DOCSLIB.ORG

For Consultation May 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Consultation May 2012 Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework – Site Options Habitat Regulations Assessment For consultation May 2012 Prepared for: Kent County Council UNITED KINGDOM & IRELAND Kent County Council — Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework REVISION SCHEDULE Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 2 01/05/12 For Consultation Dr Graeme Dr James Riley Dr James Riley Down Principal Principal Ecologist Gareth Lavery Ecologist Ecologists REVISION RECORD Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 2 01/05/12 For Consultation Dr Graeme Dr James Riley Dr James Riley Down Principal Principal Ecologist Gareth Lavery Ecologist Ecologists URS Scott House Alencon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT May 2012 2 Kent County Council — Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework Limitations URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited (“URS”) has prepared this Report for the sole use of Kent County 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 URS. 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 URS. 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 URS has not been independently verified by URS, unless otherwise stated in the Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by URS in providing its services are outlined in this Report. The work described in this Report was undertaken between February and April 2012 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. URS 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 URS’ 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. URS specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report. Copyright © This Report is the copyright of URS Infrastructure & Environment UK Limited. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT May 2012 3 Kent County Council — Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 6 1.1 Legislation ........................................................................ 6 1.2 Scope and objectives ...................................................... 7 2 METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 9 2.1 Key principles .................................................................. 9 2.2 Process ............................................................................. 9 2.3 Likely Significant Effects (LSE).................................... 10 2.4 Confirming other plans and projects that may act in combination.................................................................... 11 2.5 Physical scope of the assessment .............................. 12 3 PATHWAYS OF IMPACT ............................................... 13 3.1 Introduction .................................................................... 13 3.2 Atmospheric pollution................................................... 13 3.2.1 Oxides of nitrogen and nitrogen deposition............... 17 3.2.2 Transport exhaust emissions....................................... 18 3.2.3 Energy from Waste ........................................................ 21 3.2.4 Landfill ............................................................................ 22 3.2.5 Other types of waste facility ......................................... 23 3.2.6 Biopathogens ................................................................. 23 3.2.7 Quarries and minerals sites.......................................... 23 3.2.8 Diffuse air pollution ....................................................... 24 3.3 Water quality and flows................................................. 24 3.4 Predation ........................................................................ 26 3.5 Disturbance .................................................................... 27 3.5.1 Sensitivity of species (birds) ........................................ 28 3.6 Coastal Squeeze ............................................................ 30 3.7 Direct landtake ............................................................... 31 3.8 Screening distance summary....................................... 31 4 SCREENING OF PROPOSED MINERAL SITES ........... 33 5 SCREENING OF PROPOSED WASTE SITES .............. 56 6 CUMULATIVE AND ‘IN COMBINATION’....................... 69 6.1 Cumulative assessment................................................ 69 6.2 In Combination Assessment ........................................ 70 7 CONCLUSIONS OF SCREENING.................................. 73 7.1 Minerals sites ................................................................. 73 7.1.1 Lydd Quarry.................................................................... 77 7.2 Waste sites ..................................................................... 78 HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT May 2012 4 Kent County Council — Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework 7.3 Next steps....................................................................... 