R Report Submitted to Submitted by Cheshire West and Chester AECOM Council Scott House Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP United Kingdom
Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two) – Land Allocations and Detailed Policies
June 2016 AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page i and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Prepared by: Graeme Down Checked by: Dr James Riley Senior Ecologist Associate Director
Approved by: James Riley Associate Director
Rev No Comments Checked Approved Date by by 0 First Draft JR JR 02/06/16 1 2
Scott House, Alençon Link, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 7PP, United Kingdom Telephone: 01256 310 200 Website: http://www.aecom.com
Job No: 60487736 Date Created: June 2016
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page ii and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Limitations
AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“AECOM”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Cheshire West and Chester Council (“Client”) in accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this Report or any other services provided by AECOM. This Report is confidential and may not be disclosed by the Client nor relied upon by any other party without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based upon information provided by others and upon the assumption that all relevant information has been provided by those parties from whom it has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by AECOM has not been independently verified by AECOM, unless otherwise stated in the Report.
The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by AECOM in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between May 2016 and June 2016 and is based on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time. The scope of this Report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these circumstances.
Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate are subject to further investigations or information which may become available.
AECOM disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter affecting the Report, which may come or be brought to AECOM’s attention after the date of the Report.
Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, projections or other forward- looking statements and even though they are based on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the Report, such forward-looking statements by their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results predicted. AECOM specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report.
Copyright
© This Report is the copyright of AECOM Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page iii and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Contents
1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Methodology ...... 7 2.1 Introduction ...... 7 2.2 A Proportionate Assessment ...... 7 2.3 The Process of HRA ...... 8 2.4 Task One: Test of Likely Significant Effect ...... 9 2.5 Scope of the HRA ...... 9 2.6 The ‘In Combination’ Scope ...... 10 3 Pathways of Impact ...... 13 3.1 Introduction ...... 13 3.2 Disturbance and Recreational Pressure ...... 13 3.3 Atmospheric pollution ...... 16 3.4 Water resources ...... 18 3.5 Water quality ...... 18 3.6 Coastal squeeze ...... 19 3.7 Loss of supporting habitat ...... 20 4 Summary of HRA Conclusions for Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) ...... 21 4.2 Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar ...... 21 4.3 Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar ...... 21 4.4 River Dee and Bala Lake SAC ...... 22 4.5 West Midlands Mosses SAC/ Oak Mere SAC/ Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar ...... 22 4.6 Liverpool Bay SPA ...... 22 4.7 Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar ...... 23 4.8 Sefton Coast SAC ...... 23 4.9 Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA/Ramsar ...... 23 4.10 Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC...... 23 4.11 River Eden SAC ...... 23 5 HRA Screening of Local Plan (Part Two) Detailed Policies ...... 24 6 HRA Screening of Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations ...... 35 7 Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site ...... 43 7.1 Introduction ...... 43 7.2 Reasons for Designation ...... 43 7.3 Current Pressures ...... 44 7.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects ...... 44 7.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects ...... 45 7.6 Conclusions ...... 46 8 Dee Estuary SAC, SPA & Ramsar site ...... 48 8.1 Introduction ...... 48 8.2 Reasons for Designation ...... 48 8.3 Current Pressures ...... 50 8.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects ...... 50 8.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects ...... 51 8.6 Conclusions ...... 51 9 River Dee and Bala Lake SAC ...... 52 9.1 Reasons for Designation ...... 52 9.2 Current Pressures ...... 52 9.3 Role of Other Plans and Projects ...... 53 9.4 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects ...... 53 9.5 Conclusions ...... 53 10 West Midlands Mosses SAC/ Oak Mere SAC/ Midlands Meres & Mosses Ramsar ...... 54 10.1 Introduction ...... 54 10.2 Reasons for Designation ...... 54 10.3 Current Pressures ...... 54 10.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects ...... 55 10.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects ...... 55
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page iv and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
10.6 Conclusions ...... 55 11 Liverpool Bay SPA ...... 56 11.1 Introduction ...... 56 11.2 Reasons for Designation ...... 56 11.3 Current Pressures ...... 56 11.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects ...... 57 11.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects ...... 58 11.6 Conclusions ...... 58 12 Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar site ...... 59 12.1 Introduction ...... 59 12.2 Reasons for Designation ...... 59 12.3 Current Pressures ...... 59 12.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects ...... 60 12.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects ...... 61 12.6 Conclusions ...... 61 13 Sefton Coast SAC ...... 62 13.1 Introduction ...... 62 13.2 Reasons for Designation ...... 62 13.3 Historic Trends and Current Pressures ...... 62 13.4 Role of other plans and projects ...... 63 13.5 Conclusion ...... 63 14 Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA / Ramsar site ...... 64 14.1 Introduction ...... 64 14.2 Reasons for Designation ...... 64 14.3 Current Pressures ...... 65 14.4 Role of other plans and projects ...... 66 14.5 Conclusion ...... 66 15 Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC ...... 67 15.1 Reasons for Designation ...... 67 15.2 Current Pressures ...... 67 15.3 Conclusion ...... 67 16 River Eden SAC ...... 68 16.1 Reasons for Designation ...... 68 16.2 Historic Trends and Current Pressures ...... 68 16.3 Conclusions ...... 68 17 Summary of HRA Screening ...... 69
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 5 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
1 Introduction
1.1.1 AECOM has been appointed by Cheshire West and Chester Council (“the Council”) to assist in undertaking a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the potential effects of the draft Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) on the Natura 2000 network and Ramsar sites. The Local Plan (Part Two) builds upon the Council’s Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies (adopted January 2015). This plan was also subject to HRA, which was undertaken by AECOM (then URS). 1.1.2 The HRA is required to evaluate the Likely Significant Effects of the Land Allocations and Detailed Policies on internationally important wildlife sites within the zone of influence, and determine if there is a relevant connecting pathway. 1.1.3 The objective of this assessment is to: Identify any aspects of the Local Plan (Part Two) that would cause an adverse effect on the integrity of Natura 2000 sites, otherwise known as European sites or internationally designated sites (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and, as a matter of Government policy, Ramsar sites1), either in isolation or in-combination with other plans and projects; and, To advise on appropriate mechanisms for delivering mitigation through policy or modifications to land allocations where such effects are identified. 1.1.4 If the Local Plan (Part Two) cannot be screened out as being unlikely to lead to significant effects, then Appropriate Assessment (AA) is required in order to devise measures that can be incorporated into the Local Plan which will enable the Council in their role as ‘competent authority’ to conclude that no adverse effect on the integrity of internationally important wildlife sites will result. 1.1.5 The Habitats Regulations applies the precautionary principle to Natura 2000 sites (SAC and SPA). As a matter of UK Government policy, Ramsar sites2 are given equivalent status. For the purposes of this assessment candidate SACs (cSACs), proposed SPAs (pSPAs) and proposed Ramsar (pRamsar) sites are all treated as fully designated sites. In this report we use the term ‘internationally designated sites’ to refer collectively to the sites listed in this paragraph. 1.1.6 There are current proposals to extend the physical extent and proposed interest features of the Liverpool Bay SPA. This HRA therefore also takes the opportunity to consider whether there would be any adverse effects on the Proposed Extension to the SPA. 1.1.7 Throughout this document the phrase Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has been used to refer to the overall process required by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) (as amended), while Appropriate Assessment (AA) is used for the specific stage of the process in which it is necessary to determine adverse effects on the integrity of internationally designated sites. The need for HRA and AA is set out within Article 6.3 of the EC Habitats Regulations 1992, and transposed into British law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Box 1). The ultimate aim of the Regulations is to “maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest” (Habitats Regulations, Article 2(2)). This aim relates to habitats and species, not the internationally designated sites themselves, although the sites have a significant role in delivering favourable conservation status.
1 Wetlands of International Importance designated under the Ramsar Convention 1979 2 Ibid
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 6 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Habitats Directive 1992
“Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives.” Article 6 (3)
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
“A competent authority, before deciding to … give any consent for a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site … must make an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site in view of that sites conservation objectives … The authority shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site”. Regulation 61 (1)
Box 1: The legislative basis for Appropriate Assessment 1.1.8 Chapter 2 of this report explains the HRA/AA process and methodology in more detail, identifying the scope of the assessment (i.e. which internationally designated sites have been considered). The ‘in- combination’ scope is also explained, with a brief description of key plans and policies which have been considered. Chapter 3 explores the relevant pathways of impact resulting from the scale of development that will be delivered in Cheshire West and Chester. Chapter 4 provides a HRA screening of the Detailed Policies contained within the Local Plan (Part Two). Chapter 5 provides a summary of relevant conclusions made for each internationally designated site in the HRA of the adopted Local Plan (Part One). Chapter 5 then undertakes a HRA screening of the Detailed Policies within the Local Plan (Part Two). Chapter 6 screens the Land Allocations within the Local Plan (Part Two). Chapters 7 to 16 provide more detailed assessment of the results of the HRA screening exercise organised on the basis of one chapter per European site, except where multiple sites overlap in a particular geographic area (e.g. Ribble & Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar sites). Each chapter begins with a consideration of the interest features and ecological condition of the site and environmental process essential to maintain site integrity. A summary of the conclusions of the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) is provided. A brief assessment of the Local Plan (Part Two) in respect of each European site (both in isolation and in combination with other projects and plans) is then carried out. The conclusion of the screening exercise is then summarised in Chapter 17.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 7 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
2 Methodology
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 This section sets out our approach and methodology for undertaking the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). HRA itself operates independently from the Planning Policy system, being a legal requirement of a discrete Statutory Instrument. Therefore there is no direct relationship to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the ‘Tests of Soundness’.
2.2 A Proportionate Assessment
2.2.1 Project-related HRA often requires bespoke survey work and novel data generation in order to accurately determine the significance of effects. In other words, to look beyond the risk of an effect to a justified prediction of the actual likely effect and to the development of avoidance or mitigation measures. 2.2.2 However, the draft DCLG guidance3 makes it clear that when implementing HRA of land-use plans, the Appropriate Assessment (AA) should be undertaken at a level of detail that is appropriate and proportional to the level of detail provided within the plan itself: “The comprehensiveness of the [Appropriate] assessment work undertaken should be proportionate to the geographical scope of the option and the nature and extent of any effects identified. An AA need not be done in any more detail, or using more resources, than is useful for its purpose. It would be inappropriate and impracticable to assess the effects [of a strategic land use plan] in the degree of detail that would normally be required for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of a project.” 2.2.3 More recently, the Court of Appeal4 ruled that providing the Council (competent authority) was duly satisfied that proposed mitigation could be ‘achieved in practice’ to satisfy that the proposed development would have no adverse effect, then this would suffice. This ruling has since been applied to a planning permission (rather than a DPD)5. In this case the High Court ruled that for ‘a multistage process, so long as there is sufficient information at any particular stage to enable the authority to be satisfied that the proposed mitigation can be achieved in practice it is not necessary for all matters concerning mitigation to be fully resolved before a decision maker is able to conclude that a development will satisfy the requirements of reg 61 of the Habitats Regulations’. 2.2.4 In other words, there is a tacit acceptance that AA can be tiered and that all impacts are not necessarily appropriate for consideration to the same degree of detail at all tiers.
3 DCLG (2006) Planning for the Protection of European Sites, Consultation Paper 4 No Adastral New Town Ltd (NANT) v Suffolk Coastal District Council Court of Appeal, 17th February 2015 5 High Court case of R (Devon Wildlife Trust) v Teignbridge District Council, 28 July 2015
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 8 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Box 2: Tiering in HRA of Land Use Plans 2.2.5 For a Local Plan the level of detail concerning the developments that will be delivered is usually insufficient to make a highly detailed assessment of significance of effects. For example, precise and full determination of the impacts and significant effects of a new settlement will require extensive details concerning the design of the new housing sites, including layout of greenspace and type of development to be delivered in particular locations, yet these data will not be decided until subsequent stages. 2.2.6 The most robust and defensible approach to the absence of fine grain detail at this level is to make use of the precautionary principle. In other words, the plan is never given the benefit of the doubt (within the limits of reasonableness); it must be assumed that a policy/measure is likely to have an impact leading to a significant adverse effect upon an internationally designated site unless it can be clearly established otherwise.
2.3 The Process of HRA
2.3.1 The HRA is being carried out in the continuing absence of formal central Government guidance. DCLG released a consultation paper on AA of Plans in 20066. As yet, no further formal guidance has emerged from DCLG. However, Natural England has produced its own informal internal guidance and Natural Resources Wales has produced guidance for Welsh authorities on ‘the appraisal of plans under the Habitats Regulations’ as a separate guidance document aimed at complementing and supplementing the guidance/advice provided within Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009). Although there is no requirement for an HRA to follow either guidance, both have been referred to in producing this HRA. 2.3.2 Box 3 below outlines the stages of HRA according to current draft DCLG guidance (which, as government guidance applicable to English authorities is considered to take precedence over other sources of guidance). The stages are essentially iterative, being revisited as necessary in response to more detailed information, recommendations and any relevant changes to the plan until no likely significant effects remain.
6 DCLG (2006) Planning for the Protection of European Sites, Consultation Paper
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 9 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Box 3: Four-Stage Approach to Habitats Regulations Assessment 2.3.3 In practice, we and other practitioners have discovered that this broad outline requires some amendment in order to feed into a developing land use plan such as a Local Plan. The four staged approach shows for simplicity a basic progression from step to step, but it is quite usual for the process to be more iterative and cyclical, with each stage being fed back to the local authority to inform further amendments to the plan which are then re-assessed for implications on internationally designated sites. The following process has been adopted for carrying out the subsequent stages of the HRA.
2.4 Task One: Test of Likely Significant Effect
2.4.1 The first stage of any Habitats Regulations Assessment is a Likely Significant Effect test - essentially a high level risk assessment to decide whether the full subsequent stage known as Appropriate Assessment is required. The essential question is: ”Is the Plan, either alone or in combination with other relevant projects and plans, likely to result in a significant effect upon European sites?” 2.4.2 In evaluating significance, AECOM have relied on professional judgment as well as stakeholder consultation. The level of detail concerning developments that will be permitted under land use plans is rarely sufficient to make a detailed quantification of effects. Therefore, we have again taken a precautionary approach (in the absence of more precise data) assuming as the default position that if an adverse effect cannot be confidently ruled out, avoidance or mitigation measures must be provided. This is in line with draft DCLG guidance that the level of detail of the assessment, whilst meeting the relevant requirements of the Habitats Regulations, should be ‘appropriate’ to the level of plan or project that it addresses (see Box 3 for a summary of this ‘tiering’ of assessment).
2.5 Scope of the HRA
2.5.1 The scope of the HRA is as shown in
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 10 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
2.5.2 Table 1. The location of these internationally designated sites is illustrated on Figure 1. All baseline data relating to these internationally designated sites presented in subsequent Chapters of this Report is taken from Joint Nature Conservancy Council websites (JNCC) unless otherwise stated.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 11 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Table 1: Physical scope of the HRA Internationally Designated Reason for Inclusion Site Located within Cheshire West and Chester Oak Mere SAC
Midlands Meres and Located within Cheshire West and Chester Mosses Ramsar site West Midlands Mosses SAC Located partly within Cheshire West and Chester Identified as a source of potable water for Cheshire West and Chester River Dee & Bala Lake SAC and also the receiving watercourse for WwTW discharge
Mersey Estuary SPA and Located partially within Cheshire West and Chester Ramsar Downstream of the River Dee which is identified as a source of potable Dee Estuary SAC SPA & water for Cheshire West and Chester. Development in the Borough also Ramsar site creates potential water quality pathways.
Located immediately downstream of the Mersey Estuary. There is therefore a potential water quality pathway through sewage effluent Liverpool Bay SPA discharges, air quality from transport plans, disturbance of birds and recreational pressure
Berwyn & South Clwyd Included at the request of Natural Resources Wales Mountains SAC Located within Merseyside downstream of the Mersey Estuary Mersey Narrows & North SPA/Ramsar site. There is a direct link to development in through water Wirral Foreshore Ramsar quality and SPA
Located within Merseyside and linked to development in Cheshire West Sefton Coast SAC & Chester through recreational pressure and water quality
Located within Merseyside and is an indirect link to development in Ribble & Alt Estuaries SPA Cheshire West & Chester through water quality and recreational and Ramsar site pressure
Haweswater Lake (to which the River is hydrologically connected) is likely to form part of the future water supply for Cheshire West and River Eden SAC Chester.
2.5.3 The internationally designated sites included in Table 1 are those that were included within the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One). Although some were screened out during that exercise they are considered here for completeness following consultation with Natural England on the scope of the HRA.
Liverpool Bay SPA / Bae Lerwpl SPA with Marine Component and Proposed Extension to the SPA 2.5.1 The designated features and extent of Liverpool Bay SPA have been amended in 2015. The bay now stretches from Anglesey in Wales to the Lancashire coast. 2.5.2 Further extensions are proposed, extending the SPA further out to sea. However, the Proposed Extension to the SPA would also bring the physical area covered by the SPA up the River Mersey to the entrance to Birkenhead Docks. The Proposed Extension would afford protection to little gull Hydrocoloeus minutus, and cover important foraging areas for little tern Sterna albifrons (colony at Gronant) and common tern Sterna hirundo (colony at Seaforth). The Proposed Extension would also add red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator, and cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo as named features of the assemblage for which the SPA is designated.
