Axbridge

Neighbourhood Plan

HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

April 2021

1

This report was prepared by Ecology Services (a consultancy) on behalf of Town Council, as the 'competent authority' under the Conservation of and Species Regulations 2017 (and as amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019).

Copyright The maps in this report are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. (Somerset County Council)(100038382)(2020).

2 Contents

1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Methodology ...... 5 3. Characteristics and description of the European sites ...... 9 4. Stage 1: Test of Likely Significant Effect ...... 19 5. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment...... 32 6. Conclusion ...... 37

3 1. Introduction

1 This report details the findings of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process of the Axbridge Neighbourhood Plan – Final Submission Draft (Version 8) [the ‘Neighbourhood Plan’]. As the ‘competent authority’ under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended by the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019), Axbridge Town Council is required to assess the Neighbourhood Plan through the HRA process as policies and site allocations in the plans can potentially affect the National Site Network of European sites in the UK, as well as Ramsar sites.

2 The Neighbourhood Plan sets out the Town Council’s vision and strategic objectives which states that: ‘Axbridge is unique. It will need to respond positively to the Environment and Emergency. The town will need to accommodate sustainable housing and employment growth. These challenges will be met by ensuring that new developments meet sound sustainable objectives whilst ensuring that opportunities for appropriate housing and business, focussed on the needs of the community are delivered. The vibrant community spirit, historic background and local countryside, so valued by its residents will be preserved and enhanced’.

3 A Neighbourhood Plan should support the strategic development needs set out in the Local Plan and plan positively to support local development (as outlined in paragraph 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019)1 In this case the Axbridge Neighbourhood Plan should support policy in the District Council Local Plan 2011 - 2032.

4 The National Site Network of European sites in the UK include Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended)2. In addition, as a matter of Government policy, all Ramsar sites as if they are fully designated European sites for the purpose of considering development proposals that may affect them.

5 A HRA is simply an assessment, which must be appropriate to its purpose under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). Under regulation 63 (1), before authorising a plan, which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, and is not connected to the management of the site, the competent authority shall assess the implications for the site in view of its conservation objectives.

6 The purpose of HRA of land use plans is to ensure that protection of the integrity of European sites is a part of the planning process at a regional and local level.

1 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/what-is-neighbourhood- planning/what-is-a-neighbourhood-plan-and-what-is-its-relationship-to-a-local-plan/ 2 https://communications.freeths.co.uk/44/1637/october-2020/the-habitats-regulations-assessment-regime-after-31- december-2020---how-will-it-look-.asp?sid=dbd50700-313d-4786-ab30-1a5414950e34.

4 2. Methodology

Process

7 Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) requires a competent authority, before deciding to undertake or give consent for a plan or project which (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or project), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, to make an ‘appropriate assessment’ of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of its conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment, the competent authority may proceed with or consent to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.

8 All plans and projects should identify any such possible effects early in the plan/project making process and then either alter the plan/project to avoid them or introduce mitigation measures to the point where no adverse effects remain. The competent authority is to agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, having obtained the opinion of the general public.

9 There are effectively four stages to the Assessment. Stage 1 is the assessment of the likelihood of a plan or project having a significant effect on a European site or its features. This is the trigger for the need for an Appropriate Assessment as set out in Regulation 63(1). The Appropriate Assessment (Stage 2) is the detailed consideration of the potential effects of the plan or project in relation to the conservation objectives for the European site to determine if there is likely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the site (i.e. an effect that would compromise the site meeting its conservation objectives). Providing it can be demonstrated that with appropriate mitigation measures, the plan or project would not give rise to an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site, the plan or project can proceed.

10 Where, however, this cannot be demonstrated or there is uncertainty, the Assessment would then need to consider if there were any other alternatives to the plan or project (Stage 3) that would not give rise to adverse effects on integrity of the European site. If there are no alternatives, Stage 4 would then, consider if there are any imperative reasons of overriding public interest and whether there were any compensatory measures that might be required.

11 Stage 1, the ‘significance’ test, of the HRA process, acts as a coarse filter for all proposed plans or projects which are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site (whether or not the effect is likely to be adverse or beneficial) so directing conservation interest of the site to be at the forefront of decision-making (English

5 Nature, 1999)3.

12 The preliminary considerations of the HRA process is to consider and record the features for which the site has been selected and the conservation objectives for the site. In all cases, the following need to be recorded:

• What are the SAC/SPA/Ramsar qualifying interest features? • What are the SAC/SPA/Ramsar conservation objectives? • What other relevant site information is available? e.g. site management plans (SAC, SPA, European marine site, SSSI, NNR), list of operations which may cause damage or deterioration.

13 A ‘likely significant effect’ is any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that may affect the conservation objectives of the features for which the site was designated, but excluding trivial or inconsequential effects. Permanent reductions in area or species populations are likely to be significant unless they are very small scale (English Nature, 1999)2. In some cases, the loss of 0.01% an area of habitat has been considered significant by the Secretary of State (Chapman & Tyldesley, 2016)4. The magnitude of the impact needs to be considered in judging what is significant.

14 Natural England (English Nature, 1999)2 set out considerations for carrying out Stage 1 of the HRA process, the test of significance. The principle guidance states that ‘Consideration of ‘likely significant effect’ will have practical and legal consequences and must be based on sound judgement and bear scientific or expert scrutiny.’ In addition, ‘Proposals having no, or de minimis, effects can be progressed without further consideration under the Habitats Regulations although reasons for reaching this decision must be justified and recorded.’

15 However, Natural England state that, ‘… if a clear judgement cannot be made on the basis of available information, then an appropriate assessment [Stage 2 of the HRA process] will be required’’ (English Nature, 1999)2.

16 A decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C-323/17)) means that mitigation (avoidance and reduction) measures may no longer be taken into account by competent authorities at the HRA ‘screening stage’, i.e. when judging whether a proposed plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site5.

3 English Nature. 1999. Habitats Regulation Guidance Note 3: The Determination of Likely Significant Effect under The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. 4 Chapman, C. & Tyldesley, D. 2016. Functional linkage: How areas that are functionally linked to European sites have been considered when they may be affected by plans and projects - a review of authoritative decisions. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 207. 5 ‘… the CJEU has confirmed previously in Briels that protective measures forming part of that project aimed at avoiding or reducing any direct adverse effects for the site can be relied upon at the appropriate assessment stage of

6 17 Stage 1, the ‘test of significance’ needs to consider the following:

• What potential hazards are likely to affect the interest features? Are the interest features potentially exposed to the hazard? • Is the potential scale or magnitude of any effect likely to be significant alone or in combination with other projects or plans?

18 The Neighbourhood Plan is looked at in isolation and in combination with plans or projects within the vicinity of the European Site that have the likelihood for a significant effect.

19 For the purpose of completeness, projects where planning applications had been submitted to, or which are consented but not built, with the potential to affect the identified European sites were considered.

20 If any of the identified pathways of potential effects to the European sites from the proposed development either alone or in combination are considered likely to be significant then a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment would need to be carried out.

