Hra Screening Matrix - 47

This page is intentionally blank Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION - 1 -

1.1. The requirement to Undertake Habitats Regulations Assessment of Development Plans - 2 -

1.2. What are Natura 2000 sites? - 2 -

1.3. Stages of the Habitats Regulations Assessment - 2 -

1.4. Structure of the HRA Screening Report - 4 -

2 STAFFORDSHIRE AND STOKE-ON-TRENT WASTE CORE STRATEGY DPD - 5 -

2.1. Structure of the Waste Core Strategy - 5 -

3 HRA SCREENING METHODOLOGY - 8 -

3.1. Task 1: Identification of Natura 2000 sites which may be affected by the Waste Core Strategy and the factors contributing to and defining the integrity of these sites - 8 -

3.2. Task 2: Description of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD - 18 -

3.3. Task 3: Identification of other plans and projects which may have ‘in-combination’ impacts - 18 -

3.4. Task 4: Assessment of ‘likely significant impacts’ of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy - 18 -

3.5. Task 5: Preparation of the HRA Screening Report - 19 -

4 ASSUMPTIONS FOR DETERMINING POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON NATURA 2000 SITES - 21 -

4.0. Strategy for screening and impact avoidance - 21 -

4.1. Potential impacts from waste management activities - 21 -

4.2. Screening for likely significant impacts - 27 -

5 OTHER RELEVANT PLANS AND PROJECTS - 31 -

6 SCREENING ASSESSMENT OF THE WASTE CORE STRATEGY - 37 -

6.0. Introduction - 37 -

6.1. Summary of HRA screening findings - 37 -

7 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS - 44 -

7.1. Overall findings of the HRA Screening - 44 -

7.2. Implications for Preferred Options and Next Steps - 45 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

8 APPENDIX A: HRA SCREENING MATRIX - 47 -

9 APPENDIX B: MAPS TO SUPPORT HRA SCREENING - 68 -

Please note that this report has been prepared by Land Use Consultants on behalf of Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

1 Introduction

1.0.1. Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council, as Waste Planning Authorities, are preparing the Joint Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Document (hereafter referred to as the Waste Core Strategy) as part of the Staffordshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). The Waste Core Strategy will supersede the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Local Plan, and will cover the period to 2026 and the geographic area covered by the two authorities (with the exception of that part of the County within the Peak District National Park which is a separate waste planning authority). The Waste Core Strategy will set out the overall vision, objectives, broad locations and/or strategic sites and policies for waste management planning within the authorities.

1.0.2. In line with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 20041 and current guidance2, the preparation of the Waste Core Strategy DPD is being subject to a full Sustainability Appraisal (SA), which will incorporate Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). An SA Scoping Report was published in (August 2008), and an interim SA Report will be published alongside the Issues and Options consultation on the Waste Core Strategy (September 2008).

1.0.3. A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the Waste Core Strategy also needs to be undertaken to determine whether or not any of its proposals are ‘likely to have significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites, and in light of this, a more detailed Appropriate Assessment may also be required. The HRA is commonly referred to as ‘Appropriate Assessment.’ However, Appropriate Assessment forms only one stage of the HRA, and follows a screening stage to determine which plans or projects require subsequent, more detailed assessment (the Appropriate Assessment [AA] stage).

1.0.4. This initial HRA Screening Report sets out the findings of the Screening stage for the Issues and Options Waste Core Strategy, the first stage in the preparation of the Waste Core Strategy, to determine whether any of the proposals in the DPD are likely to have a significant impact on Natura 2000 sites. A further, more detailed Appropriate Assessment will be undertaken at the Preferred Options stage.

1.0.5. The HRA requires close working with Natural England (NE), as the statutory nature conservation body, in order to obtain the necessary information, agree the process, outcomes and mitigation proposals. The Environment Agency (EA), while not a statutory nature conservation body for the HRA, is also in a position to provide advice and information during the HRA. This draft initial Screening Report is now presented to both organisations for comment.

1 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act. House of Commons, May 2004. 2 Sustainability Appraisals of Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents. ODPM, November 2005. - 1 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

1.1. The requirement to Undertake Habitats Regulations Assessment of Development Plans

1.1.1. The requirement to undertake HRA of development plans was confirmed by a letter (9 March 2006) from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to all planning authorities (including Regional Planning Bodies). Previously it had been considered that the Habitat Regulations3, working in tandem with development plans, provided sufficient protection for ‘Natura 2000’ sites. Following a European Court of Justice ruling it was confirmed that development plans must themselves be subject to ‘appropriate assessment’ under the Habitat Regulations in order to demonstrate that their implementation would not adversely affect the integrity of such sites. In other words, it is no longer sufficient for development plans to rely on regulations – instead they must be assessed to demonstrate no adverse impact. Amendments to the Habitats Regulations to implement the ruling were published for England and Wales in July 20074.

1.2. What are Natura 2000 sites?

1.2.1. The Habitats Regulations Assessment refers to the assessment of the potential impacts of a development plan on one or more European Sites (collectively termed ‘Natura 2000’ [N2K] sites). Natura 2000 is a Europe-wide network of sites of international importance for nature conservation established under the European Council Directive ‘on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora’ (92/43/EEC; ‘Habitats Directive’).

1.2.2. The network comprises Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). SPAs are classified under the European Council Directive ‘on the conservation of wild birds’ (79/409/EEC; ‘Birds Directive’) for the protection of wild birds and their habitats (including particularly rare and vulnerable species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive, and migratory species). SACs are designated under the Habitats Directive and target particular habitats (Annex 1) and/or species (Annex II) identified as being of European importance. The Government also expects candidate SACs (cSACs), potential SPAs (pSPAs), and Ramsar sites to be included within the HRA5. Ramsar sites support internationally important wetland habitats and are listed under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention, 1971).

1.3. Stages of the Habitats Regulations Assessment

1.3.1. The HRA process is generally divided into three key stages. Figure 1 summarises the stages involved in carrying out a full HRA.

3 The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. 4 The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. HMSO Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 1843. 5 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. OPDM, 2005. - 2 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 1: Stages in HRA

Stage Task Outcome Stage 1: Description of the plan Where impacts are unlikely, prepare a ‘finding of no significant impact report’. Screening Identification of potential impacts on N2K sites Where impacts judged likely, or lack of information to prove otherwise, proceed Assessing the impacts on N2K sites to Stage 2. Stage 2: Gather information (plan and N2K sites) Appropriate assessment report describing the plan, N2K site baseline Appropriate Assessment Impact prediction conditions, the adverse impacts of the Evaluation of impacts in view of conservation plan on the N2K site, how these objectives impacts will be avoided through, firstly, Where impacts considered to affect avoidance, and secondly, mitigation qualifying features, identify alternative including the mechanisms and options timescale for these mitigation measures. Assess alternative options If impacts remain after all alternatives If no alternatives exist, define and evaluate and mitigation measures have been mitigation measures where necessary considered proceed to Stage 3. Stage 3: Identify ‘imperative reasons of overriding This stage should be avoided if at all public interest’ (IROPI) possible. The test of IROPI and the Assessment where no requirements for compensation are alternatives exist and Identify potential compensatory measures extremely onerous adverse impacts remain taking into account mitigation

1.3.2. It is normally anticipated that an emphasis on Stages 1 and 2 of this process will, through a series of iterations, help ensure that potential adverse impacts are identified and eliminated through the inclusion of mitigation measures designed to avoid, reduce or abate impacts. The need to consider alternatives could imply more onerous changes to a development plan. It is generally understood that imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) are likely to be justified only very occasionally and would involve engagement with both the Government and European Commission.

1.3.3. The final stage of the HRA should conclude whether or not a proposal or policy in a development plan document would adversely affect the integrity of the site in question, to be reported in a full HRA Report. This is judged in terms of the implications of the plan on a site’s ‘qualifying features’ and conservation objectives. HRA is based on a rigorous application of the precautionary principle and therefore requires those undertaking the exercise to prove that the plan will not have a significant impact on these conservation objectives. Where uncertainty or doubt remains, an adverse impact should be assumed. Conservation objectives will need to be obtained for Natura 2000 sites from Natural England.

- 3 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

1.4. Structure of the HRA Screening Report

1.4.1. This chapter introduces the requirements of HRA Screening for the Waste Core Strategy. The remainder of this report is structured into the following sections:

Chapter 2 – Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy: summarises the types of impacts that the Waste Core Strategy might have on Natura 2000 sites.

Chapter 3 – HRA Screening Methodology: sets out the approach used and the specific tasks undertaken.

Chapter 4 – Assumptions for determining potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites: sets out the assumptions used in predicting likely significant impacts different types of waste facility on Natura 2000 sites, as well as the potential sensitivities of the sites to waste management impacts.

Chapter 5 – Other relevant plans and projects: identifies and describes other plans which could have impacts ‘in combination’ with the Waste Core Strategy, and briefly sets out the potential impacts of these on the Natura 2000 sites.

Chapter 6 – Screening assessment of the Waste Core Strategy: sets out whether significant impacts are likely from implementation of proposals in the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options on Natura 2000 sites, alone and in combination with other plans or projects.

Chapter 7 – Conclusions and next steps: summarises the findings of the screening and sets out the next steps to be undertaken for the Appropriate Assessment.

- 4 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

2 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Waste Core Strategy DPD

2.0.1. Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council adopted its existing Waste Local Plan 1998-2011 in February 2003. However, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 now requires Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to develop a Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) setting out broad locations and site allocations for new waste management facilities in the County.

2.0.2. Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent have agreed to work together to produce a Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD which will set out policies for waste management in their areas for at least the next ten years. The Councils have decided to work together to produce a Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD for two main reasons:

♦ The West Midlands RSS identifies the amount of waste which needs to be managed in the sub-region of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent;

♦ Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent have already worked together to produce a draft Municipal Waste Management Strategy, which sets out a vision for future sustainable waste management within the two Waste Planning Authority areas to 2020 and beyond.

2.0.3. The main waste-related elements of the MWDF will be a Waste Core Strategy DPD, setting out a long-term spatial vision and objectives for more sustainable waste management, together with core policies to deliver that vision and general development control policies. The Waste Core Strategy will need to set out broad locations for future waste management facilities and may also identify ‘strategic’ sites e.g. those over a certain size threshold or specialist facilities. It may also be necessary to prepare a Waste Site Allocations DPD identifying smaller sites for any future waste management facilities that are compatible with core waste management policies.

2.1. Structure of the Waste Core Strategy

2.1.1. Overall, the Waste Core Strategy will seek to determine the most appropriate mix, type and size of waste management facilities for Staffordshire and Stoke-on- Trent, given current waste management methods and the spatial characteristics of the County. The Spatial Strategy sets out where additional waste management facilities in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent should be located. Although the Waste Core Strategy will not identify smaller sites, it will identify broad locations and/or strategic sites that are suitable for the development of different types of waste management facilities. Figure 2 sets out the issues identified in the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options (May 2008).

- 5 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 2: Issues identified in the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options (June 2008)

Issues identified in the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options Issue 1 Does the spatial portrait provide an accurate and appropriate reflection of the characteristics of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent for the purposes of the Waste Core Strategy? Issue 2 How should the spatial vision and objectives be defined? Issue 3 What type of facilities should the Waste Core Strategy aim to deliver? Issue 4 Where should strategic sites and broad locations for future waste management facilities be located? Issue 5 What types of locations are appropriate for different types of facility? Issue 5a What type of location is most appropriate for enclosed facilities? Issue 5b What type of location is most appropriate for enclosed thermal treatment facilities? Issue 5c Which type of location is most appropriate for open air facilities? Issue 6 To what extent should the Waste Core Strategy seek to co-locate waste facilities? Issue 7 How should opportunities for sustainable transport influence the choice of broad location? Issue 8 How should development be controlled? Issue 9 How should existing waste management sites be safeguarded? Issue 10 How should allocated waste management sites be safeguarded? Issue 11 Is there a need to identify waste consultation areas? Issue 12 How can delivery of the Waste Core Strategy be effectively monitored?

2.1.2. This Screening Report has focused on an assessment of the potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites of the overall pattern of waste facilities identified in Issue 5, as this sets out the proposed spatial strategy. Potential impacts of broad locations for waste facilities relate to all operations and stages of waste activities, including construction and demolition as well as transportation of waste and materials (recyclates and end products) to or from these locations.

