Appendix B – Scoping

Appendix B1 – Key issues scoped into and out of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report

Appendix B2 – East Devon District Council Scoping Opinion

Appendix B3 – Marine Management Organisation Scoping Opinion

Appendix B1 - Key issues scoped into and out of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report

Key issues scoped into and out of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report Key issues Scoped in Scoped out

Construction and operational impacts on Budleigh Salterton Construction and operational phase impacts to

Cricket Club. community facilities (i.e. children’s play area and skate park). Operational impact from biting insects Impacts on local economy due to construction and operation. Construction and operational phase impacts to access and Construction and operational air quality impacts recreation users of the Public Rights of Way, National Cycle including health implications. Network Route 2 and other access to the river banks. Construction impacts from biting insects Construction and operational impacts on Lime Kiln car park and Interpretation boards and public art parking along South Farm Road, including the public users of the Fishing car parks. Population and human health and Population human Habitat degradation through changes in air quality as a result of dust. Construction phase noise and vibration impacts on residents, Operational noise and operational vibration

South West Coast Path, National Cycle Network Route and Public impacts. and and

Noise Rights of Way and the local ecology e.g. birds, fish. vibration

Degradation of habitats and species associated with the Otter Construction and operational impacts on non- Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Marine migratory fish

Conservation Zone as a direct result of construction impacts

ecology (mobilisation of silt during excavation of the channel and breach

andfish , , marine

Biodiversity into the estuary, and accidental fuel releases)

Lower Otter Restoration Project Environmental Statement 1 Key issues Scoped in Scoped out

Degradation of habitats and species associated with the Otter Construction and operational impacts on badgers, Meadows County Wildlife Site as a direct result of construction great crested newts and water voles, due to impacts (i.e. excavations and movement of plant). absence during surveys. Operational impacts on Otter Meadows County Wildlife Site from creation of reedbeds and saltmarsh. Construction and operational impacts on Bechstein’s bat Myotis Construction and operational impacts on the East bechsteinii, a designated feature of the Beer Quarry and Caves Devon Pebblebed Heaths Special Area of Special Area of Conservation. Conservation and the Exe Estuary Ramsar and Special Protection Area. Construction noise from people and plant activities disturbing Neutral operational impacts to the Exe Estuary wintering birds, otters and beavers Ramsar and Special Protection Area as a result of habitat creation. Direct loss of hedgerows and trees during construction (including breeding bird habitat, feeding habitat for owls and badgers, potential bat roosting habitat, reptile habitat, dormice habitat, hedgehog habitat and harvest mouse habitat). Spread of invasive species Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam during construction and operation. Construction and operational impacts on migratory fish Loss of species rich marshy grassland during construction Operational impacts of habitat loss on the Otter Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest from increased flooding of the floodplain Operational impact on the Marine Conservation Zone through extension of intertidal habitats.

Lower Otter Restoration Project Environmental Statement 2 Key issues Scoped in Scoped out

Loss of hedgerow and trees from flooding from saline water (including loss of breeding birds habitat, feeding habitat for owls and badgers, potential bat roosting habitat, reptile habitat, dormice habitat, hedgehog and harvest mouse habitat). Operational impact on protected species including otters and beavers from creation of new channel and new terrestrial habitats (Whilst Beavers weren’t protected at the time of writing, the approach was taken that they may become protected during the project). Operational impacts on freshwater habitat from increased saline intrusion. Disturbance to ecology from visitors during operation. Management of the habitats during construction and operation. Construction and operational impacts on the Otter Estuary SSSI. Impacts to geology including any impacts to the Budleigh Salterton Cliffs Site of Special Scientific Potential for contamination of ground water and surface water as a Interest (during construction and operation).

result of erosion to South Farm Road historic landfill (during

operation). Potential for contamination of ground water and surface water features as a result of erosion of the existing river embankments (impacts during operation).

contamination Potential for ground water contamination from sewage pumping Discharges from SWW pumping stations during Geology, soils and Geology, and soils stations at East Budleigh and Budleigh Salterton (Lime Kiln) as construction result of increased flooding of Little Marsh (impacts during operation).

Lower Otter Restoration Project Environmental Statement 3 Key issues Scoped in Scoped out

Construction and operational phase impacts to Dorset and East Devon Coast WHS. Disposal of contaminated material from the landfill. Impacts on soils from increased salinity. Discharges from South West Water pumping stations during operation Operational impacts to Lower River Otter due to creation of creek Construction impacts on the Otter waterbody from network and reinstatement of the historic floodplain. the new creek network. Operational impact from flood risk Construction and operation impacts on Lyme Bay

West, Wolf, Tale and Middle River Otter. Risk of water flow being too slow and increased deposition occurring which may impede the creek network. Construction and operational geomorphological impacts on the shingle bar and estuary. Sediment and soil released into estuary from breaching of main channel

WaterEnvironment Construction and operational impacts on Budleigh Salterton Bathing Water protected area. Construction and operational impacts on the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site.