2.6 The ‘In Combination’ Scope
2.6.1 It is a requirement of the Regulations that the impacts and effects of any land use plan being assessed are not considered in isolation but in combination with other plans and projects that may
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 12 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
also be affecting the internationally designated site(s) in question. In practice, ‘in combination assessment’ is of greatest importance when a Local Plan would otherwise be screened out because the individual contribution is inconsequential. It is neither practical nor necessary to assess the ‘in combination’ effects of the Local Plan within the context of all other plans and projects within the region. The principal other plans and projects that we are considering are:
Projects Mersey Ports Masterplan (Consultation draft; June 2011), including the Port expansion into Seaforth Nature Reserve and the Seaforth River Terminal (a deepwater container port expansion in Sefton is currently under construction and due for completion imminently), new opportunities for renewable energy, development of single and multi-user port centric warehousing and of new processing facilities for imported commodities. potentially leading to the Liverpool SuperPort – An integrated port, airport, intermodal terminal, freight and commercial network based upon the Port of Liverpool, the Manchester Ship Canal, Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (Liverpool City Region); Peel Waters: Wirral and Liverpool Waters – This project is the development of currently run down dockland areas both on the Wirral and Liverpool side of the River Mersey. This includes the construction of houses, retail and commercial developments. The construction of these two developments will have a direct impact on the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA due to loss of habitat, barrier impacts for birds in flight and significant disturbance issues during construction; Sandon Dock Waste Water Treatment Works outfall extension - to reduce adverse effects on estuary marshes the work to extend the outfall will take place on the opposite bank to the Egremont Shore section of the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore Ramsar and SPA site (containing Mersey Narrows SSSI) but may still have an impact on the designated features of the SPA through the construction of the extended pipe. There may be issues relating to changes in sedimentation patterns altering the position of sand banks; Power from the Mersey – project to generate renewable power from the tidal processes in the River Mersey/Mersey Estuary. This project has been indefinitely postponed; Liverpool John Lennon Airport expansion; Energy from Waste Plants at Runcorn (Halton Borough Council) and Ince Marshes (Cheshire West & Chester); Frodsham Windfarm – 20 turbines to be constructed on a stretch of land between the Manchester Ship Canal and the M56 (Cheshire West & Chester); Crosby Water Centre, Seaforth Terminal and possible visitor centres at Formby/Marshside (Sefton Council); Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool); Horizon Nuclear Power (proposed nuclear power site at Wylfa Newydd Project on Anglesey); and Hydrodec Oil Re-Refinery, Eastham – plans to build an oil re-refinery at a new port facility in Eastham.
Plans West Cheshire and North-East Wales Sub-Regional Spatial Strategy (2007); Cheshire West and Chester Rural Regeneration Strategy and Action Plan (2011); The Wales Spatial Plan (updated 2008); North West England & North Wales Shoreline Management Plan 2 (SMP 22 Great Ormes Head to Scotland) (2011), incorporating: Great Ormes Head to Formby Point Shoreline Management Plan; Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (submitted 2014);
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 13 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Liverpool Core Strategy Submission draft (2012) The Liverpool Core Strategy is now being incorporated into a Local Plan and will not be taken forward as a stand-alone document; Knowsley Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted January 2016); Halton Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted 2013); Trafford Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted 2012); Wirral Local Plan Core Strategy – emerging. A revised proposed submission draft is expected to be published for public comment in 2016; St. Helens Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted 2012); Sefton Local Plan (submitted 2015; now undergoing Proposed Modifications); Shropshire Core Strategy (adopted 2011); Flintshire Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2011) and Flintshire Local Development Plan (emerging); Denbighshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2013); Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2005) and the Emerging Wrexham Local Plan; Conway Local Development Plan 2013; Neighbourhood Plans for Hartford (2016); Helsby (2016); Malpas and Overton (2015); Neston (2016); Norley (2016); Tattenhall and District (2014); Tarporley (2016) and Winsford (2014); Saved policies (post January 2015) in the Chester District Local Plan; Elllesmere Port and Neston Borough Local Plan; Vale Royal Borough Local Plan; Cheshire Replacement Minerals Plan; and Cheshire Replacement Waste Plan. Joint Merseyside & Halton Waste Local Plan Adopted 2013; Greater Manchester Joint Waste Plan updated 2015; Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) 2015; Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted 2014); Part One North West River Basin District River Basin Management Plan (updated 2015); Cheshire West and Chester Local Transport Plan (2011-2026); Local Transport Plans for surrounding authorities; Minerals and Waste Plans for surrounding authorities; Dee Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (2015); North West River Basin District River Basin Management Plan (2015) and, United Utilities Water Resources Management Plan 2015. 2.6.2 For the purposes of this assessment, we have determined that, due to the nature of the identified impacts, the key plans and projects that are likely to result in ‘in-combination’ effects with the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two) relate to the additional housing and commercial/industrial allocations proposed for surrounding authorities over the lifetime of the Local Plan. 2.6.3 With regard to the specific issue of water resources, the long distance transfer pathways that exist for the supply of water to the Cheshire area and the fact that these same pathways or water sources also supply parts of North Wales, the West Midlands, Manchester, Cumbria and Merseyside, means that development across a much broader area is required for the consideration of water resource impacts ‘in combination’. 2.6.4 It should be noted that, while the broad potential impacts of these other projects and plans will be considered, we do not propose carrying out full HRA on each of these plans – we will however draw upon existing HRA that have been carried out for surrounding regions and plans.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 14 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
3 Pathways of Impact
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 In carrying out an HRA it is important to avoid confining oneself to effectively arbitrary boundaries (such as Local Authority boundaries) but to use an understanding of the various ways in which land use plans can impact on European sites to follow the pathways along which development can be connected with European sites, in some cases many kilometres distant. Briefly defined, pathways are routes by which a change in activity associated with a development can lead to an effect upon a European site. It is also important to bear in mind CLG guidance which states that the AA should be ‘proportionate to the geographical scope of the [plan policy]’ and that ‘an AA need not be done in any more detail, or using more resources, than is useful for its purpose’ (DCLG, 2006, p.67). 3.1.2 The following indirect pathways of impact were explored fully in undertaking the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One). The scale and broad distribution of development proposed within the Local Plan (Part Two) remains consistent with the Local Plan (Part One). The following sections present a summary of these Pathways of Impact that are considered to remain relevant to the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Local Plan (Part Two).
3.2 Disturbance and Recreational Pressure
3.2.1 Habitats Regulations Assessments of Local Plans tend to focus on recreational sources of disturbance as a result of new residents or an increasingly aging population with more leisure time available8. While this is a key factor, other sources of disturbance associated with an increase in commercial development, road transport adjacent to sensitive sites or increases in shipping and aircraft movement may also result in impacts.
Breeding birds 3.2.2 Concern regarding the effects of disturbance on birds stems from the fact that they are expending energy unnecessarily and the time they spend responding to disturbance is time that is not spent feeding9. Disturbance therefore risks increasing energetic output while reducing energetic input, which can adversely affect the ‘condition’ and ultimately survival of the birds. In addition, displacement of birds from one feeding site to others can increase the pressure on the resources available within the remaining sites, as they have to sustain a greater number of birds10. Moreover, the more time a breeding bird spends disturbed from its nest, the more its eggs are likely to cool and the more vulnerable they, or any nestlings, are to predators.
Wintering birds 3.2.3 The potential for disturbance may be less in winter than in summer, in that there are often a smaller number of recreational users. In addition, the consequences of disturbance at a population level may be reduced because birds are not breeding. However, winter activity can still cause important disturbance, especially as birds are particularly vulnerable at this time of year due to food shortages, such that disturbance which results in abandonment of suitable feeding areas through disturbance can have severe consequences. Several empirical studies have, through correlative analysis, demonstrated that out-of-season (October-March) recreational activity can result in quantifiable disturbance:
7 Department for Communities and Local Government. 2006. Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment. http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1502244 8 The RTPI report ‘Planning for an Ageing Population‘(2004) which states that ‘From being a marginalised group in society, the elderly are now a force to be reckoned with and increasingly seen as a market to be wooed by the leisure and tourist industries. There are more of them and generally they have more time and more money.’ It also states that ‘Participation in most physical activities shows a significant decline after the age of 50. The exceptions to this are walking, golf, bowls and sailing, where participation rates hold up well into the 70s’. 9 Riddington, R. et al. 1996. The impact of disturbance on the behaviour and energy budgets of Brent geese. Bird Study 43:269-279 10 Gill, J.A., Sutherland, W.J. & Norris, K. 1998. The consequences of human disturbance for estuarine birds. RSPB Conservation Review 12: 67-72
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 15 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Tuite et al11 found that during periods of high recreational activity, bird numbers at Llangorse Lake decreased by 30% as the morning progressed, matching the increase in recreational activity towards midday. During periods of low recreational activity, however, no change in numbers was observed as the morning progressed. In addition, all species were found to spend less time in their ‘preferred zones’ (the areas of the lake used most in the absence of recreational activity) as recreational intensity increased. Underhill et al12 counted waterfowl and all disturbance events on 54 water bodies within the South West London Water Bodies Special Protection Area and clearly correlated disturbance with a decrease in bird numbers at weekends in smaller sites and with the movement of birds within larger sites from disturbed to less disturbed areas. Evans & Warrington13 found that on Sundays total water bird numbers (including shoveler and gadwall) were 19% higher on Stocker’s Lake LNR in Hertfordshire, and attributed this to observed greater recreational activity on surrounding water bodies at weekends relative to week days. However, in this study, recreational activity was not quantified in detail, nor were individual recreational activities evaluated separately. Tuite et al14 used a large (379 site), long-term (10-year) dataset (September – March species counts) to correlate seasonal changes in wildfowl abundance with the presence of various recreational activities. They found that shoveler was one of the most sensitive species to disturbance. The greatest impact on winter wildfowl numbers was associated with sailing/windsurfing and rowing. 3.2.4 More recent research has established that human activity including recreational activity can be linked to disturbance of wintering waterfowl populations15 16.
Other activities causing disturbance 3.2.5 Human activity can affect birds either directly (e.g. through causing them to flee) or indirectly (e.g. through damaging their habitat or rendering it less usable through, for example, light pollution). The most obvious direct effect is that of immediate mortality such as death by shooting, but human activity can also lead to behavioural changes (e.g. alterations in feeding behaviour, avoidance of certain areas etc.) and physiological changes (e.g. an increase in heart rate) that, although less noticeable, may ultimately result in major population-level effects by altering the balance between immigration/birth and emigration/death17. 3.2.6 The degree of impact that varying levels of noise will have on different species of bird is poorly understood except that a number of studies have found that an increase in traffic levels on roads does lead to a reduction in the bird abundance within adjacent hedgerows - Reijnen et al (1995) examined the distribution of 43 passerine species (i.e. ‘songbirds’), of which 60% had a lower density closer to the roadside than further away. By controlling vehicle usage they also found that the density generally was lower along busier roads than quieter roads18. 3.2.7 Activities other than recreation may also lead to disturbance of wildlife. Of relevance to the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan for example would be noise, vibration and visual disturbance from ports and airports, and potentially disturbance from wind farms. Disturbance and displacement from feeding and areas has been demonstrated with regard to wintering geese19, curlew and hen harriers20. Light pollution can also be an issue. 3.2.8 The sensitivity of wildlife to the noise and vibration of roads and aircraft varies greatly from species to species. However road and airport/aircraft noise can cause some wildlife – notably a range of
11 Tuite, C. H., Owen, M. & Paynter, D. 1983. Interaction between wildfowl and recreation at Llangorse Lake and Talybont Reservoir, South Wales. Wildfowl 34: 48-63 12 Underhill, M.C. et al. 1993. Use of Waterbodies in South West London by Waterfowl. An Investigation of the Factors Affecting Distribution, Abundance and Community Structure. Report to Thames Water Utilities Ltd. and English Nature. Wetlands Advisory Service, Slimbridge 13 Evans, D.M. & Warrington, S. 1997. The effects of recreational disturbance on wintering waterbirds on a mature gravel pitlake near London. International Journal of Environmental Studies 53: 167-182 14 Tuite, C.H., Hanson, P.R. & Owen, M. 1984. Some ecological factors affecting winter wildfowl distribution on inland waters in England and Wales and the influence of water-based recreation. Journal of Applied Ecology 21: 41-62 15 Footprint Ecology. 2010. Recreational Disturbance to Birds on the Humber Estuary 16 Footprint Ecology, Jonathan Cox Associates & Bournemouth University. 2010. Solent disturbance and mitigation project – various reports.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 16 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
grassland and woodland birds - to avoid areas near them, reducing the density of those animal populations21. Elsewhere, reduced breeding success has been recorded. 3.2.9 Large structures (e.g. offshore and onshore wind turbines), have the potential to alter bird flight paths (e.g. hunting flight paths for raptors, bird migratory paths, regular flight paths between roosting and feeding sites, and foraging routes for bats etc. This may result in a collision risk barrier effect or displacement which could make birds either vulnerable to predation or loss of vital energy stores. 3.2.10 Animals can also be disturbed by the movement of ships. For instance, a DTI study of birds of the North West coast noted that: “Divers and scoters were absent from the mouths of some busier estuaries, notably the Mersey... Both species are known to be susceptible to disturbance from boats, and their relative scarcity in these areas... may in part reflect the volume of boat traffic in these areas”22. 3.2.11 Disturbing activities are on a continuum. The most disturbing activities are likely to be those that involve irregular, infrequent, unpredictable loud noise events, movement or vibration of long duration. Birds are least likely to be disturbed by activities that involve regular, frequent, predictable, quiet patterns of sound or movement or minimal vibration. The further any activity is from the birds, the less likely it is to result in disturbance. 3.2.12 The factors that influence a species response to a disturbance are numerous, but the three key factors are species sensitivity, proximity of disturbance sources and timing/duration of the potentially disturbing activity. 3.2.13 The distance at which a species takes flight when approached by a disturbing stimulus is known as the ‘tolerance distance’ (also called the ‘escape flight distance’) and differs between species to the same stimulus and within a species to different stimuli. These are given in Table 2, which compiles ‘tolerance distances’ from across the literature. It is reasonable to assume from this that disturbance is unlikely to be experienced more than a few hundred metres from the birds in question. Tolerance distances are unknown for many birds and simple extrapolation to other species is not advised.
Table 2 - Tolerance distances of 21 water bird species to various forms of recreational disturbance, as described in the literature. All distances are in metres. Single figures are mean distances; when means are not published, ranges are given. 1 Tydeman (1978), 2 Keller (1989), 3 Van der Meer (1985), 4 Wolff et al (1982), 5 Blankestijn et al (1986).23
Type of disturbance
Species Rowing boats/kayak Sailing boats Walking Little grebe 60 – 100 1 Great crested 50 – 100 2 20 – 400 1 grebe Mute swan 3 – 30 1
17 Riley, J. 2003. Review of Recreational Disturbance Research on Selected Wildlife in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage. 18 Reijnen, R. et al. 1995. The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. Journal of Applied Ecology 32: 187-202 19 Langston, R.H.W & Pullan, J.D. (2003). Effects of Wind Farms on Birds: Nature and Environment No. 139. Council of Europe. 20 Madders, M. & Whitfield, D.P. 2006. Upland raptors and the assessment of wind farm impacts. Ibis 148 (Suppl. 1), 43-56. 21 Kaseloo, P. A. and K. O. Tyson. 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. FHWA Report. 22 DTI (2006). Aerial Surveys of Waterbirds in Strategic Wind Farm Areas: 2004/05 Final Report 23 Tydeman, C.F. 1978. Gravel Pits as conservation areas for breeding bird communities. PhD thesis. Bedford College Keller, V. 1989. Variations in the response of Great Crested Grebes Podiceps cristatus to human disturbance - a sign of adaptation? Biological Conservation 49:31-45 Van der Meer, J. 1985. De verstoring van vogels op de slikken van de Oosterschelde. Report 85.09 Deltadienst Milieu en Inrichting, Middelburg. 37 pp. Wolf, W.J., Reijenders, P.J.H. & Smit, C.J. 1982. The effects of recreation on the Wadden Sea ecosystem: many questions but few answers. In: G. Luck & H. Michaelis (Eds.), Schriftenreihe M.E.L.F., Reihe A: Agnew. Wissensch 275: 85-107 Blankestijn, S. et al. 1986. Seizoensverbreding in de recreatie en verstoring van Wulp en Scholkester op hoogwatervluchplaatsen op Terschelling. Report Projectgroep Wadden, L.H. Wageningen. 261pp.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 17 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Type of disturbance
Species Rowing boats/kayak Sailing boats Walking Teal 0 – 400 1 Mallard 10 – 100 1 Shoveler 200 – 400 1 Pochard 60 – 400 1 Tufted duck 60 – 400 1 Goldeneye 100 – 400 1 Smew 0 – 400 1 Moorhen 100 – 400 1 Coot 5 – 50 1 Curlew 211 3; 339 4; 213 5 Shelduck 148 3; 250 4 Grey plover 124 3 Ringed plover 121 3 Bar-tailed godwit 107 3; 219 4 Brent goose 105 3 Oystercatcher 85 3; 136 4; 82 5 Dunlin 71 3; 163 2
3.3 Atmospheric pollution
3.3.1 The main pollutants of concern for European sites are oxides of nitrogen (NOx), ammonia (NH3) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). NOx can have a directly toxic effect upon vegetation. In addition, greater NOx or ammonia concentrations within the atmosphere will lead to greater rates of nitrogen deposition to soils. An increase in the deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere to soils is generally regarded to lead to an increase in soil fertility, which can have a serious deleterious effect on the quality of semi- natural, nitrogen-limited terrestrial habitats.
Table 3. Main sources and effects of air pollutants on habitats and species
Pollutant Source Effects on habitats and species
SO , NOx and ammonia all contribute to Can affect habitats and species through Acid deposition 2 acid deposition. Although future trends both wet (acid rain) and dry deposition. in S emissions and subsequent Some sites will be more at risk than deposition to terrestrial and aquatic others depending on soil type, bed rock ecosystems will continue to decline, it is geology, weathering rate and buffering likely that increased N emissions may capacity. cancel out any gains produced by reduced S levels.
