south east water

WRMP14

PROJECT NUMBER: 67951

2014 Water Resources Management Plan HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment

July 2014

Final

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

DOCUMENT RECORD SHEET

Revision Register

Version Date Changes Draft Final v1 19/11/2013 For revised WRMP Draft Final v2 25 /11/2013 Minor corrections Final v3 July 2014 Minor changes to reflect Final WRMP

Document Issue Register

Version Date Changes

iiii

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

HRA Stages 1 &2

South East Water is the competent authority responsible for undertaking Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) on its Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) as set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

HRA is a multi-stage process which helps determine likely significant effect and assess adverse impacts on the integrity of a European site. This document details the screening and Appropriate Assessment stages of an HRA undertaken of South East Water’s Water Resource Management Plan 2014 (WRMP14).

The purpose of the screening stage of an HRA is to identify all aspects of a plan or project which would potentially have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other aspects of the same plan or other plans or projects. Where no impact is anticipated (usually because there are no ‘pathways’ between the plan or project and a European site, or because an impact is considered to be not significant) the plan or project can be eliminated from further consideration.

Appropriate Assessment involves 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 assessment of mitigation options is carried out to determine adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

HRA screening has been undertaken on the WRMP in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and following the approach set out for the WRMP process in the UKWIR SEA and HRA guidance (Baker et al, 2012). The approach was also applied through a number of steps during the development of the SEW draft WRMP.

There are 43 internationally important nature conservation sites considered by this assessment. The study area included sites within and between the east and west supply areas; downstream of the supply areas; and sites outside the supply areas that support species that could be affected by habitat changes. Factors affecting the integrity of these sites (with regard to their conservation objectives) were reviewed to provide a basis for considering whether the options and plan under consideration might exacerbate any existing adverse trends or affect site integrity.

The feasible options were subject to HRA screening to determine if they are likely to adversely affect internationally important nature conservation sites (European sites, candidate and potential European sites, and Ramsar sites) either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. A total of 136 options were assessed during this preliminary screening stage. This screening provided information influencing the option appraisal and selection process for the plan, alongside other issues.

Of the 136 feasible options assessed, 27 resource or transfer options (and sub options) have been included in WRMP14. Of these options, 23 are considered unlikely to result in a significant impact to a European site and need not be considered for Appropriate Assessment. These options have been screened out because there are no pathways to European sites and/or the level of impact is not considered to be significant or can be mitigated.

iiiiii

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Following the screening stage including an updated cumulative assessment and review of options amendments, four options at three locations (EF-11, TR-22/TR-22a, and TR- 136a) were considered likely to result in significant effects to a European site either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects, or because sufficient uncertainty existed whereby the potential for significant effects could not be ruled out; these options were subject to Appropriate Assessment.

EF-11 (Aylesford water re-use at Aylesford) was screened in due to effluent discharge into the River Medway at East Barming which although located in excess of 15km upstream cannot be ruled out as having a significant effect on the Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar. The scheme is planned to be implemented for 2023.

TR-136a (Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer option) was screened in because of the potential extension to the water service reservoir at Surrey Hills which lies wholly within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. The route of the proposed transfer pipeline is also located within close proximity to Windsor Forest and Great Park Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The option is planned for implementation in 2030.

TR-22/TR-22a (Detling to Matt’s Hill transfer options) was screened in due to the proximity of the proposed pipelines to North Downs Woodlands SAC and Queendown Warren SAC. These options are planned for implementation in 2022.

Due to the complexity of modelling or studies required to assess the significance of impacts associated with EF-11 (to Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar) and TR-136a (to Thames Basin Heaths SPA), and given the late delivery date of these options within the WRMP, a ‘’down the line’’ assessment is proposed. In the event that no adverse effects on integrity cannot be concluded, South East Water commits to bringing forward suitable alternatives with all options subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Significant impacts associated with TR-22 and TR-22a (to Queendown Warren SAC and North Downs Woodland SAC) have been ruled out as the implementation of standard best practice guidelines and pollution prevention measures would be sufficient to ensure that the integrity of the respective sites is not adversely affected.

Influencing the development of the WRMP

The potential for significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites has been an important consideration all the way through the development of the potential WRMP along with other environmental issues as described in Section 7 of the Environmental Report and Appendix 7 to the WRMP. The key steps were as follows:

Initial option identification - potential for direct loss to Natura 2000 sites was one of the criteria used to screen-out potential reservoir locations. New pipeline routes aimed to avoid Natura 2000 sites. These were set as the identification criteria and used in GIS analysis of possible sites/routes. For example, the route for the TR77 pipeline, now part of SW14 (Broad Oak), was routed around the Blean Complex SAC to avoid potential effects.

Development of the feasible options list - this was undertaken through further option definition and desk study on environmental constraints and discussion with

iviv

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014 stakeholders. A number of options with potential significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites were removed as part of this process. Examples include: Faversham groundwater abstraction with potential impacts on the North Kent Marshes; and the Woodgarston, Monkwood and Lasham groundwater abstraction options with potential risk to the River Itchen SAC. In addition a transfer option which was routed through Ashdown Forest SAC following an existing pipeline was identified as being unacceptable and was highlighted as requiring an alternative route. Possible routes to the north of the SAC were added to the option dossier.

HRA Stage 1 & 2 - this was undertaken on the Feasible Options List and highlighted the potential for significant effects from the Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer reservoir extension, and Aylesford water reuse schemes to Natura 2000 sites. This has highlighted the need to consider variants to the transfer option further and undertake ’down the line’ assessment in AMP6 for both schemes. The Matt’s Hill to Detling transfer option was screened in by the HRA following rerouting to avoid the pipeline passing through an SSSI which had the effect of bringing it closer to a SAC. The plan level Appropriate Assessment for this option is included in the HRA Report. This identified mitigation is required to avoid significant effects during construction which are covered by the option costs.

‘Down the line’ assessment – the HRA Report identified that ’down the line’ Appropriate Assessment would be required for Aylesford water reuse and the Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer. These will be undertaken in the next AMP/WRMP cycle. If this shows that it would not be possible to avoid a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, an alternative option (or options) that has been screened as not likely to have a significant effect will be brought in.

Triggers for bringing in alternatives options – these are identified in Section 8 of the Environmental Report and the WRMP, including the need to bring in alternative assessment where ’down the line’ Appropriate Assessment indicates that significant effects could not be avoided.

AMP 6 Additional studies on key Preferred Plan options - a range of studies and investigations have been identified in the WRMP and Environmental Report as being required during AMP6. These include more detailed feasibility studies for the strategic options, the East Kent Strategy and further transfer options. These will incorporate the ’down the line’ assessments identified in the WRMP14 HRA and additional HRA for any new East Kent Strategy options. The SEA and HRA have influenced the option costs to ensure allowance is included for undertaking HRA and for implementing required mitigation and enhancements, for example the cost for taking forward the Aylesford water reuse scheme specifically includes an allowance for the ’down the line’ assessment. There is also a commitment to seek solutions to the Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer which will include examining use of alternative service reservoirs and pipeline storage. We are committed to this work through the budget allowed in the SEW AMP 6 business plan. The SEA monitoring along with the additional assessment and option design over the next AMP will feed into the next WRMP cycle.

v

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

CONTENTS NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY ...... III 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS AT THE PLAN / STRATEGY LEVEL ...... 2 1.3 THE NEED FOR A WRMP14 ...... 2 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 4 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2.2 SCREENING STEPS ...... 4 2.3 IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE FEASIBLE OPTIONS AND GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE ...... 5 2.4 INTERPRETATION OF A ‘LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECT’ ...... 10 2.5 CONSIDERATION OF LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS IN-COMBINATION ...... 10 2.6 MITIGATION MEASURES TO AVOID LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ...... 11 2.7 CONSULTATION ...... 11 3 EUROPEAN SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE FEASIBLE OPTIONS PROPOSED WITHIN WRMP14 ...... 12 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 12 3.2 FACTORS AFFECTING INTEGRITY OF SITES ...... 13 4 SCREENING RESULTS ...... 16 4.1 SUMMARY ...... 16 4.2 IN-COMBINATION ASSESSMENT ...... 16 4.3 REVIEW OF WRMP OPTIONS LIKELY TO RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT .. 19 5 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT ...... 46 5.1 REQUIREMENT FOR APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT ...... 46 5.2 EF-11 WATER RE-USE AT AYLESFORD ...... 46 5.3 TR-136A WINDSOR TO SURREY HILLS – 10ML/D ...... 49 5.4 TR-22 AND TR-22A TRANSFER FROM DETLING SR TO MATT’S HILL AND REVERSE ...... 58 6 CONCLUSION ...... 62 7 REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED ...... 64 APPENDIX A: EUROPEAN SITE INFORMATION AND VULNERABILITIES ...... 67 APPENDIX B: LOCATIONS OF EUROPEAN SITES ...... 90 APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – GROUNDWATER ...... 92 APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – SURFACE WATER ...... 101

vi

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – WATER REUSE ...... 104 APPENDIX F: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – WATER TRANSFERS ...... 107 APPENDIX G: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – CONJUNCTIVE USE ...... 141 APPENDIX H: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – WATER TREATMENT ...... 143 APPENDIX I: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – DEMAND MANAGEMENT ...... 144 APPENDIX J: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – DESALINATION ...... 147

vii

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

1.1 Background

This Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening exercise and Appropriate Assessment was undertaken alongside the development of South East Water’s proposed Feasible Options List and the draft and revised Water Resource Management Plan 14 (rWRMP14).

The draft HRA report was published with the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA Environmental Report ) alongside the rWRMP, neither of which have been changed for the final WRMP.

Article 6 of European Union Habitats Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) states:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to an Appropriate Assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives… competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the public’ (EU 1992).

The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 transposed the Habitats Directive into national law and came into force on 30th October 1994. The Regulations have been subsequently amended several times and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) consolidate all the various amendments made to the 1994 Regulations in respect of England and Wales.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is the process by which the requirements of the Habitats Directive are practically implemented in order to ensure and demonstrate compliance. It appraises potential for plans or projects to significantly affect European sites (i.e. Special Areas of Conservation, (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs)). In accordance with national planning policy and best practice guidelines, potential and candidate European sites, as well as Ramsar sites, are also subject to HRA.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of South East Water, as the competent authority, to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment as set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). It considers the potential of the options contained within the WRMP14 Feasible Options List and the proposals in the WRMP14 to adversely affect internationally important nature conservation sites (European sites) either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

This report covers the screening and Appropriate Assessment stages of HRA. The assessments have been based on the details in the WRMP14 Feasible Option Dossiers (Jacobs, 2013).

The HRA process will be continued as the WRMP options evolve and more detailed assessments under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as

11

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014 amended) will ultimately be carried out at a project level as and when appropriate using the results from the intervening screening documents.

1.2 The Potential Impacts at the Plan / Strategy level

The production of a plan itself does not normally adversely affect any European site. Neither does a plan usually authorise any project that could have such an effect. Most projects that may flow from the provisions of a plan will require some form of consent or other authorisation; this is the case with WRMP14. As such, each individual project contained within WRMP14 will be subject to the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

Guidance from the EC, the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of EC v the UK, case C – 6/04, and the opinion of the Advocate General in that case, are helpful in understanding how the EC believes plans could have a significant effect on a European site. Based on this guidance, a plan may affect a European site by:

 Proposing or resulting in particular types of change that are inherently damaging;  Proposing or resulting in a magnitude of change that would be damaging because it would be so large;  Proposing or resulting in change in locations where the effects of change would be damaging;  Proposing or resulting in a magnitude of change that in the proposed location would be damaging;  Resulting in cumulative or combined effects that would be damaging, either from a programme of similar or different proposals within the plan itself, or a combination of such proposals in the plan and in other plans or projects;  Blocking options for future plans and proposals;  Providing the justification for damaging change; and,  Failing to foresee damaging effects that would occur later in a programme.

1.3 The Need for a WRMP14

Clean water is essential for health and hygiene, agriculture and industry and habitats. The water environment is also a source of recreation, relaxation and natural beauty. Water resources need to be managed to ensure that there are sufficient resources to meet demand for water without detriment to the environment. There are many pressures associated with delivering sustainable public water supplies including:

 Water consumption per person is increasing;  Population growth with fewer people in each home on average;  Pressure to reduce abstraction to improve the environment;  Pollution limiting suitability of some water sources and affecting treatment costs; and,  Climate change with wide ranging effects on water availability, agriculture and the environment as well as on demand for water.

The 2003 Water Act, which came into effect in April 2007, places a duty on water companies to develop, consult and publish Water Resources Management Plans. These look at the balance between water supplies and demands (referred to as the ‘supply demand balance’) to see if there is any deficit. The SEW Water Resource Management Plan (referred to as ‘the Plan’) outlines the recommended options to reduce any deficit, both by reducing the amount of water that is required and by providing more water, over a 25 year period from 2014 to 2040. Water companies are

2

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014 required to update their WRMPs every 5 years (Environment Agency, 2009). A summary describing each of the options under consideration as part of the WRMP14 can be found in the Feasible Option Dossiers (Jacobs, 2013).

3

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction

HRA is a multi-stage process which helps determine likely significant effects and assess adverse impacts on the integrity of a European site. This process is often referred to as ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (AA); however, Appropriate Assessment forms only one stage of the HRA, and it is preceded by an initial ‘screening stage’ that determines whether or not AA is needed. This report focuses on the screening and Appropriate Assessment stages. Table 2.1 below shows the overall HRA process.

The purpose of the screening stage of an HRA is to identify all aspects of a plan or project which would potentially have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other aspects of the same plan or other plans or projects. Where no impact is anticipated (usually because there are no ‘pathways’ between the plan or project and a European site, or because an impact is considered to be not significant) the plan or project can be eliminated from further consideration (European Commission, 2001).

Where it is not possible to rule out the risk of significant effects to a European site, the plan or project will be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA where potential mitigation options are considered to determine whether the significant effect can be removed.

Table 2.1: Stages in HRA (European Commission, 2001)

Stage Task Outcome

The process to identify the likely impacts of a project upon a Stage 1 Screening European site, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, and consider whether the impacts are likely to be significant. 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 Appropriate objectives. Where there are adverse impacts, an assessment of Stage 2 Assessment mitigation options is carried out to determine adverse effect on the integrityintegrity of the site. If If these mitigation mitigation options cannot cannot avoid adverse effects then development consent can only be given if stages 3 and 4 are followed. Assessment Examining alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project Stage 3 of alternative to establish whether there are solutions that would avoid or have a solutions lesserlesser effect on European Euro ean sites. Imperative The assessment where no alternative solution exists and where Reasons of adverse impacts remain. This stage aims to assess whether the Stage 4 Overriding development is necessary for IROPI and, if so, the potential Public Interest compensatory measures that would be needed to maintain the (IROPI) integrity of the European site.

2.2 Screening steps

Individual options for WRMP14 were subject to a preliminary (coarse) screening which was carried out based on the information provided in the early draft versions of the WRMP14 Feasible Option Dossiers. This preliminary assessment involved identifying all elements of each option that have the potential (alone or in-combination) to cause effects to a European site. Where the potential for effects is identified, it is then

4

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014 established whether or not the option has a ‘pathway’ (e.g. via air, water, proximity etc), either directly or indirectly, to a European site.

Those options identified during the preliminary screening as having pathways to European sites were reviewed by the project team to identify opportunities for ‘designing out’ the impacts (e.g. by re-aligning a pipeline to avoid a European site, reducing the volume of discharge/abstraction etc). In the absence of alternative design options, an assessment to determine whether the requirement for the project outweighs the potential environmental impact was undertaken with the option being dropped from the WRMP if it was not of high enough importance to justify impacting a European site and/or due to other non-HRA influences.

Following the preliminary screening, the remaining options were subject to a secondary screening exercise where the project proposals and potential impacts are considered in further detail where possible (e.g. assessments relating to abstraction or discharges are made by hydrogeologists and hydrologists, mitigation strategies are proposed to avoid or reduce impacts to acceptable levels etc).

The HRA Stage 1 screening exercise applies the precautionary principle with all decision making being transparent and objective. Plans and projects are only screened out where it can be demonstrated with sufficient certainty that there will be no significant effect on the European site in question. Where the potential to significantly affect a European site is identified, high level information is provided in order to assist in conducting an AA of the plan or project.

2.3 Identifying Potential Impacts of the Feasible Options and Geographical Scope

The guidance document ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment – Guidance for Water Resources Management Plans and Drought Plans’ (Baker et al, 2012) has been used when assessing whether options described by the Feasible Option Dossiers would be likely to impact upon European sites.

The Feasible Options described in the WRMP14 could affect European sites as a result of construction or operational impacts. Such effects could be direct (e.g. construction activity within a European site) or indirect (e.g. impacts to European sites downstream of an abstraction point). This HRA identifies the European sites that could potentially be affected by the Feasible Options and assesses, as far as possible, those options that may result in ‘likely significant effects’ or potential ‘adverse effects’.

Table 2.2 lists the main impacts that could arise as a result of option implementation, including construction. The table provides illustrative distances within which each impact can be experienced.

For this screening assessment, a search radius of 5km from each Feasible Option was generally used with all European sites within this area being assessed against the potential impacts described in Table 2.2. Where the options involved groundwater or river abstraction, discharges (fluvial or coastal) or off-shore works, the search area was extended to identify European sites located within the same ground or surface water catchment, or sites with other hydrological links.

There are five European sites within (or overlapping) the South East Water catchment that are designated for their bat interest: Mottisfont SAC, Mole Gap to Reigate

5

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Escarpment SAC, Ebernoe Common SAC, The Mens SAC and Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC. As bats can disperse a considerable distance from their roost sites, all options within 30km of these SACs were screened for their potential to affect habitat suitable for foraging or roosting bats listed on Annex II of the Habitats Regulations 2010. Due to the large ‘catchment area’ of these SACs, only those Feasible Options that are of a type or scale likely to have a significant effect on the sites have been assessed (e.g. major pipelines or other developments that would affect potentially valuable bat habitats contiguous to these sites). The location of these SACs in relation to the Feasible Options is shown in Appendix B.

Where no European sites are located within 5km, and for options not involving abstraction/discharging, marine habitats, or Annex II bat habitat, significant effects are considered to be unlikely based on the distance from the source impact and so would not require Appropriate Assessment.

6

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeastwater) Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Table 2.2: Potential Impacts of WRMP Schemes (Baker et al, 2012)

Broad categories of potential impacts on Examples of operations responsible for impacts (Distance assumptions shown in italics) European sites, with examples

Physical loss Development of built infrastructure associated with scheme, e.g. pipelines, temporary weirs, access routes. - Destruction (including offsite effects, e.g. foraging habitat) habitat) Physical loss is only likely to be significant where the boundary of the scheme extends within the boundary of - Smothering the European European site, site, or within within an offsite offsite area of known foraging, roosting, breeding habitat (that (that supports species for which a European site is designated). Physical damage Development of built infrastructure associated with scheme, e.g. reservoir embankments, water treatment - Sedimentation/silting plant, pip elines, pumping stations. - Prevention of natural processes - Habitat degradation Recreation e.g. cycling, walking, horse-riding, water-sports associated with scheme benefits, e.g. reservoirs. - Erosion - Trampling Physical damage is most likely to be significant where the boundary of the scheme extends within or is directly - Fragmentation adjacent to the boundary of the European site, or within/adjacent to an offsite area of known foraging, roosting, - Severance/barrier effect breeding habitat (that supports species for which a European site is designated). In addition, physical damage - Edge effects can occur when European sites are located at at distance distance from from a scheme but where connectivity exists via fluvial, coastal or atmospheric processes e.g. sedimentation/siltation/deposition of European sites downstream or downwind of a scheme. For sites with fluvial or coastal links to a scheme, impacts are considered likely to be significant if located within 20km. Non-physical disturbance Noise from vehicular traffic during construction of scheme. - Noise - Visual presence Noise from construction traffic is is only only likely to be significant where where the transport route route to and and from the scheme - Human presence is within 3-5km of the boundary of the European site11. - Light pollution Plant and personnel involved in construction and operation of schemes,, e.g. for maintenance, plus non- operational activities such as recreation associated with scheme,, e.g. reservoirs.

These effects (noise, visual/human presence) are only likely to be significant where the boundary of the scheme extends within or is directly adjacent to the boundary of the European site, or within/adjacent to an

1 A series of studies carried out in the Netherlands have shown that road noise levels above 42-43dB and 47dB results in a rapid fall in population of woodland and grassland breeding bird species, with disturbance distances varying between species from 20 to 1700 1700 meters from the road (at 5000 cars a day) and up to 3.53 kilometers at 50,000 cars a day. The most recent study is: Reijnen, R.; Foppen, R.; Veenbaas, G. (1997) Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of ofthe the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6 (4), 567- 567-581.581.

7

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeastwater) Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Broad categories of potential impacts on Examples of operations responsible for impacts (Distance assumptions shown in italics) European sites, with examples

offsite area of known foraging, roosting, breeding habitat (that supports species for which a European site is designated).

Development of built infrastructure associated with scheme, which includes artificial lighting.

Effects from light pollution are only likely to be significant where the boundary of the scheme is within 500 m of the boundary of the European site. site. From From a review of Environment Agency internal guidance on HRA and various websites it is considered that effects of vibration vibration and noise and light are are more likely to be be significant significant if development is within 500 metres of a European site. Water table/availability Changes to water levels and flows due to water abstraction, storage and drainage interception associated with - Drying inlandinland schemes. schemes. - Flooding/stormwater - Changes to surface water levels and flows These effects are only likely to be significant where the boundary of the scheme extends within the same - Changes in groundwater levels and flows ground or surface water catchment as the European site. However, these effects are dependent on - Changes to coastal water movement hydrological continuity between the scheme and the European site, and sometimes, whether the scheme is up or down stream from the European site.

Toxic contamination Air emissions associated with vehicular traffic during construction of schemes. Water pollution arising as a - Water pollution result of accidental spills during construction activity. - Soil contamination - Air pollution The effects of air pollution is only likely to be significant where the transport route to and from the scheme is 2 within 200m of the boundary of the European site . The effects of water pollution can be experienced at a wider scale although the magnitude of these effects are dependent on hydrological continuity between the scheme and t he European site, and whether the scheme is up or down stream from the European site.

2 For deposition of air pollutants associated with construction transport for some of the schemes, the Highways Agency guideline measure of 200 meters from a road road has has been been applied with respect respect to the roads roads likely likely to be be used. used. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume Volume 1111.. Highways Agency. 2003.

8

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeastwater) Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Broad categories of potential impacts on Examples of operations responsible for impacts (Distance assumptions shown in italics) European sites, with examples

Non toxic contamination Changes to water salinity, nutrient levels, turbidity, thermal regime due to water abstraction, storage, or inter - - Nutrient enrichment (e.g. of soils and water) catchment transfers. - Algal blooms - Changes in salinity These effects are only likely to be significant where the boundary of the scheme extends within the same - Changes in thermal regime ground or surface water catchment as the European site. However, these effects are dependent on - Changes in turbidity hydrological continuity between the scheme and the European site, and sometimes, whether the scheme is up - Changes in sedimentation/silting or down stream from the European site. This level of information is not available until data such as groundwater - Air pollution (dust) modelling is collected to accompany planning application s.

Emissions of dust during earthworks, construction of plant and tunnel/pipeline construction associated with schemes. This effect is only likely to be significant where the construction works for the scheme are within 3 500m of the boundary of the Europe an site3.

3 This distance is based on information relating to dispersion of dust particles (Appendix 1A, Annex 1 to the Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England, ODPM, March 2005). Large dust particles (greater than 30 μm) will mostly deposit within 100m of the source. Intermediate-sized particles (10–30 μm) are likely to travel up to 200–500m. Smaller particles (less than 10 μm) may travel 1km or more from their source. Large particles are associated with nuisance from deposition while smaller particles can have human health effects. It is assumed that dust deposition from a scheme could be significant up to 500m from European site boundaries (an average distance has been assumed since the size of dust particles arising from schemes is unknown). However, this will also be dependent on the volume of dust produced from the scheme, the particle size and rate of deposition and coverage of the European site. The DMRB Volume 11, Part 1 Air Quality, Annex F notes that the most sensitive species at European sites appear to be affected by dust deposition at levels above 1000 mg/m2/day, which is five times greater than the level at which most dust deposition may start to cause a perceptible nuisance to humans. Most species appear to be unaffected until dust deposition rates are at levels considerably higher than this. Information from the Dibden Bay Container Terminal Public Inquiry indicated that vegetation soiling from dust from large construction sites operating for a year or more could occur at up to 100m without mitigation and 25m with mitigation (Technical Statement TS/AQ1, ABP, 2000).

9

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

2.4 Interpretation of a ‘Likely Significant Effect’

A likely effect is one that cannot be ruled out on the basis of objective information. The test is a ‘likelihood’ of effects rather than a ‘certainty’ of effects. In the Waddenzee case (case C-127/02) the European Court of Justice ruled that a project should be subject to Appropriate Assessment “if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on the site, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects”. This establishes that ‘likely’, in this context, should not simply be interpreted as ‘probable’ or ‘more likely than not’, but rather whether a significant effect can objectively be ruled out.

Where a project is likely to undermine the site’s conservation objectives, it must be considered likely to have a significant effect on the site. The assessment of that risk must be made in the light of the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned. Thus, an effect that would undermine the conservation objectives would be a significant effect and the likelihood of it occurring is a case-by- case judgement, taking account of the precautionary principle and the local circumstances of the site.

2.5 Consideration of Likely Significant Effects In-Combination

The requirement in the Habitats Directive is to undertake an Appropriate Assessment of a plan if it would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site “either individually or in combination with other plans or projects”. The Directive recognises that in some cases, the effects of a plan on its own would be either unlikely or insignificant. Nevertheless, the Directive also recognises that those plans and projects which are unlikely to have a significant effect or effects alone may have a significant effect or effects in combination with each other or with other plans and projects. This could occur if, when their individual effects are added together, including how they come forward over time, the effects in-combination are likely to be significant.

Options and potential impacts screened out at the coarse level screening stage have no impact pathways to European sites and so cannot contribute to an in-combination effect. They have therefore not been considered further in the in-combination assessment.

Options and potential impacts screened out “alone” on the basis that the likely effect was negligible or de minimis could potentially act in-combination with other negligible effects to create a significant effect overall. The in-combination assessment therefore assesses whether the options and potential impacts screened out alone through fine screening could act together to have a likely significant effect. Such combined effects could be through combination of the effects caused by options within the South East Water WRMP and/or combined with other plans and projects.

There are a large number of plans or projects that could contribute towards causing in-combination effects and the assessment of every potential development within the vicinity of the forty three European sites considered by this study would be extremely difficult. As such, only those plans that could result in major impacts where considered, as summarised below:

 Local Development Frameworks or Core Strategies;  Water Resource Management Plans of neighbouring water companies;  Drought Management Plans of neighbouring water companies;  Shoreline Management Plans.

1010

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Due to the uncertainty relating to in-combination effects (i.e. a lack of detail at the plan level, or an absence of information relating to other (non-WRMP) projects or plans), the precautionary approach has been adopted and only options that are likely to have no negative effect at all have been screened out, (i.e. options that would not lead to development activity, abstraction or discharges, or options where such activities would occur but a significant effect is unlikely based on the sensitivities of the qualifying features of European sites, the distance of the option from the European site, and/or where mitigation is highly likely to be successful).

2.6 Mitigation Measures to Avoid Likely Significant Effects

Mitigation measures may be introduced during the screening stage in order for a plan- making body to remove the likelihood of significant effects. Thus, the aspects of the plan which could have caused such effects would no longer do so, and would therefore not be subject to Appropriate Assessment.

As most of the Feasible Options are not supported by detailed design proposals (e.g. final pipeline routes have not yet been confirmed, or construction techniques and timings have not been agreed), there are opportunities to implement ‘standard mitigation’ or ‘design out’ the potential for significant effects to European sites (e.g. changing a pipeline route so that it goes around a European site as opposed to through one; timing construction works to avoid sensitive periods of the year; restricted construction activity to habitats or areas that are not integral to the maintenance of a site’s favourable conservation status etc).

Where a Feasible Option is complex or is likely to require a specialist mitigation strategy, the precautionary approach has been adopted and the option taken forward for Appropriate Assessment.

2.7 Consultation

Consultation with the Environment Agency and Natural England has been on-going through the WRMP14 process. The Environment Agency has highlighted concerns relating to options with direct impacts to SACs, notably impacts associated with abstraction to the River Itchen SAC. Natural England has also highlighted concerns relating to potential impacts associated with the Broad Oak Reservoir proposal (ref SW-14) to Stodmarsh SAC, SPA and Ramsar.

Following consultation with respect to the draft WRMP14 and draft HRA, Natural England advised that the screening assessment be amended to include the potential impacts of physical damage caused by activities outside a European site and for clarification as to the extent to which impacts associated with pollution has been considered. Natural England also provided guidance relating to the application of ’down the line’ assessments at the Appropriate Assessment stage. This advice and guidance was taken into account in the draft final HRA prepared in November 2013 in parallel with the revised WRMP14.

1111

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

3 EUROPEAN SITES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE FEASIBLE OPTIONS PROPOSED WITHIN WRMP14

3.1 Introduction

The following Section describes the European sites considered in this report, their qualifying interests and conservation objectives. Tables A.1 to A.3 in Appendix A set out the detailed baseline data collated for these sites and include a summary on the potential vulnerabilities that the features of each site may have. The locations of these sites are shown by Figure 1 in Appendix B.

There are forty three internationally important nature conservation sites considered by this assessment. These are shown in Appendix B and are listed below in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: European sites considered by the screening assessment

Special Areas of Special Protection Areas Ramsar sites Conservation (SACs) (SPAs)  Ashdown Forest  Ashdown Forest  Dungeness, Romney  Blean Complex Marsh and Rye Bay  Burnham Beeches  Dungeness to Pett Level pRamsar  Butser Hill  Castle Hill  Dungeness, Romney  Medway Estuary and  Dungeness Marsh and Rye Bay Marshes  East Hampshire Hangers pSPA  Ebernoe Common  Pevensey Levels  Hastings Cliffs  Medway Estuary and  Lewes Downs Marshes  Stodmarsh  Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment  Stodmarsh  Thanet Coast and  Mottisfont Bats Sandwich Bay

 North Downs Woodlands  Thames Basin Heaths  Thursley and Ockley Bog  Peter’s Pit  Thanet Coast and  Pevensey Levels cSAC Sandwich Bay  The Swale  Queendown Warren

 River Itchen  The Swale  Sandwich Bay  Shortheath Common  Thursley, Hankley and  Singleton and Cocking Frensham Commons Tunnels (Wealden Heaths Phase  Stodmarsh I)  Thanet Coast  The Mens  Wealden Heaths Phase II  Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham  Windsor Forest and Great Park  Woolmer Forest

1212

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

3.2 Factors affecting integrity of sites

Factors affecting the integrity of these sites (with regard to their conservation objectives) were reviewed to provide a basis for considering whether proposed activities in the Feasible Option Dossiers might exacerbate any existing adverse trends or affect site integrity. While conservation objectives are specific to each site, certain generic objectives tend to apply, including:

 maintaining the population of the habitat/species as a viable component of the site;  maintaining the distribution of the habitat/species within the site;  maintaining the distribution and extent of any supporting habitat;  maintaining the structure, function and supporting processes of habitats supporting the species; and,  ensuring there is no significant disturbance of species for which a site has been designated.