Construction and operation impacts on the following landscape None.

features:

ape ape and visual

Landsc • East Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Lower Otter Restoration Project Environmental Statement 4 Key issues Scoped in Scoped out

• Dorset and East Devon Coast WHS • Budleigh Salterton Conservation Area • East Budleigh Conservation Area Construction and operational impacts on the views seen by users of South West Coast Path National Trail, National Cycle Network Route 2 and other PRoWs within the study area. Construction and operational phase impact to known non- Construction and operational phase impacts to designated archaeological assets. designated cultural heritage and archaeological assets. Construction and operational phase impacts to unknown Construction and operational impacts on Budleigh

Historic Historic archaeological assets Salterton and East Budleigh Conservation Area.

environment (this receptor is scoped in for further consideration in the landscape assessment).

Construction phase transport and traffic. Operational impacts.

and and

Traffic transport

Cumulative impacts from other large-scale projects and a None

combination of different topic impacts resulting from LORP.

effects Cumulative

Lower Otter Restoration Project Environmental Statement 5 Key issues Scoped in Scoped out

None Construction and operational impact on climate

change.

change Climate Climate

None Constructional and operational impacts from

waste.

and and

Waste

efficiency resources

None Constructional and operational impacts on land

use.

use Land

Lower Otter Restoration Project Environmental Statement 6 Appendix B2 – East Devon District Council Scoping Opinion

Date: 8th July 2019 Direct phone: 01395 571596 Direct email: [email protected] Our ref: 19/0005/EIA

Helen Jones Jacobs

Churchill House Churchill Way

Cardiff CF10 2HH

Dear Helen

Request for an EIA Scoping Opinion under Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (as amended)/ Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regualtions 2017

Exe Estuary Habitat Delivery Project (Lower Otter Restoration Project)

Thank you for your letter of the 17th April 2019 which in accordance with the above regulations requests a Scoping Opinion for the proposed development at Budleigh Salterton.

In accordance with the regulations, the Local Planning Authority has consulted the relevant consultation bodies that were sent a copy of your letter and forms the basis for their comments.

I now outline the main comments raised and any additions we consider need to be included within your EIA. Where headings are omitted there is no requirement for further additional information.

Blackdown House, Border Road, Phone: 01395 516551 Download the free East Devon App Heathpark Industrial Estate, Email: [email protected] to access council services at Honiton, EX14 1EJ eastdevon.gov.uk eastdevon.gov.uk/app DX 48808 Honiton @eastdevon

East Devon – an outstanding place Chief Executive: Mark R Williams Deputy Chief Executive: Richard Cohen Biodiversity

In addition to an assessment on the Otter Estuary SSSI, the impact on the Otter Estuary Marine Conservation Zone needs to be assessed. This was formally designated on the 31 May 2019.

The ES should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within the MCZ, and identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects.

The area is of great importance to rare bat species, including greater and lesser horseshoe and grey long-eared bats. The potential for foraging habitats of GLEB should be considered in the EIA.

Water, Geomorphology and Hydromorphology

The impact on the Otter Meadows CWS needs consideration within the assessment, this should consider mitigation and/or compensation.

Landscape and Visual

Please see attached comments from the Jurassic Coast Trust. The development must be assessed in association with the WHS management plan, and that the Jurassic Coast Trust should be consulted as part of the process

Traffic and Transport

The impact of development on footpaths and roads within the site also needs consideration.

I hope that the above is of assistance and please note that in addition to the EIA the planning application would need to be supported by a Statement of Community Involvement.

Please note that this letter represents the formal scoping opinion of the Local Planning Authority. A copy of this letter will be kept available for public inspection in the Planning Register.

Yours sincerely

Darren Roberts Bsc (Hons) MRTPI

Darren Roberts Principal Planning Officer Date: 10 June 2019 Our ref: 282081 Your ref: 18/0020/EIA

Darren Roberts Customer Services Principal Planning Officer – Central Team Hornbeam House East Devon District Council Crewe Business Park [email protected] Electra Way Crewe BY EMAIL ONLY Cheshire CW1 6GJ

T 0300 060 3900

Dear Mr Roberts

Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping consultation (Regulation 15 (4) of the EIA Regulations 2017): EIA Scoping Opinion - Lower Otter Restoration Project (LORP) - Works at Budleigh Salterton to include restoration of the floodplain of the River Otter to include breaches to embankments, raising of a road, realignment of Budleigh Brook, construction of an access bridge and closure of a beach outfall. Location: Budleigh Salterton, Devon

Thank you for seeking our advice on the scope of the Environmental Statement (ES) in your consultation dated 09 May 2019 which we received on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Case law1 and guidance2 has stressed the need for a full set of environmental information to be available for consideration prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to grant planning permission. Annex A to this letter provides Natural England’s advice on the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for this development.