Ammonia (NH3) Ammonia is released following Adverse effects are as a result of decomposition and volatilisation of nitrogen deposition leading to animal wastes. It is a naturally occurring eutrophication. As emissions mostly trace gas, but levels have increased occur at ground level in the rural considerably with expansion in numbers environment and NH3 is rapidly of agricultural livestock. Ammonia reacts deposited, some of the most acute with acid pollutants such as the products problems of NH3 deposition are for small of SO2 and NOX emissions to produce relict nature reserves located in intensive fine ammonium (NH4+)- containing agricultural landscapes. aerosol which may be transferred much longer distances (can therefore be a significant trans-boundary issue.) Nitrogen oxides Nitrogen oxides are mostly produced in Deposition of nitrogen compounds NOx combustion processes. About one (nitrates (NO3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) quarter of the UK’s emissions are from and nitric acid (HNO3)) can lead to both power stations, one-half from motor soil and freshwater acidification. In vehicles, and the rest from other addition, NOx can cause eutrophication industrial and domestic combustion of soils and water. This alters the
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 18 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Pollutant Source Effects on habitats and species processes. species composition of plant communities and can eliminate sensitive species. Nitrogen (N) The pollutants that contribute to nitrogen Species-rich plant communities with deposition deposition derive mainly from NOX and relatively high proportions of slow- NH3 emissions. These pollutants cause growing perennial species and acidification (see also acid deposition) as bryophytes are most at risk from N well as eutrophication. eutrophication, due to its promotion of competitive and invasive species which can respond readily to elevated levels of N. N deposition can also increase the risk of damage from abiotic factors, e.g. drought and frost.
Ozone (O3) A secondary pollutant generated by Concentrations of O3 above 40 ppb can photochemical reactions from NOx and be toxic to humans and wildlife, and can volatile organic compounds (VOCs). affect buildings. Increased ozone These are mainly released by the concentrations may lead to a reduction in combustion of fossil fuels. The increase growth of agricultural crops, decreased in combustion of fossil fuels in the UK forest production and altered species has led to a large increase in composition in semi-natural plant background ozone concentration, communities. leading to an increased number of days when levels across the region are above 40ppb. Reducing ozone pollution is believed to require action at international level to reduce levels of the precursors that form ozone.
Sulphur Dioxide Main sources of SO2 emissions are Wet and dry deposition of SO2 acidifies SO2 electricity generation, industry and soils and freshwater, and alters the domestic fuel combustion. May also species composition of plant and arise from shipping and increased associated animal communities. The atmospheric concentrations in busy significance of impacts depends on ports. Total SO2 emissions have levels of deposition and the buffering decreased substantially in the UK since capacity of soils. the 1980s. 3.3.2 Sulphur dioxide emissions are overwhelmingly influenced by the output of power stations and industrial processes that require the combustion of coal and oil as well (particularly on a local scale) shipping. 3.3.3 Ammonia emissions are dominated by agriculture, with some chemical processes also making notable contributions. As such, it is unlikely that material increases in SO2 or NH3 emissions will be associated with Local Development Frameworks. NOx emissions, however, are dominated by the output of vehicle exhausts (more than half of all emissions). Within a ‘typical’ housing development, by far the largest contribution to NOx (92%) will be made by the associated road traffic. Other sources, although relevant, are of minor importance (8%) in comparison24. Emissions of NOx could therefore be reasonably expected to increase as a result of greater vehicle use as an indirect effect of the LDF. 3.3.4 According to the World Health Organisation, the critical NOx concentration (critical threshold) for the protection of vegetation is 30 µgm-3; the threshold for sulphur dioxide is 20 µgm-3. In addition, ecological studies have determined ‘critical loads’25 of atmospheric nitrogen deposition (that is, NOx combined with ammonia NH3).
24 Proportions calculated based upon data presented in Dore CJ et al. 2005. UK Emissions of Air Pollutants 1970 – 2003. UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. http://www.airquality.co.uk/archive/index.php 25 The critical load is the rate of deposition beyond which research indicates that adverse effects can reasonably be expected to occur
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 19 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Local air pollution 3.3.5 According to the Department of Transport’s Transport Analysis Guidance, “Beyond 200m, the contribution of vehicle emissions from the roadside to local pollution levels is not significant”26.
Figure 4. Traffic contribution to concentrations of pollutants at different distances from a road (Source: DfT) 3.3.6 This is therefore the distance that has been used throughout this HRA in order to determine whether European sites are likely to be significantly affected by traffic generated by development under the Local Plan.
3.4 Water resources
3.4.1 The North West is generally an area of low water stress, as is North Wales, which is a major source of potable water for north-west England. 3.4.2 Cheshire West and Chester lies within United Utilities’ Integrated Resource Zone which serves 6.5 million people in south Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and most of Cheshire. The Integrated Zone is supplied with around 1800 Ml/d of drinking water, of which about 500 Ml/d comes from water sources in Wales, about 600 Ml/d comes from sources in Cumbria, and the rest from sources in other parts of North West England. It constitutes a large integrated supply network that enables substantial flexibility in distributing supplies within the zone. The construction of the ‘west to east link’ will further aid this flexibility and thus break the traditional division in which Greater Manchester received water from Cumbria and Merseyside received water from the River Dee (which lies partly in England and partly in Wales) and from purely Welsh sources (e.g. Lake Vyrnwy). 3.4.3 The River Dee is a Special Area of Conservation and flows into the Dee Estuary which is also designated as an SAC as well as an SPA and Ramsar site. Four water companies abstract from sources that affect the River Dee including United Utilities (UU), Dee Valley Water, Welsh Water and Severn Trent Water. The Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy for the River Dee indicates that it is at the limit of abstraction. Excessive abstraction from the Dee could therefore result in sufficient drawdown of water to damage the interest features of the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC (through desiccation, fish entrainment or a deterioration in water quality due to the lower proportion of freshwater to sediment) and in turn reduce freshwater flows into the Dee Estuary to such a degree as to damage the interest features of that site through an increase in salinity. These risks are identified in the Environment Agency’s Review of Consents process for these sites.
3.5 Water quality
3.5.1 Many of the Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTWs) that serve Cheshire West and Chester discharge either directly or indirectly to the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar site, River Dee & Bala Lake SAC or Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar site. One WwTW (Oakmere WwTW) discharges into a watercourse that drains into Oak Mere SAC. 3.5.2 Increased amounts of housing or business development can lead to reduced water quality of rivers and estuarine environments. Sewage and industrial effluent discharges can contribute to increased nutrients on European sites leading to unfavourable conditions.
26 www.webtag.org.uk/archive/feb04/pdf/feb04-333.pdf
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 20 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
3.5.3 The quality of the water that feeds European sites is an important determinant of the nature of their habitats and the species they support. Poor water quality can have a range of environmental impacts: At high levels, toxic chemicals and metals can result in immediate death of aquatic life, and can have detrimental effects even at lower levels, including increased vulnerability to disease and changes in wildlife behaviour. Eutrophication, the enrichment of plant nutrients in water, increases plant growth and consequently results in oxygen depletion. Algal blooms, which commonly result from eutrophication, increase turbidity and decrease light penetration. The decomposition of organic wastes that often accompanies eutrophication deoxygenates water further, augmenting the oxygen depleting effects of eutrophication. In the marine environment, nitrogen is the limiting plant nutrient and so eutrophication is associated with discharges containing available nitrogen. Some pesticides, industrial chemicals, and components of sewage effluent are suspected to interfere with the functioning of the endocrine system, possibly having negative effects on the reproduction and development of aquatic life. Increased discharge of treated sewage effluent can result both in greater scour (as a result of greater flow volumes) and in high levels of macroalgal growth, which can smother the mudflats of value to SPA birds. 3.5.4 For Wastewater Treatment Works close to capacity, further development may increase the risk of effluent escape into aquatic environments. In many urban areas, sewage treatment and surface water drainage systems are combined, and therefore a predicted increase in flood and storm events could increase pollution risk. 3.5.5 However, it is also important to note that the situation is not always simple – for sites designated for waterfowl a WwTW discharge can actually be a useful source of food and birds will often congregate around the outfall. In addition, while nutrient enrichment does cause considerable problems on the south coast (particularly in the Solent) due to the abundance of smothering macroalgae that is produced, it is not necessarily a problem in other areas where the macroalgae are broken up by tidal wave action and where colder and more turbid water limit the build-up in the first place.
3.6 Coastal squeeze
3.6.1 Rising sea levels can be expected to cause intertidal habitats (principally saltmarsh, sand dunes and intertidal mudflats) to migrate landwards. However, in built-up areas, such landward retreat is often rendered impossible due to the presence of the sea wall and other flood defences. In addition, development frequently takes place immediately behind the sea wall, so that the flood defences cannot be moved landwards to accommodate managed retreat of threatened habitats. The net result is that the quantity of saltmarsh, sand dunes and mudflat adjacent to built-up areas will progressively decrease as sea levels rise. This process is known as ‘coastal squeeze’. In areas where sediment availability is reduced, the 'squeeze' also includes an increasingly steep beach profile and foreshortening of the seaward zones. 3.6.2 Intertidal habitat loss is mainly occurring in the south and east of the country, particularly between the Humber and Severn. Northwest England, south Wales, the Solent in Hampshire, the southeast around the Thames estuary and large parts of East Anglia are also affected but to a lesser degree. The Shoreline Management Plan process for North West England will be the main process whereby the losses due to flood defences and coastal squeeze and the gains due to managed retreat along the frontage will be identified at a strategic level. However, local authorities can also contribute to minimising squeeze by appropriately situating new development in line with Shoreline Management Plan policy. 3.6.3 Defra's current national assessment is that the creation of an annual average of at least 100 ha of intertidal habitat associated with European sites in England that are subject to coastal squeeze, together with any more specifically identified measures to replace losses of terrestrial and supra-tidal habitats, is likely to be required to protect the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. Further habitat will be required to address European sites within Wales. This assessment takes account of intertidal habitat loss from European sites in England that is caused by a combination of all flood risk management structures and sea level rise. The assessment will be kept under review taking account of the certainty of any adverse effects and monitoring of the actual impacts of plans and projects27
27 Defra. 2005. Coastal Squeeze – Implications for Flood Management. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/csqueeze.pdf
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 21 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
3.7 Loss of supporting habitat
3.7.1 While most European sites have been geographically defined in order to encompass the key features that are necessary for coherence of their structure and function, this is not the case for all such sites. Due to the highly mobile nature of waterfowl it is inevitable that areas of habitat of crucial importance to the maintenance of their populations are outside the physical limits of the European site for which they are an interest feature. However, this area will still be essential for maintenance of the structure and function of the interest feature for which the site was designated and land use plans that may affect this land should still therefore be subject to HRA.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 22 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
4 Summary of HRA Conclusions for Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One)
4.1.1 This Chapter summarises the main conclusions of the HRA of the adopted Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One). As the Local Plan (Part Two) builds upon the Part One policies, and is in conformity with it in the context of the scale and broad location of development proposed, then these conclusions are considered to remain valid for the HRA of Local Plan (Part Two). Therefore these will not be considered further in the remaining chapters of this HRA, except where directly relevant to individual specific Detailed Policies or Land Allocations.
4.2 Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar
4.2.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010 and 2030, including 4,800 at Ellesmere Port, immediately adjacent to the SPA/Ramsar site would potentially increase recreational disturbance on the internationally designated sites. The location of employment sites at Ellesmere Port was also considered to have potential to disturb bird species for which the SPA and Ramsar sites are designated. In response to this, the Council committed to working with the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) and the Merseyside authorities in order to deliver a recreation management strategy for sites including the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar. 4.2.2 The HRA also concluded that the Local Plan (Part Two) would need to include appropriate mechanisms to ensure that sites that serve as important supporting bird habitat is adequately identified, assessed and mitigated as part of planning applications. This aspect is therefore investigated in this HRA. 4.2.3 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) also concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010-2030, including 4,800 at Ellesmere Port, immediately adjacent to the SPA/Ramsar site would increase demands on waste water treatment works (WwTWs) discharging to the Mersey Estuary or its tributaries. To address this matter, a key policy in the Local Plan (Part One) was STRAT11, which stated that the timing of provision of infrastructure and facilities should be appropriate and in place prior to occupation of new development. Liaison with relevant water companies, United Utilities and Welsh Water was noted as being crucial to ensuring delivery of necessary waste water infrastructure and it was confirmed that such liaison was being undertaken. 4.2.4 Effects of the Local Plan (Part One) on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar through coastal squeeze and through reduced air quality were also considered, but were screened out. Since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
4.3 Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar
4.3.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010 and 2030 would potentially increase recreational disturbance on the internationally designated sites. In response to this, the Council committed to working with the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) and the Merseyside authorities in order to deliver a recreation management strategy for sites including the Dee Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. 4.3.2 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) also concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010 and 2030 would increase demands on waste water treatment works (WwTWs) discharging to the Dee Estuary or its tributaries. To address this matter, a key policy in the Local Plan (Part One) was STRAT11 which stated that the timing of provision of infrastructure and facilities should be appropriate and in place prior to occupation of new development. Liaison with relevant water companies, United Utilities and Welsh Water was noted as being crucial to ensuring delivery of necessary waste water infrastructure and it was confirmed that such liaison was being undertaken. Welsh Water had confirmed that additional capacity would be delivered to support a 30,000 population equivalent by October 2016.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 23 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
4.3.3 Effects of the Local Plan (Part One) on the Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar through coastal squeeze, water availability and reduced air quality were also considered, but were screened out. Since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
4.4 River Dee and Bala Lake SAC
4.4.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010 and 2030 would increase demands on waste water treatment works (WwTWs) discharging to the Dee Estuary or its tributaries. To address this, a key policy in the Local Plan (Part One) was STRAT11 which stated that the timing of provision of infrastructure and facilities should be appropriate and in place prior to occupation of new development. Liaison with relevant water companies, United Utilities and Welsh Water was noted as being crucial to ensuring delivery of necessary waste water infrastructure and it was confirmed that such liaison was being undertaken. Welsh Water had confirmed that additional capacity would be delivered to support a 30,000 population equivalent by October 2016. 4.4.2 Effects of the Local Plan (Part One) on the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC through recreational pressure, water availability and through reduced air quality were also considered, but were screened out. Since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
4.5 West Midlands Mosses SAC/ Oak Mere SAC/ Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar
4.5.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) concluded that delivery of development across Cheshire West & Chester could lead to increased traffic on the A54 and A49 roads that run within 200m of Oak Mere SAC. Transport modelling and air quality modelling were undertaken and were able to conclude that the level of growth proposed would not lead to likely significant adverse effects on the SAC through reduced air quality. 4.5.2 Effects of the Local Plan (Part One) on the SACs and Ramsar sites through recreational pressure, water availability and through reduced water quality were also considered, but were screened out. Since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
4.6 Liverpool Bay SPA
4.6.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010-2030 including 4,800 at Ellesmere Port, would potentially increase recreational disturbance on the internationally designated sites. In response to this, the Council has committed to working with the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) and the Merseyside authorities in order to deliver a recreation management strategy for sites including the Liverpool Bay SPA and Ramsar. 4.6.2 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010 and 2030 would increase demands on waste water treatment works (WwTWs) discharging to the Mersey Estuary or its tributaries. To address this, a key policy in the Local Plan (Part One) was STRAT11 which stated that the timing of provision of infrastructure and facilities should be appropriate and in place prior to occupation of new development. Liaison with relevant water companies, United Utilities and Welsh Water was noted as being crucial to ensuring delivery of necessary waste water infrastructure and it was confirmed that such liaison was being undertaken.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 24 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
4.7 Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar
4.7.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010 and 2030 including 4,800 at Ellesmere Port, would potentially increase recreational disturbance on the internationally designated sites. In response to this, the Council has committed to working with the Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS) and the Merseyside authorities in order to deliver a recreation management strategy for sites including the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar. 4.7.2 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) also concluded that delivery of 22,000 new dwellings across Cheshire West & Chester between 2010 and 2030 would increase demands on waste water treatment works (WwTWs) discharging to the Mersey Estuary or its tributaries. To address this, a key policy in the Local Plan (Part One) was STRAT11 which stated that the timing of provision of infrastructure and facilities should be appropriate and in place prior to occupation of new development. Liaison with relevant water companies, United Utilities and Welsh Water was noted as being crucial to ensuring delivery of necessary waste water infrastructure and it was confirmed that such liaison was being undertaken.
4.8 Sefton Coast SAC
4.8.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) considered the potential effects of recreational pressure and reduced water quality on the SAC, and was able to screen these out. Since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
4.9 Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA/Ramsar
4.9.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) considered the potential effects of recreational pressure and disturbance on the SPA/Ramsar site, and was able to screen these out. Since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
4.10 Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC
4.10.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) considered the potential effects of reduced air quality on the SAC, and was able to screen these out. Since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
4.11 River Eden SAC
4.11.1 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) considered the potential effects of reduced water resource availability on the SAC, and was able to screen this out. Since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 25 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
5 HRA Screening of Local Plan (Part Two) Detailed Policies
5.1.1 The following table presents the screening assessments for each draft policy that has been put forward for consideration. Green shading in the final column indicates a policy that has been screened out of further consideration due to the absence of any mechanism for an adverse effect on internationally designated sites. Orange shading indicates that further Appropriate Assessment (or at least further screening in the presence of further information) is required since a pathway of impact exists that cannot be screened out at this stage.