2.1.3. The Waste Core Strategy groups waste management facilities into three broad categories with similar land use impacts, based on their general characteristics and the likely impacts they might have on sensitive receptors (Issues 5a-5c). For the purpose of the HRA (and the Sustainability Appraisal), waste management facilities will also be grouped into three broad categories. There categories are:

ENCLOSED facilities:

♦ Mechanical Processes – Materials Recycling Facilities, Mechanical Biological Treatment, Transfer Stations

♦ Biological Processes – Anaerobic Digestion, In-Vessel Composting

ENCLOSED thermal treatment facilities:

♦ Energy from Waste

♦ Pyrolysis

♦ Gasification

- 6 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

OPEN AIR facilities:

♦ Composting (‘open air windrow’)

♦ Aggregate Recycling and Reprocessing, End of Life Vehicle dismantling and recycling

♦ Recyclate Storage (e.g. at Transfer Stations or Household Waste Recycling Centres)

♦ Landfill (and landraise)

2.1.4. Development control policies will need to be included in the Waste Core Strategy to minimise any adverse impacts of waste management facilities during construction, operation and transport of materials (Issue 8). These are still under consideration, so it makes sense to use the HRA process to guide the selection of broad locations and to identify the operational restrictions and development control issues required to ensure that adverse impacts on any European sites are avoided.

- 7 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

3 HRA Screening Methodology

3.0.1. HRA Screening of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent’s Waste Core Strategy has been undertaken in line with the European Commission’s guidance on the ‘Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites’6, and seeks to meet the requirements of the Habitats Directive. It has also had regard to a number of other existing guidance documents7. The tasks undertaken in preparing this Screening Report are described in detail below.

3.1. Task 1: Identification of Natura 2000 sites which may be affected by the Waste Core Strategy and the factors contributing to and defining the integrity of these sites

3.1.1. An initial investigation was undertaken to identify Natura 2000 sites within or adjacent to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent with potential to be affected by the Waste Core Strategy. This involved the use of GIS data to map the Natura 2000 site locations and boundaries. In line with the precautionary approach and best practice, Natura 2000 sites lying partially or wholly within 15km from the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent boundaries were included in the study to address the fact that indirect impacts of the Waste Core Strategy, e.g. emissions, may affect Natura 2000 sites outside the administrative boundary of the Strategy. The 23 Natura 2000 sites identified within and in close proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent that may be affected by the Waste Core Strategy are listed below in Figure 3 and are shown on Figure 5 at the end of this section.

3.1.2. It should be noted that six Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites identified within 15km of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent boundary were unable to be included within this Screening Report, as the key vulnerabilities and environmental conditions to support site integrity are yet to be confirmed by Natural England. These are highlighted in light yellow in Figure 3. Once this information is confirmed by Natural England, this Screening Report will be updated to reflect the screening of these additional sites. As such, the conclusions in Sections 6 and 7 do not take account of these six Ramsar sites.

6 Assessment of Plans and Projects Significantly Affecting Natura 2000 Sites. European Commission, 2001 7 This includes guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government, Natural England, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Joint Consultants (Levett-Therivel, Treweek Environmental Consultants and Land Use Consultants). - 8 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 3: Natura 2000 sites within and in close proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) Cannock Chase Cannock Extension Canal Mottey Meadows Pasturefields Salt Marsh Peak District Dales River Mease South Pennine Moors West Midland Mosses – Chartley Moss (also a Ramsar site) Bees Nest & Green Clay Pits Brown Moss Ensor’s Pool Fens Pool Gang Mine Special Protection Areas (SPAs) Peak District Moors Ramsar Sites Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar – Bagmere Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar - Betley Mere Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar - Brown Moss Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar - Wybunbury Moss Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Aqualate Mere Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Black Firs & Cranberry Bog Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Cop Mere Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Oakhanger Moss Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Oss Mere

3.1.3. The attributes of these sites which contribute to and define their integrity have been identified and described, alongside the particular sensitivities of each site, as set out in Figure 4. Information collated was appropriate to inform the screening stage.

- 9 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 4: Summary of key features and sensitivities of Natura 2000 sites within and in close proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) Cannock SJ982188 April 2005 Annex I habitats: Primary Toxic contamination - air pollution Part favourable, part This site is Chase SAC European dry heaths Non-toxic contamination - air unfavourable particularly vulnerable Non-primary pollution recovering, small to nitrogen and acid Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica areas unfavourable deposition. tetralix no change Cannock SK020058 April 2005 Annex II species: Primary Changes to hydrology - flooding Unfavourable no Wyrley Grove Landfill Extension Floating water-plantain Luronium natans and storm water change potential issue as it Canal SAC Toxic contamination - water adjoins the site; AA pollution and contamination done for Pelsall Road Non-toxic contamination - nutrient Bridge replacement enrichment by SCC. Non-toxic contamination -

8 Annex I habitats and Annex II species may occur within the site and are also considered to be ‘qualifying features’ of the site, however, were not the primary reason the site was designated. This second group is indicated by the term ‘non-primary’. - 10 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Site Name Grid Date Qualifying features Key vulnerabilities to support Condition of Comments Reference designated SPA (Annex I bird species) site integrity and environmental features SAC (Annex I habitats/ annex II species)8 impacts from waste (latest NE management activities assessment) changes in turbidity Mottey SJ840134 April 2005 Annex I habitats: Toxic contamination - water Favourable Meadows Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pollution and contamination SAC pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) Non-toxic contamination - nutrient enrichment Pasturefields SJ992249 April 2005 Annex I habitats: Toxic contamination - water Unfavourable no Site is prone to Saltmarsh Inland salt meadows pollution and contamination change flooding by River SAC Non-toxic contamination - nutrient Trent and at or above enrichment thresholds for nutrient deposition. Any impact on water quality in the river may affect the site. Peak District SK142550 April 2005 Annex I habitats: Primary Toxic contamination - air pollution Part favourable, part Dales SAC Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland Toxic contamination - water unfavourable, facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- pollution and contamination recovering, part Brometalia) Non-toxic contamination - nutrient unfavourable, no Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and enrichment change ravines Calcareous grassland (CG2 Festuca ovina – Avenula pratensis); Non-primary Dry heath; Calaminarian grasslands (on heavy metal contaminated soils); Alkaline fen; Calcareous screes; Calcareous rocky slopes; Annex II species: Primary White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes Non-primary Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri

- 11 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Site Name Grid Date Qualifying features Key vulnerabilities to support Condition of Comments Reference designated SPA (Annex I bird species) site integrity and environmental features SAC (Annex I habitats/ annex II species)8 impacts from waste (latest NE management activities assessment) Bullhead Cottus gobio River Mease SK260114 2001 Annex I habitats: Primary Toxic contamination - water Unfavourable no SAC (2005) Water courses of plain to montane levels pollution and contamination change with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Non-toxic contamination - nutrient Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation enrichment Annex II species: Primary Spined loach Cobitis taenia Bullhead Cottus gobio Non-primary White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes Otter Lutra lutra South Pennine SK144960 SAC 2001 Annex I habitats: Primary Toxic contamination - air pollution Part favourable, part Partly coincidental Moors SAC (2005) European dry heaths; Non-toxic contamination - air unfavourable with Peak District SPA 1996 Blanket bogs; pollution recovering, part Moors SPA. Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and unfavourable no This site is also Blechnum in the British Isles change, part particularly vulnerable Non-primary unfavourable to nitrogen and acid Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica declining deposition. tetralix Transition mires and quaking bogs West Midlands SK027283 April 2005 Annex I habitats Toxic contamination - air pollution Favourable Mosses Natural dystrophic lakes & ponds; Toxic contamination - water Chartley Moss Transition mires & quaking bogs; pollution and contamination SAC (also a Non-toxic contamination - nutrient Ramsar site) enrichment Bees Nest & SK240545 April 2005 Annex II species: Primary Physical damage to habitat - Green Clay Great crested newt Triturus cristatus sedimentation / silting Pits SAC Annex I habitats: Non-primary Toxic contamination - water Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland pollution and contamination facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Non-toxic contamination -

- 12 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Brown Moss SJ561394 April 2005 Annex II species: Primary Physical damage to habitat - SAC Floating water-plantain Luronium natans sedimentation / silting Toxic contamination - water pollution and contamination Biological disturbance – introduction of new species Ensor’s Pool SP348903 April 2005 Annex II species: Primary Physical damage to habitat - Favourable SAC White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish sedimentation / silting Austropotamobius pallipes Toxic contamination - water pollution and contamination Non-toxic contamination - changes in turbidity Fens Pools SO920888 April 2005 Annex II species Physical damage to habitat - Favourable SAC Great crested newt Triturus cristatus sedimentation / silting Toxic contamination - water pollution and contamination Non-toxic contamination - nutrient enrichment Gang Mine SK286557 1995 Annex I habitats Toxic contamination - air pollution Primarily favourable, SAC (2005) Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia Non-toxic contamination - air small part calaminariae pollution unfavourable recovering

- 13 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Ramsar Sites

Site Name Grid Date Qualifying features Key vulnerabilities and Condition of Comments Reference designated Ramsar criteria environmental conditions to features support site integrity (latest NE assessment) Ramsar sites N.B. The Midland Mere & Mosses Ramsar site is a composite site made up from 35 smaller constituent sites which may be distant from one another. The Ramsar site was designated in two phases. The boundary of Phase 1 is entirely coincident with 16 discrete SSSIs and the boundary of Phase 2 is entirely coincident with 19 discrete SSSIs. Part of the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar site is also coincident with Charley Moss SAC (see above). Only those constituent SSSIs present within the area of search relevant to this HRA screening process are listed. One set of qualifying features applies to the entire composite Ramsar site (Phases 1 and 2) this is listed in the row directly below. In order to identify key vulnerabilities with each of the constituent SSSIs each site is treated separately. Midland See 1994, 1997 Ramsar criterion 1 See constituent SSSI below See constituent SSSI Meres & constituent A diverse range of habitats from open water below Mosses SSSI below to raised bog. Ramsar site Ramsar criterion 2 Phases 1 and Supports a number of rare species of wetland 2 (composite plants, including the nationally scarce site) cowbane Cicuta virosa and, elongated sedge Carex elongata. Also present are the nationally scarce bryophytes Dicranum affine and Sphagnum pulchrum. Supports an assemblage of invertebrates including several rare species. 16 species of British Red Data Book insect including the endangered species: moth Glyphipteryx lathamella, caddisfly Hagenella clathrata, sawfly Trichiosoma vitellinae. Midland SJ747480 1994 Habitat types present: Physical damage to habitat- Part favourable, part Meres & Freshwater lakes (permanent) sedimentation and silting unfavourable Mosses Marshy grassland Toxic contamination - water recovering, part Phase 1 Peatlands (including peat bogs swamps, pollution and contamination unfavourable no Ramsar site: fens) Non-toxic contamination - change Betley Mere Shrub-dominated wetland Nutrient enrichment SSSI Midland SJ772203 1997 Habitat types present: Physical damage to habitat- Part favourable, part - 14 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Site Name Grid Date Qualifying features Key vulnerabilities and Condition of Comments Reference designated Ramsar criteria environmental conditions to features support site integrity (latest NE assessment) Meres & Freshwater lakes (permanent) sedimentation and silting unfavourable Mosses Fen meadow and rush pasture Toxic contamination - water recovering, part Phase 2 pollution and contamination unfavourable no Ramsar site: Non-toxic contamination - change Aqualate Nutrient enrichment Mere SSSI

Midland SJ801299 1997 Habitat types present: Physical damage to habitat- Part favourable, part Possible restoration Meres & Freshwater lake (permanent) sedimentation and silting unfavourable no of Walkmill Mill by Mosses Tree-dominated wetland Toxic contamination - water change Sugnall Estate could Phase 2 pollution and contamination have impact on River Ramsar site: Non-toxic contamination - Sow flows & Cop Mere Nutrient enrichment sedimentation- SSSI currently mill pool acts as silt trap? Sugnall Estate generally work in consultation with NE Midland SJ747502 1997 Habitat types present: Toxic contamination - water Part favourable, part Impact of fish on Meres & Peatland (Basin mire with quaking bog), pollution and contamination unfavourable Odonata is an issue Mosses Tree-dominated wetlands (alder woodland on Non-toxic contamination - recovering, part Phase 2 peat filled depression) Nutrient enrichment unfavourable no Ramsar site: change Black Firs & Cranberry Bog SSSI Midland SJ794644 Habitat types present: Physical damage to habitat – Approximately one Meres & Peatlands (including peat bogs swamps, sedimentation and silting; third of the site is in Mosses fens) Changes to hydrology – water favourable condition a Phase 1 Shrub-dominated wetlands level and stability; further two thirds of Ramsar site: Toxic contamination – water the site is in

- 15 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Site Name Grid Date Qualifying features Key vulnerabilities and Condition of Comments Reference designated Ramsar criteria environmental conditions to features support site integrity (latest NE assessment) Bagmere pollution and contamination; ‘unfavourable SSSI Toxic contamination - soil condition no change’ contamination; or ‘unfavourable Non-toxic contamination – nutrient declining’ condition. enrichment. Midland SJ697502 Habitat types present: Physical damage to habitat – The majority of the Meres & Peatlands (including peat bogs swamps, sedimentation and silting; site is in unfavourable Mosses fens) Changes to hydrology – water recovering condition. Phase 1 level and stability; Approximately one Ramsar site: Toxic contamination – water fifth of the site is in Wybunbury pollution and contamination; favourable condition. Moss SSSI Toxic contamination - soil A small proportion of contamination; the site is in Non-toxic contamination – nutrient unfavourable enrichment. condition ‘no change’. Midland SJ561394 Habitat types present: Physical damage to habitat – The majority of the Meres & Freshwater marshes / pools: permanent sedimentation and silting; site is in unfavourable Mosses Freshwater marshes / pools: seasonal / Changes to hydrology – water condition ‘no change. Phase 1 intermittent level and stability; Approximately one Ramsar site: Peatlands (including peat bogs swamps, Toxic contamination – water seventh of the site is Brown Moss fens) pollution and contamination; in unfavourable SSSI Toxic contamination - soil condition ‘recovering’. contamination; Non-toxic contamination – nutrient enrichment; Biological disturbance – introduction of new species.