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact me at Alison Slade.naturalengland.org.uk. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Alison Slade Lead Advisor Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Team

1 Harrison, J in R. v. Cornwall County Council ex parte Hardy (2001) 2 Note on Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (April 2004) available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/sustainab ilityenvironmental/environmentalimpactassessment/noteenvironmental/

1

Annex A – Advice related to EIA Scoping Requirements

1. General Principles Schedule 4 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, sets out the necessary information to assess impacts on the natural environment to be included in an ES, specifically:  A description of the development – including physical characteristics and the full land use requirements of the site during construction and operational phases.  Expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.  An assessment of alternatives and clear reasoning as to why the preferred option has been chosen.  A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.  A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment – this should cover direct effects but also any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects. Effects should relate to the existence of the development, the use of natural resources and the emissions from pollutants. This should also include a description of the forecasting methods to predict the likely effects on the environment.  A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.  A non-technical summary of the information.  An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.

It will be important for any assessment to consider the potential cumulative effects of this proposal, including all supporting infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of the ‘in combination’ effects of the proposed development with any existing developments and current applications. A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment.

2. Biodiversity and Geology

2.1 Ecological Aspects of an Environmental Statement Natural England advises that the potential impact of the proposal upon features of nature conservation interest and opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement should be included within this assessment in accordance with appropriate guidance on such matters. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) have been developed by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and are available on their website.

EcIA is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components. EcIA may be carried out as part of the EIA process or to support other forms of environmental assessment or appraisal.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out guidance in S.174-177 on how to take account of biodiversity interests in planning decisions and the framework that local authorities should provide to assist developers.

2.2 Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites The ES should thoroughly assess the potential for the proposal to affect designated sites. European sites (e.g. designated Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) fall within the scope of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). In addition paragraph 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, listed or proposed Ramsar sites, and any

2 site identified as being necessary to compensate for adverse impacts on classified, potential or possible SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites be treated in the same way as classified sites. Under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) an appropriate assessment needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which is (a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and (b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site.

Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified or be uncertain, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process.

2.2.1 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and sites of European or international importance (Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites)

The site is within the following designated nature conservation sites:

 Otter Estuary SSSI

 Otter Estuary Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ)

In addition the proposals relate to the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the Dawlish Warren Special Area of Conservation (SAC) as explained in the submitted PEIR.

 Further information on the SSSI and its special interest features can be found at www.magic.gov

 The above MCZ was formally designated on the 31 May 2019. Further information, including a factsheet, can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marine- conservation-zones-otter-estuary

 The Environmental Statement should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within the above designated sites and should identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects. This includes the above MCZ.

 European site conservation objectives are available on our internet site http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/6490068894089216

2.2.2 Further comments on designated sites

We concur that there is potential for impacts on estuary morphology (see Figure 3.1), including in combination with the FAB cable proposal, and therefore advise that the EIA assesses alternative approaches to the rock protection to the service crossing of the estuary mouth shown in Appendix H drawing 0004.

Beer Quarry and Caves SAC is a European site important for it’s population of hibernating bats including greater and lesser horseshoe bats and Bechstein’s bat and also notified at a national level as Beer Quarry and Caves Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Bechstein’s bat has been scoped into the Habitats Regulations Assessment due to the detection of Myotis bat species during bat transect surveys. It is extremely difficult to differentiate Myotis bat species solely from bat detector data.

However the Lower Otter is approximately 15 km from Beer Quarry and Caves SAC. The numbers of hibernating Bechstein’s bats recorded at the SAC are currently extremely low (below 5 bats). Most foraging by this bat species occurs in closed-canopy woodland. We would therefore advise

3 that it is unlikely that the Lower Otter Estuary is important supporting habitat in relation to the qualifying features of the SAC.

However we advise that this area is of great importance to rare bat species, including greater and lesser horseshoe and grey long-eared bats (GLEB). As for Myotis bat species, it is not possible to differentiate grey long-eared bats (Plecotus austriacus) from the more common brown long-eared bats (Plecotus auritus) from their calls. Furthermore both Plecotus species tend to be under recorded on transect surveys due to the characteristics of their calls. From the known GLEB roosts in this locality we advise that the site could hold GLEB foraging habitat and that this should be considered in the EIA.

Please see the Grey long-eared bat management plan 2013 for more information. We also advise that the site can be screened out for impacts on the South Hams SAC due to the distance from the bat roosts included in this designation.

2.3 Regionally and Locally Important Sites The EIA will need to consider any impacts upon the Otter Meadows County Wildlife Site. The Environmental Statement should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife and geodiversity interests of local sites. The assessment should include proposals for mitigation of any impacts and if appropriate, compensation measures. Contact the Devon Biodiversity Information Centre for further advice.

2.4 Protected Species - Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species (including, for example, great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats). Natural England does not hold comprehensive information regarding the locations of species protected by law, but advises on the procedures and legislation relevant to such species. Records of protected species should be sought from appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, groups and individuals; and consideration should be given to the wider context of the site for example in terms of habitat linkages and protected species populations in the wider area, to assist in the impact assessment.