82 APPENDIX 1 - BACKGROUND ON EUROPEAN SITES REFERENCED IN THIS DOCUMENT ............................ 83 APPENDIX 2 – MINERALS AND WASTE SITES SUBJECT TO SCREENING BUT WHICH WILL NOT NOW BE TAKEN FORWARD ...................................................................... 95 HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT May 2012 5 Kent County Council — Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Legislation The need for Habitat Regulations Assessment is set out within Article 6 of the EC Habitats Directive 1992, and interpreted into British law by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The ultimate aim of HRA is to “maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest” (Habitats Directive, Article 2(2)). This aim relates to habitats and species, not the European sites themselves, although the sites have a significant role in delivering favourable conservation status. The Habitats Directive applies the precautionary principle to protected areas (Special Areas of Conservation, SACs and Special Protection Areas, SPAs, collectively known as European sites and which comprise the Natura 2000 pan-European network). Plans and projects can only be permitted having ascertained that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site(s) in question. Plans and projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives to them and there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) as to why they should go ahead. In such cases, compensation would be necessary to ensure the overall integrity of the site network. As a matter of Government Policy, contained within paragraph 5 of ODPM Circular 06/2005, Ramsar sites are treated as a European site, even though they are not such sites as a matter of law. In order to ascertain whether or not site integrity will be affected, an HRA should be undertaken of the plan or project in question. HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT May 2012 6 Kent County Council — Kent Minerals & Waste Development Framework Box 1. The legislative basis for Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive 1992 Article 6 (3) states that: “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.” Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2011, as amended The Regulations state that: “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 … shall 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”. Over the years the phrase ‘Habitat Regulations Assessment’ (HRA) has
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Folkestone & Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review Examination
    FHDC EX034 Folkestone & Hythe District Council Core Strategy Review Examination Update position regarding Natural England’s concerns in relation to the excessive nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorous) which are impacting on the Stodmarsh Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the impact of the Core Strategy Review and in particular the proposed New Garden Settlement 30 October 2020 Folkestone & Hythe District Council – Update on Discussions with Natural England Update position regarding Natural England’s concerns in relation to the excessive nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorous) which are impacting on the Stodmarsh Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the impact of the Core Strategy Review and in particular the proposed New Garden Settlement 1. Introduction The purpose of this correspondence is to set out where progress has been made regarding Natural England’s concerns in relation to the excessive nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorous) which are impacting on the Stodmarsh Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the impact of the Core Strategy Review and in particular the proposed New Garden Settlement. 2. Chronology The below provides a chronology of representation issued by both Natural England and Folkestone & Hythe District Council (FHDC), as well as the advancement of supporting technical work. Regulation 19 response was issued by Natural England to the District Council dated 11th March 2019, and a copy is provided in Appendix A. The Regulation 19 response raised no issue in relation to the matter of nutrient neutrality regarding Stodmarsh designated sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the South-East IAP Report Here
