Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Document
Screening Statement
Client: Portsmouth City Council
UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations Report No.: HRA Screening_6_20130219
Version: 6
Status: Draft Final
Date: February 2013
Author: SPS/NEJP
Checked: SPS
Approved: NEJP
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Contents
Executive Summary i
E1 Introduction i
E2 Scope of the Assessment i
E3 Findings ii
E4 Conclusions and Consultation Arrangements iii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose and Structure of this Document 1
1.3 Habitats Regulations Assessment 2
1.4 Portsmouth Local Development Framework 3
2 Methodology 7
2.1 Guidance and Best Practice 7
2.2 Methodology 7
2.3 Consideration of Effects 8
3 European Sites 11
3.1 Scope of the Assessment 11
3.2 Site Descriptions 11
3.3 Qualifying Features 11
3.4 SAC and SPA Conservation Objectives 16
3.5 Conservation Objectives for Ramsar Sites 17
3.6 Key Environmental Conditions Supporting Site Integrity 17
4 Likely Significant Effects 19
4.1 Introduction 19
4.2 Results 19
4.3 In Combination Test 21
5 Commentary 23
5.1 Introduction 23
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
5.2 Strategically Operating Impacts 23
5.3 Dark-bellied Brent Goose and Waders 24
5.4 Sites Proposed for Allocation 25
6 Screening Statement and Consultation 43
6.1 Screening Statement 43
6.2 Consultation Arrangements 44
References and Bibliography 45
Appendix I: European Site Descriptions A
Appendix II: Screening Matrix YY
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
List of Tables and Figures
Table 2.1: Stages in the HRA process drawing on guidance from DCLG and Natural England 8
Table 3.1: The qualifying features of European sites close to Portsmouth 13
Figure 1.1: Portsmouth City Council Proposed Site Allocations - north 5
Figure 1.2: Portsmouth City Council Proposed Site Allocations - south 6
Figure 3.1: European Nature Conservation Sites in and around Portsmouth City 12
Figure 4.1: Summary of proposed allocations assessed as leading to likely significant effects (prior to mitigation) 21
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Abbreviations
AAP Area Action Plan
BG Brent goose
CAMS Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy
CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan
DPD Development Plan Document
FRA Flood Risk Assessment
HBIC Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre
HOS Hampshire Ornithological Society
HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment
LDF Local Development Framework
SA Sustainability Appraisal
SAC Special Area of Conservation
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SPA Special Protection Area
SDMP Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Executive Summary
E1 Introduction
E1.1 Subsequent to adoption of Portsmouth’s Core Strategy (The Portsmouth Plan) in January 2012, the Council is preparing the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). This Screening Statement focuses on the Site Allocations DPD and is in line with a screening opinion received from Natural England June 20091.
E1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is a requirement of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (‘the Habitats Regulations’). This HRA focuses on the likely significant effects of the Site Allocations DPD on the nature conservation interests of European-protected areas in and around Portsmouth, and seeks to establish whether or not there will be any adverse effects on the ecological integrity of these European sites as a result of proposals.
E1.3 This Screening Statement addresses the earliest stages of HRA. It documents the initial evidence gathering process and states whether or not a full Appropriate Assessment is required for any part of the Site Allocations DPD (although several iterations may be produced during the screening process).
E2 Scope of the Assessment
E2.1 The assessment addresses the following European sites which can be found in and around Portsmouth City:
Butser Hill Special Area of Conservation (SAC);
River Itchen (SAC);
Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons (SAC);
Solent Maritime (SAC);
The New Forest (SAC);
Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA);
Portsmouth Harbour (SPA);
Solent and Southampton Water (SPA);
The New Forest (SPA);
Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar site;
Portsmouth Harbour (Ramsar);
1 Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Portsmouth Site Allocations DPD screening opinion. Ceri Morgan, Natural England, 24th June 2009. Policy/LG/PCC/Site.
i HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Solent and Southampton Water (Ramsar); and
The New Forest (Ramsar).
E3 Findings
E3.1 Seven of the European sites within the scope of the screening assessment are negatively affected by 22 of the 59 Site Allocations and their associated proposals. The European sites are; Solent Maritime SAC, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar.
E3.2 Significant effects are considered a likely outcome of the following sites:
1 Rear of 154-192 Southampton Road, Paulsgrove
133 Highgrove Lodge
145 Alexandra Lodge, Northern Parade
149 Seb Site, Drayton Lane
199 Portsdown Main, James Callaghan Drive
209 Garages At Kendal Avenue, Copnor
367 Drayton Dairy Site 112 Station Road
646 Trafalgar Wharf (221-249 Southampton Road & Vospers Site, Hamilton Road)
653 Bus Depot And Stops, Hilsea
654 London Road Bus Depot, Car Sales/Garages And Car Park
657 Museums Store, Copnor Road
688 TA Centre, Cosham and land adjacent
911 Langstone Harbour Coastal Path
1275 Land Between Home Heights And Queens Hotel
1331 Land At Portsdown Technology Park
3007 Darby House, Skye Close
6589 East Lodge Park And Adjacent Fields
6889 Henderson Road / Halliday Crescent
8102 Two Villas, North East of St James's Hospital, Locksway Road
70028 Univeristy of Portsmouth's Langstone campus
70033 Child Development Centre/Harbour School, St James' Hospital Locksway Rd
70035 Sports Pitches, Mountbatten Cente
E3.3 Of most significance, the following sites and their corresponding proposals were all classified as C1 (the proposals could directly affect a European site because they provide for, or steer, a quantity or type of development onto a European site, or adjacent to it);
ii HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Trafalgar Wharf (646) potentially impacts Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar.
Langstone Harbour Coastal Path (911) potentially impacts Solent Maritime SAC, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, including potential land take.
University of Portsmouth’s Langstone Campus (70028) potentially impacts Solent Maritime SAC, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar.
E4 Conclusions and Consultation Arrangements
E4.1 At this stage of the HRA, the potential for mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of impacts has not yet been fully assessed and brought into consideration for screening. However, mitigation of potential impacts has been recommended within the screening process and it is intended that further screening iterations can be performed for all sites once mitigating actions have been built into the proposals. Therefore, the identification or uncertainty of likely significant effects does not necessarily mean that proposals would be certain to have an adverse impact on the integrity of a European site.
E4.2 The Council will undertake a detailed Appropriate Assessment of any site for which suitable mitigation cannot be devised at the screening stage, to determine the ways in which the sites may be adversely affected, and further consider suitable avoidance and mitigation measures.
E4.2 The findings of this report are open to consultation with Natural England, the Environment Agency, RSPB and Hampshire Wildlife Trust.
E4.3 Comments are invited at any time between March and June 2013.
E4.4 Please submit comments to [email protected] , copied to [email protected].
iii HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
This page is intentionally blank.
iv HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Subsequent to adoption of Portsmouth’s Core Strategy January 2012 (The Portsmouth Plan2), the Council is preparing the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). This Screening Statement focuses on the Site Allocations DPD and is in line with a screening opinion received from Natural England June 20093.
1.1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is a requirement of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (‘the Habitats Regulations’). This HRA focuses on the likely significant effects of the Site Allocations DPD on the nature conservation interests of European-protected areas in and around Portsmouth, and seeks to establish whether or not there will be any adverse effects on the ecological integrity of these European sites as a result of proposals in the development plan.
1.1.3 Portsmouth City Council has previously undertaken an HRA of The Portsmouth Plan4, where a number of sub-regional ecological impacts were identified and assessed at a strategic level. The Core Strategy response to strategically operating sub-regional impacts included an acknowledgement of the possible future need to adjust the rate, scale and distribution of development where new evidence indicates such changes are necessary to preserve ecological integrity. As a consequence, two strategically operating impacts, atmospheric pollution and disturbance from recreation, which affect the South Hampshire sub-region and may also be applicable to site allocations in Portsmouth, are viewed as being managed through the Core Strategy and its HRA. Where site specific impacts are identified, they will be assessed during the Site Allocations DPD HRA process. See Chapter 5 for further details.
1.2 Purpose and Structure of this Document
1.2.1 This report addresses the earliest stages of HRA. It documents the initial evidence gathering process and states whether or not a full Appropriate Assessment is required for any part of the Site Allocations DPD. The report shows that there are 13 European sites wholly or partially within the City that require consideration because they could potentially be affected as a result of the Site Allocations DPD, due to their specific environmental sensitivities.
1.2.2 The outputs of the report include information in relation to:
The Habitats Regulations Assessment process (section 1.3);
2 The Portsmouth Plan: http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/7923.html 3 Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Portsmouth Site Allocations DPD screening opinion. Ceri Morgan, Natural England, 24th June 2009. Policy/LG/PCC/Site. 4 Habitats Regulation Assessment for the Portsmouth Core Strategy (UE Associates , 2011)
1 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
The Site Allocations DPD (section 1.4);
The methodology for assessment (Chapter 2);
Evidence gathering in relation to the European sites (Chapter 3);
The likely significant effects of the DPD (Chapter 4);
A commentary on why the plan’s potential effects have been considered as significantly negative and recommended mitigating actions (Chapter 5); and
A Screening Statement as to the need, or otherwise, for Appropriate Assessment, and consultation arrangements (Chapter 6).
1.3 Habitats Regulations Assessment
1.3.1 Habitats Regulations Assessment is a requirement of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (‘the Habitats Regulations’), the UK’s transposition of European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (‘the Habitats Directive’).
1.3.2 HRA must be applied to any plan or project in England and Wales with the potential to adversely affect the ecological integrity of any sites designated for their nature conservation importance as part of a system known collectively as the Natura 2000 network of European sites.
1.3.3 European sites provide ecological infrastructure for the protection of rare, endangered or vulnerable natural habitats and species of exceptional importance within the European Union. These sites consist of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs, designated under the Habitats Directive) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs, designated under European Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (‘the Birds Directive’)). Meanwhile, the National Planning Policy Framework (DCLG, 2012) and Circular 06/05 (ODPM, 2005) require that Ramsar sites (UNESCO, 1971) are treated as if they are fully designated European sites for the purposes of considering development proposals that may affect them.
1.3.4 An HRA must determine whether or not a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the European site(s) concerned, in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The process is characterised by the precautionary principle. The European Commission (2000a) describes the principle as follows:
“If a preliminary scientific evaluation shows that there are reasonable grounds for concern that a particular activity might lead to damaging effects on the environment, or on human, animal or plant health, which would be inconsistent with the protection normally afforded to these within the European Community, the Precautionary Principle is triggered.
“Decision-makers then have to determine what action to take. They should take account of the potential consequences of taking no action, the uncertainties inherent in the scientific evaluation, and they should consult interested parties on the possible ways of managing the risk. Measures should be proportionate to the level of risk, and
2 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
to the desired level of protection. They should be provisional in nature pending the availability of more reliable scientific data.
“Action is then undertaken to obtain further information enabling a more objective assessment of the risk. The measures taken to manage the risk should be maintained so long as the scientific information remains inconclusive and the risk unacceptable.”
1.4 Portsmouth Local Development Framework
1.4.1 The Portsmouth Plan is the overarching planning document, which forms part of a wider set of local planning policy documents known as the Local Development Framework (LDF). The LDF will gradually replace the policies in the City Local Plan, adopted in July 2006. The Core Strategy:
Sets strategic objectives and policies;
Identifies broad locations for development, protection or change, and shows these on a proposals map; and
Sets out an implementation and monitoring framework.
1.4.2 The vision for the Core Strategy is, by 2027, to make Portsmouth the premier waterfront city, with an unrivalled maritime heritage – a great place to live, work and visit. This vision will drive the plan forward and set the direction for future development in Portsmouth. From 2006 up to 2027, The Portsmouth Plan makes provision for between 11,500 and 12,800 new homes, 301,875m2 employment floor space and 50,000m2 retail floor space, and the necessary associated facilities and services, as well as setting out the critical infrastructure requirements to enable successful growth. Most additional development will take place at key development sites around town centres and public transport hubs and routes, to reduce reliance on the private car and to encourage residents to access everyday services on foot, cycle or public transport. In line with this approach the City has identified the following main areas for development:
Key development sites / areas (Tipner, Port Solent, Lakeside Business Park, Somerstown and North Southsea, and Fratton Park);
City Centre;
Other town centres;
Public transport hubs and routes; and
Key employment areas.
1.4.3 The detail of Somerstown, North Southsea and Southsea Town Centre is being developed through separate Area Action Plans (AAP); the Somerstown and North Southsea AAP5 and Southsea Town Centre AAP6. To identify sites in the city needed to accommodate the range of land uses necessary to implement the vision and growth set out in the Portsmouth Plan, the City Council is currently preparing the Site Allocations DPD.
5 Somerstown and North Southsea Area Action Plan: http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/15057.html 6 Southsea Town Centre Area Action Plan: http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/5544.html
3 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
1.4.4 For the initial site selection process, the Site Allocations DPD methodology carried out by the Council involved desk-top research using local plans, assessment data and strategic documents. The long list of sites was then refined according to a range of criteria, including; area, location in relation to strategic sites, open space or protected employment sites, Sustainability Appraisal criteria and Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
1.4.5 The Council subsequently shortlisted 67 sites and, together with approximate development quanta, these were supplied to the assessment team to carry out an initial HRA screening exercise. The results were passed back to the Council in summer 2012 and, through further stages of iterative assessment, the shortlist was reduced to the current list of 59 sites for possible allocation.
1.4.6 The approach to this HRA has been highly spatial; in the first instance all proposed sites for allocation were iteratively assessed with a focus on their location in relation to environmental constraints which are linked to the European sites, such as hydrological pathways or areas of supporting habitat.
1.4.7 The locations of sites currently being considered for allocation for development are illustrated in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2.
4 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Figure 1.1: Portsmouth City Council Proposed Site Allocations - north
5 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Figure 1.2: Portsmouth City Council Proposed Site Allocations - south
6 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
2 Methodology
2.1 Guidance and Best Practice
2.1.1 Draft guidance on HRA has been defined by DCLG (2006) with more detailed draft guidance from Natural England (Tyldesley, 2009) and a range of other bodies7. The guidance recognises that there is no statutory method for undertaking Habitats Regulations Assessment and that the adopted method must be appropriate to its purpose under the Habitats Directive and Regulations. DCLG guidance identifies three main stages to the HRA process:
Screening: Analysing draft options for likely significant effects on internationally designated sites;
Appropriate Assessment: Ascertaining the effects on site integrity; and
Alternative Solutions: Devising alternatives to the plan options, avoidance or mitigation measures.
2.1.2 An HRA must determine whether or not a plan or project will adversely affect the integrity of the European site(s) concerned, in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Where adverse effects are anticipated changes must be made to the plan or project. The hierarchy of intervention is important: where significant effects are likely or uncertain, decision-makers must firstly seek to avoid the effect through for example, a change of policy. If this is not possible, mitigation measures should be explored to remove or reduce significant effects.
2.1.3 If neither avoidance, nor subsequent mitigation is possible, alternatives to the plan or project should be considered. Such alternatives should explore ways of achieving the objectives that avoid significant effects entirely.
2.1.4 If there are no alternatives suitable for removing an adverse effect, decision-makers must demonstrate that there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest to continue with the proposal. This is widely perceived as an undesirable position and should be avoided if at all possible.
2.2 Methodology
2.2.1 If screening indicates a need for Appropriate Assessment, the overall objective will be to ascertain whether any part of the DPD will lead to an adverse effect on the ecological integrity of any European sites and, if so, make recommendations on how such effects can be avoided or mitigated. It will be carried out in accordance with the draft Natural England guidance (Tyldesley, 2009) as summarised in Table 2.1.
7 For example European Commission (2001) and RSPB (Dodd et al, 2007)
7 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Table 2.1: Stages in the HRA process drawing on guidance from DCLG and Natural England
DCLG Stage Natural England (Tyldesley) Steps
AA1: Likely 1. Gather the evidence base about international sites. significant effects 2. Consult Natural England and other stakeholders on the method for HRA and sites to be included.
3. Screen elements of the plans for likelihood of significant effects.
4. Eliminate likely significant effects by amending the plan / option.
5. Consult Natural England and other stakeholders on the findings of the screening stage, and scope of the Appropriate Assessment if required.
AA2: Appropriate 6. Appropriate Assessment of 8. Assess additions and changes Assessment and elements of the plan likely to to the plan and prepare draft HRA
ascertaining the have significant effects on a record. effect on integrity European site.
AA3: Mitigation 7. Amend the plan / option or 9. Complete the draft ITERATIVE measures and take other action to avoid any Appropriate Assessment and alternative adverse effect on integrity of draft HRA record. solutions European site(s).
Reporting and 10. Submit draft HRA and supporting documents to Natural England. recording 11. Consult Natural England, other stakeholders and the public (if suitable).
12. Publish final HRA record and submit with Natural England letter to Inspector for Examination.
13. Respond to any representations relating to the HRA and to Inspector’s questions.
14. Check changes to the plan, complete HRA record and establish any monitoring required.
2.3 Consideration of Effects
2.3.1 All proposed Site Allocations were screened for likely significant effects on the European sites. Such effects can be sorted into one of 17 categories which are listed below in Box 1. These categories are derived from the draft HRA guidance document produced for Natural England (Tyldesley, 2009) and help to determine which, if any, elements of the plan would be likely to have a significant effect on any interest feature of any European site, alone or in combination with other projects and plans, directly or indirectly. The 17 categories fall into four broader sections which can be described as:
8 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Category A Elements of the plan / options that would have no negative effect on a European site at all
Category B Elements of the plan / options that could have an effect, but the likelihood is there would be no significant negative effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other elements of the same plan, or other plans or projects
Category C Elements of the plan / options that could or would be likely to have a significant effect alone and will require the plan to be subject to an appropriate assessment before the it may be adopted
Category D Elements of the plan / options that would be likely to have a significant effect in combination with other elements of the same plan, or other plans or projects and will require the plan to be subject to an appropriate assessment before the plan may be adopted
9 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Box 1: Assessment Key Category A: No negative effect Options / policies that will not themselves lead to development e.g. because they relate to A1 design or other qualitative criteria for development, or they are not a land use planning policy. A2 Options / policies intended to protect the natural environment, including biodiversity. Options / policies intended to conserve or enhance the natural, built or historic environment, A3 where enhancement measures will not be likely to have any negative effect on a European Site. Options / policies that positively steer development away from European sites and associated A4 sensitive areas. Options / policies that would have no effect because development is implemented through later A5 policies in the same plan, which are more specific and therefore more appropriate to assess for their effects on European Sites. Category B: No significant effect Options / policies that could have an effect, but the likelihood is there would be no significant B negative effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other elements of the same plan, or other plans or projects. Category C: Likely significant effect alone The option, policy or proposal could directly affect a European site because it provides for, or C1 steers, a quantity or type of development onto a European site, or adjacent to it. The option / policy could indirectly affect a European site e.g. because it provides for, or steers, a C2 quantity or type of development that may be ecologically, hydrologically or physically connected to it or increase disturbance. Proposals for a magnitude of development that, no matter where it was located, the development C3 would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site. An option / policy that makes provision for a quantity / type of development but the effects are C4 uncertain because its detailed location is to be selected following consideration of options in a later, more specific plan. Options / policies for developments or infrastructure projects that could block alternatives for the C5 provision of other development in the future, that may lead to adverse effects on European sites, which would otherwise be avoided. Options, policies or proposals which are to be implemented in due course - if implemented in C6 one or more particular ways, the proposal could possibly have a significant effect on a European site. Any other options, policies or proposals that would be vulnerable to failure under the Habitats C7 Regulations at project assessment stage; to include them in the plan would be regarded by the EC as ‘faulty planning’. Any other proposal that may have an adverse effect on a European site, which might try to pass C8 the tests of HRA at project level by arguing that the plan provides IROPI to justify its consent despite a negative assessment. Category D: Likely significant effects in combination The option, policy or proposal alone would not be likely to have significant effects but if its effects D1 are combined with the effects of other policies within the same plan the cumulative effects would be likely to be significant. Options, policies or proposals that alone would not be likely to have significant effects but if their D2 effects are combined with the effects of other plans or projects, the combined effects would be likely to be significant. Options or proposals that are, or could be, part of a programme or sequence of development D3 delivered over a period, where the implementation of the later stages could have a significant effect on European sites.