The conservation of species protected by law is explained in Part IV and Annex A of Government Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. The area likely to be affected by the proposal should be thoroughly surveyed by competent ecologists at appropriate times of year for relevant species and the survey results, impact assessments and appropriate accompanying mitigation strategies included as part of the ES.

In order to provide this information there may be a requirement for a survey at a particular time of year. Surveys should always be carried out in optimal survey time periods and to current guidance by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed, consultants. Natural England has adopted standing advice for protected species which includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation.

Please see 2.2 above for comments on important bat species.

2.5 Habitats and Species of Principal Importance The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed as ‘Habitats and Species of Principal Importance’ within the England Biodiversity List, published under the requirements of S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 places a general duty on all public authorities, including local planning authorities, to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Further information on this duty is available here https://www.gov.uk/guidance/biodiversity-duty-public-authority-duty-to-have-regard- to-conserving-biodiversity.

Government Circular 06/2005 states that Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats, ‘are

4 capable of being a material consideration…in the making of planning decisions’. Natural England therefore advises that survey, impact assessment and mitigation proposals for Habitats and Species of Principal Importance should be included in the ES. Consideration should also be given to those species and habitats included in the relevant Local BAP.

Natural England advises that a habitat survey (equivalent to Phase 2) is carried out on the site, in order to identify any important habitats present. In addition, ornithological, botanical and invertebrate surveys should be carried out at appropriate times in the year, to establish whether any scarce or priority species are present. The Environmental Statement should include details of:  Any historical data for the site affected by the proposal (e.g. from previous surveys);  Additional surveys carried out as part of this proposal;  The habitats and species present;  The status of these habitats and species (e.g. whether priority species or habitat);  The direct and indirect effects of the development upon those habitats and species;  Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required.

The development should seek if possible to avoid adverse impact on sensitive areas for wildlife within the site, and if possible provide opportunities for overall wildlife gain.

The Devon Biodiversity Records Centre should be able to provide the relevant information on the location and type of priority habitat for the area under consideration.

3. Designated Landscapes and Landscape Character

Nationally Designated Landscapes As the development site is within to the East Devon AONB, consideration should be given to the direct and indirect effects upon this designated landscape and in particular the effect upon its purpose for designation within the environmental impact assessment, as well as the content of the relevant management plan for the AONB.

Landscape and visual impacts Natural England would wish to see details of local landscape character areas mapped at a scale appropriate to the development site as well as any relevant management plans or strategies pertaining to the area. The EIA should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects of the development, such as changes in topography.

The EIA should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies. We encourage the use of Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), based on the good practice guidelines produced jointly by the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment in 2013. LCA provides a sound basis for guiding, informing and understanding the ability of any location to accommodate change and to make positive proposals for conserving, enhancing or regenerating character, as detailed proposals are developed.

Natural England supports the publication Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, produced by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management in 2013 (3rd edition). The methodology set out is almost universally used for landscape and visual impact assessment.

In order to foster high quality development that respects, maintains, or enhances, local landscape character and distinctiveness, Natural England encourages all new development to consider the character and distinctiveness of the area, with the siting and design of the proposed development reflecting local design characteristics and, wherever possible, using local materials. The Environmental Impact Assessment process should detail the measures to be taken to ensure the building design will be of a high standard, as well as detail of layout alternatives together with

5 justification of the selected option in terms of landscape impact and benefit.

The assessment should also include the cumulative effect of the development with other relevant existing or proposed developments in the area. In this context Natural England advises that the cumulative impact assessment should include other proposals currently at Scoping stage. Due to the overlapping timescale of their progress through the planning system, cumulative impact of the proposed development with those proposals currently at Scoping stage would be likely to be a material consideration at the time of determination of the planning application.

The assessment should refer to the relevant National Character Areas which can be found on our website. Links for Landscape Character Assessment at a local level are also available on the same page.

4. Access and Recreation Natural England encourages any proposal to incorporate measures to help encourage people to access the countryside for quiet enjoyment. Measures such as reinstating existing footpaths together with the creation of new footpaths and bridleways are to be encouraged. Links to other green networks and, where appropriate, urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of wider green infrastructure. Relevant aspects of local authority green infrastructure strategies should be incorporated where appropriate.

Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails The EIA should consider potential impacts on access land, public open land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. Consideration should also be given to the potential impacts on the adjacent South West Coast Path National Trail. The National Trails website www.nationaltrail.co.uk provides information including contact details for the National Trail Officer. Appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated for any adverse impacts. We also recommend reference to the relevant Right of Way Improvement Plans (ROWIP) to identify public rights of way within or adjacent to the proposed site that should be maintained or enhanced.