21 The Appropriate Assessment (Stage 2) is the detailed consideration of the potential effects of the plan or project in relation to the conservation objectives for the European site to determine if there is likely to be an adverse effect on the integrity of the site (i.e. an effect that would compromise the site meeting its conservation objectives). Providing it can be demonstrated that with appropriate mitigation measures, the plan or project would not give rise to an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site, the plan or project can proceed.

22 Where, however, this cannot be demonstrated or there is uncertainty, the Assessment would then need to consider, under regulation 64, if there were any other alternatives to the plan or project (Stage 3) that would not give rise to adverse effects on integrity of the European site. If there are no alternatives, Stage 4 would then, consider if there are any imperative reasons of overriding public interest and whether there were any compensatory measures that might be required.

the HRA process, in order to conclude that a project does not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.’ (Freeths, http://www.freeths.co.uk/2018/04/19/environmental-bulletin-spring-2018/#menu).

7 Table 1. Stages of the Habitats Regulations Assessment process.

Stage Description

The process to identify the likely impacts of a project upon the European site, either alone or in combination with other plans Test of Likely and projects and consider whether the impacts are likely to be 1 Significant Effect significant. Specific mitigation (avoidance and reduction) (TOLSE) measures are no longer taken into account at the HRA ‘screening stage’.

The consideration of the impacts on the integrity of the European site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with regard to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Where there are adverse impacts, an Appropriate 2 assessment of potential mitigation is carried out to determine if Assessment there is an overall adverse effect on the integrity of the site. If these mitigation options cannot avoid adverse effects, then development consent can only be given if Stages 3 and 4 are followed.

Examining alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the Assessment of 3 project to establish whether there are solutions that would avoid Alternative Solutions or have a lesser effect on the European site.

Assessment where no alternative solution exists and where Imperative reasons adverse impacts remain. The process to assess whether the 4 of over-riding public development is necessary for IROPI and, if so, the compensatory interest (IROPI) measures needed to maintain the overall coherence of the site or integrity of the European site network.

Precautionary principle

23 When carrying out this screening, it must be viewed as a coarse filter and therefore a ‘precautionary approach’ has been taken in the assessment of significant effect. National guidance sets out a number of principles as to how to approach decision making during the process6. The primary one is the precautionary principle, which requires that the conservation objectives of European sites should prevail where there is uncertainty. In other words, if the answer is ‘don’t know’ an adverse impact is assumed. This is the case throughout the HRA process.

6 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/habitats-regulations-assessments-protecting-a-european-site#take-a-precautionary- approach-to-decisions.

8 24 Once potential impacts have been identified, their significance will be considered. A judgement about significance is made in relation to the conservation objectives and targets using the Precautionary Principle.

Definitions

25 ‘Significant’ is interpreted as an effect likely to adversely affect a European site’s integrity. A useful definition of what a significant effect is contained in an English Nature guidance note7 on the subject, ‘…any effect that may reasonably be predicted as a consequence of a plan or project that may affect the conservation objectives of the features for which the site was designated, but excluding trivial or inconsequential effects.’

26 ‘Integrity’ is described under paragraph 20 of the ODPM Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation8 as 'the site’s coherence, ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of species for which it was classified'.’

27 Significance will vary from site to site according to conservation sensitivities and magnitude of the potential impact. Assessment is triggered by likelihood not certainty in line with precautionary principle (European Communities, 2000)9. The assessment therefore considers whether effects are ‘likely’ and ‘significant’ and not every conceivable effect or fanciful possibility. The Waddenzee case (European Court of Justice C-127/02) tests are used:

• Would the effect undermine the conservation objectives for the site? • Can significant effects be excluded on the basis of objective information?

28 Significant effects are also determined in combination with other plans or projects and take account of cumulative effects.

3. Characteristics and description of the European sites

Introduction

29 This section identifies which European sites are potentially affected.

30 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended), due to the presence of, or providing

7 English Nature. 1999. Habitats Regulation Guidance Note 3: The Determination of Likely Significant Effect under The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994. 8 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-and-geological-conservation-circular-06-2005. 9 European Communities. 2000. Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of the Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

9 ecological support to, the habitats and species (which apply to the UK) identified in Annexes I and II respectively of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The selection and designation of SACs is based on the criteria set out in Annex III of the Habitats Directive so far as it applies to the UK.

31 Special Protection Areas (SPA) are designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), for the presence of bird species identified in Annex I of the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC).

32 Ramsar sites are Designated Wetlands of International Importance that have been designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 1971. Under Government policy, as set out in Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, they are to be treated as European sites.

Identification of European sites

33 The following European sites have component sites present within the geographic area administered by Axbridge Town Council or neighbouring parish councils:

• and Mendip Bats SAC; • Mendip Woodlands SAC; and • Mendip Limestone Grasslands SAC.

34 The geographic area administered by Axbridge Town Council or neighbouring parish councils was also initially mapped by Natural England as falling within the catchment flowing into the and Moors Ramsar.

Ecological Zones of Influence (EZI)

35 European sites are designated for both species and habitat features. Conservation objectives and targets relate to maintaining the integrity of these features. This section describes how ‘Ecological Zones of Influence’ (EZI) are arrived at for each of the European sites potentially affected by the implementation of actions within the Neighbourhood Plan. These are areas outside the designated European site, which nonetheless if affected can adversely impact on the integrity of the site’s conservation objectives. For example, bat flight lines and feeding areas supporting a designated roost site if lost may affect the viability of the population.

36 Habitats are affected directly from on-site loss due to damage or destruction from land use change. However, they can also be influenced by off-site factors such as hydrology. Where there are no significant off-site requirements in maintaining a site’s habitat the EZI is the same as the European site’s boundary. However, sites affected by air pollution will be assessed by distances set out below. All flora species are affected by airborne

10 pollution, although some, such as lichens and bryophytes are more vulnerable.

37 Unlike habitats, species are not limited by the designated site boundary, yet its integrity may depend on habitat several kilometres from the site. For each European site, where a qualifying species is listed as a feature, a description is given, the potential impacts, which are likely to affect that species population’s integrity in terms of the site’s nature conservation objectives, and the methodology of how the EZI is formed.

North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC

Component sites

38 The Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) component sites for the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC are:

• Caves SSSI; • Banwell Ochre Mine SSSI; • SSSI; • Ochre Mine SSSI; • King’s Wood and Urchin Wood SSSI; • The SSSI; and • SSSI.

39 Only The Cheddar Complex SSSI component site is potentially affected by the Neighbourhood Plan although there are likely to be movements of individual horseshoe bats between the component sites.

Qualifying features

40 The qualifying features present within The Cheddar Complex SSSI component site are:

• Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia); Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone. • Caves not open to the public. • Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. • Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros.

41 Of the qualifying features it is considered that greater and lesser horseshoe bats would be affected, as these species rely on the wider countryside in supporting the integrity of the population.

42 In addition, calcareous grassland could be significantly affected by increased leisure activity causing degradation to the habitat.

11 43 Caves not open to the public would not be significantly affected by increased leisure activity.