10 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
3 European Sites
3.1 Scope of the Assessment
3.1.1 Each European site has its own intrinsic qualities, besides the habitats or species for which it has been designated, that enable the site to support the ecosystems that it does. For example, an intrinsic quality of any European site is its functionality at the landscape ecology scale; in other words, how the site interacts with the zone of influence of its immediate surroundings, as well as the wider area.
3.1.2 Hence the ecological integrity of a site is influenced by natural and human-induced activities in the surrounding environment. This is particularly the case where there is potential for development to take land, generate water or air-borne pollutants, use water resources or otherwise affect water levels, or involve an extractive or noise emitting use. Adverse effects may also occur via impacts to mobile species occurring outside of a designated site but which are qualifying features of the site. For example, there may be effects on protected birds that use land outside the designated site for foraging, feeding, roosting or loafing.
3.1.3 European sites considered within the scope of this assessment include all those falling wholly or partially within the City. Additionally, there may be activities occurring as a result of development within the City, which could take place outside of the confines of the City boundary. Therefore, it is likely that some European sites further afield may also be affected. The scope of the assessment therefore includes the following sites, as depicted by Figure 3.1: Butser Hill (SAC) River Itchen (SAC)
Solent & Isle of Wight Lagoons (SAC) Solent Maritime (SAC)
The New Forest (SAC) Chichester & Langstone Harbours (SPA)
Portsmouth Harbour (SPA) Solent and Southampton Water (SPA)
The New Forest (SPA) Chichester & Langstone Harbours (Ramsar)
Portsmouth Harbour (Ramsar) Solent and Southampton Water (Ramsar)
The New Forest (Ramsar)
3.2 Site Descriptions
3.2.1 An ecological description of each European site is given in Appendix I.
3.3 Qualifying Features
3.3.1 The qualifying features of each site (that is, the reasons for which the sites were designated) are listed in Appendix I and Table 3.1.
11 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Figure 3.1: European Nature Conservation 12 Sites in and around Portsmouth City HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Table 3.1: The qualifying features of European sites close to Portsmouth Solent & Southampton Water SPA Solent & Soton Water Ramsar Chichester & Langstone SPA Chichester & Langstone Ramsar
Breeding Criterion 1 Breeding Criterion 1 - Little Tern Sterna albifrons - Several outstanding wetland habitat - Little Tern Sterna albifrons - Two outstanding estuarine basins, the types, including unusual double tidal flow, - Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis - Common Tern Sterna hirundo site includes intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh, a major sheltered channel, saline lagoons, - Common Tern Sterna hirundo - Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis sand and shingle spits and sand dunes saltmarshes, estuaries, intertidal flats, Criterion 5 - Mediterranean Gull Larus shallow coastal waters, grazing marshes, Overwintering melanocephalus reedbeds, coastal woodland and rocky - Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica - Winter assemblage of 76,480 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99 - 2002/03) - Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii boulder reefs - Pintail Anas acuta Criterion 2 Criterion 6 Overwintering - Shoveler Anas clypeata - Nationally rare species assemblage Breeding - Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa - Eurasian Teal Anas crecca Criterion 5 - Little Tern Sterna albifrons albifrons islandica - Wigeon Anas penelope - Winter assemblage of 51,343 waterfowl (5 Overwintering - Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla - Turnstone Arenaria interpres year peak mean 02/03) bernicla - Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla - Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla Criterion 6 bernicla - Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula bernicla Breeding - Teal Anas crecca - Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina - Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis - Sanderling Calidris alba Bird Assemblage - Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola - Common Tern Sterna hiruno - Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina - Over winter the area regularly supports - Common Shelduck Tadorna tadorna - Little Tern Sterna albifrons - Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula 51,361 individual waterfowl (5 year peak On passage - Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii - Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator mean 1998) - Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula Overwintering - Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata - Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa - Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa - Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola islandica islandica - Shelduck Tadorna tadorna - Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla - Common Redshank Tringa totanus - Redshank Tringa totanus bernicla totanus Bird Assemblage - Teal Anas crecca - Over winter the area regularly supports On passage 93,230 individual waterfowl (5yr peak mean - Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula 1998)
13 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Portsmouth Harbour SPA Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar River Itchen SAC Solent Maritime SAC
Overwintering Criterion 3 Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat - Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla - Species assemblage of importance to - Water courses of plain to montane levels - Estuaries bernicla maintaining biogeographic biodiversity with the Ranunculion fluitantis and - Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) - Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina Criterion 6 Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation - Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco- - Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa Overwintering Annex II Species Puccinellietalia maritimae) islandica - Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla - White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish - Sandbanks - slightly covered by sea water - Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator bernicla Austropotamobius pallipes all the time - Southern damselfly Coenagrion - Mudflats and sandflats not submerged at mercuriale low tide - Bullhead Cottus gobio - Annual vegetation drift lines - Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri - Perennial vegetation of stony banks - Otter Lutra lutra - Salicornia and other annuals colonising - Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. mud and sand - Shifting white dunes with Ammophila arenaria - Coastal lagoons* Annex II Species - Desmoulin's whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana
14 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
The New Forest SPA The New Forest Ramsar The New Forest SAC Solent and IoW Lagoons SAC
Breeding Criterion 1 Annex I Habitat Annex I Habitat - Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus Valley mires and wet heaths are found - Oligotrophic waters containing very few - Coastal lagoons* minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia throughout the site and are of outstanding - Woodlark Lullula arborea uniflorae) scientific interest. The mires and heaths are - Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus - Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing within catchments whose uncultivated and - Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea undeveloped state buffer the mires against uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Overwintering adverse ecological change. This is the Nanojuncetea - Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus largest concentration of intact valley mires - Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica of their type in Britain tetralix Criterion 2 - European dry heaths - Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or Butser Hill SAC Diverse assemblage of wetland plants and clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) animals including several nationally rare Annex I Habitat - Depressions on peat substrates of the species. Seven species of nationally rare Rhynchosporion - Semi-natural dry grasslands and plant are found on the site, as are at least - Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with scrubland facies on calacareous substrates 65 British Red Data Book species of Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the (Festuco-Brometalia) invertebrate shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or - Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles * Criterion 3 Ilici-Fagenion) - Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests The mire habitats are of high ecological - Old acidophilous oak woods with quality and diversity and have undisturbed Quercus robur on sandy plains transition zones. The invertebrate fauna of - Bog woodland * the site is important due to the - Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and concentration of rare and scare wetland Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion species. The whole site complex, with its incanae, Salicion albae) * examples of semi-natural habitats is - Transition mires and quaking bogs. essential to the genetic and ecological - Southern damselfly Coenagrion diversity of southern England. mercuriale - Stag beetle Lucanus cervus - Great crested newt Triturus cristatus * Denotes priority feature
15 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
3.4 SAC and SPA Conservation Objectives
3.4.1 The Habitats Directive requires that Member States maintain or where appropriate restore habitats and species populations of European importance to favourable conservation status. Guidance from the EC (2000b; p.19) states: “The conservation status of natural habitat types and species present on a site is assessed according to a number of criteria established by Article 1 of the Directive. This assessment is done both at site and network level”. In the UK, the term favourable condition has been used to differentiate the status of a site as compared to that of the wider network of European sites. The overarching conservation objectives defined by Natural England for the SACs and SPAs within the scope of screening, are summarised in Box 2.
Box 2: Summarised conservation objectives for European sites within the scope of this report
Special Protection Areas With regard to the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified; Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;
The populations of the qualifying features;
The distribution of the qualifying features within the site. Special Areas of Conservation With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated; 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. 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 and habitats of qualifying species;
The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;
The populations of qualifying species;
The distribution of qualifying species within the site.
16 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
3.5 Conservation Objectives for Ramsar Sites
3.5.1 Ramsar sites do not have agreed conservation objectives, but in most instances overlap with SPA site boundaries. However, it should be noted that Ramsar qualifying features can include a range of habitats and non-bird species common to SAC designations, as well as bird species and assemblages and their supporting habitats, which are common to SPAs.
3.5.2 Of the Ramsar sites around Portsmouth, the Ramsar Convention criteria for the Solent and Southampton Water, Portsmouth Harbour, and Chichester and Langstone Harbours sites overlap substantially with the features of their equivalent SPAs. No additional conservation objectives are defined to assess these features, and those relating to the equivalent SPAs can be used in the assessment.
3.5.3 Conversely, the Ramsar criteria for the New Forest overlap with the features of its equivalent SAC. No additional conservation objectives are defined to assess these features, and those relating to the SAC can be used in the assessment.
3.6 Key Environmental Conditions Supporting Site Integrity
3.6.1 The Habitats Regulations require that an Appropriate Assessment is made of the implications for each site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. To make such an assessment, it is necessary to understand in more detail the features of the sites that contribute to their favourable condition or conservation status. Natural England has published detailed Favourable Condition Tables in which various attributes of the habitat and species populations are defined for assessing site condition. These have been developed from the definition of Favourable Conservation Status provided in Article 1 of the Habitats Directive (Box 3 overleaf). Drawing on the Favourable Condition tables, a number of key environmental conditions that support site integrity can be identified; these are summarised in Appendix I.
17 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Box 3: Extract from Managing Natura 2000 Sites (EC, 2000) Conservation status is defined in Article 1 of the Habitats Directive. For a natural habitat, Article 1(e) specifies that it is: ‘the sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structure and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species …’. For a species, Article 1(i) specifies that it is: ‘the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its population …’ The Member State has therefore to take into account all the influences of the environment (air, water, soil, territory) which act on the habitats and species present on the site. Favourable conservation status is also defined by Article 1(e) for natural habitats and Article 1(i) for species. For a natural habitat, it occurs when: ‘its natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing; the specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future; and the conservation status of its typical species is favourable’. For a species, it occurs when: ‘the population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future; and there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis’. The favourable conservation status of a natural habitat or species has to be considered across its natural range, according to Articles 1(e) and 1(i), i.e. at biogeographical and, hence, Natura 2000 network level. Since, however, the ecological coherence of the network will depend on the contribution of each individual site to it and, hence, on the conservation status of the habitat types and species it hosts, the assessment of the favourable conservation status at site level will always be necessary. The conservation status of natural habitat types and species present on a site is assessed according to a number of criteria established by Article 1 of the Directive. This assessment is done both at site and network level.
18 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
4 Likely Significant Effects
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This chapter considers the Site Allocations DPD. Acknowledging that the plan is not necessary to the management of any European site, it states whether or not the proposals are likely to have significant effects on the internationally important interest features of each European site, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects.
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Appendix II illustrates the full results of the HRA screening assessment for the Site Allocation DPD, where the numbers in each of the coloured cells correspond to a category listed in Box 1.
4.2.2 Six of the European sites within the scope of the screening assessment are not negatively affected by the Site Allocations and their associated proposals. These are; Butser Hill SAC, River Itchen SAC, Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC and The New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar.
4.2.3 The European sites that are potentially negatively impacted are;
Solent Maritime SAC;
Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar;
Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar; and
Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar.
4.2.4 Of the 59 proposed Site Allocations, 37 were categorised within the screening matrix (Appendix II) as having no negative effect (on a European site). These comprise of;
136 Former Kwiksave, Stubbington Avenue
214 Vauxhall Garage, London Road
215 Wymering Community Centre, Sevenoaks Road
236 A27 Cycleway
263 Land between Feltons Place and Peronne Close, including TA Centre
349 Holbrook Road unity hall Coburg Street/ Holbrook Road
446 Garages, Dursley Crescent
459 Longdean Lodge, Hillsley Road, Paulsgrove
549 Car Park opposite 20 Sultan Road, Buckland
550 Opposite Barrington House on Sultan Road
600 Dame Judith Centre, PCMI, Edinburgh House And Land South Of QA
19 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
843 The Townhouse, Portland Road
900 Moneyfields Sports Club
911 Langstone Harbour Coastal Path
1038 Univeristy Building To East Of St Thomas's Street, Old Portsmouth
1211 Eastney Caravan Park
1267 Land north of Goldsmith Avenue
1268 Land Between Goldsmith Avenue, Francis Avenue And Lidl Supermarket
1271 Former Wightlink Workshops And Car Park, Broad Street
1279 White Heather Garage
1294 4 Waverley Road
3026 Public House, 38 Kent Road
3029 107-113 Havant Road (Exc 109-109a)
6013 Land South Of East Lodge Playing Field
6589 East Lodge Park And Adjacent Fields
6889 Henderson Road / Halliday Crescent
8101 Skillploy Site, North of St James's Hospital, Locksway Road
8102 Two Villas, North East of St James's Hospital, Locksway Road
61303 St Mary's West, Milton Road
70006 Southsea Police Station
70011 Acorn Lodge, Southampton Road
70015 Former Wymering Community Centre - LABV Site Overlaps Site 215
70017 Savoy Buildings, South Parade, Southsea
70028 Univeristy of Portsmouth's Langstone campus
70029 Seymour Close Car Parks (Boundary to be altered)
70030 Land south of Former Wymering Community Centre (safeguarded for BRT)
70031 Portsmouth City Records Office
70033 Child Development Centre/Harbour School, St James' Hospital Locksway Rd
70034 Hilsea Lodge
70035 Sports Pitches, Mountbatten Cente
70036 Education Centre, St Mary's Hospital, Milton Road
70037 Hester Road
70038 Burrell House
70039 The Good Companion PH
20 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
70040 Cockleshell Community Centre
4.2.5 Assessment conclusions for the 22 proposed Site Allocations that do negatively affect one or more of the European sites within the scope of the HRA are summarised in Figure 4.1. A commentary for each site is outlined in Chapter 5, which also offers mitigating actions to the impacts resulting from the Site Allocation development plan.
Figure 4.1: Summary of proposed allocations assessed as leading to likely significant effects (prior to mitigation)
4.3 In Combination Test
4.3.1 Other plans and projects being prepared or implemented in the area may have the potential to cause negative effects on the integrity of European sites. These effects may be exacerbated when experienced in combination with the effects of the plan in question, possibly leading an insignificant effect to become significant. It is therefore important to consider which other plans and projects could generate similar effects as the Site Allocations DPD at the same European sites, and which may act in-combination.
21 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
4.3.2 The plans and projects listed below will be taken forward and considered for likely effects in combination with the above Site Allocations during the Appropriate Assessment stage if required:
Fareham Core Strategy (Adopted November 2011)
Fareham Borough Local Plan Review saved policies (Adopted 2000)
Gosport Core Strategy (not yet adopted)
Gosport Local Plan Review 2001 to 2016 (Adopted 2006)
Hampshire Local Transport Plan (2011-2031)
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Core Strategy – 2007
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan (submitted)
Havant Borough District-Wide Local Plan saved policies (2007)
Havant Local Plan (Core Strategy) (adopted 2011)
North Solent Shoreline Management Plan (2010) (supersedes East Solent SMP (1997))
Portchester Castle to Emsworth Draft Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Strategy – 2006 (consultation closed)
Portsea Island Coastal Strategy Study (2004, under review)
Portsmouth City Local Plan saved policies (adopted 2006)
The Portsmouth Plan, (2011)
Portsmouth AAPs (Somerstown and North Southsea AAP and Southsea Town Centre AAP)
Local Transport Plan 3 for Portsmouth - 2012
Winchester saved adopted policies in the Local Plan 2006
Winchester Local Plan Part 1 - Joint Core Strategy
Winchester Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management and Allocations Document.
22 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
5 Commentary
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 As stated in Chapter 1, a number of strategically operating ecological impacts that may result from the Site Allocations DPD are being managed through the Core Strategy HRA. Therefore, unless there are site specific exceptions, these impacts are considered to be outside of the scope of the assessment and subsequent commentary outlined within this chapter.
5.1.2 Specific sites and their associated proposals have the potential to cause significant ecological effects depending on their location, design, construction processes and any actions which intentionally mitigate any environmental impacts. The following sections describe the judgements made during the screening assessment and address each of the sites which have been assessed as; ‘could have an effect’ or as having a ‘likely significant effect’.
5.1.3 Key data used in the assessment include the allocation’s location in relation to European sites, their previous use (where known), presence of historic landfill sites8, proposed future use/s, and the level of flood risk on site. Furthermore, several sites share a range of qualifying features (Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar) consisting of individual bird species and assemblages. For this reason the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy (King, 2010), and the corresponding maps (Important Sites and Potentially Suitable Sites for Waders and Brent Geese) were analysed during the assessment to identify potential indirect impacts of the Site Allocations during the screening process.
5.2 Strategically Operating Impacts
5.2.1 The Core Strategy HRA could not rule out the potential for certain European sites to be adversely affected by atmospheric pollution and disturbance from recreation. By way of a summary:
Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar may be adversely affected by atmospheric pollution through road traffic emissions associated with Core Strategy residential, employment and retail policies; and
Chichester & Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar, Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar, Solent & Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar, and the New Forest SPA may be adversely affected by disturbance from recreation associated with Core Strategy residential policies.