5. Climate Change Adaptation The England Biodiversity Strategy published by Defra establishes principles for the consideration of biodiversity and the effects of climate change. The ES should reflect these principles and identify how the development’s effects on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change, and how ecological networks will be maintained. The NPPF requires that the planning system should contribute to the enhancement of the natural environment ‘by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’ (NPPF Para 174), which should be demonstrated through the ES.

6. Cumulative and in-combination effects A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment.

The ES should include an impact assessment to identify, describe and evaluate the effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects and activities that are being, have been or will be carried out. The following types of projects should be included in such an assessment, (subject to available information):

a. existing completed projects; b. approved but uncompleted projects; c. ongoing activities; d. plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration by the consenting authorities; and e. plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, i.e. projects for which an application has not yet been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in-combination effects.

6

Sam Scriven Programme Manager for Heritage and Conservation Jurassic Coast Trust Mountfield DT6 3JP

22nd May 2019

Darren Roberts Bsc (Hons) MRTPI Principal Planning Officer- Central Team East Devon District Council Blackdown House Border Road Heathpark Industrial Estate Honiton EX14 1EJ

Dear Darren

Re: EIA scoping opinion request, Exe Estuary Habitat Delivery Project (Lower Otter Restoration Project)

Thank you for consulting the Jurassic Coast Trust (JCT). We have several comments to make in regards to the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) and some recommendations as to how the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (WHS), also known as the Jurassic Coast, should be treated within a forthcoming EIA. For reference, the JCT, whilst not a statutory consultee, is the organisation responsible for the protection of the Jurassic Coast WHS.

Comments on the PEIR

We welcome the fact that impacts on the WHS have been scoped in for further assessment. However, the PIER does not make a full account of the strategic and policy context of the WHS or its designation as a heritage asset, nor does it set out an appropriate methodology for how the WHS should be dealt with in the EIA.

 Section 2.1 - Table 2.1 does not include the WHS management plan as part of the strategic context. It is crucial this document is included as all impacts on the WHS must be assessed against Site management policies with a specific focus on the effects on the Site’s Outstanding Universal Value.

 Section 2.2 – National Planning Policy is highlighted that is relevant to the Natural Environment but it is important to be aware that NPP regarding World Heritage appears in section 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment, in particular paragraphs 132, 137 and 138. Also not that World Heritage Sites are considered to be designated heritage assets within UK planning processes.

Jurassic Coast Trust Mountfield, Bridport, DT6 3JP www.jurassiccoast.org, [email protected] 01308 807000 @jurassic_coast facebook.com/JurassicCoast

 Potential changes to the estuary mouth, pebble spit and sediment transport regimes are identified within the PEIR (e.g. para 5.6.3). This would constitute a direct impact on the WHS, contrary to the comment in para 5.8.3 “no designated heritage assets would be directly physically affected by the Scheme during construction or operation”.

 The following comment also appears in para 5.8.3 – “In addition, given the absence of inter-visibility between the study area and most of the designated heritage assets in the vicinity, it is considered that there would be no direct effects on these designated assets due to changes to their settings”. We strongly disagree. Clearly, the study area is visible from the crest of the beach and therefore the WHS. Indeed, the estuary exists as a consequence of the pebble spit, a geomorphological feature that supports the criteria under which the WHS was designated. The relationship between the two is a very important to how the WHS and its setting is experienced and understood.

Recommendations

Our general expectation is that the Lower Otter Restoration will have overall positive impacts on the WHS, but the proper assessment is required to satisfy the expectations of UNESCO and the commitment made by the UK Government to the World Heritage Convention.

Key to the EIA will be a thorough examination of potential impacts to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS. As a natural WHS, the OUV of the Jurassic Coast is founded on three components – criteria, integrity and protection and management (see IUCN guidance and the Site Management Plan listed below for more information). In the case of World Heritage Sites, setting should be regarded as part of the Protection and Conservation component of OUV.

I would suggest that the issues with the PEIR raised above are the result of procedural uncertainty. In our experience, the standard approach to and EIA is not well equipped to deal with a natural WHS. In fact, the Environment Agency have recently gone through a very similar process on another part of the Jurassic Coast - West Bay. Throughout the planning of new flood defences at West Bay impacts on the WHS were very carefully considered and mitigated for in the design of the scheme, and yet that work was almost absent from the subsequent EIA report. Happily, the need to address that gap in the EIA prompted the creation of a separate WHS impact assessment. In effect the EA created a model for themselves for conducting an EIA for the Jurassic Coast WHS.

Therefore, for this project, we would make two key recommendations:

1) The EA should follow their own model (and develop and refine it if required) for assessing impacts on the Jurassic Coast WHS. 2) The EA should consult with the Jurassic Coast Trust throughout that process. Our advice is freely available to them due to an existing agreement between the EA and JCT.