- 16 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Site Name Grid Date Qualifying features Key vulnerabilities and Condition of Comments Reference designated Ramsar criteria environmental conditions to features support site integrity (latest NE assessment) Midland SJ767550 Habitat types present: Physical damage to habitat – Favourable Meres & Peatlands (including peat bogs swamps, sedimentation and silting; Mosses fens) Changes to hydrology – water Phase 2 Tree-dominated wetlands level and stability; Ramsar site: Toxic contamination – water Oakhanger pollution and contamination; Moss SSSI Toxic contamination - soil contamination; Non-toxic contamination – nutrient enrichment. Midland SJ565439 Habitat types present: Physical damage to habitat – Approximately one Meres & Freshwater lakes: permanent sedimentation and silting; third of the site is in Mosses Peatlands (including peat bogs swamps, Changes to hydrology – water favourable or Phase 2 fens) level and stability; unfavourable Ramsar site: Tree-dominated wetlands Toxic contamination – water recovering condition. Oss Mere pollution and contamination; Approximately two SSSI Toxic contamination - soil thirds of the site is in contamination; unfavourable or Non-toxic contamination – nutrient unfavourable enrichment; declining condition. Non-toxic contamination – changes in turbidity; Non-toxic contamination – changes in thermal regime; Biological disturbance – introduction of new species.

- 17 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

3.2. Task 2: Description of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD

3.2.1. A summary of the Waste Core Strategy will need to be included in the full AA Report, as the Strategy is being drafted at the same time as this HRA Screening Report. As part of the Screening process, an analysis was undertaken of the types of impacts from waste facilities being considered for inclusion in the Waste Core Strategy could have. This table of potential impacts is set out in Section 4.

3.3. Task 3: Identification of other plans and projects which may have ‘in- combination’ impacts

3.3.1. Other plans which could lead to potentially significant ‘in-combination’ impacts when implemented together with the Waste Core Strategy were identified. The review of other plans tried to identify those components that could have an impact on Natura 2000 sites e.g. areas or towns where additional housing or employment development is proposed near to Natura 2000 sites (as there could be impacts from the transport, water use, infrastructure and recreation pressures associated with new developments). As such, the review focused on the West Midlands, East Midlands and the North West Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) as well as Local Development Frameworks/Local Plans and for each of the local authorities within Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent (+15km) and the Local Transport Plans for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent and adjoining counties. This Screening Report has also drawn on the findings of the HRA of the Phase II Revision of the RSS for the West Midlands to identify any ‘in combination’ impacts. Other plans identified as having potential impacts on the Natura 2000 sites are discussed in more detail in Section 5.

3.4. Task 4: Assessment of ‘likely significant impacts’ of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy

3.4.1. As required under Regulation 85B(I)(a) of the Amended Habitat Regulations 2007, an assessment of the ‘likely significant impacts’ of the overall pattern of management facilities identified in the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options was undertaken. Particular consideration was given to the possible pathways for impacts likely to arise from activities associated with waste management activities proposed (e.g. groundwater, air, river catchments etc.).

3.4.2. A risk based approach involving the application of the precautionary principle was adopted in the assessment of likely significant impacts. As such, an assessment of ‘significant impact unlikely’ was only made where a clear judgement could be made, based on current knowledge and information available, that the Waste Core Strategy would not have a significant impact on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site(s). The assessment of likely significant impacts then involved an examination of the potential impacts of the Waste Core Strategy ‘in combination’ with other plans.

3.4.3. To assist with the assessment, a number of assumptions have been established for predicting likely significant impacts of potential broad locations for future waste management facilities on Natura 2000 sites. These are discussed in greater detail in Section 4. - 18 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

3.5. Task 5: Preparation of the HRA Screening Report

3.5.1. The findings of Tasks 1 to 4 have been set out in this HRA Screening Report and as such Staffordshire County Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council are seeking the views of NE and EA on the assumptions and findings of this report. Comments will be taken into account when finalising the Screening Report and undertaking the full Appropriate Assessment of the Waste Core Strategy.

- 19 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 5: Natura 2000 sites within and in close proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

N.B. Large black area in South Staffordshire is an error, and should only appear as a dot.

- 20 - Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

4 Assumptions for Determining Potential Impacts on Natura 2000 Sites

4.0. Strategy for screening and impact avoidance

4.0.1. Legislation requires that significant impacts on the integrity of a site are avoided or fully mitigated under all but the most exceptional circumstances that must be approved by the Secretary of State. Developments outlined in the Waste Core Strategy are unlikely to be considered to be of such importance, so it is essential that any significant impacts are avoided or mitigated.

4.0.2. Potential impacts of the Waste Core Strategy will focus on an assessment of the overall pattern of waste management facilities, identified under Issue 6. Further assessment will be required at the Preferred Options stage, including further consideration of different facility types in different locations and/or strategic sites.

4.0.3. The initial screening of the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options has used simple linkage and distance-based “rules” to screen out those Natura 2000 sites that are unlikely to be significantly affected by the overall pattern of waste management facilities identified in the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options. Where potentially damaging operations can be avoided through an alternative spatial strategy, recommendations will be included to inform the development of the Waste Core Strategy. Where impacts cannot be avoided, recommendations will be made for development control policies to ensure that such activities are controlled. These are still under consideration, so it makes sense to use the HRA process to guide site selection and to identify the operational restrictions and development control issues required to ensure that adverse impacts on any European sites are avoided.

4.0.4. If required, the Appropriate Assessment stage will involve seeking further information where needed to quantify the possible impacts and assess whether they constitute a significant threat to the integrity of the European site and whether sufficient controls can be put in place to avoid or fully mitigate adverse impacts.

4.1. Potential impacts from waste management activities

4.1.1. In order to assess the likelihood of significant impacts it is necessary to understand the potential impacts that may result from the construction and operation of waste management facilities and the vulnerability of each Natura 2000 site to these impacts. Figure 6 sets out the potential impacts arising from the three categories of facility used in the Waste Core Strategy – enclosed, enclosed thermal treatment and open. This table will be referred to throughout the HRA.

- 21 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 6: Potential impacts of waste management activities on Natura 2000 sites

Categories of vulnerabilities and Examples of waste management activities, potentially resulting in Enclosed Enclosed Open Air facilities impacts on Natura 2000 sites impacts on Natura 2000 sites facilities thermal treatment facilities Physical loss of habitat Removal (including offsite impacts, e.g. Construction foraging habitat) Initial land take Excavation of site Smothering N/A Physical damage to habitat Sedimentation / silting Construction Initial land take Excavation of site Transport of building materials on/off site Prevention of natural processes Construction Initial land take Habitat degradation Land take may affect off-site foraging, breeding and roosting habitats Erosion Construction Transport of building materials on/off site Operation Transport of waste off site e.g. along prescribed lorry routes, or rail freight Trampling Construction Movement of machinery on site Human presence on site Transport of building materials on/off site Operation Human presence on site Transport of waste on/off site e.g. along prescribed lorry routes, or rail freight Mechanical processes/movement of machinery on site (all be significantly less in enclosed facilities) - 22 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Categories of vulnerabilities and Examples of waste management activities, potentially resulting in Enclosed Enclosed Open Air facilities impacts on Natura 2000 sites impacts on Natura 2000 sites facilities thermal treatment facilities Fragmentation Construction Initial land take Excavation of site Severance/barrier impact Construction/operation New transport routes/access tracks Roads and paths physically obstructed/diverted Outdoor operations (disturbance and dust etc make migratory/foraging routes less attractive, indirectly resulting in severance) Edge impacts Operation/construction Overall site use/operation (when adjacent to Natura 2000 site) Settlement of ground surface N/A Non-physical disturbance Noise and vibration Construction Excavation of site/building works Transport of building materials on/off site Operation Mechanical processes/movements (all will be significantly less in enclosed facilities) Vehicular movements on site - inc manoeuvring /loading /unloading Transport of waste on/off site e.g. along prescribed lorry routes, or rail freight Human presence Construction Initial land take Excavation of site/ building works Light pollution Construction/operation Late operating or winter operating requiring flood-lighting Changes to hydrology Drying N/A Flooding / storm water Construction/operation Increase in hardstanding area

- 23 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Categories of vulnerabilities and Examples of waste management activities, potentially resulting in Enclosed Enclosed Open Air facilities impacts on Natura 2000 sites impacts on Natura 2000 sites facilities thermal treatment facilities Water level and stability (e.g. re- adjustment of hydraulic gradients) Surface water flow (e.g. reduction in velocity of surface water) Ground water flow (when a cone of Operation depression is created) Intake of washing, treatment, cooling or scrubber water: Possible lowering Loss of ground water storage of water table Toxic contamination Water pollution / contamination Construction Excavation of site/building works Transport of building materials on/off site Operation Creation of leachate Operational failure/spill Washdown waters and liquids within waste (not managed properly) Incineration and Energy Recovery: Discharge of scrubber water. Deposition of hazardous pollutants from air. Transport of waste on/off site e.g. along M&W lorry route, or rail freight Increased dust from outdoor operations Soil contamination Construction Excavation of site/building works Transport of building materials on/off site Operation Creation of leachate Operational failure/spill Washdown waters and liquids within waste (not managed properly) Increased dust from outdoor operations Transport of waste on/off site e.g. M & W lorry routes Air pollution (nitrogen and acid Construction deposition) Transport of building materials on/off site - 24 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Categories of vulnerabilities and Examples of waste management activities, potentially resulting in Enclosed Enclosed Open Air facilities impacts on Natura 2000 sites impacts on Natura 2000 sites facilities thermal treatment facilities Operation Vehicle emissions Incineration & Energy Recovery: Hazardous pollutants (including dioxins & furans) fly ash, smoke, increased ambient temperature & increased mist and fog. Compost windrow management: CO2, VOCs and variable amounts methane to atmosphere. Fugitive emissions from biomass under positive pressure Increased dust from outdoor operations Non toxic contamination Nutrient enrichment (e.g. of soils and Operation water) Creation of leachate Decrease in water quality through sudden releases due to containment facility failure or drain failure or gradual seepage into nearby watercourses. Decrease in water quality through sudden releases due to containment facility or drain failure or gradual seepage into groundwater. Operational failure/spill Washdown waters and liquids within waste (not managed properly) Changes in salinity Operation Operational activities (wash down of vehicles, spraying compost, washing waste) Changes in thermal regime Incineration and Energy Recovery: Discharge of cooling water Possible increase in water temperature. Changes in turbidity Washdown waters and liquids within waste (not managed properly) Air pollution (nitrification and Increased dust from outdoor operations acidification) Biological disturbance Direct mortality Construction Excavation of site/building works Transport of building materials on/off site Operation - 25 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Categories of vulnerabilities and Examples of waste management activities, potentially resulting in Enclosed Enclosed Open Air facilities impacts on Natura 2000 sites impacts on Natura 2000 sites facilities thermal treatment facilities Transport of waste on/off site e.g. along prescribed lorry routes, rail freight Vehicular movements on site - inc manoeuvring /loading /unloading (Pyrolysis and gasification plants will have less vehicular movements) Out-competition by non-native species Operation Introduced species from open air windrow composting Selective extraction of species N/A Introduction of new habitats/species Operation Introduced species from open air windrow composting Changes in number of predator/prey Operation Introduction of disease/harm to Vermin and pests attracted to open air activities animal/plant health Rapid population fluctuations Escape of bioaerosols during open air operations such as feedstock reception and aeration of the digestate and wholly open air processes such as windrow composting. Natural succession N/A Loss/damage of plant species N/A

- 26 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

4.2. Screening for likely significant impacts

4.2.1. Screening for likely significant impacts has been determined on a proximity basis for many of the types of impacts, using GIS to determine the proximity of the potential strategic waste site to each Natura 2000 site. However, there are many uncertainties associated with using set distances as there are very few standards available as a guide to how far impacts will travel.