Potential hazards

44 The main factors considered to potentially cause loss or decline in greater and lesser horseshoe bats from the Neighbourhood Plan include:

a) Loss or degradation of foraging habitat resulting in a reduction in food availability, particularly through loss of pasture and woodland.

b) Loss, damage or fragmentation of flyways, through removal of habitat structure to facilitate development. Greater horseshoe bats will cross gaps in flight lines of up to 12 to 15 metres but are not crossed unless dark10. Gaps as little as 10 metres could prevent movement of lesser horseshoe bats along a flight line11.

c) Introduction of artificial lighting. Both horseshoe bats species are sensitive to artificial lighting, such as from street-lamps12. Stone et al. (2009)13 has shown that lesser horseshoe bats are disrupted from flying along hedgerows by introduced artificial light levels above 0.04 Lux. It was also found that continued disruption increased the effect, i.e. lesser horseshoe bats do not become habituated to the presence of artificial lighting. This would therefore permanently affect their behaviour possibly having a significant effect on use of flight lines accessing feeding areas. Lacking data to the contrary it is considered that greater horseshoe bats would react in the same way.

d) Loss, damage or disturbance of night roosts. Night roosts are also particularly important, enabling bats to exploit feeding areas, which would not otherwise be possible due to energetic constraints. These roosts are used by horseshoe bats for resting, grooming, eating or sheltering in bad weather. Importantly some bats, especially pregnant females, can extend their foraging range from the maternity roost by using such roosts. Night roosts can be found in a wide range of structures, such as church porches, garden sheds, agricultural buildings and underground sites14.

10 Billington, G. 2000. Radio tracking study of greater horseshoe bats at Mells, Near Frome, Somerset. Peterborough: English Nature. 11 Schofield, H. W. 2008. The Lesser Horseshoe Bat Conservation Handbook. Ledbury: The Vincent Wildlife Trust; Brinkmann, R., Bach L, Biedermann, M., Dietz, M., Dense, C., Fiedler, W., Fuhrmann, M., Kiefer, A., Limpens, H., Niermann, I., Schorcht, W., Rahmel, U., Reiter, G., Simon, M., Steck, C. & Zahn, A. 2003. Crossing Points for Bats – limiting damage in habitat fragmentation by transport projects. Position Paper of the Wildlife Crossing Points Working Party. www.buero-brinkmann.de. 12 Outen, A. R. 2002. The ecological effects of road lighting: in Sherwood, B., Cutler D. & Burton J. (eds.) 2002. Wildlife and Roads: The Ecological Impact. London: Imperial College Press; Bat Conservation Trust/Institute of Lighting Engineers. 2008. Bats and Lighting in the UK: Version 2. 13 Stone, E. L., Jones, G. & Harris, S. 2009. Street Lighting Disturbs Commuting Bats. Current Biology 19, 1123–1127, July 14, 2009. 14 Schofield, H. W. 2008. The Lesser Horseshoe Bat Conservation Handbook. Ledbury: The Vincent Wildlife Trust.

12 Knight & Jones (2009)15 found that more than 75% of bats used night roosts away from the maternity site.

e) Strategic loss or disruption of key flyways between different roosts. The greater horseshoe bat is a wide-ranging species and individuals will migrate between component sites of the North Somerset and Mendip Bat SAC and other SACs such as Mells Valley SAC and Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats SAC. Lesser horseshoe bats, although originally using caves the species now mainly uses open undisturbed loft spaces in old houses during the summer months but migrate to caves, such as Wookey Hole, during the winter period16.

45 The main factors considered to potentially to cause loss or degradation of calcareous grassland from the Neighbourhood Plan arise from an increased number of residents and tourists seeking leisure activity along footpaths through the habitat.

Ecological Zone of Influence

46 Where horseshoe bats are present a buffer around the maternity roost site area is formed. The area is derived from technical guidance on the SAC, which is based on the ecology of horseshoe bats and produced using field survey and radio tracking data (e.g. Jones & Billington, 1999; Rush & Billington, 2013)17 and uses the methodology established for horseshoe bats in the technical guidance for the species in the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC (Burrows, 2019)18. This forms the EZI for horseshoe bats (see Figure 1).

13 Knight, T & Jones, G. 2009. Importance of night roosts for bat conservation: roosting behaviour of the lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros. Endang Species Res. 8: 79–86, 2009. 16 Bat Conservation Trust/BMT Cordah Limited. 2005. A Review and Synthesis of Published Information and Practical Experience on Bat Conservation within a Fragmented Landscape. The Three Welsh National Parks, Pembrokeshire County Council & Countryside Commission for Wales; Kelleher, C. 2004. On the trail of the Horseshoe Bat. The Natterer, May 2004; Schofield, H., Messenger, J., Birks, J. & Jermyn, D. 2003. Foraging and Roosting Behaviour of Lesser Horseshoe Bats at Ciliau, Radnor. Ledbury: The Vincent Wildlife Trust. 17 Jones, Dr. G. & Billington, G. 1999. Radio tracking study of Greater Horseshoe bats at Cheddar, North Somerset. : English Nature; Rush,T. & Billington, G. 2013. 2: Radio tracking studies of greater horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats, June and August 2013. Witham Friary: Greena Ecological Consultancy. 18 Burrows, L. 2019. North Somerset and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC): Guidance on Development. Version 2.1. Taunton: Somerset County Council.

13 Figure 1. Ecological Zone of Influence of the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC.

Mendip Woodlands SAC

Component sites

47 The SSSI component sites for the Mendip Woodlands SAC are:

• SSSI; • SSSI;

14 • SSSI; and • SSSI.

48 Only the Cheddar Wood SSSI component site is likely to be affected by the Neighbourhood Plan.

Qualifying features

49 The qualifying features present within the Cheddar Wood SSSI component site are:

• Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines; mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes.

Potential hazards

50 Tilio-Acerion [Lime-Maple] forests of slopes, screes and ravines have a rich variety of other trees and shrubs are present, including elm and, locally, small-leaved lime. Cheddar Wood is an site stocked with coppice consisting of small-leaved lime, ash, pedunculate oak and hazel. Field maple occurs throughout in small quantities, while whitebeam, yew, wych elm and wild service-tree are less common. Three woodland types can be distinguished: (i) Ash-Field Maple; (ii) Calcareous Pedunculate Oak-Hazel-Ash; and (iii) Pedunculate Oak-Ash-Small-leaved Lime. The latter type has a very restricted distribution and Cheddar Wood provides one of the best and most extensive British examples.

51 The main factors considered to potentially cause loss or decline in the lime-maple woodland from the Neighbourhood Plan include:

a) Woodland habitat would be vulnerable to habitat deterioration and loss from increased trampling from an increased number of visitors using footpaths through the SAC. Visitors could include those walking, including with dogs, and potentially off-road cyclists.

b) The woodland contains bryophytes and lichens which are sensitive to changes in air quality. The habitat therefore may be influenced outside the SAC by dust and air pollution. Air pollution from traffic may have eutrophication effects, which would impact on species composition in the sward. 200 metres is the distance from a road where nitrogen deposition is expected to occur in the HRA of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (Land Use Consultants, 200619). Bignall et al. (2004)20 consider that at 150 metres air quality returns to background levels. The

19 Land Use Consultants. 2006. Habitats Regulations Report of the Draft South West Regional Spatial Strategy: Screening Report. Taunton: South West Regional Assembly. 20 Bignall, K., Ashmore, M. & Power, S. 2004. The ecological effects of diffuse air pollution from road transport. English Nature Research Report No. 580. Peterborough: English Nature.