Table 4. HRA Screening of Detailed Policies
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report CH1 – Chester Settlement Area Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT3. STRAT3 designates amount of housing and employment for Chester. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. CH2 – Employment Land Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT3. Provision in Chester STRAT3 designates amount of housing and employment for Chester. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. CH3 – Chester Regeneration Area Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT3. STRAT3 designates amount of housing and employment for Chester. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. CH4 – University of Chester No The location and purpose (education) of the proposed development within policy CH4 lead to a conclusion of no likely significant effects on internationally designated sites. CH5 – Chester city centre Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT3. STRAT3 designates amount of housing and employment for Chester. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. CH6 – Chester Conservation No Policy is specific to development design and there are no HRA implications.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 26 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report Areas CH7 – Chester – Key Views, No The policy has no HRA implications. Landmarks and Gateways and Historic Skyline EP1 – Ellesmere Port Settlement Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT4. Area STRAT4 designates amount of housing and employment for Ellesmere Port as well as promoting transport and infrastructure improvements. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. EP2 – Employment Land Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT4. Provision in Ellesmere Port STRAT4 designates amount of housing and employment for Ellesmere Port as well as promoting transport and infrastructure improvements. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. EP3 – Hooton Park Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT4. STRAT4 designates amount of housing and employment for Ellesmere Port as well as promoting transport and infrastructure improvements. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. EP4 – Stanlow Special Policy Yes The Policy Area lies adjacent to the Mersey Estuary SPA. The policy does contain text that Area states that “there should be no harm to sensitive locations” including SSSIs, the statement applies only to harm arising from “appearance of the development, or its potential for pollution or noise generation.” Given that the SPA is underpinned by SSSI designations and that the policy considers employment opportunities rather than residential (where effects of recreational pressure would require consideration), then the HRA should focus on the potential for employment sites that may be delivered via this policy to generate visual disturbance of SPA qualifying bird species. EP5 – Thornton Science Park No The location and limited scale of the employment opportunities identified by policy EP5 lead to a conclusion of no likely significant effects on internationally designated sites. EP6 – Ince Park Yes The policy area lies adjacent to the Mersey Estuary SPA. The policy promotes the development of employment opportunities, with a focus on waste facilities. Provision for public access is encouraged. Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT4. STRAT4 designates amount of housing and employment for Ellesmere Port as well as promoting transport and infrastructure improvements. Therefore the policy and associated land
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 27 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. EP7 – Ellesmere Port Historic Yes The policy promotes use of the area as a “major tourist and commercial facility”. The policy Canal Port area lies adjacent to the Mersey Estuary SPA. Therefore the potential for the policy to lead to disturbance of SPA qualifying bird species requires further consideration. N1 – Northwich Settlement Area Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT5. STRAT5 designates amount of housing and employment for Northwich. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites, in particular air quality effects on West Midlands Mosses SAC and Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites. N2 – Employment Land Provision Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT5. in Northwich STRAT5 designates amount of housing and employment for Northwich. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites, in particular air quality effects on West Midlands Mosses SAC and Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites. N3 – Northwich Regeneration Yes The policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on Area internationally designated sites, in particular air quality effects on West Midlands Mosses SAC and Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites. N4 – Northwich Town Centre Yes The policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites, in particular air quality effects on West Midlands Mosses SAC and Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites. N5 – Northwich Town Centre No Policy is specific to development design and there are no HRA implications. Conservation Areas W1 – Winsford Settlement Area Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policies STRAT6 and STRAT7. STRAT6 designates amount of housing and employment for Winsford, whilst STRAT7 considers development at Middlewich. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites, in particular air quality effects on Oak Mere SAC and Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites. W2 – Employment Land Provision Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT6. in Winsford STRAT6 designates amount of housing and employment for Winsford. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites, in particular air quality effects on Oak Mere SAC and Midlands
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 28 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites. R1 – Key Service Centres Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT8. STRAT8 designates amount of housing and employment within the rural area. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. The policy does note that neighbourhood plans can promote more development than that set out in the Local Plan (Part One) to meet local housing, economic and social needs. The Neighbourhood Plans should be subject to HRA screening to determine likely significant effects on internationally designated sites, and such screening would provide opportunity to consider issues that may arise where greater localised development is promoted. R2 – Local Service Centres No The scale of development permitted by this policy is on a very small scale and it is not considered that likely significant effects on internationally designated sites would arise. R3 – Employment Land Provision Yes Policy promotes development that is in accordance with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT8. in the Rural Area STRAT8 designates amount of housing and employment within the rural area. Therefore the policy and associated land allocations require further assessment for potential effects on internationally designated sites. R4 – Oulton Park Yes Although Oulton Park is an existing motor sport venue, the policy promotes opportunity for further development. This requires HRA assessment for potential air quality effects on Oak Mere SAC and Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites which lie adjacent to nearby major roads and which therefore could be affected by air quality changes associated with any increased transport movements. GBC1 – Sustainable Use of Land No No HRA implications. and Prudent Use of Natural Resources GBC2 – Rural Workers Dwellings No No HRA implications. GBC3 – Replacement Dwellings, No No HRA implications. Extensions, Alterations and Changes of Use GBC4 – Commercial and No Policy promotes only redevelopment and infilling at existing facilities. Therefore there are Employment Sites in the Green considered no likely significant effects on internationally designated sites. Belt GBC5 – Protection of Countryside No No HRA implications.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 29 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report and Landscape GBC6 – Key Settlement Gaps No Policy promoted only restricted development. No HRA implications. GBC7 – Jodrell Bank No No HRA implications. T1 – Chester Western Relief Road Yes The construction of the Chester Western Relief Road would involve the crossing of the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC. Therefore, the policy requires further consideration as it does not currently include any consideration of nature conservation interest when outlining criteria that must be met in order to allow permission of the road construction. Although the major thrust of the policy is to safeguard the route of this road, nonetheless the wording currently does not allow for consideration of its effects on internationally designated sites. T2 – A56 Hoole Road Corridor No The location specified in this policy would not lead to likely significant effects on internationally designated sites. T3 – A54 Winsford Railway No Policy considers safeguarding of land only. No HRA implications. Station to Stanthorne T4 – Railway Stations Yes The policy has no HRA implications in terms of safeguarding land for improvement of rail facilities. However, it does seek to support improvement of rail freight facilities and development of transport interchange facilities. Dependent on their location, these could lead to pathways of impact on internationally designated sites. The policy should acknowledge the need for any new facilities to be subject to avoidance of adverse effects on internationally designated sites – where location and scale merits, project-level HRA may be required. This would be in line with policy DM1 and DM39. T5 – Rail Corridors No Seeks to safeguard land only and does not permit development that is otherwise likely to create adverse effects on internationally designated sites. T6 – Safeguarded Areas Around No No HRA implications. Aerodromes INF1 – ICT and No No HRA implications. Telecommunications DM1 – Development Management No The policy provides positive measures to protect nature conservation sites, including internationally designated sites through requiring proposals for all new development to:
“not harm the features or areas of…nature conservation…value”;
“not have a significant detrimental impact on protected species or biodiversity that cannot be
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 30 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report sufficiently mitigated”; and
“not increase land, air, noise, light or water pollution to unacceptable levels.”
It also requires new development to “make adequate provision for…open space” and “actively contribute to the integration of existing, and creation of new, green infrastructure”. DM2 – Redevelopment and No No HRA implications. Refurbishment of Employment Land and Premises to Other Uses DM3 – New Agricultural Buildings Yes Policy promotes development opportunities that are likely to be small in scale. However, dependent on scale and location, effects on internationally designated site could occur. The policy should acknowledge the need for any new facilities to be subject to avoidance of adverse effects on internationally designated sites – where location and scale merits, project- level HRA may be required. This would be in line with policy DM1 and DM39. DM4 – Rural Diversification No No HRA implications. DM5 – Equestrian Development Yes Policy promotes development opportunities that are likely to be small in scale. However, dependent on scale and location, effects on internationally designated site could occur. The policy should acknowledge the need for any new facilities to be subject to avoidance of adverse effects on internationally designated sites – where location and scale merits, project- level HRA may be required. This would be in line with policy DM1 and DM39. DM6 – Town Centres No No HRA implications. DM7 – District and Local Retail No No HRA implications. Centres DM8 – Other Shops and Farm No Scale and type of development are unlikely to lead to likely significant effects on internationally Shops designated sites. No HRA implications. DM9 – Shopfronts No No HRA implications. DM10 – Visitor Accommodation No Scale and type of development are unlikely to lead to likely significant effects on internationally designated sites. No HRA implications. DM11 – Touring Caravan and No Scale and type of development are unlikely to lead to likely significant effects on internationally Camping Sites designated sites. No HRA implications. DM12 – Delivering Affordable No No HRA implications. Housing
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 31 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report DM13 – Rural Exception Sites No Scale and type of development are unlikely to lead to likely significant effects on internationally designated sites. No HRA implications. DM14 – Housing Mix and Type of No No HRA implications. New Housing Development DM15 – Specialist No No HRA implications. Accommodation DM16 – Student Accommodation No No HRA implications. DM17 – Houses in Multiple No No HRA implications. Occupation DM18 – Residential Annexes No No HRA implications. DM19 – Gypsy and Traveller and No The policy identifies the number of pitches that will be delivered. The selection of sites has Travelling Showpersons’ been informed by a study that included as a criterion for exclusion: Accommodation – Land Allocations “An area which is protected by an international or national designation relating to the natural environment, such as an SAC, SPA or SSSI, which would be detrimentally effected by proposals for a Gypsy and Traveller or Travelling Show Person site”
Although this would prevent development within internationally designated sites, it does not adequately protect sites from adverse effects that may relate to pathways of impact linking sites to the internationally designated sites.
However the policy notes that the criteria in selecting sites will be those listed in Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC4. This includes avoidance of “unacceptable environmental impacts” as well as a need for adequate provision of services and transport access.
Therefore it is considered that there is no likelihood of significant effects on internationally designated sites.
DM20 – Health Impacts of New No No HRA implications. Development DM21 - Noise No Provides positive measures in terms of not allowing development that would lead to increased noise levels, and by extension, potential for disturbance of bird species for which SPA and
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 32 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report Ramsar sites may be designated. DM22 – Land Contamination and No No HRA implications. Instability DM23 – Air Quality No Provides positive measures in terms of not allowing new development that would lead to an increase in NO2 levels without appropriate mitigation. DM24 – Culture and Public Art No No HRA implications. DM25 – Open Space Provision in No Requires new development to incorporate open space where needed. This could contribute to New Development deflecting users from more sensitive locations such as internationally designated sites, where the open space provides an appropriate function. DM26 – Provision for Sport and No No HRA implications. Recreation DM27 – Recreational Routeways Yes Dependent on location, extension of recreational routeways, as promoted by the policy, could lead to inappropriate recreational pressure and disturbance on internationally designated sites. The policy should acknowledge the need for any new developments to be subject to avoidance of adverse effects on internationally designated sites – where location and scale merits, project-level HRA may be required. This would be in line with policy DM1 and DM39. DM28 – Tourism and Recreation No No HRA implications. The policy states that there should be no harm to the natural Use at Minerals Restoration Sites environment from the usages promoted. DM29 – Waterways and Mooring Yes Dependent on location, increased access to waterways, as promoted by the policy, could lead Facilities to inappropriate recreational pressure and disturbance on internationally designated sites. The policy should acknowledge the need for any new developments to be subject to avoidance of adverse effects on internationally designated sites – where location and scale merits, project- level HRA may be required. This would be in line with policy DM1 and DM39. DM30 – Community Facilities No The scale and type of development considered within this policy, in combination with the environmental protection offered by policy DM1, means that likely significant effects on internationally designated sites would not arise. DM31 – Development and Flood No No HRA implications. Risk DM32 – Requirements for a Site No No HRA implications. Specific Flood Risk Assessment DM33 – Sustainable Drainage No No HRA implications. SuDS are a positive measure in improving water quality through Systems (SuDS) prevention of run-off of pollution directly into receiving water courses.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 33 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report DM34 – Flood Water Storage and No No HRA implications. Critical Drainage Areas DM35 – Reducing Flood Risk No No HRA implications. Through Site Layout and Design and Phasing DM36 – Water Quality, Supply Yes The policy is largely positive in seeking to ensure that no new development is created that has and Treatment an unacceptable impact on water resources or water quality. However, it would be strengthened by inclusion of text to state that any new infrastructure will need to be delivered in advance of occupation of any new development. The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) indicated that communication with relevant water companies would be key to delivery of levels and location of development. DM37 – Trees, Woodland and No No HRA implications. Hedgerows DM38 – Ecological Network No No HRA implications. DM39 – Biodiversity and No The policy seeks to protect European Sites (or internationally designated sites as considered in Geodiversity in New Development this HRA), through text that states that:
“Development that could have an individual, or in combination effect on a European Site or its supporting habitat, within or outside the Borough, must provide sufficient information to enable compliance with the Habitats Regulations.”
The policy could be strengthened further by:
Citing the Habitats Regulations in the supporting text; Stating that project-specific HRA may be required where it is considered that a likely significant impact on European sites could arise. DM40 – Development in No No HRA implications. Conservation Areas DM41 – Listed Buildings No No HRA implications. DM42 – Non-listed Buildings and No No HRA implications. Structures of Architectural Interest DM43 – Registered Landscapes No No HRA implications.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 34 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report DM44 – Archaeology No No HRA implications. DM45 – Sustainable Construction No No HRA implications. Positive in requiring new development to meet standards under the Code for Sustainable Homes or BREEAM – these are likely to lead to inclusion of measures for protection of water resources, quality and air quality. DM46 – Parking and Access No No HRA implications. Policy could be strengthened by inclusion of support for incorporation of sustainable transport access to new development. DM47 – New or Extension to No No HRA implications. Hazardous Installations DM48 – Development in the No No HRA implications. Vicinity of Hazardous Installations DM49 – Advertisements No No HRA implications. DM50 – Oil and Gas Development No Although the policy lacks specific text relating to protection of the natural environment, the supporting text refers to Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV7 that clearly states that there must be no unacceptable impacts on biodiversity or the natural environment. DM51 – Wind Energy No The policy refers to a need to comply with Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV7 that clearly states that there must be no unacceptable impacts on biodiversity or the natural environment. DM52 – Solar Energy No The policy refers to a need to comply with Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV7 that clearly states that there must be no unacceptable impacts on biodiversity or the natural environment. DM53 – Requirements for No The policy clearly states that unacceptable direct or indirect impacts must be avoided, or Proposals for Development of mitigated, and that where this cannot be achieved, then proposals will not be supported. It Waste Management Facilities includes commitments to avoiding adverse effects on ecology, on hydrology and to maximise non-road transport of waste. DM54 – Sites for Replacement No (also see Although the proposed site at Bumpers Lane, Chester lies in close proximity to the River Dee Household Waste Recycling Chapter 5) and Bala Lake SAC, the protection afforded by Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV8 and the fact Facilities that this is an extension to an existing site (rather than a new site), provides confidence that likely significant effects on the SAC through water pollution will not occur. Nonetheless, the site allocation should be subject to a project-level HRA screening exercise, as suggested in Chapter 5 of this HRA. DM55 – Future Sand and Gravel No (also see The Area of Search for sand and gravel working includes overlap with West Midlands Mosses Working Chapter 5) SAC and Midlands Meres & Mosses Ramsar sites. These sites are sensitive both to hydrological pressures and water pollution and also to reductions in air quality that could result from dusts or vehicle emissions. However, the supporting text to the policy states that any
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 35 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Policy Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report proposal “would need to prevent or provide sufficient mitigation measures to avoid any potential significant negative impacts, such as impacts on protected biodiversity sites.” This is likely to include a need for project-level HRA. DM56 – Mineral Safeguarding No This policy effectively safeguards areas for potential minerals extractions. Areas – Prior Extraction of Minerals DM57 – Proposals for Minerals Yes This policy does not include protective measures relating to biodiversity, including Working internationally designated sites, but does cross-refer to policy DM1 in the Local Plan (Part Two). It does include recognition of the need to avoid certain types of adverse impact, but the list is not comprehensive (e.g. hydrology is not mentioned). Therefore it is recommended that further protective measures are included in the policy text. The policy should acknowledge the need for any new facilities to be subject to avoidance of adverse effects on internationally designated sites – where location and scale merits, project-level HRA may be required. This would be in line with policy DM1 and DM39. DM58 – Restoration of Minerals No Although this policy includes an ambition to support public access to restored minerals sites, Sites which could potentially lead to increased recreational pressure and disturbance, the location of minerals workings in Cheshire West are not in close proximity to internationally designated sites where recreational pressure or disturbance are likely to cause significant adverse effects. DM59 – Salt and Brine Working No The location of the proposed areas where salt and brine working may occur, mean that direct effects on internationally designated sites can be screened out. The supporting text to the policy identifies that impacts on groundwater for rock salt extraction must be addressed and mitigated for any proposals. The text specifically cites Delamere and nearby protected sites, which would include Oak Mere SAC, West Midlands Mosses SAC and Midlands Meres & Mosses Ramsar. DM60 – Industrial Sand Proposals No The supporting text to the policy identifies that there is no known provision of industrial silica sand within Cheshire West and Chester. One specific site has come forward as part of a Minerals Call for Sites. The location of this site does not create any implications for HRA. DM61 – Minerals Infrastructure No This policy seeks to safeguard minerals infrastructure, rather than promote new development.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 36 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
6 HRA Screening of Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations
6.1.1 The following tables present the screening assessments for each land allocation that has been put forward for consideration. Green shading in the final column indicates a policy that has been screened out of further consideration due to the absence of any mechanism for an adverse effect on internationally designated sites. Orange shading indicates that further Appropriate Assessment (or at least further screening in the presence of further information) is required since a pathway of impact exists that cannot be screened out at this stage.
Table 5. HRA Screening of Land Allocations - Housing
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report STR/0001 In combination These housing sites lie south of the M53 at Ellesmere Port. The M53, and to its north, the STR/0004 with overall Manchester Ship Canal form physical barriers between these sites and the Mersey Estuary STR/0006 quantum of SPA. Access to the SPA at Ellesmere Port has been identified during the HRA of the Local STR/0007 development Plan (Part One) as being extremely difficult, and therefore disturbance arising from these only developments in themselves can be ruled out as they are sufficiently distant from the SPA to LEM/0004 avoid visual or noise impacts. LEM/0008 LEM/0015 The new housing does require in combination assessment with other development within LEM/0018 Cheshire West and Chester, and surrounding local authorities to consider the effects of overall LEM/0020 delivery of housing on recreational pressure and disturbance to qualifying bird species for the Mersey Estuary SPA. SUT/0004 SUT/0005 As a component of the overall delivery of housing within Cheshire West and Chester, and SUT/0006 beyond, these allocations should also be considered in combination to determine potential for likely significant effects on the Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites, Liverpool Bay SPA and WHI/0001 Mersey Narrows & North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar sites. WHI/0010 WHI/0016 These land allocations would lead to requirements for adequate waste water treatment facilities
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 37 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report WHI/0017 to be in place to serve them. The Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites are vulnerable to WHI/0018 reduced water quality and therefore it is important that these allocations have adequate waste WHI/0020 water infrastructure in place prior to occupation.
