & Billington, G. 2013. Cheddar Reservoir 2: Radio tracking studies of greater horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats, June and August 2013. Witham Friary: Greena Ecological Consultancy.

29 to significant effects on European sites and are listed in the Table 5 along with any mitigating measures that will eliminate or reduce the effect so that it is not significant. These could include adjustment to policy text. The policies in the Neighbourhood Plan should be read as a whole and as part of the adopted Sedgemoor District Council Local Plan.

Table 5: Counter-acting Measures Potential Impact Policies Counter-acting Measure Outcome Causing Potential Impact a) and b) Loss of Neighbourhood Plan Policy H&E-1 states that No significant effect feeding habitat ‘Development proposals will be supported where likely if the and severance of they: demonstrate that there are no significant Neighbourhood Plan is flight lines impacts on the natural environment (landscape, read with the preventing access biodiversity and habitats) or where impacts are Sedgemoor District to feeding areas identified these are satisfactorily mitigated against; Council Local Plan as a enhance the natural environment where there is the whole. c) Lighting opportunity to do so; and provide for appropriate affecting summer planting which can enrich the biodiversity of the area roosts, commuting such as locally ‘indigenous’ trees and hedges routes and feeding (secured through planning conditions or planning areas permissions).

The Plan needs to be read in conjunction with Policy in the Sedgemoor District Council Adopted Local Plan 2011 - 2032 Policy D 20 Natural Environment includes ‘Development will be supported where: As well as ensuring the protection of internationally and nationally designated sites, it ensures the appropriate protection of the nature conservation interest of local sites designated for their nature conservation value; It retains or enhances features as appropriate, such as wetlands, watercourses, coastal features, geological interests, hedgerows, soils, trees, copses and ponds which provide wildlife corridors, links or stepping stones from one habitat to another; and It makes appropriate positive provision for wildlife through urban and rural habitat creation/restoration (having particular regard to Ecological Networks), including tree and hedgerow planting, and subsequent management.’ and Policy D23: Bat Consultation Zones states, ‘Planning Applications for development on sites within the Bat Consultation Zone could require a ‘test of likely significant effect’ under the Habitats Regulations to be carried out, including consultation with Natural England. Where required, applicants must provide with the application all necessary information to enable such a test to be conducted, including any necessary survey work, reports and avoidance and mitigation measures as advised in the

30 Potential Impact Policies Counter-acting Measure Outcome Causing Potential Impact Technical Guidance for the Special Areas of Conservation supporting bat species.’

6. Conclusion

118. It is considered by Axbridge Town Council that its Neighbourhood Plan is unlikely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites assessed.

119. It is considered that a further assessment (Stage 3) will not be required.

31