15 greater distance is used, as a precautionary approach is required.

Ecological Zone of Influence

52 The habitat therefore may be influenced outside the SAC by dust and air pollution. Bryophyte and lichen species are sensitive to decreases in air quality21. The EZI for the Cheddar Wood SSSI component site is therefore a buffer of 200 metres from the designated site boundary.

Mendip Limestone Grasslands SAC

Component sites

53 The SSSI component sites for the Mendip Limestone Grasslands SAC are:

• SSSI; • Crook Peak to Shute Shelve Hill SSSI; and • Cliff SSSI.

54 Only the Crook Peak to Shute Shelve Hill SSSI component site is likely to be affected by the Neighbourhood Plan.

Qualifying features

55 The qualifying features present within the Crook Peak to Shute Shelve Hill SSSI component site are:

• Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Brometalia); Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone. • European dry heaths. • Caves not open to the public. • Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines; mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes. • Greater horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum.

56 Calcareous grassland and greater horseshoe bats would be affected as for the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC above.

57 Lime-maple woodland would be affected as for the Mendip Woodlands SAC above.

21Bignall, K., Ashmore, M. & Power, S. 2004. The ecological effects of diffuse air pollution from road transport. English Nature Research Report No. 580. Peterborough: English Nature. Bignall, K. L., Ashmore, M. R., Headley, A. D., Stewart, K. & Weigert, K. 2007. Ecological impacts of air pollution from road transport on local vegetation. Applied Geochemistry 22, 6, June 2007, 1265–1271.

16 58 In addition, dry heath could be significantly affected by increased leisure activity causing degradation to the habitat.

59 Caves not open to the public would not be significantly affected by increased leisure activity.

Potential hazards

60 Calcareous grassland and greater horseshoe bats would be affected as for the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC above.

61 Lime-maple woodland would be affected as for the Mendip Woodlands SAC above.

62 The main factors considered to potentially to cause loss or degradation of dry heath from the Neighbourhood Plan arise from an increased number of residents and tourists seeking leisure activity along footpaths through the habitat.

Ecological Zone of Influence

63 The EZI for greater horseshoe bats will be as for the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC above.

64 The EZI for lime-maple woodland will be as for the Mendip Woodlands SAC above.

Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar

Component sites

65 The SSSI component sites for the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar are:

• Edington and Chilton Moors SSSI; • SSSI; • King's Sedgemoor SSSI; • Moorlinch SSSI; • SSSI; • SSSI; • SSSI; • West Moor SSSI; • SSSI; • Heath SSSI; • SSSI; and • SSSI.

66 The nearest SSSI component site (Tealham and Tadham Moors SSSI) for the Somerset

17 Levels and Moors Ramsar lies approximately 8.3 km to the south. However, the geographic area administered by Axbridge Town Council or neighbouring parish councils was initially mapped by Natural England as falling within the catchment flowing into the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar.

Qualifying features

67 The Ramsar is designated under the following criteria:

• Criterion 2 – Supports 17 species of British Red Data Book invertebrates. • Criterion 5 – Supports assemblages on international importance; species with peak counts in winter: 97,155 waterfowl (5-year peak mean 1998/99 to 2002/2003). • Criterion 6 – Species/populations occurring at levels of international importance including wintering Bewick’s swan, Eurasian teal and northern lapwing. Also, for possible future consideration as it supports significant populations of wintering mute swan, Eurasian wigeon, northern pintail, and northern shoveler.

Potential hazards

Aquatic invertebrate assemblage

68 The designated invertebrate assemblage is associated with the moorlands of the Ramsar, but also terrestrial habitat such as damp meadows and the network of small and ditches. These species are sensitive to changes in water quality.

69 High risk activities include: processes involving decomposition and leachate; animal waste and slurries; sewage effluent both single dwelling (e.g. package treatment plants) and mains Sewage Treatment Works (STW); working; changes in land use that increase the risk of pollution run-off (maize, increase in herd size etc.); use of fertilisers, run-off from new roads and urban environments; industrial sources such as dairy processing plants; and processing involving the release of large volumes of tap water to the environment.

70 The interest features of the Ramsar are ‘unfavourable’, or at risk, due to the effects of eutrophication caused by excessive phosphates. Further, although improvements to STW, along with more minor measures to tackle agricultural pollution have been secured, these will not reduce phosphate levels sufficiently to restore the condition of the Ramsar features. The scope for permitting further development that would add additional phosphate either directly or indirectly to the site, and thus erode the improvements secured, is necessarily limited.

71 Phosphorus levels are frequently 2-3 times higher than the target for total phosphorus set out within the Conservation Objectives underpinning the Ramsar. There is

18 widespread evidence of biological harm linked to eutrophication in the form of increasing blooms of Lemna species and filamentous algae that are threatening the integrity of the biological communities that should be specially protected under the Ramsar designation.

Wintering/migratory birds

72 The Ramsar comprises numerous small, low-lying fields and meadows separated by narrow water-filled rhynes and ditches. Many of the meadows have a diverse flora. Large numbers of wintering birds visit and feed on the moors during the winter months including particularly Bewick’s swan, Eurasian teal and northern lapwing, as well as significant numbers of passage waterfowl.

73 The availability of an abundant food supply is critically important for adult fitness and survival and the overall sustainability of the population. As a result, inappropriate management and direct or indirect impacts which could affect the distribution, abundance and availability of prey and hence adversely affect species’ populations.

74 The nature, scale, timing and duration of some human activities can result in the disturbance of birds at a level that may substantially affect their behaviour, and consequently affect the long-term viability of the population. This includes increased recreational pressure.

Ecological Zone of Influence

75 The geographic area administered by Axbridge Town Council or neighbouring parish councils was initially mapped by Natural England as falling within the catchment flowing into the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar. However, further hydrological mapping, confirmed by the Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium, demonstrates that this area lies within the Panborough Gap exclusion zone, which is not hydrologically linked to the Ramsar.

76 It is therefore considered unlikely that the proposed development would pose a risk to the designated features of the Ramsar, alone or in combination with any other plan or project. As there is no pathway of potential impact upon the designated features of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar, it is not considered further in this assessment.

4. Stage 1: Test of Likely Significant Effect

Introduction

77 The Neighbourhood Plan sets out Axbridge Town Council’s policies for sustainable development which includes social, economic and environmental objectives.

19 78 Each policy will be assessed against each of the qualifying features of the European sites, identified in this report, in terms of ‘significant effects’ on those features. Many actions are likely to have a neutral or positive effect on each site feature and are therefore are likely to be eliminated at this stage of the HRA process as they would not have any significant effect on a European site.

79 ‘Significant’ is interpreted as an effect likely to adversely affect a European site’s integrity. ‘Integrity’ is described under paragraph 20 of the ODPM Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation22 as 'the site’s coherence, ecological structure and function across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of species for which it was classified'.’