EPT/0004 EPT/0005 EPT/0006 EPT/0011 EPT/0014 EPT/0015 EPT/0017 EPT/0041 EPT/0042 EPT/0062
GRA/0004 GRA/0010 GRA/0012
STP/0005 STP/0006 STP/0007 STP/0008 STP/0009 STP/0010 STP/0011 STP/0016 STP/0017 STP/0034 STP/0040
ROS/0010 ROS/0028
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 38 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report ROS/0029 ROS/0032 ROS/0033
NET/0004 NET/0005 NET/0013
WIT/0013 Yes These sites lie within 1km of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar. Therefore there is potential for visual, lighting and noise impacts to arise that could lead to likely significant effects on the NET/0010 SPA designated bird species. It would be important that any proposals consider these aspects, and although there are adjacent areas of industry, any new proposals should avoid increasing noise, lighting of the river, or visual disturbance to levels significantly greater than those already existing. The land parcels do not currently appear to comprise habitats outside of the SPA that would be likely to attract species for which the SPA is designated.
The Manchester Ship Canal forms a physical barrier between these sites and the Mersey Estuary SPA. Access to the SPA at Ellesmere Port has been identified during the HRA of the Local Pan (Part One) as being extremely difficult and therefore recreational disturbance arising from these developments in themselves can be ruled out as unlikely.
ROS/0025 Yes These sites lie within 1km of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar. Therefore there is potential ROS/0030 for visual, lighting and noise impacts to arise that could lead to likely significant effects on the SPA designated bird species. It would be important that any proposals consider these aspects, and although there are adjacent areas of industry, any new proposals should avoid increasing noise, lighting of the river, or visual disturbance to levels significantly greater than those already existing. The land parcels do not currently appear to comprise habitats outside of the SPA that would be likely to attract species for which the SPA is designated.
The Manchester Ship Canal forms a physical barrier between these sites and the Mersey Estuary SPA. Access to the SPA at Ellesmere Port has been identified during the HRA of the
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 39 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report Local Pan (Part One) as being extremely difficult and therefore recreational disturbance arising from these developments in themselves can be ruled out as unlikely.
FRO/0030 In combination No likely significant effects from individual land allocations. FRO/0038 with overall FRO/0039 quantum of FRO/0041 development only TAK/0011 In combination No likely significant effects from individual land allocations. TAK/0012 with overall TAK/0109 quantum of TAK/0111 development TAK/0122 only TAK/0123 TAR/0001 In combination The location of these land allocations means that there could be increases in traffic associated TAR/0004 with overall with them on roads that run within 200m of Oak Mere SAC and Midlands Meres and Mosses TAR/0011 quantum of Ramsar site. Therefore these require further consideration to determine whether there would TAR/0052 development be likely to be adverse effects on the SAC or Ramsar through reductions in air quality as a TAR/0053 only result of these developments alone and in combination with other development generating TAR/0066 increases in road transport. TAR/0067 TAR/0068 TAR/0069 TAR/0073 TAR/0076 TAR/0078 TAT/0052 TAT/0037 In combination No likely significant effects from individual land allocations. TAT/0042 with overall TAT/0067 quantum of TAT/0068 development TAT/0071 only
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 40 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report TAT/0078 TAT/0079 TAT/0085 TAT/0089 Table 5. HRA Screening of Land Allocations - Employment
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report BLA/0056 No Although the proposed site at Bumpers Lane, Chester lies in close proximity to the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC, the protection afforded by Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV8 and the fact that this is an extension to an existing site (rather than a new site), provides confidence that likely significant effects on the SAC through water pollution will not occur. Nonetheless, the site allocation should be subject to a project-level HRA screening exercise to confirm that adequate pollution control measures are in place.
BLA/0082 No The location of these sites in relation to internationally designated sites means that no BLA/0084 pathways of impact exist that would lead to likely significant effects. CHC/0030 HOO/0036 BOU/0046 NES/0007 No The location of these sites in relation to internationally designated sites means that no NES/0008 pathways of impact exist that would lead to likely significant effects. NES/0009 NES/0010 NES/0011
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 41 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report NET/0006 Yes These sites lie within 1km of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar. Therefore there is potential NET/0009 for visual, lighting and noise impacts to arise that could lead to likely significant effects on the NET/0019 SPA designated bird species. It would be important that any proposals consider these aspects, and although there are adjacent areas of industry, any new proposals should avoid increasing noise, lighting of the river, or visual disturbance to levels significantly greater than those already existing. The land parcels do not currently appear to comprise habitats outside of the SPA that would be likely to attract species for which the SPA is designated.
WHI/0012 No The location of this site in relation to internationally designated sites means that no pathways of impact exist that would lead to likely significant effects. EPT/0028 No The location of this site in relation to internationally designated sites means that no pathways EPT/0030 of impact exist that would lead to likely significant effects. ELT/0031 ELT/0028 Yes These sites lie within 1km of the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar. Therefore there is potential ELT/0030 for visual, lighting and noise impacts to arise that could lead to likely significant effects on the SPA designated bird species. It would be important that any proposals consider these aspects, and any new proposals should avoid increasing noise, lighting of the river, or visual disturbance to levels significantly greater than those already existing at the site.
Land parcel ELT/0028 does currently appear to comprise habitats outside of the SPA that would be likely to attract species for which the SPA is designated.
It is considered essential that any proposals for development at ELT/0028 should be subject to project-level HRA. This HRA would need to demonstrate no likely significant adverse effects on bird species on the SPA/Ramsar sites, and also any significant populations of those species that may be present within the development site footprint itself.
It is also recommended that a project-level HRA screening exercise should be undertaken for proposals for ELT/0030.
HEL/0025 No The location of these sites in relation to internationally designated sites means that no
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 42 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report GOW/0056 pathways of impact exist that would lead to likely significant effects. MAR/0037 No The location of these sites in relation to internationally designated sites means that no WIC/0009 pathways of impact exist that would lead to likely significant effects. WIC/0039 WIC/0044 WIC/0049 WIC/0050 WIC/0062 WIC/0076 WIR/0013 WIR/0016 WIR/0027 SHA/0026 SHA/0041 SHA/0042 SHA/0047 SHA/0053 SHA/0063 DAM/0058 WIW/0026 In combination No likely significant effects from individual land allocations. WIW/0027 with overall WIW/0043 quantum of WIW/0044 development WIW/0045 only WIW/0047 WSD/0030 WSD/0031 WOV/0041 WOV/0044 WOV/0047 WOV/0066 WOV/0071 WOV/0074
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 43 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Possible Summary of Reasons for Screening In for Further Consideration Likely Significant Effect Land Allocation Requiring Further Consideration in Body of Report TAR/0052 In combination No likely significant effects from individual land allocations. TAR/0053 with overall TAR/0068 quantum of development only TAT/0049 No The location of these sites in relation to internationally designated sites means that no TAT/0055 pathways of impact exist that would lead to likely significant effects. FAR/0034 No The location of these sites in relation to internationally designated sites means that no FAR/0043 pathways of impact exist that would lead to likely significant effects. FAR/0040 Yes This land allocation lies within 200m of the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC. Although the protection afforded by Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV8 provides confidence that likely significant effects on the SAC through water pollution will not occur, the site usage is not yet determined and the site allocation should be subject to a project-level HRA screening exercise to confirm that adequate pollution control measures are in place.
6.1.2 Areas of search and preferred sites for minerals and waste facilities have been specifically cited within policies and addressed within Chapter 4. This is also true for provision for gypsy, traveller and travelling showpersons site allocations. 6.1.3 Two further household waste recycling sites (land allocation codes CH552364 and CH465823) may be considered at Weaver Park Industrial Estate, Frodsham. The location of the sites is not in close proximity to internationally designated sites, but the site would be adjacent to the River Weaver, which drains to the Manchester Ship canal and River Mersey. Therefore these sites would be required to demonstrate, via project-level HRA screening that their operation would not result in reduced water quality of the River Weaver and the Mersey Estuary SPA downstream.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 44 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
7 Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 The Mersey Estuary is a large sheltered estuary that receives drainage from a catchment area of c.5,000 km2 encompassing the conurbations of Liverpool and Manchester, and including the River Mersey and the River Bollin and their tributaries in Cheshire and Merseyside. The Estuary covers 5023.35ha of saltmarsh and inter-tidal sand and mudflats, with limited areas of brackish marsh, rocky shoreline and boulder clay cliffs, within a rural and industrial environment. The intertidal flats and saltmarshes provide feeding and roosting sites for large and internationally important populations of waterbirds, and during the winter, the site is of major importance for duck and waders. The site is also important during the spring and autumn migration periods, particularly for wader populations moving along the west coast of Britain.
7.2 Reasons for Designation
7.2.1 The Mersey Estuary is designated an SPA under Article 4.128 Golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria): 3,040 individuals (1.2% of GB population) 7.2.2 SPA Article 4.2 - winter: Redshank (Tringa totanus): 4,993 individuals (2.8% of Eastern Atlantic population) Dunlin (Calidris alpina): 48,789 individuals (3.6% of Northern Siberian / Europe / West African population Pintail (Anas acuta): 1,169 individuals (1.9% of NW European population) Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna): 6,746 individuals (2.2% of wintering NW European population) Eurasian teal (Anas crecca): 11,723 individuals (2.9% of NW European population) Wigeon (Anas penelope): 11,886 individuals (4.2% of the GB population) Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa): 976 individuals (1.6% of the Iceland population) Curlew (Numenius arquata): 1,300 individuals (1.1% of the GB population) Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola): 1,010 individuals (2.3% of the GB population) Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus): 136 individuals (1.4% of the GB population) Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus): 10,544 individuals (0.7% of the GB population) 7.2.3 SPA Article 4.2 - on passage: Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula): 505 7.2.4 Ramsar Criterion 6, Internationally important populations of: Shelduck Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa) Redshank Eurasian teal Pintail Dunlin
28 All bird count data in this document is sourced from the SPA Review site accounts as available on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1412
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 45 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
7.2.5 Ramsar Criterion 5: 89,576 waterfowl (5-year peak mean 1998/99-2002/03) 7.2.6 Birdlife (2001) identify the Important Bird Area (IBA) to exceed the area currently designated as a Ramsar site, and recommend the designation expansion. This additional area is termed a ‘potential Ramsar’ (which precedes the ‘proposed’ Ramsar (pRamsar) designation). This additional area is not considered in the assessment as objectives and site boundaries are unconfirmed, however its status highlights the nature conservation value of areas of the Mersey outside of the SPA/Ramsar designation.
7.3 Current Pressures
7.3.1 The main current environmental pressures upon the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site are considered to be: disturbance of sediment releasing legacy heavy metal pollution (mercury, lead, cadmium and other poisons) that is bound into the sediment, or other introduction of these metals; pollution via rivers and drains by both treated sewerage and untreated runoff containing inorganic chemicals and organic compounds from everyday domestic products, which ‘may combine together in ways that make it difficult to predict their ultimate effect of the marine environment. Some may remain indefinitely in the seawater, the seabed, or the flesh, fat and oil of sea creatures’29; pollution via commercial shipping by chemical pollution and the dumping of litter at sea; ‘coastal squeeze’ and physical loss from land reclamation and coastal flood defences and drainage used in order to develop coastal land, and from sea level rise; loss or physical damage of marine benthic habitat directly and indirectly (through changed sedimentation/deposition patterns) as a result of navigational or aggregate dredging; disturbance to birds from increased recreational pressure (e.g. boat or other recreational activity) and wildfowling; introduction of non-native species; and selective removal of species (e.g. bait digging, wildfowl, fishing)30.
7.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects
Projects Mersey Ports Masterplan (Consultation draft; June 2011), including the Port expansion into Seaforth Nature Reserve and the Seaforth River Terminal (a deepwater container port expansion in Sefton is currently under construction and due for completion imminently), new opportunities for renewable energy, development of single and multi-user port centric warehousing and of new processing facilities for imported commodities. potentially leading to the Liverpool SuperPort – An integrated port, airport, intermodal terminal, freight and commercial network based upon the Port of Liverpool, the Manchester Ship Canal, Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (Liverpool City Region); Power from the Mersey – project to generate renewable power from the tidal processes in the River Mersey/Mersey Estuary. This project has been indefinitely postponed;
29 Langston, W.J., Chesman, B.S. and Burt, G.R. (2006). Characterisation of European Marine Sites. Mersey Estuary SPA. [Online]. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Occasional Publications 18, 185pp. Available at: www.mba.ac.uk/nmbl/publications/occpub/pdf/occ_pub_18.pdf (accessed 15th June 2009). 30 Langston, W.J., Chesman, B.S. and Burt, G.R. (2006). Characterisation of European Marine Sites. Mersey Estuary SPA. [Online]. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Occasional Publications 18, 185pp. Available at : www.mba.ac.uk/nmbl/publications/occpub/pdf/occ_pub_18.pdf (accessed 15th June 2009).
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 46 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Liverpool John Lennon Airport expansion – potential impacts due to increased sulphur and nitrogen deposition from aircraft, loss of supporting foraging/high-tide roost habitat and possible disturbance of waterfowl from noise; Frodsham Windfarm – 20 turbines to be constructed on a stretch of land between the Manchester Ship Canal and the M56 (Cheshire West & Chester); and Hydrodec Oil Refinery, Eastham – plans to build an oil refinery at a new port facility in Eastham.
Plans Core Strategies for Halton, Liverpool, Cheshire East, Trafford, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, the Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool) and Liverpool and Wirral Waters Development masterplans – possible water quality, air quality and wildfowl disturbance impacts as a result of delivery of 110,000 dwellings and associated commercial development over the next 20 years.
7.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects
7.5.1 The HRA screening exercise undertaken in Chapters 5 and 6 has indicated that several policies and land allocations could theoretically lead to likely significant effects on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar.
Recreational Pressure and Disturbance 7.5.2 Policy EP4 considers development at Stanlow, adjacent to the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar. The policy is robust in seeking to ensure protection of ecologically sensitive sites. Specifically, it commits to only permitting new employment development where: “there should be no harm to sensitive locations in the locality arising from the appearance of the development, or its potential for pollution or noise generation. Sensitive locations include…SSSI…” It is recommended that in addition to consideration of noise and pollution as potential sources of disturbance, the policy should also include a need for new development to demonstrate that no adverse effects would arise through disturbance arising from visual impact. This would align with policies DM1 and DM39 that seek to protect internationally designated sites. 7.5.3 Policy EP6 promotes development at Ince Park. The policy is less specific in terms of avoidance of types of adverse impacts (e.g. noise and pollution), and commits only to minimising and mitigating adverse impacts. It will be important that effects of noise, visual impact and pollution on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar sites are avoided or adequately mitigated, and in the case of EP6, where public access is promoted, that this is done in a sensitive manner that avoids recreational pressure and disturbance. The policy wording should be amended to reflect these specific concerns in relation to the SPA/Ramsar. This would align with policies DM1 and DM39 that seek to protect internationally designated sites. 7.5.4 Policy EP7 promotes the development of tourism and commerce adjacent to the Mersey Estuary SPA and therefore the policy should note that it will be important that effects of noise, visual impact and pollution on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar sites are avoided or adequately mitigated. The policy wording should be amended to reflect these specific concerns in relation to the SPA/Ramsar. This would align with policies DM1 and DM39 that seek to protect internationally designated sites. 7.5.5 Policies CH1-CH5, EP1-E6, N1-N4, W1-W2, and R1-R3 all promote residential and employment development, that in combination with development in surrounding local authorities, could lead to likely significant effects on internationally designated sites, including the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar through recreational pressure or other forms of disturbance such as visual or noise impacts. 7.5.6 The contribution of Cheshire West & Chester to the total number of recreational visitors to the Mersey Estuary has been considered to represent only a small proportion of the total. However, further visitor studies are still required to confirm this conclusion, and thence to develop a robust management strategy to ensure no adverse effects on the internationally designated sites occur as a result of the proposed levels of development regionally. The undertaking and delivery of such visitor studies is not
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 47 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
within the control of the Council, except for ongoing dialogue with surrounding local authorities and MEAS. 7.5.7 It should be noted that the issue of recreational pressure and disturbance has been addressed at a strategic level within the Local Plan (Part One), where the supporting text for policy ENV4 states that: “the Habitats Regulations Assessment highlighted the issue of recreational pressure as a result of increased population on the Mersey Estuary/ Dee Estuary SPA/ SAC and Ramsar sites. The Council will need to work with other local authorities and organisations to monitor the progress of ongoing assessments and recreational management studies being undertaken on these sites. The determination of development proposals will need to take account of the evidence and recommendations in this research”. 7.5.8 Policy DM38 (Ecological Networks) makes clear that new development should contribute “appropriate green infrastructure and habitats” within a development. Green infrastructure was identified within the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) as being an important component in deflecting recreational pressure and disturbance away from internationally designated sites. The Local Plan (Part Two) policies are underpinned by those in the Local Plan (Part One), which commit to inclusion of “high quality, multi-functional, green infrastructure” as part of the strategic planning process. 7.5.9 Specific land allocations that could lead to disturbance of bird species for which the SPA/Ramsar sites are designated would be WIT/0013, NET/0010, ROS/0025 and ROS/0030 which would be residential allocations and NET/0006, NET/0009, NET/0019, ELT/0028 and ELT/0030, designated as employment allocations, as these lie within 1km of the SPA/Ramsar. For all of these locations, planning applications would need to undertake project-level HRA screening that would need to demonstrate no adverse effects on the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar through forms of disturbance (noise and visual). This requirement would therefore need to be included in the policy that will facilitate these developments. Avoidance of such effects is often possible by implementation of measures such as timing of construction works to avoid the period when designated bird species would be present, and screening of new development to reduce noise and visual disturbance effects.