Impacts from options considered as feasible in WRMP14 which could potentially have significant effects to the nature conservation status of European sites are described in Table 2.2, above.

Table 3.2 below summarises the main factors or vulnerabilities that affect the integrity of each of the European sites concerned. Information relating to site vulnerabilities has been taken from the site’s Standard Data Form and/or Information Sheets which can be found on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website.

Table 3.2: Main factors that affect the integrity of each of the European sites

Potential impact Habitat loss Changes in Recreational Name of Noise and Changes in and water quality use / vibration air quality site fragmentation and quantity disturbance Special Areas of Conservation Ashdown    Forest SAC Blean  Complex SAC Burnham    Beeches SAC Butser Hill    SAC Castle Hill     SAC Dungeness     SAC East  Hampshire  Hangers SAC Ebernoe  Common   SAC Hastings   Cliffs SAC Lewes Downs    SAC

1313

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Potential impact Habitat loss Changes in Recreational Name of Noise and Changes in and water quality use / vibration air quality site fragmentation and quantity disturbance Mole Gap to Reigate     Escarpment SAC Mottisfont    Bats SAC North Downs Woodlands    SAC Peter’s Pit    SAC Pevensey    Levels cSAC Queendown    Warren SAC River Itchen     SAC Sandwich Bay  SAC Shortheath Common    SAC Singleton and Cocking    Tunnels SAC Stodmarsh   SAC Thanet Coast   SAC The Mens SAC    Thursley, Ash, Pirbright    and Chobham SAC Windsor Forest and    Great Park SAC Woolmer     Forest SAC Special Protection Areas Ashdown    Forest SPA Dungeness to Pett Level     SPA Dungeness, Romney Marsh and     Rye Bay pSPA*

1414

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Potential impact Habitat loss Changes in Recreational Name of Noise and Changes in and water quality use / vibration air quality site fragmentation and quantity disturbance Medway Estuary and     Marshes SPA Stodmarsh    SPA Thames Basin Heaths    SPA Thanet Coast and Sandwich     Bay SPA The Swale     SPA Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons      (Wealden Heaths Phase I) SPA Wealden Heaths Phase    II Ramsar Dungeness, Romney Marsh and      Rye Bay pRamsar* Medway Estuary and     Marshes Ramsar Pevensey Levels   Ramsar Stodmarsh    Ramsar Thanet Coast and Sandwich     Bay Ramsar Thursley and Ockley Bog     Ramsar The Swale     Ramsar

*Information relating to vulnerabilities is not available and so a best estimate has been made taking into account the proposed qualifying features of the site.

1515

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

4 SCREENING RESULTS

4.1 Summary

A total of 136 options were assessed during this preliminary screening stage. However, the majority of these options are not included in the WRMP14 preferred plan. The full results of the preliminary screening exercise are given in detail in the screening matrices in Appendices C to J.

Of the 136 Feasible Options originally screened, 27 have been taken forward to the final WRMP14. Of these options, 23 are considered unlikely to result in a significant impact to a European site, either alone or in-combination, and need not be considered for Appropriate Assessment. These options have been screened out because there are no pathways to European sites and/or the level of impact is not considered to be significant or can be mitigated. The remaining four options are considered in more detail in the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA process (see section 5, below).

The screening results of the 27 options included in the WRMP14 preferred plan are summarised in Table 4.1 below; this table also shows the results of an in-combination assessment with other SEW WRMP options. Table 4.2 shows the results of an in- combination assessment of other (non SEW WRMP) plans or projects.

Table 4.3 lists the options that would need to be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of HRA.

4.2 In-combination assessment

4.2.1 Potential impacts considered

The fine screening exercise identified the following potential impacts from a number of WRMP options to European Sites, including all proposed and candidate sites:

 Non physical disturbance: noise, visual, human presence;  Changes to water table/availability;  Toxic contamination;  Non toxic contamination;  Physical damage, and;  Physical loss.

The zone of influence of other plans and projects is dependent on the potential impact. Each potential impact was therefore considered within different zones, as described below:

- Non physical disturbance

The only potential non physical disturbance impacts identified were through noise, human presence or visual disturbance associated with those options located within or immediately adjacent to European sites, specifically: EF-7 (Lewes Downs SAC), TR- 22 and TR-22a (Queendown Warren SAC and Northdowns Woodlands SAC), TR-77b with SW-14. (Blean Complex SAC), and TR-136a (Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC and Thames Basin Heaths SPA).

1616

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

In-combination effects for the assessment of this potential impact therefore considered what plans and projects could increase traffic, built infrastructure, or the influences of lighting or recreation within 5km of the SPA, and what controls are in place to prevent cumulative effects.

- Changes to water table/availability

Water table/availability impacts have been considered within the same fluvial or groundwater catchments of European sites. A number of options were identified as having potential to change water availability to a number of European sites through the screening exercise, specifically GW-58, GW-98, GW-130, GW-141, SW-14 and EF-11. In-combination effects for the assessment of this potential impact therefore considered what plans and projects could change water availability within the catchment of the European site and what controls are in place to prevent cumulative effects.

- Toxic and non toxic contamination

Toxic and non toxic contamination typically only occur downstream or downwind of the emitting option, or where an option is located within or immediately adjacent to a European site. A number of options were identified as having potential to have this effect on a number of European sites through the screening stage, specifically: EF-7, EF-11, TR-22/TR-22a and TR-136a. In-combination effects for the assessment of this potential impact therefore considered what plans and projects could increase contamination within, immediately adjacent to, or upstream of the European sites and what controls are in place to prevent cumulative effects.

- Physical damage and physical loss

The options TR-22 and TR-22a (North Downs Woodlands SAC), TR-77b (Blean Complex SAC) and TR-136a (Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC and Thames Basin Heaths SPA) have the potential to result in physical damage or physical loss to European sites. The in-combination assessment therefore considered plans or projects within or immediately adjacent to the boundary of the above European sites, within/adjacent to an offsite area of known foraging, roosting, breeding habitat (that supports species for which a European site is designated), or where connectivity exists via fluvial, coastal or atmospheric processes.

4.2.2 Projects, plans and controls considered

- Non-physical disturbance It would not be possible to compile a comprehensive list of all plans and projects within 5km of a European site that could conceivably have an in-combination effect of increasing noise. However, road traffic noise is subject to regulation and well- established and uncontroversial mitigation measures that are enforced through the transport planning process. As the management of traffic noise would be carried out through transport planning, it is considered beyond the scope of this assessment and not necessary to repeat that exercise. No specific plans and projects that would result in an increase in traffic noise have therefore been considered in the in-combination assessment.

There is potential for significant in-combination effects to arise as a result of development associated with planning applications, Local Development Frameworks or Core Strategies. Although all relevant Local Development Frameworks and Core

1717

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Strategies were assessed during this in-combination assessment, it should be acknowledged that the Local Planning Authority, as competent authority, must also undertake an in-combination assessment of all planning decisions that may impact European sites, and that this process should not be replicated by this assessment.

- Changes to water table/availability

Changes in water table/availability could potentially occur through a large range of activities such as abstraction and storage of water for consumption; flood risk management; water level management; drainage and discharging; coastal management; and land use management and development. The number of projects and plans that could conceivably cause increased contamination upstream of a European site would be large. However, all of the potential causes of changes to water availability are subject to regulation by the Environment Agency.

Impacts to European sites associated with abstraction or discharges could be significant when combined with impacts associated with proposed changes to non- public water supply abstractions and/or other non-South East Water consents (e.g. industrial discharge consents, abstraction consents for water companies in adjacent catchments etc). Information relating to proposals for non-South East Water consents is not readily available and so a full in-combination assessment of effects for options involving abstraction or discharging has not been possible; the assessment of individual consents can only be undertaken by the Environment Agency through its Review of Consents process in accordance with Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations; the HRA of this WRMP should not replicate this. In-combination effects associated with abstraction and discharging would be considered by the Environment Agency, as competent authority, when determining relevant licence applications. As such, assessing in-combination effects associated with WRMP options requiring Environment Agency licences or consents are outside the scope of this assessment. However, a review of WRMPs of other water companies has been undertaken to identify those options that might be at risk..

Flood risk management is regulated through the Environment Agency and Local Authorities and planned through catchment flood management plans and local flood management strategies.

Water level management is regulated through the Environment Agency and Internal Drainage Boards and planned through water level management plans.

Coastal management is regulated through the Environment Agency and planned through shoreline and flood and coastal erosion risk management plans.

Land use management and development is regulated by Planning Authorities and the Planning Inspectorate and managed through spatial development plans and planning consenting processes. The increased demand for water associated with major developments that are driven through Local Development Frameworks or Core Strategies are accounted for within the WRMP and so no changes to water availability should arise through this type of development.

All competent authorities with the responsibility for authorising plans and projects must ensure through Appropriate Assessment that future plans and projects do not have an impact on the integrity of European sites either alone or in-combination. They are also responsible for carrying out a Review of Consents process in accordance with Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations.

1818

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

It is therefore considered beyond the scope of this assessment and unnecessary to repeat the roles of other authorities. With the exception of assessing other water company WRMPs, no specific plans and projects have been considered in the in- combination assessment.

- Increased toxic and non toxic contamination

Increases of contamination above existing levels could be caused by any construction activity and/or changes in policy and practice of land use, agriculture, sewerage management and industry. The number of projects and plans that could potentially cause increased contamination upstream of a European site would be large and it would not be possible to assess the effects of contamination arising from diffuse sources, for example agriculture. However, several of the potential causes of contamination (e.g. discharges from sewage treatment works or water treatment works) are subject to regulation. The various regulatory authorities have a duty to undertake Appropriate Assessment before authorising any activity likely to result in contamination of a European site and so there are controls in place to prevent any significant impacts through increased contamination. However, this assessment does consider the potential for in-combination effects associated with major development driven by Local Development Frameworks and Core Strategies.

- Physical damage and Physical loss

Physical damage or physical loss is likely to arise as a result of activities undertaken within or immediately adjacent to designated sites, such as coastal defence strategies implemented through Shoreline Management Plans. This has been considered for schemes located along the coast.

4.2.3 Results of the in-combination assessment

The results of the assessment undertaken to identify in-combination effects arising between individual options of the SEW WRMP are provided in Table 4.1, below. This assessment did not identify any WRMP options that could combine to result in significant in-combination effects to European sites.

The results of the assessment undertaken to identify in-combination effects arising between SEW WRMP options and other plans and projects are provided in Table 4.2. This assessment identified potential in-combination effects with three WRMP options:

 EF-11 and the Southern Water WRMP to Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar;  TR-136a and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead’s Allocated Site proposals to Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC; and,  TR-136a and South East Water’s Crowthorne Main Lay project to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

4.3 Review of WRMP options likely to result in a significant effect

4.3.1 TR-136a Windsor to Surrey Hills – 10Ml/d

The proposed pipeline is located outside European sites and is unlikely to result in a significant effect to the nearby Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC although there is potential for toxic and non-toxic contamination to arise as a result of pollution incidents, run-off and dust.

1919

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Surrey Hills reservoir is located within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. The proposed expansion to the reservoir could result in a significant effect to the European site.

Reservoir expansion and associated construction activity could result in the loss of heathland habitats favoured by nesting nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) and woodlark (Lullula arborea) and Dartford warbler (Sylvia undata). Construction activity could also result in noise and visual disturbance that could potentially deter birds from nesting and/or reduce the nesting success rate, or toxic contamination that could reduce the viability of the heathland habitats for the qualifying species. Each of these impacts could potentially affect breeding productivity in the short to medium term.

The potential impacts described above could be significant alone or in-combination with other plans and projects, notably other South East Water schemes completed during previous AMP cycles and the increasing effects of recreational disturbance as a result of housing development within the vicinity of the SPA.

Significant impacts to the SPA could potentially be mitigated by designing the proposals to avoid habitats favoured by the qualifying species and reducing the impacts associated with disturbance (e.g. by avoiding works within the breeding season, erecting temporary close board fencing around the construction working area, designing appropriate landscape screening etc) and toxic contamination (e.g. by following Environment Agency pollution prevention guidelines etc). However, until full information relating to the proposed design of the reservoir extension is available, sufficient uncertainty exists and this option should be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of HRA.

4.3.2 EF-11 Aylesford water re-use at Aylesford

Discharges into the River Medway at East Barming would be located in excess of 15km upstream of the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar. Upstream discharges could affect the quality of freshwater reaching the estuary which may have an effect on habitat quality (e.g. prey item assemblages) for feeding waders. The temperature of the treated effluent could be different from the Medway and during low flows when the proportion of treated effluent in the river downstream would be greater, this could adversely affect aquatic life including fish. Temperature changes could have knock-on impacts on dissolved oxygen concentrations. Changes in the volume of discharge and salinity to that currently received by the River Medway could also affect water availability within the designated area, especially when combined with existing water availability issues (e.g. abstraction and drainage) experienced at the site and the proposed Southern Water WRMP options ‘abstraction licence variations’, ‘ and ‘asset enhancements’ in the Medway catchment ’, and ‘Aylesford wastewater recycling scheme’ (the latter being a similar option to the SEW Aylesford water reuse scheme).

4.3.3 TR-22 and TR-22a Transfer from Detling SR to Matt’s Hill and reverse route option

These options involve the construction of a 5km long pipeline between Detling service reservoir and Matt’s Hill service reservoir through which treated water would be transferred from Southern Water to South East Water supply zones. This option would also include the expansion of Detling service reservoir. Although construction activity would not encroach within either SAC, the proposed revised pipeline routes to avoid the SSSI are located within 150m of these sites and so there is potential for impacts associated with toxic and non-toxic contamination and physical damage or loss to arise.

20

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Table 4.1: Screening results of Feasible Options included in WRMP14.

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? GW- Ground Cowbeech Pevensey This option is not within Pevensey Levels catchment or aquifer area and so should not No No 58 water groundwater Levels : affect drainage to the cSAC or Ramsar. No other WRMP options have impact Enhanc - New pathways to Pevensey Levels cSAC or Ramsar and so no in -combination effects are ement biological cSAC (4km) anticipated either. Treatmentreatment Ramsar (4km)(4km) GW- Ground Boxalls Thames This option would require abstraction from a deep confined borehole and so impacts to No No 98 water Lane LGS Basin Heaths the surface water environment are unlikely. Furthermore, the SPA’s qualifying features Enhanc Closing the SPA (2km) are not highly sensitive to water levels. As such, no significant effect is anticipated ement Gap either alone or in-combination with other WRMP options .

Thursley, This option involved a small increase to Peak licence. The abstraction is from the No No Ash, Pirbright Lower Greensand aquifer and from greater than approximately 90msorn deep. and Chobham Confinement of the aquifer by substantial thickness of Gault Clay, Chalk, Lambeth SAC (3.2km) Group (including clays and silts) and London Clay deposits means the geology establishes a hydraulic barrier between the abstraction and the SAC, therefore there is no hydrogeological connectivity. In terms of surface water the abstraction is not likely to affect drainage into SAC but could have a small influence on the Blackwater. Furthermore, the Chalk outcrop forms elevated topography to the south, resulting in northwards flowing surface water drainage towards the site at Aldershot and so reducing the likelihood of an alteration to the surface water input to the SAC. Finally, no other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC and so no in-combination effects are anticipated either. As such, a significant effec t to the qualifying features of the SAC SAC is is not not anticipated anticipated and no no further assessment is is considered necessary. necessary.

Ebernoe The site’s qualifying features are not sensitive to groundwater abstraction and no other No No Common WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC.. As s such, a significant effect is not SAC (within anticipated either alone or in -combination . 30km)

21

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? GW- Ground Additional N/A No European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction abstraction are located located within the No No 130 water borehole at same CAMS region as this option. Enhanc Sharnden ement (Coggins(Coggins Mill) GW- Ground Forest Row- Ashdown Although the Ashdown Formation aquifer from which the source abstracts is No No 141 water closing the Forest Forest SAC unconfined to the south of Forest Row, the general water level is typically below the Enhanc gap (1.1km) surface. However, the formation has extensive horizontally bedded clayey strata which ement create perched water table conditions and allow for the occurrence of occasional ponds and wet heath areas. These features have been shown to be independent of the underlying primary water table, particularly in the Forest Row area itself, and are unlikely to be impacted by abstraction from the formation (RAW, 2011).

Additionally, there is a major groundwater catchment divide trending east to west running between Forest Row and the SPA which relates to an anticlinal fold in the Ashdown Formation. Formation. This divide separates the movement of groundwater from a northerly direction to the north north of the fold and southerly direction to the south. Consequently, as this divide runs between the Forest Forest Row source and the SPA it further acts to effectively separate these two into different catchments (RAW, 2011).

Based on pump testing reports for the existing existing Forest Forest Row Row boreholes boreholes together with groundwater flow information and hydrogeological interpretation of geology and topography, increased increased abstraction from Forest Forest Row Row is is considered unlikely unlikely to affect the Ashdown forest.

Finally, no other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC and so no in- combination effects are anticipated. antici ated. Ashdown The SPA’s qualifying featuresres are not not highly highly sensitive to water abstraction and no other No No ForestForest SPA WRMP options have impact pathways to the SPA and so no significant effect either (1.1km) alone or in-combination isis anticipated.

22

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? Mole Gap to The site’s qualifying features are not sensitive to groundwater abstraction and no other No No Reigate WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC and so a significant effect either Escarpment alone or in -combination is not anticipated. SAC (within 30km) SW- Storage Broad Oak Stodmarsh An HRA screeningreening exercise undertaken undertaken in in 2009 of a WRMP09 scheme involving involving No No 14 Reservo Reservoir – SAC, SPA abstraction at Plucks Gutter and Grove Ferry (and then transfer to Broad Oak ir alternative and Ramsar Reservoir) concluded that there would be no significant impacts to Stodmarsh SAC, 1b1b (2,815Mi; (2,81SMi; (2.5km)(2.Skm) SPA and Ramsar provided that recommended mitigation measures were implemented; 32.5m AOD)) Natural England concurred with this conclusion. – reduced The WRMP09 option proposed the abstraction of between 150 -– 200Ml/d 200Mlld from the size River Stour whereas this WRMP14 option proposes the abstraction of 20Ml/d. Given

the greatly reduced volumes of water that would be abstracted under the WRMP14

option, the potential for (and magnitude of) any impacts to Stodmarsh SAC, SPA and

Ramsar would be significantly reduced when compared to that of WRMP09. Mitigation

proposed by the WRMP09 HRA to reduce impacts associated with abstraction to

Stodmarsh SAC, SPA and Ramsar should therefore be sufficient to address impactsimpacts

associated with this WRMP14 option. This mitigation focuses on either minimising minimising

changes in water levels / water volume in the river, maintaining water levels, or

management aimed at allowing adaptation of habitats to water levels changes. As

such, provided that the mitigation recommended in the 2009 HRA can still be

implemented, no impacts to the integrity of Stodmarsh SAC, SPA or Ramsar are

anticipated.

The 2009 HRA concluded the following with respect to the SAC (Atkins, 2009): ‘The'The interest interest feature of of the SAC SAC has a negligible exposure to either changes to flow or velocity regime and changes to water chemistry and reduced dilution capacity in the Great Stour. The The interest feature was assessed as being at medium exposure rating to changes to water level regime in the Great Stour.’

‘A large population of Desmoulin’s whorl snail have been recorded as living within the

ditches in Stodmarsh, with those at Puckstone being directly connected to the river and

therefore potentially exposed to any any changes in the Stour. Stour. The The distribution of this

23

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? species indicates it is highly tolerant of changes in water levels, although a very high water table due to flooding or water penning being set too high may result in unfavourably wet conditions. The exposure tables indicate that changes in water table and level are likely to be the only hazards to which Desmoulin’s Oesmoulin's whorl snail migh t be exposed (low exposure). In relation to the interest features of Stodmarsh SAC, mitigation therefore focused on minimising potential changes to water levels.’ levels. '

‘Mitigation is focused on either minimising changes in water levels / water volume in

the ri river, maintaining water levels or management aimed at allowing adaptation of

habitats to water levels changes. The The proposed approaches to mitigation are outlined

below, which would be incorporated into the implementation of the option:

‘Minimising changes - Abstraction for reservoir refill restricted to high flow periods only or under those flow conditions, identified through hydraulic modelling, that have been identified as being of sufficient magnitude to buffer changes in upstream water levels (Abstraction above an MRF identified as necessary to limit changes in water levels)

- Use of Plucks Gutter as preferred abstraction site due to increased downstream

distance from Stodmarsh.’ Stodmarsh. '

‘Maintaining existing conditions - Low level sluices to maintain minimum water levels within ditches and Hersden Lake. These would still allow water movement and maintenance of existing habitats adapted to water water level variations variations but would would help to ensure reduced drying on on ebb ebb tides.’ tides. '

‘Allow adaptation of habitats

- Works to grade ditch and lake margins to allow migration of marginal/fringing

vegetation in response to any changes in water level. The favourable condition tables

note that Desmoulin’s Oesmoulin's whorl snail ‘appears 'appears to be able to colonise new adjacent stands

(of vegetation) rapidly’.pidly'. It is expected that Desmoulin’s Oesmoulin's whorl snail will therefore be able

to readily colonise new vegetation stands that grow were water levels to change.’

‘With the implementation of this mitigation, the degree of exposure is reduced to negligible. Consequently, the vulnerability of the interest feature(s) of the site is

24

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? reduced to low. It may therefore be concluded that this option will have no ‘alone’ or ‘in- combination’ adverse effect on the integrity of Stodmarsh SAC.’ (Atkins,(Atkins, 2009).

The 2009 HRA concluded the following with respect to Stodmarsh SPA and Ramsar:

‘The Mitigation measures proposed to address this exposure risk are the same as those required required to address the impacts impacts on the Stodmarsh Stodmarsh SAC, SAC, as detailed above. With With the implementation of this mitigation, the degree of exposure is reduced to negligible. Consequently, the vulnerability of the interest feature(s) of the site is reduced to low. It may therefore be concluded that option 30a will have no ‘alone’ 'alone' or ‘in 'in-combination’ combination' adverse effect on the integrity of Stodmarsh SPA or Ramsar.’ Ramsar.' (Atkins, 2009)

Blean The qualifying features of Blean Complex SAC are unlikely to be highly sensitive to No No Complex SAC river abstraction. Reservoir construction at Broad Oak is 4.9km from the SAC, a (4.9km) distance at which construction and/or operational disturbance would not be significant.

One other WRMP option has impact pathways to Blean Complex SAC: TR-77b. The other s impact pathways . The proposed TR-77b pipeline route has been aligned to avoid the SAC and as the

woodland habitats and flora for which t he site is designated would not be sensitive to

temporary construction construction disturbance outside the site boundary, no in-combination

effects are anticipated.

Thanet Coast Abstraction from the River Stour at Plucks Gutter would be located approximately No No and Sandwich 6.8km upstream of the SPA /Ramsar. Abstraction could affect water quality in the Bay SPA and estuary which may affect habitat quality for feeding birds although this was assessed Ramsar as being ‘not significant’ following the WRMP09 HRA of an option that proposed the (6.8km)(6.8km) abstraction of 150 150 – 200Ml/d (as (as opposed to the 20Ml/d 20MI/d proposed proposed by by this option) .

Abstraction would be of a winter high flow on an outgoing tide. As the qualifying features of the SPA and Ramsar Ramsar are predominantly predominantly influenced influenced by by the saline conditions conditions found within the estuarine/tidal environment and would not be highly sensitive to alterations in freshwater flows, no significant effects to water quality or quantity within the SPA/Ramsar is anticipated.

25

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? Exposure to reduced dilution capacity is negligible for birds of estuarine habitats and vascular plants, lower plants and invertebrates of wet habitats. The lower estuary is influencedinfluenced predominantly predominantly by by seawater, seawater, which will provide provide sufficient dilution capacity capacity to compensate for any reduced freshwater flow (Atkins, 2009).

As such, a sig nificant effect to the qualifying features of Thanet Coast and Sandwich

Bay SPA and Ramsar is not considered likely.

No other WRMP option has an impact pathway to the SPA/Ramsar.

Sandwich The site’s qualifying features are unlikely to be highly sensitive to river abstraction No No Bay SAC 6.8km upstream and so no significant effect is anticipated. No other WRMP options (6.8km) have impact pathways to the SAC. As such, no significant in-combination effects with other WRMP options are anticipated. SW- Storage New None within N/A No No 40 Reser- Arlington 5km Skm voir Reservoir, EF-7 Water Water reuse Lewes Downs The proposed pipeline route has been designed to avoid Lewes Downs SAC. At its No No rereuse to River SAC ( 160m) closest point to the SAC, the pipeline would be located within the highway in an Ouse: urbanised area of Lewes. The SAC and the proposed pipeline route are separated by source – an industrial estate and the A26 and so there is limited potential for an impact pathway. Peacehaven Provided that construction does not encroach into the designated area and by ensuring that adequate pollution control measures are adopted, significant effects associated with non -physical disturbance, toxic contamination and non -toxic contamination would be unlikely (refer to section 5.3 for examples of mitigation measures that would be implemented)implemented). No other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC and so no inin- combination effects are anticipated either.

Castle Hill The qualifying features of Castle Hill SAC are not likely to be sensitive to disturbance No No SAC (4.5km) (4.Skm) or other construction related impacts (including(including air pollution) pollution) associated with pipe layinglaying 4.5km 4.Skm away away and t he site is not sensitive to fluvial discharge or abstraction. No other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC. As such, no significant effects to the SAC are anticipated anticipated either alone or in in-combination with other WRMP options.

26

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? EF- Water Aylesford Peter’s Pit The integrity of the site is dependent on scrub control and retaining rainfall and as such No No 11 rereuse water re- use SAC (1.5km) (1.Skm) there are no no pathways pathways between between this o0ption and the qualifying features of the site. No at Aylesford other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC. As such, no significant effects to the SAC are anticipated either alone or in-combination with other WRMP options.

North Downs The qualifying features of the SAC would not not be be sensitive to impacts impacts associated with No No Woodland pipeline construction (including(including air pollution) pollution) as the proposed route would be in excess SAC (3.5km)(3.Skm) of 3km from the designated site boundary. The qualifying habitats are not influenced by fluvial regimes and so the proposed discharges to the River Medway would not impact the SAC. Therefore, no no significant effects effects either alone or in-combination are anticipated.

Medway Discharges into the River Medway at East Barming would be located in excess of Yes No Estuary and 15km1Skm upstream of the SPA/Ramsar. Upstream discharges could affect the quality of Marshes SPA freshwater reaching reaching the estuary which may may have have an effect on habitat habitat quality (e.g. (e.g. prey prey and Ramsar item assemblages) for feeding waders. The temperature of the treated effluent could (16km be different from the Medway and during low flows when the proportion of treated straight line effluent in the river downstream would be greater, this could adversely affect aquatic distance from lifelife including including fish. Temperature changes could have knock-on impacts on dissolved point of oxygen concentrations. Changes in the volume of discharge and salinity to that discharge at currently received by the River Medway could also affect water availability within the East designated area, especially when combined with existing water availability issues (e.g. Barming) abstraction and drainage) experienced at the site. Although the distance from the SPA/RamsarSPAIRamsar is great, a significant effect cannot yet be ruled out.

No other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SPA/RamsarSPAIRamsar and so no significant in-combination effects to the site are anticipated.

27

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? TR- Inter- Transfer Queendown Queendown Warren SAC is located within close proximity to Matt’sMatt's Hill service Yes No 22 com- from Detling Detling Warren SAC reservoir. IfIf construction construction activity does not not encroach within the SAC there is is a low low pany / SR (SEW (140m) likelihood of physical loss of the grassland habitats for which the site is designated. Region- RZ6) to However, to xic and non-toxic contamination deriving from machinery, run-off and dust al Matt's Hill might result in significant effects to the SAC. As such, this option should be taken Transfer (SWS KME) forward to Appropriate Assessment .

No other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC ( as option TR-22a would not be taken forward if TR -22 is adopted). As such, no significant effects to the SAC are anticipated either alone or in-combination with other WRMP options.

North Downs North Downs Woodland SAC is located immediately adjacent to Detling service Yes No Woodlands reservoir and the proposed pipeline route would pass within 50m of the SAC at two SAC (lessless locationslocations south south of Broader Broader Lane Lane. If If construction activity does not not encroach encroach within the than 50m)) SAC there is a low likelihood of physical loss of the woodland or grassland habitatsitats for which the site is designated. However, physical damage could arise if construction activity within the root zones of trees was undertaken. Toxic and non-toxic contamination deriving from machinery, run-off and dust might also result in significant effects to the SAC.. As such, this option should be be taken forward to Appropriate Assessment .

Two other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC: EF -11 11 and TR -22a. The proposed route of the EF-11 pipeline is located in excess of 3km from the proposed TR-22 pipeline; at this distance in-combination effects associated with construction are not anticipated. Option TR-22a would involve the transfer of water in the opposite direction to TR-22 and would not involve the construction of a pipeline in additionition to that proposed here; as such, there would be no in-combination effects.

28

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? TR- Inter- Reverse of Queendown Queendown Warren SAC is located within close proximity to Matt’s Hill service Yes No 22a com- 1616 (Lft25) (Lft2S) Warren SAC reservoir.reservoir. If construction activity does not encroach within the SAC there is a low pany / Transfer (140m)(140m) likelihoodlikelihood of physical physical loss loss of the grassland habitats habitats for which the site site is is designated. designated. Region- from Matt's Matt's However, toxic and non-toxic contamination deriving from machinery, run-off and dust al Hill (SWS might result in significant effects to the SAC. As such, this option should be taken Transfer KME) to forward to Appropriate Assessment. Detling SR (SEW(SEW RZ6) RZ6) No other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC (as option TR -22 would not be taken forward if TR-22a is adopted). As such, no significant effects to the SAC are anticipated either alone or in -combination with other WRMP options.

North Downs North Downs Woodland SAC is located immediately adjacent to Detling service Yes No Woodlands reservoir and the proposed pipeline route would pass within 50mSOm of the SAC at two SAC locations south of Broader Lane. If construction activity does not encroach within the (immediately(immediately S AC there is a low likelihood of physical loss of the woodland or grassland habitats for adjacent) which the site is designated. However, physical damage could arise if construction activity within the root zones of trees was undertaken. Toxic and non-toxic contamination deriving from machinery, run-off and dust might also result in significant effects to the SAC. As such, this option should be taken forward to Appropriate Assessment.