5.2.2 The Core Strategy HRA set out a number of measures to ensure that adverse effects could be avoided or mitigated. However, there was insufficient data available at the time to determine
8 Environment Agency, What’s in Your Backyard? http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37829.aspx.
23 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
whether such measures would be fully successful. In order to deal with this uncertainty while additional studies are carried out, the Core Strategy makes the following commitment:
“…The council will revisit the rate, scale and/or distribution of development across the city to respond to the findings of new evidence, including the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project, if it is necessary to protect the integrity of European sites.” Portsmouth Plan Policy PCS10, p.83
5.2.3 Since the Core Strategy was adopted work has continued on a sub-regional transport model and the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project (SDMP) to examine how these impacts to Solent European sites may operate in greater detail, and to allow consideration of a suitable response.
5.2.4 The Site Allocations DPD will be in general conformity with the Core Strategy, and does not propose development levels over and above that set out by the higher-tier plan. As such it does not add further to the potential atmospheric pollution and disturbance from recreation impacts already considered as part of the Core Strategy HRA. The uncertainty regarding potential impacts to European sites from atmospheric pollution and disturbance is therefore viewed as being managed through the Core Strategy and its HRA, while also being applicable to certain site allocations (residential sites in relation to disturbance, and residential, employment and retail sites in relation to atmospheric pollution).
5.2.5 The SDMP is due to complete during 2013 and will inform the publication version of the Site Allocations Plan. In the event that evidence confirms the need to adjust the rate, scale or distribution of development, equivalent changes will need also to be reflected in the Site Allocations DPD at publication stage. This may indicate the need for one or more sites to be deleted from the plan or, failing this, for the site(s) to be taken forward for more detailed Appropriate Assessment.
5.2.6 Consequently, at the present stage, apart from where a particular Site Allocation proposal may influence the nature of these impacts at the site level, the issues of disturbance and atmospheric pollution are not revisited in the current HRA.
5.3 Dark-bellied Brent Goose and Waders
5.3.1 The dark-bellied Brent goose and wader assemblage are qualifying features of six of the European sites that are within the scope of the screening process: Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar (Table 3.1 lists bird species as part of the qualifying features of the European sites). The Portsmouth Plan specifically refers to SPAs and Ramsars as potential constraints at key development sites. For example the tall buildings policy PCS24 (p.147) states; “Where proposals fall within 500m of Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar or Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar sites, specific measures shall be taken to ensure there is no adverse effect on ecological integrity”.
5.3.2 A recurrent theme in the screening assessment is the potential for proposed development to lead to detrimental effects on Brent goose and wader foraging and roosting areas outside of
24 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
European sites. Many of these areas are identified by King (2010) as being of “uncertain” importance to Brent goose and waders9. Wherever possible, further information is provided below (pers. comm., 2012) on a site’s accessibility, local records of use by qualifying bird species, its overall suitability, and potential to become an important site in the future (for example, through changes to management).
5.3.3 It is practical to present a general discussion on some of the factors that can influence the way in which impacts affect the Brent goose and wader assemblages in a separate section, rather than for each individual site as set out in Section 5.4. Tall structures and buildings can cause disorientation and create a collision risk if in the flight path, or near foraging grounds, of waders and geese. Furthermore, birds can be displaced where there is a direct loss of habitat or a detrimental change in land use, within close proximity to foraging or roosting areas. Displacement impacts may arise from an activity or a change to their environment which is perceived as increasing the risk of predation, such as; over illumination, increased human activity, short distance sight lines and overshadowing (for example, tall buildings).
5.3.4 King (2010) highlights a number of pertinent factors which significantly correlate with the suitability of sites for waders and geese; smaller sized areas and buildings within 500m have a negative effect on the suitability of sites for both waders and geese for example. Regular shaped areas (compared to irregular), homes within 15mins and nearby roads have a negative effect on the level of suitability of sites for waders. And foraging sites that are nearby other suitable habitats are preferred by Brent geese for instance. Therefore, depending on the proximity and positioning of a proposed allocation in relation to areas used by geese and waders, Site Allocations can reduce the utility of foraging/roosting grounds for these species.
5.3.5 Adverse effects are possible not only in the form of long term impacts, but can be short term as well. There can be a risk of short term disturbance during construction stages; notably from demolition, construction noise and vibration and construction traffic. If the intentional usage of the site is for employment, the actual site use (dependant on the nature of employment activities) could also have a negative impact on the suitability of the site for waders and geese. These aspects are discussed in the next section which describes the impacts of the sites proposed for allocation.
5.4 Sites Proposed for Allocation
5.4.1 Sites and the corresponding proposal(s) which are categorised within the screening matrix (Appendix II) as being Category A (No negative effect on a European site) are excluded from the following summaries and commentary, as they have been assessed as having no significant impact on the European sites.
9 The Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy (2010) discusses the issue of uncertainty in site classification: “A method of scoring the confidence for the inclusion of both Brent Geese and wader sites was employed by setting a benchmark figure for regularity of survey for Brent Geese and additionally seasonal coverage by surveyors for waders. Sites that fell below the benchmarks were classified as “uncertain” to highlight them as needing further survey work to inform their assessment… It is likely that a number of the sites classified as ‘no recorded use’ may have potential for use and that sites classified as ‘uncertain’ may well be used but under-recorded.” King, 2010, pp.13&24.
25 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Site ID 1: Rear of 154-192 Southampton Road, Paulsgrove Site ID 1: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 1.45 ha site. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 50 dwellings. . Site is approximately 90m from Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar. Although, the Harbour is shielded by intervening buildings. . Site is 20m away from a small playing field at King Richard’s school thought to be used by Brent goose and waders (henceforth “BG/wader”); site ref P49. However, the sites are separated by a railway. . BG/wader site P49 is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited once for waders and no birds were recorded. It was visited three times for BG and up to 60 birds were recorded. Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre and Hampshire Ornithological Society (henceforth “HBIC/HOS”) returned several local records, but all seem to relate to Port Solent / Harbour / Castle Shore Park. P49 appears suitable for BG and is listed as regularly used. It may be less favourable for waders due to surrounding development and regular shape, although is relatively close to shore. P49 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to BG/waders. . Given the proximity to the SPA/Ramsar and sites suitable for waders and geese, impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary) and the building itself reducing the suitability of the site. . Significant impacts to Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely, especially as the site is directly between a European site and foraging grounds. Mitigation can be applied as no habitat loss is expected.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.2 Impacts on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar present within the playing field can be mitigated by; timing construction to avoid the overwintering period and/or the use of appropriate screening materials (e.g. hedgerows or close-board fencing). Building design and dimensions (including height restrictions and directional lighting) must consider potential impact on birds’ site line. Measures to manage potentially increasing recreational use of the playing field are unlikely to be required because access to the field is prevented/restricted by the rail corridor. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
Site ID 133: Highgrove Lodge Site ID 133: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.45 ha site, currently vacant, formerly housed Highgrove Lodge residential care home. The proposed allocation for a residential care home or residential development (25 dwellings). . To the north, although shielded by intervening buildings, the site is 57m from an area used by waders (site ref P06, Springfield primary school). Given the proximity to the site suitable for waders, impacts are likely, resulting from potential construction activities
26 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
(temporary) and the building itself reducing the suitability of the site. . Wader site P06 is classified as of “uncertain” importance; it was visited once during preparation of the BG/wader strategy, and no birds were recorded. The site is a school playing field, and so public access is not possible. HBIC/HOS hold no further records for target species on this site. P06 is small-ish (2.7ha), surrounded by trees and development on three sides, and is c.1km from coast, all conditions less favourable for waders. P06 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation is required.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.3 The potential impacts of development are on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar. Taking into account the buffering effect of surrounding buildings, impacts of the development are likely to be best mitigated by imposing building height restrictions and adjusting the timing of construction to avoid periods that birds are present. Measures to manage potentially increasing recreational use of the playing field are unlikely to be required because there is no public access to the field. Development should be informed by additional surveys for waders.
Site ID 145: Alexandra Lodge, Northern Parade Site ID 145: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.2 ha site, currently vacant, formerly a PCT clinic south of the former Alexandra Lodge care home. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 12 dwellings. . The site is 60m away from an area (Alexandra Park) thought to be used by waders and Brent goose; site ref P40. However, the sites are separated by buildings and Northern Parade. . BG/wader site P40 is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited once for BG with a maximum count of one bird (but is noted as being used frequently), and twice for waders with no birds recorded. HBIC/HOS hold records of 235 BG observed on the site in 2004, and the occasional Mediterranean gull. It is a large, open playing field adjacent to coast and appears to offer good potential as BG foraging habitat, but has relatively high levels of disturbance. . Although depending on the level of shielding offered by surrounding buildings, impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary) and the building itself. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely due to the proximity of the site to an area used by waders.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.4 Impacts of the site on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by imposing building height restrictions and limiting construction
27 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
to appropriate times to avoid birds. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
Site ID 149: SEB Site, Drayton Lane Site ID 149: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 3.72 ha site where the current use is offices and industry. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 125 dwellings and will increase the existing building footprint. . The site is directly east of an area thought to be used by waders (Drayton Park; site ref P07). Development can potentially decrease the suitability of the site for waders through displacement by increased activity, inappropriate lighting, presence of tall structures and increased recreational usage. . Wader site P07 is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited once for waders and no birds were recorded. The site is a school playing field, and so public access is not possible. HBIC/HOS hold no further records for target species on this site. There is a strong tree line around the site, and surrounding land is highly developed, while it c.750m from the coast; these conditions may make the site less suitable for waders. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation is required.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.5 The potential impacts of development are on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar. Mitigation is required and construction must avoid the periods when birds utilise adjacent land. Depending on the design of the building(s) and the appropriateness of the hedging that is already in place, additional screening materials may be required on the western side. The building height should be restricted to minimise shadowing and any lighting visible from the west, should be directional to avoid displacing birds. Measures to manage potentially increasing recreational use of the playing field are unlikely to be required because there is no public access to the field. Development should be informed by additional surveys for.
Site ID 199: Portsdown Main, James Callaghan Drive Site ID 199: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 19.27 ha vacant brownfield site, the proposed allocation is for employment uses. . Site is over 1km from Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar. . Part of the northern site boundary is adjacent to large area thought to be used by waders (site ref W02C). Wader site W02C is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited three times and no birds were recorded. . Site is 400m away from a smaller area used by Brent geese, within the larger wader site to the north (site ref W02B). BG site W02B is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited once and no birds were recorded. . Impacts displacing geese and waders are likely, resulting from construction activities
28 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
(temporary), illumination, the building itself and ongoing future operational use. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation can be applied as no habitat loss is expected.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.6 Impacts of the site on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by; limiting construction to avoid periods that birds are present, the use of appropriate screening materials and sympathetic building design (including height restrictions and directional lighting). The future use of the site should consider the nearby ecological constraints and avoid uses that could be detrimental to bird activity. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
Site ID 209: Garages at Kendal Avenue, Copnor Site ID 209: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.15 ha site currently used as garages. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 6 dwellings. . The site is 20m to playing field used by waders (Moneyfields Sports and Social Club, site ref P13), separated by a railway. . Wader site P13 is classified as of “uncertain” importance; it was visited once during preparation of the BG/wader strategy, and no birds were recorded. The site is private sports club, and so public access is not possible. HBIC/HOS hold no further records for target species on this site. Buildings and other structures surround much of the site, and it is rather distant from the coast, conditions less favourable for waders. P13 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . Given the proximity to the suitable wader site, impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination and the building itself reducing the suitability of the site. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely due to the potential impact on an area used by waders.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.7 Impacts from development on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar are likely. However, impacts can be mitigated by imposing building height restrictions, minimising illumination and/or using directional lighting, and adjusting construction times to avoid periods that birds are present. Measures to manage potentially increasing recreational use of the playing field are unlikely to be required because there is no public access to the field. Development should be informed by additional surveys for waders.
29 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Site ID 367: Drayton Dairy Site, 112 Station Road Site ID 367: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 2.44 ha vacant site. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 125 dwellings, expanding on the previous building footprint. . The site is between three areas used by waders, one of which (to the east; P08A) is also used by Brent geese. The closest wader site is a playing field 100m to the north (P06 at Springfield School). The development could potentially decrease the suitability of one or more of these areas through increased recreational usage. . Wader site P06 is classified as of “uncertain” importance; it was visited once during preparation of the BG/wader strategy, and no birds were recorded. The site is a school playing field, and so public access is not possible. HBIC/HOS hold no further records for target species on this site. P06 is small-ish (2.7ha), surrounded by trees and development on three sides, and is c.1km from coast, all conditions less favourable for waders. P06 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . Wader site P07 is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited once for waders and no birds were recorded. The site is a school playing field, and so public access is not possible. HBIC/HOS hold no further records for target species on this site. There is a strong tree line around the site, and surrounding land is highly developed, while it c.750m from the coast; these conditions may make the site less suitable for waders. P07 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . BG/wader site P08A is classified as being “important” to both waders and Brent goose, having been surveyed twelve times for waders (max count of 45 oystercatcher) and 67 times for BG (max count 1,700). . The site is 480m from Solent Maritime SAC and Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar. Direct impacts are not likely although the building could disrupt flight paths between the European sites and the surrounding foraging grounds. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation is required.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.8 The potential impacts of development are on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar. Mitigation is required and development must avoid the periods when birds utilise adjacent land. Whilst wader and geese flight paths are not known at this location, there are considerable areas utilised by birds surrounding the site. Therefore the building height should be restricted to mitigate potential collision impact and disorientation. Measures to manage potentially increasing recreational use of the playing field are unlikely to be required because there is no public access to the fields. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
30 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Site ID 646: Trafalgar Wharf (221-249 Southampton Road and Vospers Site, Hamilton Road) Site ID 646: Summary of likely significant effects
. An 8.6 ha area used for employment. The proposed development would be for a mix of employment and residential uses, yielding up to 150 dwellings. . A long stretch of the boundary perimeter is directly adjacent to Portsmouth Harbour. . There are a number of nearby areas used by waders and geese, although several of them are within the SPA/Ramsar. Two sites (P65 and P67) are sandwiched between the allocation and Harbour. P65 is “important” for waders (max count 350 individuals comprised of three species counted in 13 visits), but “uncertain” for BG (14 individuals in two visits). P67 is of “uncertain” importance to both BG and waders (zero BG in one visit; and three waders (redshank) in one visit). . Construction activities, the building itself, illumination, and waterfront activity once occupied are all likely to impact these sites, causing temporary and permanent displacement. . The site is within Flood Zone 2 and 3 and, depending on future uses, may require additional coastal defences, potentially leading to tidal habitat loss through coastal squeeze. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. The site is highly visible due to its shoreline location. Mitigation can be applied although additional flood defences may lead to habitat loss.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.9 Impacts of the site on geese and waders can potentially be mitigated by timing construction to avoid sensitive periods and applying building design and dimension constraints (specifically lighting and height restrictions), with considerations to both protected areas adjacent and the suitable wader and geese grounds. Suitable planting should be used around the site perimeter to buffer activity and any light pollution. The position of the building(s) within the allocated area should be positioned to minimise the amount of tidal habitat that is shaded by structures post- development.
5.4.10 Given the current land use, including units and a boat yard, the site may have adequate flood defences for future employment and/or water-compatible uses. Of importance is the adjacent European site’s vulnerability to the coastal squeeze effects of sea and flood defences. Therefore if future uses require additional flood defences, there is likely to be direct impacts on Portsmouth Harbour.
Site ID 653: Bus Depot and Stops, Hilsea Site ID 653: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.32 ha site, currently a bus depot. The proposed development is for mixed use including 45 flats. . The site is approximately 240m from Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar, separated by
31 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
buildings. Impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary) and the building itself displacing geese and waders, depending on their design. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar are likely due to the proximity to the site, although the impact is potentially reduced by the features that surround the site
Proposed mitigation
5.4.11 The level of mitigation required is dependent on the degree of buffering offered by adjacent buildings and railway. Impacts of the site on Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by imposing building height restrictions and limiting construction to appropriate times to avoid birds.
Site ID 654: London Road Bus Depot, Car Sales/Garages and Car Park Site ID 654: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.68 ha site currently a bus garage. The proposed development is for mixed use including 55 flats. . The site is approximately 240m from Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar, separated by buildings. Impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary) and the building itself displacing geese and waders, depending on their design. . The site is adjacent to a waterway that could potentially act as a pollution pathway to Portsmouth Harbour. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar are likely due to the distance to the site, although the impact is potentially reduced by the features that surround the site.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.12 The level of mitigation required is dependent on the degree of buffering offered by adjacent buildings. Impacts of the site on Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by imposing building height restrictions and limiting construction to appropriate times to avoid birds. It is unknown whether land contamination exists at the site but due to the close proximity to a hydrological pathway to the Harbour, it will be necessary to develop a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to reduce and manage risks associated with mobilisation of contaminants.
Site ID 657: Museums Store, Copnor Road Site ID 657: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.33 ha site currently used as a storage area. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 12 houses. . The site is 120m away from an area used by waders (site ref P14), separated by buildings. . Wader site P14 is classified as of “uncertain” importance; it was visited once during preparation of the BG/wader strategy, and no birds were recorded. The site is a private
32 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
sports club but may be publicly accessible. HBIC/HOS returned records for one individual Mediterranean gull. The site is large, regularly shaped, surrounded by developed areas, and is c.1km from the coast; conditions less favourable for waders. . Although depending on the level of shielding offered by surrounding buildings and the design of new development, impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary) and the building itself. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely due to the proximity of the site to an area used by waders.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.13 Impacts of the site on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by imposing building height restrictions and limiting construction to appropriate times to avoid birds. Provision should be made for measures to manage potentially increasing recreational use of the playing field. Development should be informed by additional surveys for waders.
Site ID 688: TA Centre, Cosham and Land Adjacent Site ID 688: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.76 ha site currently a Territorial Army training centre. The proposed development is for residential, consisting of 23 dwellings. . The site is approximately 360m from Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar, separated by buildings and motorway. Impacts are likely, resulting from the building itself, depending on the planned height. . The site is close to a waterway (Port Creek) that could potentially act as a pollution pathway to Portsmouth Harbour and the further afield Chichester and Langstone Harbours, although this is less likely. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar are likely due to the proximity to the site, although the severity of the impact is reduced by the features that surround the site.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.14 The level of mitigation required is dependent on the degree of buffering offered by adjacent buildings and motorway. Impacts of the site on Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by imposing appropriate building height restrictions. It is unknown whether land contamination exists at the site but due to the close proximity to a hydrological pathway to the Harbour, it will be necessary to develop a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to reduce and manage risks associated with mobilisation of contaminants.