Loss of Supporting Habitat 7.5.10 Employment allocations ELT/0028 and ELT/0030 appear to occupy grassland habitats (based on aerial photography) that may be suitable for supporting bird species for which the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites are designated. 7.5.11 Recent studies31 have demonstrated that internationally important high and low tide roost locations, as well as important feeding areas for designated bird species are present in Manisty Bay and Ince Bank sectors of the SPA. Therefore, any proposals for ELT/0028 and ELT/0030 should be required to undertake bird surveys to determine the potential for any likely significant effects on the designated features of the SPA/Ramsar. The threshold for significance is generally considered to be an effect (e.g. loss of regular roost site) that would affect 1% of the bird species or assemblage in question, as a proportion of the SPA/Ramsar designation.
Water Quality
7.5.12 The HRA of Local Plan (Part One) was able to conclude that due to policies included in the Local Plan, in particular STRAT11, and a commitment to work with water companies, an adverse effect on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar could be avoided through provision of adequate waste water facilities to service new development in a timely manner. It is recommended that the commitment to timely provision of such infrastructure is reiterated in policy DM36 (Water Quality, Supply and Treatment) of the Local Plan (Part Two). It is also recommended that written confirmation from the relevant water companies that there is confidence in ability to deliver sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the location and scale of proposed new development should be obtained to satisfy consultees that the issue has been addressed.
7.6 Conclusions
7.6.1 Taking into account the policies contained within the Local Plan (Part One), the Local Plan (Part Two), and the recommendations made above, it would be possible to conclude that no likely significant
31 Still, D., Calbrade, N. & Holt, C. (2014). Review and analysis of changes in water-bird use of the Mersey Estuary SPA, Mersey Narrows & North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ribble & Alt Estuaries SPA. BTO Research Report No. 648.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 48 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
effects on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar will arise as a result of the Local Plan (Part Two), either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 49 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
8 Dee Estuary SAC, SPA & Ramsar site
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 The Dee Estuary SAC, SPA & Ramsar site is a large funnel-shaped sheltered estuary and is one of the top five estuaries in the UK for wintering and passage waterfowl populations. The Dee Estuary site covers over 13,000ha and is the largest macro-tidal coastal plain Estuary between the larger Severn Estuary and the Solway Firth. The Dee Estuary is hyper-tidal with a mean spring tidal range of 7.7m at the mouth. The site has extensive areas of intertidal sand-flats, mud-flats and saltmarsh. In areas where agricultural use has not occurred, the saltmarshes grade into transitional brackish and swamp vegetation on the upper shore. The site also supports three sandstone islands (the Hilbre islands) which have important cliff vegetation and maritime heathland and grassland. The two sides of the Estuary show a marked difference between the industrialised usage of the Welsh coastal belt and the residential and recreational English side. 8.1.2 The estuary is an accreting system and the extent of saltmarsh continues to expand as the estuary seeks to achieve a new equilibrium situation following large-scale historical land-claim at the head of the estuary which commenced in the 1730s. The site includes the three sandstone islands of Hilbre with their important cliff vegetation and maritime heathland/grassland. The site also includes an assemblage of nationally scarce plants and the sandhill rustic moth Luperina nickerlii gueneei, a British Red Data Book species.
8.2 Reasons for Designation
8.2.1 The Dee Estuary qualifies as an SAC for both habitats and species. Firstly, the site contains the following Habitats Directive Annex I habitats: Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation; Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand - The Dee Estuary is representative of pioneer glasswort Salicornia spp. saltmarsh in the north-west of the UK. Salicornia spp. saltmarsh forms extensive stands in the Dee, especially on the more sandy muds where there is reduced tidal scour. It mainly occurs on the seaward fringes as a pioneer community, and moving landwards usually forms a transition to common saltmarsh-grass Puccinellia maritima saltmarsh (SM10). There is also a low frequency of Salicornia spp. extending well inland. Associated species often include annual sea-blite Suaeda maritima and hybrid scurvy grass Cochlearia x hollandica. Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) - The Dee Estuary is representative of H1330 Atlantic salt meadows in the north-west of the UK. It forms the most extensive type of saltmarsh in the Dee, and since the 1980s it has probably displaced very large quantities of the non-native common cord-grass Spartina anglica. The high accretion rates found in the estuary are likely to favour further development of this type of vegetation. The saltmarsh is regularly inundated by the sea; characteristic salt-tolerant perennial flowering plant species include common saltmarsh-grass Puccinellia maritima, sea aster Aster tripolium, and sea arrowgrass Triglochin maritima. In a few areas there are unusual transitions to wet woodland habitats. 8.2.2 Secondly, the site contains the following Habitats Directive Annex II habitats and species: Estuaries Annual vegetation of drift lines Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts Embryonic shifting dunes
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 50 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (`white dunes`) Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (`grey dunes`) Humid dune slacks Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii 8.2.3 The Dee Estuary also qualifies as a SPA (using data from both the original SPA designation and the 2001 SPA Review) supporting:
During the breeding season;
Little Tern Sterna albifrons, 69 pairs representing at least 2.9% of the breeding population in Great Britain (RSPB, 5 year mean 1994-98) Common Tern Sterna hirundo, 392 pairs representing 3.2% of the breeding population in Great Britain (5 year mean 1995-99)
On passage;
Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis, 957 individuals representing at least 2.3% of the population in Great Britain (5 year mean 1995-99)
Over winter;
Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, 1,150 individuals representing at least 2.2% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) 8.2.4 This site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Directive (79/409/EEC) by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species: Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica, 1,747 individuals representing at least 2.5% of the wintering Iceland - breeding population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) Curlew Numenius arquata, 3,899 individuals representing at least 1.1% of the wintering Europe - breeding population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, 27,769 individuals representing at least 2.0% of the wintering Northern Siberia/Europe/Western Africa population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola, 2,193 individuals representing at least 1.5% of the wintering Eastern Atlantic - wintering population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) Knot Calidris canutus, 12,394 individuals representing at least 3.5% of the wintering Northeastern Canada/Greenland/Iceland/Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, 22,677 individuals representing at least 2.5% of the wintering Europe & Northern/Western Africa population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) Pintail Anas acuta, 5,407 individuals representing at least 9.0% of the wintering Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) Redshank Tringa totanus, 5,293 wintering individuals representing at least 3.5% of the Eastern Atlantic - wintering population (5 year peak mean 1995 -99) Redshank Tringa totanus, 8,795 passage individuals representing at least 5.9% of the Eastern Atlantic population (5 year peak mean 1995 -99) Shelduck Tadorna tadorna, 7,725 individuals representing at least 2.6% of the wintering Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99)
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 51 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Teal Anas crecca, 5,251 individuals representing at least 1.3% of the wintering Northwestern Europe population (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99) 8.2.5 The Dee Estuary is also designated as an SPA for regularly supporting 130,408 individual waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1995 - 99)32. 8.2.6 In addition to the SPA designation the Dee Estuary is also designated as a Ramsar site by meeting Ramsar criteria 1, 5 and 6 as follows: Extensive intertidal mud and sand flats (20 km by 9 km) with large expanses of saltmarsh towards the head of the estuary. Supporting an overall bird assemblage of international importance; and Supporting the following species at levels of international importance: shelduck, oystercatcher, curlew, redshank, teal, pintail, grey plover, red knot, dunlin, bar-tailed godwit, black-tailed godwit and turnstone 8.2.7 The current pressures on the site are summarised below.
8.3 Current Pressures
8.3.1 The main current environmental pressures upon the Dee Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites are: overgrazing of ungrazed/little grazed saltmarsh; certain recreational activities in sensitive areas at sensitive times such as shellfishing (in terms of loss of material from the food chain) and dog walking (in terms of disturbance of waterfowl); water quality threats from increased treated wastewater discharge, ex-industrial usage and agriculture, increased runoff from; disturbance from commercial/industrial developments; physical loss and alteration of coastal processes due to navigational dredging; ‘coastal squeeze’ from land reclamation and coastal flood defences and drainage used in order to develop coastal land, and from sea level rise; introduction of non-native species; and risk of excessive abstraction resulting in a decrease in freshwater flows into the estuary, reducing drinking and bathing habitat for birds and increasing the salinity in localised areas.
8.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects
Projects Mersey Ports Masterplan (Consultation draft; June 2011), including the Port expansion into Seaforth Nature Reserve and the Seaforth River Terminal (a deepwater container port expansion in Sefton is currently under construction and due for completion imminently), new opportunities for renewable energy, development of single and multi-user port centric warehousing and of new processing facilities for imported commodities. potentially leading to the Liverpool SuperPort – An integrated port, airport, intermodal terminal, freight and commercial network based upon the Port of Liverpool, the Manchester Ship Canal, Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (Liverpool City Region); and Liverpool John Lennon Airport expansion – potential impacts due to increased sulphur and nitrogen deposition from aircraft, loss of supporting foraging/high-tide roost habitat and possible disturbance of waterfowl from noise;
32 The Ramsar citation sheet identifies the waterfowl population as 74,230 using slightly more recent data (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003). However, this is still more than the 21,000 needed for consideration as being internationally important.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 52 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Plans Core Strategies for Halton, Liverpool, Cheshire East, Trafford, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, the Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool) and Liverpool and Wirral Waters Development masterplans – possible water quality, air quality and wildfowl disturbance impacts as a result of delivery of 110,000 dwellings and associated commercial development over the next 20 years.
8.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects
8.5.1 The HRA screening exercise undertaken in Chapters 5 and 6 has indicated that several policies and land allocations could theoretically lead to likely significant effects on the Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar.
Recreational Pressure and Disturbance
8.5.2 Policies CH1-CH5, EP1-E6, N1-N4, W1-W2, and R1-R3 all promote residential and employment development, that in combination with development in surrounding local authorities, could lead to likely significant effects on internationally designated sites, including the Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar through recreational pressure or other forms of disturbance such as visual or noise impacts. 8.5.3 The contribution of Cheshire West & Chester to the total number of recreational visitors to the Dee Estuary has been considered to represent only a small proportion of the total. However, further visitor studies are still required to confirm this conclusion, and thence to develop a robust management strategy to ensure no adverse effects on the internationally designated sites occur as a result of the proposed levels of development regionally. The undertaking and delivery of such visitor studies is not within the control of the Council, except for ongoing dialogue with surrounding local authorities and MEAS. 8.5.4 It should be noted that the issue of recreational pressure and disturbance has been addressed at a strategic level within the Local Plan (Part One), where the supporting text for policy ENV4 states that: “the Habitats Regulations Assessment highlighted the issue of recreational pressure as a result of increased population on the Mersey Estuary/ Dee Estuary SPA/ SAC and Ramsar sites. The Council will need to work with other local authorities and organisations to monitor the progress of ongoing assessments and recreational management studies being undertaken on these sites. The determination of development proposals will need to take account of the evidence and recommendations in this research”. 8.5.5 Policy DM38 (Ecological Networks) makes clear that new development should contribute “appropriate green infrastructure and habitats” within a development. Green infrastructure was identified within the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) as being an important component in deflecting recreational pressure and disturbance away from internationally designated sites. The Local Plan (Part Two) policies are underpinned by those in the Local Plan (Part One), which commit to inclusion of “high quality, multi-functional, green infrastructure” as part of the strategic planning process.
Water Quality 8.5.6 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) was able to conclude that due to policies included in that plan, in particular STRAT11, and a commitment to work with water companies, an adverse effect on the Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar could be avoided through provision of adequate waste water facilities to service new development in a timely manner. It is recommended that the commitment to timely provision of such infrastructure is reiterated in policy DM36 (Water Quality, Supply and Treatment) of the Local Plan (Part Two). It is also recommended that written confirmation from the relevant water companies that there is confidence in ability to deliver sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the location and scale of proposed new development should be obtained to satisfy consultees that the issue has been addressed.
8.6 Conclusions
8.6.1 Taking into account the policies contained within the Local Plan (Part One), the Local Plan (Part Two), and the recommendations made above, it would be possible to conclude that no likely significant effects on the Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar will arise as a result of the Local Plan (Part Two), either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 53 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
9 River Dee and Bala Lake SAC
9.1 Reasons for Designation
9.1.1 The River Dee and Bala Lake qualifies as an SAC for both habitats and species. Firstly, the site contains the following Habitats Directive Annex I habitats: Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation 9.1.2 Secondly, the site contains the following Habitats Directive Annex II species: Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Floating water-plantain Luronium natans Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Bullhead Cottus gobio Otter Lutra lutra 9.1.3 The current pressures on the site are summarised below.
9.2 Current Pressures
9.2.1 The main current environmental pressures upon the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC are: Deterioration in water quality and changes in flow rates due to ex-industrial runoff, discharge of treated sewage effluent (which contains elevated nitrates) and agricultural runoff; Fish entrainment associated with abstraction; Risk of excessive abstraction resulting in a decrease in freshwater flows and an increase in sediment loading of water such that dehydration of interest features may occur; Overfishing of Atlantic salmon; and Introduction of invasive species.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 54 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
9.3 Role of Other Plans and Projects
Plans Core Strategies for Halton, Liverpool, Cheshire East, Trafford, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, the Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool) and Liverpool and Wirral Waters Development masterplans – possible water quality, air quality and wildfowl disturbance impacts as a result of delivery of 110,000 dwellings and associated commercial development over the next 20 years.
9.4 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects
9.4.1 The HRA screening exercise undertaken in Chapters 5 and 6 has indicated that policies and land allocations could theoretically lead to likely significant effects on the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC.
Water Quality 9.4.2 The HRA of Local Plan (Part One) was able to conclude that due to policies included in that plan, in particular STRAT11, and a commitment to work with water companies, an adverse effect on the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC could be avoided through provision of adequate waste water facilities to service new development in a timely manner. It is recommended that the commitment to timely provision of such infrastructure is reiterated in policy DM36 (Water Quality, Supply and Treatment) of the Local Plan (Part Two). It is also recommended that written confirmation from the relevant water companies that there is confidence in ability to deliver sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the location and scale of proposed new development should be obtained to satisfy consultees that the issue has been addressed. 9.4.3 Policy T1 expresses support for construction of a Chester Western Relief Road that would cross the SAC (River Dee). The policy should include a requirement that any proposal would need to adequately ensure that construction and operation of any such crossing would not lead to reduced water quality of the SAC, damage or loss of habitats for which the SAC is designated, or disturbance/ displacement of species for which the SAC is designated. 9.4.4 Land allocation FAR/0040 would lie approximately 200m from the SAC, and any proposals would need to ensure that pollution control measures are adequate to avoid any reduced water quality of the SAC.
9.5 Conclusions
9.5.1 Taking into account the policies contained within the Local Plan (Part One), the Local Plan (Part Two), and the recommendations made above, it would be possible to conclude that no likely significant effects on the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC will arise as a result of the Local Plan (Part Two), either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 55 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
10 West Midlands Mosses SAC/ Oak Mere SAC/ Midlands Meres & Mosses Ramsar
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 These three sites have been grouped together as their designated interest features, vulnerabilities and potential impact pathways in relation to Cheshire West and Chester development are very similar. West Midlands Mosses (Abbots Moss) and Oak Mere are effectively subsumed within the Ramsar designation as well as being separately designated under the Habitats Directive. The Ramsar site also includes several pockets of land around Delamere Forest Park, namely Linmer Moss, Hatch Mere and Flaxmere Moss. 10.1.2 Oak Mere covers an area of 68.82ha. This site consists of a large water body formed in a kettle-hole in the fluvio-glacial sands of the Cheshire Plain. The lake has low nutrient levels typical of oligotrophic waters containing few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) and has a marginal zone of shoreweed (Littorella uniflora). The lake also has floating rafts of bog-moss (Sphagnum spp.) and narrow small-reed (Calamagrostis stricta) which are now rare in the lowlands of England. There are also transition areas at the waters edge which contain, soft rush (Juncus effusus), spike-rush (Eleocharis palustris), marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris) and water horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile). The small depressions in the peat contain bottle sedge (Carex rostrata), cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix) and round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia). 10.1.3 West Midlands Mosses SAC covers an area of 184ha. The site consists of three pools, one at Clarepool Moss (which are not relevant to Cheshire West & Chester) and two at Abbots Moss (which is located near Sandiway within Cheshire West and Chester), that are examples of dystrophic lakes and ponds in the lowlands of England and Wales, where this habitat type is rare. The dystrophic lakes and ponds at this site are associated with Schwingmoor development, a characteristic of this habitat type in the West Midlands. Schwingmoor is an advancing floating raft of bog-moss Sphagnum, often containing NVC type M3 Eriophorum angustifolium bog pool community, which grows from the edge of the pool and can completely cover over the pool; the site has also been selected for this Annex I feature (7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs). Floating rafts of Sphagnum-dominated vegetation have developed over semi-liquid substrates within basins. In the UK this type of Sphagnum- dominated vegetation with a scatter of sedges Carex species and cranberry Vaccinium oxycoccos is confined to this part of England and mid-Wales.
10.2 Reasons for Designation
10.2.1 The primary reason for selection of Oak Mere is the presence of Habitats Directive Annex I habitats (EC 1992c) of oligotrophic waters containing few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) and transition mires and quaking bogs. West Midlands Mosses is also designated for its transition mires and quaking bogs but also for dystrophic (rather than oligotrophic) lakes and ponds. 10.2.2 The current pressures on the site are summarised below.