80 Significance will vary from site to site according to conservation sensitivities and magnitude of the potential impact. Assessment is triggered by likelihood not certainty in line with precautionary principle (European Communities, 2000)23. The assessment therefore considers whether effects are ‘likely’ and ‘significant’ and not every conceivable effect or fanciful possibility. The Waddenzee case (European Court of Justice C-127/02) tests are used:

• Would the effect undermine the conservation objectives for the site? • Can significant effects be excluded on the basis of objective information?

81 Significant effects are also determined in combination with other plans or projects and take account of cumulative effects (see Chapter 5).

Analysis of effects on European sites

82 This section will consider the likely direct, indirect or secondary impacts of each action listed against priorities, identified as potentially having a significant effect in the previous chapter on the integrity of the designated site.

83 The determination of ‘favourable condition’24 of a site is separate from the judgement of effect upon integrity. For example, there may be a time-lag between a plan being implemented and a consequent adverse effect upon integrity becoming manifest in the condition assessment. In such cases, a plan may have an adverse effect upon integrity even though the site remains in favourable condition.

84 In addition, and in order to secure the long-term presence and stability of European sites and the National Site Network, climate change should be a key consideration in the

22 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-and-geological-conservation-circular-06-2005. 23 European Communities. 2000. Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of the Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 24 ‘Favourable condition’ means that the European site’s features are being adequately conserved and the site is meeting its 'conservation objectives', however, there is scope for the enhancement of these sites.

20 application of HRA. Consideration should be given as to whether the plan inhibits in any way the potential of species to adapt to climate change.

Management for nature conservation purposes

85 The Neighbourhood Plan does not introduce any management measures for nature conservation purposes at this stage.

Plan analysis

86 This screening assessment considers whether the proposed development is directly connected with or necessary to the management of the European site, for nature conservation. It also checks whether the proposed development would be likely to have an effect and whether the effect could be significant, alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

87 A decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C-323/17)) means that mitigation (avoidance and reduction) measures may no longer be taken into account by competent authorities at the HRA ‘screening stage’, i.e. when judging whether a proposed plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site25.

88 Table 2 analyses the policies in the Axbridge Neighbourhood Plan and for each of these gives an assessment of its potential impact on European sites. Those policies that have a potential significant effect are highlighted in orange. Each policy is considered individually, i.e. not mitigated by another policy in the plan or the Sedgemoor Local Plan.

25 ‘… the CJEU has confirmed previously in Briels that protective measures forming part of that project aimed at avoiding or reducing any direct adverse effects for the site can be relied upon at the appropriate assessment stage of the HRA process, in order to conclude that a project does not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.’ (Freeths, http://www.freeths.co.uk/2018/04/19/environmental-bulletin-spring-2018/#menu).

21 Table 2. Axbridge Neighbourhood Plan analysis.

SAC potentially Potential risk to SAC Policy Brief description affected by Comment designated features policy Providing affordable homes to meet identified need

Development proposals that provide affordable housing will be supported where they: • offer a range of tenures including social housing and shared ownership. • give priority for occupation to meet local needs and No significant effect likely – the needs of qualifying young people (see Appendix 3) HD-1 None likely None likely policy is criteria for the provision particularly those who were born or grew up in of affordable housing. Axbridge. • in accordance with the need identified by the most recent Axbridge Housing Needs Assessment (February 2016). • are part of a mix of different housing types. • support schemes which provide long-term affordability for eligible households. Residential development Greater and lesser Potential significant effect – North Somerset horseshoe bats – loss developments will result in loss Axbridge development proposals (further to the 72 and Mendip Bats and/or degradation of and/or degradation of dwellings identified*) for residential use will only be SAC habitat, loss, damage or functionally linked habitat used supported if they: fragmentation of by greater and lesser horseshoe • make use of suitable vacant sites within the settlement Mendip Limestone flyways, and bats for commuting and/or boundary, including brownfield sites or, Grasslands SAC introduction of artificial hunting, especially in zones 3, 4 • are in the zones preferred in the public consultation, lighting. and 5. namely designated zones 4 or 5 detailed in Appendix 7, HD-2 North Somerset and are either; and Mendip Bats • to meet an identified local affordable housing need or Calcareous grassland, SAC local infrastructure priority (Local Plan policy T2b); or lime-maple woodland Increases in use of footpaths • are for small scale self-build or self commissioned and dry heath – loss Mendip within the SACs are considered projects of no more than 9 dwellings. and/or degradation of Woodlands SAC insignificant alone. habitat due to

Elsewhere in the Parish residential development should trampling. Mendip Limestone be appropriately controlled in accordance with the Grasslands SAC Countryside Policies in the Local Plan.

22 SAC potentially Potential risk to SAC Policy Brief description affected by Comment designated features policy Promoting good quality design

As set out in the Axbridge Town Design Statement development proposals will be supported if they: • positively contribute to the distinctive setting and characteristics of the town. No significant effect likely – HD-3 • ensure the provision of an appropriate mix of housing None likely None likely policy concerns the design of sizes, property types and tenures. buildings. • use designs which make homes more easily adaptable for lifetime use. • demonstrate high quality design and environmental standards. This includes design which supports energy efficiency and resilience to climate change. Meeting community needs

Development proposals will be supported, where relevant, if they: • take an integrated approach to housing and community facilities. No significant effect likely – HD-4 • act to maintain and enhance local retail/commercial None likely None likely policy concerns meeting the activity. needs of the community. • conserve and enhance access to the surrounding countryside. • support provision or shared provision for occupants to work from home. • support provision for live/work development. Settlement Boundaries and Hard Infrastructure

Development proposals will be supported where they: No significant effect likely – • demonstrate no significant adverse impacts on policy is for the support of drainage, sewerage, road infrastructure or that suitable proposals to ensure that C&I-1 None likely None likely mitigation measures are provided. infrastructure and the town’s • preserve and enhance the distinctive self-contained identity is protected from character of the community, particularly its environment development. and community spirit.

23 SAC potentially Potential risk to SAC Policy Brief description affected by Comment designated features policy • protect the town’s identity, maintaining the green spaces eastwards towards Cheddar and westwards towards Cross. • avoid significant adverse impact on drainage, sewerage and drainage, sewerage and road systems or that suitable mitigation measures are in place. This should include the provision of a high quality SUDS system where possible on individual application sites and developments to meet any local policies in terms of discharge rates. Protecting utilities, infrastructure and community coherence

Development proposals will be supported where they: • Lead to a rate of growth which matches housing needs in the parish and facilitates the integration of new residents into the community. • Contribute to the enhancement or extension of the facilities identified in our consultations as key to a Potential significant effect – strong sense of community, e.g. the Town Hall, The Greater and lesser policy promotes a rate of growth Square, The Furlong, The Church Rooms. horseshoe bats – loss which would potentially involve • Maintain or improve facilities for the wide variety of North Somerset and/or degradation of land take and opportunities for groups and activities in the community which create and Mendip Bats habitat, loss, damage or C&I-2 sport, which if pitches are sporting, leisure, artistic, educational, and caring SAC fragmentation of required, would also lead to the opportunities at all age levels. flyways, and loss and/or degradation of • Demonstrate sufficient capacity in the school, doctors’ introduction of artificial functionally linked horseshoe bat surgery, drainage, roads or any other service that is a lighting. habitat. concern of the town’s residents, to accommodate the new development.