4.2.2. In considering which Natura 2000 may be significantly affected, guidance in the Environment Agency’s ‘EU Habitats Directive Handbook’ was taken into account, including Natura 2000 sites which lie:

♦ Within 10km of a proposed thermal treatment facility;

♦ Within 1km of all other proposed waste facilities, or could also be connected with them hydraulically.

4.2.3. In addition, a distance of 500m has been applied for impacts that are only likely to occur in very close proximity to Natura 2000 sites e.g. non-physical disturbance as a result of noise and light. The distance based rules applied to each type of impact are discussed in more detail below and are illustrated on the figures set out in Section 9 (Appendix B).

Physical loss of habitat

4.2.4. For direct loss of habitat it is assumed that impacts from waste facilities would not be significant unless the site extends within the boundary of the Natura 2000 site or into a known off-site foraging area for one of the qualifying species. Data on known off-site foraging areas may need to be obtained at a later stage in the HRA, but for initial screening of issues and options a distance of 1km has been applied.

Physical damage to habitat

4.2.5. There are no standard distances able to be used for this impact as it includes a variety of different impacts such as fragmentation, habitat severance and erosion. For example, if a potential waste site is very close to a Natura 2000 site, e.g. adjacent or within 100m, it would be considered to have a greater likelihood of potential edge impacts e.g. habitat degradation from movement of machinery, human trampling associated with construction and operation, and sedimentation from construction activity. If there are a number of potential waste sites within 500m of a Natura 2000 site it is considered that fragmentation or severance could occur. Where a Natura 2000 site is designated for species which rely on off site habitats for breeding, roosting or feeding, we will consider the potential for a site to affect these habitats through the use of the 1km ‘proximity’ distance. The only Natura 2000 sites identified as being vulnerable to physical damage to habitat contain designated species and habitats such as the great crested newt, insects and wetland plants, as opposed to migratory birds. As such, a distance of 1km is deemed appropriate.

- 27 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Non-physical disturbance

4.2.6. From a review of Environment Agency internal guidance on HRA and various websites it is considered that impacts of vibration and noise and light are more likely to be significant if a waste site is within 500m of a Natura 2000 site with qualifying features sensitive to non-physical disturbance. It is assumed that enclosed facilities will produce significantly lower levels of noise, vibration and light than open air facilities. A number of sources9,10 state 300m as a distance at which certain bird species can be disturbed by the impacts of noise, so the proximity distance of 500m used in the Screening analysis is assumed to capture the potential for these impacts.

Biological disturbance

4.2.7. There are unlikely to be many vermin or pests attracted to enclosed facilities, but open-air composting facilities may attract some. For direct mortality it is assumed that impacts from waste facilities would not be significant unless the potential waste site extends within the boundary of the Natura 2000 site or the route for transporting waste travels through or across the Natura 2000 site, so the proximity distance of 500m used in the Screening analysis is assumed to capture the potential for these impacts.

4.2.8. The potential for the introduction of species or impacts on animal and plant health (respiration irritation, allergies, disease) is likely to be via air-borne sources such as bioaerosols from composting or anaerobic digestion processes. The relative positions (i.e. whether the Natura 2000 site is downstream or downwind of the facility) will also be taken into consideration, as airborne-introduced species would be carried along a further distance to potential sensitive receptors in such circumstances. However, this requires detailed information on individual Natura 2000 sites and so would need to be considered on a site-by-site basis.

Toxic contamination

4.2.9. Thermal treatment facilities have the potential to be significant sources of atmospheric pollution, i.e. nitrogen and acid deposition, but can vary greatly in scale. Nearly all emissions will be subject to control under the Waste Incineration Directive and will require PPC licences, so the emission limits set in the licences will also need to be used to assess the potential impact on nearby and more distant Natura 2000 sites on an individual basis. The Environment Agency’s EU Habitats Directive Handbook considers that significant impacts are more likely within 10km of a proposed thermal treatment facility. This distance has been applied during initial screening and for the reasons set out above is considered to be a precautionary approach. Again, the relative positions (i.e. whether the Natura 2000 site is downstream or downwind of the facility) would need to be considered on a site-by-site basis.

9 British Wildlife Magazine. October 2007. 10 Northamptonshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework, Habitats Regulations Assessment, Screening Report. Northamptonshire County Council. April 2007 - 28 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

4.2.10. The potential for water pollution/contamination of ground and surface watercourses could potentially occur as a result of discharge of washdown waters and liquids, leachate and scrubber water from thermal treatment.

4.2.11. It is considered that the impacts of water pollution/contamination are more likely to be significant if a waste site is within 1km of a water source (i.e. canal or river) that is within 1km of a Natura 2000 site, as qualifying species could be reliant on nearby water sources.

4.2.12. For deposition of air pollutants associated with transport, the Highways Agency guideline measure of 200 metres from a road11 will be applied to major transport routes (A and B roads).

Non-toxic contamination

4.2.13. There may be some fugitive dust released from outdoor operations. Large particles will mostly deposit close to the source, the assumption being that this would be within 100m. Smaller particles may travel up to 1km from their source.

4.2.14. 1km from a Natura 2000 site has therefore been applied as a distance beyond which significant impacts as a result of dust are unlikely.

4.2.15. Run-off from waste sites, or roads made muddy by associated vehicles, may affect water quality and turbidity. Impacts will only occur over short distances only, so beyond 1km from Natura 2000 and Ramsar Sites it is considered that there is no potential for significant impacts.

4.2.16. Discharges to ground or surface waters should be limited to clean water, but the risk of potential pollutants finding their way into surface water run-off can be hard to eliminate completely. Some waste sites may have discharge consents, permitting the disposal of specific liquid wastes to the foul sewer. Such discharges would only need to be considered at the point where the treated effluent is discharged. Discharges from waste sites close to the site (within 1km), and those which lead to watercourses (within 1km) that lead to the site may represent a risk.

4.2.17. Nutrient enrichment could potentially occur as a result of discharge of washdown waters and liquids, leachate and scrubber water from waste facilities. Impacts are more likely to be significant if a waste site is within 1km of a water source (i.e. canal or river) that is within 1km of a Natura 2000 site. However, these impacts depend on hydrological continuity between the waste site and the Natura 2000 site. Uncertainty about impacts at those sites that are vulnerable to water pollution will be highlighted. It should be noted that the EA are unlikely to be able to provide this advice as there is unlikely to be sufficient data available to be able to understand hydrological continuity until the planning application stage.

11 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 11. Highways Agency, 2003 - 29 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Changes to hydrology

4.2.18. For water-related impacts (e.g. changes to water levels due to abstraction for washing, scrubbing, cooling; or surface or ground water velocity due to increases in hardstanding area and subsequent increases in runoff) it will not be possible to use a set distance to predict likely significant impacts, as these impacts depend on hydrological continuity between the waste site and the Natura 2000 site. In addition, it is recognised that the likelihood of these impacts is very much dependent on whether there is any water abstraction associated with the waste management facility and the design and drainage of any areas of hardstanding. Uncertainty about the potential for impacts at those sites that are vulnerable to water abstraction, flooding or pollution will be highlighted. The same approach will be applied to toxic and non-toxic contamination where the pathway is surface or ground water.

- 30 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

5 Other Relevant Plans and Projects

5.0.1. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires an Appropriate Assessment of ‘any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant impact thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects’. The first stage in identifying ‘in- combination’ impacts involved identifying which other plans and projects may affect Natura 2000 sites within or in close proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent.

5.0.2. A number of regional and local plans have been identified, including current and future plans which apply to Staffordshire County and Stoke-on-Trent City administrative areas and adjoining local authorities, within a 15km radius. Over 60 potentially relevant plans have been identified and therefore this assessment has not attempted to review them all in great detail, but to focus on planned spatial growth within the West Midlands and in adjacent authorities to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent within the East Midlands and North West.

5.0.3. A full list of the plans and projects identified as having the potential to affect Natura 2000 sites within and in close proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent is set out in Figure 7. Such plans include:

♦ West Midlands Regional Plan (and the findings of the HRA of the Phase II Revision of the RSS), Structure Plans, Development Plan Documents and Local Plans within Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent;

♦ Adjacent regional plans, Development Plan Documents and Local Plans (within a distance of 15km of the county boundary); and

♦ Sector plans that could have a considerable influence on spatial development, e.g. minerals, transport and water resources.

5.0.4. Due to the large number of plans a targeted approach was taken to assess ‘in- combination’ impacts. In the first instance, the assessment focused on Natura 2000 sites for which uncertain impacts were identified as the effects of other plans may help to provide more certainty in making a judgement on significance. Where significant impacts were already considered likely as a result of the Waste Core Strategy, these Natura 2000 sites will require full Appropriate Assessment. Nevertheless, information on development proposals in other relevant plans was gathered and recorded to add to the judgement already made. Where screening has concluded that significant impacts would be unlikely as a result of there being no urban areas or potential opportunities for locating waste facilities within close proximity to a Natura 2000 site, it follows that ‘in-combination’ impacts would also be unlikely.

5.0.5. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the significant and uncertain in- combination impacts recorded and the Natura 2000 sites they apply to.

- 31 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Cannock Chase SAC

5.0.6. Both Cannock and Rugeley are identified as ‘Other Large Settlements’ and ‘Local Regeneration Zones’ in the West Midlands RSS Preferred Options. Future housing and economic development will therefore take place in these locations, including 5,800 dwellings in Cannock District from 2006-2026. This development is likely to result in some further toxic and non-toxic emissions as a result of construction, transport and employment uses.

5.0.7. Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Local Transport Plan identifies Rugeley Bypass as a priority for investment and was opened in September 2007. Further transport emissions (toxic and non-toxic) are likely as a result.

Cannock Extension Canal SAC

5.0.8. Cannock is identified as an ‘Other Large Settlement’ and ‘Local Regeneration Zone’ in the West Midlands RSS Preferred Options. Future housing and economic development will therefore take place in these locations, including 5,800 dwellings in Cannock District from 2006-2026.

5.0.9. This development may result in an increase in the area of hardstanding in close proximity to Cannock Extension Canal, making significant impacts uncertain in combination with other plans.

Fens Pool SAC

5.0.10. Birmingham is identified as a Major Urban Area and Dudley is identified as a Housing Renewal Area and Urban Regeneration Zone in the West Midlands RSS. The potential for new housing development will therefore be maximised and further economic development is likely in close proximity.

5.0.11. The potential for emissions from increased road transport, nutrient enrichment and physical damage make significant impacts uncertain in combination with other plans.

Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC

5.0.12. Stafford is identified as a ‘Settlement of Significant Development Beyond MUAs’, and an additional 10,100 dwellings are proposed between 2006-2026 in the West Midlands RSS. Stafford is also identified as a ‘Local Regeneration Area’.

5.0.13. The construction and operation of further housing and economic development may result in significant impacts in combination with the Waste Core Strategy. Rugely bypass may also be increasing the amount of traffic along the A51, making significant impacts more likely in relation to water pollution as a result of road emissions.

River Mease SAC

5.0.14. Burton-Upon-Trent is identified in the West Midlands RSS as a ‘Settlement of Significant Development Beyond MUAs’ with 11,000 new dwellings proposed from 2006-2026. It is also identified as a ‘Local Regeneration Area’.