    Important Areas for Ponds (IAPs) in the Environment Agency Southern Region Helen Keeble, Penny Williams, Jeremy Biggs and Mike Athanson Report prepared by: Report produced for: Pond Conservation Environment Agency c/o Oxford Brookes University Southern Regional Office Gipsy Lane, Headington Guildbourne House Oxford, OX3 0BP Chatsworth Road, Worthing Sussex, BN11 1LD Acknowledgements We would like to thank all those who took time to send pond data and pictures or other information for this assessment. In particular: Adam Fulton, Alex Lockton, Alice Hiley, Alison Cross, Alistair Kirk, Amanda Bassett, Andrew Lawson, Anne Marston, Becky Collybeer, Beth Newman, Bradley Jamieson, Catherine Fuller, Chris Catling, Daniel Piec, David Holyoak, David Rumble, Debbie Miller, Debbie Tann, Dominic Price, Dorothy Wright, Ed Jarzembowski, Garf Williams, Garth Foster, Georgina Terry, Guy Hagg, Hannah Cook, Henri Brocklebank, Ian Boyd, Jackie Kelly, Jane Frostick, Jay Doyle, Jo Thornton, Joe Stevens, John Durnell, Jonty Denton, Katharine Parkes, Kevin Walker, Kirsten Wright, Laurie Jackson, Lee Brady, Lizzy Peat, Martin Rand, Mary Campling, Matt Shardlow, Mike Phillips, Naomi Ewald, Natalie Rogers, Nic Ferriday, Nick Stewart, Nicky Court, Nicola Barnfather, Oli Grafton, Pauline Morrow, Penny Green, Pete Thompson, Phil Buckley, Philip Sansum, Rachael Hunter, Richard Grogan, Richard Moyse, Richard Osmond, Rufus Sage, Russell Wright, Sarah Jane Chimbwandira, Sheila Brooke, Simon Weymouth, Steph Ames, Terry Langford, Tom Butterworth, Tom Reid, Vicky Kindemba. Cover photograph: Low Weald Pond, Lee Brady Report production: February 2009 Consultation: March 2009 SUMMARY Ponds are an important freshwater habitat and play a key role in maintaining biodiversity at the landscape level. However, they are vulnerable to environmental degradation and there is evidence that, at a national level, pond quality is declining.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan
    The Kent Biodiversity Action Plan A framework for the future of Kent’s wildlife Produced by Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group © Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group, 1997 c/o Kent County Council Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX. Tel: (01622) 221537 CONTENTS 1. BIODIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT PLAN 1 1.1 Conserving Biodiversity 1 1.2 Why have a Kent Biodiversity Action Plan? 1 1.3 What is a Biodiversity Action Plan? 1.4 The approach taken to produce the Kent Plan 2 1.5 The Objectives of the Kent BAP 2 1.6 Rationale for selection of habitat groupings and individual species for plans 3 2. LINKS WITH OTHER INITIATIVES 7 2.1 Local Authorities and Local Agenda 21 7 2.2 English Nature's 'Natural Areas Strategy' 9 3. IMPLEMENTATION 10 3.1 The Role of Lead Agencies and Responsible Bodies 10 3.2 The Annual Reporting Process 11 3.3 Partnerships 11 3.4 Identifying Areas for Action 11 3.5 Methodology for Measuring Relative Biodiversity 11 3.6 Action Areas 13 3.7 Taking Action Locally 13 3.8 Summary 14 4. GENERIC ACTIONS 15 2.1 Policy 15 2.2 Land Management 16 2.3 Advice/Publicity 16 2.4 Monitoring and Research 16 5. HABITAT ACTION PLANS 17 3.1 Habitat Action Plan Framework 18 3.2 Habitat Action Plans 19 Woodland & Scrub 20 Wood-pasture & Historic Parkland 24 Old Orchards 27 Hedgerows 29 Lowland Farmland 32 Urban Habitats 35 Acid Grassland 38 Neutral & Marshy Grassland 40 Chalk Grassland 43 Heathland & Mire 46 Grazing Marsh 49 Reedbeds 52 Rivers & Streams 55 Standing Water (Ponds, ditches & dykes, saline lagoons, lakes & reservoirs) 58 Intertidal Mud & Sand 62 Saltmarsh 65 Sand Dunes 67 Vegetated Shingle 69 Maritime Cliffs 72 Marine Habitats 74 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Downs AONB Management Plan 2014-2019
    Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2014 - 2019 Second revision April 2014 1 Ministerial Foreword Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are some of our finest This Management Plan also makes the important connection between landscapes. They are cherished by residents and visitors alike and people and nature. I am pleased to hear that local communities have allow millions of people from all walks of life to understand and been central to the development of the plan, and will be at the heart connect with nature. of its delivery. From volunteers on nature conservation projects, to businesses working to promote sustainable tourism, it’s great to hear I am pleased to see that this Management Plan demonstrates how of the enthusiasm and commitment of the local people who hold their AONB Partnerships can continue to protect these precious AONBs so dear. environments despite the significant challenges they face. With a changing climate, the increasing demands of a growing population AONBs are, and will continue to be, landscapes of change. and in difficult economic times, I believe AONBs represent just the Management Plans such as this are vital in ensuring these changes sort of community driven, collaborative approach needed to ensure are for the better. I would like to thank all those who were involved our natural environment is maintained for generations to come. in bringing this plan together and I wish you every success in bringing it to fruition. AONB Partnerships have been the architects of a landscape-scale approach to land management. This approach is a key feature of the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper and emphasises the need to manage ecosystems in an integrated fashion, linking goals on wildlife, water, soil and landscape, and working at a scale that respects natural systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory for Ashford Borough, Kent Report and Inventory Maps March 2009