Two other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC: EF -11 11 and TR -22. The proposed route of the EF-11 pipeline is located in excess of 3km from the proposed TR-22a pipeline; at this distance in-combination effects associated with construction are not anticipated. Option TR-22 would involve the transfer of water in the opposite direction to TR-22a and would not involve the construction of a pipeline in addition to that proposed proposed here; here; as as such, there would be be no no in in- combination effects.

29

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? TR- Intra- Kippings to N/A There are no European sites located between Kippings service reservoir and Pembury No No 33b com- Pembury service reservoir and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European pany SEW designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the Transfer Medw ay qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. (RZ7(RZ7 to RZ1) TR- Inter- Transferransfer to N/A No longer involves any new infrastructure –- uses existing infrastructure. No No No 53a com- Veolia SE construction or change to abstraction. pany / (Barham) Region- from SEW al RZ8 Transfer (Kingston) - 2 Ml/d TR- Inter- Portsmouth N/A The proposed pipeline routeroute does not intersect any European European designated sites or No No 54 / com- Water habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a TR- pany / (Clanfield) to European site at a favourable conservation status. 54a Region- SEW RZ5 al (Tilmore Transfer Reservoir) Butser Hill At this distance, the qualifying features of the SAC would not be sensitive to impacts No No Transfer SAC (1.1km) associated with pipeline construction. No other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC (as (as option TR-54a would not be taken forward if TR-54 is adopted). As such, no significant effects to the SAC are anticipated either alone or in -combination with other WRMP options. TR- Intra- Transfer Blean Blean Complex SAC is located to the immediate west and north of Blean service No No 77b / com- from Broad Complex SAC reservoir. The proposed pipeline route would head east from Blean service reservoir SW- pany Oak (Option (immediately and so construction activity within the designated area would not be required.ired. Provided Provided 1414 Transfer 30b) to adjacent to that no construction activity encroaches into the designated area and that adequate Blean SR scheme) pollution control measures are implemented (refer to Section 5.3.1 for examples of Note This mitigation measures that would be implemented),, the qualifying qualifying features of the SAC pipeline is are not likely to be sensitive to temporary construction activity close to its boundary. now part of the SW14 option)

30

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? One other WRMP options have impact pathways to Blean Complex SAC: SW -14. 14. At respective distances of 2.5km and 1.2km from the SAC, construction activity associated with this option would not result in an impact to the site. As such, no significant effects to the qualifying features of the site is anticipated either alone or in - combination with other WRMP options.

TR- Inter- SEW N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites or No No 79 / com- Whitely Hill habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a TR- pany / to SESW European site at a favourable conservation status. 79a Region- Outwood al Transfer TR- Intra- SEW RZ6 N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites or No No 92 / com- (Aylesford) habitat features that wou ld be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a TR- pany to SEW European site at a favourable conservation status. 92a Transfer Medway RZ1 (Blackhurst)(Blackhurst) via East Peckham TR- Inter- SESW N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites or No No 131 com- Bough habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a pany / Beech to European site at a favourable conservation status. Region- SEW al Riverhill Transfer TR- Intra- SEW Best N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites or No No 132 / com- Beech (RZ2) habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a TR- pany to Blackhurst European site at a favourable conservation status. (RZ1) 132a132a Transfer

31

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? TR- Interr- Windsor to Windsor The proposed pipeline route passes within close proximity to Windsor Forest Forest and Great Yes No 136a com- Surrey Hills - ForestForest and Parkrk SAC. Provided that no construction activity encroaches into the designated area, pany / 10Ml/d Great Park there is a low likelihood of significant effects to the qualifying features of the SAC. Region- SAC (200m) However, construction activity could result in toxic and non-toxic contamination derivingiving al from machinery, run-off and dust. As such, this option should be taken forward to Transfer Appropriate Assessment.

Option WT-4 also has an impact pathway with the SAC. However, given the distance of WT-4 from TR -136a 136a and the SAC, and as the SAC is not consid ered to be sensitive to option WT-4, no in-combination effects are considered likely. As such, no significant effects to the SAC are anticipated in -combination with other WRMP options.

Thames This option would involve an expansion to the existing Surrey Hillsills reservoir reservoir that is is Yes No Basin Heaths located within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Reservoir expansion and associated SPA (scheme construction activity could result in the loss of heathland habitats favoured by the within the qualifying species. Construction activity could also result in noise and visual site) disturbance that could significantly affect breeding success.

The only other WRMP option with a potential impact pathway to the SPA is GW-98. However, no impacts to the SPA as a result of GW-98 are anticipated as abstraction would be fro m a confined aquifer and so no impacts in-combination with TR-136a are anticipated. There is potential for in-combination effects associated with other South East Water schemes completed during previous AMP cycles and these would need to be considered at Appropriate Assessment stage.

Significant impacts to the SPA could potentially be mitigated by designing the proposals to avoid habitats favoured by the qualifying species and reducing the impacts associated with disturbance (e.g. by avoiding works within the breeding breeding season and/or erecting temporary close board fencing around the working area etc). However, until full information relating to the proposed design of the reservoir extension is available, sufficient uncertainty exists and this option should be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage stage of HRA. HRA.

32

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

GIS Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect from Effect in- ID type name site and option alone? combination distance with other from option. plans and projects within the WRMP? WT-1 WTW Maytham Dungeness to The proposed option only involves improvementsimprovements to the existing existing Water Treatment No No Expansi Farm Option Pett Level Works infrastructure and would not involve alterations to the existing abstraction on 2 Increase SPA (10km) regime.regime. As such, there would be no no changes to groundwater or surface water sources ADO and with links to the SPA and so no significant effects to the integrity integrity of the site would arise. PDO: Refurbish No other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SPA. As such, no significant treatment effects to the SAC are anticipated either alone or in-combination with other WRMP works options. WT-4 WTW Existing Windsor The qualifying features of the SAC are unlikely to be sensitive to increased river No No Expansi WTW WTWWRZ4 WRZ4 Forest Forest and abstraction or construction/operational activities associated with a WTW expansion on Great Park 3km away. SAC (3km) Option TR-136a also has an impact pathway with the SAC although in-combination effects are not anticipated given the distance of WT-4 from the site. WT- WTW WTW (RZ2) N/A This option does not involve any activities that would result in impacts to European No No 14 Process WTW- sites. Losses Recovery of Process Losses

33

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Table 4.2. Review of other plans and projects for potential in-combination effects

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site Other water company plans or projects e.g. WRMPs, Drought Plans etc Affinity Water A draft WRMP was GW-98 and Only one scheme affecting the Lee Valley SPA/Ramsar was recommended for Appropriate No published in May TR-136a136a Assessment;; there are no no pathways pathways between between this site and the South East East Water WRMP and so no no 2013. A Habitats (Thames in-combination effect is anticipated. The unpublished draft HRA indicates that the WRMP is Regulations Basin Heaths considered to not have an adverse impact on the integrity of any other European Sites either alone or Assessment is in SPA) in combination (Jacobs, unpublished), although this has yet to be agreed with Natural England. production but has not yet been Of the European sites considered likely to be affected by the Affinity Water WRMP, only the Thames published (Jacobs, Basin Heaths SPA has any interface with the South East East Water WRMP. However, the Affinity Water unpublished). HRA concluded the following with respect to (noise) impacts to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA as a

result of its Ladymead Import scheme: ‘Although feasible, as the option is within 5km of Thames Basin Heaths SPA, it is considered highly unlikely that any additional noise created during

construction would create a significant change in the background noise levels of the site. The The noise levels in this highly urbanised region are already high with major trunk roads, airports and industry as

well as residential areas.’ areas. ' (Jacobs, unpublished).

As such, no in-combination effects with the Affinity Water WRMP are anticipated.

Portsmouth An HRA of the draft N/A The HRA concluded that ‘the Portsmouth Water’s Water's Base Plan and Alternative Illustrative Illustrative Plan No Water WRMPWRMPwas was will have no significant effects on any European sites, alone or in-combination with other plans published in March and programmes’ programmes' , although it acknowledged that a review of other water company’s WRMPs 2013. was still required (Amec, 2013).

There are no common European sites that would be affected by both the Portsmouth Water WRMP and the South East Water WRMP and so no in-combination effects are anticipated.

34

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site Sutton and The WRMP and GW-98 and The closest European site to any of the proposed SESW options is 15km 15km away and so the SEA No East Surrey SEA Scoping TR -136a 136a Scoping Report concluded that implementation of the proposed plan would be highly unlikely to Water Report were first (Thames affect the site’ssite's integrity (Atkins, 2010). As such, no in-combination effects with the SEW published in March Basin Heaths WRMP are anticipated. 2010. The SEA SPA) provided The draft SEA Scoping Report states that ‘some'some of of the options options shortlisted for possible inclusion information relating in the dWRMP could have the potential, either alone or in-combination, to result in significant to Appropriate effects on one of the sites. A screening exercise will be undertaken to determine whether HRA Assessment of the of the WRMP will be required.’.' (Atkins, (Atkins, 2012). An HRA HRA report is is not not available on the company WRMP. website and so it is assumed that an assessment has not yet been undertaken.

A draft SEA The company’s drought plan states: ‘TheThe Thames Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) (SPA) Scoping Report for is on the SESW company ar ea border to the North West. The SPA is not hydraulically linked to the draft WRMP any of the proposed drought permit sites. It is also outside of their groundwater and surface 2014 was published water catchments and thus is unlikely to be impacted by any of the Company’s proposed in October 2012. drought management actions. The Company does not therefore propose to carry out a Habitats Regulations Assessment for its revised Drought Plan .’ (Sutton and East Surrey Water, 2013). As a result, no in -combination effects with the SEW WRMP are anticipated . Sembcorp A draft Water N/A No reference to a Habitats Regulations Assessment of the dWRMP was made in the SEA No Bournemouth Resources Position Paper and an HRA report is not available on the company’s company's website. The company’s company's Water Management Plan Drought Plan does not refer to HRA and states that ‘This'This drought plan therefore therefore does does not not was published for require a Strategic Environmental Assessment as all drought mitigation measures focus on public consultation reducing demand for water and therefore do not impact negatively on the environment’ inin 2013. An SEA SEA (Sembcorp(Sembcorp Bournemouth Bournemouth Water, 2013). Position Paper was published in support of the dWRMP. Southern A WRMP and HRA There are seven European sites that are common to both the Southern Water and South East Water were published in Water WRMP (Dungeness to Pett Level SPA, Ebernoe Common SAC, Medway Estuary and 2009. Marshes SPA and Ramsar, North Downs Woodlands SAC, Peter’s Peter's Pit SAC, Pevensey Levels cSAC and Ramsar, and Queen down Warren SAC).

35

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site

Dungeness Dungeness to Pett Level SPA to Pett Pett Level Level Potential impacts to this site as a consequence of the Southern Water WRMP require further SPA (WT-1) study at Appropriate Assessment (Southern Water, 2009). Only one option from the SEW WRMP (WT -1) 1) is within the zone of influence of Dungeness to Pett Level SPA. However, the proposed option only involves improvements to the existing Water Treatment Works infrastructureinfrastructure and would not not involve involve alterations to the existing existing abstraction regime. regime. As such, there would be no changes to groundwater or surface water sources with links to the SPA and so no significant effects to the integrity of the site would arise either alone or in-combination with the Southern Water WRMP.

Ebernoe Ebernoe Common SAC Common The only preferred option on the SEW WRMP within the zone of influence of Ebernoe Common SAC (GW - SAC is GW-98, a groundwater enhancement scheme. However, as the site’ssite's qualifying Yes -– EF-11 11 98) features are not sensitive to groundwater abstraction a significant effect is not anticipated either and Medway alone or in -comb ination. EstuaryEstuary and Marshes SPA Medway Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar and Ramsar Estuary and Following screening of the South East Water HRA, potential effects to the Medway Estuary and Marshes Marshes SPA and Ramsar as a result of option EF -11 11 ‘Aylesford 'Aylesford water re-use at Aylesford’ was SPA and considered possible and so this option was taken forward to Appropriate Assessment . The Ramsar (EF- Southern Water HRA also identified the potential for likely significant effects to this site as a 11) result of its Medway catchment licence variations and asset enhancements,, and the Aylesf ord wastewater recycling scheme; the potential impacts of these options could manifest via changes to water chemistry and quality, and changes to fluvial and groundwater levels. Although the Southern Water HRA concluded that significant effects could be avoided, this assessment did not take into account in -combination effects with the South East East Water WRMP and there was still sufficient uncertainty to recommend that these options be taken forward to Appropriate Assessment . As such, there is potential for in-combination effects to the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar.

36

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site North Downs North Downs Woodland SAC Woodlands No impact to this site is anticipated as a result of the Southern Water WRMP due to distance SAC (EF-11, and absence of impact pathways (Southern Water, 2009). Therefore no in-combination effect is TR-22 /22a) anticipated.

Peter’s Pit Peter’s Pit SAC SAC (EF -11) 11) The only preferred option on the SEW WRMP within the zone of influence of Peter’s Pit SAC is EF-11, 11, a water reuse scheme. There are no pathways between this option and the qualifying features of the site and so in-combination effects are not anticipated.

Pevensey Pevensey Levels cSAC and Ramsar Levels cSAC The only preferred option on the SEW WRMP within the zone of influence of Pevensey Levels and Ramsar cSAC and Ramsar is GW -58, a groundwater enhancement project. As this option is not within (GW(GW-58) Pevensey Levels catchment or aquifer there are no impact pathways to the cSAC or Ramsar and so in-combination impacts with the Southern Water WRMP are not anticipated.

Queendown Queendown Warren SAC Warren SAC No impact to this site as a result of the Southern Water WRMP due to distance and absence of (TR(TR-22 /22 a) ) impact pathways (Southern Water, 2009). Therefore no in-combination effect is anticipated. South East Crowthorne Main TR-136a The Appropriate Assessment concluded: ‘Assessing potential adverse impacts based on Yes Water Lay project. (Thames(Thames breeding bird data and the scheme design details, it is considered that through sensitiveitive Appropriate Basin Heaths programming of the timing of the works within the Lower Star Post to Paschal Wood part of the Assessment SPA) scheme, by correctly implementing measures set out in a method statement and by re- undertaken June instatement of of habitats habitats following following completion completion of of the works, works, residual impac ts on SPA bird species 2012. will be minor. Indeed the creation of areas of more open habitat following clearance of a strip of coniferous trees adjacent to the ride is likely to suit the requirements of all of the SPA bird species and may result in positive impacts. Nevertheless, the screening exercise described above is required in order to demonstrate that each of the key SPA features p resent has been fully considered.’ considered.' (Halcrow,(Halcrow, 2013 ).

As TR-136a and the Crowthorne Main Lay project would both result in habitat loss within the SPA, there is potential for significant in-co mbination impacts, despite implemen tation of the above mitigation proposed by South East Water.

37

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site Thames In June 2012 the Thames Water’s WRMP HRA concluded that the preferred programmes for the final WRMP No Water Secretary of State and the existing licensed abstraction sources are not likely to have a significant effect on any approved Thames European sites either alone or in-combination. Some schemes were recommended for Water’sWater's Water Appropria te Assessment but these were not included in the final WRMP (Cascade, 2012). Resources Management Plan Thames Water’s Drought Plan HRA also concluded that no options are considered to have covering the period likelylikely significant significant effects effects in in- combination with other water company or regional drought plan s 2010-2035. A (Cascade,(Cascade, 2012). Habitats Regulations As such, no in-combination effects with the SEW WRMP are anticipated. Assessment was published in March 2012.

Thames Water’s Drought Plan was approved by DEFRA in August 2013. A Habitats Regulations Assessment was published in March 2013. Shoreline Management Plans Shoreline An HRA for the SW-14 The SMP HRA considers possible effects to three European sites that fall within the geographic No Management SMP was published (Thanet Coast scope of the SEW HRA: Thanet Coa st and Sandwich Bay SPA / Ramsar and Sandwich Bay SAC. Plan: Isle of in 2009. & Sandwich Grain to Bay SPA / Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay SPA / Ramsar South Ramsar, Impacts associated with the SMP would be restricted to loss/gain to intertidal habitats. The SMP Foreland Sandwich Bay HRA concludes that no adverse effects to intertidal habitats either alone or in-combination would SAC) arise although beneficial effects are likely (Halcrow, 2010 ).

38

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site One WRMP option has impact pathways to this site: SW -14. 14. This option involves the construction of a new reservoir and abstraction from the Great Stour, neither of which would lead to loss of the intertidalintertidal habitats habitats of the SPA/Ramsar SPAIRamsar and so significant effects in-combination with the SMP are not anticipated.

Sandwich Bay SAC The SMP HRA concluded that there would be no likely significant effect to the SAC, although any potential impacts would be related to intertidal habitat loss. SW -14 14 involves the abstraction of water from the Great Great Stour which would not not result result in in the loss loss of intertidal intertidal habitat. habitat. As such, in in-combination effects are not anticipated. Shoreline An HRA for the EF-11 The SMP HRA considers possible effects to two European sites that fall within the geographic scope No Management SMP was published (Medway of the SEW HRA: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA 1/ Ramsar and Peter’s Peter's Pit SAC. Plan: Medway in 2008. Estuary and Estuary and Marshes SPA Medway Estuaryuarv and Marshes SPA /1 Ramsar Swale / Ramsar and The SMP HRA concludes that, alone and in-combination, the proposed SMP options would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site through displacement of grazing march and Peter’sPeter's Pit standing water habitat. SAC)

EF-11 is the only WRMP option that has the potential to affect this European site with possible impactsimpacts associated to changes changes in in water quantity quantity and and non non-toxic contamination. Impacts Impacts associated with the SMP would be restricted to physical loss of habitat only. As EF-11 would not result in physical loss of habitat, no in-combination effects are anticipated.

Peter’s Pit SAC The SMP HRA concluded that there would be no likely significant effect to the SAC. EF-11 is the only WRMP option within the zone of influence influence of the SAC although there are no impact pathways between the option and the site. As such, no in -combination effects are anticipated. Shoreline An Appropriate WT-1 A consultation response from Natural England to Shepway DC and the Environment Agency No Management Assessment for the (Dungeness(Dungeness (ref: (ref: South Foreland Foreland to Beachy Beachy Head SMP, 17/10/09)17/10109) confirms that the SMP may have an Plan: South SMP was published to Pett Level adverse effect on the integrity of Dungeness to Pett Level SPA (impacts to other sites were Foreland to in 2009, although SPA) also addressed in this letter but none of these are within the geographic zone of influence of the Beachy Head this has not been WRMP options). obtained.

39

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site WT-1 is the only WRMP within the zone of influence of the SPA.

Although Natural England’s letter does not provide further details relating to how the SPA might be affected by the SMP, in-combination effects are not anticipated with WT -1 1 as this option involves improvements to infrastructure at the existing Maytham Farm Water treatment Works and there are no impact pathways to the qualifying features of the SPA. Regional Development Plans Wealden An HRA of the GW-58 The HRA concluded that ‘subject'subject to to the the implementation implementation of of avoidance and mitigation measures, measures, No District Proposed (Pevensey(Pevensey it can be concluded that the Proposed Submission Strategic Sites Local Plan will not result in Council Local Submission Levels cSAC an adverse effect on any European or International site, either alone or in combination with Plan Strategic Sites / Ramsar) Ramsar) other projects or plans’ plans' (Wealden(Wealden DC, DC, 2013). Local Plan was GW-141 published in June (Ashdown(Ashdown - GW-58 –- this option is is not not anticipated to affect any Europ Europ ean sites as it involves abstraction 2013. Forest SAC, from a a deep confined confined aquifer and and so no no in in- combination effects are anticipated. Ashdown Forest SPA, - GW-141 - There are no impact pathways between GW -141141 and Ashdown Forest Forest SPA or Mole Mole Gap to Gap to Reigate Escarpment SAC and so in-combination effects are not anticipated . Ashdown Reigate Forest SAC would be sensitive to groundwater abstraction although GW -141141 would not ‘alone’ 'alone' Escarpment result in a significant effect. As the Wealden DC Local Plan would not result in an increase in SAC). abstraction (this would be accounted for in the WRMP), in-combination effects are not anticipated. New housing The Thames Basin GW-98 and This Delivery Framework sets out the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership No development Heaths Special TR-136a 136a Board’sBoard's (JSPB) recommendations on measures to enable the delivery of dwellingsings in in the within the Protection Area (Thames vicinity of the SPA without having a significant effect on the SPA as a whole. It focuses on following Delivery Framework Basin Heaths avoiding the impact of recreation and urbanisation on the SPA habitat and interest features. boroughs and SPA) (TBH JSPB, 2009). districts: Impacts to the Thames Basin Heaths as a result of housing development predominantly relate Bracknell to disturbance caused by by recreational recreational activities. Forest BC ; Elmbridge - GW-98 would not increase disturbance to the SPA as it is a groundwater abstraction scheme; BC; as such, no in-combination effects with this option are anticipated.

40

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site Guildford BC; Hart DC; - TR-136a might result in short term disturbance to breeding birds during construction that is RBWM; unlikely to be significant in the medium to long term. It should also be possible to mitigate Runnymede against the impacts of disturbance in the short term (e.g. by scheduling works to avoid the BC; breeding season, noise/visual screens during construction etc). Given the implementation of Rushmoor mitigation proposed by the Thames Basin Heaths JSPB and the mitigation that would be BC; implemented during construction of TR-136a, a significant in-combination effect is not Waverley BC; considered likely. Woking BC; Wokingham BC; Hampshire CC; Surrey CC. New housing Strategic Access GW-141 All planning applications proposing a net increase in residential dwellings within the 7km zone No development Management and (Ashdown around the Ashdown Forest SPA will be required to mitigate their effects of increased within Mid- Monitoring (SAMM) Forest SAC, recreational pressure in the form of providing a financial contribution towards Strategic Access Sussex Ashdown Management and Monitoring (SAMM) measures. This situation is only for the interim, before (within(within 7km of Forest SPA) the Council has has a Suitable Alternative Natural Natural Greenspace (SANG) (SANG) in in place, place, at at which time Ashdown contributions will be expected towards both the SAMM and SANG measures (Mid-Sussex Forest SPA District Council, 2013). and SAC). The potential impacts of housing development within 7km of the SAC and SPA arise from the possibility of increased recreational pressure result ing from occupiers of new housing who may wish to visit the Ashdown Forest.

- GW-141 would not result in any impacts associated with disturbance and so no in- combination effects are anticipated.

41

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site Mid-Sussex An HRA was GW-141 Castle Hill, Lewes Downs and Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment were screened out of the LPAs No District Plan published in 2013. (Ashdown(Ashdown assessment, largely due to their distance from the district and the low likelihood of residents Forest SAC, travelling along roads close to the sites. Natural England concurred with these findings in its Ashdown screening opinion on the plan (UE, 2013). As such, in -combination effects to these sites as a Forest SPA, result of GW-141 and EF-7 are not anticipated. Mole Gap to Reigate The LPAs screening exercise found likely significant effects on Ashdown Forest SAC/SPA as a Escarpment resultresult of disturbance and atmospheric pollution although the impacts of these could be be SAC) mitigated or avoided through the provision of SANG sites and air quality monitoring, respectively (UE, 2013). At 1.1km 1.1km from the SAC/SPA, GW-141 141 would not result in any EF-7 (Lewes disturbance to the site, nor would this option generate atmospheric pollution; as such, in- Downs SAC combination effects with GW-141 are not anticipated. and Castle Hill SAC) Canterbury An HRA was SW-14 The HRA of the draft Local Plan recommends that the following wording be incorporated into No City Council published in 2013. (Blean(Blean the Local Plan: ‘No'No development will will be permitted which which may have have an adverse effect effect on on the the draft Local Complex integrity of an SAC, SPA or Ramsar Site, alone, or in combination with other plans or projects, Plan SAC, as it would not be in accordance with the aims and objectives of this Local Plan.’ (Amec,(Amec, Stodmarsh 2013a). Assuming that this wording would be incorporated as a policy within the Local Plan, it SAC,SAC,SPA SPA would not be possible for in -combination effects to arise as no d evelopment would be permitted and Ramsar, that could result result in in such an outcome. Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA/ Ramsar, Sandwich Bay SAC)

TR-77b (Blean(Blean Complex SAC)

42

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site Lewes District A proposed EF-7 (Lewes The SEA states that development associated with the Local Plan would not result in significant No Local Plan submission Downs SAC) effects to Lewes Downs SAC. As the SACs main sensitivity is to habitat loss (and potentially document that changes in air quality), and as EF-7 would not result in the loss of any habitat within the incorporatesincorporates a a designated area nor contribute towards a reduction in air quality, in-combination effects are not Strategic anticipated. Environmental Assessment provides a review of the findings of an HRA of the Local Plan Tonbridge An HRA was EF-11 The LDF HRA concluded that there would be ‘no significant negative effects on the two No and Malling Mailing published in 2009 (Peter’s(Peter's Pit Pit European sites located within and adjoining Tonbridge and Malling Borough resulting from the Local SAC, North policies in the MDE DPD’ (TFA, 2009). Development Downs Framework Woodlands There are no impact pathways between TR-22 and Peter’s Pit SAC and so in-combination SAC) effects are not anticipated.

TR-22 /22a The LDF HRA concluded that there would be no impacts to North Downs Woodlands SAC (North(North although no reference to in-c ombination effects could be found. These options will be taken Downs forward to Appropriate Assessment as impacts alone cannot yet be ruled out. Mitigation Woodlands proposed in the Appropriate Assessment stage will seek to mitigate any in -combination effects. SAC) East An HRA for revised TR-54 /54a The Joint Core Strategy HRA identifiedified potential potential impact impact pathways pathways relating relating to recreational recreational No Hampshire housing numbers (Butser(Butser Hill Hill pressure and air quality, although it concluded that these impacts were unlikely to occur (URS, District Local was published in SAC) 2013). Options TR-54 and TR-54a involve the construction of a pipeline approximately 1.1km Plan: 2013 (URS, 2013). from the SAC and would not contribute towards increasing recreational pressure or polluting air Joint Core GW-98 emissions. As such, no in-combination effects are anticipated between these options and the Strategy (Thursley,(Thursley, East Hampshire Core Strategy. Ash, Pirbright and The Joint Core Strategy HRA identified that increased housing development and the associated Chobham water demand might have a negative effect on the wet heath component of Thursley, Ash,

43

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Plan or Plan or project, SEW WRMP Discussion In- project status and HRA options combination potentially effect likely? affected and European site SAC and Pirbright and Chobham SAC. However, the HRA concluded that significant effects are unlikely Ebernoe owing to existing planning polici es (URS, 2013).. SEW’s SEW's WRMP would take into into consideration Common development driven by the Core Strategy and would adjust its abstraction accordingly, following SAC) consent from the EA. The proposed abstraction associated with GW-98 is from the Lower Greensand aquifer and from greater than approximately 90m deep. Confinement of the aquifer by substantial thickness of Gault Clay, Chalk, Lambeth Group (including clays and silts) and London Clay deposits means the geology establishes a hydraulic barrier between the abstraction and the SAC, therefore there is no hydrogeological connectivity. As such, in- combination effects are not anticipated.

The Joint Core Strategy HRA concluded that there were no impact pathways to Ebernoe Common SAC (URS, 2013) and so it is not antici pated for significant effects to arise in combination with GW -98. Royal An unpublished GW-98 The Allocated Sites analysis concluded that RBWMs proposals might result in significant Yes –TR-136a 136a Borough of analysis of the (Thames effects to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA as a result of increase d recreational pressure and to and Windsor Windsor and impacts of the Basin Heaths Windsor Forest Forest and Great Park SAC as a result of air pollution (Jacobs , unpublished).. None of Forest and and Maidenhead proposed Allocated SPA) the SEW WRMP options would result in increases in recreational pressure and so no in- Great Park Allocated Sites to European combination effects with respect to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA are anticipated. SAC Sites sites has been TR-136a produced (Jacobs (Thames(Thames Option TR-136a was assessed as having the potential to result in toxic contamination of unpublished) Basin Heaths Windsor Forest Forest and Great Park SAC as a result of air pollution and dust, although it is SPA and considered likely that this could be mitigated. However, However, air pollution pollution associated associated with housing housing Windsor development associated with RBWM’s Allocated Sites could result in a significant in- Forest and combination effect and so this option should be taken forward to Appropriate Assessment . Great Park SAC)

44

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and southeast~ Appropriate Assessment July 2014

Table 4.3: Summary of options where likely significant effect is anticipated or cannot be ruled out following screening

GIS Option type Option name Impact alone European site potentially impacted and distance from the Feasible Option ID (A), in combination with other WRMP options (C) or both (A/C) EF- Water reuse Aylesford water re-use at A/C Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA (16km straight line distance from point of 11 Aylesford discharge at East Barming)

Medway Estuary and Marshes Marshes Ramsar Ramsar (16km (16km straight line line distance from point point of discharge at East Barming) TR- Inter-company/ Regional Windsor to Surrey Hills - 10Ml/d 10Ml/d A/CIC Thames Basin SPA (scheme within the site) 136 Transfer a A/C Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC (200m)

TR- Inter-company / Regional Transfer from Detling SR A North Downs Woodlands SAC (within 50m) 22 Transfer (SEW(SEW RZ6) RZ6) to Matt's Hill (SWS KME) Queendown Warren SAC (140m) TR- Inter-company / Regional Reverse of TR-22a Transfer A North Downs Woodlands SAC (within 50m) 22a Transfer from Matt's Hill (SWS KME) to Detling SR (SEW RZ6) Queendown Warren SAC (140m)

45

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

5 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

5.1 Requirement for Appropriate Assessment

Following the Stage 1 screening exercise, four WRMP options require taking forward to Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment due to the likelihood of significant effects occurring, or because there was sufficient uncertainty relating to the magnitude of the impacts that the precautionary approach was adopted. The options taken forward to Appropriate Assessment are:

 EF-11 Aylesford water reuse at Aylesford  TR-136a Windsor to Surrey Hills – 10 Ml/d  TR-22 Transfer from Detling SR (SEW RZ6) to Matt's Hill (SWS KME)  TR-22a Transfer from Matt's Hill (SWS KME) to Detling SR (SEW RZ6)

5.2 EF-11 Water re-use at Aylesford

This option proposes the transfer and discharge of treated effluent from Aylesford Water Treatment Works (WTW) into the River Medway in order to support increased abstraction by Southern Water at the Springfield intake in Maidstone. This option would also require the construction of a new effluent treatment plant at Aylesford WTW, a new pumping station, outfall (including a cascade) and a 6.6km long transfer main.

The potential for significant effects to the following European sites has been identified during Stage 1 Screening:

 Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar

Figure 5.1 below, shows the location of this option in relation to the SPA and Ramsar.