- 32 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

5.0.15. There is therefore potential for toxic and non-toxic contamination as a result of the construction and operation of further housing and economic development and increased transport, making significant impacts likely in combination with the Waste Core Strategy.

- 33 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 7: Plans with the potential to have significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites in combination with the Waste Core Strategy

List of Plans HRA Undertaken Alongside Plan? Regional Plans West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (West Midlands Regional Assembly, 2005) 9 Regional Transport Strategy for the West Midlands (West Midlands Regional Assembly, 2005) 9 Adjacent Regional Plans North West Plan – Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (North West Regional Assembly, 2006) 9 North West Regional Transport Strategy (North West Regional Assembly, 2003) 9 Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8) (Government Office for the East Midlands, 2005) 9 East Midlands Regional Transport Strategy (Government Office for the East Midlands, 2005) 9 County Plans Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Staffordshire County Council & Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 2001) 8 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Minerals Local Plan 1994-2006 (Staffordshire County Council & Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 1999) 8 Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Local Plan 1998-2011 (Staffordshire County Council & Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 2003) 8 Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (Staffordshire County Council, 2006) 8 Adjacent County Plans (within 15k buffer) Peak National Park Structure Plan (Adopted Replacement – Saved Policies) (Peak District National Park Authority, 1994) 8 Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Joint Structure Plan 1996-2011(Shropshire County Council and Telford & Wrekin Council, 2002) 8 Shropshire and Telford & Wrekin Minerals Local Plan 1996 – 2006 (Shropshire County Council and Telford & Wrekin Council, 2000) 8 Shropshire Waste Local Plan 2002-2014 (Shropshire County Council, 2004) 8 Managing Waste in New Developments SPD (Shropshire County Council, 2006) 8 Shropshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (Shropshire County Council, 2006) 8 Derbyshire and Derby Joint Structure Plan (Derbyshire County Council and Derby City Council, 2001) 8 Derbyshire and Derby Minerals Local Plan (Derbyshire County Council and Derby City Council, 2002) 8 Derbyshire and Derby Waste Local Plan (Derbyshire County Council and Derby City Council, 2005) 8 Derbyshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (Derbyshire County Council, 2006) 8 Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 (Warwickshire County Council, 2002) 8 Warwickshire Local Minerals Plan (Warwickshire County Council, 1995) 8 Warwickshire Local Waste Plan (Warwickshire County Council, 1995) 8 Warwickshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (Warwickshire County Council, 2006) 8 Cheshire 2016: Structure Plan Alteration (Cheshire County Council, 2005) 8 - 34 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Cheshire Replacements Minerals Local Plan (Cheshire County Council, 1999) 8 Cheshire Replacements Waste Local Plan (Cheshire County Council, 2007) 8 Cheshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (Cheshire County Council, 2006) 8 Local Plans and DPDs Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, 1998) 8 Staffordshire Moorlands Core Strategy, Issues and Options (Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, 2007) 9 Stoke-on-Trent City Plan 2001 (Stoke-on-Trent City Council, 1993) 8 North Staffordshire Core Strategy, Revised Preferred Options (Stoke-on-Trent City Council & Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, 2007) 8 North Staffordshire Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council, 2006) 8 Newcastle-under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 (Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, 2003) 8 Stafford Borough Local Plan 2001(Stafford Borough Council, 1998) 8 East Staffordshire Local Plan (East Staffordshire Borough Council, 2006) 8 East Staffordshire Core Strategy, Issues and Options (East Staffordshire Borough Council, 2007) 9 South Staffordshire Local Plan (South Staffordshire Council, 1996) 8 South Staffordshire Core Strategy, Issues and Options (South Staffordshire Council, 2006) 8 Cannock Chase Local Plan (Cannock Chase District Council, 1997) 8 Cannock Chase Core Strategy, Issues and Options (Cannock Chase District Council, 2005) 8 Lichfield District Local Plan (Lichfield District Council, 1998) 8 Lichfield Core Strategy, Issues and Options (Lichfield District Council, 2007) 8 Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 (Tamworth Borough Council, 2006) 8 Tamworth Core Strategy, Issues and Options (Tamworth Borough Council, 2008) 8 Adjacent Districts’ Local Plans and DPDs (including Metropolitan/Unitary Authorities)(within 15k buffer) Peak District National Park Local Plan (Saved Policies) (Peak District National Park Authority, 2001) 8 Peak District National Park Core Strategy, Issues and Preferred Options (Peak District National Park Authority, 2005) 8 Bridgnorth District Local Plan 1996-2011 (Bridgnorth District Council, 2006) 8 Bridgnorth Core Strategy, Issues and Options (Bridgnorth District Council, 2007) 8 Telford & Wrekin Core Strategy Development Plan Document (Telford & Wrekin Council, 2007) 8 North Shropshire Local Plan 2000-2011 (North Shropshire District Council, 2005) 8 North Warwickshire Local Plan (North Warwickshire Borough Council, 2006) 8 Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (Derbyshire Dales District Council, 2005) 8 City of Derby Local Plan Review (Derby City Council, 2006) 8 Derby Joint Local Transport Plan 2006-2011 (Derby City Council and Derbyshire County Council, 2006) 8 South Derbyshire Local Plan (South Derbyshire District Council, 1998) 8 Crewe & Nantwich Replacement Local Plan (Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, 2005) 8

- 35 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Crewe & Nantwich Core Strategy, Issues and Options (Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, 2007) 8 Congleton Borough First Review Local Plan (Congleton Borough Council, 2005) 8 Congleton Core Strategy, Issues and Options (Congleton Borough Council, 2007) 9 Macclesfield Borough Local Plan (Macclesfield Borough Council, 2004) 8 Macclesfield Core Strategy, Revised Issues and Options (Macclesfield Borough Council, 2007) 8 Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (Birmingham City Council, 2005) 8 Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (Wolverhampton City Council, 2006) 8 Dudley Unitary Development Plan (Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, 2005) 8 Sandwell Unitary Development Plan (Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, 2004) 8 Walsall Unitary Development Plan (Walsall Council, 2005) 8 Black Country Joint Core Strategy, Preferred Options (Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall Councils, 2008) 8 West Midlands Local Transport Plan (Joint Plan for Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall) (West Midlands Joint Committee, 2006) 8

- 36 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

6 Screening Assessment of the Waste Core Strategy

6.0. Introduction

6.0.1. An assessment has been undertaken to identify the likely significant impacts of the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD upon the integrity of Natura 2000 sites within and in close proximity (<15km) to the Staffordshire county boundary. This analysis has been set out in the form of a matrix (see Section 8: Appendix A), which includes:

♦ A summary of the potential impacts of the Waste Core Strategy and the likely impacts this may have on Natura 2000 sites;

♦ An assessment of whether these potential impacts are likely to be significant in relation to the designated interest features and conservation objectives;

♦ Identification of where planned development in other plans could result in impacts ‘in-combination’ with the Waste Core Strategy.

6.0.2. Note that the matrix does not include any assessment of the mitigation measures that may be available to reduce the likelihood of the impacts, as these will be considered in the next stage of the HRA (the Appropriate Assessment). The findings of the HRA Screening are summarised below.

6.1. Summary of HRA screening findings

6.1.1. In applying the precautionary approach, and based on the assumptions set out in Section 4, the HRA screening process found that likely significant impacts may occur at a number of Natura 2000 sites as a result of the overall pattern of waste management facilities proposed in the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options. The findings are summarised in Figure 9 and Figure 8. Note that for many of the Natura 2000 sites a mixture of potential impacts from waste management facilities may occur, some of which were found to be more likely or more certain than others (these are described in detail in Section 8: Appendix A). The findings are also accompanied by a series of GIS maps, which show each buffer distance applied to Natura 2000 sites in relation to urban areas and potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. These are set out in Section 9: Appendix B.

6.1.2. Significant impacts were found to be likely at six sites, generally if:

♦ There are a number of major urban areas and settlements and potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 10km of the boundary of the Natura 2000 site and the qualifying features are vulnerable to impacts from toxic contamination (e.g. air emissions from thermal treatment); and/or

♦ There are major urban areas and settlements and potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of a river, canal or groundwater protection zones that is within 1km of a Natura 2000 site and the qualifying

- 37 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

features are vulnerable to impacts from toxic contamination (e.g. water pollution/contamination) and non-toxic contamination (e.g. nutrient enrichment and changes in turbidity); and/or

♦ The Natura 2000 site is within 200m of a primary road that is likely to be used now, and in the future, for transporting waste.

6.1.3. Significant impacts were found to be uncertain at 7 sites, generally if:

♦ There is either a major urban area or settlement or a small number of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of a single river or canal within 1km of a Natura 2000 site and the qualifying features are vulnerable to impacts from toxic contamination (e.g. water pollution/contamination), non-toxic contamination (e.g. nutrient enrichment and changes in turbidity) and physical damage to habitat (sedimentation/silting); and/or

♦ There is either a major urban area or settlement or a small number of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of a Natura 2000 site and the qualifying features are vulnerable to impacts from non-toxic contamination (e.g. air pollution); and/or

♦ The Natura 2000 site is not within 200m of a primary road, but there is a primary road likely to be used for transporting waste in close proximity to the Natura 2000 site and the qualifying features are vulnerable to impacts from toxic and non-toxic contamination (e.g. air pollution).

6.1.4. Significant impacts were found to be unlikely for five sites, generally if:

♦ The Natura 2000 sites did not have any urban areas and settlements and potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 10km or 1km of their boundary (depending on vulnerability to toxic or non-toxic air pollution); and/or

♦ A primary road used for transporting waste did not pass within 200m of the site; and/or

♦ There were no major urban areas and settlements and potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities adjacent to any watercourses within 1km of a Natura 2000 site where the qualifying features were vulnerable to impacts from toxic contamination (e.g. water pollution/contamination), non-toxic contamination (e.g. nutrient enrichment and changes in turbidity) and physical damage to habitat (sedimentation/silting); and/or

♦ There were no major urban areas and settlements and potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 500m of any Natura 2000 sites where the qualifying features were vulnerable to impacts from biological disturbance (e.g. introduction of new species/habitats).

- 38 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

6.1.5. A finding of ‘no significant impact’ is therefore recorded for five sites listed below, and so no further appropriate assessment is considered necessary for these sites in relation to the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy.

♦ Bees Nest and Green Clay Pits SAC

♦ Brown Moss SAC

♦ Ensor’s Pool SAC

♦ Gang Mine SAC

♦ River Mease SAC

- 39 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 8: Natura 2000 Sites within & in Close Proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, & Likelihood of Significant Impacts from Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options

- 40 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Figure 9: Screening Findings - Likelihood of Significant Impacts at Natura 2000 Sites

Ramsar – Oakhanger Moss Oakhanger Ramsar – Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 Oss Mere Ramsar – Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 Natura 2000 ClayPitsSAC Bees Nest&Green Brown MossSAC SAC Cannock Chase Cannock ExtensionCanalSAC Ensor’s PoolSAC Fens PoolSAC Gang MineSAC SAC Mottey Meadows Pasturefields Salt MarshSAC Peak District Dales SAC Peak DistrictMoorsSPA River MeaseSAC SAC South PennineMoors Moss SAC(alsoaRamsarsite) West MidlandMosses–Chartley Ramsar –Bagmere Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 1 Mere Ramsar -Betley Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 1 Moss Ramsar –Brown Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 1 Moss Ramsar –Wynbunbury Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 1 Mere Ramsar –Aqualate Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 Bog Ramsar –BlackFirs&Cranberry Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 Mere Ramsar –Cop Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 sites within Staffordshire and Stoke-on- Trent (+15km) boundary

Potential impacts (and the emissions or activities which may give rise to the impact at waste sites) Physical loss of habitat (removal, smothering, habitat degradation) Physical damage to habitat (sedimentation, erosion, trampling, fragmentation, severance) Non-physical disturbance (noise, vibration, visual/human presence, light pollution) Changes to hydrology (flooding, water level, stability, water flow, loss of ground - 41 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Natura 2000 ClayPitsSAC Bees Nest&Green Brown MossSAC SAC Cannock Chase Cannock ExtensionCanalSAC Ensor’s PoolSAC Fens PoolSAC Gang MineSAC SAC Mottey Meadows Pasturefields Salt MarshSAC Peak District Dales SAC Peak DistrictMoorsSPA River MeaseSAC SAC South PennineMoors Moss SAC(alsoaRamsarsite) West MidlandMosses–Chartley Ramsar –Bagmere Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 1 Mere Ramsar -Betley Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 1 Moss Ramsar –Brown Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 1 Moss Ramsar –Wynbunbury Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 1 Mere Ramsar –Aqualate Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 Bog Ramsar –BlackFirs&Cranberry Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 Mere Ramsar –Cop Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 Moss Oakhanger Ramsar – Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 Oss Mere Ramsar – Midlands Meres&MossesPhase 2 sites within Staffordshire and Stoke-on- Trent (+15km) boundary

Potential impacts (and the emissions or activities which may give rise to the impact at waste sites) water storage)

Toxic contamination (water pollution, soil contamination, air pollution) Non toxic contamination (nutrient enrichment, changes in salinity, thermal regime, turbidity, air pollution) Biological disturbance (mortality, out- competition by non-native species, selective extraction of species, introduction of new species,

- 42 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Potential impacts (and the emissions or activities which may give rise to the impact at waste sites) prey levels, diseases, population fluctuations, loss of plant species)

Legend Significant impact unlikely Significant impact uncertain Significant impact likely Natura 2000 site not vulnerable to impact

- 43 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

7 Conclusions and Next Steps

7.0.1. The HRA Screening has found that five of the 23 Natura 2000 sites within and in close proximity (<15km) to the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent are unlikely to be significantly affected by the overall pattern of waste management facilities proposed in Issue 6 of the Waste Core Strategy Issues and Options. For the other 20 Natura 2000 sites in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, the possibility of likely significant impacts from future waste management activities has been identified.