    Ashford AWI survey - front cover only with bleed & crop marks.ai 09/03/2009 19:10:50 A revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory for Ashford Borough, Kent Report and Inventory Maps March 2009 Project carried out by the Weald and Downs Ancient Woodland Survey A revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory for Ashford Borough, Kent Project carried out by the Weald and Downs Ancient Woodland Survey for East Sussex and Kent November 2006 to March 2009 With additional field surveys by Kate Ryland, Dolphin Ecological Services Report by: Philip Sansum, Weald and Downs Ancient Woodland Survey, Patrick McKernan, Natural England, Sally Westaway, formerly of the High Weald AONB Unit, and Matthew Grose, High Weald AONB Unit A partnership project funded by: Ashford Borough Council, the High Weald AONB, the Forestry Commission and Natural England Front cover photograph: King’s Wood near Ashford (photograph: Patrick McKernan, Natural England) WEALD AND DOWNS ANCIENT WOODLAND SURVEY Natural England foreword Natural England works for people, places and nature, to enhance biodiversity, landscapes and wildlife in rural, urban, coastal and marine areas; promoting access, recreation and public well- being, and contributing to the way natural resources are managed so that they can be enjoyed now and in the future. Natural England considers that ancient woodlands are irreplaceable, and should therefore be protected and managed so as to maintain and enhance their special character. Knowing where ancient woods are is therefore a key nature conservation need. The Ancient Woodland Inventory was originally compiled by the Nature Conservancy Council (a predecessor to Natural England) between 1981 and 1992, with the Inventory for Kent being produced first in 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Applications
    PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Wednesday, 11th September, 2019 10.00 am Sessions House AGENDA PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Wednesday, 11th September, 2019, at 10.00 Ask for: Andrew Tait am Sessions House Telephone: 03000 416749 Tea/Coffee will be available from 9:30 outside the meeting room Membership (13) Conservative (10): Mr R A Marsh (Chairman), Mr R A Pascoe (Vice-Chairman), Mrs R Binks, Mr A Booth, Mr P C Cooper, Mr M D Payne, Mr H Rayner, Mr C Simkins, Mrs P A V Stockell and Mr J Wright Liberal Democrat (1): Mr I S Chittenden Labour (1) Mr J Burden Independents (1) Mr P M Harman UNRESTRICTED ITEMS (During these items the meeting is likely to be open to the public A. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Substitutes 2. Declarations of Interests by Members in items on the Agenda for this meeting. 3. Minutes - 10 July 2019 (Pages 7 - 14) 4. Site Meetings and Other Meetings B. GENERAL MATTERS 1. General Matters C. MINERALS AND WASTE DISPOSAL APPLICATIONS 1. Application TM/02/2663/MR97/R (KCC/TM/0017/2019) - Details of Interim Restoration (Conditions 2b and 22), Working, Restoration and Aftercare Scheme for the area marked in yellow on Drawing P1/1782/2 (Condition 8), a Woodland Management Scheme (Condtion 24), Aftercare Scheme (Condition 27) and an Archaeological Watching Brief (Condition 30) pursuant to Permission TM/02/2663/MR97 which allows for clay and sand extraction from the quarry at Park Farm Quarry, Platt Industrial Estate, Maidstone Road, Platt; Echoraise Ltd (trading as J Connolly and Sons Ltd) (Pages 15 - 46) D.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmentally Sensitive Site Map SSSI Kent Ashford
    Thanet Coast U P Medway Estuary and Marshes G Thanet Coast THN Medway Estuary & Marshes Tankerton Slopes and Swalecliffe Medway Estuary & Marshes Cobham Woods Peter`s Pit Medway Estuary & Marshes TLL Cobham Woods Elmley The Swale Halling to Trottiscliffe The Swale The Swale HTG Escarpment The Swale The Swale H D Asset Information - Analysis & Reporting S R J F [email protected] C Margate North Downs Woodlands YD Birchington-on-Sea LEGEND Swale Westgate-on-Sea Meopham Rochester 2 Longfield J Herne Bay Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay Tree Preservation Orders E Broadstairs Chatham S Sandwich & Pegwell Bay Sole Street VIR Rainham (Kent) Whitstable Conservation Areas Kemsley Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsgate Halling Newington Stodmarsh Contaminated Land S WM Sittingbourne Stodmarsh Stodmarsh Teynham Stodmarsh Minster DU Stations Stodmarsh Queendown Warren Faversham Rail Lines Holborough to Burham Marshes Ramsar* Holborough to Burham Marshes Aylesford Stodmarsh Special Protected Areas* Selling Sturry Pit Sandwich Bay Allington Quarry Barming Bearsted Chartham Bekesbourne Special Areas of Conservation* Maidstone West Blean Woods F Allington Quarry Hollingbourne DM R Blean Complex National Nature Reserves* East Farleigh ive Adisham r Le Wateringbury n Harrietsham West Blean & Thornden Woods SSSI within 500m of railway* Lenham Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes Sandwich Bay to Hacklinge Marshes SSSI with Site Manager Statement* Yalding Down Bank r Lydden and Temple Ewell Downs Hothfield Common u 1 Shepherds Well DU