Jurassic Coast Trust Mountfield, Bridport, DT6 3JP www.jurassiccoast.org, [email protected] 01308 807000 @jurassic_coast facebook.com/JurassicCoast

In addition, we also recommend that they review the following key points of reference

 The Dorset and East Devon Coast WHS Management Plan 2014 – 2019  National Planning Policy Framework, particularly section 12, under which World Heritage is discussed  Planning Practice Guidance relevant to World Heritage (found under Conserving and enhancing the historic environment – Designated Heritage Assets)  IUCN guidance in regards to Environmental Impact Assessments at World Heritage Sites. https://www.iucn.org/theme/world-heritage/resources/iucn-policies-world- heritage/environmental-assessment.  Heritage Impact Assessment guidance from ICOMOS may also be helpful. https://www.icomos.org/world_heritage/HIA_20110201.pdf

The Lower Otter Restoration Project is an exciting prospect and we are very pleased to see a scoping approach for an EIA being adopted early. We would invite the district council to pass this letter on to the relevant EA officers so that a dialogue between us can be established as soon as possible.

Kind regards

Sam Scriven Programme Manager for Heritage and Conservation Jurassic Coast Trust

Jurassic Coast Trust Mountfield, Bridport, DT6 3JP www.jurassiccoast.org, [email protected] 01308 807000 @jurassic_coast facebook.com/JurassicCoast Appendix B3 – Marine Management Organisation Scoping Opinion

Lancaster House T 0300 123 1032 Hampshire Court F 0191 376 2681 Newcastle upon Tyne www.gov.uk/mmo NE4 7YH

Helen Jones Principal Environmental Consultant, JACOBS Case reference: EIA/2019/00013 Jacobs UK Limited Churchill House 17 Churchill Way Cardiff CF10 2HH

2nd August 2019

Dear Miss Helen Jones,

The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007, as amended (""the Regulations"") Request for a scoping opinion - Lower Otter Restoration Project

Thank you for your application dated 17 April 2019, requesting a scoping opinion from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) in respect to the Lower Otter Restoration Project.

In accordance with the regulations listed above, before reaching our scoping opinion, we have consulted such bodies that we considered likely to have an interest in the project by reason of their environmental responsibilities.

Details of the scoping opinion can be found in the attached Report. The items set out in the Report are those that have been highlighted by consultees and which we would expect to be fully considered within the environmental statement. However, we would not see this as a definitive list and other subsequent work may prove necessary following further discussion.

If you have any queries or require clarification on any of the above, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Duncan Currie

Lancaster House T 0300 123 1032 Hampshire Court F 0191 376 2681 Newcastle upon Tyne www.gov.uk/mmo NE4 7YH

SIGN_FIELD_1 SIGN_FIELD_1

SIGN_FIELD_1 SIGN_FIELD_1 Mr Duncan G Currie +44 (0)208 225 7348 [email protected]

Scoping Opinion

Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (“the Regulations”)

Title: Lower Otter Restoration Project.

Applicant: Miss Helen Jones – Jacobs; on behalf of Environment Agency.

MMO Reference: EIA/2019/00013.

Contents

Contents ...... 1 1 Proposal ...... 2 1.1 Project Background ...... 2 2 Location ...... 2 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ...... 3 4 Scoping Opinion ...... 4 4.1 Habitats Directive / Wild Birds Directive ...... 4 4.2 Other Nature Conservation ...... 4 4.3 Benthic Ecology ...... 5 4.4 Coastal Processes ...... 6 4.5 Fish Ecology and Fisheries ...... 6 4.6 Under Water Noise………………………………………………………………..6 4.7 Archaeology / Cultural Heritage ...... 7 4.8 Navigation / Other Users of the Sea ...... 7 4.9 Water Quality ...... 7 4.10 Cumulative Impacts & In-Combination Impacts ...... 8 5 Conclusion ...... 8

Page 1 of 8

1 Proposal

Lower Otter Restoration Project

1.1 Project Background

The Exe Estuary Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy identified that the integrity of the Exe Estuary would be adversely affected by coastal squeeze (the loss of existing habitat in front of defences resulting from rising sea levels that drown out the existing foreshore habitat) Under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations), it is a statutory requirement for the Environment Agency to create habitat to compensate for that lost as a result of coastal squeeze from flood risk activities. The project will restore the floodplain of the River Otter to a condition similar to that previously found prior to the construction of the embankments. The Scheme will retain most of the embankments where they are but provide breaches in Little Bank, Big Bank and the River Otter embankment to allow water from the River Otter and Otter Estuary to inundate the site creating intertidal saltmarsh and mudflats. South Farm Road will be raised, and the Budleigh Salterton Cricket Club moved off site to another location. The Scheme will: • Remove 30m of the eastern spillway within Little Bank; • Create a 220m wide breach in Little Bank; • Create a 150m wide breach in Big Bank; • Realign Budleigh Brook removing it from a raised aqueduct; • Construct an access bridge over the realigned Budleigh Brook; • Raise South Farm Road on an embankment with a bridged opening; • Partially removal the landfill and soil capping and perimeter erosion protection; • Protect the outfall at the mouth of the Otter estuary; • Create a breach through the River Otter estuary embankment with a pedestrian bridge over the breach; and • Closure of a beach outfall.

