HABITAT REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT of Core Policy10
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HABITAT REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT OF Core Policy10 LAND WEST OF WELLS MENDIP DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN July 2012 (amended November 2012) This report was prepared by Larry Burrows, Ecologist - Strategic Planning, Somerset County Council on behalf of Mendip District Council, as the 'competent authority' under the 'Habitat Regulations' 2010 2 Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................4 Background .......................................................................................................4 The Habitats Regulations Assessment Process ................................................5 2. The Proposed Site Allocations ..........................................................................6 3. Characteristics and Description of the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC 9 Component Sites...............................................................................................9 Determining Reasons for Designation...............................................................9 Site Condition....................................................................................................9 Foraging Ecology of Greater Horseshoe Bats.................................................10 Foraging Ecology of Lesser Horseshoe Bats ..................................................12 Conservation Objectives .................................................................................13 Vulnerability.....................................................................................................13 4. Test of Likely Significance...............................................................................15 Use of the Proposed Allocation Sites by Horseshoe Bats ...............................15 Habitats Present..............................................................................................18 Horseshoe Bat Diet .........................................................................................19 Likely Effects on Horseshoe Bats from the Proposed Site Allocations ............21 5. Counter Acting Measures................................................................................22 Introduction .....................................................................................................22 Street Lighting .................................................................................................23 Loss of Habitat - Methodology.........................................................................24 Offset Assessment for Haybridge North ..........................................................29 Offset Assessment for Haybridge South..........................................................31 6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................36 References .........................................................................................................37 3 1. Introduction Background 1.1 The requirement for ‘Habitat Regulations Assessment’ (HRA) of plans or projects is outlined in Article 6(3) and (4) of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (known as the ‘Habitats Directive’). This requirement has been implemented into UK legislation under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The purpose of HRA is to ensure that protection of the integrity of European nature conservation sites (Natura 2000 sites). 1.2 The definition of ‘HRA’ is simply an assessment, which must be ‘appropriate’ to its purpose under the Habitats Directive and Regulations. According to the Habitats Regulations 2010, regulations 61 before authorising a plan which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site but is not connected to the management of the site the Council shall assess the implications for the site in view of its conservation objectives. 1.3 Natura 2000 sites include Special Protection Areas (SPA) classified under the EC Birds Directive 1979 and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and candidate Special Areas of Conservation (cSAC) designated under the EC Habitats Directive 1992, and, as a matter of Government policy, all Ramsar sites, designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, are treated as if they are fully designated European Sites for the purpose of considering development proposals that may affect them. 1.4 North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC is designated for greater and lesser horseshoe bats. The Wookey Hole component site is also designated nationally as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for the same reason. 1.5 This report concerns the potential effects on the integrity of the North Somerset and Mendip Bats SAC from Core Policy 10: Wells City Strategy in the Local Plan, and resultant development. The proposed site allocations are located west of Wells at Haybridge and lie just over 1 kilometre from the Wookey Hole roost site. Survey work since the HRA of the Mendip District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Preferred Option) January 2011 has shown the presence of both species on the development site. This new data would also require the amendment of the Bat Consultation Zone as shown in that report. 1.6 The greater horseshoe is one of Britain’s most rare and endangered bat species. It is estimated that numbers have declined by 99% in Britain since the turn of the last century, with only c.6000-7000 now being left, 4 confined to South Wales and South West England. Caves are used by the species for roosting throughout the year. 1.7 Lesser horseshoe bats are a widespread but rare species in central and southern Europe. The South West of England and Wales support one of the largest concentrations. The Habitats Regulations Assessment Process 1.8 Stage 1, the ‘significance’ test, of the Habitats Regulations Assessment 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 (English Nature, 1999) conservation interest of the site should be at the forefront of decision-making. 1.9 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 should be recorded: • What are the SAC’s qualifying interest features? • What are the SAC’s conservation objectives? • What other relevant site information is available? e.g. site (SSSI, NNR, SAC/SPA, European Marine site) management plans; list of operations which may cause damage or deterioration. 1.10 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 habitat area or species populations are likely to be significant unless they are very small scale. (English Nature, 1999) In some cases the loss of 0.1% an area of habitat has been considered significant by the Secretary of State (Hoskin & Tyldeslay, 2006). The magnitude of the impact should be considered in judging what is significant. 1.11 Natural England (English Nature, 1999) 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 .’ 5 1.12 However, Natural England (English Nature, 1999) 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 ’. 1.13 EC Guidance (2000) sets out a number of principles as to how to approach decision making during the process. The primary one is the ‘Precautionary Principle’, which requires that the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 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 1.14 Stage 1, the ‘test of significance’ should consider the following: 1. What potential hazards are likely to affect the interest features? Are the interest features potentially exposed to the hazard? 2. Is the potential scale or magnitude of any effect likely to be significant alone or in combination with other projects or plans? 1.15 Under the Habitats Regulations, where, ‘…regulations 48 and 49 [regulations 61 and 62 in the Habitats Regulations 2010] apply, the competent authority may, if they consider that any adverse effects of the project on the integrity of a European site would be avoided if the planning permission were subject to conditions or limitations, grant planning permission or, as the case may be, take action which results in planning permission being granted or deemed to be granted subject to those conditions or limitations .’ Therefore this report will set out those conditions and limitations whereby planning permission could be granted if Mendip District Council