Where it has been identified by the relevant authority that improvements are required to services and infrastructure, development proposals will be supported where: • They are implemented alongside the necessary improvements to the infrastructure to support them.

24 SAC potentially Potential risk to SAC Policy Brief description affected by Comment designated features policy • Prior to occupation of a development site, the necessary improvements have been completed. Economic resilience and sustainability of the community

Development proposals will be supported where they: • Allow for transition change of use from residential back to commercial. • Enhance the image of Axbridge as a business location. • Increase self-containment, reduce the need to travel and are accessible by sustainable transport. • Follow locally generated sustainability guidelines, for example as identified in the Sedgemoor Local Plan, on No significant effect likely – C&I-3 renewable energy, energy efficiency and sustainable None likely None likely policy is for sustainability and transport, and where they further support adaptation to self-containment. climate change with regard to flooding, extreme weather, green infrastructure, and biodiversity. • Demonstrate that significant adverse impact on current provision of building use for commercial or retail activity is avoided, or that suitable mitigation measures are in place. • Maintain or promote retail provision, especially in the Square and High Street, that complements the existing retail provision and/or promotes the unique town’s environment to visitors. Natural Environment

Development proposals will be supported where they: • demonstrate that there are no significant impacts on No significant effect likely – the natural environment (landscape, biodiversity and policy concerned with the H&NE-1 habitats) or where impacts are identified these are None likely None likely protection and enhancement of satisfactorily mitigated against, the natural environment. • are of a scale, mass and density appropriate to their landscape setting, • enhance the natural environment where there is the opportunity to do so,

25 SAC potentially Potential risk to SAC Policy Brief description affected by Comment designated features policy • provide for appropriate planting which can enrich the biodiversity of the area such as locally ‘indigenous’ trees and hedges (secured through planning conditions or planning permissions). Assets of Community Value

Proposals that will result in loss of or change to an No significant effect likely – identified asset of community value or in significant policy concerns the protection of H&NE-2 harm to a feature of community value will be strongly None likely None likely existing assets of community resisted. The Square is regarded as a key community value. asset. Other key features are detailed in the Axbridge Town Design Statement (see Appendix 1, 16. for a list of heritage and community assets). Heritage Environment

Any designated historic heritage assets in the town and their settings will be conserved and enhanced for their historic significance and their importance to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place. This No significant effect likely – H&NE-3 includes both above and below ground, listed buildings, None likely None likely policy concerns the protection of and any monuments that may be scheduled or in the the historic environment. conservation area Consideration of developments that affect non-designated historic assets will take account of the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the surrounding heritage assets (see Appendix 1, 16. for a list of heritage and community assets). High Quality Design

New development must be sympathetic to the historic built character and landscape of the town. As set out in No significant effect likely – the Town Design Statement (Appendix 1) development H&NE-4 None likely None likely policy concerns sympathetic proposals will be supported where they are of high- design. quality design, enhance visual amenity of the setting and avoid any adverse visual impact on locally valued character and on neighbouring properties to the proposed development site.

26 SAC potentially Potential risk to SAC Policy Brief description affected by Comment designated features policy Town Views (including those on page 7 in Appendix 8)

Development proposals that block or infringe identified No significant effect likely – H&NE-5 town views are not supported, especially where they None likely None likely policy concerns views. damage the visual integrity of the Conservation area. New, high quality medium and long views should be integrated into new developments to provide visual linkage to the surrounding environmental context. Protection of the AONB

Development proposals in the setting of an AONB which will have a material impact on the AONB and on people’s enjoyment of it will have to submit an No significant effect likely – H&NE-6 assessment of landscape and visual effects (including None likely None likely policy concerns the protection of cumulative effects where relevant) and demonstrate, the AONB. including through siting and design could be rendered acceptable. Development in the setting of the AONB should be in accordance with good practice guidance produced by the AONB Partnership. Car Parking Greater and lesser

horseshoe bats – loss Potential significant effect – • Support the County Council policy on car parking. and/or degradation of additional car parking sites • Support further acquisitions if appropriate sites North Somerset habitat, loss, damage or involve land take that could also T-1 become available. and Mendip Bats fragmentation of lead to the loss and/or • Encourage and support requests for new off-road SAC flyways, and degradation of functionally parking. introduction of artificial linked horseshoe bat habitat. • Resist reductions in existing parking unless lighting. appropriate replacements are offered. New Development Parking

No significant effect likely – Development proposals for residential use will be T-2 None likely None likely policy concerns compliance with supported if they provide parking in line with the the County’s Parking Strategy. Somerset County Council Policies Parking Strategy 2013.

27 SAC potentially Potential risk to SAC Policy Brief description affected by Comment designated features policy No significant effect likely – Footpath Provision policy concerns the requirement

for footpath links from All new housing developments should provide safe T-3 None likely None likely developments. Potential for pedestrian access to link with existing or proposed affecting horseshoe bats is footpaths ensuring that residents can walk safely to bus included in Policy HD-2 and T-1 stops, schools and other facilities. above. Pedestrian and non-vehicular access

North Somerset • Support realistic proposals to improve access to and Mendip Bats No significant effect likely – Hillside across the bypass will be supported. Calcareous grassland, SAC improved access is likely to • Protect and enhance access to The Strawberry Line lime-maple woodland increase leisure of footpaths (national cycle network 26) at eastern and western limits and dry heath – loss T-4 Mendip through the SACs both by of the parish. and/or degradation of Woodlands SAC existing and future residents, but • Upgrade the right of way from Axbridge to Cross and habitat due to this is not considered significant make it safe from cattle, and accessible to those with trampling. Mendip Limestone alone. disabilities and pushchairs. Grasslands SAC • Protect and enhance access to all public rights of way linking to the parish. Road Safety

New development proposals will be supported if they undertake an appropriate accurate assessment of the impact on road use and mitigate against negative No significant effect likely – T-5 impacts through traffic calming and road safety None likely None likely policy concerns an assessment of initiatives. Ideally these initiatives are to be in place road safety measures. before new residents take ownership. Proposals that rebalance the use and safety of streets in favour of pedestrians throughout the town to improve residents well being will be supported.

89 Appendix 4 of the Neighborhood Plan contains a list of sites proposed for development in the town. The proposed sites have the potential to adversely affect habitat used by horseshoe bats of the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC. These are assessed in Table 3 below.

28 Table 3. Site proposals.

SAC NP Ref. No. Location Area Comment Band Residential garden with number of Sunneymead, APO1 0.124 ha B trees and shrubs on site. Unlikely to Cheddar Road be significant alone. Residential garden with mature hedgerows. Unlikely to be significant alone, provided mitigation for the equivalent value APO2 Hazeldene 0.22 ha B of habitat loss is provided either on site or through financial contribution to habitat enhancement off site. Land adjacent to Grassed area of private road. APO3 0.039 ha C Compton Lane Unlikely to be significant. Residential garden with mature hedgerows. Unlikely to be significant alone, provided Holly Tree Cottage, mitigation for the equivalent value APO4 0.25 ha B Cheddar Road of habitat loss is provided either on site or through financial contribution to habitat enhancement off site.