2 Location

The Lower Otter Restoration Project is located in the Otter Estuary East of Budleigh Salterton Devon, which is displayed in Figure 1 below.

Page 2 of 8

Figure 1: Lower Otter Restoration Project location Plan

3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Council Directive 2011/92/EU (as amended) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (“the EIA Directive”) aims to protect the environment and the quality of life by ensuring that projects which are likely to have significant environmental effects by virtue of their nature, size or location are subject to an EIA before permission is granted.

The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (“the Regulations”) transpose the EIA Directive into UK law for marine licence applications.

Pursuant to Regulation 5 of the Regulations, it was agreed between the MMO and Miss Helen Jones of Jacobs that the proposed works constitute an EIA development under Schedule A2, paragraph 69 of the Regulations, specifically:

69. Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction of, for example, dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works.”

Page 3 of 8

Therefore, the application required for the proposed works for a marine licence under Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (“the Act”) will be accompanied by an Environmental Statement (“ES”).

4 Scoping Opinion

Pursuant of regulation 13 of the Regulations, Jacobs have requested a Scoping Opinion from the MMO. In so doing a Preliminary Environmental Information Report entitled “Exe Estuary Habitat Delivery Project (Lower Otter Restoration Project) ” has been submitted to the MMO for review.

The MMO agrees with the topics outlined in the Scoping Report and in addition, we outline that the following aspects be considered further during the EIA and must be included in any resulting Environmental Statement (ES).

4.1 Habitats Directive / Wild Birds Directive

4.1.1 It is important for any assessment to consider the potential cumulative impacts of this proposal, including all supporting infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of the ‘in combination’ effects of the proposed development with any existing developments and current applications. Full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment.

4.1.2 Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified or be uncertain, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to consideration of impacts through the ES process.

4.1.3 The ES should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within the below listed designated sites and should identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects; • Exe Estuary SPA and Ramsar • Dawlish Warren SAC • Beer Quarry and Caves SAC o 4.2.3. Bechsteins bat has been scoped into the Habitats Regulations Assessment however given the number of this species recorded at the SAC it is unlikely that the Lower Otter Estuary is important supporting habitat and can be scoped out of the HRA o 4.2.4 The area is, however, of great importance to rare bat species, including greater and lesser horseshoe and grey long-eared bats (GLEB). From the known GLEB roosts in this locality we advise that the site could hold GLEB foraging habitat and that this should be considered in the ES.

4.2 Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 4.2.1. The ES should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within the below designated sites

Page 4 of 8

and should identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects; • Otter Estuary MCZ

4.3 Other Nature Conservation

4.2.2 The ES should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within the below designated sites and should identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects. • Otter Estuary SSSI • Otter Meadows County Wildlife Site.

Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats. 4.2.6 The MMO advises that survey, impact assessment and mitigation proposals for Habitats and Species of Principal Importance should be included in the ES. Consideration should also be given to those species and habitats included in the relevant Local BAP.

East Devon AONB 4.2.7 The ES should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects of the development, such as changes in topography.

4.2.8 The ES should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies.

4.2.9 The ES process should detail the measures to be taken to ensure the building design will be of a high standard, as well as detail of layout alternatives together with justification of the selected option in terms of landscape impact and benefit.

Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails 4.2.10 The ES should consider potential impacts on access land, public open land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. Consideration should also be given to the potential impacts on the adjacent South West Coast Path National Trail. Appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated for any adverse impacts.

4.4 Benthic Ecology

4.3.1 Subsequent modelling should be undertaken to provide some confidence on the likelihood that the proposed habitats will be created post breach (i.e. is there a sufficient source of sediment and an appropriate tidal height for the establishment of intertidal mudflats).

Page 5 of 8

4.5 Coastal Processes

4.4.1 There is no mention of any “landscaping” works that may be undertaken in order to facilitate the development of saltmarsh habitat. Based on the drawings, maps and imagery submitted, the area appears to be topographically homogenous. Studies in the literature suggest that homogenous ground or unnatural channels (e.g., reclaimed canalised irrigation ditches) can impede the development of saltmarsh following managed realignment. This can lead to a lack of “natural equivalence”. A brief clarification of whether such landscaping will be undertaken, including any reasoning (for or against) is required in the ES.

4.6 Fish Ecology and Fisheries

4.5.1 It is important that both the beneficial and adverse impacts are assessed. The scheme is proposing the installation of approximately 1km of bank protection and the impacts of this should also be included in the ES as there will be both biodiversity and geomorphology implications from this activity. This could either be adverse or beneficial depending on the type of protection used.