10.3 Current Pressures
10.3.1 The main current environmental pressures upon the SACs and Ramsar sites are: The nutrient-poor water of Oak Mere has already been shown to be highly sensitive to several sources of enrichment. There are potential threats of further nutrient enrichment and chemical pollution at times of high water table, via discharges into the Mere’s surface inflow. The risks from these point sources are being investigated by Natural England and the Environment Agency. There is also a continual risk of accidents and spillages from the busy transport network at the sides of the Mere. The Mere has reduced in size due to a natural lowering in the local water table caused by successive droughts. The water-level changes are also being monitored and managed to minimise the threat to shoreline communities from desiccation and invasion by birch and willow.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 56 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
10.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects
Plans Core Strategies for Halton, Liverpool, Cheshire East, Trafford, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, the Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool) and Liverpool and Wirral Waters Development masterplans – possible water quality, air quality and wildfowl disturbance impacts as a result of delivery of 110,000 dwellings and associated commercial development over the next 20 years.
10.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects
10.5.1 The HRA screening exercise undertaken in Chapters 5 and 6 has indicated that policies and land allocations could theoretically lead to likely significant effects on the West Midland Mosses SAC/ Oak Mere SAC/ Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar.
Air Quality 10.5.2 Policies N1-N4, W1-W2 and R4 all promote development that could increase road traffic passing on the A49 or A54 within 200m of Oak Mere SAC. However, the total quantum of housing and employment allocated within the Local Plan (Part Two) is in accordance with that proposed in the Local Plan (Part One). This was subject to air quality modelling that was able to conclude no likely significant effects on the internationally designated sites as a result of reduced air quality. Although the land allocations provide a refined spatial awareness of where development would be allocated, it is considered that since the quantum and broad distribution of development being proposed under Local Plan Part Two is in line with Local Plan Part One, it follows that the conclusions of the Local Plan Part One HRA remain valid.
10.6 Conclusions
10.6.1 Taking into account the policies contained within the Local Plan (Part One), the Local Plan (Part Two), and the recommendations made above, it would be possible to conclude that no likely significant effects on the West Midlands Mosses SAC, Oak Mere SAC or Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar will arise as a result of the Local Plan (Part Two), either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 57 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
11 Liverpool Bay SPA
11.1 Introduction
11.1.1 The Liverpool Bay SPA is an approximately 198,000ha maritime site located in the Irish Sea, straddling the English and Welsh borders. The site has exposed mudflats and sandbanks in places, although the site extends up to approximately 20km from the shoreline and thus most of the area of the SPA is relatively shallow water up to 20m deep. It is contiguous with a number of other European sites, including the Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site, Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar site, and Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site.
11.2 Reasons for Designation
11.2.1 Liverpool Bay SPA was designated from a pSPA to SPA in July 2010. Liverpool Bay has been identified by Natural England and CCW as qualifying for SPA status under the following Stage 1 guidelines: Liverpool Bay regularly supports over 1% of the GB population of one species listed on Annex I of the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC): red-throated diver (Gavia stellata). The mean peak count of overwintering red-throated divers within the SPA boundary over the period 2001/02 – 2005/06 was 922 individuals: or 5.4% of GB’s total estimated overwintering population. Liverpool Bay regularly supports more than 1% of the biogeographical population of one regularly occurring migratory species: common scoter (Melanitta nigra). The mean peak overwintering common scoter population of 54,675 individuals between 2001/02 – 2005/06 is an estimated 58% of the GB population. The site also supports more than 21,000 waterbirds in the non-breeding season with a mean peak average over 2001/02 – 2005/06 of at least 55,597, with at least 80,346 in winter 2001/02. 11.2.2 The designation for Liverpool Bay SPA features and extent have been amended in 2015. The bay now stretches from Anglesey in Wales to the Lancashire coast. 11.2.3 Further extensions are proposed, extending the SPA further out to sea. However, the Proposed Extension to the SPA would also bring the physical area covered by the SPA up the River Mersey to the entrance to Birkenhead Docks. The Proposed Extension would afford protection to little gull Hydrocoloeus minutus, and cover important foraging areas for little tern Sterna albifrons (colony at Gronant) and common tern Sterna hirundo (colony at Seaforth). The Proposed Extension would also add, red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator, and cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo as named features of the assemblage for which the SPA is designated.
11.3 Current Pressures
11.3.1 The main current environmental pressures upon the SPA and Ramsar sites are: disturbance of sediment releasing legacy heavy metal pollution (lead, cadmium, arsenic and other poisons) that is bound into the sediment; pollution via rivers and drains by both treated sewerage and untreated runoff containing inorganic chemicals and organic compounds from everyday domestic products, which ‘may combine together in ways that make it difficult to predict their ultimate effect of the marine environment… Some may remain indefinitely in the seawater, the seabed, or the flesh, fat and oil of sea creatures’; pollution via commercial shipping by chemical or noise pollution and the dumping of litter at sea; damage of marine benthic habitat directly from fishing methods;
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 58 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
damage of marine benthic habitat directly or indirectly from aggregate extraction; ‘coastal squeeze’ (a type of coastal habitat loss) from land reclamation and coastal flood defences and drainage used in order to farm or develop coastal land, and from erosion and sea level rise; loss or damage of marine benthic habitat directly and indirectly (through changed sedimentation/deposition patterns) as a result of navigational dredging in order to accommodate large vessels – e.g. into the ports of Liverpool; harm to wildlife (especially birds) or habitat loss due to increasing proposals/demand for offshore wind turbines; and pollution, disturbance direct kills, litter or loss of habitat as a result of water-based recreation and related development along the foreshore or shipping activity.
11.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects
Projects Mersey Ports Masterplan (Consultation draft; June 2011), including the Port expansion into Seaforth Nature Reserve and the Seaforth River Terminal (a deepwater container port expansion in Sefton is currently under construction and due for completion imminently), new opportunities for renewable energy, development of single and multi-user port centric warehousing and of new processing facilities for imported commodities. potentially leading to the Liverpool SuperPort – An integrated port, airport, intermodal terminal, freight and commercial network based upon the Port of Liverpool, the Manchester Ship Canal, Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (Liverpool City Region); Wylfa – Construction of a new reactor at the Wylfa nuclear power plant on Anglesey. Depending on details this could involve construction disturbance and potential impacts through the release of heated water from cooling systems into Liverpool Bay; Power from the Mersey – project to generate renewable power from the tidal processes in the River Mersey/Mersey Estuary. This project has been indefinitely postponed; and Liverpool John Lennon Airport expansion – potential impacts due to increased sulphur and nitrogen deposition from aircraft, loss of supporting foraging/high-tide roost habitat and possible disturbance of waterfowl from noise;
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 59 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Plans Core Strategies, Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans for Flintshire, Denbighshire, Halton, Conwy, Wrexham, Cheshire West and Chester, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, the Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool) and Liverpool and Wirral Waters Development masterplans – possible water quality, air quality and wildfowl disturbance impacts as a result of delivery of over 110,000 dwellings and associated commercial development over the next 20 years.
11.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects
11.5.1 The HRA screening exercise undertaken in Chapters 5 and 6 has indicated that several policies and land allocations could theoretically lead to likely significant effects on the Liverpool Bay SPA/Ramsar.
Recreational Pressure and Disturbance 11.5.2 Policies CH1-CH5, EP1-E6, N1-N4, W1-W2, and R1-R3 all promote residential and employment development, that in combination with development in surrounding local authorities, could lead to likely significant effects on internationally designated sites, including the Liverpool Bay SPA/Ramsar through recreational pressure or other forms of disturbance such as visual or noise impacts. 11.5.3 The contribution of Cheshire West & Chester to the total number of recreational visitors to the Dee Estuary has been considered to represent only a small proportion of the total. However, further visitor studies are still required to confirm this conclusion, and thence to develop a robust management strategy to ensure no adverse effects on the internationally designated sites occur as a result of the proposed levels of development regionally. The undertaking and delivery of such visitor studies is not within the control of the Council, except for ongoing dialogue with surrounding local authorities and MEAS. 11.5.4 It should be noted that the issue of recreational pressure and disturbance has been addressed at a strategic level within the Local Plan (Part One), where the supporting text for policy ENV4 states that: “the Habitats Regulations Assessment highlighted the issue of recreational pressure as a result of increased population on the Mersey Estuary/ Dee Estuary SPA/ SAC and Ramsar sites. The Council will need to work with other local authorities and organisations to monitor the progress of ongoing assessments and recreational management studies being undertaken on these sites. The determination of development proposals will need to take account of the evidence and recommendations in this research”. 11.5.5 Policy DM38 (Ecological Networks) makes clear that new development should contribute “appropriate green infrastructure and habitats” within a development. Green infrastructure was identified within the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) as being an important component in deflecting recreational pressure and disturbance away from internationally designated sites. The Local Plan (Part Two) policies are underpinned by those in the Local Plan (Part One), which commit to inclusion of “high quality, multi-functional, green infrastructure” as part of the strategic planning process.
Water Quality 11.5.6 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) was able to conclude that due to policies included in that plan, in particular STRAT11, and a commitment to work with water companies, an adverse effect on the Liverpool Bay SPA/Ramsar could be avoided through provision of adequate waste water facilities to service new development in a timely manner. It is recommended that the commitment to timely provision of such infrastructure is reiterated in policy DM36 (Water Quality, Supply and Treatment) of the Local Plan (Part Two). It is also recommended that written confirmation from the relevant water companies that there is confidence in ability to deliver sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the location and scale of proposed new development should be obtained to satisfy consultees that the issue has been addressed.
11.6 Conclusions
11.6.1 Taking into account the policies contained within the Local Plan (Part One), the Local Plan (Part Two), and the recommendations made above, it would be possible to conclude that no likely significant effects on the Liverpool Bay SPA/Ramsar will arise as a result of the Local Plan (Part Two), either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 60 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
12 Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar site
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1 The Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar site covers 2,078ha, located at the mouths of the Mersey and Dee estuaries. The site comprises intertidal habitats at Egremont foreshore (feeding habitat for waders at low tide), man-made lagoons at Seaforth Nature Reserve (high tide roost and nesting site for terns) and the extensive intertidal flats at North Wirral Foreshore (supports large numbers of feeding waders at low tide and also includes important high-tide roost sites). The Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore has clear links in terms of bird movements with the nearby Dee Estuary SPA and Ramsar site, Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site, and (to a lesser extent) the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar site (Wirral MBC, 2001).
12.2 Reasons for Designation
12.2.1 The Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA and Ramsar site is designated for its feeding and roosting habitat for non-breeding wading birds, and as a breeding site for terns. The Birds Directive Annex I species (qualifying the site under Article 4.1), which can be found over-winter, are: Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica: 5.5% of the GB population.
The Birds Directive Annex I species (qualifying the site under Article 4.1), which can be found on passage are:
Little Gull Hydrocoloeus minutus: 213 individuals; and Common Tern Sterna hirundo 1,475 individuals.
The Birds Directive Annex I species (qualifying the site under Article 4.1), which can be found during the breeding season are:
Common Tern Sterna hirundo: 1.8% of the GB population.
The site also qualifies under Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive, as it is used regularly by 1% or more of the biogeographical populations of the following migratory species:
Knot Calidris canutus: 2.4% of NW European, NE Canadian, Greenland & Icelandic populations. 12.2.2 Additionally, in qualifying under Article 4.2 of the Birds Directive, the site regularly supports 32,366 individuals of a wider range of species, including bar-tailed godwit, dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, redshank Tringa totanus, sanderling Calidris alba, knot Calidris canutus, grey plover Pluvialis squatarola, oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus and cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo. 12.2.3 The site qualifies under the Ramsar Convention under Criterion 4, regularly supporting plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or providing refuge during adverse conditions; Criterion 5, regularly supporting over 32,366 waterbirds (non-breeding season); and Criterion 6, regularly supporting 1% of the species or subspecies of waterbird in any season listed above.
12.3 Current Pressures
12.3.1 The main current environmental pressures upon the SPA and Ramsar sites are: disturbance of sediment releasing legacy heavy metal pollution (lead, cadmium, arsenic and other poisons) that is bound into the sediment; pollution via rivers and drains by both treated sewerage and untreated runoff containing inorganic chemicals and organic compounds from everyday domestic products, which ‘may
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 61 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
combine together in ways that make it difficult to predict their ultimate effect of the marine environment… Some may remain indefinitely in the seawater, the seabed, or the flesh, fat and oil of sea creatures’; pollution via commercial shipping by chemical or noise pollution and the dumping of litter at sea; damage of marine benthic habitat directly from fishing methods; damage of marine benthic habitat along the North Wirral Foreshore directly or indirectly from aggregate extraction, particularly anywhere that dredging may be altering erosion/deposition patterns; ‘coastal squeeze’ (a type of coastal habitat loss) from land reclamation and coastal flood defences and drainage used in order to farm or develop coastal land, and from sea level rise; loss or damage of marine benthic habitat directly and indirectly (through changed sedimentation/deposition patterns) as a result of navigational dredging in order to accommodate large vessels – e.g. into the ports of Liverpool; harm to wildlife (especially birds) or habitat loss due to increasing proposals/demand for offshore wind turbines; pollution, direct kills, litter, disturbance or loss of habitat as a result of water-based recreation or other recreation activity and related development along the foreshore (Wildlife Trust, 2006); introduction of non-native species and translocation; and selective removal of species (e.g. bait digging, wildfowl, fishing) (Wildlife Trust, 2006 and Marine Biological Association, 2006).
12.4 Role of Other Plans and Projects
Projects Mersey Ports Masterplan (Consultation draft; June 2011), including the Port expansion into Seaforth Nature Reserve and the Seaforth River Terminal (a deepwater container port expansion in Sefton is currently under construction and due for completion imminently), new opportunities for renewable energy, development of single and multi-user port centric warehousing and of new processing facilities for imported commodities. potentially leading to the Liverpool SuperPort – An integrated port, airport, intermodal terminal, freight and commercial network based upon the Port of Liverpool, the Manchester Ship Canal, Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (Liverpool City Region); Energy from Waste Plants at Runcorn and Ince Marshes – possible air quality impacts through nitrogen and sulphur deposition. However, both of these schemes are consented such that they will introduce mitigation for their own air quality impacts. In practice therefore, no in combination effect should result; and Frodsham Windfarm – 20 turbines to be constructed on a stretch of land between the Manchester Ship Canal and the M56 (Cheshire West & Chester).
Plans Core Strategies, Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans for Flintshire, Wrexham, Conwy, Denbighshire, Halton, Cheshire West and Chester, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, the Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool) and Liverpool and Wirral Waters Development masterplans – possible water quality, air quality and wildfowl disturbance impacts as a result of delivery of over 110,000 dwellings and associated commercial development over the next 20 years.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 62 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
12.5 Local Plan (Part Two) – Likely Significant Effects
12.5.1 The HRA screening exercise undertaken in Chapters 5 and 6 has indicated that several policies and land allocations could theoretically lead to likely significant effects on the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar.
Recreational Pressure and Disturbance 12.5.2 Policies CH1-CH5, EP1-E6, N1-N4, W1-W2, and R1-R3 all promote residential and employment development, that in combination with development in surrounding local authorities, could lead to likely significant effects on internationally designated sites, including the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar through recreational pressure or other forms of disturbance such as visual or noise impacts. 12.5.3 The contribution of Cheshire West & Chester to the total number of recreational visitors to the Dee Estuary has been considered to represent only a small proportion of the total. However, further visitor studies are still required to confirm this conclusion, and thence to develop a robust management strategy to ensure no adverse effects on the internationally designated sites occur as a result of the proposed levels of development regionally. The undertaking and delivery of such visitor studies is not within the control of the Council, except for ongoing dialogue with surrounding local authorities and MEAS. 12.5.4 It should be noted that the issue of recreational pressure and disturbance has been addressed at a strategic level within the Local Plan (Part One), where the supporting text for policy ENV4 states that: “the Habitats Regulations Assessment highlighted the issue of recreational pressure as a result of increased population on the Mersey Estuary/ Dee Estuary SPA/ SAC and Ramsar sites. The Council will need to work with other local authorities and organisations to monitor the progress of ongoing assessments and recreational management studies being undertaken on these sites. The determination of development proposals will need to take account of the evidence and recommendations in this research”. 12.5.5 Policy DM38 (Ecological Networks) makes clear that new development should contribute “appropriate green infrastructure and habitats” within a development. Green infrastructure was identified within the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) as being an important component in deflecting recreational pressure and disturbance away from internationally designated sites. The Local Plan (Part Two) policies are underpinned by those in the Local Plan (Part One), which commit to inclusion of “high quality, multi-functional, green infrastructure” as part of the strategic planning process.
Water Quality 12.5.6 The HRA of the Local Plan (Part One) was able to conclude that due to policies included in that plan, in particular STRAT11, and a commitment to work with water companies, an adverse effect on the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar could be avoided through provision of adequate waste water facilities to service new development in a timely manner. It is recommended that the commitment to timely provision of such infrastructure is reiterated in policy DM36 (Water Quality, Supply and Treatment) of the Local Plan (Part Two). It is also recommended that written confirmation from the relevant water companies that there is confidence in ability to deliver sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the location and scale of proposed new development should be obtained to satisfy consultees that the issue has been addressed.
12.6 Conclusions
12.6.1 Taking into account the policies contained within the Local Plan (Part One), the Local Plan (Part Two), and the recommendations made above, it would be possible to conclude that no likely significant effects on the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar will arise as a result of the Local Plan (Part Two), either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 63 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
13 Sefton Coast SAC
13.1 Introduction
13.1.1 Located to the north of Liverpool, the Sefton Coast SAC (approximately 4,560ha) consists of a mosaic of sand dune communities comprising a range of ages from embryonic (i.e. dune formation) to more established communities. A number of other habitats are also present, including lagoons, estuaries and riverine environments, but also scrub, heath and coniferous woodland.