5.2.1 Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar

Assessment of potentially significant effects

The SPA is designated for its populations of breeding avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta) and little tern (Sterna albifrons), and overwintering populations of black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islandica), dark-bellied brent goose (Branta bernicla bernicla), dunlin (Calidris alpina alpina), grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), pintail (Anas acuta), redshank (Tringa totanus), ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) and shelduck (Tadorna tadorna). The site is also designated for its populations of passage ringed plover and as a site that regularly supports at least 20,000 waterfowl (JNCC, 2001).

The site also qualifies as a Ramsar wetland under Ramsar criteria 2, 5 and 6 (JNCC, 1993). Full information is provided in Table A.3 in Appendix A.

The qualifying features of the SPA/Ramsar are primarily sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance caused by noise, vibration and recreational activity, and changes to water quality and quantity.

As described in Section 4.3.2 the proposed option could result in significant effects to the SPA/Ramsar through non-toxic contamination and/or changes in water quality and quantity, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects.

46

FIGURE 5.1 Aylesford WTW to R Medway

Legend / *# Existing WTW ") Existing Service Reservoir (! Existing WwTW Utilisation of Existing Pipeline

RO Plant to Effluent Outfall

*# Effluent Reuse Outfall * # Surface Water Abstraction

Water Resource Zone (WRZ) Boundary

Designations Ramsar Site

SPA

!(

!(

NOTE: LOCATIONS ARE INDICATIVE ONLY

0 NOV 13 Initial Issue JG DJ AH RV Rev. Date Purpose of revision Drawn Check'dRev'd Appr'd Client !(

Project

!( SOUTH EAST WATER

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

* River Medway# Drawing Title EF-11 Aylesbury effluent re-use at Aylesford Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar

1180 Eskdale Road, Winnersh, Wokingham, RG41 5TU, UK. Tel: +44(0)118 946 7000 Fax:+44(0)118 946 7001 www.jacobs.com Drawing Status CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

Scale @A3 1:100,000 Option_Ref_ID SEW-EFF-RZ6-3110 GIS_ID EF-11 River Medway *# Drawing No. FIGURE 5.1

This drawing is not to be used in whole in or part other than for the intended purpose 0 4 8 and project as defined on this drawing. Refer to the contract for full terms and conditions. Reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Kilometres Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown Copyright Reserved Licence No. 10018341. © Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved 2012. WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

In-combination assessment

The proposed option could have in-combination effects with the Southern Water WRMP options including licence variations and asset enhancement options in the Medway catchment, ‘. The Aylesford wastewater recycling scheme is effectively the same scheme undertaken by Southern Water.

‘Down the line’ Assessment

Following consultation with Natural England, it was confirmed that a ‘down the line’ assessment would potentially be acceptable in a Water Resources Management Plan context only when all of the following criteria are satisfied:

1. Where, due to scientific uncertainty of a novel or complex process and need for more research, information cannot reasonably be gathered at this (WRMP14) plan stage; 2. Options are proposed for delivery late on in the plan (post 2030 for WRMP14) ensuring that there is time to allow for assessment and delivery of alternatives if necessary; 3. Alternatives are included in the plan that do not have an adverse effect on integrity of European sites, and these are available, feasible and deliverable; and, 4. A commitment is made to pursue alternatives if an adverse effect on integrity of a European site cannot be avoided for the preferred options set.

Detailed monitoring and modelling work would be required to objectively conclude that this option would not have adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA/Ramsar; these studies are complex and are beyond this assessment at plan level and so would be undertaken in the next AMP period. Where necessary, the results of this work would inform the details of a mitigation strategy that would be designed to reduce the severity of any impacts to within acceptable levels thus allowing the option to proceed without having a significant effect on the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site. This would satisfy criterion 1.

Commencement of construction of this option is scheduled for 2023. Although this does not satisfy Natural England’s ‘post 2030’ recommendation, there is sufficient time between the publication of WRMP14 and the proposed construction start date to undertake the necessary studies or bring forward alternatives. These studies have been committed to within SEW’s AMP6 business plan. As such, it is believed that criterion 2 has been satisfied.

If following a detailed assessment it is found that this option cannot conclude ‘no effects on integrity’ at project level, then alternative options will be proposed. Alternative options could be drawn from the feasible options list including additional leakage management options, or resource options screened out under the HRA. The process and programme for additional studies and identifying issues to ensure alternatives are brought in within sufficient time is outlined in Appendix 9b to the rWRMP.

The potential alternative schemes include screened transfer options, or resource options identified though the East Kent Strategy and potentially also additional leakage schemes. The East Kent Strategy will incorporate HRA. Leakage schemes would also need to be subject to HRA screening as potential locations for works can be identified.

The majority of the leakage management options do not involve activities that would result in a significant effect to a European site. The installation of PRVs and mains replacement

48

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

works are likely to involve localised and minor construction activity above existing infrastructure. Where such works would be undertaken within, or immediately adjacent to, European sites there is potential for impacts associated with physical loss (e.g. destruction of habitat), non-physical disturbance (e.g. noise) and toxic contamination (e.g. water pollution). Due to the likely temporary and localised nature of the works in combination with the implementation of appropriate mitigation (e.g. timing works to avoid sensitive periods, use of pollution prevention techniques, planning works to avoid sensitive locations etc) no significant effects are anticipated.

Each leakage management scheme package would be subject to at least the screening stage of HRA. Where works are likely to impact a European site, a specific impact assessment would be undertaken in consultation with Natural England. Where necessary, an appropriate mitigation strategy would also be agreed with Natural England to ensure that the proposals would not significantly affect the integrity of the site’s qualifying features.

As potential alternative schemes including screened resource options and transfers and the leakage management and any schemes identified as alternatives through the East Kent study will also be subject to screening, and these options are feasible and deliverable, and as significant effects to European sites are not anticipated (or could be mitigated due to the likely limited scope of the proposals), the third of Natural England’s criteria has been addressed.

South East Water therefore commits to a project level HRA (“down the line assessment”), and a study to inform it, in order to demonstrate no adverse effects in time for the 2019 WRMP and delivery of any project. In the event that ‘no adverse effects on integrity’ cannot be concluded, South East Water further commits to bringing forward suitable alternatives with all options subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment that would be informed by the findings of this HRA.

5.3 TR-136a Windsor to Surrey Hills – 10Ml/d

This option considers the construction of a 3km long pipeline between Windsor (in the Thames Water region) and the Surrey Hills main (in the South East Water region) to enable transfer of treated water between catchments. The proposed works would also involve the expansion of the existing Surrey Hills service reservoir. Construction is scheduled to commence in 2030.

The potential for significant effects to the following European sites has been identified during Stage 1 Screening:

 Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC;  Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

Figure 5.2 below shows the location of this option in relation to the SPA and SAC.

49

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

5.3.1 Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC

The SAC represents old acidophilous oak woods in the south-eastern part of its UK range. It has the largest number of veteran oaks (Quercus spp). in Britain (and probably in Europe), a consequence of its management as wood-pasture. It is of importance for its range and diversity of saproxylic invertebrates, including many rare species (e.g. the beetle (Lacon querceus)), some known in the UK only from this site, and has recently been recognised as having rich fungal assemblages. Windsor Forest and Great Park has been identified as of potential international importance for its saproxylic invertebrate fauna (JNCC, undated).

Assessment of potentially significant effects

The qualifying features of the site are as follows:

 9190 Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains;

 9120 Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion);

 1079 Violet click beetle (Limoniscus violaceus).

The qualifying features of Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC are primarily sensitive to habitat loss or fragmentation although impacts could also arise through the effects of contamination.

The proposed pipeline is located outside European sites but is approximately 200m from Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC and would cross a watercourse that flows into the designated area. Given the proximity of the pipeline to the designated site, there is potential for significant effects associated with toxic contamination (pollution incidents) and non-toxic contamination (silt laden run-off, dust etc) to arise.

Proposed mitigation

To mitigate against potential significant adverse impacts, the following would be implemented to ensure that the favourable conservation status of the site is maintained:

- Dust

To avoid adverse air quality impacts, construction plant will be well maintained so as to minimise emissions.

During prolonged periods of dry weather, there is potential for increases in dust levels. For dust control, suppression using a water sprinkling system will be used pre- emptively as required, especially along construction haul routes or within topsoil stripped working areas. A speed limit will operate on the site to reduce excessive airborne dust during dry spells. Haul lorries carrying dusty loads will also be covered.

The following procedures will be applied to haul routes, plant and vehicles on site:

 Heavily used areas will be paved, or the use of geotextiles will be considered. Sweep these regularly.  Sweep public roads regularly, using a vacuum sweeper.

51

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

 Limit vehicle speeds.  Damp down.  Clean the wheels of vehicles leaving the site so that mud is not spread on to the local roads.  Ensure all plant and vehicles are in good working order with an up-to-date maintenance log.

Measures to reduce the risk of significant dust emissions during construction are described in Table 5.1 below and will be enforced by the Scheme’s Environmental Clerk of Works, who will be present throughout construction.

Table 5.1 Measures to reduce the risk of significant dust emissions during the construction

1 Maintain all dust control equipment in good condition and record maintenance activities. 2 Do not allow dry sweeping of large areas. 3 Provide and ensure the use of wheel-wash facilities near the site exit wherever there is is a potential potential for carrying signific ant quantities of dust or mud off the site. 4 Impose and signpost maximum speed limits of 5 miles per hour (mph) on un-surfaced haul routes and work areas, and 10mph 10mph on surfaced haul routes and work areas. 5 Minimise the amount of excavated material held on site and sheet all materials wherever possible to prevent liberation of dust. 6 Avoid double handling of material. 7 Minimise drop heights from conveyors, loading shovels, hoppers and other loading or handling equipment and use fine water sprays on such equipment wherever appropriate. 8 Only use cutting, grinding or sawing equipment fitted with, or in conjunction with, suitable dust suppression techniques such as water sprays or local extraction. 9 Carry out site inspections regularly to monitor compliance with dust control procedures set out above and record the results of the inspections, including nil returns,returns, in in a log book. 10 Increase the frequency of site inspections when activities with a high potential to produceroduce dust are being bein carried out a nd during prolonged dry or windy conditions. 11 Record any exceptional incidents causing dust episodes on or off the site, and the action taken to resolve the situation, in a log book. 12 Plan construction activities in order to reduce the number of plant, and to maximise the use of plant while at the site. 13 Do not leave construction plant idling when not in use. 14 Locate site plant away from sensitive receptors. 15 Use mains electricity or battery power where possible (or practical for hand tools) ratherrather than diesel. 16 Purchase electricity generated from renewable sources. 17 Avoid the use of diesel or petrol powered generators. 18 Plan routes that vehicles make to the facility in order to make them as efficient as possible. 19 Ensure that vehicles used should be at their maximum capacity in terms of load, to minimise the number of vehicles and journeys to and from the site.

- Pollution Control – hazardous substances, oils and lubricants

The construction contractor will avoid any environmental damage as a result of the inadequate storage or misuse of any substance hazardous to health, through strict adherence to the company COSHH procedures and the measures identified in project specific risk assessments.

52

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Substances to be used on site that will fall under COSHH are likely to include diesel fuel, lubricating oils, and aerosol paints. Hazardous materials will be stored in suitable containers. Diesel fuel will be stored in a bunded/self-bunded tank complying with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001.

Oils and lubricants will be stored within the confines of a bund. Locks will be fitted to all fuel storage tanks. There will be a nominated person to oversee refuelling and delivery and to ensure there is no spillage.

Emergency procedures will be prepared and pollution control equipment provided, such as “grab packs” and absorbent granules. These will also be carried by some vehicles on the site. All spill kits will be replaced or replenished after use.

In addition, a permanent oil absorbent boom will be deployed across watercourses downstream of the works to provide protection during construction should a spill reach the watercourse. The boom will be inspected on a daily basis and repaired/replaced as necessary.

No potentially polluting materials or substances will be stored near watercourses or in such a situation that these materials can fall, or be carried into a watercourse. All static plant will have integral/separate drip trays and secure fuel tanks.

Drainage from the site compounds and the bunded fuel tank area will be channelled through an oil interceptor.

Refuelling of mobile plant will not take place within 20m of a watercourse. The refuelling bowser and the foremen’s vehicles will be equipped with “Grab Pack” spillage control kits and personnel will be trained in their use as part of the site Induction training. Special attention will be paid to spillage control at watercourses.

- Pollution control – suspended solids

Pollution can be caused by the discharge of suspended solids into a watercourse. Pollution from suspended solids is most likely to occur from pumping out excess rain water from accumulations as a result of seepage or rainfall, or from uncontrolled rainwater run-off from the work site into a watercourse.

This type of pollution is preventable if the following guidelines are rigidly adhered to:

 The hazards of silt pollution will be emphasised in the Site Induction;  No water will ever be pumped directly into a watercourse;  Only the minimum area of topsoil will be stripped at any one time;  A 5 metre buffer strip of vegetation will be left on either side of a watercourse if possible to provide a barrier and treatment area;  Straw bales and Spill Kits will be stored at all sensitive receptors;  Water will be pumped at low volume and treated as necessary. A settlement tank and straw bales will be used if the quantity of water justifies this;  Care will be taken to avoid soil erosion of river and stream banks;  Settlement lagoons may be constructed; and  Silty water will be disposed of by pumping to a grassland area, to sewer or to a watercourse after sufficient treatment. The correct permissions and consents must be obtained prior to disposal.

53

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

All works associated with construction near or on site watercourses will be undertaken with due regard to all relevant Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPGs) including:

 PPG01 – General Guide to the Prevention of Pollution  PPG02 – Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks  PPG03 – Use and Design of Oil Separators in Surface Water drainage system  PPG05 – Works and Maintenance in or Near Water  PPG06 – Working at Construction and Demolition Sites  PPG07 – Refuelling Facilities  PPG08 – Safe Storage and Disposal of Used Oils  PPG21 – Pollution Incident Response Planning.

The Environmental Clerk of Works will be responsible for producing and checking the risk assessments for the surface watercourses with connectivity to the European site.

In-combination effects

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead draft Allocated Sites analysis indicated that significant effects to Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC might arise as a result of air pollution (Jacobs, unpublished). Through the implementation of best practice guidelines and pollution prevention measures described above, there would be no impacts to the SAC as a result of option TR-136a. As such, in-combination effects are not anticipated. No other nearby projects were identified which could give rise to adverse significant impacts to Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC interest features in-combination with this scheme.

Conclusion

The proposed pipeline would not directly impact upon Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC, although there is potential for significant effects associated with toxic contamination (pollution incidents) and non-toxic contamination (silt laden run-off, dust etc) to arise. However, with the implementation of standard best practice pollution prevention and dust control measures, significant impacts to the integrity of the SAC would be avoided. Furthermore, no in-combination effects have been identified and so an assessment of alternative options (Stage 3 of HRA) need not be undertaken.

5.3.2 Thames Basin Heaths SPA

The Thames Basin Heaths SPA is a composite site that is located across the counties of Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire. The heathland habitats overlie sand and gravel sediments which give rise to sandy or peaty acidic soils, supporting a mixture of dry heath, wet heath and bogs. The site consists of fragmented tracts of heathland, scrub and woodland. Less open habitats of scrub, acidic woodland and conifer plantations dominate, within which are scattered areas of open heath and mire. The site supports important breeding populations of a number of birds of lowland heathland, especially nightjar, woodlark, both of which nest on the ground, often at the woodland/heathland edge, and Dartford warbler, which often nests in gorse Ulex sp. Scattered trees and scrub are used for roosting. (JNCC, undated).

Assessment of potentially significant effects

During the breeding season the area regularly supports:

 Nightjar 7.8% of the GB breeding population (count mean (1998-99));

54

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

 Woodlark 9.9% of the GB breeding population (count as at 1997);

 Dartford warbler 27.8% of the GB breeding population (count as at 1999) (JNCC, 2001a).

The three species of bird that are the qualifying features of the site are sensitive to habitat loss or fragmentation; disturbance caused by noise, vibration or recreational use; and, changes in habitat quality as a result of changes to water quality/quantity.

Surrey Hills reservoir is located within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and the proposed expansion to the reservoir could result in a significant effect to the European site. Reservoir expansion and associated construction activity could result in the permanent or temporary loss of heathland habitats favoured by nesting nightjar, woodlark and Dartford warbler. Construction activity could also result in noise and visual disturbance that could potentially deter birds from nesting and/or reduce the nesting success rate. Toxic or non-toxic contamination could also occur as a result of construction activity and reduce the viability of the heathland habitats for the qualifying species. Each of these impacts could potentially affect breeding productivity in the short to medium term.

The potential impacts described above could be significant alone or in-combination with other plans and projects, notably other South East Water schemes completed during previous AMP cycles (e.g. the Crowthorne Main Lay pipeline) and the increasing effects of recreational disturbance as a result of housing development within the vicinity of the SPA.

Proposed mitigation

Significant impacts to the SPA could potentially be mitigated by designing the proposals to avoid habitats favoured by the qualifying species and reducing the impacts associated with disturbance (e.g. by avoiding works within the breeding season, erecting temporary close board fencing around the construction working area, designing appropriate landscape screening etc) and toxic contamination (e.g. by following Environment Agency pollution prevention guidelines and the recommendations provided for the Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC, above).

In order to assess whether the proposed reservoir expansion would impact habitats that are either known to be used by, or are potentially suitable for use by, the qualifying species, baseline survey data would be reviewed (e.g. data held by Natural England, the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre, and the results of previous survey work to inform South East Water’s Crowthorne Main Lay HRA (Halcrow, 2013)) and walkover surveys undertaken to identify the presence of suitable foraging and/or breeding habitat. In addition, detailed survey work to obtain up to date information relating to the presence of the qualifying species within the vicinity of the proposed working area would be undertaken to assess their use of these habitats; the survey methodology would be agreed with Natural England before commencement.

If the proposals would result in the loss of habitat favoured by the qualifying species, habitat creation or restoration would be undertaken elsewhere within the SPA by way of mitigation (e.g. clearance of woodland or scrub to encourage heathland regeneration).

Standard mitigation will be implemented for all breeding bird species as part of the proposed scheme, by avoidance of disturbance to suitable breeding habitat between March and September with the removal of any suitable habitat undertaken outside of

55

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

the bird breeding season where this is not possible. Where any construction works are undertaken within the bird breeding season, a site check for breeding birds would be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist no more than two days prior to the start of construction. These pre-construction checks would ensure that no disturbance to active bird nests occurs. If an active nest is found it would be cordoned off with any works likely to result in its disturbance delayed until such a time that the chicks have fledged from the nest.

In-combination assessment

The proposed Crowthorne Main Lay pipeline project has the potential to cause significant effects to the integrity of the SPA as a result of disturbance caused by construction activity and the loss or modification of habitats during construction and operation of the pipeline. However, these impacts would be reduced to acceptable levels following the implementation of mitigation described in the project’s Appropriate Assessment; this would ensure that significant effects to the integrity of the SPA would be avoided (Halcrow, 2013). Furthermore, the creation of areas of more open habitat following clearance of a strip of coniferous trees adjacent to the pipeline route is anticipated to suit the requirements of all of the SPA bird species and may result in positive impacts (Halcrow, 2013).

As such, assuming the successful implementation of mitigation, there would be no residual impacts remaining that could act in-combination with TR-136a. Furthermore, there would be negligible potential for any residual impacts associated with the Crowthorne Main Lay project to persist throughout the period between its construction in 2015 and the commencement of TR-136a in 2030, as the impacts of disturbance would be temporary and the loss of coniferous trees would be beneficial to the qualifying species.

Recreation disturbance as a result of housing development within 5km of the SPA is recognised as being the predominant threat to the integrity of the site as a result of disturbance caused by increased recreational use and predation by domestic cats (TBH JSPB, 2009). TR-136a would not contribute towards the recreational use of the site (or the introduction of domestic cats), although disturbance caused by construction activity could exacerbate disturbance associated with recreational activity.

However, by avoiding construction activity within the breeding season, the impacts of disturbance to the qualifying species of the SPA would be negligible. Furthermore, the impacts associated with recreational disturbance are likely to have been adequately mitigated through the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) that has been delivered via the Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership Board.

Given the above, no in-combination effects with other plans or projects are anticipated.

‘Down the line’ assessment

By implementing the mitigation described above, it is anticipated that significant effects to the integrity of the SPA could be avoided. However, as the proposed construction start date of this option is 2030, it is not possible to confidently conclude ‘no significant effects’ at this time, nor is it appropriate to undertake a detailed impact assessment, as the habitats within the vicinity of Surrey Hills service reservoir and/or

56

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

the distribution and abundance of the qualifying species may change in the intervening years. It is therefore proposed to undertake a ‘down the line’ assessment.

Following consultation with Natural England, it was confirmed that a ‘down the line’ assessment would potentially be acceptable in a Water Resources Management Plan context only when all of the following criteria are satisfied:

1. Where, due to scientific uncertainty of a novel or complex process and need for more research, information cannot reasonably be gathered at this (WRMP14) plan stage; 2. Options are proposed for delivery late on in the plan (post 2030 for WRMP14) ensuring that there is time to allow for assessment and delivery of alternatives if necessary; 3. Alternatives are included in the plan that do not have an adverse effect on integrity of European sites, and these are available, feasible and deliverable; and, 4. A commitment is made to pursue alternatives if an adverse effect on integrity of a European site cannot be avoided for the preferred options set.

Although information relating to the habitats likely to be affected by the proposed reservoir extension and the presence of the qualifying species within them could be obtained during this WRMP14 plan stage, the results of the assessment would not be scientifically robust enough to confirm that a project undertaken in 2030 would not have a significant effect to the integrity of the SPA (i.e. an assessment now could not take into account habitat or bird population changes in the future). However, assuming that status quo is maintained, it is considered likely that a significant effect could be avoided by implementing the mitigation measures described above. As such, it is reasonable to recommend that an assessment be undertaken during the WRMP19 or WRMP24 period. Criteria 1 and 2 have therefore been addressed.

If following a detailed assessment it is found that this option cannot conclude ‘no effects on integrity’ at project level, then alternative options will be proposed. In this instance, it is South East Water’s intention to explore variants to the option including alternatives to the reservoir extension at Surrey Hills through for example the use of an alternative service reservoir or in pipe storage. The option will be reviewed within AMP 6. In addition, if the option variants are not possible and ’down the line’ Appropriate Assessment indicates that significant effects on the SPA are likely, other alternatives would be brought in such as HRA screened transfer routes (e.g. from Portsmouth Water, Aquifer Storage recovery or other HRA screened resource or transfer options).

As the above options are feasible and deliverable, and as significant effects to European sites are not anticipated (or could be mitigated due to the likely scope of the proposals), the third of Natural England’s criteria has been addressed.

South East Water therefore commits to a project level HRA (‘down the line’ assessment), and a study to inform it, in order to demonstrate no adverse effects in time for the 2019 or 2024 WRMP and delivery of any project. South East Water are also committed to further study of the scheme in AMP 6 to identify potential variants which could avoid direct impacts on the SPA. In the event that ‘no adverse effects on integrity’ cannot be concluded, South East Water further commits to bringing forward suitable alternatives with all options subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment that would be informed by the findings of this HRA.

57

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Conclusion

It is anticipated that significant effects to the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA arising through construction activity could be avoided by timing the works to avoid the breeding seasons of the qualifying species, compensating for any habitat losses through the creation or enhancement of nesting or foraging habitat, and by implementing control measures to reduce the effects of disturbance (e.g. temporary close board fencing) and toxic contamination (e.g. adherence to pollution prevention guidelines). However, given the lengthy period of time until this proposed option would be implemented further study of option variants and a ‘down the line’ assessment is recommended to ensure that the above mitigation is still appropriate to mitigate any impacts.

5.4 TR-22 and TR-22a Transfer from Detling SR to Matt’s Hill and reverse

These options involve the construction of a 5km long pipeline between Detling service reservoir and Matt’s Hill service reservoir through which treated water would be transferred between Southern Water and South East Water supply zones. This option would also include the expansion of Detling service reservoir.

The potential for significant effects to the following European sites has been identified during Stage 1 Screening:

 North Downs Woodlands SAC.  Queendown Warren SAC.

Figure 5.3 below shows the location of this option in relation to the SACs.

5.4.1 North Downs Woodland SAC

Assessment of potentially significant effects

The qualifying features of the site are as follows:

 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests;

 91J0 Taxus bacatta woods of the British Isles;

 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia).

The qualifying features of North Downs Woodland SAC are primarily sensitive to habitat loss or fragmentation, changes in air quality and damage or disturbance caused by recreational activities.

The proposed pipeline route is located within approximately 50m of the SAC. Given the proximity of the pipeline to the designated site, there is potential for significant effects associated with toxic contamination (pollution incidents) and non-toxic contamination (silt laden run-off, dust etc) to arise. Physical damage to trees could also arise if construction activity within the root zones is undertaken.

58

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Proposed mitigation

To mitigate against potential significant adverse impacts, the following would be implemented to ensure that the favourable conservation status of the site is maintained:

– Protection of trees

Prior to construction commencing, a tree survey would be undertaken by an arboriculturalist in accordance with BS 5837: 2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’. All significant trees with a stem diameter of 75mm or above at a height of 1.5m that could pose constraints on the construction of the pipeline would be included in the survey. Each tree would be classified based on its value and a tree constraints plan produced which would indicate the extent of the Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of the surveyed trees.

Where possible, the edge of the construction area (i.e. the edge of the topsoil stripped easement, haul route or storage area) would be located in excess of 10m from the SAC boundary. The edge of the working area would be demarcated with post and wire fencing and/or a temporary earth bund.

All works would be undertaken in conjunction with NJUG volume 4:2007 guidelines with no equipment, spoil or machinery stored within the RPAs of trees within the SAC.

If construction activity would impinge on any RPAs, an appropriate mitigation strategy would be implemented. This is likely to involve hand digging within the RPAs of certain trees under the supervision of an arboriculturalist.

– Pollution control and dust

The pollution and dust control measures described in Section 5.3.1 would be adopted to ensure that the risk of toxic and non-toxic emissions or discharges is reduced to an acceptable level.

In-combination effects

No other nearby projects were identified which could give rise to adverse significant impacts to North Downs Woodland SAC interest features in-combination with this scheme.

Conclusion

The proposed pipeline is located outside the North Downs Woodland SAC, although there is potential for significant effects associated with physical damage (impacts to tree root systems), toxic contamination (pollution incidents) and non-toxic contamination (silt laden run-off, dust etc) to arise. However, with the implementation of NJUG guidelines, standard best practice pollution prevention and dust control measures, significant impacts to the integrity of the SAC would be avoided. Furthermore, no in-combination effects have been identified and so an assessment of alternative options (Stage 3 of HRA) need not be undertaken.

60

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

5.4.2 Queendown Warren

Queendown Warren consists of CG3 Bromus erectus grassland. It contains an important assemblage of rare and scarce species, including early spider-orchid (Ophrys sphegodes), burnt orchid (Orchis ustulata) and man orchid (Aceras anthropophorum) (JNCC, undated).

Assessment of potentially significant effects

The qualifying features of the site are as follows:

 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia).

The qualifying features of Queendown Warren SAC are primarily sensitive to habitat loss or fragmentation, changes in air quality and damage or disturbance caused by recreational activities.

The proposed pipeline route is located approximately 140m from the SAC. Given the proximity of the pipeline to the designated site, there is potential for significant effects associated with toxic contamination (pollution incidents) and non-toxic contamination (silt laden run-off, dust etc) to arise.

Proposed mitigation

To mitigate against potential significant adverse impacts, the pollution and dust control measures described in Section 5.3.1 would be adopted to ensure that the risk of toxic and non-toxic emissions or discharges is reduced to an acceptable level.

In-combination effects

No other nearby projects were identified which could give rise to adverse significant impacts to Queendown Warren SAC interest features in-combination with this scheme.

Conclusion

The proposed pipeline would not directly impact upon Queendown Warren SAC, although there is potential for significant effects associated with, toxic contamination (pollution incidents) and non-toxic contamination (silt laden run-off, dust etc) to arise. However, with the implementation of standard best practice pollution prevention and dust control measures, significant impacts to the integrity of the SAC would be avoided. Furthermore, no in-combination effects have been identified and so an assessment of alternative options (Stage 3 of HRA) need not be undertaken.

61

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

6 CONCLUSION

This report details Stages 1 and 2 of a Habitats Regulations Assessment undertaken by South East Water of its Water Resources Management Plan 2014 (WRMP14). This has been undertaken in accordance with South East Water’s requirements, as the competent authority, to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment as set out in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended). It considers the potential of the options contained within the WRMP14 Feasible Options List to adversely affect internationally important nature conservation sites (European sites) either alone or in- combination with other plans or projects.

There are 43 internationally important nature conservation sites considered by this assessment. Factors affecting the integrity of these sites (with regard to their conservation objectives) were reviewed to provide a basis for considering whether proposed activities in the Feasible Option Dossiers might exacerbate any existing adverse trends or affect site integrity.

A total of 136 options were assessed during the preliminary screening stage although the majority of these options were later dropped from the WRMP options list with 27 options included in the final WRMP14. Of these options, 23 are considered unlikely to result in a significant impact to a European site and were not taken forward to Appropriate Assessment. These options have been screened out because there are no pathways to European sites and/or the level of impact is not considered to be significant or can be mitigated.

Following the screening stage, four options at three locations (EF-11, TR-22/TR-22a, and TR-136a) were considered likely to result in significant effects to a European site, or sufficient uncertainty existing whereby the potential for significant effects could not be ruled out; these options were subject to Appropriate Assessment.

Due to the complexity of modelling or studies required to assess the significance of impacts associated with EF-11 (to Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar) and TR-136a (to Thames Basin Heaths SPA), and given the late delivery date of these options within the WRMP, a ‘’down the line’’ assessment is proposed. In the event that no adverse effects on integrity cannot be concluded, South East Water commits to replacing these with suitable alternatives e.g. leakage management options), with all options subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Significant impacts associated with TR-22 and 22a (to Queendown Warren SAC and North Downs Woodland SAC) and TR-136a (to Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC) have been ruled out as the implementation of standard best practice guidelines and pollution prevention measures would be sufficient to ensure that the integrity of the respective sites is not adversely affected.

Influencing the development of the WRMP

The potential for significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites has been an important consideration all the way through the development of the potential WRMP along with other environmental issues as described in section 7 of the Environmental Report and Appendix 7 to the WRMP. The key steps were as follows:

Initial option identification - potential for direct loss to Natura 2000 sites was one of the criteria used to screen out potential reservoir locations. New pipeline routes

62

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

aimed to avoid Natura 2000 sites. These were set as the identification criteria and used in GIS analysis of possible sites/routes. For example, the route for the TR77 pipeline, now part of SW14 (Broad Oak), was routed around the Blean complex SAC to avoid potential effects.