33 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Site ID 911: Langstone Harbour coastal path Site ID 911: Summary of likely significant effects
. The Langstone Harbour coastal path around Eastney with plans to enhance two less accessible sections using supported or suspended solutions. . The northern section is adjacent to Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC, the southern section is along the coastal frontage of Fort Cumberland and adjacent to Solent Maritime SAC and partially adjacent to Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar. Increased activity may make areas less suitable for geese and waders. . The route runs past two small patches of land fronting the harbour thought to be of use to BG/waders (site ref P103 and P82). . BG/wader site P103 is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited once for BG and, although noted as being frequently used, the maximum count was 68 individuals roosting (i.e. not feeding). It was visited once for waders, with one redshank and 18 oystercatcher recorded. Although not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders, the site seems eminently suited to this group given its dimensions, proximity to the coastline, surroundings (open fields offering good sight lines) and mosaic of habitats likely to offer a variety of food sources. . BG/wader site P103 is classified as of “uncertain” importance to BG, but “important” for waders. The site was visited once for BG with six individuals recorded roosting (not feeding). It was visited seven times for waders with 152 individuals of five species recorded. Although not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders, the site seems eminently suited to this group given its dimensions, proximity to the coastline, surroundings (open fields offering good sight lines) and mosaic of habitats likely to offer a variety of food sources. . Both sections are in Flood Zones 2 and 3. Pathway reinforcements, particularly around tidal areas, are likely to result in habitat loss (either direct land take or overshadowing) and, in other areas, restrict natural shoreline processes depending on construction methods employed. The immediately adjacent European sites are vulnerable to developmental pressures, such as land-claim of coastal habitats and the resulting coastal squeeze of intertidal habitats due to development in the hinterland. . Direct significant impacts on Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent Maritime SAC are likely. Mitigation can be applied although increased recreational use of the pathway is likely (refer also to section 5.2: Strategically Operating Impacts).
Proposed mitigation
5.4.15 Direct impacts of footpath development on the qualifying features of Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent Maritime SAC can be mitigated by; designing the pathway in a way that allows natural intertidal shoreline processes to continue unaffected, although where the pathway intersects the European site boundaries, habitat loss is likely to result. Construction works would require the necessary ecological surveys and mitigation, including adjusting construction times to avoid periods that birds are present. Sections which are particularly sensitive to birds (i.e. adjacent to the SPA/Ramsar and potentially important
34 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
BG/wader sites) should be screened (closed-board fencing or vegetation) to avoid impacts arising from increased activity along the waterfront. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
5.4.16 It is possible that the proposal will contradict with the recommendations of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project which could, for example, recommend that the area is managed for lower levels of recreational activity. It is recommended that consultation is continued with the relevant stakeholders, including Natural England.
Site ID 1275: Land between Home Heights and Queens Hotel Site ID 1275: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.18 ha site where the proposed development is residential, consisting of 38 dwellings. . The site is 20m to an area used by Brent geese (Southsea Common, P35). Impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination and increased recreational usage. . BG site P35 is classified as being “important” to the BG population. It was visited 23 times and returned a maximum count of 1,000 birds, with HBIC/HOS having several further records. However, it is not clear whether the site (which is comparatively large at 18.4ha) is exploited evenly, or if certain sections are favoured. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely due to the potential impact on an area used by geese. Mitigation is required.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.17 Impacts of the site on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by imposing building height restrictions, minimising illumination, using directional lighting and limiting construction to avoid periods that birds are present. Provision should also be made for managing increases in recreational activity within Southsea Common. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose.
Site ID 1331: Land at Portsdown Technology Park Site ID 1331: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 10.78 ha site currently classed as an employment site. The proposed allocation is employment. . Site is over 1km from Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar. . Part of the northern site boundary is adjacent to large area thought to be used by waders (site ref W02C). Wader site W02C is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited three times and no birds were recorded. . Site is 400m away from a smaller area used by Brent geese, within the larger wader site to the north (site ref W02B). BG site W02B is classified as of “uncertain” importance. It was visited once and no birds were recorded.
35 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
. Impacts displacing geese and waders are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination, the building itself and potential on-going future operational uses. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation can be applied as no habitat loss is expected.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.18 Impacts of the site on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by; limiting construction to avoid periods that birds are present, the use of appropriate screening materials and sympathetic building design (including height restrictions and directional lighting). The future use of the site should consider the nearby ecological constraints and avoid uses that could be detrimental to bird activity. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
Site ID 3007: Darby House, Skye Close Site ID 3007: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.39 ha site where the proposed development is residential, consisting of 7 houses. . The site is 150m away from a large area thought to be used by waders (P56), separated by housing. Impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary) and the building itself potentially displacing waders. . Wader site P56 is classified as of “uncertain” importance to waders. It was visited once and no birds were counted. HBIC/HOS returned one record for curlew locally (Portsdown Hill). P56 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely due to the proximity to an area used by waders.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.19 Impacts of the site on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by imposing building height restrictions and limiting construction to avoid periods that birds are present. Development should be informed by additional surveys for waders.
Site ID 6589: East Lodge Park and adjacent fields Site ID 6589: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 1.18 ha area, consisting of open space/play park and paddock. The proposed development is residential consisting of 40 dwellings. . The site is 260m from Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, separated
36 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
by a railway line; 450m further afield is the Solent Maritime SAC. . To the south, the site is adjacent to an area used by waders (P04). A second larger area (H04B) is 125m east. These areas are in addition to the SPA /Ramsar to the south. . Wader site P04 is classified as of “uncertain” importance; it was visited once during preparation of the BG/wader strategy, and no birds were recorded. HBIC/HOS hold no further records for target species on this site. The site small, regular shaped and bounded by trees and buildings, conditions less favourable for waders, although it is low-lying, flat and relatively close to the coastline (c.300m). P04 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . Wader site H04B is classified as of “uncertain” importance; it was visited once during preparation of the BG/wader strategy, and no birds were recorded. It is a much larger site than P04 at 12.6ha, regularly shaped and closer to the coast. . Impacts are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination and the building itself. . It is not known whether land contamination is present on site, but it is close to a waterway which drains into the SPA/Ramsar and SAC, presenting a pollution pathway. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. The site is surrounded by a number of wader foraging areas. Mitigation is required.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.20 In respect of both the SPA/Ramsar and the surrounding areas utilised by waders, impacts can be mitigated by adjusting construction times to avoid periods that birds are present and applying building design and dimension constraints (specifically lighting and height restrictions). The hedgerows between the adjacent playing field and the site should be retained and strengthened to act as a natural screen. Development should be informed by additional surveys for waders.
5.4.21 The SPA and Ramsar boundaries extend to a flood plain south of the development site. There is a waterway running from nearby to the south of the site, to this area (and onwards to the SAC). Altering the course of this fresh water supply may have detrimental consequences on the shoreline and flood plain floral communities. The water course should be retained. The water way also acts as a potential pollution pathway. Whilst currently there is no information to suggest land contamination is present, adequate precautions should be taken to prevent a pollution event, including activities associated with construction. A CEMP should be developed and maintained.
5.4.22 Provision should also be made for managing increases in recreational activity within wader roosting grounds.
Site ID 6889: Henderson Road / Halliday Crescent Site ID 6889: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 1.94 ha site is currently MoD accommodation. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 40 dwellings.
37 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
. Site is approximately 200m from Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA/Ramsar. . Site is approximately 200m for Solent Maritime SAC. No significant impacts are likely on the qualifying Annex I habitats. . Part of the western site boundary is adjacent to an “important” area used by Brent geese (Eastney Recreation Ground; P29). . Site is 30m away from a second area that could potentially be used by geese and waders (Bransbury Park; P30). The site is large, flat and low-lying, relatively close to the coast (c.175m), but is surrounded by houses. P30 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to BG/waders. . BG/wader site P30 is classified as having “no recorded use” by BG after eleven visits. It is classified as of “uncertain” importance to waders after three visits without records. . Impacts displacing geese and waders are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination and the building itself. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester & Langstone Harbours, Solent & Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation can be applied although recreational use of the two areas utilised by waders and geese, is likely to increase.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.23 Impacts of the site on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by; timing construction to avoid periods that birds are present, the use of appropriate screening materials (for example hedgerows or close-board fencing) and sympathetic building design (including height restrictions and directional lighting). Provision should also be made for managing increases in recreational activity within Eastney Recreation Ground and Bransbury Park. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
Site ID 8102: Two Villas, North East of St James's Hospital, Locksway Road Site ID 8102: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 1.28 ha site which is currently Hospital grounds. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 38 dwellings. . The site is 370m from Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA and Ramsar, and Solent Maritime SAC. . To the east, the site is adjacent to an area of playing fields (site ref P25) which is part of a larger network of areas used by Brent geese and waders. . BG/wader site P25 is classified as being “important” (though occasionally used) to BG after 15 visits with a maximum count of 460 birds. It is classified as being of “uncertain” importance to waders after three visits without any records. The site is clearly suitable for BG and seems suitable for waders, given its proximity to the coast and other nearby wader sites, but is more substantially surrounded by development than other sites. P25 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . Impacts displacing geese and waders are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination and the building itself.
38 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
. Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation is required to prevent the adjacent area becoming unsuitable for geese and waders.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.24 Impacts of the development on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by; timing construction to avoid periods that birds are present, the use of appropriate screening materials (for example hedgerows or close-board fencing) and sympathetic building design (including height restrictions, restricted illumination and directional lighting). Provision should also be made for managing increases in recreational activity within the playing fields. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
Site ID 70028: University of Portsmouth’s Langstone Campus Site ID 70028: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 1.29ha Portsmouth University site which currently consists of student halls of residence and sports pitches. The proposed development is residential, consisting of circa 110 dwellings on the existing building footprint, maintaining the existing green space. . The site is c.65m from Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA and Ramsar, and Solent Maritime SAC. . The site is surrounded by areas utilised by waders and Brent goose to the north (P23A), east (P23B) and west (P25), which are in turn connected to a larger network of areas used by geese and waders. Impacts displacing geese and waders are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination and the building itself. . BG/waders sites P23A and P23B are classified as being of “uncertain” importance to waders, having been surveyed six times yielding nine records. Both are “important” sites for BG, having been surveyed over 40 times with maximum counts in the mid hundreds. . BG/wader site P25 is classified as being “important” (though occasionally used) to BG after 15 visits with a maximum count of 460 birds. It is classified as being of “uncertain” importance to waders after three visits without any records. The site is clearly suitable for BG and seems suitable for waders, given its proximity to the coast and other nearby wader sites, but is more substantially surrounded by development than other sites. P25 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation is required to prevent the adjacent Ramsar, SPA and open areas becoming unsuitable for geese and waders.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.25 Impacts of the development on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA
39 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
and Ramsar can be mitigated by timing construction to avoid periods that birds are present and the use of appropriate temporary screening materials. It is likely that development may actually reduce the density of dwellings on the site. However, sympathetic building design (including height restrictions, restricted illumination and directional lighting) is still required. Provision should be made for managing recreational activity within the playing fields. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
Site ID 70033: Child Development Centre/Harbour School, St James's Hospital, Locksway Road Site ID 70033: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 1.4 ha site, currently a school in the grounds of St James’ Hospital, set in a grassy landscape. The proposed development is residential, consisting of 56 dwellings. . The site is 300m from Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA and Ramsar, and Solent Maritime SAC. . To the east, the site is adjacent to an area of playing fields (P25) which is part of a larger network of areas used by Brent geese and waders. . BG/wader site P25 is classified as being “important” (though occasionally used) to BG after 15 visits with a maximum count of 460 birds. It is classified as being of “uncertain” importance to waders after three visits without any records. The site is clearly suitable for BG and seems suitable for waders, given its proximity to the coast and other nearby wader sites, but is more substantially surrounded by development than other sites. P25 is not identified by King (2010) as being of potential future use to waders. . Impacts displacing geese and waders are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination and the building itself. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation is required to prevent the adjacent area becoming unsuitable for geese and waders.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.26 Impacts of the development on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by; timing construction to avoid periods that birds are present, the use of appropriate screening materials (for example hedgerows or close-board fencing) and sympathetic building design (including height restrictions, restricted illumination and directional lighting). Provision should also be made for managing increases in recreational activity within the playing fields. Development should be informed by additional surveys for Brent goose and waders.
Site ID 70035: Sports Pitches, Mountbatten Centre Site ID 70035: Summary of likely significant effects
. A 0.96 ha site, currently sports pitches. The proposed allocation is for leisure uses (indoor tennis centre). . The site is 230m from Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar.
40 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
. The site for allocation includes part of Brent goose and wader site P40 within Alexandra Park, which is classified as of “uncertain” importance to these species. It was visited once for BG with a maximum count of one bird (but is noted as being used frequently), and twice for waders with no birds recorded. HBIC/HOS hold records of 235 BG observed on the site in 2004, and the occasional Mediterranean gull. It is a large, open playing field adjacent to coast and appears to offer good potential as BG foraging habitat, but has relatively high levels of disturbance. . Impacts displacing geese and waders are likely, resulting from construction activities (temporary), illumination and the building itself, depending on the final layout of the site. . Significant impacts on Portsmouth Harbour, Chichester and Langstone Harbours, and Solent and Southampton Water SPAs and Ramsars are likely. Mitigation is required to prevent the adjacent area becoming unsuitable for geese and waders.
Proposed mitigation
5.4.27 Impacts of the development on the qualifying features of Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar can be mitigated by; timing construction to avoid periods that birds are present, the use of appropriate screening materials (for example hedgerows or close-board fencing) and sympathetic building design (including height restrictions, restricted illumination and directional lighting). Site layout should avoid developing parts of the site shown to be of importance to waders or Brent goose through additional survey. Provision should also be made for managing increases in recreational activity within the playing fields.
41 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
This page is intentionally blank.
42 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
6 Screening Statement and Consultation
6.1 Screening Statement
6.1.1 This document sets out Portsmouth City Council’s statement on Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Site Allocations DPD. It shows that significant effects (C1 or C2) are considered a likely outcome of the following 22 sites:
1 Rear of 154-192 Southampton Road, Paulsgrove
133 Highgrove Lodge
145 Alexandra Lodge, Northern Parade
149 Seb Site, Drayton Lane
199 Portsdown Main, James Callaghan Drive
209 Garages At Kendal Avenue, Copnor
367 Drayton Dairy Site 112 Station Road
646 Trafalgar Wharf (221-249 Southampton Road & Vospers Site, Hamilton Road)
653 Bus Depot And Stops, Hilsea
654 London Road Bus Depot, Car Sales/Garages And Car Park
657 Museums Store, Copnor Road
688 TA Centre, Cosham and land adjacent
911 Langstone Harbour Coastal Path
1275 Land Between Home Heights And Queens Hotel
1331 Land At Portsdown Technology Park
3007 Darby House, Skye Close
6589 East Lodge Park And Adjacent Fields
6889 Henderson Road / Halliday Crescent
8102 Two Villas, North East of St James's Hospital, Locksway Road
70028 Univeristy of Portsmouth's Langstone campus
70033 Child Development Centre/Harbour School, St James' Hospital Locksway Rd
70035 Sports Pitches, Mountbatten Cente
6.1.2 Of most significance, the following sites and their corresponding proposals were all classified as C1 (the proposals could directly affect a European site because they provide for, or steer, a quantity or type of development onto a European site, or adjacent to it);
43 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Trafalgar Wharf (646) potentially impacts Portsmouth Harbour SPA/Ramsar.
Langstone Harbour Coastal Path (911) potentially impacts Solent Maritime SAC, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar, including potential land take.
University of Portsmouth’s Langstone Campus (70028) potentially impacts Solent Maritime SAC, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar.
6.1.3 Mitigation of likely impacts has been recommended within the screening process and it is intended that a further screening iteration can be carried out once mitigating actions are built into the proposals.
6.1.4 The Council will undertake a detailed Appropriate Assessment for any site for which suitable mitigation cannot be devised at the screening stage, to determine the ways in which the sites may be adversely affected, and further consider suitable avoidance and mitigation measures.
6.2 Consultation Arrangements
6.2.1 The findings of this report are open to consultation with Natural England, the Environment Agency, RSPB and Hampshire Wildlife Trust
6.2.2 Comments are invited at any time between March and June 2013.
6.2.3 Please submit comments to [email protected] , copied to [email protected].
44 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
References and Bibliography
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG, 2006): Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment (Draft).
DCLG (2012): National Planning Policy Framework.
Dodd AM, Cleary BE, Dawkins JS, Byron HJ, Palframan LJ & Williams GM (2007): The Appropriate Assessment of Spatial Plans in England: a guide to why, when and how to do it.
English Nature (1997a&b, 1999 and 2001): Habitats Regulations Guidance Notes 1 – 4.
European Commission (2000a): Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle.
European Commission (2000b): Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.
European Commission (2001): Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 Sites: Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive.
European Council (1992): Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
European Council (2009): Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds.
King, D. (2010): Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy 2010. Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust.
ODPM (2005): Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System.
Pers. comm. (September 2012): Adam Egglesfield, Ecologist, Hampshire County Council.
Portsmouth City Council (2010): Local Development Framework evidence base: Employment Land Review. http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/FINAL_ELR_REPORT.pdf. Accessed online 17/07/2012
Portsmouth City Council (2011): Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2011. http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/living/24280.html. Accessed online 17/07/2012
Portsmouth City Council (20112): Portsmouth Plan Supporting Document. Statement of common ground between the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural England, Portsmouth City Council and the RSPB.
Tyldesley, D. (2009): The Habitats Regulations Assessment of Local Development Documents: Revised Draft Guidance for Natural England.
45 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
UE Associates (2011): Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Portsmouth Core Strategy.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO, 1971): Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat. (Ramsar (Iran), 2 February 1971, UN Treaty Series No. 14583).
46 HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Appendix I: European Site Descriptions
Please see insert.
A HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
This page is intentionally blank.
B HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Site Characteristics for Butser Hill SAC
Location / NGR / Hampshire 50 58 18 N, 00 58 48 W 238.66 ha Area
Coincident Sites Butser Hill SSSI
Heath. Scrub. Maquis and garrigue. Phygrana (0.1%) Dry grassland. Steppes (70%) Broad Habitat Classes Broad-leaved deciduous woodland (5%) Coniferous woodland (15%) Mixed woodland (9.9%)
Butser Hill is situated on the east Hampshire chalk which forms part of the South Downs. Much of the site consists of Festuca ovina – Avenula pratense grassland. The site has a varied range of slope gradients and aspects which has a strong influence on the vegetation composition. A particular feature of the site is its lower plant assemblage. It has the richest terricolous lichen flora of any chalk Ecological grassland site in England, and also supports the distinctive Scapanietum asperae or southern hepatic mat association of leafy liverworts Description and mosses on north-facing chalk slopes. This association is very rare in the UK and Butser Hill supports the largest known example. The site exhibits various transitions between semi-natural dry grassland, chalk heath, mixed scrub and yew Taxus baccata woods. The combes of the south-east flank of Butser Hill support dense yew woodland in association with scrub and chalk grassland. The yew is regenerating into the grassland and shows the classic interaction of these habitats in relation to grazing pressure.
Qualifying Features Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous Annex I Habitat * Denotes priority substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) feature Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles * Annex I Habitat
C
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the Qualifying Features listed above); 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. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; Objectives The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;
The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;
The populations of qualifying species;
The distribution of qualifying species within the site.
Condition Status and There is one coincident or adjacent SSSI site of mostly favourable status; Trends Butser Hill SSSI: 10 units consisting of; 92.13% Favourable and 7.87% Unfavourable recovering.
Maintenance of grazing
Key Environmental Minimal air pollution – nitrogen deposition may cause reduction in diversity, sulphur deposition can cause acidification Conditions Absence of direct fertilisation Supporting Site Integrity Well-drained soils
No spray-drift (i.e. eutrophication) from surrounding intensive arable land Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 DEFRA, Magic, 2012
D
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Site Characteristics for River Itchen SAC
Location / NGR / City of Southampton, Hampshire 50 57 14 N, 01 20 05 W 309.26 ha Area
Coincident Sites River Itchen SSSI
Inland water bodies (standing water, running water) (40%) Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (27%) Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland (19%) Broad Habitat Classes Improved grassland (1%) Broad-leaved deciduous woodland (10%) Mixed woodland (2%) Non-Forest areas cultivated with woody plants (including orchards, groves, vineyards, (1%)
The Itchen is a classic example of a sub-type 1 chalk river. The river is dominated throughout by aquatic Ranunculus spp. The headwaters contain pond water-crowfoot Ranunculus peltatus, while two Ranunculus species occur further downstream: stream water- crowfoot R. penicillatus ssp. pseudofluitans, a species especially characteristic of calcium-rich rivers, and river water-crowfoot R. fluitans. Ecological Strong populations of Southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale occur here, estimated to be in the hundreds of individuals. The site Description in central southern England represents one of the major population centres in the UK. It also represents a population in a managed chalk-river flood plain, an unusual habitat for this species in the UK, rather than on heathland. The Itchen is a classic chalk river that supports high densities of bullhead Cottus gobio throughout much of its length. The river provides good water quality, extensive beds of submerged plants that act as a refuge for the species, and coarse sediments that are vital for spawning and juvenile development.
Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion Annex I Habitat fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation Qualifying Features Southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale Annex II Species
Bullhead Cottus gobio Annex II Species
E
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius Annex II Species pallipes
Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri Annex II Species
Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Annex II Species
Otter Lutra lutra Annex II Species
With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the Qualifying Features listed above); 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. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; Objectives The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;
The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;
The populations of qualifying species;
The distribution of qualifying species within the site.
There is one coincident or adjacent SSSI sites of mostly favourable status; Condition Status and River Itchen SSSI: 108 units consisting of; 3.76% Favourable, 53.79% unfavourable recovering, 29.46% unfavourable no change and Trends 12.98% unfavourable declining.
F
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Maintenance of flow velocities - low flows interact with nutrient inputs from point sources to produce localised increases in filamentous algae and nutrient tolerant macrophytes at the expense of Ranunculus Key Environmental Conditions Low levels of siltation Supporting Site Unpolluted water and low nutrient inputs Integrity Maintenance of grazing pressure is essential for Southern damselfly habitat
Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 DEFRA, Magic, 2012
Site Characteristics for Solent & Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC
Location / NGR / City of Portsmouth; Hampshire; Isle of Wight 50 46 30 N, 01 08 13 W 36.24 ha Area
Gilkicker lagoon Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary SSSI, Brading Marshes to St Helen's Coincident Sites Ledges SSSI, Langstone Harbour SSSI Solent and Southampton Water (Special Protection Area) SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar.
Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mud flats. Sand flats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) (91.7%) Broad Habitat Classes Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes (8.3%)
G
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
The Solent on the south coast of England encompasses a series of Coastal lagoons, including percolation, isolated and sluiced lagoons. The site includes a number of lagoons in the marshes in the Keyhaven – Pennington area, at Farlington Marshes in Chichester Harbour, behind the sea-wall at Bembridge Harbour and at Gilkicker, near Gosport. The lagoons show a range of salinities and substrates, ranging from soft mud to muddy sand with a high proportion of shingle, which support a diverse fauna including large populations of three notable species: the nationally rare foxtail stonewort Lamprothamnium papulosum, the nationally scarce lagoon sand shrimp Ecological Gammarus insensibilis, and the nationally scarce starlet sea anemone Nematostella vectensis. The lagoons in Keyhaven – Pennington Description Marshes are part of a network of ditches and ponds within the saltmarsh behind a sea-wall. Farlington Marshes is an isolated lagoon in marsh pasture that, although separated from the sea by a sea-wall, receives sea water during spring tides. The lagoon holds a well- developed low-medium salinity insect-dominated fauna. Gilkicker Lagoon is a sluiced lagoon with marked seasonal salinity fluctuation and supports a high species diversity. The lagoons at Bembridge Harbour have formed in a depression behind the sea-wall and sea water enters by percolation. Species diversity in these lagoons is high and the fauna includes very high densities of N. vectensis.
Qualifying Features * Denotes priority Coastal lagoons * Annex I habitat feature
With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the Qualifying Features listed above); 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. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; Objectives The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;
The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;
The populations of qualifying species;
The distribution of qualifying species within the site.
H
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
There are 4 coincident or adjacent SSSI sites of varying statuses; Gilkicker Lagoon SSSI: A single unit; 100% favourable Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary SSSI: 34 units of varying statuses; 27.04% of the area is favourable, 70.09% unfavourable recovering and 2.87% unfavourable declining. There are a number of coincidental units containing saline lagoons, all are of favourable Condition Status and condition. Trends Brading Marshes To St. Helen's Ledges SSSI: 59 units of varying statuses; 50.57% of the area is favourable, 39.79% unfavourable recovering and 9.64% unfavourable declining. There are a small number of coincidental units, all are of favourable condition. Langstone Harbour SSSI: 13 units of varying statuses; 8.96% of the area is favourable, 90.60% unfavourable recovering and 0.45% unfavourable declining. The coincidental areas characterised by saline lagoon is of favourable condition.
Various factors are required to maintain site integrity;
Salinity is the key water quality parameter for these lagoons. Therefore the relative balance of saltwater to freshwater inputs is critical. At the moment, most of these lagoons are considered to have a salt concentration that is below the desirable level (15 – 40%) Key Environmental Sufficient space between the site and development to allow for managed retreat of intertidal habitats and avoid coastal Conditions squeeze Supporting Site Integrity No dredging or land-claim of coastal habitats
Unpolluted water
Absence of nutrient enrichment
Absence of non-native species Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 (Feb) DEFRA, Magic, 2012
I
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Site Characteristics for Solent Maritime SAC
Location / NGR / City of Portsmouth; City of Southampton; Hampshire; Isle of Wight; 50 47 47 N, 00 55 40 W 11325.09 ha Area West Sussex
Chichester Harbour SSSI, Bracklesham Bay SSSI, Yar Estuary SSSI, Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary SSSI, the New Forest SSSI, King's Quay Shore SSSI, Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI, Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI, Lincegrove and Hackett's Marshes SSSI, Lower Test Valley SSSI, Bouldnor And Hamstead Cliffs SSSI, Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI, Sinah Common SSSI, Lee-on-the Solent to Coincident Sites Itchen Estuary SSSI, Newtown Harbour SSSI, Langstone Harbour SSSI, Medina Estuary SSSI, Thorness Bay SSSI, Warblington Meadow SSSI and North Solent SSSI. Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar
Marine areas. Sea inlets (14%) Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mud flats. Sand flats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) (59%) Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes (23%) Broad Habitat Classes Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair (0.5%) Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets (3%) Broad-leaved deciduous woodland (0.5%)
The Solent encompasses a major estuarine system on the south coast of England with four coastal plain estuaries (Yar, Medina, King’s Quay Shore, Hamble) and four bar-built estuaries (Newtown Harbour, Beaulieu, Langstone Harbour, Chichester Harbour). The site is the only one in the series to contain more than one physiographic sub-type of estuary and is the only cluster site. The Solent and its inlets are unique in Britain and Europe for their hydrographic regime of four tides each day, and for the complexity of the marine and estuarine Ecological habitats present within the area. Sediment habitats within the estuaries include extensive estuarine flats, often with intertidal areas Description supporting eelgrass Zostera spp. and green algae, sand and shingle spits, and natural shoreline transitions. The mudflats range from low and variable salinity in the upper reaches of the estuaries to very sheltered almost fully marine muds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours. Unusual features include the presence of very rare sponges in the Yar estuary and a sandy ‘reef’ of the polychaete Sabellaria spinulosa on the steep eastern side of the entrance to Chichester Harbour.
J
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Solent Maritime is the only site for smooth cord-grass Spartina alterniflora in the UK and is one of only two sites where significant amounts of small cord-grass S. maritima are found. It is also one of the few remaining sites for Townsend’s cord-grass S. x townsendii and holds extensive areas of common cord-grass Spartina anglica, all four taxa thus occurring here in close proximity. It has additional historical and scientific interest as the site where S. alterniflora was first recorded in the UK (1829) and where S. x townsendii and, later, S. anglica first occurred.
The Solent contains the second-largest aggregation of Atlantic salt meadows in south and south-west England. Solent Maritime is a composite site composed of a large number of separate areas of saltmarsh. In contrast to the Severn estuary, the salt meadows at this site are notable as being representative of the ungrazed type and support a different range of communities dominated by sea-purslane Atriplex portulacoides, common sea-lavender Limonium vulgare and thrift Armeria maritima. As a whole the site is less truncated by man-made features than other parts of the south coast and shows rare and unusual transitions to freshwater reedswamp and alluvial woodland as well as coastal grassland. Typical Atlantic salt meadow is still widespread in this site, despite a long history of colonisation by cord-grass Spartina spp.
Qualifying Features Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time Annex I habitat
* Denotes priority Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide Annex I habitat feature Coastal lagoons * Annex I habitat
Annual vegetation of drift lines Annex I habitat
Perennial vegetation of stony banks Annex I habitat
Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand Annex I habitat
Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (`white dunes`) Annex I habitat
Desmoulin`s whorl snail Vertigo moulinsiana Annex II species
K
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the Qualifying Features listed above); 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. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; Objectives The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;
The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;
The populations of qualifying species;
The distribution of qualifying species within the site.
There are 20 coincidental or adjacent SSSI sites of varying statuses; Chichester Harbour SSSI: 43 units; 22.09% of the area is favourable, 77.67% unfavourable recovering and 0.24% unfavourable no change. Unfavourable recovering areas are mainly units affected significantly by sea level rise and 'coastal squeeze' as much of the units’ area is backed by hard sea defences so habitats are unable to retreat landward as levels rise. Recovery is through creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. Some unfavourable units including the ‘unfavourable no change’ units are impacted by diffuse pollution creating excessive nutrients, characterised by green algae. Bracklesham Bay SSSI: 4 units; 64.95% of the area is favourable, 29.54% unfavourable recovering and 5.51% unfavourable no change. The Condition Status and single unit which is ‘unfavourable no change’ is in poor condition due to continual sea defence works. However, this unit is part of the Trends Medmerry realignment and will undergo significant change in the near future which will allow natural processes to resume and the possibility of development of vegetated shingle communities. Yar Estuary SSSI: 30 units; 83.15% of the area is favourable and 16.85% unfavourable recovering. Most of the unfavourable area is affected by sea level rise and 'coastal squeeze'. Much of the unit is backed by hard sea defences so that the habitats are unable to retreat landward as levels rise. Changes in water level may also be having adverse impacts on the distribution and extent of biotopes associated with the intertidal sediments. The issue is being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re- alignment at Medmerry
L
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary SSSI: 34 units; 27.04% of the area is favourable, 70.09% unfavourable recovering and 2.87% unfavourable declining. Inappropriate sea defences along the eastern part of the broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland unit have caused loss of vegetation along a 5 metre wide strip of one unfavourable declining unit and another is experiencing loss of intertidal habitat due to natural erosion. Operation of ferries is accelerating this erosion. New Forest SSSI: 582 units; 45.53% of the area is favourable, 53.22% unfavourable recovering, 0.43% unfavourable no change, 0.81% unfavourable declining and 0.01% destroyed/part destroyed. Only small areas of the SSSI overlap with the SAC. King's Quay Shore SSSI: 30 units; 76.99% of the area is favourable, 20.95% unfavourable recovering, 1.86% unfavourable declining and 0.21% destroyed / part destroyed. Unfavourable declining and destroyed areas are woodland areas affected by inappropriate woodland management. Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI: 16 units; 85.94% of the area is favourable, 11.31% unfavourable recovering and 2.75% unfavourable no change. Unfavourable unit is a broadleaved, mixed woodland area dominated by non-native species. Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI: 4 units; 11.46% of the area is favourable and 88.54% unfavourable recovering. Unfavourable recovering units are affected by diffuse pollution, which is being addressed by through the Solent DWP action, and by sea level rise creating 'coastal squeeze' as much of the unit is backed by hard sea defences. However, the issue is being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. Lincegrove and Hackett's Marshes SSSI: 3 units, all unfavourable recovering. The excessive algal weed and diffuse pollution impacts are being addressed through the South Downs and Harbours Clean Water Partnership Delivery Strategy. Lower Test Valley: 8 units all of which are of favourable status. Bouldnor And Hamstead Cliffs SSSI: 9 units all of which are of favourable status. Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI: 6 units, all unfavourable recovering. The habitat is affected significantly by sea level rise and 'coastal squeeze' as much of the unit is backed by hard sea defences so that the habitats are unable to retreat landward as levels rise. Changes in water level may also be having adverse impacts on the distribution and extent of biotopes associated with the intertidal sediments. The issue is being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. Sinah Common SSSI: 2 units, both unfavourable recovering. Scrub levels on dune grassland remains above target although there is evidence of recent clearance.
M
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Lee-on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI: 27 units; 82.49% of the area is favourable, 15.98% unfavourable recovering, 1.53% unfavourable no change. Unfavourable recovering units show significant retreat of coastal marsh with large areas being replaced by mudflats. Algal mats in the Hamble estuary and elsewhere, with Ulva lactuca particularly abundant, suggests utrophication. The unfavourable no change unit contains a submerged clay bed feature, which is no longer exposed due to sediment recharge. With the lack of long-shore drift and change in beach profile, the sediment from the recharge appears to be accumulating on the exposures. Newtown Harbour SSSI: 78 units; 89.33% of the area is favourable, 10.32% unfavourable recovering and 0.35% unfavourable declining. (contd…) Unfavourable recovering units include diffuse pollution issues, which are being addressed through the Isle of Wight Catchment Sensative Farming Project. Other unfavourable areas are woodland zones outside of the Maritime SAC. Langstone Harbour SSSI: 13 units; 8.96% of the area is favourable, 90.60% unfavourable recovering and 0.45% unfavourable declining. Issues associated with 'coastal squeeze' and changes in water level are being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. There is also concern about high nutrient levels throughout Langstone Harbour, resulting in excessive algal growth in places. The unfavourable declining unit is partly coincidental with the SAC but is a roosting habitat for wintering birds above high tide level. There is an increasing amount of scattered scrub so that it is becoming less attractive to birds.
Medina Estuary SSSI: 12 units all of which are favourable. Thorness Bay SSSI: 14 units; 96.21% of the area is favourable and 3.79% is unfavourable declining. The 2 unfavourable declining units are outside of the SAC’s geographical area. Warblington Meadow SSSI: consisting of one unfavourable recovering unit, now under Higher Level Stewardship (HLS). (contd…) North Solent SSSI: 98 units; 63.21% of the area is favourable, 34.94% is unfavourable recovering, 0.93% unfavourable no change and 0.91% unfavourable declining. At several locations of open coast, active erosion of salt marsh is apparent with significant areas of marsh reverting to mudflat, particularly around the seaward areas of the Beaulieu River estuary. Some units are remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan, which re-established tidal exchange in the Lymington River. The scheme will deliver 21ha of intertidal habitat to offset coastal squeeze occurring elsewhere. The unfavourable declining area is outside of SAC geographic area.
N
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Sufficient space between the site and development to allow for managed retreat of intertidal habitats and avoid coastal squeeze
No dredging or land-claim of coastal habitats
Unpolluted water
Key Environmental Absence of nutrient enrichment in the intertidal zone Conditions Absence of eutrophication and acidification from atmospheric pollution Supporting Site Integrity Absence of non-native species
Maintenance of freshwater inputs
Balance of saline and non-saline conditions
Maintenance of grazing
Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 (Feb) DEFRA, Magic, 2012
Site Characteristics for New Forest SAC
Location / NGR / Hampshire; Wiltshire 50 51 59 N, 01 40 50 W 29262.36 ha Area
Landford Heath SSSI, River Avon System SSSI, Landford Bog SSSI, Langley Wood and Homan's Copse SSSI, Whiteparish Common SSSI, Loosehanger Copse and Meadows SSSI, The New Forest SSSI, Norley Copse and Meadow SSSI, Roydon Woods SSSI, Lymington River Coincident Sites SSSI and North Solent SSSI. The New Forest SPA, New Forest Ramsar
O
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (7%) Heath. Scrub. Maquis and garrigue. Phygrana (34%) Dry grassland. Steppes (10%) Broad Habitat Classes Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland (3%) Broad-leaved deciduous woodland (29%) Coniferous woodland (17%)
The New Forest contains the most extensive stands of lowland northern Atlantic wet heaths in southern England, mainly of the Erica tetralix - Sphagnum compactum type. Schoenus nigricans - Narthecium ossifragum mire is also found on this site. The wet heaths are important for rare plants, such as marsh gentian Gentiana pneumonanthe and marsh clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata, and a number of dragonfly species, including the scarce blue-tailed damselfly Ischnura pumilio and small red damselfly Ceriagrion tenellum. There is a wide range of transitions between wet heath and other habitats, including dry heath, various woodland types, Molinia grasslands, fen, and acid grassland. Wet heaths enriched by bog myrtle Myrica gale are a prominent feature of many areas of the Forest. Unlike much lowland heath, the New Forest heaths continue to be extensively grazed by cattle and horses, favouring species with low competitive ability. Ecological The New Forest represents European dry heaths in southern England and is the largest area of lowland heathland in the UK. It is Description particularly important for the diversity of its habitats and the range of rare and scarce species which it supports. The New Forest is unusual because of its long history of grazing in a traditional fashion by ponies and cattle. The dry heaths of the New Forest are of the Calluna vulgaris - Ulex minor heath type, and Ulex minor - Agrostis curtisii heath is found on damper areas. There are a wide range of transitions between dry heath and wet heath, Molinia grassland, fen, acid grassland and various types of scrub and woodland. Both the New Forest and the two Dorset Heath SACs are in southern England. All three areas are selected because together they contain a high proportion of all the lowland European dry heaths in the UK. There are, however, significant differences in the ecology of the two areas, associated with more oceanic conditions in Dorset and the continuous history of grazing in the New Forest.