Other relevant plans or projects

90 Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) requires a competent authority, before deciding to undertake or give consent for a plan or project which (a) is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or project), and (b) is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, to make an ‘appropriate assessment’ of the implications of the plan or project for that site in view of its conservation objectives. It is therefore necessary to identify plans and projects that may have ‘in combination’ effects on the European sites, which are the focus of this assessment.

91 The assessment of significant effects for the Neighbourhood Plan needs to take account of the impact in combination with other plans and projects. For European sites where it is unlikely that the Neighbourhood Plan alone will require a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment in relation to that site, it has been necessary to consider whether ‘in combination’ effects are likely to result in an Appropriate Assessment being required.

92 The guidance states that only those that are considered most relevant should be collected for ‘in combination’ testing; an exhaustive list could render the assessment

29 exercise unworkable. Given that there is, unmitigated potential for a significant effect from policy in the Neighbourhood Plan, the following are projects are considered to potentially act in combination with the application site: a) Land to the south of Houlgate Way, Axbridge – outline planning permission (appearance layout, scale, landscaping reserved matters) for the erection of up to 53 dwellings (30% affordable dwellings) and creation of access. Greater and lesser horseshoe bats are present particularly on the southern boundary. The area available as shown in the illustrative masterplan amounts to the equivalent value of 0.93 ha of optimal habitat for lesser horseshoe bats resulting in a net gain of 0.17 ha. With regards to potential for a significant effect on the Mendip Limestone Grasslands SAC, the HRA stated ‘Access to limestone grassland is not direct off-road route and on the other side of embankments and a cutting of the A371. A public right of way crosses the bottom slopes of Shute Shelve about 230m to the north as the crow flies. However, there is a direct right of way link to the Strawberry Line cycle route which lies in between the right of way and the application site. It is considered that the Strawberry Line is more likely to be used than the footpath within the SAC and therefore, given the size of the proposed development its green infrastructure provision, there is unlikely to be significant effects from increased trampling due to increased use.’ b) Mendip View, Cheddar Road, Axbridge – reserved matters application for approval of the details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 20 No. dwellings. Outline planning permission was granted 26/06/2018 for application 02/17/00022, for the erection of up to 20 dwellings (35% affordable) and creation of vehicular access, on the site of existing dwelling and outbuildings (to be demolished). No mitigating habitat is provided with the development and results in a net loss of 0.17 ha. c) Land at Steart Farm, Road, Cheddar – outline application for residential development (allowed at appeal) of up to 60 houses and associated infrastructure with existing farm buildings to be demolished (all matters reserved except for access), on site previously given permission for Sainsbury’s store. There is potential for the development to sever the traditional flight used by greater horseshoe bats recorded in 1999 and confirmed by field surveys for this application. A HRA identified that 0.97 ha of replacement habitat would be required to mitigate the loss of that used by greater horseshoe bats; a 10-metre corridor around the eastern and northern (bordering this application) boundaries; and street lighting with red lamps would be required to avoid a significant effect. d) Land at Steart Bushes, Wedmore Road, Cheddar – outline application, with some matters reserved, for the erection of 9 dwellings, creation of vehicular access and associated works. Currently, there is no replacement habitat within proposed plan for horseshoe bats. Recent surveys have shown the presence of both greater and lesser

30 horseshoe bats on site. A HRA shows the proposed development resulting in a loss equivalent to 0.15 ha of optimal greater horseshoe bat habitat. e) North of Howell Lane, Upper New Road, Cheddar – residential development of up to 150 dwellings, public open space and other associated infrastructure. An application for 134 dwellings has subsequently been submitted and approved (see below). A HRA was carried out in respect of recreational effects on the Mendip Woodlands SAC. The site is located 850 metres from the southern end of Wood Lane which is accessible by public right of way and by crossing the A371. It is unlikely that many new residents would access the track leading to the Mendip Woodlands SAC given that the habitat creation on site to replace the value lost along with the proximity of Cheddar Reservoir is more accessible. It is unlikely that residents would access the rights of way in the Mendip Limestone Grasslands SAC north of Axbridge only occasionally and are in any case more likely to use the Strawberry Line cycle/footpath in this area, which runs to the west of the development site. No significant in combination effect is predicted. With regard to horseshoe bats habitat it is predicted that there would be a small net gain of 0.3 ha from the development and therefore would not act in combination with any habitat loss affecting the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC from the assessed application. f) Lower New Road, Cheddar – outline application for the erection of up to 115 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and a vehicular access point off Lower New Road. All matters are reserved except for the access. Replacement habitat is provided with a deficit of 0.06 ha of optimal habitat. Mitigation for street lighting required along the frontage of the site along Wedmore Road to south of the site access has been agreed. The site maintains the 1999 radio tracked route along the site’s northern boundary. g) Round Oak Road, Cheddar – outline permission, with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 96 dwellings, associated open space and play areas, landscaping, new pedestrian links, surface water attenuation, internal access roads and car parking and creation of access. Accessible replacement habitat of equivalent value to that lost to horseshoe bats has been conditioned in the HRA. There is a small gain of 0.04 ha of optimal greater horseshoe bat habitat. h) Land at Holwell Lane, Cheddar (Phase 1 of the application site) – full application for 90 new dwellings. Accessible replacement habitat of equivalent value to that lost to horseshoe bats has been conditioned in the HRA. There is a small non-significant residual habitat requirement of 0.13 ha. i) Land at Holwell Lane, Cheddar (Phase 2 of the application site) – full application for the erection of 134 dwellings with access, public open space and associated

31 infrastructure. The Design and Access Statement26 though states ‘The allocated development is to consist of around 150 dwellings with car parking, open space (including formal play space), as well as landscaping, SuDs attenuation and new vehicular access. Access will be taken via Bloor Homes Phase 1 development to the South.’ The submitted illustrative masterplan offers the equivalent of 5.07 ha of accessible optimal habitat replacement in mitigation. There is therefore a habitat gain to the equivalent of 0.43 ha after adjustment by factors for temporal and delivery risk.

j) Yeo Valley, Axbridge Road, Cheddar – outline application with some matters reserved for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed-use scheme comprising 100 residential units (Class C3), care/retirement facility (Class C3), extra care facility (Class C2), retail use (Class A1), nursery use (Class D1), business use (Class B1), and live/work units (Class C3/B1), with ancillary works including landscaping, access, parking and circulation space. A HRA has been carried out as there are no residual losses or gains of habitat, the site being mostly pre-developed land. Possible in combination effect through visitor access to Cheddar Woods, component site of the Mendip Woodlands SAC.

93 Overall, currently there is a small gain from projects potentially acting in combination with the Neighbourhood Plan of 0.43 ha. However, this gain falls well below the intended net gain for habitat of +10% from development if the Government’s aims for biodiversity enhancement is to be achieved27.