Development of the feasible options list - this was undertaken through further option definition and desk study on environmental constraints and discussion with stakeholders. A number of options with potential significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites were removed as part of this process. Examples include; Faversham ground water abstraction with potential impacts on the North Kent Marshes; and the Woodgarston, Monkwood and Lasham groundwater abstraction options with potential risk to the River Itchen SAC. In addition a transfer option which was routed through Ashdown Forest SAC following an existing pipeline was identified as being unacceptable and was highlighted as requiring an alternative route. Possible routes to the north of the SAC were added to the option dossier.

HRA Stage 1 & 2 - this was undertaken on the Feasible Options List and highlighted the potential for significant effects from the Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer reservoir extension, and Aylesford water reuse schemes to Natura 2000 sites. This has highlighted the need to consider variants to the transfer option further and undertake ’down the line’ assessment in AMP6 for both schemes. The Matt’s Hill to Detling transfer option was screened in by the HRA following rerouting to avoid the pipeline passing through an SSSI which had the effect of bringing it closer to an SAC. The plan level Appropriate Assessment for this option is included in the HRA Report. This identified mitigation is required to avoid significant effects during construction which are covered by the option costs.

‘Down the line’ assessment – the HRA Report identified that down the line Appropriate Assessment would be required for Aylesford water reuse and the Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer. These will be undertaken in the next AMP/WRMP cycle. If this shows that it would not be possible to avoid a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, an alternative option (or options) that has been screened as not likely to have a significant effect) will be brought in as an alternative.

Triggers for bringing in alternatives options are identified in the Environmental Report section 8 and the WRMP, including the need to bring in alternative assessment where ’down the line’ Appropriate Assessment indicates that significant effects could not be avoided.

AMP 6 Additional studies on key Preferred Plan options - A range of studies and investigations have been identified in the WRMP and Environmental Report as being required during AMP6. These include more detailed feasibility studies for the strategic options, the East Kent Strategy and further transfer options. These will incorporate the ’down the line’ assessments identified in the WRMP14 HRA and additional HRA for any new East Kent Strategy options. The SEA and HRA have influenced the option costs to ensure allowance is included for undertaking HRA and for implementing required mitigation and enhancements, for example the cost for taking forward the Aylesford water reuse scheme specifically includes an allowance for the ’down the line’ assessment. There is also a commitment to seek solutions to the Windsor to Surrey Hills transfer which will include examining use of alternative service reservoirs and pipeline storage. We are committed to this work through the budget allowed in the SEW AMP 6 business plan. The SEA monitoring along with the additional assessment and option design over the next AMP will feed into the next WRMP cycle.

63

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

7 REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

Amec (2013a). Canterbury City Council. Habitats Regulations Assessment of Draft Local Plan. Report to Inform Screening for Appropriate Assessment

Amec (2013). Portsmouth Water. Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2014. Habitats Regulations Assessment of the draft WRMP.

Atkins (2009). South East Water Revised Water Resources Management Plan. Habitats Regulations Assessment.30/11/09. Draft.

Atkins (2010). Sutton and East Surrey Water. Water Resources Management Plan: SEA Environmental Report. Final. March 2010.

Atkins (2012). Water Resources Management Plan. SEA Scoping Report. Sutton and East Surrey Water. October 2013

Baker, E., Fredenham, E., Liney, K., Pitts, M., and Rudd, T. (2012). Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment – Guidance for Water Resources Management Plans and Drought Plans.

Cascade (2012). Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Habitats Regulations Assessment. Volume 7 of Final Water Resources Management Plan. March 2012.

Cascade (2013). Thames Water Utilities Ltd. Habitats Regulations Assessment of Thames Water Utilities Limited Final Drought Plan. Screening Report. March 2013.

Environment Agency (2008). Medway Estuary and Swale Shoreline Management Plan. Appendix J – Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Environment Agency (2009). Water for People and the Environment. European Commission (2001). Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

Halcrow (2010) Isle of Grain to South Foreland SMP Review 2010. Appendix J: Habitats Regulations Assessment (AA).

Halcrow (2013). Screening for the Crowthorne Pipeline under Regulation 21(1) of the Habitats Regulations. Crowthorne Main Lay. South East Water. October 2013.

The Highways Agency (2003). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11. Highways Agency.

Jacobs (unpublished). An analysis of the proposed Allocated Sites within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Unitary Authority Area.

Jacobs (unpublished). Affinity Water Draft Water Resources Management Plan. Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. [Online]. www.jncc/defra.gov.uk/page-4. Accessed January 2013.

64

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993). Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS): Medway Estuary and Marshes.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993a). Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS): Stodmarsh.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2001). [Online]. SPA Description: Medway Estuary and Marshes. www.defra.gov.uk. Accessed September 2013.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2001a). [Online]. SPA Description: Thames Basin Heaths. www.defra.gov.uk. Accessed September 2013.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2001b). [Online]. SPA Description: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay. www.defra.gov.uk. Accessed October 2013.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2006). Standard Data Form: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2008). Standard Data Form: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA. Version 3.0. 13/06/2008.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2011). Natura 2000. Standard Data Form: Thanet Coast.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (undated) [online]. Windsor Forest and Great Park http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0012586. Accessed October 2013.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (undated) [online]. Thames Basin Heaths. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-2050-theme=default. Accessed October 2013.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (undated) [online]. Queendown Warren. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0012833. Accessed October 2013.

Mid-Sussex District Council (2013). Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) – Interim Mitigation Strategy

Natural England (undated). European Site Conservation Objectives for Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area. Site Code: UK9012071

Natural England (2009). Letter from Glen Cooper, Natural England to Graham Harris, Shepway District Council. 17th October 2009. Advice to the Shepway District Council and the Environment Agency on the Appropriate Assessment for the South Foreland to Beachy Head SMP. Letter ref: South Foreland to Beach Head SMP.

ODPM (2005) Minerals Policy Statement 2: Controlling and Mitigating the Environmental Effects of Minerals Extraction in England, ODPM, London.

RAW Group (2011). Report on Further Investigation and Remediation Works at Forest Row WTW.

65

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Reijnen, R.; Foppen, R.; Veenbaas, G. (1997) Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and considerations in planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6 (4), 567-581.

Sembcorp Bournemouth Water (2013). Drought Plan 2012. Final Version. March 2012.

Southern Water (2009). Water Resources Management Plan. Appropriate Assessment Recorded on 1st October 2009.

South East Water (2013). Borehole Maintenance 2012-13: Forest Row Remediation. November 2012.

Sutton and East Surrey Water (2013). Sutton and East Surrey Water Plc. Final Drought Plan 2013.

TFA (2009). Habitats Regulations Assessment of Tonbridge and Malling Local Development Framework - Publication Version of Managing Development and the Environment. Screening Report.

Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership Board (2009). Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery Framework.

Thames Corridor Abstraction Management Strategy, April 2004.

The Adur and Ouse CAMS Final Strategy March 2005.

The Cuckmere and Pevensey Levels CAMS Final Strategy April 2007.

The Darent and Cray CAMS Final Strategy April 2007.

The River Loddon CAMS Final Strategy September 2004.

The Medway CAMS Final Strategy April 2005.

The North Kent and Swale CAMS Final Strategy April 2004.

The Rother CAMS Final Strategy May 2006.

The Stour CAMS Final Strategy May 2003.

The Test and Itchen CAMS Final Strategy March 2006.

The Wey CAMS Final Strategy, March 2008.

UE Environmental Consulting (2013). Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Mid- Sussex District Plan.

URS (2013). East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy. Habitats Regulations Assessment – Appropriate Assessment Report. July 2013.

Wealden District Council (2013). Habitats Regulations Assessment. Proposed Submission Strategic Sites Local Plan.

66

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX A: EUROPEAN SITE INFORMATION AND VULNERABILITIES

Table A.1: Special Areas of Conservation – Baseline Information

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Ashdown 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix Ashdown Forest is one of the most extensive areas of heathland in south-east Forest England.England. The optimum management for this site is grazing; however, only 4030 European dry heaths approximately 19% 19% of the SAC is grazed. Spread of scrub and bracken is a major threat to the SAC. The majority of the SAC (including the grazed area) is managed 1166 Great crested newt TriturusTriturus cristatus sympathetically by the Conservators of Ashdown Forest Forest but there is high demand on resources for scrub clearance, bracken mowing, etc., particularly in the ungrazed area. There is ongoing liaison with the Conservators and other land owners/managers to increase the area of grazed heathland. Obstacles to grazing include public opposition to fencing, availability of graziers/suitable livestock, and constraints on dog-walkers. In general, public access is not a threat to the SAC, unless it prevents expansion of the grazed area. Also, possible long -term drying out of the site may take place, due to borehole abstraction and transpiration from increaseincrease in in vegetation cover. cover. Consultations with the Environment Environment Agency over the possible impact of abstraction are ongoing. Recent increased scrub clearance is likelylikely to have have a a beneficial beneficial effect on wet heath. Blean 9160 Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak- There is a mixture of woodland habitat types at this site. Some require coppicing to Complex hornbeam forests of the CarpinionCarpinion betuli maintain their features of interest (such as heath fritillary butterfly), although this is not essential to maintain the Stellario-Carpinetum habitat type. Coppice management continues in areas of the site which are maintained as nature reserves by English Nature, Kent Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, but has been difficult to maintain elsewhere.

Burnham 9120 Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex/lex Most of Burnham Beeches is in sympathetic ownership and managed for the benefit Beeches and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer of nature conservation. A large proportion of the site is designated as a National ((Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici/lici- Fagenion ) Nature Reserve and is managed to restore grazed pasture woodland and heathland. The National Trust also owns part of the site. The largest largest of two private private landowners manage the woodland with the aid of Woodland Grant Scheme funding. Measures are in place to reduce possible damaging influences from adjacent mineral workings, such as dust and hydrological changes. Englishlish Nature Nature and the local planning authority are in discussion with the operator to assess the possible impactsimpacts of proposed proposed alterations alterations to the programme programme of works, which will be be addressed

67

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues through the provisions of the Habitats Regulations. Ambient levels of sulphur and nitrogen oxides in the Burnham Beeches area may indicate that Environment Agency criteria levels for sensitive vegetation are being exceeded. This is under active investigation. Butser Hill 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland The site is vulnerable to spray-drift (i.e. eutrophication) from surrounding facies: on calcareous substrates substrates (Festuco- intensively intensively- managed arable land. Brometalia))

91J0 Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles * PriorityPriorit feature Castle Hill 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland The grassland habitats depend upon grazing by sheep and cattle to conserve and facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- enhance plant (and associated animal) species diversity, particularly of the rarer Brometalia) chalk grassland species. Encroachment by scrub is prevented by cutting and grazing animals. The site is an National Nature Reserve leased to English Nature 1654 Early gentian Gentianella anglica from the local local authority. The site is is surrounded by by arable land, land, so so leaching leaching and spray-drift are potential threats. Dungeness 1210 Annual vegetation of drift lines The shingle vegetation is very vulnerable to disturbance by vehicles and walkers, although the coastal shingle (drift-line) vegetation has much greater potential for 1220 Perennial vegetation of stony banks recovery than the perennial vegetation of shingle banks that occurs further inland. The wetlands which support great crested newt were formerly grazed, maintaining open unshaded vegetation. This practice largely ceased in the 1950s, 1950s, and since then there has been invasion of ponds by willows shading the water. Abstraction of water is thought to have damaged some of the shingle wetlands as well as components of the perennial vegetation of the shingle beach. The site is close to an active airport which carries a potential risk from air pollution, although current levels of air traffic and motor vehicles are not thought to cause a problem. East 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Being steep and narrow, the Hanger woodlands are vulnerable to nutrient run-off Hampshire from adjacent agricultural land, leading to eutrophication and growth of ruderal Hangers 9180 Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and vegetation when, for example, neglected coppice is cut. Within the Hangers over - ravinesravines * Priority feature maturity and outbreaks of beech disease have been observed. Management is hampered by sparse mast years, few seed trees, the presence of deep litter layers 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland and difficulties in extracting felled timber due to the steep slopes present. English facies: on calcareous substrates substrates (Festuco- Nature will be exploring mechanisms that can be put in place to cu rtail damaging Brometalia)) agricultural activities in the vicinity of the site. English Nature is lia ising closely with the Forestry Commission regarding positive management of these woodlands 91J0 Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles * through Woodland Grant Schemes and, for example, the Challenge Fund. Fund.

68

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Priority feature

1654 Early gentian Gentianella anglica Ebernoe 9120 Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex/lex This ancient woodland is dependent on traditional management to maintain its Common and sometimes also Taxus in the shrub layer structural diversity and associated lichen and fungal flora. A Management Plan ((Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici/liei- Fagenion ) specifying a programme of fencing and grazing is being implemented by Sussex Wildlife Trust, to enhance the mosaic of beech woodland with a holly and yew 1308 Barbastelle BarbastellaBarbaste/la barbastellus barbaste/lus understorey. Other smaller private landowners practice low-level woodland maintenance/management and are encouraged to leave dead wood in situ . Overall 1323 Bechstein`s bat Myotis bechsteinii beehsteinii the site is is not not under under any significant threat. Barbastelle Barbastelle and and Bechstein Bechstein 's bat populations are especially notable and will need to be taken into account in site management whilst balancing this with the epiphytic importance of bryophytes, lichenslichens and and fungi. Hastings 1230 Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic Hastings Cliffs is a short section of almost natural coastline of dramatic eroding Cliffs coasts cliffs. It is relatively unaffected by coastal protection and is dependent upon physical processes. The very nature of this soft eroding material results in extensive landslides, with vegetation changing from year to year. The effects on the rate of erosion by surrounding coastal protection measures and offshore activities is unknown but may have an impact. The SAC includes part of a country park where there are press press ures to manage visitors. Habitats and footpaths erode rapidly, particularly during winter storms, as a result of the undulating nature of the cliffs with their soft constituents. Adjacent farming practices may also be having an effect on the vegetation. Lewes 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland The grassland habitats depend upon grazing by sheep and cattle to conserve and Downs facies: on calcareous substrates substrates (Festuco- enhance plant (and associated animal) species diversity, particul arly of the rarer Brometalia)) chalk grassland species. Encroachment by scrub is prevented by cutting and by grazing animals. The site is an NNR managed by the landowner under a management agreement. Where arable land meets the SSSI boundary, leaching and spray drift are potential potential threats. Mole Gap to 5110 Stable xerothermophilous formations with Most of this site is a mosaic of chalk downland habitats, ranging from open chalk Reigate Buxus sempervirens on rock slopes (Berberidion grassland to scrub and broadleaved semi-natural woodland on the scarp slope of Escarpment p.p.) the North North Downs. Downs. Headley Headley Heath Heath is is an area of heathland, heathland, grassland and woodland located on clay-with-flints on the dip slope. Both box and yew are well represented. 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland Recreational pressure is high and requires management and monitoring. The facies: on calcareous substrates substrates (Festuco- National Trust and Surrey County Council own and manage a significant proportion Brometalia)) of the site. In addition smaller areas are owned by other local authoritiesies and the

69

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues local wildlife trust. Recreation and conservation requirements tend to be taken into 91J0 Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles * consideration by such bodies. The rest of the site is in smaller private ownerships. Priority feature For these areas appropriate management has been addressed through the Site Management Statement process. These areas are most under threat from neglect 4030 European dry heaths and a lack of appropriate grazing. Bechstein's bats use the site throughout the year, as a winter hibernacula, autumn 'swarming' site, and as feeding habitat. English 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Nature is c urrently working with local bat surveyors to locate maternity roosts, and to gain a better better understanding understanding of the movements movements and requirements requirements of bats bats on this 1166 Great crested newt TriturusTriturus cristatus site.

1323 Bechstein`s bat Myotis bechsteinii Mottisfont 1308 Barbastelle Barbastella8arbastella barbastellus Approximately 70% of the site is owned by the National Trust and is open to public Bats access. The National Trust has actively carried out woodland operations over recent years, including opening up coppice coupes, the gradual removal of conifer plantations and replanting to native broadleaved woodland. The National Trust has recently renewed the Woodland Grant Scheme which is targeted at restoration and general woodland management which should enhance the habitats and ensure future sustainability. 25% of the site is privately owned and not open to public access. The majority of this area is also subject to a recently -approved Woodland Grant Scheme renewal which is targeted primarily at maintaining the rotational coppicing programme which should also ensure sustainability of woodland management. This part of the site is managed for rearing game birds with pest- control carried out, in particular for deer and grey squirrel Sciurus carolinensis. North Downs 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Yew woodland is managed as minimum intervention. Beech woodland is managed Woodlands as high forest with active encouragement of beech regeneration. Chalk grassland 91J0 Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles requiresrequires continuous grazing, which is is not achieved over parts parts of this site.

6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates substrates (Festuco- Brometalia)) Peter`s Pit 1166 Great crested newt TriturusTriturus cristatus The site consists of a chalk quarry and former arable fields stripped of topsoil, with excavated ponds – all very artificial habitats. The principal risk to the site lies in neglect, resulting in invasion of the newt breeding ponds by scrub. To prevent this, EnglishEnglish Nature is working with the owners to make the site a secure nature reserve managed by a conservation organisation. The area to the north of the pit is planned for urban development and it will be necessary to ensure that this does not impact

70

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues on the site adversely, through changes in water tables, disturbance, etc. This will need to be checked in any plans that are submitted to the local planning authority. Water abstraction has been suggested as a threat, but checks by English Nature have concluded that this is not a significant issue. Rather, water levels on the site vary dramatically depending on the aquifer, which is fed by rainfall. The recent creation of clay-lined ponds within the former arable fields should make it more likely that ponds will retain water long enough on the site to permit successful breeding. Pevensey 4056 Ramshorn snail Anisus v vorticulus Anisus vorticulus is a species of the upper water levels of ditches, frequently amidst Levels cSAC botanically-rich vascular plant assemblages in a mid to upper mid successional state. It favours alkaline waters although it appears tolerant of a relatively wideide range of physio-chemical parameters. Appropriate ditch management is the key to the conservation of this species. Control of shade-inducing inducing marginal marginal vegetation is is also important, as is maintaining access to the water’s edge for livestock. It is also imimportant to ensure good water quality by instigating the appropriate safeguards. This is being implemented through good environmental management, Catchment Sensitive Farming, Environmental Stewardship and Environment Agency’s review of existing discharge and abstraction consents. A Water Level Management Plan, devised and managed by Environment Agency, is in place to control ditch levels. Environmental Stewardship schemes continue to encourage sensitive management, particularly of the ditches to address probroblems brought about by neglect. Queendown 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland Continuous grazing management on this site is essential to maintain the interest. As Warren facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- the site is is managed managed as a nature reserve it is not under any current threat, but is Brometalia)) dependent on secure funding for the voluntary organisation managing it. This is currently achieved through EN's Reserve Enhancement Scheme. River Itchen 3260 Water courses of plain to montane levels with A principal threat to the habitats within this cSAC is considered to be the decrease the Ranunculion fluitantisf/uitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion inin flow velocities and and increase increase in in siltation, siltation, in in turn affecting macrophyte macrophyte cover vegetation (especially Ranunculus). Recent surveys have shown declines in Ranunculus cover since 1990, attributable to increased abstractions in the upper catchment, coupled 1044 Southern damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale with a series of years with below-average rainfall. Low flows interact with nutrient inputs from point sources to produce localised increases in filamentous algae and 1163 Bullhead Cottus gobio nutrient-tolerant macrophytes at the expense of Ranunculus.. The Environment Environment Agency is initiating a major study of the river's macrophytes, from which a predictive 1092 White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) model will be developed which will aid decisions on whether to reduce water crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes abstraction at critical times. Efforts are currently being made to increase the viability of the southern damselfly population through population studies and a Species

71

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues 1096 Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri Action Plan.

1106 Atlantic salmon SalmoSa/mo salar safar

1355 Otter Lutra lutra /utra Sandwich 2110 Embryonic shifting dunes The Embryonic shifting dunes at Sandwich Bay are representative of this habitat Bay type in in south south- east England. The seaward edge of the north of this site displays a 2120 Shifting dunes along the shoreline with good sequence of embryonic shifting dune communities and there is a clear Ammophi/aAmmophila arenaria (`white('white dunes`) dunes') zonation within the dune habitat, with s trandline species on the seaward edge and sand-binding grasses inland. Lyme-grass Leymus arenarius is extremely sparse 2130 Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (`grey and sand couch Elytrigia juncea is the dominant sand-binding species. dunes`)dunes') Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophi/aAmmophila arenaria occurs along the 2170 Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea seaward edge of the northern half of this extensive dune system. It is representative (Salicion arenariae ) of shifting dune vegetation in south-east England, a region where the habitat type is very restricted in its distribution. Although the area of this habitat typ e is small by 2190 Humid dune slacks comparison with other listed sites, the shifting dune vegetation contains a good range of characteristic foredune species including sea bindweed CalystegiaCa/ystegia soldanella,, sea spurge Euphorbia paralias and sea-holly Eryngium maritimum .

Sandwich Bay is a largely inactive dune system with a particularly extensive representation of fixed dune dune grassland, the only large area of this habitat in the extreme south-east of England. The vegetation is extremely species-rich and the site has been selected be cause it includes a number of rare and scarce species, such as fragrant evening-primrose Oenothera stricta, bedstraw broomrapebroom rape Orobanche caryophyllacea and sand catchfly SileneSi/ene conica, as well as the UK’s largestlargest population population of lizard lizard orchid Himantoglossum hircinum.

The small area of dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea found at Sandwich Bay Bay is is of interest as it is the only example found in the dry south-east of England and is representativerepresentative of this habitat type in in a near near-continental climate.

Most of the site is unmanaged 'rough' on golf -courses. The damper areas are prone to invasion by willow/reed - tall -fen vegetation. Control of scrub is is being being undertaken undertaken through management agreements and as a consented operation.

72

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Shortheath 7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs The site is vulnerable to encroachment of invasive scrub and trees due to cessation Common of traditional grazing management. A Wildlife Enhancement Scheme agreement has 4030 European dry heaths been enteredred into into in in an attempt to address the ecological deterioration.

91D0 Bog woodland * Priority feature Singleton and 1308 Barbastelle Barbastella8arbastella barbastellus Singleton Tunnel is grilled at both ends and so secure from human disturbance. Cocking Cocking Tunnel is not currently grilled but it is hoped to grill both ends in 2003/04 – Tunnels 1323 Bechstein`s bat Myotis bechsteinii currently it is vulnerable to human disturbance. In In the long-term the tunnels may start to deteriorate (collapse) but this is not anticipated for many years. There arere anticipated future proposals to use the tunnels as a cycle route, but this now seems unlikely due to the designations. Stodmarsh 1016 Desmoulin`s whorl snail VertigoVertigo moulinsiana Desmoulin’s whorl snail VertigoVertigo moulinsiana isis the largest largest Vertigo species, with a shell height up to about 2.6 mm. It is restricted to calcareous wetlands, usually bordering lakes or rivers, or in fens. High humidity appears to be important in determining local distribution within sites. A sizeable population of Desmoulin’s whorl snail lives beside ditches within pasture on the floodplain of the River Stour, where reed sweet-grass Glyceria maxima, large sedges Carex spp. and sometimes common reed Phragmites australis dominate the vegetation. Stodmarsh is a south- eastern outlier of the main swathe of sites and is important in confirming the role of underlying base-rich rock (chalk) as a factor determining this species’ distribution

Approximately half of the site is managed as a National Nature Reserve. The remainderremainder of the site is managed in a way that is compatible with nature conservation.

Thanet Coast 1170 Reefs The soft upper chalk is vulnerable to erosion and natural physical destruction. The adjacent land is heavily built-u p, with a resident population of 120,000. Levels of 8330 Submerged or partially submerged sea caves tourism and and recreation recreation activity are high high with, 2 million million visitors per per year. To protect protect infrastructure, coastal protection works have been constructed along 75% of the cliff face. Some commercial fishing, including potting, occurs within the site. Harvesting of bait and shellfish occurs on the shores and has caused a small amount of physical damage to the reef. There is a commercial port and two small harbours. In preparing the management scheme, all human activities have been evaluated with stakeholders, and management agreed. Recreation and harvesting are to be managed with mutually agreed voluntary codes of conduct. A new wildlife project is to be be established established to draft the codes and and interpret interpret and promote promote t he site.

73

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues The Mens 9120 Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex/lex The majority of this ancient Wealden woodland is managed as an area of minimum and sometimes also Taxus in the shrub layer intervention to allow the habitat to develop with as little human interference as ((Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici/lici- Fagenion ) possible. Tenure for nature conservation is secure, with the leasehold being held by Sussex Wildlife Trust. Registered Commoners and other smaller privaterivate landowners landowners 1308 Barbastelle Barbastella8arbaste/la barbastellus barbaste/lus practice low-level woodland maintenance/management and are encouraged to leaveleave dead dead wood in situ.. Bridleway Bridleway degradation degradation by by horse horse riding riding is is a recurring recurring threat. Barbastelles require a constant humidity around their roosts; any manipulation of the shrub layer must be carefully considered. Thursley, 4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix The mosaic of habitats across this large large and and varied site is is largely largely dependent dependent on Ash, Pirbright active heathland management. Insufficient grazing or other traditional practices, and 4030 European dry heaths includingincluding bracken bracken control and and scrub scrub clearance, clearance, is is therefore a a serious potential potential Chobham threat, as is lowering of water tables as a result of water abstraction or other 7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the reasonsreasons which could cause loss loss or damage to wet heath heath and mire mire communities. Rhynchosporion Grazing trials have been established on several parts of the site with great success, but currently extensive grazing is absent from much of t he site. The indirect effects of neighbouring housing developments pose a potential long -term problem, but can probably be addressed through the planning system. Measures are also needed to address recreational pressures, including disturbance to wildlife and fires resulting from arson, which may may pose pose a serious risk risk to habitats habitats and some species. species. The Ministry of Defence is a major landowner/manager and, at present, uses much of its landland for firing ranges ranges and and military military exercises exercises (largely (largely by by infantry). infantry). A Memora Memora ndum of Understanding exists between English English Nature and the MoD through which the impact of military activities is regulated. The MoD have produced comprehensive Management Plans which recognise the outstanding nature conservation importance of their land. Windsor 9190 Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus The special invertebrate interest is heavily dependent upon a continuous supply of ForestForest and robur on sandy plains very old and decaying trees. Both the invertebrate interest and oak woodland are Great Park vulnerable to changes in management practices. However, fine-tuning to achieve 9120 Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex/lex continuity of sympathetic management is being undertaken through the Declaration and sometimes also Taxus in the shrub layer of Intent signed between English Nature and the owners, the Crown Estate. The ((Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici/lici- Fagenion ) violet click beetle is thought to be present as a very small, localised population, restrictedrestricted to two decaying trees. Research into into its its ecology with a view to gaining a 1079 Violet click beetle Limoniscus violaceus better understanding of its habitat requirements is currently in progress. Management to enhance the conservation value of the wooded areas is being undertaken with financial support support through a WGS scheme. This includes includes the removal of competing trees from around veteran trees, bracken control and

74

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues clearance of Rhododendron. In addition, a large number of trees have been identifiedidentified for retention retention as as future veteran trees t o ensure continuity of supply of dead wood habitats. An application for LIFE funding is being investigated. If successful, this will help to secure further enhancements though improved management, includingincluding the reintroduction reintroduction of extensive extensive grazing of parts parts of the site. Plans are also inin place place to produce produce a detailed detailed catalogue catalogue of trees throughout the site site which will record the characteristics of each tree and assist in the management and monitoring of the site. Woolmer 3160 Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds The site is vulnerable to neglect (encroachment of invasive scrub and treesrees due to ForestForest cessation of traditional grazing management) and vulnerable to military activities. 4030 European dry heaths

7150 Depressions on peat substrates of the Rynchosporion

4010 Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix

7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs

75

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Table A.2: Special Protection Area – Baseline Information

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Ashdown Duringing the breeding breeding season the area regularly regularly supports Lack of management is the main threat to the site. Succession from ForestForest Caprimulgus europaeus 1%1% of the GB breeding population open heathland to woodland is rapidly taking place and a lack of Count as at 1991 and 1992 resourcesresources makes makes appropriate and sustainable management difficult.

Sylvia undata 1.3%1.3% of the GB breeding population Count, as at The majority of the site is managed by the Conservators of Ashdown 1994 Forest,Forest, who manage the site sympathetically and according to an agreed management plan. The key vulnerability is the lack of grazing which is now being addressed through a Grazing Strategy. Obstacles to grazing includeinclude the need need for fencing, constraints constraints on dog dog walkers and and other forms of informal recreation, the availability of appropriate stock and the fragmentation of the heathland blocks within the site. The spread of invasive/noninvasive/non- native species, such as bracken and rhododendron, also poses a threat. The areas not under the Conservators remit tend not to be grazed and have varying degrees of conservation management.

Most of the recreation on the site is informal, such as walking and horse riding.riding. However, However, in in places the use use is is intense intense resulting resulting in in damage to rights of way and disturbance to the Forest. Where possible possible these problems are being addressed through the Integated Management Plan of the Conservators of Ashdown Forest Forest and through a horse riding permit system. Dungeness During the breeding season the area regularly supports: This site is vulnerable to coastal erosion, particularly the areas of coastal to Pett Pett Level Level shingle at Dungeness and Rye Harbour, which are likely to erode in the Larus melanocephalus at least 9.1% of the GB breeding longer term due to natural processes. population 5 year mean, 1993 1993-1997 1997 Breeding bird populations are at serious risk of predation by species Sterna albifrons (Eastern(Eastern Atlantic - breeding) 1.5% of the GB such as fox, badger and mink. There is a localised programme of pe st breeding population 5 year mean, 1993 1993-1997 1997 control on part of the site. The site is reasonably well protected from visitor disturbance, although the possible disturbance from aircraft using Sterna hirundo (Northern/Eastern(Northern/Eastern Europe Europe - breeding) 2.2% of a nearby airfield is being investigated. Recreational and leisure activities the GB breeding population 5 year mean, 1993 1993-1997 1997 are a problem in some areas, particularly at North Point Pit which is used or wind surfing. The area is zoned to try and control this activity. Over winter the area regularly supports: Much of the shingle is uncultivated and is either nature reserve or open

76

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Anas clypeata (North(North-western/Central Europe) 1% 1% of the land. The site is vulnerable to changing agricultural practices, particularlyrticularly population 5 year peak mean 1992/3-1996/7 ploughing of grassland for arable crops, or changes to turf production on adjacent land, which may influence the site's bird population. These practices could be controlled by management agreements. Most of the grassland within the SPA is heavily grazed and there is a continuing problem of lowering water levels; both problems are being addressed through management agreements and water level management plans. Dungeness, The site regularly supports more than 1% of the GB populations Information not available. Romney of 12 species listed in Annex I of the EC Birds Directive: marsh Marsh and harrier, avocet, Mediterranean gull, sandwich tern, common Rye Bay tern, little tern, Bewick’s swan, bittern, hen harrier, golden pSPA plover, ruff, aquatic warbler, shoveler, mute swan.