P
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
The New Forest represents Molinia meadows in southern England. The site supports a large area of the heathy form of Molinia caerulea - Cirsium dissectum fen-meadow. This vegetation occurs in situations of heavy grazing by ponies and cattle in areas known locally as lawns, often in a fine-scale mosaic with northern Atlantic wet heaths and other mire and grassland communities. These lawns occur on flushed soils on slopes and on level terrain on the floodplains of rivers and streams. The New Forest Molinia meadows are unusual in the UK in terms of their species composition, management and landscape position. The grasslands are species-rich, and a particular feature is the abundance of small sedges such as carnation sedge Carex panicea, common sedge C. nigra and yellow-sedge C. viridula ssp. oedocarpa, and the more frequent occurrence of mat-grass Nardus stricta and petty whin Genista anglica compared to stands elsewhere in the UK.
Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains Annex I Habitat (Littorelletalia uniflorae)
Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of Annex I Habitat the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea
Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix Annex I Habitat
European dry heaths Annex I Habitat
Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils Annex I Habitat (Molinion caeruleae) Qualifying Features * Denotes priority Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion Annex I Habitat feature Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Annex I Habitat Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici- Fagenion)
Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Annex I Habitat
Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains Annex I Habitat
Bog woodland * Annex I Habitat
Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno- Annex I Habitat Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) *
Q
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Transition mires and quaking bogs Annex I Habitat
Alkaline fens Annex I Habitat
Southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale Annex II Species
Stag beetle Lucanus cervus Annex II Species
Great crested newt Triturus cristatus Annex II Species
Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri Annex II Species
Barbastelle bat Barbastella barbastellus Annex II Species
Bechstein’s bat Myotis bechsteini Annex II Species
Otter Lutra lutra Annex II Species
Bullhead Cottus gobio Annex II Species
With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the Qualifying Features listed above); 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. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; Objectives The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;
The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;
The populations of qualifying species;
The distribution of qualifying species within the site.
R
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
There are eleven coincident or adjacent SSSI sites of varying statuses; Landford Heath SSSI: 3 units consisting of; 51.97% unfavourable recovering and 48.03% unfavourable declining. River Avon System SSSI: 51 units consisting of; 3.48% favourable, 36.59% unfavourable recovering, 57.13% unfavourable no change and 2.80% unfavourable declinging. Landford Bog SSSI: 2 units consisting of; 27.76% Favourable and 72.24% unfavourable recovering. Langley Wood and Homan's Copse SSSI: 3 units consisting of 100% unfavourable no change. Whiteparish Common SSSI: 4 units consisting of 1.27% favourable, 91.84% unfavourable recovering and 6.90% unfavourable no change. Loosehanger Copse and Meadows SSSI: 5 units consisting of 100% unfavourable recovering Condition Status and New Forest SSSI: 582 units; 45.53% of the area is favourable, 53.22% unfavourable recovering, 0.43% unfavourable no change, 0.81% Trends unfavourable declining and 0.01% destroyed/part destroyed. Norley Copse and Meadow SSSI: 2 units consisting of 58.63% Favourable and 41.37% unfavourable recovering. Roydon Woods SSSI: 8 units consisting of 100% Favourable. Lymington River SSSI consists of one unfavourable recovering unit*. The assessment concerns have now been addressed and remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan (See commentary for Lymington River ReedBeds SSSI). North Solent SSSI: 98 units; 63.21% Favourable, 34.94% unfavourable recovering, 0.93% unfavourable no change and 0.91% unfavourable declining*. At several locations of open coast, active erosion of salt marsh is apparent with significant areas of marsh reverting to mudflat, particularly around the seaward areas of the Beaulieu River estuary. Some units are remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan, which re-established tidal exchange in the Lymington River.
S
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Carefully balanced hydrological regime to maintain wet heath, mires and pools
Acid soils
Key Environmental Minimal air pollution (nitrogen deposition can cause compositional changes over time) Conditions Unpolluted water Supporting Site Integrity Minimal nutrient inputs
Low recreational pressure
Maintenance of grazing regime
Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 *(Feb 2012) DEFRA, Magic, 2012
Site Characteristics for Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA
Location / NGR / Hampshire; West Sussex 50 48 23 N, 00 55 12 W 5810.03 ha Area
Chichester Harbour SSSI, Sinah Common SSSI, Langstone Harbour SSSI and Warblington Meadow SSSI Coincident Sites Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar, Solent Maritime SAC
T
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mud flats. Sand flats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) (63.0%) Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes (21.5%) Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair (0.3%) Inland water bodies (standing water, running water) (0.4%) Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (0.5%) Broad Habitat Classes Heath. Scrub. Maquis and garrigue. Phygrana (0.1%) Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland (1.7%) Improved grassland (11.7%) Broad-leaved deciduous woodland (0.8%) Other land (including towns, villages, roads, waste places, mines, industrial sites) (0.2%)
Chichester and Langstone Harbours are located on the south coast of England in Hampshire and West Sussex. They are large, sheltered estuarine basins comprising extensive sand and mudflats exposed at low tide. The two harbours are joined by a stretch of Ecological water that separates Hayling Island from the mainland. Tidal channels drain the basin and penetrate far inland. The mud-flats are rich Description in invertebrates and also support extensive beds of algae, especially Enteromorpha species, and eelgrasses Zostera spp. The basin contains a wide range of coastal habitats supporting important plant and animal communities. The site is of particular significance for waterbirds, especially in migration periods and in winter. It also supports important colonies of breeding terns.
Little Tern Sterna albifrons, 100 pairs representing up to 4.2% of Article 4.1 Qualification the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year mean, 1992-1996)
Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis, 158 pairs representing up to Article 4.1 Qualification 1.1% of the breeding population in Great Britain (1998)
Common Tern Sterna hirundo, 0.3% of the breeding population in Article 4.1 Qualification Qualifying Features Great Britain (5 year mean, 1992-1996)
Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, 1,692 individuals representing Article 4.1 Qualification up to 3.2% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
U
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Over winter the area regularly supports:
Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula, 3% of the population in Great Article 4.2 Qualification Britain. (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Northern pintail Anas acuta, 1.2% of the population in Great Article 4.2 Qualification Britain. (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata, 1% of the population in Great Article 4.2 Qualification Britain. (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Teal Anas crecca, 0.5% of the population in Great Britain. (5 year Article 4.2 Qualification peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Wigeon Anas penelope, 0.7% of the population in Great Britain. (5 Article 4.2 Qualification year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Turnstone Arenaria interpres, 0.7% of the population in Great Article 4.2 Qualification Britain. (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla, 17,119 Article 4.2 Qualification individuals representing up to 5.7% of the wintering Western Siberia/Western Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Sanderling Calidris alba, 0.2% of the wintering Western Article 4.2 Qualification Siberia/Western Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, 44,294 individuals representing up to Article 4.2 Qualification 3.2% of the wintering Northern Siberia/Europe/Western Africa population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Red-Breasted Merganser Mergus serrator, 3% of the population in Article 4.2 Qualification Great Britain.(5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96)
V
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Curlew Numenius arquata, 1.6% of the population in Great Britain. Article 4.2 Qualification (5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96)
Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, 3,825 individuals representing up Article 4.2 Qualification to 2.3% of the wintering Eastern Atlantic - wintering population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Common Shellduck Tadorna tadorna, 3.3% of the population in Article 4.2 Qualification Great Britain. (5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96)
Redshank Tringa totanus, 1% of the wintering Eastern Atlantic - Article 4.2 Qualification wintering population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Over winter, the area regularly supports 93230 waterfowl. (5 year Article 4.2 Qualification peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6). Including; Branta bernicla bernicla , Tadorna tadorna, Anas penelope, Anas crecca, Anas acuta, Anas clypeata, Mergus serrator, Charadrius hiaticula, Pluvialis squatarola, Calidris alba, Calidris alpina alpina, Limosa lapponica, Numenius arquata, Tringa totanus, Arenaria interpres
W
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
With regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated (the Qualifying Features listed above); 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. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; Objectives The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;
The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;
The populations of qualifying species;
The distribution of qualifying species within the site.
There are four coincident or adjacent SSSI sites of varying statuses; Chichester Harbour SSSI: 43 units; 22.09% of the area is favourable, 77.67% unfavourable recovering and 0.24% unfavourable no change. Unfavourable recovering areas are mainly units affected significantly by sea level rise and 'coastal squeeze' as much of the units’ area is backed by hard sea defences so habitats are unable to retreat landward as levels rise. Recovery is through creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. Some unfavourable units including the ‘unfavourable no change’ units are impacted by diffuse pollution creating excessive nutrients, characterised by green algae.* Condition Status and Sinah Common SSSI: 2 units, both unfavourable recovering. Scrub levels on dune grassland remains above target although there is Trends evidence of recent clearance.* Langstone Harbour SSSI: 13 units; 8.96% of the area is favourable, 90.60% unfavourable recovering and 0.45% unfavourable declining. Issues associated with 'coastal squeeze' and changes in water level are being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. There is also concern about high nutrient levels throughout Langstone Harbour, resulting in excessive algal growth in places. The unfavourable declining unit is partly coincidental with the SAC but is a roosting habitat for wintering birds above high tide level. There is an increasing amount of scattered scrub so that it is becoming less attractive to birds.* Warblington Meadow SSSI: consisting of one unfavourable recovering unit, now under Higher Level Stewardship (HLS).*
X
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Sufficient space between the site and development to allow for managed retreat of intertidal habitats and avoid coastal squeeze
Unpolluted water
Absence of nutrient enrichment in the intertidal zone Key Environmental Conditions Absence of eutrophication and acidification from atmospheric pollution Supporting Site Absence of non-native species e.g. from shipping activity Integrity Maintenance of appropriate hydrological regime, e.g. freshwater flows at heads of channels are important for birds to preen, drink and feed
Short grasslands surrounding the site are essential to maintaining interest features as they are now the key foraging resource for Brent goose
Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 *(Feb 2012) DEFRA, Magic, 2012
Site Characteristics for Portsmouth Harbour SPA
Location / NGR / Hampshire 50 49 41 N, 01 07 32 W 1248.77 ha Area
Coincident Sites Portsmouth Harbour SSSI, Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar, Portsmouth Harbour SPA
Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mud flats. Sand flats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) (85.0%) Broad Habitat Classes Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes (14.0%) Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland (1.0%)
Y
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Portsmouth Harbour is located on the central south coast of England. It is a large industrialised estuary and includes one of the four largest expanses of mud-flats and tidal creeks on the south coast of Britain. The mud-flats support large beds of narrow-leaved Ecological eelgrass Zostera angustifolia and dwarf eelgrass Z. noltii, extensive green algae beds, mainly Enteromorpha species, and sea lettuce Description Ulva lactuca. Portsmouth Harbour has only a narrow connection to the sea via the Solent, and receives comparatively little fresh water, thus giving it an unusual hydrology. The site supports important numbers of wintering dark-bellied Brent goose Branta b. bernicla, which feed also in surrounding agricultural areas away from the SPA.
Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, 31 individuals representing up to 0.4% of the wintering Iceland - breeding Article 4.2 qualification population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla, 2,847 individuals representing at least 0.9% of the wintering Western Article 4.2 qualification Siberia/Western Europe population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - Qualifying Features 1995/6) Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, 5,123 individuals representing up to 1% of the wintering Northern Siberia/Europe/Western Africa Article 4.2 qualification population (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator, 87 individuals representing up to 0.9% of the wintering North-western/Central Article 4.2 qualification Europe population (5year peak mean 1991/92 - 1995/96)
Z
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
With regard to the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the Qualifying Features listed above); Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; Objectives The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;
The populations of the qualifying features;
The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.
There is one coincident or adjacent SSSI site of mostly unfavourable recovering status; Condition Status and Portsmouth SSSI: 23 units consisting of; 23.44% Favourable, 76.19% unfavourable recovering, 0.02% unfavourable declining and 0.35% Trends destroyed /part destroyed.
Sufficient space between the site and development to allow for managed retreat of intertidal habitats and avoid coastal squeeze Key Environmental Unpolluted water Conditions Supporting Site Absence of nutrient enrichment of water Integrity Absence of non-native species
Maintenance of appropriate hydrological regime Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012; DEFRA, Magic, 2012
AA
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Site Characteristics for Solent & Southampton Water SPA
Location / NGR / Hampshire and Isle of Wight 50 44 25N, 01 31 33 W 5505.86 (ha) Area
Yar Estuary SSSI, Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary SSSI, Bembridge School and Cliffs SSSI, New Forest SSSI, King's Quay Shore SSSI, Sowley Pond SSSI, Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI, Whitecliff Bay and Bembridge Ledges SSSI, Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI, Lincegrove and Hackett's Marshes SSSI, Brading Marshes to St Helen's Ledges SSSI, Lower Test Valley SSSI, Lymington River Coincident Sites ReedBeds SSSI, Dibden Bay SSSI, Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI, River Test SSSI, Lee-on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI, Titchfield Haven SSSI, Newtown Harbour SSSI, Lymington River SSSI, Medina Estuary SSSI, Thorness Bay SSSI, Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek SSSI, North Solent SSSI. Solent and isle of Wight Lagoons SAC, South Wight SAC, Solent Maritime SAC and Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar.
Tidal rivers. Estuaries. Mud flats. Sand flats. Lagoons (including saltwork basins) (47.7%) Salt marshes. Salt pastures. Salt steppes (18.2%) Coastal sand dunes. Sand beaches. Machair (2.8%) Broad Habitat Classes Shingle. Sea cliffs. Islets (10.2%) Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (3.4%) Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland (17.1%) Broad-leaved deciduous woodland (0.6%)
The Solent and Southampton Water are located on the south English coast. The area covered extends from Hurst Spit to Hill Head along the south coast of Hampshire, and from Yarmouth to Whitecliff Bay along the north coast of the Isle of Wight. The site comprises a series of estuaries and harbours with extensive mud-flats and saltmarshes together with adjacent coastal habitats including saline Ecological lagoons, shingle beaches, reedbeds, damp woodland and grazing marsh. The mud-flats support beds of Enteromorpha spp. and Description Zostera spp. and have a rich invertebrate fauna that forms the food resource for the estuarine birds. In summer, the site is of importance for breeding seabirds, including gulls and four species of terns. In winter, the SPA holds a large and diverse assemblage of waterbirds, including geese, ducks and waders. Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta b. bernicla also feed in surrounding areas of agricultural land outside the SPA.
Common Tern Sterna hirundo, 267 pairs representing at least 2.2% of the breeding Qualifying Features Article 4.1 qualification population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean, 1993-1997)
BB
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Little Tern Sterna albifrons, 49 pairs representing at least 2.0% of the breeding Article 4.1 qualification population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean, 1993-1997)
Mediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus, 2 pairs representing at least 20.0% of Article 4.1 qualification the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean, 1994-1998)
Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis, 231 pairs representing at least 1.7% of the Article 4.1 qualification breeding population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean, 1993-1997)
Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii, 2 pairs representing at least 3.3% of the breeding Article 4.1 qualification population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean, 1993-1997)
Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, 1,125 individuals representing at least 1.6% of the wintering Iceland - breeding population (5 year peak mean, 1992/3- Article 4.2 qualification 1996/7)
Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla, 7,506 individuals representing at least 2.5% of the wintering Western Siberia/Western Europe population (5 year Article 4.2 qualification peak mean, 1992/3-1996/7)
Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula, 552 individuals representing at least 1.1% of the wintering Europe/Northern Africa - wintering population (5 year peak mean, Article 4.2 qualification 1992/3-1996/7)
Teal Anas crecca, 4,400 individuals representing at least 1.1% of the wintering Article 4.2 qualification Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean, 1992/3-1996/7)
CC
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Over winter, the area regularly supports 53,948 individual waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6) including: Gadwall Anas strepera, Teal Anas crecca, Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula, Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis, Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus, Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla, Wigeon Article 4.2 qualification Anas penelope, Redshank Tringa totanus, Pintail Anas acuta, Shoveler Anas clypeata, Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator, Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, Curlew Numenius arquata, Shelduck Tadorna tadorna.
With regard to the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the Qualifying Features listed above); Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; Objectives The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;
The populations of the qualifying features;
The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.