7.1. Overall findings of the HRA Screening

7.1.1. Significant impacts from future waste management activities were identified predominantly as a result of vulnerability of Natura 2000 sites to toxic and non- toxic contamination, notably impacts arising from air pollution and water pollution/contamination. However, it may be that regulatory safeguards such as Environment Agency licensing and PPC permits, controlled by continuous monitoring of concentrations of pollutants, would alleviate or reduce any potential and likely significant impacts from air and water pollution on Natura 2000 sites. Figure 8 sets out the overall findings of the HRA Screening and should be referred to in conjunction with the following paragraphs.

7.1.2. Significant impacts from waste management activities are considered to be most likely at the Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC, most notably from water pollution/contamination. This is due in large part to the dependency of the SAC on the supply of brine from groundwater sources. The proximity of the River Trent is also likely to result in significant impacts on the SAC, as the site is vulnerable to nutrient enrichment, particularly from the flooding of the River Trent. As such, any impact on water quality as a result of nearby waste management facilities will have a significant impact on the SAC.

7.1.3. Similarly, potential and likely significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites in close proximity to Stafford and Cannock (i.e. Cannock Chase SAC, Cannock Extension Canal SAC and Chartley Moss SAC) have been identified in relation to toxic contamination (air pollution), given the high concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities in both Stafford and Cannock. The number of primary roads used to transport waste to these urban settlements in close proximity to Natura 2000 sites is also likely to contribute potential and likely significant impacts sites from air pollution.

7.1.4. There is a degree of uncertainty of impacts resulting from future waste management activities located at Stoke-on-Trent as the urban area has a significant concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities and several Natura 2000 sites are in relatively close proximity. The transportation of waste to facilities in Stoke-on-Trent also creates uncertain impacts, as a number of primary roads likely to be used for transporting waste to facilities in Stoke-on-Trent, now and in the future, pass within close proximity to these Natura 2000 sites.

7.1.5. The likelihood of significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites in the north of Staffordshire (i.e. the South Pennine Moors SAC, Peak District Moors SPA and

- 44 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

the Peak District Dales SAC) is more mixed, as there are no major urban areas and settlements in this part of the county. However, there are a number of small concentrations of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities in this part of the county, creating likely and uncertain impacts resulting from air pollution on Natura 2000 sites. Again, regulatory safeguards may alleviate or reduce any potential and likely significant impacts from air pollution on these sites.

7.1.6. Natura 2000 sites furthest away from the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent administrative boundaries are unlikely to be significantly affected by waste management facilities, as they are located at a considerable distance from major urban areas and settlements within Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent.

7.2. Implications for Preferred Options and Next Steps

7.2.1. The findings of the HRA Screening indicate that there are certain locations that may not be appropriate for certain types of waste management facilities in the first instance, given that there are large concentrations of potential opportunities elsewhere where significant effects on Natura 2000 sites would be unlikely e.g. Stoke-on-Trent. Stafford and Cannock in particular are likely to be more sensitive locations for all types of facility, due to the close proximity of Cannock Chase SAC, Cannock Extension Canal SAC and Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and the vulnerabilities of these Natura 2000 sites. Other locations that may result in particular sensitivities in relation to toxic contamination from thermal treatment facilities are north-west Stoke and Leek.

7.2.2. If other factors offer particular advantages for locating new facilities in these more sensitive areas (e.g. advantages of co-location with existing facilities, availability of previously developed land) it will be important to undertake a more detailed assessment of significant impacts at the Appropriate Assessment stage and to develop appropriate mitigation measures.

7.2.3. At this stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment, the potential for mitigation measures to reduce likelihood of impacts has not yet been assessed, and the identification or uncertainty of likely significant impacts does not necessarily mean that potential broad locations would definitely have an adverse impact on the integrity on all 13 of these Natura 2000 sites. Mitigation measures may include adherence to development control policies, currently being developed and refined throughout the development of the Waste Core Strategy, as well as other regulatory safeguards, such as EA licensing and PPC permits etc.

7.2.4. The Appropriate Assessment stage now needs to be undertaken for those sites where significant impacts are considered to be ‘likely’ or ‘uncertain’ to understand the scale and magnitude of potential impacts in view of each site’s qualifying features and vulnerabilities, as well as the mitigation measures that may be available or need to put in place. For example, when assessing significant impacts from air and water pollution, the relative position of the Natura 2000 site (i.e. downstream or downwind) to a waste facility, critical loads and background levels of emissions at Natura 2000 sites will need to be taken into account. This will be undertaken as part of the next stage in the HRA, i.e. the Appropriate Assessment, and will require advice and input from NE and EA officers with in- depth local knowledge of the Natura 2000 sites.

- 45 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

7.2.5. In accordance with the Nature Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations, NE is being consulted on this HRA Screening Report to obtain the views of the statutory nature conservation body on the likely impacts of the Joint Waste Core Strategy on the Natura 2000 sites. Although it is not a statutory requirement, EA is also being consulted.

7.2.6. A full HRA Report, including the findings of the Appropriate Assessment stage and any consultation responses on this Screening Report will be published alongside the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy Preferred Options in Autumn 2009.

- 46 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats R egulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

8 Appendix A: HRA Screening Matrix

Colour coding used RED Significant impact likely ORANGE Significant impact uncertain GREEN Significant impact unlikely :

Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site and surface water are considered to be unlikely. Physical Damage to Habitat: ♦ Initial land take There are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for locating Sedimentation / Silting ♦ Excavation of site new waste facilities adjacent, or in close proximity to, any rivers or ♦ Transport of building canals that are within 1km of Bees Nest and Green Clay Pits SAC, as materials on/off site the SAC is not within the County. As such, significant impacts from sedimentation/silting resulting from construction activity are considered to be unlikely. Brown Moss SAC (Whitchurch, Shropshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There is only one minor river within 1km of the Brown Moss SAC, and As there are no urban settlements or Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill there are no urban settlements or opportunity areas within 1km of the opportunities for locating waste facilities Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown river, as the SAC is on the edge of the 15km boundary. As such, in close proximity, significant impacts in waters and liquids significant impacts from the discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. combination with other plans are ♦ Discharge of scrubber leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber water) into ground unlikely. water from thermal and surface water are considered to be unlikely. treatment ♦ Emissions from road Both the A41 and A525 pass within 1km of the river. However, there are transport no potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities in close proximity to any of these roads, nor do they lead to any urban settlements, so it is considered unlikely these roads are currently used, or will be used in the future, for waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be unlikely. Biological Disturbance: ♦ Introduced species from There are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for locating Introduction of new Habitats open air windrow new waste facilities within 500m of Brown Moss SAC, as the SAC is on / Species composting the edge of the 15km boundary. As such, significant impacts from the introduction of new habitats/species resulting from open air windrow composting are considered to be unlikely. Physical Damage to Habitat: ♦ Initial land take There are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for locating Sedimentation / Silting ♦ Excavation of site new waste facilities adjacent, or in close proximity to, any rivers or ♦ Transport of building canals that are within 1km of Brown Moss SAC, as the SAC is on the - 48 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site materials on/off site edge of the 15km boundary. As such, significant impacts from sedimentation/silting resulting from construction activity are considered to be unlikely. Cannock Chase SAC (Cannock, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from thermal There is a settlement of significant development (Stafford) and two Both Cannock and Rugeley are Air Pollution treatment other large settlements (Cannock and Rugeley) within 10km of identified as ‘Other Large Settlements’ Cannock Chase. There are also a significant number of potential and ‘Local Regeneration Zones’ in the opportunities for locating new waste facilities within, and in close West Midlands RSS Preferred Options. proximity to, these urban areas. As such, significant impacts from air Future housing and economic emissions resulting from thermal treatment processes are considered to development will therefore take place in be likely. these locations, including 5,800 ♦ Air emissions from road Cannock Chase SAC is within 200m of a primary road (A513) likely to dwellings in Cannock District from transport be used now, and in the future, for waste facilities, as it provides a link 2006-2026. This development is likely between two urban settlements (Stafford and Rugeley). As such, to result in some further toxic and non- significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction toxic emissions as a result of materials are considered to be likely. construction, transport and employment Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from dust or Two large settlements, Cannock and Rugeley, extend within 1km of uses. Air Pollution bioaerosols from outdoor Cannock Chase SAC. There are also five potential opportunities for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Local operations locating new waste facilities on the edge of Cannock within 1km of Transport Plan identifies Rugeley Cannock Chase SAC. As such, significant impacts from air emissions Bypass as a priority for investment and from dust or bioaerosols as a result of outdoor operations are was opened in September 2007. considered to be uncertain. Further transport emissions (toxic and ♦ Air emissions from road Cannock Chase SAC is within 200m of a primary road (A513) likely to non-toxic) are likely as a result. transport be used now, and in the future, for waste facilities, as it provides a link The HRA of the Phase II Revisions of between two urban settlements (Stafford and Rugeley). As such, the WMRSS identifies Cannock Chase significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction SAC as being exposed to high levels of materials are considered to be likely. disturbance caused by tourism and recreation. Any in combination effects as a result of waste management facilities could have an adverse impact on the SAC. - 49 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Cannock Extension Canal SAC (Cannock, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate In addition to Cannock Extension Canal, there is another canal and a Cannock is identified as an ‘Other Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill minor river within 1km of the Cannock Extension Canal SAC. There are Large Settlement’ and ‘Local Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown a small concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste Regeneration Zone’ in the West waters and liquids facilities within 1km of the river and canals. As such, significant impacts Midlands RSS Preferred Options. ♦ Discharge of scrubber from the discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. leachate, washdown Future housing and economic water from thermal waters and liquids and scrubber water) into ground and surface water development will therefore take place in treatment are considered to be likely. these locations, including 5,800 ♦ Emissions from road The A5 passes within 1km of the Cannock Extension Canal, providing a dwellings in Cannock District from transport primary route to Cannock, which has a high concentration of potential 2006-2026. opportunities for locating new waste facilities. The A34 and A461 also pass within 1km of a canal that is within 1km of the Cannock Extension This development may result in toxic Canal SAC, with the A461 providing a primary route to Lichfield, which and non-toxic contaminants as a result also has a concentration of potential opportunities for locating new of construction, transport and waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste employment uses. and construction materials are considered to be likely. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate In addition to Cannock Extension Canal, there is another canal and a No priorities for investment in road Nutrient Enrichment ♦ Operational spill minor river within 1km of the Cannock Extension Canal SAC. Although transport in the vicinity are identified in ♦ Discharge of washdown the SAC is not within a Ground Water Source Protection Zone, there the RSS or Local Transport Plan. waters and liquids are a small concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the river and canals. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be likely. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of washdown In addition to Cannock Extension Canal, there is another canal and a Changes in Turbidity waters and liquids minor river within 1km of the Cannock Extension Canal SAC. Although the SAC is not within a Ground Water Source Protection Zone, there are a small concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the river and canals. As such, significant impacts from the discharge washdown waters and liquids into ground and surface water are considered to be likely. Changes to Hydrology: ♦ Increase in hardstanding There are a small number of potential opportunities for locating new Cannock is identified as an ‘Other - 50 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Flooding / Storm Water area waste facilities (previously developed land) within 1km of Cannock Large Settlement’ and ‘Local Extension Canal SAC, and so any additional waste management Regeneration Zone’ in the West facilities would likely be on existing hardstanding. However, this could Midlands RSS Preferred Options. potentially result in the expansion of existing hardstanding area of Future housing and economic potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the development will therefore take place in SAC. As such, significant impacts from the increase in hardstanding these locations, including 5,800 area are considered to be uncertain. dwellings in Cannock District from 2006-2026.