The site regularly supports more than 1% of the biogeographical population of one regularly occurring migratory species, Shoveler Anas clypeata . The site regularly supports more than 20,000 waterbirds during the non non- breeding season. Medway During the breeding season the area regularly supports: There is evidence of rapid erosion of intertidal habitat within the site due EstuaryEstuary and Recurvirostra avosetta (Western(Western Europe/Western EuropelWestern to natural natural processe processe s and the effects of sea defences and clay extraction. Marshes Mediterranean - Research on mudflat recharge using dredging spoil is being investigated breeding) 6.2% of the GB breeding population 5 year mean, as a means of countering the erosion. 19881988-1992 1992 Sterna albifrons (Eastern(Eastern Atlantic - breeding) 1.2% of the GB The intertidal area is also vulnerable to disturbance from water borne breeding population 5 year mean, 1991 1991-1995 1995 recreation.recreation. This i is being addressed as part of an estuary management Sterna hirundo (Northern/Eastern(Northern/Eastern Europe Europe - breeding) 0.6% of plan. the GB breeding breeding population population Count as at 1994 1994 The terrestrial part of the site depends on appropriate grazing and Over winter the area regularly supports: management of water. The availability of livestock may be affected by Cygnus columbianus bewickii (Western(Western Sibe ria/North-eastern & policy on BSE and there will be a need to investigate how this may be North- western Europe) 0.2% of the GB population 5 year peak addressed through management agreements. mean 1991/92-1995/96 Recurvirostra avosetta (Western(Western Europe/Western EuropelWestern The effects of abstraction on the availability of water through abstraction Mediterranean - breeding) 24.7% of the GB population 5 year for other land land uses uses and drainage for arable cultivation will be be addressed peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 through the consent review process under the Habitats Regulations. Pressures from proposed transport and industrial developments are

77

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Over winter the area regularlyregularly supports: being addressed through the planning system and under the provisions Anas acuta (North(North- western Europe) 1.2% 1.2% of the population 5 of the Habi tats Regulations. year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 Anas clypeata (North(North-western/Central Europe) Europe) 0.8% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 Anas crecca (North(North-western Europe) 1.3% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92 1991/92-1995/96 1995/96 Anas Penelope (Western(Western Siberia/North- western/North-eastern Europe) 1.6% 1.6% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 Arenaria interpres (Western(Western Palearctic - wintering) 0.9% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 Branta bernicla bernicla (Western(Western Siberia/WesternSiberialWestern Europe) Europe) 1.1%1.1% of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/92 1991/92-1995/96 1995/96 Calidris alpina alpine (Northern(Northern Siberia/Europe/WesteSiberia/EuropelWeste rn Africa) 1.9% of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 Calidris canutus (North(North-eastern Canada/Greenland/Iceland/Northwestern Europe) 0.2% of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/92 1991/92-1995/96 1995/96 Charadrius hiaticula (Europe/Northern(Europe/Northern Africa - wintering) 1.6% 1.6% of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 Haematopus ostralegus (Europe(Europe & Northern/Western NorthernlWestern Africa) 1% 1% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92- 1995/96 Limosa limosa islandica (Iceland(Iceland - breeding) 12.9% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 Numenius arquata (Europe(Europe - breeding) 1.7% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92 1991/92-1995/96 1995/96 Pluvialis squatarola (Eastern(Eastern Atlantic - wintering) 2% of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/9 1991/9 2 1995/96 Tadorna tadorna (North(North- western Europe) 1.5% 1.5% of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/92 1991/92-1995/96 1995/96 Tringa nebularia (Europe/Western(Europe/Western Africa) 2.6% of the population in Great Britain No count period specified. Tringa tetanus (Eastern(Eastern Atlantic - wintering) 2.1% 2.1 % of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96

78

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues

ARTICLE 4.2 QUALIFICATION (79/409/EEC): AN INTERNATIONALLYINTERNATIONALLY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ASSEMBLAGE OF BIRDS During the breeding season the area regularly supports: Alcedo atthis, Anas platyrhynchos , Asio flammeus, Aythya ferina , Circus cyaneus, Falco columbarius, Gavia stellata , PhalacrocoraxPhalacracorax carbo carbo, , Vanellus Vanellus vanellus vanellus .

Over winter the area regularly supports: 65496 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 01/04/1998) Including: Gavia stellata, Podiceps cristatus, Phalacrocorax carbo, Cygnus Cygnus columbianus bewickii, Branta bernicla bernicla, Tadorna tadorna, Anas penelope, Anas crecca, Anas platyrhynchos, Anas acuta, Anas clypeata, Aythya ferina, Haematopus ostralegus, RecurvirostraRecurvirastra avosetta, Charadrius hiaticula, Pluvialis squatarola,arala, Vanellus Vanellus vanellus, vanellus, Calidris canutu, Calidris alpina alpina, Limosa limosa islandica, Numenius arquat, Tringa totanu, Tringa Tringa nebulari,Arenaria interpres. Stodmarsh Over winter the area regularly supports: Much of Stodmarsh is a National Nature Reserve, and is therefore Botaurus stellaris (Europ(Europe - breeding) 4% of the GB population relatively relatively secure and well managed. managed. The area of habitat has has recently recently 5 year peak count, 1987/8 1987/8 1991/2 1991/2 been expanded, improving the situation for wetland birds by acquiring an Circus cyaneus 1.2%1.2% of the GB population 5 year peak count, area of turf fields adjacent to the SPA/ Ramsar site for conversion to 1987/8-1991/2 reedbed,reedbed, open water and grazing marsh. marsh. Continued maintenance of the reedbeds is essential to control the invasion of scrub. During the breeding season the area regularly supports: Anas strepera (North(North- western Europe) 0.8% of the popul ation in Privately owned parts of the site are affected by disturbance. The Great Britain 5 year mean, 1988 1988-1992 1992 western end of the SPA is used by wildfowlers and fishermen, both of Over winter the area regularly supports: which cause disturbance to the birds and is being addressed through Anas clypeata (North(North-western/Central Europe) Europe) 1.9% 1.9% of the Site Management Statements. population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92-1995/96 Anas strepera (North(North- western Europe) 1.8% 1.8% of the population in The other significant problem relates to water supply, and in drought Great Britain 5 year peak mean 1991/92 1991/92-1995/96 1995/96 years abstraction for other water users ca n affect the supply of water to about 70% of the site. Abstraction licences will be reviewed under the ARTICLE 4.2 QUALIFICATION (79/409/EEC): AN relevant provisions of the Habitats R Regulations.

79

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues INTERNATIONALLY IMPORTANT ASSEMBLAGE OF BIRDS Management of parts of the site owned by private land owners is being During the breeding season the area regularly supports: addressed by the production of Si te Management Statements which aim Acrocephalus schoenobaenus, Acrocephalus scirpaceus,,Anas Anas to encourage land land managers managers to improve improve their management management of wildlife penelope, Anas platyrhynchos, Anser habitats. Landowners are being encouraged to put land into the albifrons albifrons, Aythya ferina, Aythya fuligula, Gallinago Countryside Stewardship Scheme in order to address problems arising gallinago, Gallinago gallinago, Locustella from neglect of wetland habitats. luscinioides, Locustella naevia, Podiceps cristatus , Rallus aquaticus, Tringa Tringa totanus, Vanellus Vanellus vanellus, Vanellus vanellus.

Thames During the breeding season the area regularly supports: The mosaic of habitats which form the internationally important lowland Basin Heaths Caprimulgus europaeus 7.8% of the GB breeding population heathland are dependent on active heathland management. Lack of Count mean (RSPB 1998 1998-99) grazing and other traditional management practices therefore pose a threat. Traditional management is being implemented through schemes Lullula arborea 9.9% of the GB breeding population Count as at such as Countryside Stewardship and Wildlife Enhancement Enhancement Scheme. 1997 (Wotton & Gillings 2000) Development pressure on neighbouring land and the cumulative and indirectindirect effects effects of neigh neigh bouring developments also pose a potential long- Sylvia undata 27.8% of the GB breeding population Count as at term problem. Housing developments are particularly relevant in this part 1999 (RSPB) of south -east England. This has been addressed through English Nature commenting on planning applications and providing input to structural and local plans. A strategic approach to accommodating development whilst ensuring compatibility with the Habitats Regulations is being addressed through the Thames Basin Heaths Area Based Delivery Project.

Tenure is a mixture of public bodies, private landowners, local authorities and non-governmental organisations. The Ministry of Defence are significant landowners/managers. At present the MoD land is used principally for firing ranges and military exercises (predominantly on foot). A significant proportion of the site is local authority-owned land. The local authority land is often designated as Public Open Space and is heavily used for informal recreation. For the smaller private ownerships, conservation management has been addressed through the Site Management Statement process.

80

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Thanet Coast During the breeding season the area regularly supports: The land adjacent to this site is either urban, agricultural, or managed as and Sterna albifrons (Eastern(Eastern Atlantic - breeding) 0.3% of the GB golf course with parts of the coast are being used for water sports such Sandwich breeding population 5 year mean, 1992 1992-1996 1996 as personal water craft users, users, small boat boat users users , wind surfing and bait Bay digging. This le Ieads to a high potential for disturbance both of wintering Over winter the area regularlyly supports: birds, especially of high tide roosts, and breeding colonies, especially of Pluvialis apricaria (North(North-western Europe Europe - breeding) 0.2% of little tern. Recreational issues including watersports being addressed the GB population population 5 year peak mean 1991/92 1991/92-1995/96 1995/96 through the management management scheme scheme for the European European mari mari ne site.

Over winter the area regularly supports: There is an active port at Ramsgate which requires development to its Arenaria interpres (Western(Western Palearctic - wintering) 1.4% of the infrastructure.infrastructure. The current current proposals proposals for a a new new access road road impinge impinge population 5 year peak m ean 1991/92-1995/96 marginally on the site, but should have a minimal impact on the birds that use use the site.

There is the potential for oil spills on the SPA, SPA, both both from vessels using using the English Channel, and Port Ramsgate. Oil spill contingency plans therefore need need to be be kept kept updated. updated.

Water diversion and pollution from domestic waste, fertilisers, pesticides and agricultural run-off offsite has lead to eutrophication within the SPA/Ramsar site. Where possible this is being addressed through the reviewreview of consents under the provisions provisions of the Habi Habitats Regulations and through Site Management Statements.

Much of the coast has extensive sea defences, such as groynes and sea walls, which occasionally need to be repaired. These activities need to be carefully timed to avoid disturbance to birds. Observed build up of shingle in front of the embryo dunes was thought to result from the beach- fed shingle used for sea defences along the Sandwich- Deal coastline but investigations undertaken by the Environment Agency have so far been inconclusive. The SPA overlaps with a marine cSAC. Together they are considered a single European marine site. The intertidalintertidal component component of the SPA SPA will be be included included in in the management management scheme which will address a number of these threats. The Swale Over winter the area regularly supports: There is evidence of rapid erosion of intertidal habitat within the site due due Branta bernicla bernicla (Western(Western Siberia/WesternSiberialWestern Europe) Europe) to natural processes and the effects of sea defences and clay extraction. 0.7% of the population 5 year peak mean 1991/92 1991/92-1995/96 1995/96 Research on mudflat recharge using dredging spoil is being investigated

81

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and

south east ~ Appropriate Ass essment July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Calidris alpina alpine (Northern(Northern Siberia/Europe/WesternSiberia/EuropelWestern Africa) as a means of countering the erosion. 2.3% of the population in Great Britain 5 year peak mean The intertidal area is also vulnerable to disturbance from water borne borne 1991/92-1995/96 recreation. This is being addressed as part of an estuary management Tringa tetanus (Eastern(Eastern Atlantic - wintering) 0.9% of the plan. The terrestrial part of the site depends on appropriate grazing and population 5 year peak mean 1991/921991/92-1995/96 1995/96 management of water quality and quantity. The availability of livestock may be affected by polic y on BSE and there will be a need to investigate ARTICLE 4.2 QUALIFICATION (79/409/EEC): AN how this may be addressed through management agreements. The INTERNATIONALLYINTERNATIONALLY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT ASSEMBLAGE effects of abstraction on the availability of water for other land uses and OF BIRDS drainage for arable cultivation will be addressed through the consent During the breeding season the area regularly supports: review process under the Habitats Regulations. Acrocephalus scirpaceus, Anas crecca, Anas platyrhynchos, Anas strepera, Charadrius Charadrius hiaticula, Emberiza schoeniclus, Fulica atra, Gallinula chloropus, Haematopus ostralegus, Numenius arquata, Pluvialis squatarola , Tadorna tadorna , TringaTringa totanus, Vanellus Vanellus vanellus . Over winter the area regularly supports: 65588 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 01/0411998)/1998) Including: Branta bernicla bernicla, Anas strepera, Anas crecca, Haematopus ostralegus, Charadrius hiaticula, Pluvialis squatarola, Calidris alpina alpina, Numenius arquata, Tringa totanus. Thursley, During the breeding season the area regularly supports: Thursley, Hankley and Frensham Commons together incorporate a Hankley and Caprimulgus europaeus 0.6% of the GB breeding population heath and valley mire complex. Much of the site is in secure tenure. Frensham 5 year mean, 1985-1990 Thursley Common is a National Nature Reserve managed by English Commons Nature. Frensham and Witley Commons are managed by the National (Wealden Lullula arborea 1.8% of the GB breeding population Trust and a large part of the site is owned by the MoD (Hankley Heaths Count, as at 1994 Common and Ockley Common), being regularly used for military Phase I) activities and informal recreation. Sylvia undata at least 1.3% 1.3% of the GB breeding population Count, as at 1984 Neglect/ lack of appropriate management still exists as a potential threat to the site especially especially on the site margins, margins, however, however, the majority majority of the site is in conservation management and this situation is generally improving with the existence of countryside management schemes. The loweringlowering of water levels levels due to water abstraction abstraction from the Greensand aquifer is affecting the wet heath and bog components of the site;

82

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues abstraction licenses will be reviewed underr the relevant provisions of the Habitats R Regulations. Wealden During the breeding season the area regularly supports: The heathland habitats of the Special Protection Area are very Heaths Caprimulgus europaeus 1.3%1.3% of the GB breeding population dependent upon grazing and o0ther traditional management practices. In Phase II 5 year mean, 1989-1993 the absence of a functional commons system system the re re-establishment of successful grazing management is dependent on the involvement of Lullula arborea 2.5% of the GB breeding population county-based Heathland Management Projects. Experimental grazing Count as at 1997 trials have been established at Woolmer Forest. The Special Protection Area is vulnerable to heathland fires aand there is increasing pressure Sylvia undata 1%1% of the GB breeding population for development associated associated with military military training activities. This and and the Count as at 1994 problems caused by formal and informal recreation activitiesities (e.g. (e.g. mountain biking, orienteering, car and motorcycle events) that are a Sylvia undata 1%1% of the GB breeding population potential threat to the breeding success of the Annex 1 1 birds are being 5 year mean, 1989-1993 addressed by improved liaison and annual consultation meetings with the Ministry Ministry of Defence Defence and through management plans on National Trust land.

83

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Table A.3: RAMSAR sites – Baseline Information

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Dungeness, Romney The site contains representative, rare, or unique Information not available. Marsh and Rye Bay examples of natural or near-natural wetland types such pRamsar as vegetated annual drift lines, perennial vegetated stony banks, natural shingle wetlands, saline lagoons, freshwater pits pits and basin basin fens.

The site supports vulnerable, endangered, or criticallyitically endangered species or threatened ecological communities associated with wetland habitats. These communities include rich and diverse assemblages of bryophytes, vascular plants and invertebrates that are rare, threatened or specially protected. Medway Estuary and Ramsar criterion 2 Information not available. Marshes Ramsar The site supports a number of species of rare plants and animals. The site holds several nationally scarce plants, including sea barley Hordeum marinum, curved hard- grass Parapholis incurva,, annual annual beard beard-grass Polypogon monspeliensis, Borrer's saltmarsh-grass Puccinellia fasciculata,, slender hare`s hare's-ear Bupleurum tenuissimum, sea clover TrifoliumTrifolium squamosum, saltmarsh goose-foot Chenopodium chenopodioides,, golden samphire Inula crithmoides, , perennial glasswort Sarcocornia perennis and one - flowered glasswort Salicornia pusilla.. A total of at least twelve British Red Data Book species of wetland invertebratesinvertebrates have have been been recorded recorded on the site. These include a ground beetle Polistichus connexus, a fly Cephalops perspicuus , a dancefly Poecilobothrus ducalis, a fly Anagnota collini, a weevil Baris scolopacea, a water beetle Berosus8erosus spinosus, a beetle Malachius vulneratus , a rove beetle Philonthus punctus , the ground lackey lackey moth moth Malacosoma castrensis , a horsefly Atylotus latistriatuus,, a fly Campsicnemus magius, a solider beetle, Cantharis fusca , and a cranefly Limonia danica . A significant number of non-wetland

84

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues British Red Data Book species also occur.

Ramsar criterion 5 Assemblages of international importance: Species with peak counts in winter: 47637 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99- 2002/2003)

Ramsar criterion 6 –- species/populations occurring at levels of international importance. Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation): Species with peak counts in spring/autumn: Grey plover , Pluvialis squatarola, E Atlantic/W Africa - wintering 3103 individuals, representing an average of 1.2% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3) Common redshank , TringaTringa totanus totanus, , 3709 individuals, representing an average of 1.4% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3)

Species with peak counts in winter: Dark-bellied brent goose, Branta bernicla berniela bernicla berniela , 2575 individuals,individuals, representing representing an an average of 1.1% 1.1% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3) Common shelduck , TadornaTadorna tadorna , NW Europe 2627 individuals,individuals, representing representing an an average of 3.3% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

Northern pintail , Anas acutaaeuta , NW Europe 1118 individuals,individuals, represe represe nting an average of 1.8% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3)

Ringed plover , CharadriusCharadrius hiaticulahiatieula , Europe/Northwest Africa 540 individuals, representing an average of 1.6% 1.6% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3)

85

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues

Red knot , Calidris canutus islandica,, W & Southern Africa (wintering) 3021 individuals, representing an average of 1% 1% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3)

Dunlin , Calidris alpina a/pina alpina a/pina , W Siberia/W Europe 8263 individuals,individuals, representing representing an average average of 1.4% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3)

Species/populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration under criterion 6.

Species with peak counts in spring/autumn: Black-tailed godwit , Limosa limosa is landica,, Iceland/W IcelandlW Europe 721 individuals, representing an average of 2% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9 - 2002/3) Pevensey Levels Ramsar criterion 2 Introduction/Invasion of non-native plant species The site supports an outstanding assemblage of wetland plants and invertebrates including many British Red Pollution-Domestic Sewage Data Book species.

Ramsar criterion 3 The site supports 68% of vascular plant species in Great Britain that can be described as aquatic. It is probably the best site in Britain for freshwater molluscs, one of the five best sites for aquatic beetles Coleoptera and supports an outstanding assemblage of dragonflies Odonata. Stodmarsh Ramsar criterion 2 None Reported Six British Red Data Book wetland invertebrates. Two nationally rare plants and five nationally scarce species. A diverse assemblage of rare wetland birds.

86

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation): Species regularly supported during the breeding season: Gadwall, Anas strepera strepera,, NW NW Europe Europe 6 pairs, pairs, representing an average of 1% of the GB population (1988(198892)-92)

Species with peak counts in spring/autumn: Gadwall, Anas strepera strepera, NW Europe 267 individuals,individuals, representing representing an an average of 1.5% 1.5% of the GB GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3)

Species with peak counts in winter: Great bittern, Botaurus stellaris stellaris , W Europe, NW Africa 2 individuals, representing an average of 2% of the GB population population (5 (5 year peak peak mean mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3) Northern shoveler, Anas cl ypeata, NW & C Europe 274 individuals, representing an average of 1.8% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3) Hen harrier, Circus cyaneus, Europe 9 individuals, representingrepresenting an average of 1.2% 1.2% of the GB population population (5 winter period peak count 1987/8-1991/2) Thanet Coast and Ramsar criterion 2 Vegetation succession Sandwich Bay Supports 15 British Red Data Book wetland invertebrates.invertebrates. Water diversion for irrigation/domestic/industrial use

Ramsar criterion 6 –- species/populations occurring at Eutrophication levels of international importance. Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at Pollution –- pesticides/agricultural runoff designation): Species with peak counts in winter: Recreational/tourism disturbance (unspecified) Ruddy turnstone, Arenaria interpres interpres, NE Canada, Greenland/WGreenlandlW Europe & NW Africa 1007 1007 Unspecified development: urban use individuals, representing an average of 1% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/ 3)

87

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues The Swale Ramsar criterion 2 Erosion The site supports nationally scarce plants and at least seven British Red data book invertebrates.

Ramsar criterion 5 Assemblages of international importance: Species with peak counts in winter: 77501 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99- 2002/2003)

Ramsar criterion 6 – species/populations occurring at levelslevels of international international importance. importance. Qualifying Species/populations (as identified at designation):

Species with peak counts in spring/autumn: Common redshank, TringaTringa totanus totanu, 1712 individuals,individuals, repre repre senting an average of 1.4% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3)

Species with peak counts in winter: Dark-bellied brent goose, Branta bernicla bernicla , 1633 individuals,individuals, representing representing an an average of 1.6% 1.6% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3) Grey plover , Pluvialis squatarola , E Atlantic/W Africa – wintering 2098 individuals, representing an average of 3.9% of the GB population (5 year peak mean 1998/9- 2002/3)

Species/populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration under criterion 6. Species with peak counts in spring/autumn: Ringed plover, Charadrius hiaticula, Europe/Northwest Africa 917 individuals, representing an average of 1.2% 1.2% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3)

88

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

Site name Features for which the site is designated Site vulnerability/ issues

Species with peak counts in winter: Eurasian wigeon, Anas penelope, NW Europe 15296 individuals,individuals, representing representing an average of 1% 1% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3) Northern pintail, Anas acutaaeuta , NW Europe 763 individuals,individuals, representing representing an an average of 1 1.2% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9-2002/3) Northern shoveler, Anas clypeata elypeata , NW & C Europe 483 individuals,individuals, representing representing an an average of 1.2% 1.2% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9-2002/3) Black-tailed godwit, Limosa limosa islandicaislandiea, Iceland IW/W Europe 1504 individuals, representing an average of 4.2% of the population (5 year peak mean 1998/9 1998/9 - 2002/3) Thursley and Ockley Ramsar criterion 2 None reported Bog Supports a community of rare wetland invertebrate species including notable numbers of breeding dragonflies.

Ramsar criterion 3 It is one of few sites in Britain to support all six native reptilereptile species. The site also supports nationally nationally important breeding populations of European nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus and woodlark LullulaLul/ula arborea .

89

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX B: LOCATIONS OF EUROPEAN SITES

90 o Cotswolds Cherwell, Thame and Wye 101 Colne Combined Essex

London Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne

102 101

Thames Corridor

307 302302 205 209 Kennet and Vale of White Horse 100 202 203 North Kent 108 303 305 202 203305 304 206 118 London Darent 115 301 312 114 106 107 113 204105 North Kent 305 Loddon 115 308 203 312 312 118 114 312 312 312 312

312118 314") 312 Stour 312 104 Medway Mole 103 111 104 Wey 208 118 131 309 309 309 110 129 310 310 Weir Wood Reservoir 131 310 Bewl Water Test and Itchen 310 127 130 311 124 SAC Sites ") 310 Ardingly Reservoir 100 - Windsor Forest & Great Park 1")23 101 - Chilterns Beechwoods 131 313 102 - Burnham Beeches 210 103 - Parkgate Down Rother 104 - Wye & Crundale Downs 11")7 313 Darwell Reservoir 105 - Stodmarsh 313 106 - Peters Pit Arun and Western Streams 210 107 - Queendown Warren 128 Powdermill Reservoir 313 120 315112 108 - Thanet Coast Adur and Ouse 306 109 - Hastings Cliffs 119 112 126 110 - Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment East Hampshire 1")19 111 - Lydden & Temple Ewell Downs 112 - Dungeness 113 - Sandwich Bay 122 114 - North Downs Woodlands Cuckmere and Pevensey Levels 109 121 115 - Blean Complex 125 116 - Castle Hill SPA Sites Arlington Reservoir 207 117 - The Mens 116 301 - Thames Basin Heaths 118 - Thursley, Ash, Pirbright & Chobham 302 - South West London Waterbodies 119 - Singleton and Cocking Tunnels 303 - Medway Estuary & Marshes 120 - Rook Clift New Forest Ramsar Sites 304 - The Swale 121 - Lewes Downs 201 - South West London Waterbodies 305 - Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay 122 - Kingley Vale 202 - Medway Estuary & Marshes 306 - Dungeness to Pett Level 123 - Ebernoe Common 203 - Thanet Coast & Sandwich Bay 307 - Thames Estuary & Marshes 124 - Ashdown Forest 204 - Stodmarsh 308 – Stodmarsh 125 - Pevensey Levels 205 - Thames Estuary & Marshes 309 - Thursley, Hankley & Frensham Commons 126 - Duncton to Bignor Escarpment 206 - The Swale 310 - Wealden Heaths Phase II 127 - River Itchen 207 - Pevensey Levels 311 - Ashdown Forest 128 - Butser Hill 208 - Thursley & Ockley Bogs 312 - Thames Basin Heaths 129 - Shortheath Common 209 - South West London Waterbodies 313 - Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay 130 - Woolmer Forest 210 - Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay 314 - Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment 131 - East Hampshire Hangers Legend Feasible Options CAMS Reference Boundaries River Adur and Ouse London South East Water Boundary Arun and Western Streams Medway SEW Boundary 10k Buffer Cherwell, Thame and Wye Mole SAC Colne New Forest Ramsar Combined Essex North Kent SPA Cotswolds Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne ") SAC designated for bats Cuckmere and Pevensey Levels Rother Reproduced from an Ordnance Survey map with the 30k Buffer around bat SAC permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Darent Stour Stationery Office. Crown Copyright Reserved Licence East Hampshire No. 10018341. 0 10 20 30 40 Test and Itchen Kennet and Vale of White Horse © Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved 2011. Kilometres Thames Corridor Loddon Wey WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX C: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – GROUNDWATER GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? GW-13 Ground- Thurnham - North The site’s qualifying features are unlikely to be highly sensitive to water levels. No No No water increaseincrease Downs This option involves abstraction from a confined aquifer wit h no links to the Enhance output from Woodland surface water environment. Therefore this option is unlikely to have significant ment existing BH SAC (7km) effects on the site’s qualifying features.

Medway Estuary and This option involves abstraction from a confined aquifer with no links to the No No No Marshes surface water environment. Therefore this option is unlikely to have significant SPA and effects on the site’s site's qualifying features. Ramsar (13km(13km but but within the same groundwater catchment) GW-23 New Bewl N/A Increased abstraction at Bewl Bridge may impact on groundwater levels in the No No No Ground- Bridge area but is unlikely to impact on surface water features as the Ashdown Beds are water Boreholes: confined by the Wadhurst Clay throughout most of the surrounding area. No NewNewBH BH EuropeanEuropean sites sensitive to changes in water quantity or quality are located within off-site & the same CAMS region region as as the Bewl Bewl Bridge Bridge borehole. borehole. new 4Ml/d WTW

92

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? GW-24 New Bewl N/A Increased abstraction at Bewl Bridge may impact on groundwater levels in the No No No Ground- Bridge area, but is unlikely to impact on surface water features as the Ashdown Beds water Boreholes: are confined by the Wadhurst Wad hurst Clay throughout most of the surrounding area. No New BH off European sites sensitive to changes in water quantity or quality are located within -site the same CAMS region as the Bewl Bridge borehole. GW-47 Aquifer ASR Chalk Windsor The site’s qualifying features are unlikely to be highly sensitive to water levels. No No No Storage confined (in Forest and This option involves recharging a confined chalk aquifer and so impacts to Recovery region of Great Park terrestrial habitats habitats or the surface water environment are unlikely. unlikely. Therefore this Beenhams SAC option is unlikely to have significant effects on the site’s qualifying features. Heath PS / (3.8km) White White No other European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are are located located Waltham) within the same CAMS region as this option. GW-51 Ground- Hurley Chilterns The site’s qualifying features are unlikely to be highly sensitive to water levels No No No water Closing the Beech - and so no significant effect is anticipated. Enhance Gap woods SAC ment (1.7km) No other European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are located within the same CAMS region as this option. GW-59 New Develop- N/A No European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are located within No No No Ground- ment at the same CAMS region as this option. water Brown Woods GW-61 New New N/A No European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are located within No No No Ground- Hastings the same CAMS region as this option. water licences: Lilley Farm

93

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? GW-64 New New N/A No European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are located within No No No Ground- sources the same CAMS re region as this option. water Lower Greensand The Mens The site’s qualifying features are not sensitive to groundwater abstraction and so No No No SAC (within a significant effect is not anticipated. 30km) GW-70 Ground- Increase N/A No European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are located within No No No water DO at the same CAMS region as this option. Enhance Crowhurst ment Bridge GW-73 Ground- New Pevensey Much of the flow from this area flows to the sea and so there is unlikely to be an No No No water sources in Levels impact to surface water body flows or habitats. As such, significant impacts to Enhance Seaford cSAC (9km) Pevensey Levels cSAC and Ramsar are not anticipated. ment Chalk Pevensey Levels Ramsar (9km)(9km) GW-74 New New Pevensey Much of the flow from this area flows to the sea and so there is unlikely to be an No No No Ground- sources in Levels impactimpact to surface surface water body body flows or habitats. habitats. As such, such, significant significant impacts impacts to water Eastbourne cSAC (9km) Pevensey Levels cSAC and Ramsar are not anticipated. Chalk Pevensey Levels Ramsar (9km)(9km)

94

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? GW-83 Ground- Westham/ River Itchen A decrease in flow velocities is a principal threat to the habitats within thisis SAC. No No No water Westham SAC (20km Recent surveys have shown declines in Ranunculus cover since 1990, Enhance Park but within attributable to increased abstractions in the upper catchment, coupled with a ment IncreaseIncrease same river series of years with below-average rainfall. Low flows interact with nutrient inputs DO to catchment) from point point sources to produce produce localised localised increases increases in in filamentous algae and Aggregate nutrient-tolerant macrophytes at the expense of Ranunculus. Licence This option is located well within the Loddon catchment and should not affect the ItchenItchen SAC catchment. Stakeholders were concerned about boundary effects and potential for impact on Itchen and also impact on Loddon headwaters. Due to this the option has been rejected and so no further assessment is required. GW-89 Ground- Lasham – River Itchen A decrease in flow velocities is a principal threat to the habitats within this SAC. Yes Yes Yes water Beyond the SAC (same Recent surveys have shown declines in Ranunculus cover since 1990, 1990, Enhance licence river attributable to increased abstractions in the upper catchment, coupled with a ment catchment) series of years with below-average rainfall. Low flows interact with nutrient inputs from point point sources to produce produce localised localised increases increases in in filamentous algae and and nutrient-tolerant macrophytes at the expense of Ranunculus. As such, increased abstraction ass ociated with this option has the potential to significantly affect the qualifying features of the SAC. GW-90 Ground- Wood- River Itchen A decrease in flow velocities is a principal threat to the habitats within this SAC. No No No water garston SAC (30km Recent surveys have shown declines in Ranunculus cover since 1990, 1990, Enhance Beyond but within attributable to increased abstractions in the upper catchment, coupled with a ment Licence same series of years with below -average rainfall. Low flows interact with nutrient inputs catchment) from point point sources to produce produce localised localised increases increases in in filamentous algae and and nutrient-tolerant macrophytes at the expense of Ranunculus. As such, increased abstraction associated with this option has the potential to significant ly affect the qualifying features of the SAC. This option has been rejected due to potential impacts to the headwaters of the River Itchen associated with abstraction.