    [Show full text]
  • The London Resort Development Consent Order Environmental
    The London Resort Development Consent Order BC080001 Environmental Statement Volume 2: Appendices Appendix 4.1 – Assessment reports for the eleven site options considered by LRCH prior to the selection of Swanscombe Peninsula Document reference: 6.2.4.1 Revision: 00 December 2020 Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Regulation 5(2)(a) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 Regulation 12(1) [This page is intentionally left blank] LONDON RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Environmental Statement Appendix 4.1 London Resort DCO document reference 6.2.4.1 Assessment reports for the eleven site options considered by LRCH prior to the selection of Swanscombe Peninsula This appendix provides an account of site options assessments undertaken by LRCH in 2011-12 and reviewed in 2017 ________________________________________________________ 1. North Northamptonshire 2. Marston Vale 3. Luton and Dunstable 4. M25 north corridor 5. M11 corridor 6. Great Leighs racecourse, Essex 7. Southend-on-Sea and Canvey Island 8. Cliffe, north Kent 9. Swanscombe Peninsula, Kent 10. Ashford 11. 11. Olympic Park legacy development sites, London ________________________________________________________ 1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT LONDON RESORT Option 1: North Northamptonshire Criterion Summary Description This is a broad area of search focusing on the north-eastern half of the county, between Northampton and Corby and including Kettering and Wellingborough. The area has a gently undulating topography conducive to resort development, substantial population centres from which a resort workforce might be drawn, and is served by several strategic north-south rail and road routes. Land availability Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough have all lost some of their traditional industries since the 1980s.
    [Show full text]
  • Shepway District Council's Places and Policies Local Plan
    Shepway District Council's Places and Policies Local Plan Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal Report Non-Technical Summary Prepared by LUC January 2018 Shepway District Council's Places and Policies Local Plan Proposed Submission Sustainability Appraisal Report Non-Technical Summary Prepared by LUC January 2018 Planning & EIA LUC LONDON Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd Registered in England Design 43 Chalton Street Bristol Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning London Edinburgh Registered Office: Landscape Management NW1 1JD Glasgow 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)20 7383 5784 Lancaster London NW1 1JD FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper GIS & Visualisation [email protected] Manchester Contents Introduction 1 Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment 1 Shepway Places and Policies Local Plan 3 Baseline Information, Key Sustainability Issues and their Likely Evolution without the PPLP 3 Sustainability Appraisal Framework 19 SA Findings for the Issues and Options Version of the Plan 24 SA Findings for the Development Site Alternatives 24 SA Findings for the Proposed Submission Plan 40 Summary of SA findings 51 Monitoring 59 Conclusions 61 Mitigation 62 Next Steps 64 Tables Table 1: Summary table of key sustainability issues 15 Table 2: SA Framework objectives and appraisal questions 19 Table 3: Summary table illustrating policy-off SA scores of development site alternatives 29 Table 4: Summary table illustrating SA scores of the proposed Submission Draft PPLP site allocation
    [Show full text]
  • Isle of Thanet History