This development may result in an increase in the area of hardstanding in close proximity to Cannock Extension Canal, making significant impacts uncertain in combination with other plans. Ensor’s Pool SAC (Nuneaton, Warwickshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There is only one minor river within 1km of Ensor’s Pool SAC, and there As there are opportunities for locating Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities in close proximity, Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown waste facilities within 1km of this river, as the SAC is on the edge of the significant impacts in combination with waters and liquids 15km boundary. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of toxic other plans are unlikely. ♦ Discharge of scrubber contaminants (i.e. leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber water from thermal water) into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. treatment ♦ Emissions from road There are no primary roads that pass within 1km of the minor river that transport is within 1km of Ensor’s Pool SAC. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be unlikely. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of washdown There is only one minor river within 1km of Ensor’s Pool SAC, and there Changes in Turbidity waters and liquids are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of this river, as the SAC is on the edge of the

- 51 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site 15km boundary. Furthermore, the SAC is not within a Ground Water Source Protection Zone. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of washdown waters and liquids into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. Physical Damage to Habitat: ♦ Initial land take There are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for locating Sedimentation / Silting ♦ Excavation of site new waste facilities adjacent, or in close proximity to, any rivers or ♦ Transport of building canals that are within 1km of Ensor’s Pool SAC, as the SAC is on the materials on/off site edge of the 15km boundary. As such, significant impacts from sedimentation/silting resulting from construction activity are considered to be unlikely. Fens Pool SAC (Dudley) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There is only one minor river and a canal within 1km of Fens Pool SAC; Birmingham is identified as a Major Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill however there are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for Urban Area and Dudley is identified as Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown locating new waste facilities within 1km of the river and canal. As such, a Housing Renewal Area and Urban waters and liquids significant impacts from the discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. Regeneration Zone in the West ♦ Discharge of scrubber leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber water) into ground Midlands RSS. water from thermal and surface water are considered to be unlikely. treatment The potential for new housing ♦ Emissions from road Both the A491 and A4101 pass within 1km of the river and canal that development will therefore be transport are within 1km of Fens Pool SAC, and the SAC is also within 200m of maximised and further economic the A4101. However, only the A491 provides a primary route to several development is likely in close proximity. potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction The potential for emissions from materials are considered to be uncertain. increased road transport, nutrient Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There is only one minor river and a canal within 1km of Fens Pool SAC; enrichment and physical damage make significant impacts uncertain in Nutrient Enrichment ♦ Operational spill however there are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for combination with other plans. ♦ Discharge of washdown locating new waste facilities within 1km of the river and canal. waters and liquids Furthermore, the SAC is not within a Ground Water Source Protection Zone. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. - 52 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Physical Damage to Habitat: ♦ Initial land take There are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for locating Sedimentation / Silting ♦ Excavation of site new waste facilities adjacent, or in close proximity to any rivers or ♦ Transport of building canals that are within 1km of Fens Pool SAC. As such, significant materials on/off site impacts from sedimentation/silting resulting from construction activity are considered to be unlikely. Gang Mine SAC (Middleton, Derbyshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from thermal There are no urban settlements within 10km of Gang Mine SAC and As there are opportunities for locating Air Pollution treatment there are also no potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities waste facilities in close proximity, within 10km of the SAC, as the SAC is on the edge of the 15km significant impacts in combination with boundary. As such, significant impacts from air emissions resulting from other plans are unlikely. thermal treatment processes are considered to be unlikely.

♦ Air emissions from road Gang Mine SAC is not within 200m of any primary road. As such, transport significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be unlikely. Non-Toxic contamination: ♦ Air emissions from dust or There are no urban settlements within 1km Gang Mine SAC and there Air Pollution bioaerosols from outdoor are also no potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities operations within 1km of the SAC, as the SAC is on the edge of the 15km boundary. As such, significant impacts from air emissions from dust or bioaerosols as a result of outdoor operations are considered to be unlikely. ♦ Air emissions from road Gang Mine SAC is not within 200m of any primary road. As such, transport significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be unlikely.

- 53 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Mottey Meadows SAC (Wheaton Aston, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are two minor rivers and a canal within 1km of Mottey Meadows No major housing or economic Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill SAC; however there are no urban settlements and only one opportunity development is planned in close Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown area within 1km of any of the rivers. As such, significant impacts from proximity to this SAC and there are no waters and liquids the discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. leachate, washdown waters planned improvements to the A5. In- ♦ Discharge of scrubber and liquids and scrubber water) into ground and surface water are combination effects are therefore water from thermal considered to be unlikely. unlikely. treatment ♦ Emissions from road The A5 passes within 1km of a minor river and canal that are within transport 1km of Mottey Meadows SAC, providing a primary route to a large settlement (Cannock), which has a significant concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are two minor rivers and a canal within 1km of Mottey Meadows Nutrient Enrichment ♦ Operational spill SAC; however there are no urban settlements and only one opportunity ♦ Discharge of washdown area within 1km of any of the rivers. Furthermore, the SAC is not within waters and liquids a Ground Water Source Protection Zone. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC (Hixon, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate The River Trent, a minor river and a canal are within 1km of the SAC, Stafford is identified as a ‘Settlement of Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill and although there are no urban settlements within 1km of any of the Significant Development Beyond Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown rivers, Stafford is in close proximity to the site. There is also a MUAs’, and 10,100 additional dwellings waters and liquids concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities are proposed in the West Midlands ♦ Discharge of scrubber within 1km of the SAC. Furthermore, the SAC is dependent on the RSS. Stafford is also identified as a water from thermal supply of brine from groundwater and is vulnerable to nutrient ‘Local Regeneration Area’. treatment enrichment, particularly from flooding of the River Trent. As such, The construction and operation of significant impacts from the discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. further housing and economic leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber water) into ground development may result in significant

- 54 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site and surface water are considered to be likely. impacts in combination with the Waste Core Strategy. Rugely bypass may be increasing the amount of traffic along the A51, making significant impacts more likely in ♦ Emissions from road The A51 runs within 1km of the Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and is a relation to water pollution as a result of transport primary route to a large settlement (Rugeley), which has a large road emissions. concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. The HRA of the Phase II Revisions of However, Rugeley is downstream of the SAC. As such, significant the WMRSS identifies Pasturefields impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are SAC as being at risk of pollution from considered to be unlikely. nutrient loadings associated with Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC is not within a Ground Water Source sewage discharges. Nutrient Enrichment ♦ Operational spill Protection Zone The River Trent a minor river and a canal are within ♦ Discharge of washdown 1km of the SAC, and although there are no urban settlements within waters and liquids 1km of any of the rivers, Stafford is in close proximity to the site. There is also a concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the SAC. Furthermore, the SAC is dependent on the supply of brine from groundwater and is vulnerable to nutrient enrichment, particularly from flooding of the River Trent. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be likely. Peak District Dales SAC (Peak District, Staffordshire and Derbyshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from thermal There are no urban settlements within 10km of the Peak District Dales As there are no urban settlements or Air Pollution treatment SAC; however there are a small number of potential opportunities for opportunities for locating waste facilities locating new waste facilities within 10km of the southern part of the in close proximity to the Peak District SAC, which is on the County border. As such, significant impacts from Dales SAC, in combination effects are air emissions resulting from thermal treatment processes are unlikely. considered to be uncertain.

- 55 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site ♦ Air emissions from road There are five primary roads that cut through the Peak District Dales Furthermore, other plans do not transport SAC (A623, A6, A5270, A515 and A5012). The SAC is within 200m of propose major development or the A5012. However, there are no potential opportunities for locating transport improvements in the vicinity of new waste facilities in close proximity to any of this road and so it is this site. considered unlikely this road is currently used, or will be used in the The HRA of the Phase II Revisions of future, for transporting waste. As such, significant impacts from the the WMRSS identifies Peak District transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be Dales SAC as being exposed to high unlikely. levels of disturbance caused by tourism Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from dust or There are no urban settlements within 1km of the Peak District Dales and recreation. Any in combination Air Pollution bioaerosols from outdoor SAC, and there are also no potential opportunities for locating new effects as a result of waste operations waste facilities within 1km of the SAC. As such, significant impacts from management facilities could have an air emissions from dust or bioaerosols as a result of outdoor operations adverse impact on the SAC. are considered to be unlikely. ♦ Air emissions from road There are five primary roads that cut through the Peak District Dales transport SAC (A623, A6, A5270, A515 and A5012). The SAC is within 200m of the A5012. However, there are no potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities in close proximity to any of this road and so it is considered unlikely this road is currently used, or will be used in the future, for transporting waste. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be unlikely. Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are a significant number of main, secondary and minor rivers Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill within 1km of the Peak District Dales SAC, including the River Dove; Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown however there are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for waters and liquids locating new waste facilities within 1km of any of the rivers. As such, ♦ Discharge of scrubber significant impacts from the discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. water from thermal leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber water) into ground treatment and surface water are considered to be unlikely.

- 56 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Pos sible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site ♦ Emissions from road There are a number of primary roads that pass within 1km of a river that transport is within 1km of the Peak District Dales SAC, such as the A5012, A515, A52, A523, A6 and the A6020. In particular, the A523 is a primary route to Leek, where there is a concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are a significant number of main, secondary and minor rivers Nutrient Enrichment ♦ Operational spill within 1km of the Peak District Dales SAC, including the River Dove; ♦ Discharge of washdown however there are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for waters and liquids locating new waste facilities within 1km of any of the rivers. Furthermore, the SAC is not within a Ground Water Source Protection Zone. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. River Mease SAC (Staffordshire and Derbyshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate The River Trent, the River Mease, a number of minor rivers and a canal Burton-Upon-Trent is identified in the Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill are within 1km of the River Mease SAC. There are no urban West Midlands RSS as a ‘Settlement of Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown settlements within 1km of any of the rivers, but a settlement of Significant Development Beyond waters and liquids significant development (Burton-upon-Trent) is in close proximity to the MUAs’ with 11,000 new dwellings ♦ Discharge of scrubber River Trent. There are also a small number of potential opportunities for proposed from 2006-2026. It is also water from thermal locating new waste facilities within 1km of the River Trent. However, identified as a ‘Local Regeneration treatment Burton-upon-Trent and the potential opportunities for locating new Area’. waste facilities are downstream of the River Mease SAC. As such, There is therefore potential for toxic significant impacts from the discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. and non-toxic contamination as a result leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber water) into ground of the construction and operation of and surface water are considered to be unlikely. further housing and economic

- 57 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site ♦ Emissions from road The River Mease falls within 200m of the A513, which provides a link development and increased transport, transport between Tamworth and Rugeley, where there are also two making significant impacts likely in concentrations of potential opportunities for locating new waste combination with the Waste Core facilities. Similarly, the A38 crosses over the River Trent and passes Strategy. within 1km of the River Trent, providing a link between two large The HRA of the Phase II Revisions of settlements (Burton-upon-Trent and Lichfield), where potential the WMRSS identifies the River Mease opportunities for locating new waste facilities exist. However, the River as being at risk of pollution from Mease SAC is downstream of the A513 and A38. As such, significant surface water run-off as well as nutrient impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are loadings associated with sewage considered to be unlikely. discharges. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate The River Trent, the River Mease, a number of minor rivers and a canal Nutrient Enrichment ♦ Operational spill are within 1km of the River Mease SAC. There are no urban ♦ Discharge of washdown settlements within 1km of any of the rivers, but Burton-upon-Trent is in waters and liquids close proximity to the River Trent. There are also a small number of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the River Trent and part of the SAC is within an inner and outer zone of a Ground Water Source Protection Zone. However, Burton-upon-Trent and the potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities are downstream of the River Mease SAC. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. South Pennine Moors SAC (Peak District, Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Cheshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from thermal There are no urban settlements within 10km of the South Pennine No major development or road Air Pollution treatment Moors SAC; however there is a small concentration of potential improvements are proposed in close opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 10km of the SAC. proximity to the South Pennines Moors As such, significant impacts from air emissions resulting from thermal SAC, making in combination effects treatment processes are considered to be likely. unlikely.