95

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? GW-96 Ground- Itchel Thames The site’s qualifying features are not highly sensitive to water abstraction and so No No No water Closing the Basin no significant effect is anticipated. Enhance gap Heaths SPA ment (3.0km) The site’s qualifying features are not sensitive to groundwater abstraction and so No No No Ebernoe a signi ficant effect is not anticipated. Common SAC (within No European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are located within 30km) the same CAMS region as this option. GW- New New N/A No European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are located within No No No 116 Ground- sources the same CAMS region as this option. water Underhill Chalk The Mens The site’s qualifying features are not sensitive to groundwater abstraction and so No No No SAC (within a significant effect is not anti cipated. 30km)30km GW- New Confined Thames The site’s qualifying features are not highly sensitive to water abstractionion and so No No No 121 Ground- Chalk - Basin no significant effect is anticipated. water around Heaths SPA Farn- (0.4km)(O.4km) borough Abstraction would be from a confined aquifer with no fluvial or hydrogeological No No No Thursley, connectivity to the SAC. As such, no impacts to wet heath or mire communities Ash, integral to the SAC are anticipated. Pirbright and Chobham SAC (3.7km)(3.7km)

96

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? GW- New Monkwood East The site’s qualifying features are not highly sensitive to water abstraction and so No No No 125 Ground- -– new Hampshire no significant effect is anticipated. water licence Hangers within chalk SAC (4.7km)

Shortheath Shortheath Common SAC is notable for its mire and bog communities, habitats Yes Yes Yes Common that are sensitive to water levels levels and and abstraction. Although the distance is is great, SAC further investigation would be required to rule out the potential for significant (9.7km)(9.7km) effects to the integrity of the SAC.

River Itchen Abstraction at this location would be from an unconfined aquifer within the same Yes Yes Yes SAC (10km) catchment as the River Itchen SAC. Abstraction may impact base flows in the headwater of the Itchen which could affect water quality and macrophyte cover. A decrease in flow velocities is a principal threat to the habitats within this SAC. Recent surveys have shown declines in Ranunculus cover since 1990, attributable to increased abstractions in the upper catchment, coupled with a series of years with below -average rainfall. Low flows interact with nutrient inputs from point sources to produce localised increases in filamentous algae and nutrient-tolerant macrophytes at th e expense of Ranunculus. As such, increased abstraction associated with this option has the potential to significantly affect the qualifying features of the SAC.

Woolmer Woolmer Forest SAC is notable for wet habitats including mires, bogs, wet heath, Yes Yes Yes Forest SAC lakes and ponds, habitats that are sensitive to water levels and abstraction. (11.2km) Although the distance is great, further investigation would be required to rule out the potential for significant effects to the integrity of the SAC.

97

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? GW- Ground- Power Hill Pevensey This option is located outside the Wallers Haven catchment and so no influence No No No 131 water Beyond Levels on the drainage to Pevensey Levels cSAC or Ramsar would arise as a result of Enhance- licence cSAC and the proposals. ment Ramsar (7km)

Hastings The SAC is not sensitive to groundwater abstraction and at this distance no No No No Cliffs SAC impacts to the integrity of Hastings Cliff SAC are anticipated. (9km) GW- New Redistribu- Pevensey Much of the flow from this area flows to the sea and so there is unlikely to be an No No No 133 Ground- tion of Levels impact to surface water body flows or habitats. As such, no significant impacts to water Eastbourne cSAC (9km) Pevensey Levels cSAC or Ramsar are anticipated chalk: Abstract Pevensey water from Levels the Ramsar historical (9km)(9km) audit GW- New Tonbridge N/A No European sites with sensitivi ties to groundwater abstraction are located within No No No 135 Ground- Gravels - the same CAMS region region as as this option. water Beyond the Licence GW- New Pembury / N/A No European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are located within No No No 139 Ground- Matfield - the same CAMS region as this option. water Closing the gap, new borehole in Ashdown Beds

98

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? GW- New River Burnham The site’s qualifying features are not highly sensitive to water abstraction and so No No No 142 Ground- Thames Beeches no sign ificant effect is anticipated. water Gravels – SAC (4km) new source north of Bray GW- New Goudhurst N/A The aquifer is unconfined and the site is close to the river and so there is No No No 162 Ground- Pumping potential for impacts to the base river flow and nearby w etland habitats. However, water Station – there are no European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are bridging the located within the same CAMS region as this option. licence gap GW- New Lamber- N/A The aquifer is unconfined and the site is close to the river and so there is No No No 163 Ground- hurst potential for impacts to the base river flow and nearby wetland habitats. However, water Pumping there are no European sites with sensitivities to groundwater abstraction are Station – located within the same CAMS region as this option. bridging the licence gap GW- New New source The Swale The site’s freshwater and terrestrial habitats are sensitive to water level and Yes Yes Yes 165 Ground- develop - SPA and water quality changes that can be associated with abstraction, especially when water ment in the Ramsar combined with impacts associated with localised drainage. Environment Agency Faversham (1.0km)(1.0km) modelling work on marsh drainage and IDB lOB management information would be LLT GWMU useful to determine potential for significant effects. There is potential to manage flows to balance levels though conjunctive use of abstraction between the Lower London Tertiaries (LLT) near-surface aquifer and the Chalk aquifer at depth. Water is available within the LLT but there is connection with the Swale SPA/Ramsar drainage; whereas abstraction from the Chalk at depth has no direct connectivity with the near surface water features but is already abstracted. Therefore, this option is subject to conditional consent, detailed assessment and monitoring, and protocol for conjunctive aquifer use.

99

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in- Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from alone? other significant option. plans and effect on projects? European site(s)?

At this stage there is sufficient uncertainty as to the effects of abstraction to the Swale SPA and Ramsar and so this option should be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA. GW- New New source The Swale The SPA’s freshwater and terrestrial habitats are sensitive to water level and Yes Yes Yes 166 Ground- develop- SPA and water quality changes that can be associated with abstraction, especially when water ment in the Ramsar combined with impacts associated with localised drainage. Environment Agency Selling LLT (unknown)(unknown) modelling work on marsh drainage and IDB lOB management information would be GWMU useful to determine potential for significant effects. There is potential to manage flows to balance levels though conjunctive use of abstraction between the Lower London Tertiaries (LLT) near-surface aquifer and the Chalk aquifer at depth. Water is available within the LLT but there is is connection connection with the Swale SPA/Ramsar drainage; whereas abstraction from the Chalk at depth has no direct connectivity with the near surface water features but is already abstracted. Therefore, this option is subject to conditional consent, detailed assessment and monitoring, and protocol for conjunctive aquifer use.

At this stage there is sufficient uncertainty as to the effects of abstraction to the Swale SPA and Ramsar and so this option should be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA. HRA.

Blean The site’s qualifying features are unlikely to be highly sensitive to water levels No No No Complex and so no significant effect is anticipated. SAC (unknown)(unknown)

100100

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX D: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – SURFACE WATER GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? SW-41 Storage Raise None within N/A No No No Reservoir Arlington 5km Skm Reservoir, SW-51 Storage Broyle Lewes Down The qualifying features of the SAC are unlikely to be highly sensitive to river No No No Reservoir Reservoir SAC (3.3km) abstraction and/or disturbance associated with construction/operation of a storage reservoir 3.3km away. The SAC is not situated between the proposed location of the intake or reservoir and so any interconnecting pipelines would not encroach into the designated site. SW-77 Storage Goose Singleton The proposed reservoir would not affect woodland habitat (the habitat favoured No No No Reservoir Green and Cocking by the qualifying species) contiguous to the designated area and no impacts Reservoir Tunnels affecting the integrity of the SAC as a roosting or foraging site would be likely. SAC (26km) Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction of the intake pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m 10m in width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided.

The Mens As above No No No SAC (10km)

Ebernoe As above No No No Common (15km)

101101

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? None within 5kmSkm of reservoir or pipeline. None within same river catchment as proposed reservoir intakeintake at the River Adur.duro SW-89 Storage Laughton Lewes The qualifying features of Lewes Downs SAC are unlikely to be highly sensitive No No No Reservoir Reservoir Downs SAC to river abstraction and so no significant effect is anticipated. The proposed (3.2km from locationlocation of the new new reservoir reservoir is is in in excess of 5km Skm from the SAC SAC and and so so no no proposed significant impacts associated with construction are anticipated. intake).

Ashdown Ashdown Forest SAC is located in excess of 5km upstream of the proposed No No No ForestForest SAC intake point and the qualifying features are not linked to the fluvial regime. The and SPA SAC is located in excess of 4km from the Hempstead WTW (the end point of the (4.4km(4.4km from proposed pipeline route from the new reservoir) and so no significant impacts as reservoir to a result of pipeline construction are anticipated. The proposed location of the WTW new reservoir is in excess of 5km Skm from the SAC and so no significant impacts pipeline) associated with construction (including(including air pollution) pollution) are anticipated.

The SPA is located in excess of 4km from the Hempstead WTW (the end point No No No of the proposed pipeline route from the new reservoir) and so no significant impacts as a result of pipeline construction are anticipated.

102102

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? SW- Storage Broad Farm Pevensey The qualifying features of the cSAC are not likely to be sensitive to disturbance No No No 109 Reservoir Reservoir Levels cSAC or other construction related impacts associated with construct ion of a reservoir (2.9km) or associated pipelines 2.9km away. Abstraction to fill the reservoir would be from the River Ouse and not the Wallers Haven catchment and so the operation of the reservoir would not affect any fluvial or groundwater sources with connectivityivity to Pevensey Pevensey Levels Levels cSAC. cSAC.

Pevensey The qualifying features of the Ramsar are not likely to be sensitive to No No No Levels disturbance or other construction related impacts associated with construction of Ramsar a reservoir or associated pipelines 2.9km away. The operation of the reservoir (2.9km)(2.9km) would not affect any fluvial or groundwater sources with connectivity to Pevensey Levels Ramsar. SW- Storage Raise None within N/A No No No 181 Reservoir Ardingly 5km Skm Reservoir Mole Gap to The proposed works would affect ancient woodland habitat (the habitat favoured No No No Reigate by the qualifying species), although this habitat is not contiguous to the Escarpment designated area and no impacts affecting the integrity of the SAC as a roosting SAC (28km) or foraging site would be likely. SW- New Transfer None within N/A No No No 278 Surface Adur to 5km Skm Water Ardingly Reservoir

103103

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX E: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – WATER REUSE GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? EF-5 Water Water reuse Lewes The proposed pipeline route has been designed to avoid Lewes Downs SAC. No No No rereuse to Riveriver Downs SAC Provided that construction activity does not encroach into the designated area Ouse: source (500m) and by ensuring that adequate pollution control measures are adopted, –- Newhaven significant effects to the integrity of the SAC would be unlikely.

The qualifying features of Castle Hill SAC are not likely to be sensitive to No No No disturbance or other construction related impacts (including air pollution) Castle Hill associated with pipe laying 4.5km away. The site is not sensitive to fluvial SAC (4.5km) discharge or abstraction. EF-9 Water Water reuse Pevensey Treated effluent would be discharged directly into Pevensey Levels cSAC and Yes Yes Yes rereuse to Wallers Levels cSAC Ramsar. The habitats and species for which the site is designated are sensitive Haven: (scheme to water quality and there is potential that the effluent, although treated to a high source - within site standard, could alter water chemistry by affecting pH and dissolved oxygen Bexhill boundary) levels.levels. The temperature of the treated effluent could be different from the cSAC and during low flows when the proportion of treated effluent in the river downstream would be greater, this could adversely affect aquatic life. Temperature impacts could have knock-on impacts on dissolved oxygen concentrations. Furthermore, construction of the pipeline and outfall at this location could result in physical loss or damage to aquatic and/or riparian habitats, and temporary non-physical disturbance. As such, this option has the potential to significantly affect the qualifying features of the site.

Pevensey As above. Yes Yes Yes Levels Ramsar

104104

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Hastings The qualifying features of Hastings Cliffs are not likely to be sensitive to impacts No No No Cliffs SAC associated with pipeline construction and fluvial discharges at a distance of 5km. (5km) EF-15 Water Indirect Use Thanet Coast Construction of the proposed new effluent treatment plant at Weatherlees Yes Yes Yes rereuse of effluent and WwTW could result in temporary disturbance to breeding or wintering birds, fromrom Sandwich although such impacts are unlikely to be significanticant at a a distance distance of 500m and Weatherlees Bay SPA could be mitigated by avoiding sensitive periods and through the use of acoustic WwTW - into (500m) or visual screening. Great Stour Increased discharges into Sandwich Bay from the existing Margate and Broadstairs sea outfall could result in non -toxic c ontamination (e.g. changes in salinity, thermal regime, and turbidity) that could cause significant effects. In- combination effects with discharges into Sandwich Bay from other sources are also possible.

Discharges into the River Stour at Grove Ferry would be located in excess of 9km upstream of the SPA/Ramsar. Upstream discharges could affect the quality of freshwater reaching the estuary which may have an affect habitat quality (e.g. sedimentation or prey item assemblages for feeding waders). Changes in the volume of discharge to that currently received by the River Stour could also affect water availability within the designated area, especially when combined with existing water availability issues (e.g. abstraction and drainage) experienced at the sit e. Although the distance from the SPA/Ramsar is great, a significant effect cannot yet be ruled out.

Sandwich This option is not anticipated to have a significant effect on the qualifying No No No Bay SAC features of the SAC as no no works would be be undertaken undertaken within the designated (500m) area and the site is unlikely to be sensitive to the proposed discharges into Sandwich Bay or the River Stour.

105105

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and

south east ~ Appropriate Ass essment July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Thanet Coast Thanet Coast SAC’s principal sensitivities are associated with erosion, physical No No No SAC (2.3km) destruction, recreation and fishing. The proposed construction of a new effluent plant at Weatherlees WwTW 2.3km from the SAC and the associated transfer of treated water to Grove Ferry are unlikely to have significant effect the qualifying features of the site. site.

Thanet Coast See Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA, above. Yes Yes Yes and Sandwich Bay Ramsar (500m)

Stodmarsh Treated effluent would be discharged into the River Stour at Grove Ferry which Yes Yes Yes SPA isis located located immediately immediately adjacent adjacent to Stodmarsh Stodmarsh SPA SPA and and Ramsar. Ramsar. The River River Stour Stour (scheme has direct links with the SPA/Ramsar at this location. The habitats and species potentially for which the site is is desig desig nated are sensitive to water quality and there is within site potential that the effluent, although treated to a high standard, could alter water boundary chemistry by affecting pH and dissolved oxygen levels. Furthermore, construction of the pipeline, cascade and outfall at this location could result in physical loss or damage to aquatic and/or riparian habitats, and temporary non - physical disturbance. As such, this option has the potential to have significant effects to the qualifying features of the site.

Stodmarsh See Stodmarsh SPA, above. Ramsar Yes Yes Yes (scheme potentially within site boundary)

106106

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX F: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – WATER TRANSFERS GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR-3 Inter- Transfer 10 N/A There are no European sites located between Burham WTW and Aylesford and No No No com- Ml/dMild from so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated pany / SWS Bur- sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the Regional ham WTW qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Transfer to Aylesford TR-4 Inter- Transfer 10 Blean The pipeline route is unconfirmed but will link Burham WTW with the Canterbury No No No com- Ml/dMild from Complex area. The area between Burham and Canterbury supports two European sites: pany / SWS SAC North Downs Woodlands SAC and Bleanlean Complex SAC. SAC. However, However, provided provided that Regional Medway the pipeline is designed to avoid encroaching into the designated area, and that Transfer Burham adequate pollution prevention (including air pollution) control measures are WTWWTWto to RZ8 North Downs employed, pipeline construction is not anticipated to have a significant effect to Woodlands the qualifying features of the SAC. This option would require further screening if SAC a pipeline route avoiding the SAC cannot be designed. TR-7 Inter- SWS N/A There are no European sites located between Burham WTW and Aylesford and No No No com- Medway so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated pany / (Burham) to sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the Regional RZ7 - no qualifying feature s of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Transfer increase to0 Bewl WTW TR-7a Inter- Transfer 14.6 N/A There are no European sites located between Bewl reservoir and Bewl Bridge No No No com- Ml/dMild from WTW and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European pany / SWS Bewl designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of Regional Reservoir to the qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Transfer SEW Bewl Bridge WTW

107107

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR- Intra – SEW N/A There are no European sites located between Best Beech and Bewl reservoir No No No 31a com- Transfer, and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated pany Best Beech sites or habitat features that wouldId be be integral integral to the maintenance maintenance of the Transfer to Bewl: RZ2 qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. to RZ7 TR-32 Intra – SEW N/A There are no European sites located between Best Beech Beech and Bewl Bewl reservoir reservoir No No No com- Transfer, and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated pany Bewl to Best sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the Transfer Beech: RZ7 qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. to RZ2 TR- Intra – SEW N/A There are no European sites located between Best Beech and Bewl reservoir No No No 32a com- Transfer, and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated pany Bewl to Best sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the Transfer Beech: RZ7 qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. to RZ2 TR- Intra – SEW N/A There are no European sites located between Best Beech and Bewl reservoir No No No 32b com- Transfer, and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated pany Bewl to Best sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the Transfer Beech: RZ7 qualifying features of a European site at a favou rable conservation status. to RZ2 TR- Intra – SEW N/A There are no European sites located between Blackhurst service reservoir and No No No 33a com- Transfer, Bewl reservoir and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any pany Blackhurst to European designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the Transfer Bewl: RZ1 to maintenance of the qualifying features of a European site at a favourable RZ7 conservation status. (pumped(pumped reverse)

108108

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR-35 Intra – Transfer RZ6 North Downs The section of route between Detling service reservoir and Bluebell Hill service No No No com- to RZ8 Woodlands reservoirreservoir is is located immediately immediately adjacent to North Downs Downs Woods SAC. Provided Provided pany (Maidstone(Maidstone SAC that the pipeline is designed to avoid encroaching into the designated area (e.g. Transfer to (immediately(immediately by making use of the carriageway), and that adequate pollution prevention Canterbury) adjacent) (including(including air pollution) pollution) control measures are employed, pipeline construction is 10 Ml/d not anticipated to have a significant effect to the qualifying features of the SAC. However, this option would require further screening if a pipeline route avoiding the SAC SAC cannot be be designed.

There are no other European sites located between Maidstone and Canterbury and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. TR- Intra – Transfer RZ6 North Downs The section of route between Detling service reservoir and Bluebell Hill service No No No 35b com- to RZ8 RZ8 Woodlands reservoirreservoir is is located immediately immediately adjacent to North Downs Downs Woods SAC . Provided pany (Maidstone SAC that the pipeline pipeline is is designed to avoid encroaching into into the designated area (e.g. (e.g. Transfer to (immediately(immediately by making use of the carriageway), and that adequate pollution prevention Canterbury) adjacent) (including(including air pollution) pollution) control measures are employed, pipeline construction is 1515 Ml/d Mild not ant icipated to have a significant effect to the qualifying features of the SAC. However, this option would require further screening if a pipeline route avoiding the SAC cannot be designed.

There are no other European sites located between Maidstone and Canterbury and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status.

109109

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR- Intra – Transfer RZ6 North Downs The section of route between Detling service reservoir and Bluebell Hill service No No No 35c com- to RZ8 Woodlands reservoirreservoir is is located immediately immediately adjacent to Nor th Downs Woods SAC. Provided pany (Maidstone SAC that the pipeline pipeline is is designed to avoid encroaching into into the designated area (e.g. (e.g. Transfer to (immediately(immediately by making use of the carriageway), and that adequate pollution prevention Canterbury) adjacent) (including(including air pollution) pollution) control measures are employed, pipeline construction is is 30 Ml/d Mild not anticipated to have a significant effect to the qualifying features of the SAC. However, this option would require further screening if a pipeline route avoiding the SAC cannot be designed.

There are no other European sites located between Maidstone and Canterbury and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. TR-36 Intra – Transfer RZ8 North Downs The section of route between Detling service reservoir and Bluebell Hill service No No No com- to RZ6 Woodlands reservoirreservoir is is located immediately adjacent to North Downs Woods SAC. Provided pany (Canterbury SAC that the pipeline pipeline is is designed to avoid encroaching into into the designated area (e.g. (e.g. Transfer to (immediately(immediately by making use of the carriageway), and that adequate pollution prevention Maidstone) adjacent) (including(including air pollution) pollution) control measures are employed, pipeline construction is 1010 Ml/dMild not anticipated to have a significant effect to the qualifying features of the SAC. However, this option would require further screening if a pipeline route avoiding the SAC cannot be designed.

There are no other European sites located between Maidstone and Canterbury and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status.

110110

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR-37 Intra – Transfer RZ8 North Downs The section of route between Detling service reservoir and Bluebell Hill serviceice No No No com- to RZ6 Woodlands reservoir is located immediately adjacent to North Downs Woods SAC. Provided pany (Canterbury SAC that the pipeline pipeline is is designed to avoid encroaching into into the designated area (e.g. (e.g. Transfer to (immediately(immediately by making use of the carriageway), and that adequate pollution prevention Maidstone) adjacent) (including(including air poll pollution) control measures are employed, pipeline construction is 1515 Ml/dMild not anticipated to have a significant effect to the qualifying features of the SAC. However, this option would require further screening if a pipeline route avoiding the SAC cannot be designed.

There are no other European sites located between Maidstone and Canterbury and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. TR-38 Intra – Transfer RZ8 North Downs The section of route between Detling service reservoir and Bluebell Hill service No No No com- to RZ6 Woodlands reservoir is located immediately adjacent to North Downs Woods SAC. Provided pany (Canterbury SAC that the pipeline pipeline is is designed to avoid encroaching into into the designated area (e.g. (e.g. Transfer to (immediately(immediately by making use of the carriageway), and that adequate pollution prevention Maidstone) adjacent) (in(including air pollution) control measures are employed, pipeline construction is 30Ml/d not anticipated to have a significant effect to the qualifying features of the SAC. However, this option would require further screening if a pipeline route avoiding the SAC cannot be designed.

There are no other European sites located between Maidstone and Canterbury and so the proposed pipeline route would not intersect any European designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a European site at a favourable conservation status.

111111

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR-39 Intra – Transfer RZ7 N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- to RZ8 (Bewl or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany to features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Transfer Kingsnorth) TR-40 Intra – Transfer RZ7 N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- to RZ8 (Bewl or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany to Aldington) features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Transfer TR-41 Intra – Transfer RZ8 NfA/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- to RZ7 or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany (Kingsnorth features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Transfer to Bewl) TR- Intra – Transfer RZ8 N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 41a com- to RZ7 or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany (Aldington to features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Transfer Bewl) TR-42 Inter- SWS N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- Stopham SR or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / to SEW features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Regional Whitely Hill Transfer SR -5 Ml/d The Mens The proposed pipeline route would pass through areas of ancient woodland (one No No No SAC, of the habitats favoured by the qualifying species) at the eastern end of the route Ebernoe near Balcombe. However, this area is ‘isolated’ from all SACs by the M23 and Common other major roads and so is not contiguous to the designated areas and no SAC, impacts affecting the integrity of the SACs as a roosting or foraging site would be Singleton likely. Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with and Cocking construction of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact Tunnels SAC would be minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than (within 30km) 10m in width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on

112112

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? completion of construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear habitat features will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity integrity of the SACs SACs are not not anticipated. TR- Inter- SEW Whitely N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 42a com- Hill SR to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / SWS features of a European siteite at at a a favourable conservation conservation status. status. Regional Stopham SR Transfer - The Mens The proposed pipeline route would pass through areas of ancient woodland (one No No No 5Ml/d SAC, of the habitats favoured by the qualifying species) at the eastern end of the route Ebernoe near Balcombe. However, this area is ‘isolated’ from all SACs by the M23 and Common other major roads and so is not contiguous to the designated areas and no SAC, impacts affecting the integrity of the SACs as a roosting or foraging site would be Singleton likely.likely. Any habitat habitat fragmentation (e.g. (e.g. hedgerow hedgerow removal) removal) associated associated with and Cocking construction of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact Tunnels SAC would be minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than (within(within 30km) 10m 10m in width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear habitat features will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be be considered to avoid the impacts impacts of habitat habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting planting to grow, flight-line line continuity continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity of the SACs are not anticipated.

113113

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR- Inter- SEW Whitely N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 42b com- Hill SR to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / SWS features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Regional Stopham SR Transfer - The Mens The proposed pipeline route would pass through areas of ancient woodland (one No No No 5Ml/d SAC, of the hab itats favoured by the qualifying species) at the eastern end of the route Ebernoe near Balcombe. However, this area is ‘isolated’ 'isolated' from all SACs by the M23 and Common other major roads and so is not contiguous to the designated areas and no SAC, impactsimpacts affecting affecting the integrity integrity of the SACs as a roosting or foraging site would be Singleton likely. Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with and Cocking construction of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact Tunnels SAC would be minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than (within 30km) 10m in width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear habitat features will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps creat ed in important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity integrity of the SACs SACs are not not anticipated. TR- Inter- SWS N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 42c com- Stopham SR or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / to SEW features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional Whitely Hill Transfer SR - The Mens The proposed pipeline route would pass through areas of ancient woodland (one No No No 5 Ml/d SAC, of the habitats favoured by the qualifying species) at the eastern end of the route Ebernoe near Balcombe. However, this area is ‘isolated’ from all SACs by the M23 and Common other major roads and so is not contiguous to the designated areas and no SAC, impactsimpacts affecting affecting the integrity integrity of the SACs SACs as as a roosting roosting or foraging site site would be be

114114

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and

south east ~ Appropriate Ass essment July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Singleton likely. Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with and Cocking const ruction of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact Tunnels SAC would be minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than (within(within 30km) 10m in width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear habitat features will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity integrity of the SACs SACs are not not anticipated. TR-44 Intra – Transfer Ashdown Due to the likely impacts to the SAC and SPA, the proposed route has been No No No com- SEW RZ2 to Forest SAC redesignedredesigned to avoid the designated area; as such, the pipeline pipeline would not pany SEW RZ1 (Scheme intersect a European site. Impacts associated with pipeline construction are Transfer (Whitely within generally localised, temporary and reversible and so no impacts to the integrity Hill SR to boundary) of the SAC or SPA would be anticipated provided that all construction activity is Blackhurst restrictedrestricted to areas outside the site boundary. boundary. However, to reduce the potential SR via impactsimpacts associated associated with air pollution, pollution, a mitigation strategy would be implemented Horsted Ashdown if construction machinery within 200m of the SAC were to be used; this No No No Keynes Forest S PA mitigation strategy would also address impacts associated with the dust. The (Scheme mitigation strategy would include measures such as the use of wellII- maintained within plant (to reduce emissions); not leaving plant idling whilst not in use; the boundary) damping down of haul routes; the use of wheel washes; reduce vehicle movements; and, the use of close board fencing to protect sensitive areas from dust and debris.

Mole Gap to The installation of new pipelines can alter local drainage and hydrology which No No No Reigate could have an impact to the wet heath habitats for which the SAC is notable. Escarpment However, to avoid impacts to the SAC, only a pipeline route that would have no

115115

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? SAC (20km)(20km) impacts to the hydrological regime of the site would be selected (for example, by favouring pipeline routes that are located within the road or are at distance from the SAC/SPA). SAC/SPA).

As such, no impact to the integrity of the qualifying features of the SAC or SPA is anticipated as a result of this option.

The western end of the proposed pipeline route encroaches within 30km of the SAC. However, the proposed pipeline would not affect woodland habitat (the habitat favoured by the qualifying species) contiguous to the designated areas and no impacts affecting the integrity of the SAC as a roosting or foraging site would be likely. Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impactimpact would be minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m 10m in width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear habitat featu res will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be be considered to avoid the impacts impacts of habitat habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using bra sh to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity of the SAC are not anticipated. TR- Intra – Whitely Hill Ashdown Due to the likely impacts to the SAC and SPA, the proposed route has been No No No 44a com- SR to Forest SAC redesignedredesigned to avoid the designated area; as such, the pipeline pipeline would not pany Blackhurst (Scheme intersect a European site. Impacts associated with pipeline construction are Transfer SR via within generally localised, temporary and reversible and so no impacts to the integrity Horsted boundary) of the SAC or SPA would be anticipated provided that all construction activity is Keynes SR restricted to areas outside the site boundary. However, to reduce the potential impacts associated with air pollution, a mitigation strategy would be implemented

116116

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? if constructionion machinery machinery within 200m of the SAC SAC were to be be used; used; this mitigation strategy would also address impacts associated with the dust. The mitigation strategy would include measures such as the use of well -maintained plant (to reduce emissions); not leaving plant idling whilst not in use; the damping down of haul routes; the use of wheel washes; reduce vehicle movements; and, the use of close board fencing to protect sensitive areas from dust and debris.

Ashdown The installation of new pipelines can alter local drainageinage and and hydrology hydrology which No No No Forest SPA could have an impact to the wet heath habitats for which the SAC is notable. (scheme However, to avoid impacts to the SAC, only a pipeline route that would have no within impacts to the hydrological regime of the site would be selected (for example,pie, by boundary) favouring pipeline routes that are located within the road or are at distance from the SAC/SPA). SAC/SPA).

As such, no impact to the integrity of the qualifying features of the SAC or SPA is anticipated as a result of this option.