    Isle of Thanet Geographical Association 60th Anniversary Edition Thanet Panorama The first Six Decades Contents Editorial 3 Introduction and Background 4 First Decade 1956-1966 6 Second Decade 1966-1976 14 Third Decade 1976-1986 16 Fourth Decade 1986-1996 18 Fifth Decade 1996-2006 19 Sixth Decade 2006-2016 21 Committees 1956-2016 24 Appendix A Photographs 28 Appendix B Firms closed since 1956-1966 36 Addendum Statistical Analysis 45 Acknowledgements 49 2 Editorial It is precisely sixty years since the formation of the Isle of Thanet Branch of the Geographical Association. At the time of writing this history of the Isle of Thanet Geographical Association, the Branch had an ageing membership and it was believed that now was the time to produce such a dissertation on the Branch activities throughout the six decades of its existence. Derek Wilson, as secretary of the Branch, was the custodian of the Branch Archives and compiled all the information for this history which was derived from the available committee meeting minutes, membership cards and leaflets and flyers advertising the lecture meetings throughout the 6 decades; also, further information was obtained from members’ diaries and through verbal communication and newspaper clippings. Although there was some information missing in the archives, this is, nevertheless, a comprehensive history of the Branch. Derek Wilson, FTSC, BSc, LRSC Hon Secretary, Isle of Thanet Geographical Association May 2016 3 Introduction and Background The Royal Geographical Society of London was founded in 1830 as an institution to promote the advancement of geographical science. Like many learned societies at the time in pursuit of knowledge, it started as a dining club in London, where select members held informal dinner debates on current scientific issues and ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • SEA) Screening Report and Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA
    Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment Screening Report for the Egerton Neighbourhood Plan Determination Report - Updated March 2021 Egerton Neighbourhood Plan Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Screening Report And Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report Determination Report March 2021 Prepared by Ashford Borough Council on behalf of Egerton Parish Council Originally Issued to Egerton Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group 25.09.2020 Updated in March 2021. 1 Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessment Screening Report for the Egerton Neighbourhood Plan Determination Report - Updated March 2021 1. Non-technical Summary and Introduction ........................................................... 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 What is an SEA? ................................................................................................. 4 What is HRA?...................................................................................................... 5 Relevant Ashford Borough Assessments ............................................................ 5 Consultation and Conclusion .................................................................................. 6 Screening Determination......................................................................................... 7 2. The Egerton Neighbourhood Plan Context ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Background Document BD9 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Wye with Hinxhill Neighbourhood Development Plan
    Background Document BD9 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Wye with Hinxhill Neighbourhood Development Plan Executive summary This background document assesses the environmental impact of the mixed development proposed in the Wye with Hinxhill Neighbourhood Development Plan (WNP). The need for encouragement of business and education activities together with the provision of some new housing has been the driving force behind development of the WNP. Protection of the sensitive environments within the parish has been a foremost concern in preparation of the plan and is found as an overriding principle in WNP policies. Potential sites for development were selected making use of the documentation already available for the Tenterden and Rural Sites DPD. Sensitive and important habitats within and nearby the parish have been identified and specific issues stemming from development assessed. The impact of development on traffic and its effect on the environment has received special attention, bearing in mind the necessary comparison with the impact from a fully active Wye College. Contents 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 2 2. Submitting body…………………………………………………………………………………….….… 2 3. Neighbourhood area………………………………………………………………………………..…. 3 4. Scoping document …………………………………………………………………………………..…. 4 5. Core objectives of WNP ………………………………………………………………………...….…4 6. Sites for development identified within the parish ………………………………..…....5 7. Main issues addressed through the SEA………………………………………………...…....8 8. Nearby sites of significance…………………………………………………………………………..9 9. The WNP and TRSDPD…………………………………………………………………………………18 10. Critical analysis of impacts of development proposed……………………………….29 10.1 Traffic………………………………………………………………………………… ……30 11. Groundwater and drainage……………………………………………………………………….32 12. Mitigation and monitoring impacts……………………………………………………………33 13. Concluding remarks…………………………………………………………………………………..34 1 1. Introduction This SEA document has been prepared to accompany the Wye with Hinxhill Neighbourhood Development Plan (WNP).
    [Show full text]