DD
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
There are 22 coincidental or adjacent SSSI sites of varying statuses; Yar Estuary SSSI: 30 units; 83.15% of the area is favourable and 16.85% unfavourable recovering. Most of the unfavourable area is affected by sea level rise and 'coastal squeeze'. Much of the unit is backed by hard sea defences so that the habitats are unable to retreat landward as levels rise. Changes in water level may also be having adverse impacts on the distribution and extent of biotopes associated with the intertidal sediments. The issue is being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re- alignment at Medmerry. Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary SSSI: 34 units; 27.04% of the area is favourable, 70.09% unfavourable recovering and 2.87% unfavourable declining. Inappropriate sea defences along the eastern part of the broadleaved, mixed and yew woodland - lowland unit have caused loss of vegetation along a 5 metre wide strip of one unfavourable declining unit and another is experiencing loss of intertidal habitat due to natural erosion. Operation of ferries is accelerating this erosion. Bembridge School and Cliffs SSSI: 6 units; 92.45% of the area is favourable and 7.55% unfavourable no change. Unfavourable units generally due to presence of beach huts or landscaped gardens affecting interest feature and vegetation encroachment on cliff face. New Forest SSSI: 582 units; 45.53% of the area is favourable, 53.22% unfavourable recovering, 0.43% unfavourable no change, 0.81% Condition Status and unfavourable declining and 0.01% destroyed/part destroyed. Only small areas of the SSSI overlap with the SPA. Trends King's Quay Shore SSSI: 30 units; 76.99% of the area is favourable, 20.95% unfavourable recovering, 1.86% unfavourable declining and 0.21% destroyed / part destroyed. Unfavourable declining and destroyed areas are woodland areas affected by inappropriate woodland management. Sowley Pond SSSI: 2 units both of which are favourable. Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods: 16 units; 85.94% of the area is favourable, 11.31% unfavourable recovering and 2.75% unfavourable no change. Unfavourable unit is outside of the SPA geographical area. Whitecliff Bay and Bembridge Ledges SSSI: 8 units; 99.07% of the area is favourable and 0.93% unfavourable no change. Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI: 4 units; 11.46% of the area is favourable and 88.54% unfavourable recovering. Unfavourable recovering units are affected by diffuse pollution, which is being addressed by through the Solent DWP action, and by sea level rise creating 'coastal squeeze' as much of the unit is backed by hard sea defences. However, the issue is being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. Lincegrove and Hackett's Marshes SSSI: 3 units, all unfavourable recovering. The excessive algal weed and diffuse pollution impacts are being addressed through the South Downs and Harbours Clean Water Partnership Delivery Strategy.
EE
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Brading Marshes to St Helen's Ledges SSSI: 58 units; 50.57% of the area is favourable, 39.79% unfavourable recovering and 9.64% unfavourable declining. Unfavourable declining units are affected by different factors; coastal squeeze due to sea defences, encroachment by scrub, undergrazing, poor waterway management and illicit vehicles. Lower Test Valley SSSI: 8 units all of which are of favourable status. Lymington River ReedBeds SSSI: 4 units; 35.50% of the area is favourable and 64.50% is unfavourable recovering. Unfavourable units are part of HLS scheme and remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan, which re-establishes tidal exchange in the Lymington River. The scheme will deliver 21ha of intertidal habitat, and address the water levels to create a more sustainable and manageable suite of habitats. Dibden Bay SSSI: 2 units; 98.00% of the area is favourable and 2% is unfavourable declining. This SSSI only abuts the SPA alongside the eastern edge of the site. The unfavourable unit is outside of the SPA geographical area. Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI: 6 units, all unfavourable recovering. The habitat is affected significantly by sea level rise and 'coastal squeeze' as much of the unit is backed by hard sea defences so that the habitats are unable to retreat landward as levels rise. Changes in water level may also be having adverse impacts on the distribution and extent of biotopes associated with the intertidal sediments. The issue is being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. declining. There is only one unit, to the south of the SSSI, which is coincidental to the SPA, which has a status of ‘unfavourable no change’ (water flow, water quality and some aspects of channel and banks habitat structure are below targets and standards). Main causes include; inappropriate weirs dams and other structures, invasive freshwater species, siltation and agriculture/run off water pollution. Lee-on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI: 27 units; 82.49% of the area is favourable, 15.98% unfavourable recovering, 1.53% unfavourable no change. Unfavourable recovering units show significant retreat of coastal marsh with large areas being replaced by mudflats. Algal mats in the Hamble estuary and elsewhere, with Ulva lactuca particularly abundant, suggests eutrophication. The ‘unfavourable no change’ unit contains a submerged clay bed feature, which is no longer exposed due to sediment recharge. With the lack of long-shore drift and change in beach profile, the sediment from the recharge appears to be accumulating on the exposures. River Test SSSI: 91 units; 18.50% favourable, 36.99% unfavourable recovering, 12.36% unfavourable no change and 32.16% unfavourable Titchfield Haven SSSI: 8 units; 96.48% of the area is favourable and 3.52% unfavourable declining. The unfavourable area is a reedbed community which has scrub encroachment including willow and oak saplings.
FF
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Newtown Harbour SSSI: 78 units; 89.33% of the area is favourable, 10.32% unfavourable recovering and 0.35% unfavourable declining. Unfavourable recovering units include diffuse pollution issues, which are being addressed through the Isle of Wight Catchment Sensative Farming Project. The unfavourable declining unit is outside of the SPA geographic boundary. Medina Estuary SSSI: 12 units all of which are favourable. Thorness Bay SSSI: 14 units; 96.21% of the area is favourable and 3.79% is unfavourable declining. The unfavourable declining areas are showing signs of under grazing and succession with scrub encroachment and herbaceous plants. The shingle bank of one unit is highly trampled due to foot traffic from the holiday park lane and car park. Lymington River SSSI consists of one unfavourable recovering unit, of which only the southern most points of the river overlap with the SPA geographical area. The assessment concerns have now been addressed and remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level (contd…) management plan (See above commentary for Lymington River ReedBeds SSSI). Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek SSSI: 17 units of which 71.92% of the area is favourable and 28.08% is unfavourable recovering. The western areas of unfavourable recovering units (that are coincidental) are affected by sea level rise and 'coastal squeeze' as much of the unit is backed by hard sea defences so that the habitats are unable to retreat landward as levels rise. Changes in water level may also be having adverse impacts on the distribution and extent of biotopes associated with the intertidal sediments. The issue is being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. The other mid-point coincidental area is affected by heavy use by hovercraft and access to the marina. No visible strandline and high visitor use for this area suggest it is not in favourable condition.
North Solent SSSI: 98 units; 63.21% of the area is favourable, 34.94% is unfavourable recovering, 0.93% unfavourable no change and 0.91% unfavourable declining. At several locations of open coast, active erosion of salt marsh is apparent with significant areas of marsh (contd…) reverting to mudflat, particularly around the seaward areas of the Beaulieu River estuary. Some units are remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan (See above commentary for Lymington River ReedBeds SSSI). The unfavourable declining area is outside of SPA geographic area.
GG
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Sufficient space between the site and development to allow for managed retreat of intertidal habitats and avoid coastal squeeze
No dredging or land-claim of coastal habitats
Unpolluted water
Absence of nutrient enrichment in the intertidal zone
Absence of eutrophication and acidification from atmospheric pollution Key Environmental Conditions Absence of non-native species Supporting Site Low levels of recreational pressure both on shore and offshore can avoid disturbance effects during sensitive (over- Integrity wintering) periods
Freshwater inputs are of value for providing a localised increase in prey biomass for certain bird species, specific microclimatic conditions and are used for preening and drinking
Low amounts of silt loss
Short grasslands surrounding the site are essential to maintaining interest features as they are now the key foraging resource
Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 (Feb) DEFRA, Magic, 2012
HH
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Site Characteristics for New Forest SPA
Location / NGR / Hampshire; Wiltshire 50 49 32 N, 01 39 22 W 28002.81 ha Area
Landford Heath SSSI, River Avon System SSSI, The New Forest SSSI, Norley Copse and Meadow SSSI, Roydon Woods SSSI, Lymington Coincident Sites River SSSI and North Solent SSSI. The New Forest SAC, New Forest Ramsar
Inland water bodies (standing water, running water) (0.2%) Bogs. Marshes. Water fringed vegetation. Fens (5.9%) Heath. Scrub. Maquis and garrigue. Phygrana (27.3%) Dry grassland. Steppes (17.6%) Broad Habitat Classes Humid grassland. Mesophile grassland (2.1%) Broad-leaved deciduous woodland (28.9%) Coniferous woodland (17.3%) Other land (including towns, villages, roads, waste places, mines, industrial sites) (0.7%)
The New Forest is located in southern Hampshire, west of the Solent in southern England. It comprises a complex mosaic of habitats overlying mainly nutrient-poor soils over plateau gravels. The major components are the extensive wet and dry heaths with their rich Ecological valley mires and associated wet and dry grasslands, the ancient pasture woodlands and inclosure woodlands, the network of clean Description rivers and streams, and frequent permanent and temporary ponds. The area supports important populations of breeding birds associated with such habitats, including nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, woodlark Lullula arborea and Dartford warbler Sylvia undata. Breeding honey buzzard Pernis apivorus and wintering hen harrier Circus cyaneus are also notable.
Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata, 538 pairs representing at least Article 4.1 qualification 33.6% of the breeding population in Great Britain
Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, 2 pairs representing at least 10.0% Article 4.1 qualification Qualifying Features of the breeding population in Great Britain
Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus, 300 pairs representing at least Article 4.1 qualification 8.8% of the breeding population in Great Britain
II
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Woodlark Lullula arborea, 184 pairs representing at least 12.3% of Article 4.1 qualification the breeding population in Great Britain (Count as at 1997)
Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus, 15 individuals representing at least Article 4.1 qualification 2.0% of the wintering population in Great Britain
Hobby Falco Subbuteo, representing 5% of population in Great Article 4.2 qualification
Britain
Wood Warbler Phylloscopus sibilatrix, representing at least 2% of Article 4.2 qualification
population in Great Britain
With regard to the individual species and/or assemblage of species for which the site has been classified (the Qualifying Features listed above); Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive. Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:
Conservation The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; Objectives The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;
The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;
The populations of the qualifying features;
The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.
JJ
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
There are seven coincident or adjacent SSSI sites of varying statuses; Landford Heath SSSI: 3 units consisting of; 51.97% unfavourable recovering and 48.03% unfavourable declining. River Avon System SSSI: 51 units consisting of; 3.48% favourable, 36.59% unfavourable recovering, 57.13% unfavourable no change and 2.80% unfavourable declinging. New Forest SSSI: 582 units; 45.53% of the area is favourable, 53.22% unfavourable recovering, 0.43% unfavourable no change, 0.81% unfavourable declining and 0.01% destroyed/part destroyed. Condition Status and Norley Copse and Meadow SSSI: 2 units consisting of 58.63% Favourable and 41.37% unfavourable recovering. Trends Roydon Woods SSSI: 8 units consisting of 100% Favourable. Lymington River SSSI consists of one unfavourable recovering unit*. The assessment concerns have now been addressed and remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan (See commentary for Lymington River ReedBeds SSSI). North Solent SSSI: 98 units; 63.21% Favourable, 34.94% unfavourable recovering, 0.93% unfavourable no change and 0.91% unfavourable declining*. At several locations of open coast, active erosion of salt marsh is apparent with significant areas of marsh reverting to mudflat, particularly around the seaward areas of the Beaulieu River estuary. Some units are remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan, which re-established tidal exchange in the Lymington River.
Carefully balanced hydrological regime to maintain wet heath, mires and pools
Acid soils
Key Environmental Minimal air pollution (nitrogen deposition can cause compositional changes over time) Conditions Unpolluted water Supporting Site Integrity Minimal nutrient inputs
Low recreational pressure
Appropriate grazing regime Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012; DEFRA, Magic, 2012
KK
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Site Characteristics for Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar
Location / NGR / Hampshire; West Sussex 50 48 23 N, 00 55 12 W 5810.03 ha Area
Chichester Harbour SSSI, Sinah Common SSSI and Langstone Harbour SSSI Coincident Sites Solent Maritime SAC, Chichester and Langstone Harbours Ramsar SPA
Tidal flats (46%) Salt marshes (21.4%) Other (14.3%) Estuarine waters (14.1%) Marine beds (e.g. sea grass beds) (1.7%) Freshwater marshes / pools: seasonal / intermittent (0.9%) Broad Habitat Classes Sand / shingle shores (including dune systems) (0.8%) Freshwater marshes / pools: permanent (0.4%) Saline / brackish marshes: permanent (0.3%) Shrub-dominated wetlands (0.07%) Rivers / streams / creeks: permanent (0.02%) Coastal brackish / saline lagoons (0.01%)
Chichester and Langstone Harbours are large, sheltered estuarine basins comprising extensive mud and sand flats exposed at low Ecological tide. The site is of particular significance for over-wintering wildfowl and waders and also a wide range of coastal and transitional Description habitats supporting important plant and animal communities.
Two large estuarine basins linked by the channel which divides Hayling Island from the main Hampshire coastline. The site Ramsar criterion 1 Qualifying Features includes intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh, sand and shingle spits and sand dunes.
LL
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Assemblages of international importance: Species with peak counts in winter: Ramsar criterion 5 76480 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003)
Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation): Species with peak counts in spring/autumn: Ramsar criterion 6
Ringed plover, Charadrius hiaticula, Europe/Northwest Africa, 853 individuals, representing an average of 1.1% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3)
Black-tailed godwit, Limosa limosa islandica, Iceland/W Europe, 906 individuals, representing an average of 2.5% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
Common redshank, Tringa totanus totanus, 2577 individuals, representing an average of 1% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
MM
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation): Species with peak counts in winter: Ramsar criterion 6
Grey plover, Pluvialis squatarola, E Atlantic/WAfrica 3043 individuals, representing an average of 1.2% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
Dark-bellied brent goose, Branta bernicla bernicla, 12987 individuals, representing an average of 6% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
Common shelduck, Tadorna tadorna, NW Europe 1468 individuals, representing an average of 1.8% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
Dunlin, Calidris alpina alpina, W Siberia/W Europe, 3436 individuals, representing an average of 2.5% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)
Species/populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration under criterion 6. Species regularly Ramsar criterion 6 supported during the breeding season:
Little tern, Sterna albifrons albifrons, W Europe, 130 apparently occupied nests, representing an average of 1.1% of the breeding population (Seabird 2000 Census)
Conservation The Ramsar Convention criteria for Chichester and Langstone Harbours overlap substantially with the features of the equivalent SPA. No Objectives additional conservation objectives are defined to assess these features, but those relating to the SPA can be used.
NN
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
There are three coincident or adjacent SSSI sites of varying statuses; Chichester Harbour SSSI: 43 units; 22.09% of the area is favourable, 77.67% unfavourable recovering and 0.24% unfavourable no change. Unfavourable recovering areas are mainly units affected significantly by sea level rise and 'coastal squeeze' as much of the units’ area is backed by hard sea defences so habitats are unable to retreat landward as levels rise. Recovery is through creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. Some unfavourable units including the ‘unfavourable no change’ units are impacted by diffuse pollution creating excessive nutrients, characterised by green algae.* Condition Status and Sinah Common SSSI: 2 units, both unfavourable recovering. Scrub levels on dune grassland remains above target although there is Trends evidence of recent clearance.* Langstone Harbour SSSI: 13 units; 8.96% of the area is favourable, 90.60% unfavourable recovering and 0.45% unfavourable declining. Issues associated with 'coastal squeeze' and changes in water level are being addressed through the creation of compensatory habitat and coastal re-alignment at Medmerry. There is also concern about high nutrient levels throughout Langstone Harbour, resulting in excessive algal growth in places. The unfavourable declining unit is partly coincidental with the SAC but is a roosting habitat for wintering birds above high tide level. There is an increasing amount of scattered scrub so that it is becoming less attractive to birds.*
Sufficient space between the site and development to allow for managed retreat of intertidal habitats and avoid coastal squeeze
Unpolluted water
Absence of nutrient enrichment in the intertidal zone Key Environmental Conditions Absence of eutrophication and acidification from atmospheric pollution Supporting Site Absence of non-native species e.g. from shipping activity Integrity Maintenance of appropriate hydrological regime, e.g. freshwater flows at heads of channels are important for birds to preen, drink and feed
Short grasslands surrounding the Ramsar site are essential to maintaining interest features as they are now the key foraging resource for Brent goose Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012
OO
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 *(Feb 2012) DEFRA, Magic, 2012
Site Characteristics for Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar
Location / NGR / Hampshire 50 49 41 N, 01 07 32 W 1248.77 ha Area
Coincident Sites Portsmouth Harbour SSSI, Portsmouth Harbour SPA
Tidal flats (59.3%) Estuarine waters (21.2%) Salt marshes (14%) Broad Habitat Classes Marine beds (e.g. sea grass beds) (4.8%) Other (0.3%) Coastal brackish / saline lagoons (0.3%) Sand / shingle shores (including dune systems) (0.08%)
Portsmouth Harbour’s mudflats support large beds of narrowleaved and dwarf eelgrass, extensive green alga and sea lettuce. The intertidal mudflat areas possess extensive beds of eelgrass Zostera angustifolia and Zostera noltei which support the grazing dark- bellied Brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla populations. The mud-snail Hydrobia ulvae is found at extremely high densities, which Ecological helps to support the wading bird interest of the site. Common cord-grass Spartina anglica dominates large areas of the saltmarsh and Description there are also extensive areas of green algae Enteromorpha spp. and sea lettuce Ulva lactuca. More locally the saltmarsh is dominated by sea purslane Halimione portulacoides which gradates to more varied communities at the higher shore levels. The site also includes a number of saline lagoons hosting nationally important species.
PP
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
The intertidal mudflat areas possess extensive beds of eelgrass Zostera angustifolia and Zostera noltei which support the grazing Ramsar criterion 3 dark-bellied brent geese populations. The mud-snail Hydrobia ulvae is found at extremely high densities, which helps to support the wading bird interest of the site. Common cord-grass Spartina anglica dominates large areas of the saltmarsh and there are also extensive areas of green algae Enteromorpha spp. and sea lettuce Qualifying Features Ulva lactuca. More locally the saltmarsh is dominated by sea purslane Halimione portulacoides which gradates to more varied communities at the higher shore levels. The site also includes a number of saline lagoons hosting nationally important species.
Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla, 2,105 individuals, representing an average of 2.1% of the GB over- Ramsar criterion 6 wintering population (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/03)
Conservation The Ramsar Convention criteria for the Portsmouth Harbour overlaps substantially with the features of the equivalent SPAs. No dditional Objectives conservation objectives are defined to assess these features, but those relating to the SPA can be used.
There is one coincident or adjacent SSSI site of mostly unfavourable recovering status; Condition Status and Portsmouth SSSI: 23 units consisting of; 23.44% Favourable, 76.19% unfavourable recovering, 0.02% unfavourable declining and 0.35% Trends destroyed /part destroyed.