4.5.2 The diversion of the Budleigh Brook and removal of sections of Little Bank, Big Bank and the River Otter embankment have the potential to introduce the risk of creating an attraction flow for migratory fish during floods, which could possibly result in a new route for the river below Otterton. If a new channel were to form and the river flow through the breaches in Little Bank and Big Bank there is a potential to create obstructions to fish passage. If these impacts were realised it could lead to a deterioration of water body fish status for the upstream the River Otter waterbodies and should be fully assessed in the ES.

4.5.3 The MMO recommend that a monitoring programme is put in place to monitor use of new and restored habitats.

4.7 Underwater noise

4.6.1 The report assumes that non-migratory fish can easily reach other available habitats up and downstream, which may be difficult if an acoustic barrier in the river is created by piling activities. The report highlights a number of marine species are present in the river we recommend that the construction impacts on non-migratory fish are further considered.

4.6.2 There appears to be a slight discrepancy in the report as to what is being scoped in/out. Table 4.5 “Summary of biodiversity impacts” scopes in ‘construction and operational impacts on migratory species’ yet scopes out ‘operational impacts on migrating and non-migrating fish’. This should be clarified to make clear what is being scoped out (in terms of the operational phase), with appropriate justification.

4.6.3 We would expect the ES to include detailed information on the piling activities, including the method of pile installation, piling duration, and the number of piles to be installed.

Page 6 of 8

4.8 Archaeology / Cultural Heritage

4.7.1 The MMO recommends that the potential for Palaeolithic deposits is assessed. This may be most effectively actioned through an initial Desk Based Assessment of the geoarchaeological potential of the area, with subsequent geoarchaeological assessment through borehole transects including palaeoenvironmental assessment and analysis (with specific comment on preservation) and the creation of a deposit model to assist with targeting any required mitigation. This will also enable the assessment of the potential of minerogenic deposits and organic deposits to contribute to understanding of environment, climate and sea level change, and has the potential to contextualise human activity within the valley from the prehistoric period.

4.7.2 The potential impact of changes to sedimentation and erosion rates must be considered. These factors have not been adequately considered at Desk Based Assessment and must be addressed as part of the Geoarchaeological Desk Based Assessment.

4.7.3 It would be useful for Historic England to review the WSI for geoarchaeological desk based assessment, deposit modelling and geoarchaeological assessment, which must be undertaken by a suitably experienced geoarchaeologist in line with Historic England’s Geoarchaeology guidance.

4.7.4 Where historic banks and embankments are to be removed, it is recommended that a section through these is recorded by an archaeologist advised by a geoarchaeologist.

4.9 Navigation / Other Users of the Sea

4.8.1 There is potential for impacts on estuary morphology, including in combination with the FAB cable proposal, and therefore we advise that the ES fully considers and assesses all alternative approaches to the in situ protection of the SWW service crossing at the estuary mouth (shown in Appendix H drawing 0004).

4.10 Water Quality

4.9.1 The MMO requests that the technical reports describing the risk assessment and modelling undertaken are included within the ES.

4.9.2 The PIER shows that there has been a significant amount of site investigation and risk assessment undertaken with regard to saline intrusion into the Otter Sandstone however; there remain outstanding issues regarding the modelling techniques, input parameters and sensitivity analysis for groundwater protection issues. Therefore groundwater protection issues must be assessed as part of the the ES, including the risks to South West Water public water supply.

4.9.3 A Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment will be required as part of the marine licence application. This should include a thorough assessment of the ecological impacts, risks of deterioration and potential mitigation measures. Government guidance for undertaking WFD assessments in coastal and estuarine

Page 7 of 8

waters is available on the Gov.uk website. The guidance was updated in November 2017 and is referred to as the Clearing the Waters for All. This guidance can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/water-framework-directive-assessment- estuarine- and-coastal-waters

4.11 Cumulative Impacts & In-Combination Impacts

4.10.1 A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment. Any assessment must consider the potential cumulative effects of this proposal, including all supporting infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of the ‘in combination’ effects of the proposed development with any existing developments and current applications.

4.10.2 The ES must include an impact assessment to identify, describe and evaluate the effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects and activities that are being, have been or will be carried out. The following types of projects should be included in such an assessment, (subject to available information): • existing completed projects; • approved but uncompleted projects; • ongoing activities; • plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration by the consenting authorities; and • plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, i.e. projects for which an application has not yet been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in-combination effects.

4.10.3 The ES must fully consider and assesses all alternative approaches to the in situ protection of the SWW service crossing at the estuary mouth (shown in Appendix H drawing 0004 to the PIER)

5 Conclusion

The topics highlighted in this scoping opinion must be assessed during the EIA process and the outcome of these assessments must be documented in the ES in support of the marine licence application and any associated planning application(s). This statement, however, should not necessarily be seen as a definitive list of all EIA requirements. Given the scale and programme of these planned works other work may prove necessary.

Duncan Currie Marine Case Officer

26 July 2019

Page 8 of 8