- 58 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site ♦ Air emissions from road There are four primary roads that cut through the South Pennine Moors The HRA of the Phase II Revisions of transport SAC (A53, A54, A537 and the A5004), and so the SAC is within 200m the WMRSS identifies South Pennine of the primary road network. The A53 is more likely to be used for Moors SAC as being exposed to high transporting waste as there are a number of potential opportunities for levels of disturbance caused by tourism locating new waste facilities situated alongside the road at Leek. As and recreation. Any in combination these sites are in close proximity to the SAC, significant impacts from effects as a result of waste the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be management facilities could have an uncertain. adverse impact on the SAC. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from dust or There are no urban settlements within 1km of the South Pennine Moors Air Pollution bioaerosols from outdoor SAC. Furthermore, there are only two potential opportunities for operations locating new waste facilities within 1km of the SAC. As such, significant impacts from air emissions from dust or bioaerosols as a result of outdoor operations are considered to be unlikely. ♦ Air emissions from road There are four primary roads that cut through the South Pennine Moors transport SAC (A53, A54, A537 and the A5004), and so the SAC is within 200m of the primary road network. However, the A53 is more likely to be used for transporting waste as there are a number of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities situated alongside the road at Leek. As these sites are in close proximity to the SAC, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain. West Midlands Mosses: Chartley Moss SAC (also a Ramsar site) (Stowe-by-Chartley, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There is both a secondary and a minor river within 1km of Chartley No major development or road Water Pollution / ♦ Operational spill Moss SAC; however there are no urban settlements or potential improvements are proposed in close Contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the two proximity to Chartley Moss SAC, waters and liquids rivers. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of toxic making in combination effects unlikely. ♦ Discharge of scrubber contaminants (i.e. leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber water from thermal water) into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. treatment

- 59 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site ♦ Emissions from road The A518 passes within 1km of the secondary river that is within 1km of transport Chartley Moss SAC, providing a link between Stafford (a site of significant development) and Uttoxeter, where there are concentrations of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There is both a secondary and a minor river within 1km of Chartley Nutrient Enrichment ♦ Operational spill Moss SAC; however there are no urban settlements or potential ♦ Discharge of washdown opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the two waters and liquids rivers. Furthermore, the SAC is not within a Ground Water Source Protection Zone. An existing waste site located 1.5km from the SAC could potentially expand, which could have an impact on the SAC, however Natural England do not anticipate any additional risk from expanding waste activity at the site. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from thermal There is a settlement of significant development (Stafford) and a large Air Pollution treatment settlement (Rugeley) within 10km of Chartley Moss SAC. There are ♦ Air emissions from road also a small number of potential opportunities for locating new waste transport facilities within 10km of the SAC. As such, significant impacts from air emissions resulting from thermal treatment processes are considered to be likely. There are no primary roads that cut through the Chartley Moss SAC, and the SAC is not within 200m of the primary road network. However, the A518 (+200m buffer) runs along the edge of the northern part of the SAC, providing a link between Stafford (a settlement of significant development) and Uttoxeter, where there are concentrations of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain.

- 60 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from dust or There are no urban settlements within 1km of the Chartley Moss SAC, Air Pollution bioaerosols from outdoor and there are also no potential opportunities for locating new waste operations facilities within 1km of the SAC. An existing waste site located 1.5km ♦ Air emissions from road from the SAC could potentially expand, which could have an impact on transport the SAC, however Natural England do not anticipate any additional risk from expanding waste activity at the site. As such, significant impacts from air emissions from dust or bioaerosols as a result of outdoor operations are considered to be unlikely. There are no primary roads that cut through the Chartley Moss SAC, and so the SAC is not within 200m of the primary road network. However, the A518 (+200m buffer) runs along the edge of the northern part of the SAC, providing a link between Stafford (a site of significant development) and Uttoxeter, where there are concentrations of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain.

- 61 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Special Protection Areas (SPAs)

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Peak District Moors (South Penine Moors Phase 1) SPA (Peak District, Staffordshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from thermal There are no urban settlements within 10km of the Peak District Moors No major development or road Air Pollution treatment SPA; however there are a significant number of potential opportunities improvements are proposed in close ♦ Air emissions from road for locating new waste facilities within 10km of the SPA. As such, proximity to the Peak District Moors transport significant impacts from air emissions resulting from thermal treatment SPA, making in combination effects processes are considered to be likely. unlikely. There are four primary roads that cut through the Peak District Moors SPA (A6, A54, A537 and the A5004), and so the SPA is within 200m of the primary road network. However, the A6 is more likely to be used for transporting waste as there are a number of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities situated alongside the road at Leek. As these sites are in close proximity to the SPA, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Air emissions from dust or There are no urban settlements within 1km of the Peak District Moors Air Pollution bioaerosols from outdoor SPA. Furthermore, there are only two potential opportunities for locating operations new waste facilities within 1km of the SPA. As such, significant impacts ♦ Air emissions from road from air emissions from dust or bioaerosols as a result of outdoor transport operations are considered to be unlikely. There are four primary roads that cut through the Peak District Moors SPA (A6, A54, A537 and the A5004), and so the SPA is within 200m of the primary road network. However, the A6 is more likely to be used for transporting waste as there are a number of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities situated alongside the road at Leek. As these sites are in close proximity to the SPA, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain.

- 62 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Ramsar Sites

Note that those Ramsar Sites highlighted in light yellow can not be assessed at this stage as site vulnerabilities need to be confirmed by Natural England.

Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar – Betley Mere (Betley, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are two minor rivers within 1km of Betley Mere Ramsar and two Water pollution / ♦ Operational spill potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the No major development or road contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown two rivers. The site is in close proximity to Stoke-on-Trent, which has a improvements are proposed in close waters and liquids significant concentration of potential opportunities for locating new proximity to Betley Mere, making in ♦ Discharge of scrubber waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of toxic combination effects unlikely. water from thermal contaminants (i.e. leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber treatment water) into ground and surface water are considered to be uncertain. ♦ Emissions from road The A531, A500 and the A5020 pass within 1km of the two rivers. Both transport of the potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities are located within 200m of the A531, so it is likely this road is currently used for waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are two minor rivers within 1km of Betley Mere Ramsar and two Nutrient enrichment ♦ Operational spill potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the ♦ Discharge of washdown two rivers. The Ramsar is not within a Ground Water Source Protection waters and liquids Zone; however the site is in close proximity to Stoke-on-Trent, which has a significant concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be uncertain.

- 63 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Physical Damage to Habitat: ♦ Initial land take There are no urban settlements and only one potential opportunity for Sedimentation / silting ♦ Excavation of site locating a new waste facility adjacent to a river within 1km of Betley ♦ Transport of building Mere Ramsar. As such, significant impacts from sedimentation/silting materials on/off site resulting from construction activity are considered to be unlikely. Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar – Brown Moss

Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 1 Ramsar – Wybunbury Moss

Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Aqualate Mere (Newport, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are four minor rivers within 1km of Aqualate Mere Ramsar, but Water pollution / ♦ Operational spill there are no urban settlements or potential opportunities for locating No major development or road contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown new waste facilities within 1km of the rivers. As such, significant improvements are proposed in close waters and liquids impacts from the discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. leachate, proximity to Aqualate Mere, making in ♦ Discharge of scrubber washdown waters and liquids and scrubber water) into ground and combination effects unlikely. water from thermal surface water are considered to be unlikely. treatment ♦ Emissions from road The A41, A518 and A519 pass within 1km of the rivers. There are no transport potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities in close proximity to these roads, however the A518 leads to a settlement of significant development (Stafford), and so could be currently used, or will be used in the future, for waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain.

- 64 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are four minor rivers within 1km of Aqualate Mere Ramsar. The Nutrient enrichment ♦ Operational spill Ramsar is within a total catchment of a Ground Water Source ♦ Discharge of washdown Protection Zone, but there are no urban settlements or potential waters and liquids opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the rivers. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be unlikely. Physical Damage to Habitat: ♦ Initial land take There are no urban settlements and no potential opportunities for Sedimentation / silting ♦ Excavation of site locating new waste facilities adjacent to a river within 1km of Aqualate ♦ Transport of building Mere Ramsar. As such, significant impacts from sedimentation/silting materials on/off site resulting from construction activity are considered to be unlikely. Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Black Firs & Cranberry Bog (Ballerley, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are two minor rivers within 1km of Black Firs and Cranberry Bog Water pollution / ♦ Operational spill Ramsar and two potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities No major development or road contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown within 1km of the two rivers. The site is in close proximity to Stoke-on- improvements are proposed in close waters and liquids Trent, which has a significant concentration of potential opportunities for proximity to Black Firs and Cranberry ♦ Discharge of scrubber locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the Bog, making in combination effects water from thermal discharge of toxic contaminants (i.e. leachate, washdown waters and unlikely. treatment liquids and scrubber water) into ground and surface water are considered to be uncertain. ♦ Emissions from road The A531, A500 and the A5020 pass within 1km of the two rivers. Both transport of the potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities are located within 200m of the A531, so it is likely this road is currently used for waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain.

- 65 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are two minor rivers within 1km of Black Firs and Cranberry Bog Nutrient enrichment ♦ Operational spill Ramsar and two potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities ♦ Discharge of washdown within 1km of the two rivers. The Ramsar is not within a Ground Water waters and liquids Source Protection Zone; however the site is in close proximity to Stoke- on-Trent, which has a significant concentration of potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be uncertain. Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Cop Mere (Eccleshall, Staffordshire) Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are three minor rivers within 1km of Cop Mere Ramsar and three Water pollution / ♦ Operational spill potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the No major development or road contamination ♦ Discharge of washdown three rivers. However, there are no urban settlements within 1km of the improvements are proposed in close waters and liquids three rivers. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of toxic proximity to Cop Mere, making in ♦ Discharge of scrubber contaminants (i.e. leachate, washdown waters and liquids and scrubber combination effects unlikely. water from thermal water) into ground and surface water are considered to be uncertain. treatment ♦ Emissions from road The A519 passes within 1km of the rivers within 1km of Cop Mere transpor Ramsar, and one of the potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities is located within 200m of the A519. The A519 also provides a primary route to Stoke-on-Trent. As such, significant impacts from the transport of waste and construction materials are considered to be uncertain. Non-Toxic Contamination: ♦ Discharge of leachate There are three minor rivers within 1km of Cop Mere Ramsar and three Nutrient enrichment ♦ Operational spill potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities within 1km of the ♦ Discharge of washdown three rivers. However, there are no urban settlements within 1km of the waters and liquids three rivers and the Ramsar is not within a Ground Water Source Protection Zone. As such, significant impacts from the discharge of non-toxic contaminants into ground and surface water are considered to be uncertain.

- 66 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

Key environmental Possible impacts arising Is there likely to be a significant impact on key features? Are significant impacts likely in impacts and vulnerabilities from broad locations combination with other plans? likely to affect the site Physical Damage to Habitat: ♦ Initial land take There are no urban settlements adjacent, or in close proximity, to any Sedimentation / silting ♦ Excavation of site rivers within 1km of Cop Mere Ramsar. However there are three ♦ Transport of building potential opportunities for locating new waste facilities either adjacent or materials on/off site in close proximity to the three rivers within 1km of Cop Mere Ramsar. As such, significant impacts from sedimentation/silting resulting from construction activity are considered to be uncertain. Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Oakhanger Moss

Midlands Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar – Oss Mere

- 67 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

9 Appendix B: Maps to Support HRA Screening

To view maps, please load HRA Screening Maps from list of supporting documents.

♦ Natura 2000 Sites within & in Close Proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent with 500m Buffer

♦ Natura 2000 Sites within & in Close Proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent with 1km Buffer

♦ Natura 2000 Sites within & in Close Proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent with 10km Buffer

♦ Water Features within 1km of Natura 2000 Sites within & in Close Proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

♦ Source Protection Zones within 1km of Natura 2000 Sites within & in Close Proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire & Stoke-on-Trent

♦ Natura 2000 Sites within & in Close Proximity (<15km) to Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent and Primary Road Network

- 68 -

Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Joint Waste Core Strategy DPD Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening of Draft Issues and Options September 2008

This page is intentionally blank

- 69 -