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Sufficient space between the site and development to allow for managed retreat of intertidal habitats and avoid coastal squeeze
No dredging or land-claim of coastal habitats
Unpolluted water
Key Environmental Absence of nutrient enrichment in the intertidal zone Conditions Absence of non-native species Supporting Site Integrity Low levels of recreational pressure both on shore and offshore can avoid disturbance effects during sensitive (over- wintering) periods
Freshwater inputs are of value for providing a localised increase in prey biomass for certain bird species, specific microclimatic conditions and are used for preening and drinking
Short grasslands surrounding the site are essential to maintaining interest features as they are now the key foraging resource Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 DEFRA, Magic, 2012
RR
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Site Characteristics for Solent & Southampton Water Ramsar
Location / NGR / Hampshire and Isle of Wight 50 44 25 N, 01 31 32 W 5346.44 (ha) Area
Yar Estuary SSSI, Hurst Castle and Lymington River Estuary SSSI, Bembridge School and Cliffs SSSI, New Forest SSSI, King's Quay Shore SSSI, Sowley Pond SSSI, Upper Hamble Estuary and Woods SSSI, Whitecliff Bay and Bembridge Ledges SSSI, Eling and Bury Marshes SSSI, Lincegrove and Hackett's Marshes SSSI, Brading Marshes to St Helen's Ledges SSSI, Lower Test Valley SSSI, Lymington River Coincident Sites ReedBeds SSSI, Dibden Bay SSSI, Hythe to Calshot Marshes SSSI, River Test SSSI, Lee-on-the Solent to Itchen Estuary SSSI, Titchfield Haven SSSI, Newtown Harbour SSSI, Lymington River SSSI, Medina Estuary SSSI, Thorness Bay SSSI, Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek SSSI, North Solent SSSI. Solent and isle of Wight Lagoons SAC, South Wight SAC, Solent Maritime SAC and Solent and Southampton Water SPA.
Tidal flats (47.9%) Salt marshes (18.5%) Saline / brackish marshes: permanent (14.9%) Sand / shingle shores (including dune systems) (12.1%) Broad Habitat Classes Freshwater marshes / pools: permanent (3.7%) Rocky shores (1.5%) Coastal brackish / saline lagoons (0.7%) Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands (0.7%)
The estuaries and harbours of the Solent are particularly sheltered and form the largest number and tightest cluster of small estuaries anywhere in Great Britain. The Solent and Isle of Wight system is notable for its large range and extent of different habitats. The intertidal area is predominantly sedimentary in nature with extensive intertidal mud and sandflats within the sheltered harbours and areas of gravel and pebble sediments on more exposed beaches. These conditions combine to favour an abundant benthic fauna and Ecological green algae which support high densities of migrant and over-wintering wildfowl and waders. Eelgrass Zostera beds occur Description discontinuously along the north shore of the Isle of Wight and in a few places along the northern shore of The Solent. The Solent system supports a wide range of saltmarsh communities. Upper saltmarshes are dominated by sea purslane Atriplex portulacoides, sea plantain Plantago maritima, sea meadow grass Puccinellia maritima and sea lavender Limonium vulgare; locally thrift Armeria maritima and the nationally scarce golden samphire Inula crithmoides are abundant. Lower saltmarsh vegetation tends to be
SS
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
dominated by sea purslane, cord grass Spartina spp., glasswort Salicornia spp. and sea-blite Suaeda maritima. Cord-grasses dominate much of the saltmarsh in Southampton Water and in parts of the Solent and it was the original location of the introduction of Spartina alterniflora and subsequent hybridisation with the native species. There are several shingle spits including Hurst spit, Needs Ore Point, Calshot spit and Newtown Harbour spits which support a characteristic shingle flora. A range of grassland types lie inshore of the intertidal zone including unimproved species-rich neutral and calcareous grasslands, brackish grazing marsh systems and reed dominated freshwater marshes. The brackish water lagoons associated with grazing marsh systems behind the seawalls, e.g. Keyhaven-Lymington, Gilkicker lagoon, and at Brading Marshes contain internationally important communities of rare and endangered invertebrates and plants.
The site is one of the few major sheltered channels between a substantial island and mainland in European waters, exhibiting an unusual strong double tidal flow and has long periods of slack water at high and low tide. It includes many wetland Ramsar criterion 1 habitats characteristic of the biogeographic region: saline lagoons, saltmarshes, estuaries, intertidal flats, shallow coastal waters, grazing marshes, reedbeds, coastal woodland and rocky boulder reefs. Qualifying Features The site supports an important assemblage of rare plants and invertebrates. At least 33 British Red Data Book invertebrates and at least eight British Red Data Ramsar criterion 2 Book plants are represented on site.
Assemblages of international importance: Species with peak counts in winter: 51343 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99- Ramsar criterion 5 2002/2003)
TT
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Species/populations occurring at levels of international importance: Ringed plover, Charadrius hiaticula, Europe/Northwest Africa. 397 individuals, representing an average of 1.2% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3).
Dark-bellied brent goose, Branta bernicla bernicla, NW Europe. 5514 individuals, representing an average of 1.3% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- Ramsar criterion 6 2002/3).
Eurasian teal, Anas crecca, NW Europe. 5514 individuals, representing an average of 1.3% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3). Black-tailed godwit, Limosa limosa islandica, Iceland/W Europe. 1240 individuals, representing an average of 3.5% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3).
Conservation The Ramsar Convention criteria for the Solent and Southampton Water site overlap substantially with the features of the equivalent SPA. Objectives No additional conservation objectives are defined to assess these features, but those relating to the SPA can be used.
Condition Status and See above - Solent and Southampton Water SPA. Trends
UU
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Prevention of coastal erosion. However, coastal habitats are sensitive to flood and coastal defence works, often creating coastal squeeze. Measures in place or being developed include; Coastal Defence Strategies, regulation of private coastal defences, shoreline management plans, coastal habitat management plan (CHaMPs) are in place.
Key Environmental No dredging or land-claim of coastal habitats; both resulting from developments including ports, marinas, jetties etc. Conditions Marine habitats are particularly sensitive to accidental pollution from shipping, oil/chemical spills, heavy industrial Supporting Site activities, former waste disposal sites and waste-water discharge. Integrity Protection from recreational and commercial interests, in what is a busy and developed area.
These issues are dealt with through site management statements and joint projects with outside organisations e.g. intertidal sediment recharge, monitoring of saltmarsh erosion or though the relevant planning/ review provisions of the Habitat Regulations. Other more strategic issues are being addressed locally. Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012 Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012 Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992 Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012 DEFRA, Magic, 2012
Site Characteristics for New Forest Ramsar
Location / NGR / Hampshire; Wiltshire 50 49 32 N, 01 39 22 W 28002.81 ha Area
River Avon System SSSI, The New Forest SSSI, Norley Copse and Meadow SSSI, Roydon Woods SSSI, Lymington River SSSI and North Coincident Sites Solent SSSI. The New Forest SAC, New Forest SPA
VV
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Other (92.5%) Peatlands (including peat bogs swamps, fens) (5.3%) Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands (0.8%) Broad Habitat Classes Shrub-dominated wetlands (0.6%) Rivers / streams / creeks: permanent (0.4%) Forested peatland (0.4%)
The New Forest is an area of semi-natural vegetation including valley mires, fens and wet heath within catchments whose uncultivated and undeveloped state buffer the mires against adverse ecological change. The habitats present are of high ecological quality and diversity with undisturbed transition zones. The suite of mires is regarded as the locus classicus of this type of mire in Britain. Other Ecological wetland habitats include numerous ponds of varying size and water chemistry including several ephemeral ponds and a network of Description small streams mainly acidic in character which have no lowland equivalent in the UK. The plant communities in the numerous valleys and seepage step mires show considerable variation, being affected especially by the nutrient content of groundwater. In the most nutrient-poor zones, Sphagnum bog-mosses, cross-leaved heath, bog asphodel, common cottongrass and similar species predominate. In more enriched conditions the communities are more fen-like.
Valley mires and wet heaths are found throughout the site and are of outstanding scientific interest. The mires and heaths are within catchments whose uncultivated Ramsar criterion 1 and undeveloped state buffer the mires against adverse ecological change. This is the largest concentration of intact valley mires of their type in Britain.
The site supports a diverse assemblage of wetland plants and animals including several nationally rare species. Seven species of nationally rare plant are found on Ramsar criterion 2 Qualifying Features the site, as are at least 65 British Red Data Book species of invertebrate.
The mire habitats are of high ecological quality and diversity and have undisturbed transition zones. The invertebrate fauna of the site is important due to the Ramsar criterion 3 concentration of rare and scare wetland species. The whole site complex, with its examples of semi-natural habitats is essential to the genetic and ecological diversity of southern England.
WW
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement August 2012 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations - EU Sites_2_020812SS
Conservation The Ramsar criteria for the New Forest overlap with the features of its equivalent SAC. No additional conservation objectives are defined Objectives to assess these features, but those relating to the SAC can be used.
River Avon System SSSI: 51 units consisting of; 3.48% favourable, 36.59% unfavourable recovering, 57.13% unfavourable no change and 2.80% unfavourable declinging. New Forest SSSI: 582 units; 45.53% of the area is favourable, 53.22% unfavourable recovering, 0.43% unfavourable no change, 0.81% unfavourable declining and 0.01% destroyed/part destroyed. Norley Copse and Meadow SSSI: 2 units consisting of 58.63% Favourable and 41.37% unfavourable recovering. Condition Status and Roydon Woods SSSI: 8 units consisting of 100% Favourable. Trends Lymington River SSSI consists of one unfavourable recovering unit*. The assessment concerns have now been addressed and remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan (See commentary for Lymington River ReedBeds SSSI). North Solent SSSI: 98 units; 63.21% Favourable, 34.94% unfavourable recovering, 0.93% unfavourable no change and 0.91% unfavourable declining*. At several locations of open coast, active erosion of salt marsh is apparent with significant areas of marsh reverting to mudflat, particularly around the seaward areas of the Beaulieu River estuary. Some units are remedied by the Lymington reed bed water level management plan, which re-established tidal exchange in the Lymington River.
Carefully balanced hydrological regime to maintain wet heath, mires and pools
Acid soils
Key Environmental Minimal air pollution (nitrogen deposition can cause compositional changes over time) Conditions Unpolluted water Supporting Site Integrity Minimal nutrient inputs
Low recreational pressure
Maintenance of grazing regime
Sources: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Protected Sites Information, 2012; Natural England, European Site Conservation Objectives, 2012; Habitats Directive, Annex I, 1992; Natural England, Nature on the Map, 2012; *(Feb 2012); DEFRA, Magic, 2012
XX
HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
Appendix II: Screening Matrix
Please see insert.
YY HRA for the Portsmouth Site Allocations Development Plan Document: Screening Statement February 2013 UE-0060 Portsmouth CC Site Allocations HRA Screening_6_20130219
This page is intentionally blank.
ZZ SAC SPA Ramsar
Proposed Site Allocations
Butser Hill Butser Itchen River of SolentIsle Wight and Lagoons SolentMaritime Forest New The and Chichester LangstoneHarbours Portsmouth Harbour Solent and SouthamptonWater Forest New The and Chichester LangstoneHarbours Portsmouth Harbour Solent and SouthamptonWater Forest New The ID Site Name 1 Rear Of 154-192 Southampton Road, Paulsgrove A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
133 Highgrove Lodge A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
136 Former Kwiksave, Stubbington Avenue A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
145 Alexandra Lodge, Northern Parade A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
149 Seb Site, Drayton Lane A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
199 Portsdown Main, James Callaghan Drive A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
209 Garages At Kendal Avenue, Copnor A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
214 Vauxhall Garage, London Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
215 Wymering Community Centre, Sevenoaks Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
236 A27 Cycleway A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
263 Land Between Feltons Place And Peronne Close, Including TA Centre AND 17 FELTONS PLACE A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
349 Holbrook Road Unity Hall Coburg Street/ Holbrook Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
367 Drayton Dairy Site 112 Station Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
446 Garages, Dursley Crescent A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
459 Longdean Lodge, Hillsley Road, Paulsgrove A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
549 Car Park opposite 20 Sultan Road, Buckland A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
550 Opposite Barrington House on Sultan Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
600 Dame Judith Centre, PCMI, Edinburgh House And Land South Of QA A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
646 Trafalgar Wharf (221-249 Southampton Road And Vospers Site, Hamilton Road) A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C1 C2 A4 C2 C1 C2 A4
653 Bus Depot And Stops, Hilsea A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 A4 A4 A4 C2 A4 A4
654 London Road Bus Depot, Car Sales/Garages And Car Park A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 A4 A4 A4 C2 A4 A4
657 Museums Store, Copnor Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
688 TA Centre, Cosham and land adjacent A4 A4 A4 B A4 A4 C2 A4 A4 A4 C2 A4 A4
UE-0060 Site Allocations HRA Screening Matrix_5_20130219 Screening 1 / 4 SAC SPA Ramsar
Proposed Site Allocations
Butser Hill Butser Itchen River of SolentIsle Wight and Lagoons SolentMaritime Forest New The and Chichester LangstoneHarbours Portsmouth Harbour Solent and SouthamptonWater Forest New The and Chichester LangstoneHarbours Portsmouth Harbour Solent and SouthamptonWater Forest New The
843 The Townhouse, Portland Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
911 Langstone Harbour Coastal Path A4 A4 A4 C1 A4 C1 A4 A4 A4 C1 A4 A4 A4
1038 Univeristy Building To East Of St Thomas's Street, Old Portsmouth A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
1211 Eastney Caravan Park A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1
1267 Land north of Goldsmith Avenue A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
1268 Land Between Goldsmith Avenue, Francis Avenue And Lidl Supermarket A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
1271 Former Wightlink Workshops And Car Park, Broad Street A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
1275 Land Between Home Heights And Queens Hotel A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
1279 White Heather Garage A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
1294 4 Waverley Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
1331 Land At Portsdown Technology Park A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
3007 Darby House, Skye Close A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
3026 Public House, 38 Kent Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
3029 107-113 Havant Road (Exc 109-109a) A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
6013 Land South Of East Lodge Playing Field A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1
6589 East Lodge Park And Adjacent Fields A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
6889 Henderson Road / Halliday Crescent A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
8101 Skillploy Site, North of St James's Hospital, Locksway Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
8102 Two Villas, North East of St James's Hospital, Locksway Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
61303 St Mary's West, Milton Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70006 Southsea Police Station A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70011 Acorn Lodge, Southampton Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70015 Former Wymering Community Centre - LABV Site Overlaps Site 215 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70017 Savoy Buildings, South Parade, Southsea A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
UE-0060 Site Allocations HRA Screening Matrix_5_20130219 Screening 2 / 4 SAC SPA Ramsar
Proposed Site Allocations
Butser Hill Butser Itchen River of SolentIsle Wight and Lagoons SolentMaritime Forest New The and Chichester LangstoneHarbours Portsmouth Harbour Solent and SouthamptonWater Forest New The and Chichester LangstoneHarbours Portsmouth Harbour Solent and SouthamptonWater Forest New The
70028 Univeristy of Portsmouth's Langstone campus A4 A4 A4 C1 A4 C1 C2 C2 A4 C1 C2 C2 A4
70029 Seymour Close Car Parks (Boundary to be altered) A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70030 Land south of Former Wymering Community Centre (land safeguarded for BRT) A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70031 Portsmouth City Records Office A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70033 Child Development Centre/Harbour School, St James's Hospital, Locksway Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
70034 Hilsea Lodge A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70035 Sports Pitches, Mountbatten Cente A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4 C2 C2 C2 A4
70036 Education Centre, St Mary's Hospital, Milton Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70037 Hester Road A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70038 Burrell House A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4
70039 The Good Companion PH A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1
70040 Cockleshell Community Centre A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1 A1
UE-0060 Site Allocations HRA Screening Matrix_5_20130219 Screening 3 / 4 SAC SPA Ramsar
Proposed Site Allocations
Butser Hill Butser Itchen River of SolentIsle Wight and Lagoons SolentMaritime Forest New The and Chichester LangstoneHarbours Portsmouth Harbour Solent and SouthamptonWater Forest New The and Chichester LangstoneHarbours Portsmouth Harbour Solent and SouthamptonWater Forest New The Assessment Key Category A: No negative effect A1 Options / policies that will not themselves lead to development e.g. because they relate to design or other qualitative criteria for development, or they are not a land use planning policy. A2 Options / policies intended to protect the natural environment, including biodiversity. A3 Options / policies intended to conserve or enhance the natural, built or historic environment, where enhancement measures will not be likely to have any negative effect on a European Site. A4 Options / policies that positively steer development away from European sites and associated sensitive areas. A5 Options / policies that would have no effect because development is implemented through later policies in the same plan, which are more specific and therefore more appropriate to assess for their effects on European Sites. Category B: No significant effect B Options / policies that could have an effect, but the likelihood is there would be no significant negative effect on a European site either alone or in combination with other elements of the same plan, or other plans or projects. Category C: Likely significant effect alone C1 The option, policy or proposal could directly affect a European site because it provides for, or steers, a quantity or type of development onto a European site, or adjacent to it. C2 The option / policy could indirectly affect a European site e.g. because it provides for, or steers, a quantity or type of development that may be ecologically, hydrologically or physically connected to it or increase disturbance. C3 Proposals for a magnitude of development that, no matter where it was located, the development would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site. C4 An option / policy that makes provision for a quantity / type of development but the effects are uncertain because its detailed location is to be selected following consideration of options in a later, more specific plan. C5 Options / policies for developments or infrastructure projects that could block alternatives for the provision of other development in the future, that may lead to adverse effects on European sites, which would otherwise be avoided. C6 Options, policies or proposals which are to be implemented in due course - if implemented in one or more particular ways, the proposal could possibly have a significant effect on a European site. C7 Any other options, policies or proposals that would be vulnerable to failure under the Habitats Regulations at project assessment stage; to include them in the plan would be regarded by the EC as ‘faulty planning’. C8 Any other proposal that may have an adverse effect on a European site, which might try to pass the tests of HRA at project level by arguing that the plan provides IROPI to justify its consent despite a negative assessment. Category D: Likely significant effects in combination D1 The option, policy or proposal alone would not be likely to have significant effects but if its effects are combined with the effects of other policies within the same plan the cumulative effects would be likely to be significant. D2 Options, policies or proposals that alone would not be likely to have significant effects but if their effects are combined with the effects of other plans or projects, the combined effects would be likely to be significant. D3 Options or proposals that are, or could be, part of a programme or sequence of development delivered over a period, where the implementation of the later stages could have a significant effect on European sites. ? Uncertain effects because the issue/option currently lacks detail. The screening assessment will be re-visited as more detail becomes available.
UE-0060 Site Allocations HRA Screening Matrix_5_20130219 Screening 4 / 4
Urban Edge Environmental Consulting Ltd Tower Point | 44 North Road | Brighton | BN1 1YR T: 01273 666 375 | E: [email protected] www.ueec.co.uk | @UrbanEdgeEnviro © Urban Edge Environmental Consulting Ltd 2013