13.2 Reasons for Designation
13.2.1 The Sefton Coast qualifies as an SAC for both habitats and species. Firstly, the site contains the Habitats Directive Annex I habitats of: embryonic shifting sand dunes: considered rare, as its total extent in the United Kingdom is estimated to be less than 1,000 hectares – the Sefton Coast SAC is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom; shifting dunes along the shoreline with marram Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”): the Sefton Coast SAC is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom; fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”): the Sefton Coast SAC is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom; dunes with creeping willow Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae): considered rare, as its total extent in the United Kingdom is estimated to be less than 1,000 hectares – the Sefton Coast SAC is considered to support a significant presence of the species; humid dune slacks: the Sefton Coast SAC is considered to be one of the best areas in the United Kingdom; and Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea): considered rare, as its total extent in the United Kingdom is estimated to be less than 1,000 hectares – the Sefton Coast SAC is considered to support a significant presence. 13.2.2 Secondly, the site contains the Habitats Directive Annex II species petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii, for which it is one of the best areas in the United Kingdom, and great-crested newt Triturus cristatus, for which the area is considered to support a significant presence.
13.3 Historic Trends and Current Pressures
13.3.1 The main current environmental pressures on the Sefton Coast SAC are: the need to reduce the fragmentation of habitats, and the impact of fragmentation, to provide stepping stones for the movement of species; the need to counter negative changes to low-nutrient habitats resulting from atmospheric nutrient deposition; the need to manage the continuing coastal erosion at Formby Point which leads to a squeeze on habitats. This management would not constitute formal defences as these would in themselves harm the dune ecosystem, but the management of pine plantations preventing dune roll-back. The dunes require sufficient space that natural processes can maintain the important habitats through roll-back; the need to consider the potential impact of climate change on shorelines, wetlands and dunes;
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 64 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
the need to manage abstraction from the underlying aquifer for sources such as golf courses. The aquifer is critical to some features of the site, such as the humid dune slacks and the great crested newts; to manage recreational pressures and direct disturbance to qualifying habitats; the need to develop and maintain management practices which sustain the conservation value of the area; and the need to avoid loss of great-crested newt habitat, and habitats being further fragmented by distance or barriers.
13.4 Role of other plans and projects
Projects Mersey Ports Masterplan (Consultation draft; June 2011), including the Seaforth River Terminal (a deepwater container port expansion in Sefton planned for 2014), new opportunities for renewable energy, development of single and multi user port centric warehousing and of new processing facilities for imported commodities. potentially leading to the Liverpool SuperPort – An integrated port, airport, intermodal terminal, freight and commercial network based upon the Port of Liverpool, the Manchester Ship Canal, Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (Liverpool City Region)
Plans Core Strategies for Liverpool, West Lancashire, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, the Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool) and Liverpool and Wirral Waters Development masterplans – possible water quality, air quality and wildfowl disturbance impacts as a result of delivery of 90,000 dwellings and associated commercial development over the next 20 years
13.5 Conclusion
13.5.1 There are no additional impacts from existing pathways of impact arising from the Local Plan (Part Two) or new pathways of impact created that lead to a need to revisit the conclusion obtained by the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One). The HRA can conclude that the submission draft Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan would not lead to likely significant effects on the Sefton Coast SAC.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 65 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
14 Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA / Ramsar site
14.1 Introduction
14.1.1 The Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site is approximately 12,360ha, and consists of extensive sand- and mud-flats and, particularly in the Ribble Estuary, large areas of saltmarsh. There are also areas of coastal grazing marsh located behind the sea embankments. The saltmarshes, coastal grazing marshes, intertidal sand- and mud-flats all support high densities of grazing wildfowl and are used as high-tide roosts. Important populations of waterbirds occur in winter, including swans, geese, ducks and waders. The highest densities of feeding birds are on the muddier substrates of the Ribble. 14.1.2 The SPA is also of major importance during the spring and autumn migration periods, especially for wader populations moving along the west coast of Britain. The larger expanses of saltmarsh and areas of coastal grazing marsh support breeding birds during the summer, including large concentrations of gulls and terns. These seabirds feed both offshore and inland, outside of the SPA. Several species of waterbird (notably pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus) utilise feeding areas on agricultural land outside of the SPA boundary. There is considerable interchange in the movements of wintering birds between this site and Morecambe Bay, the Mersey Estuary, the Dee Estuary and Martin Mere.
14.2 Reasons for Designation
14.2.1 The Ribble and Alt Estuaries site is designated as an SPA for its Birds Directive Annex I species, both breeding and over-wintering, and these are:
During the breeding season:
common tern Sterna hirundo: 182 pairs = 1.5% of the breeding population in Great Britain; ruff Philomachus pugnax: 1 pair = 9.1% of the breeding population in Great Britain;
Over winter:
bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica: 18,958 individuals = 35.8% of the population in Great Britain; Bewick’s swan Cygnus columbianus ssp. bewickii: 229 individuals = 3.3% of the population in Great Britain; golden plover Pluvialis apricaria: 4,277 individuals = 1.7% of the population in Great Britain whooper swan Cygnus cygnus: 159 individuals = 2.9% of the population in Great Britain. 14.2.2 It also meets the criteria for SPA designation under Article 2 of the Birds Directive, supporting internationally important populations of lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus, ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula, sanderling Calidris alba, black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa ssp. limosa, dunlin Calidris alpina alpina, grey plover Pluvialis squatarola, knot Calidris canutus, oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus, pintail Anas acuta, redshank Tringa totanus, sanderling Calidris alba, shelduck Tadorna tadorna, teal Anas crecca and wigeon Anas penelope. It also qualifies by regularly supporting up to 29,236 individual seabirds, and, over winter, 301,449 individual waterfowl. 14.2.3 It is additionally designated as a Ramsar site in accordance with Criterion 5 (UN, 2005) for supporting up 89,576 waterfowl (5-year peak mean 1998/99 – 2002/03), and in accordance with Criterion 6 for supporting internationally important populations of common shelduck Tadorna tadorna, black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa ssp. limosa, redshank Tringa totanus, Eurasian teal Anas crecca, northern pintail Anas acuta and dunlin Calidris alpina alpina. 14.2.4 The Ribble and Alt Estuaries also qualifies as Ramsar as it meets criterion 2 by supporting over 40% of the UK population of Natterjack toad. The Natterjack Toad occurs on the Sefton Coast in seaward
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 66 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
dunes between Southport and Hightown. In 2000 it was present on 13 sites (three of which are reintroductions). The breeding population is estimated at just over 1000 females. The largest populations are on Ainsdale Sand Dunes NNR and Ainsdale and Birkdale Sandhills LNR. Natterjacks are absent from much of the dune coast and some breeding sites are relatively isolated (North Merseyside Biodiversity Action Plan, undated).
14.3 Current Pressures
14.3.1 The main current environmental pressures on the Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA / Ramsar site are: loss or damage of habitat as a result of increasing off-shore exploration and production activity associated with oil and natural gas; over-grazing of the saltmarshes by cattle-farming; heavy metal pollution (lead, cadmium, arsenic and other poisons) from either industry or disturbance of sediment (legacy pollution bound into the sediment); pollution via rivers by agricultural effluent flowing off fields, ‘leading to increased fertility of inshore waters and associated algal blooms and de-oxygenation of seawater, particularly in enclosed bays and estuaries’; pollution via rivers and drains by both treated sewerage and untreated runoff containing inorganic chemicals and organic compounds from everyday domestic products, which ‘may combine together in ways that make it difficult to predict their ultimate effect of the marine environment… Some may remain indefinitely in the seawater, the seabed, or the flesh, fat and oil of sea creatures’; damage of marine benthic habitat directly from fishing methods; damage of marine benthic habitat directly or indirectly from aggregate extraction; ‘coastal squeeze’ (a type of coastal habitat loss) from land reclamation and coastal flood defences and drainage used in order to farm or develop coastal land, and from sea level rise; harm to wildlife (especially birds) or habitat loss due to increasing proposals/demand for offshore wind turbines; pollution, direct kills, litter, disturbance or loss of habitat as a result of water-based recreation or other recreation activity and related development along the foreshore33; disturbance to birds from aircraft, both from Blackpool Airport and from a private testing station; introduction of non-native species and translocation; selective removal of species (e.g. bait digging, wildfowl, fishing) (Wildlife Trust, 2006 and Ribble Estuary Strategy Steering Group, 1997); interruption of dune accretion processes leading to over-stabilisation of dunes; the spread of rank grasses and scrub, partly caused by a decline in rabbit-grazing, further reducing suitable habitat; losses to development, forestry and recreational uses have reduced the area of available habitat; fragmentation of habitat has led to isolation of populations; creation of permanent water bodies in the dunes has encouraged populations of invertebrates which prey on Natterjack tadpoles and, most seriously, of Common Toads which both predate and suppress the development of Natterjack tadpoles; gassing of rabbits, especially on golf courses, can kill Natterjacks using burrows and removes a valuable grazing animal;
33 Wildlife Trust (2006) – The Wildlife Trust For Lancashire, Manchester And North Merseyside (2006). Uses and abuses. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lancswt.org.uk/Learning%20&%20Discovery/theirishsea/usesandabuses.htm (accessed 15th June 2009).
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 67 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
collecting and disturbance of spawn and tadpoles can reduce metamorphic success; inappropriate management can cause the loss of low vegetation structure and open ground used by Natterjacks for foraging; water abstraction, conifers and scrub lower the water table locally and reduces the number of pools in which Natterjack tadpoles can develop to maturity.
14.4 Role of other plans and projects
Projects Mersey Ports Masterplan (Consultation draft; June 2011), including the Seaforth River Terminal (a deepwater container port expansion in Sefton planned for 2014), new opportunities for renewable energy, development of single and multi user port centric warehousing and of new processing facilities for imported commodities. potentially leading to the Liverpool SuperPort – An integrated port, airport, intermodal terminal, freight and commercial network based upon the Port of Liverpool, the Manchester Ship Canal, Liverpool John Lennon Airport and the Mersey Multimodal Gateway (Liverpool City Region).
Plans Core Strategies for Liverpool, West Lancashire, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, the Mersey Heartlands Growth Point Programme of Delivery (Wirral and Liverpool) and Liverpool and Wirral Waters Development masterplans – possible water quality, air quality and wildfowl disturbance impacts as a result of delivery of 90,000 dwellings and associated commercial development over the next 20 years.
14.5 Conclusion
14.5.1 There are no additional impacts from existing pathways of impact arising from the Local Plan (Part Two) or new pathways of impact created that lead to a need to revisit the conclusion obtained by the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One). The HRA can conclude that the submission draft Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan would not lead to likely significant effects on the Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 68 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
15 Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC
15.1 Reasons for Designation
15.1.1 Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains qualifies as a SAC for the following Habitats Directive Annex I habitats: Blanket bogs; Dry heaths; Dry grasslands or scrublands on chalk or limestone; Very wet mires often identified by an unstable ‘quaking’ surface; Base-rich scree; Plants in crevices in base-rich rocks.
15.2 Current Pressures
15.2.1 The main current environmental pressures upon the Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC are: Damage through erosion and fragmentation to sensitive habitats from recreational vehicles; and Associated potential for air quality reduction through increased recreational access.
15.3 Conclusion
15.3.1 There are no additional impacts from existing pathways of impact arising from the Local Plan (Part Two) or new pathways of impact created that lead to a need to revisit the conclusion obtained by the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One). The HRA can conclude that the submission draft Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan would not lead to likely significant effects on the Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 69 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
16 River Eden SAC
16.1 Reasons for Designation
16.1.1 The River Eden in the Lake District qualifies as an SAC for both habitats and species. Firstly, the site contains the following Habitats Directive Annex I habitats:
Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site
Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Batrachion vegetation Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior
Secondly, the site contains the following Habitats Directive Annex II species:
White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Bullhead Cottus gobio Otter Lutra lutra 16.1.2 The current pressures on the site are summarised below.
16.2 Historic Trends and Current Pressures
16.2.1 The main current environmental pressures upon the River Eden SAC are: Deterioration in water quality and changes in flow rates due to agricultural runoff and discharge of treated sewage effluent (which contains elevated nitrates); Risk of excessive abstraction resulting in a decrease in freshwater flows and an increase in sediment loading of water such that dehydration of interest features may occur; Overfishing; and Introduction of invasive species.
16.3 Conclusions
16.3.1 There are no additional impacts from existing pathways of impact arising from the Local Plan (Part Two) or new pathways of impact created that lead to a need to revisit the conclusion obtained by the HRA of the Local Plan (Part One). The HRA can conclude that the submission draft Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan would not lead to likely significant effects on the Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 70 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
17 Summary of HRA Screening
17.1.1 The HRA has identified that the Cheshire West & Chester Local Plan (Part Two) can be screened out as not leading to a likely significant effect on European sites. 17.1.2 It is considered that the Cheshire West & Chester Local Plan (Part Two), in the context of the over- arching strategic policies contained within the Local Plan (Part One) comprise a sufficient policy framework to enable the subsequent delivery of necessary measures to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on the integrity of European sites. 17.1.3 In delivering such measures, the following recommendations should be adopted:
Policy wording on policies T4 (Railway Stations); DM3 (New Agricultural Buildings); DM5 (Equestrian Development); DM27 (Recreational Routeways); DM29 (Waterways and Mooring Facilities); and DM57 (Proposals for Minerals Working) should be strengthened by inclusion of explicit protection for internationally designated sites – the policies should state that adverse effects on such sites must be avoided, and that project-level HRA may be required on a case- by-case basis. This would align with policies DM1 and DM39 that seek to protect internationally designated sites. Policy EP4 considers development at Stanlow, adjacent to the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar. The policy is robust in seeking to ensure protection of ecologically sensitive sites. It is recommended that in addition to consideration of noise and pollution as potential sources of disturbance, the policy should also include a need for new development to demonstrate that no adverse effects would arise through visual impact. This would align with policies DM1 and DM39 that seek to protect internationally designated sites. Policy EP6 promotes development at Ince Park. The policy is less specific in terms of avoidance of types of adverse impacts (e.g. noise and pollution), and commits only to minimising and mitigating adverse impacts. It will be important that effects of noise, visual impact and pollution on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar sites are avoided or adequately mitigated, and in the case of EP6, where public access is promoted, that this extends to recreational pressure and disturbance. The policy wording should be amended to reflect these specific concerns in relation to the SPA/Ramsar. This would align with policies DM1 and DM39 that seek to protect internationally designated sites. Policy EP7 promotes the development of tourism and commerce adjacent to the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar and therefore the policy should note that new developments must ensure that no adverse effects occur on the internationally designated sites as a result of the development. It will be important that effects of noise, visual impact and pollution on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar sites are avoided or adequately mitigated. The policy wording should be amended to reflect these specific concerns in relation to the SPA/Ramsar. This would align with policies DM1 and DM39 that seek to protect internationally designated sites. The Local Plan (Part One) was able to conclude that due to policies included, in particular STRAT11, and a commitment to work with water companies, an adverse effect on the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar, Dee Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar, River Dee and Bala Lake SAC, Liverpool Bay SPA/Ramsar, and Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore SPA/Ramsar could be avoided through provision of adequate waste water facilities to service new development in a timely manner. It is recommended that the commitment to timely provision of such infrastructure is reiterated in policy DM36 (Water Quality, Supply and Treatment) of the Local Plan (Part Two). It is also recommended that written confirmation from the relevant water companies that there is confidence in ability to deliver sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the location and scale of proposed new development should be obtained to satisfy consultees that the issue has been addressed.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
AECOM Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Cheshire West Page 71 and Chester Local Plan (Part Two)
Policy T1 should acknowledge that delivery of a Chester Western relief road would need to demonstrate avoidance of water pollution of River Dee and Bala Lake SAC, as the road would cross the SAC. The policy should include a requirement that any proposal would need to adequately ensure that construction and operation of any such crossing would not lead to reduced water quality of the SAC, damage or loss of habitats for which the SAC is designated, or disturbance/ displacement of species for which the SAC is designated. Land allocation FAR/0040 would lie approximately 200m from the SAC, and any proposals would need to ensure that pollution control measures are adequate to avoid any reduced water quality of the SAC. Specific land allocations that could lead to disturbance of bird species for which the SPA/Ramsar sites are designated would be WIT/0013, NET/0010, ROS/0025 and ROS/0030 which would be residential allocations and NET/0006, NET/0009, NET/0019, ELT/0028 and ELT/0030, designated as employment allocations, as these lie within 1km of the SPA/Ramsar. For all of these locations, planning applications would need to undertake project-level HRA screening that would need to demonstrate no adverse effects on the integrity of the Mersey Estuary SPA/Ramsar through forms of disturbance (noise and visual). This requirement would therefore need to be included in the policy that will facilitate these developments. Avoidance of such effects is often possible by implementation of measures such as timing of construction works to avoid the period when designated bird species would be present, and screening of new development to reduce noise and visual disturbance effects. Employment allocations ELT/0028 and ELT/0030 appear to occupy grassland habitats (based on aerial photography) that may be suitable for supporting bird species for which the Mersey Estuary SPA and Ramsar sites are designated. Recent studies have demonstrated that internationally important high and low tide roost locations, as well as important feeding areas for designated bird species are present in Manisty Bay and Ince Bank sectors of the SPA. Therefore, any proposals for ELT/0028 and ELT/0030 should be required to undertake bird surveys to determine the potential for any likely significant effects on the designated features of the SPA/Ramsar. The threshold for significance is generally considered to be an effect (e.g. loss of roost site) that would affect 1% of the bird species or assemblage in question, as a proportion of the SPA/Ramsar designation.
Cheshire West and Chester Council June 2016
About AECOM
AECOM (NYSE: ACM) is a global provider of professional technical and management support services to a broad range of markets, including transportation, facilities, environmental, energy, water and government. With approximately 100,000 employees around the world, AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation, and collaborative technical excellence in delivering solutions that enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural, and social environments. A Fortune 500 company, AECOM serves clients in more than 100 countries and has annual revenue in excess of $6 billion.
More information on AECOM and its services can be found at www.aecom.com.
Scott House Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP United Kingdom +44 1256 310200