94 Without mitigation the proposed developments in the Neighbourhood Plan listed in Table 2 (not defined) and Table 3 above is likely to result in a reduction in the gain and could result in a an overall loss of habitat in combination with other projects for horseshoe bats from the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC.

5. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment

Introduction

95 The Appropriate Assessment considers the impacts on the integrity of the international site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with regard to the site’s structure and function and its conservation objectives. Where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of potential mitigation is carried out to determine if there is an overall adverse effect on the integrity of the site. If these mitigation options cannot avoid adverse effects, then development consent can only be given if Stages 3 and 4 are followed.

26 Turley. 2018. Design & Access Statement: Land North of Holwell Lane. As submitted. 27 https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/net-gain/supporting_documents/netgainconsultationdocument.pdf.

32 96 The assessment of adverse effects on the integrity of a site is undertaken in light of the conservation objectives for each site. The integrity of a site is the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, which enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or populations of species for which the site has been classified (ODPM Circular, 06/2005)28.

97 EC guidance (European Communities, 2000)29 emphasis that site integrity involves its ecological functions and that the assessment of adverse effects should focus on and be limited to the site’s conservation objectives.

98 The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has confirmed previously in Briels that protective measures forming part of that project aimed at avoiding or reducing any direct adverse effects for the site can be relied upon at the appropriate assessment stage of the HRA process, in order to conclude that a project does not adversely affect the integrity of the European site30.

European sites potentially affected

North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC

Conservation objectives

99 The conservation objectives for the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC with regard to the natural habitats and/or species for which the site has been designated avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features. These include, subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

• The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species; • The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats; • The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species; • The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely; • The populations of qualifying species; and • The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

28 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-and-geological-conservation-circular-06-2005. 29 European Communities. 2000. Managing Natura 2000 Sites: The provisions of the Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. 30 http://www.freeths.co.uk/2018/04/19/environmental-bulletin-spring-2018/#menu.

33 100 Qualifying features affected:

• Greater Horseshoe bat Rhinolophus ferrumequinum.

Condition

101 The latest survey available to the author was carried out by Jon Hill, Licensed Bat Handler, and Staff from & Caves on Longleat Estate Property in Cheddar Gorge on Wednesday 20th February 201331.

Table 4. Winter counts of horseshoe bats in Cheddar Gorge.

Greater horseshoe Lesser horseshoe Cave bats bats Electricity cupboard - 5 Entrance to bottom of Heartbreak Gough’s Cave - 5 Hill Milk Cave to Oxbow - 27 Gough’s Old Cave 650+ 17 Saye’s Hole - 7 Great Oone’s Hole ? ? Long Hole ? ? Total 650+ 61

102 In 1996 there were 66 greater horseshoe bats recorded roosting in the Cheddar complex caves. In May 1999 there were less than 100 individuals when the radio tracking was carried out (Jones & Billington, 1999). In June 2013 about 50 greater horseshoe bats were present. A further 19 were observed in August, including females with dependent young. There are no more up to date figures for maternity roost, but it is not likely to exceed 100 individuals (Rush & Billington, 2013).32

31 NOTES 1 Unable to reach Long Hole and Great Oone’s Hole to do February Bat Count because Caving Instructor carrying an injury. 2 Gough’s Old Cave higher count of greater horseshoe bats in February since it was much colder than January, the bats were in torpor and easier to count. 3 It was warmer than usual during the January bat count. The greater horseshoe bats in Gough’s Old Cave were quite active and Jon Hill wanted to keep disturbance to a minimum - hence possibly undercounting. 32 Jones, G. & Billington, G. 1999. Radio tracking study of Greater Horseshoe bats at Cheddar, North Somerset. Taunton: English Nature; Rush, T. & Billington, G. 2013. Cheddar Reservoir 2: Radio tracking studies of greater horseshoe and Lesser Horseshoe bats, June and August 2013. Witham Friary: Greena Ecological Consultancy.

34 Mitigation Measures

Introduction

103 ‘Measures to avoid, cancel or reduce the effects of a plan on a European site (here referred to as avoidance measures, cancellation measures and reduction measures respectively) should be proposed as part of the plan and the plan making authority will take these into account in the appraisal, often collectively referred to as ‘mitigation measures’ (Tyldesley et al. 2012).

104 ‘Avoidance measures eliminate the likelihood of any effects on the European site. Cancellation measures have the effect of cancelling out potentially adverse effects on the European site before their effects are felt. Reduction measures are designed to reduce likely significant effects, perhaps to a level that is insignificant or in a way that makes them unlikely to occur.’ (Tyldesley et al. 2012).

105 Policies and projects that have been identified above as having uncertainty with regard to significant effects on European sites and are listed in Table 5 along with any mitigating measures that will eliminate or reduce the effect so that it is not significant. These could include adjustment to policy text. The policies in the Neighbourhood Plan should be read as a whole and as part of the adopted Sedgemoor District Council Local Plan.

35 Table 5. Counteracting measures.

Policies causing Potential impact potential Counteracting measure Outcome impact Neighbourhood Plan Policy H&NE-1 states ‘Development proposals will be supported where they: • demonstrate that there are no significant impacts on the natural environment (landscape, biodiversity and habitats) or where impacts are identified these are satisfactorily mitigated against, • enhance the natural environment where there is the opportunity to do so, • provide for appropriate planting which can enrich the biodiversity of the area such as locally ‘indigenous’ trees and hedges (secured through planning conditions or planning permissions).’

a) and b) Loss of The Plan needs to be read in conjunction with Policies in the Sedgemoor feeding habitat and District Council Adopted Local Plan 2011 – 2032: severance of flight lines preventing Policy D20: Natural Environment states ‘Development will be supported No significant effect likely access to feeding where: As well as ensuring the protection of internationally and nationally areas. designated sites, it ensures the appropriate protection of the nature if the Neighbourhood Plan is read with the H&NE-1 conservation interest of local sites designated for their nature conservation c) Lighting affecting value; It retains or enhances features as appropriate, such as wetlands, Sedgemoor District summer roosts, watercourses, coastal features, geological interests, hedgerows, soils, trees, Council Local Plan as a commuting routes copses and ponds which provide wildlife corridors, links or stepping stones whole. and feeding areas. from one habitat to another; and It makes appropriate positive provision for wildlife through urban and rural habitat creation/restoration (having particular regard to Ecological Networks), including tree and hedgerow planting, and subsequent management.’

Policy D23: Bat Consultation Zones states, ‘Planning Applications for development on sites within the Bat Consultation Zone could require a ‘test of likely significant effect’ under the Habitats Regulations to be carried out, including consultation with Natural England. Where required, applicants must provide with the application all necessary information to enable such a test to be conducted, including any necessary survey work, reports and avoidance and mitigation measures as advised in the Technical Guidance for the Special Areas of Conservation supporting bat species.’

36 6. Conclusion

106 It is considered by Axbridge Town Council that its Neighbourhood Plan is unlikely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of the European sites assessed.

107 It is considered that a further assessment (Stage 3) will not be required.

37