Mole Gap to The western end of the proposed pipeline route encroaches within 20km of the No No No Reigate SAC. However, the proposed pipeline would not affect woodland habitat (the Escarpment habitat favoured by the qualifying species) contiguous to the designated areas SAC (20km) and no impacts affecting the integrity of the SAC as a roosting or foraging site would be likely. Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m 10m in width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where

117117

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? valuable linear habitat features will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in impor tant bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity integrity of the SAC SAC are not not anticipated. TR-53 Inter- Transferransfer to N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- Veolia SE or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / (Barham)(Barham) features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional from SEW Transfer RZ8 (Kingston)(Kingston) TR- Inter- Reverse of N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 53b com- TR-53b or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional Transfer TR-55 Intra – Southern Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes com- Region (RZ2) Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km of the proposed pipeline route would be pany to Northern SPA locatedlocated within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. reservoir. The proposed proposed pipeline pipeline Transfer Region (scheme would also be located immediately adjacent to the SPA in in the section of route route Transfer within between the M3 and A31. Construction activity could result in physical damage, (RZ4)(RZ4) boundary) physical loss, non-physical disturbance and biological disturbance. Although (Whitely Hill many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, avoiding sensitive SR to Surrey times of the year and the use use of no no-dig construction techniques, significant Hill effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage. In- combination effects associated with other WRMP options within this site are also possible.

118118

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Thursley, The proposed pipeline route in the vicinity of Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and No No No Ash, Pirbright Chobham SAC would be located within the highway. Provided that all and construction activity is restricted to the carriageway and does not encroach into Chobham the designated designated area, i impacts associated with physical loss, toxic contamination, SAC physical damage and non-physical disturbance are likely to be avoided. The (immediately(immediately construction of a pipeline below an existing road is also unlikely to result in any adjacent to implications to the SAC associated with water quality or quantity (i.e. drainage or scheme) the water table at this location is already likely to be modified by the road and/or associated developments). To reduce the potential impacts associated with air pollution, a mitigation strategy would be imple mented if construction machinery within 200m of the SAC were to be used; this mitigation strategy would also address impacts associated with the dust. The mitigation strategy would include measures such as the use of well-maintained plant (to reduce emissions); not leavingleaving plant plant idling idling whilst not not in in use; use; the damping damping down down of haul haul routes; routes; the use use of wheel washes; reduce vehicle movements; and, the use of close board fencing to protect protect sensitive areas areas from dust and debris. debris.

As such, provided that all works are restricted restricted to the carriageway, the potential impacts of this option to Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC need not be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA.

The Mens The proposed pipeline would not affect woodland habitat (the habitat favoured No No No SAC, by the qualifying species) contiguous to the designated areas and no impacts Ebernoe affecting the integrity of the SACs as a roosting or foraging site would be likely. Common Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction SAC, Mole of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be Gap to minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m 10m in Reigate width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of

119119

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Escarpment construction), especiallyIy if if woodland habitat habitat is is avoided. Where valuable linear linear SAC (within habitat features will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be 30km) considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in importantimportant bat bat commuting commuting routes. routes. As such, significant significant effects to the integrity integrity of the SACs are not anticipated. TR-56 Inter- River Medway Abstraction from the River Medway at Forstall would be located approximately Yes Yes Yes com- Medway Estuary and 11km11km upstream of the SPA/Ramsar.SPAlRamsar. Upstream abstraction could reduce the pany / abstraction at Marshes volume and/or chemistry of freshwater reaching the estuary which may affect Regional Forstall Forstall SPASPA(11km, (11km, habitat quality for feeding or breeding birds. A significant effect could therefore Transfer (5Mld straight line line arise especially when combined with water use associated with other plans and release from distance) projects (e.g. SEW abstraction/discharges elsewhere on the Medway, water Bough diversion for irrigation, domestic or industrial use etc). As such, abstraction Beech) associated with this option should be assessed in more detail at the next stage of screening.

Medway See SPA, above. Yes Yes Yes Estuary and Marshes Ramsar (11km, straight line distance)

120120

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR- Inter- River Medway Abstraction from the River Medway at Forstall would be located approximately Yes Yes Yes 56a com- Medway Estuary and 11km11km upstream of the SPA/Ramsar.SPAIRamsar. Upstream abstraction could reduce the pany / abstraction at Marshes: volume and/or chemistry of freshwater reaching the estuary which may affect Regional Forstall Forstall habitat quality for feeding or breeding birds. A significant effect could therefore Transfer (10Mld arise especially when combined with water use associated with other plans and release from SPA (11km, projects (e.g. SEW abstraction elsewhere on the Medway, water diversion for Bough straight line irrigation/domestic/industrialirrigation/domestic/industrial us use etc). As such, abstraction associated with this Beech) distance) option should be assessed in more detail at the next stage of screening.

Ramsar See SPA, above. Yes Yes Yes (11km,(11 km, straight line distance)distance TR-57 Intra – Transfer from Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes com- SEWSEWN N Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km 1.5km of the proposed pipeline route would be pany Region SPA located within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir.ir. The proposed proposed pipeline pipeline Transfer (Surrey Hills) (scheme(scheme would also be located immediately adjacent to the SPA in the section of route to Whitely within between the M3 and A31. Construction activity could result in physical damage, Hill Reservoir boundary) physical loss, toxic contamination, non-physical disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, pollution control, avoiding sensitive times of the year and the use of no-dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage. In In-combination effects associated with other WRMP options within this site are also possible.

121121

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Thursley, The proposed pipeline route in the vicinity of Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and No No No Ash, Pirbright Chobham SAC would be located within the highway. Provided that all and construction activity is restricted to the carriageway and does not encroach into Chobham the designated area, impacts associated with physical loss, physical damage SAC and non-physical disturbance are likely to be avoided. The construction of a (immediately(immediately pipeline below an existing road is also unlikely to result in any implications to the adjacent to SAC associated with water quality or quantity (i.e. drainage or the water table at scheme) this location is already likely to be modified by the road and/or associated developments). To reduce the potential impacts associated with air pollution, a mitigation strategy would be implemented if construction machinery within 200m of the SAC were to be used; this mitigation strategy would also address impacts associated with the dust. The mitigation strategy would include measures such as the use of well-maintained plant (to reduce emissions); not leaving plant idling whilst not in use; the damping down of haul routes; the use of wheel washes; reduce vehicle movements; and, the use of close board fencing to protect protect sensitive areas from dust and debris.

As such, provided that all works are restricted to the carriageway, the potential impactsimpacts of this option to Thursley, Ash, Pirbright Pirbright and and Chobham Chobham SAC need need not not be be taken forward to the Appropriate Ass essment stage of the HRA.

The Mens The proposed pipeline would not affect woodland habitat (the habitat favoured No No No SAC, by the qualifying species) contiguous to the designated areas and no impacts Ebernoe affecting the integrity of the SACs as a roosting or foraging site would be likely. Common Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction SAC, Mole of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be Gap to minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m in Reigate width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of Escarpment construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear

122122

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and

south east ~ Appropriate Ass essment July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? SAC, habitat features will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be Singleton considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it and Cocking takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by Tunnels SAC dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in (within(within 30km) important bat commuting routes. As such, significantificant effects effects to the integrity integrity of the SACs are not anticipated.

TR-59 Inter- Darwell to Pevensey The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites. No No No com- Eastbourne Levels cSAC The route would be located within close proximity to watercourses that are pany / (Folkington(Folkington located upstream upstream of Pevensey Pevensey Levels Levels cSAC/Ramsar and which may may have have Regional Service hydrological links to the site (e.g. the crossing of Ash Bourne 1.5km upstream of Transfer Reservoir) the cSAC/Ramsar). However, However, provided provided that appropriate appropriate pollution pollution prevention prevention Transfer control measures (including silt/sediment control) are followed during pipeline construction within close proximity to watercourses, significant effects to the qualifying features of the cSAC/Ramsar would be unlikely.

Pevensey See SAC, above. No No No Levels Ramsar TR-62 Inter- Bulk supply N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- from SWS or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / Swan SR features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional (Sussex) Transfer to SEW. WTW RZ2

123123

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR- Inter- SEW WTW N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 62a com- RZ2 SR to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / SWS Swan features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional SR Transfer (Sussex) TR-64 Intra – RZ4 Surrey Thames Surrey Hillill service service reservoir reservoir is is located located within the boundary boundary of the Thames Basin Basin Yes Yes Yes com- Hills SR to Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km of the proposed pipeline route would be pany RZ5 via SPA locatedlocated within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. reservoir. The proposed proposed pipeline pipeline Transfer Ewshot SR (scheme(scheme route would also intersect the SPA at Church Crookham. Construction activity within could result in toxic contamination, contamination, physical damage, physical loss, non-physical boundary) disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by pollution control, careful route selection,, avoiding sensitive sensitive times of the year and the use of no-dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage. In -combination effects associated with other WRMP options within this site are also possible. ossible. TR- Intra – Surrey Hills Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes 64a com- SR to RZ5 Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km of the proposed pipeline route would be pany via Ewshot SPA locatedlocated within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. reservoir. The proposed proposed pipeline pipeline Transfer SR (duplicate (scheme route would also intersect the SPA at Church Crookham. Construction activity of TR-64) within could result in toxic contamination, physical damage, physical loss, non -physical boundary) disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, avoiding sensitive times of the year and the use of pollution con trol, no -dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage. In-combination effects associated with other WRMP options within this site are also possible.

124124

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR-66 Inter- SEW WTW Mottisfont The proposed works would not affect woodland habitat (the habitat favoured by No No No com- (RZ4) to (15km)(1Skm) the qualifying species) contiguous to the designated area and no no im impacts pany / SWS affecting the integrity of the SAC as a roosting or foraging site would be likely. Regional Otterbourne Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction Transfer via of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be Whitedown minor (i.e..e. gaps in in hedgerows hedgerows for pipelines pipelines are typically no no greater than 10m 10m in in width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear habitat features will be crossed, the use of no -dig construction techniques will be considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement replacement planting planting to grow, flight-line line continuity would be be retained retained by by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity of the SAC are not anticipated.

The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. TR-72 Inter- SESW N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- Bough Beech or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany/ to SEW features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Regional Blackhurst Transfer TR- Inter- SESW NfA/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 72a com- Bough Beech or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / to SEW features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional Blackhurst Transfer

125125

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR- Inter- SESW N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 72b com- Bough Beech or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / to SEW features of a European site at a favourablerable conservation status. Regional Blackhurst Transfer TR-78 Intra – Arlington Res N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- to a small or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany existing features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Transfer reservoir WRZ2 TR- Intra – A small N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 78a com- existing or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany reservoir features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Transfer WRZ2 to Arlington Reservoir (Reverse of TR-78) TR- Inter- SEW Whitely N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 79b com- Hill to SESW or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / Outwood features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional Transfer TR- Inter- SESW N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 79c com- Outwood to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / SEW Whitely features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional Hill Transfer

126126

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR-83 Inter- SEW Blean Blean Blean Complex SAC is located to the immediate west and north of Blean service No No No com- SR to SWS Complex reservoir.reservoir. Th e proposed pipeline route also passes within close proximity to the pany / Dunkirk BPT SAC SAC. However, the route does not intersect with the SAC boundary and Regional (immediately(immediately provided that no construction activity encroaches into the designated area, the Transfer adjacent to qualifying features of the SAC are not likely to be sensitive to temporary scheme) construction activity nearby. TR- Inter- SWS Dunkirk Blean Blean Complex SAC is located to the immediate west and north of Blean service No No No 83a com- BPT to SEW Complex reservoir. The proposed pipeline route also passes within close proximity to the pany / Blean SR SAC SAC. However, the route does not intersect with the SAC boundary and Regional (reverse of (immediately(immediately provided that no construction activity encroaches into the designatedignated area, area, the Transfer TR-83) adjacent to qualifying features of the SAC are not likely to be sensitive to temporary scheme) construction activity nearby. TR-85 Intra – SEW RZ4 Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes com- Surrey Hills Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km 1.Skm of the proposed pipeline route would be pany to SEW RZ2 SPA locatedlocated within the SPA on the approach approach to the reservoir. reservoir. The pipeline pipeline would also Transfer Whitely Hill (scheme be located within close proximity to the SPA at Chobham. Construction activity within could result in toxic contamination, physical damage, physical loss, non-physical boundary) disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by pollution control, careful route selection, avoiding sensitive times of the year and and the use use of no no- dig construction techniques, significant effects to th e qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage. In -combination effects associated with other WRMP options within this site are also possible.

Ebernoe The proposed pipeline would not affect woodland habitat (the habitat favoured No No No Common by the qualifying species) contiguous to the designated areas and no impacts SAC, The affecting the integrity of the SACs as a roosting or foraging site would be likely. Mens SAC, Any habitat fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction Singleton of the pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be and Cocking minor (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m 10m in

127127

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Tunnels width) and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of SAC, Mole construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear Gap to habitat features will be crossed, the use of no -dig construction techniques will be Reigate considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it Escarpment takes for replacement replacement planting planting to grow, flight-line line continuity w ould be retained by SAC (all dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in within 30km) important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity of the SACs are not anticipated. TR-86 Inter- SEW Tilmore N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No com- totoSWS SWS or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / Rogate WTW features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional Transfer TR- Inter- SEW Tilmore N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 86a com- totoSWS SWS or habitat features that wo uld be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / Rogate WTW features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Regional (Duplicate of Transfer TR-86) TR-98 Inter- Darwell Pevensey The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites. No No No com- Reservoir to Levels cSAC The route would be located within close proximity to watercourses that are pany / Arlington located upstream of Pevensey Levels cSAC/Ramsar and which may have Regional Reservoir via hydrological links to the site (e.g.at Waller’s Haven). However, provided that Transfer Hazards appropriate pollution prevention control measures (including silt/sediment Green WTW control) are followed during pipeline construction within close proximity to watercourses, significant effects to the qualifying features of the cSAC/Ramsar would be unlikely. Pevensey Levels See SAC, above. No No No Ramsar

128128

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR-99 Inter- Affinity Water Windsor The proposed pipeline route passes immediately adjacent to the SAC at Virginia No No No com- WRZ6 Forest and Water. However, the proposed pipeline at this location would be located within pany / transfer to Great Park the carriageway and not intersect with the SAC boundary. Provided that no Regional SEW SAC construction activity encroaches into the designated area, the qualifying features Transfer (10Ml/d) (immediatelyY of the SAC are not likely to be sensitive to temporary construction activity adjacent) nearby.

Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 2.2km of the proposed pipeline route would be SPA (within located within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. Construction activity site could result in toxic contamination, physical damage, physical loss, non -physical boundary) disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by pollution control, careful route selection, avoiding sensitive times of the year and the use of no-dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage, especially when combined with other WRMP options affecting this site. TR- Inter- Affinity Water Windsor The proposed pipeline route passes immediately adjacent to the SAC at Virginia No No No 99a com- WRZ6 Forest and Water. However, the proposed pipeline at this location would b e located within pany / transfer to Great Park the carriageway carriageway and not not intersect intersect with the SAC boundary. boundary. Provided Provided that no no Regional SEW SAC construction activity encroaches into the designated area, the qualifying features Transfer ((20Ml/d Mild ) (immediately of the SAC are not likely to be sensitive to temporary construction activity adjacent) nearby.

Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 2.2km of the proposed pipeline route would be SPA (within located within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. Construction activity site could result in toxic contamination, physical damage, physical loss, non -physical boundary) disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be

129129

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? mitigated by pollution control, careful route selection, avoiding sensitive times of the year and and the use use of no no- dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage, especially when combined with other WRMP options affecting this site. TR- Inter- SEW transfer Windsor The proposed pipeline route passes immediately adjacent to the SAC at Virginia No No No 99b com- to Affinity Forest and Water. However, the proposed pipeline at this location would be located within pany / Water WRZ6 Great Park the carriageway carriageway and not not intersect intersect with the SAC boundary. boundary. Provided Provided that no no Regional (10Ml/d 10Ml/d ) SAC construction activity encroaches into the designated area, the qualifying features Transfer [reverse of (immediately of the SAC are not likely to be sensitive to temporary construction activity TR-99] adjacent) nearby.

Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 2.2km of the proposed pipeline route would be SPA (within located within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. Construction activity site could result in toxic contamination, physical damage, physical loss, non-physical boundary) disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, avoidinging sensitive times of the year, implementationimplementation of pollution pollution control, control, and the use of no- dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruledruled out at this stage, especially when combined with other WRMP options affecting this site. TR- Inter- SEW transfer Windsor The proposed pipeline route passes immediately adjacent to the SAC at Virginia No No No 99c com- to Affinity Forest and Water. However, the proposed pipeline at this location would be located within pany / Water WRZ6 Great Park the carriageway and not intersect with the SAC boundary. Provided that no Regional (20Ml/d ) SAC construction activity encroaches into the designated area, the qualifying features Transfer [reverse of (immediately of the SAC are not likely to be sensitive to temporary construction activity TR-99a] adjacent) nearby.

130130

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 2.2km of the proposed pipeline route would be SPA (within locatedlocated within the SPA SPA on the approach approach to the reservoir. reservoir. Construction activity activity site could result in physical damage, toxic contamination, contamination, physical loss, non-physical boundary) disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, avoiding sensitive times of the year, implementingimplementing pollution pollution control, control, and the use of no- dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage, especially when combined with other WRMP options affecting this site. TR- Inter- Wallers Pevensey This option would require abstraction from Wallers Haven within, or directly Yes Yes Yes 106 com- Haven (river Levels cSAC upstream of Pevensey Levels cSAC and Ramsar. The habitats and species for pany / abstraction) which the site is designated are sensitive to water quality and quantity and so Regional to Darwell there is potential for significant negative effects to the qualifying features of the Transfer Reservoir via site as a result of abstraction. Hazards Green The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites. The route would be located within close proximity to watercourses that are locatedlocated upstream upstream of Pevensey Pevensey Levels Levels cSAC/Ramsar cSAC/Ramsar and which may may have have hydrological links to the site (e.g. the crossing of Ash Bourne 1.5km upstream of the cSAC/Ramsar). However, However, provided provided that ap appropriate pollution prevention control measures (including silt/sediment control) are followed during pipeline construction within close proximity to watercourses, significant effects to the qualifying features of the cSAC/Ramsar would be unlikely.

Pevensey See SAC, above. Yes Yes Yes Levels Ramsar

131131

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR- Inter- TW Guildford N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 124 com- to RZ5 RZ5 or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional Transfer TR- Inter- RZ4 to TW N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 124a com- Guildford or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Regional Transfer TR- Inter- TW Guildford Wealden The proposed pipeline route passes within 200m of the SPA. However, the No No No 125 com- to RZ5 RZ5 Heaths proposed pipeline would be located within the carriageway and would not pany / (Haslemere Phase II intersect with the SPA boundary. Provided that no construction activity Regional to (200m)(200m) encroaches into the designated area, the qualifying features of the SPA are not Transfer Hindhead) likelylikely to be be sensitive sensitive to temporary construction construction activity activity nearby. nearby.

TR- Inter- Transfers from Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes 134 com- Thames Basin Hea ths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km of the proposed pipeline route would be pany / Water's GUI SPA locatedlocated within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. reservoir. The proposed proposed pipeline pipeline zone to Regional zone to (scheme would also be located immediately adjacent to the SPA in the section of route SEW RZ4 Transfer within between the M3 and A31. Construction activity could result in physical damage, boundary) toxic contamination, physical loss, non-physical disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, avoidingiding sensitive sensitive times of the year, implementing pollution control, and the use of no-dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be be ruled ruled out at this stage especially especially when combined with other WRMP options affecting this site.

132132

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Thursley, The proposed pipeline route in the vicinity of Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and No No No Ash, Pirbright Chobham SAC would be located within the highway. Provided that all and construction activity is restricted to the carriageway and does not encroach into Chobham the des designated area, impacts associated with physical loss, physical damage SAC and non-physical disturbance are likely to be avoided. The construction of a (immediately(immediately pipeline below an existing road is also unlikely to result in any implications to the adjacent to SAC associated with wate r quality or quantity (i.e. drainage or the water table at scheme) this location location is is already likely likely to be be modified modified by by the road road and/or associated associated developments). To reduce the potential impacts associated with air pollution, a mitigation strategy would be implemented if construction machinery within 200m of the SAC were to be used; this mitigation strategy would also address impacts associated with the dust. The mitigation strategy would include measures such as the use of well-maintained plant (to reduce emissions); not leaving plant idling whilst not in use; the damping down of haul routes; the use of wheel washes; reduce vehicle movements; and, the use of close board fencing to protect sensitive areas from dust and debris.

As such, provided that all works are restricted to the carriageway, the potential potential impacts of this option to Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC need not be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA.

Mole Gap to The proposed pipeline route would not affect woodland habitats (the habitat No No No Reigate favoured by by the qualifying species) contiguous with the SACs. Any habitat habitat Escarpment fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction of the SAC, The pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be minor Mens, SAC (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m 10m in width) and Ebernoe and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of Common construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear

133133

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? SAC (within habitat features will be crossed, the use of no no- dig construction techniques will be 30km) considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement replacement planting planting to grow, flight-line line continuity would be be retained retained by by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity of the SACs are not anticipated. TR- Inter- Transfers from Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes 134a com- Thames Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km 1.5km of the proposed pipeline route would be pany / Water's GUI SPA located within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. The proposed pipeline zone to Regional zone to (scheme(scheme would also be located immediately adjacent to the SPA in the section of route SEW RZ4 - Transfer within between the M3 and A31. Construction activity could result in physical damage, 20Ml/d boundary) toxic contamination, physical loss, non-p hysical disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, avoiding sensitive times of the year,, implementing implementing pollution pollution control, and the use of no -dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage especially when combined with other WRMP options affecting this site.

Thursley, The proposed pipeline route in the vicinity of Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and No No No Ash, Pirbright Chobham SAC would be located within the highway. Provided that all and construction activity is restricted to the carriageway and does not encroach into Chobham the designated area, impacts associated with physical loss, physical damage SAC and non-physical disturbance are likely to be avoided. The construction of a (immediately(immediately pipeline below an existing road is also unlikely to result in any implications to the adjacent to SAC associated with water quality or quantity (i.e. drainage or the water table at scheme) this location is already likely to be modified by the road and/or associated developments). To reduce the potential impacts associated with air pollution, a mitigation strategy would be implemented if construction machinery within 200m of the SAC were to be used; this mitigation strategy would also address impacts

134134

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? associated with the dust. The mitigation strategy would include measures such as the use of well-maintained plant (to reduce emissions); not leaving plant idling whilst not in use; the damping down of haul routes; the use of wheel washes; reduce vehicle movements; and, the use of close board fencing to protect sensitive areas from dust and debris.

As such, provided that all works are restricted to the carriageway, the potential impactsimpacts of this option to Thursley, Ash, Pirbright Pirbright and and Chobham Chobham SAC need need not not be be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA.

Mole Gap to The proposed pipeline route would not affect woodland habitats (the habitat No No No Reigate favoured by the qualifying species) contiguous with the SACs. Any habitat Escarpment fragmentation (e.g. (e.g. hedgerow hedgerow removal) removal) associated with construction of the SAC, The pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be minor Mens, SAC (i.e.(i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines pipelines are typically no greater than 10m 10m in in width) and Ebernoe and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of Common construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear SAC (within habitat features will be crossed, the use of no -dig construction techniques will be 30km) considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacemen replacemen t planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in important bat commuting routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity of the SACs are not anticipated. TR- Inter- Transfers from Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Basin Yes Yes Yes 134b com- SEW RZ4 to Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km of the proposed pipeline route would be pany / Thames SPA locatedlocated within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. reservoir. The proposed proposed pipeline pipeline Regional Water's GUI (scheme(scheme would also be located immediately adjacent to the SPA in the section of route zone - 10Ml/d Transfer within between the M3 and A31. Construction activity could result in physical damage, boundary) toxic contamination, physical loss, non-physical disturbance and biological

135135

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, avoiding sensitive times o0f the year, , implementingimplementing pollution pollution control, and the use of no -dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage especially when combined with other WRMP options affecting this site.

Thursley, The proposed pipeline route in the vicinity of Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and No No No Ash, Pirbright Chobham SAC would be located within the highway. Provided that all and construction activity is restricted to the carriageway and does not encroach into Chobham the designated designated area, impacts impacts associated with physical loss, physical damage SAC and non-physical disturbance are likely to be avoided. The construction of a (immediately(immediately pipeline below an existing road is also unlikely to result in any implications to the adjacent to SAC associated with water quality or quantity ( i.e. drainage or the water table at scheme) this location location is is already likely likely to be be modified modified by by the road road and/or associated associated developments). To reduce the potential impacts associated with air pollution, a mitigation strategy would be implemented if construction machinery within 200m of the SAC were to be used; this mitigation strategy would also address impacts associated with the dust. The mitigation strategy would include measures such as the use of well-maintained plant (to reduce emissions); not leaving plant idling whilst not in use; the damping down of haul routes; the use of wheel washes; reducereduce vehicle movements; movements; and, the use use of close board board fencing to protect protect sensitive areas from dust and debris.

As such, provided that all works are restricted to the carriageway, the potential impacts of this option to Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC need not be taken forward to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA.

136136

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and

south east ~ Appropriate Ass essment July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Mole Gap to The proposed pipeline route would not affect woodland habitats (the habitat No No No Reigate favoured by the qualifying species) contiguous with the SACs. SACs. Any habitat habitat Escarpment fragmentation (e.g. hedgerow removal) associated with construction of the SAC, The pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be minor Mens, SAC (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m in width) and Ebernoe and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of Common construction), especially if woodland habitat is avoided. Where valuable linear SAC (within habitat features will be crossed, the use of no -dig construction te chniques will be 30km) considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line continuity would be retained by dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in important bat bat commuting routes. routes. As such, significant effects to the integrity integrity of the SACs are not anticipated. TR- Inter- Transfers from Thames Surrey Hill service reservoir is located within the boundary of the Thames Basin Yes Yes Yes 134c com- SEW RZ4 to Basin Heaths Heaths SPA and approximately 1.5km 1.Skm of the proposed pipeline route would be pany / Thames SPA located within the SPA on the approach to the reservoir. The proposed pipeline Water's GUI Regional (scheme(scheme would also be located immediately adjacent to the SPA in the section of route zone - 15Ml/d Transfer within between the M3 and A31. Construction activity could result in physical damage, boundary) toxic contamination, physical loss, non-physical disturbance and biological disturbance. Although many impacts could be mitigated by careful route selection, avoiding sensitive times of the year,, implementing implementing pollution pollution control, and the use of no -dig construction techniques, significant effects to the qualifying features of the site cannot be ruled out at this stage especially when combined with other WRMP options affecting this site.

Thursley, The proposed pipeline route in the vicinity of Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and No No No Ash, Pirbright Chobham SAC would be located within the highway. Provided that all and construction activity is restricted to the carriageway and does not encroach into

137137

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Chobham the designated area, impacts associated with physical loss, physical damage SAC and non-physical disturbance are likely to be avoided. The construction of a (immediately pipeline below an existing road is also unlikely to result in any implications to the adjacent to SAC associated with water quality or quantity (i.e. drainage or the water table at scheme) this location location is is already likely likely to be be modified modified by by the road road and/or associated associated developments). To redu ce the potential impacts associated with air pollution, a mitigation strategy would be implemented if construction machinery within 200m of the SAC were to be used; this mitigation strategy would also address impacts associated with the dust. The mitigatio n strategy would include measures such as the use of well-maintained plant (to reduce emissions); not leaving plant idling whilst not in use; the damping down of haul routes; the use of wheel washes; reducereduce vehicle movements; movements; and, the use use of close board board fencing to protect sensitive areas from dust and debris.

As such, provided that all works are restricted to the carriageway, the potential impactsimpacts of this option to Thursley, Ash, Pirbright Pirbright and and Chobham Chobham SAC need need not not be be taken forward to the Appropriate Asses sment stage of the HRA.

Mole Gap to The proposed pipeline route would not affect woodland habitats (the habitat No No No Reigate favoured by the qualifying species) contiguous with the SACs. Any habitat Escarpment fragmentation (e.g. (e.g. hedgerow hedgerow removal) removal) associated with construction construction of the SAC, The pipeline is considered unlikely to be significant as any impact would be minor Mens, SAC (i.e. gaps in hedgerows for pipelines are typically no greater than 10m in width) and Ebernoe and temporary (i.e. hedgerow gaps can be replanted on completion of Common construction), especially ifif woodland habitat habitat is is avoided. Where valuable linear linear SAC (within habitat features will be crossed, the use of no-dig construction techniques will be 30km) considered to avoid the impacts of habitat severance. To mitigate the time it takes for replacement planting to grow, flight-line line continuity would be be retained retained by by

138138

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? dead-hedging (using brash to plug the gaps) any habitat gaps created in importantimportant bat bat commuting commuting routes. routes. As such, significant significant effects to the integrity integrity of the SACs are not anticipated. TR- Inter- Henley N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 135 com- transfers to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / SEW RZ4 features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional Transfer TR- Inter- Henley N/A The proposed pipelineline route route does not not intersect intersect any any European European designated designated sites sites No No No 135a com- transfers to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / SEW RZ4 - features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. 10Ml/d Regional 10Ml/d Transfer TR- Inter- Windsor to Windsor The proposed pipeline route passes within close proximity to the SAC. Provided No No No 136 com- Surrey Hills - Forest and that no no construction construction activity encroaches into into the designated area, the qualifying pany / 5Ml/d Great Park features of the SAC arere not not likely to be be sensitive to temporary construction Regional SAC (200m) activity nearby. Transfer TR- Inter- Kennet N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 137 com- transfers to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / SEW RZ4 – features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. 5 Ml/d Regional Transfer TR- Inter- Kennet N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 138 com- transfers to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying pany / SEW RZ4 – features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. 10 Ml/d Regional Transfer

139139

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? TR- Inter- Transfer from N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 139 company SEW RZ2 to or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying / TW features of a European site at a favourable conservationion status. status. Regional GUI zone - Transfer 15Ml/d15Ml/d TR- Inter- Transfer from N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 139a company TW GUI zone or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance o0f the qualifying / to SEW RZ2 - features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Regional 10Ml/d 10Ml/d Transfer TR- Inter- Transfer from N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 139b company TW GUI zone or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying / to SEW RZ2 - features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional 20Ml/d Transfer TR- Inter- Transfer from N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 139c company TW GUI zone or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying / to SEW RZ2 - features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional 25Ml/d Transfer TR- Inter- Transfer from N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 139d company TW GUI zone or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying / to SEW RZ2 - features of a European site at a favourable conservation status. Regional 15Ml/d 15Ml/d Transfer TR- Inter- Transfer from N/A The proposed pipeline route does not intersect any European designated sites No No No 139e company TWTWGUI GUI or habitat features that would be integral to the maintenance of the qualifying / zone to features of a a European European site at a favourable conservation conservation status. Regional SEW RZ2 - Transfer 20Ml/d

140140

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX G: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – CONJUNCTIVE USE GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? CU-1 Conjunc Conjunctive Pevensey This option considers balancing groundwater abstraction, storage and saline No No No tive Use Use Use Levels cSAC interface in the chalk with river flows in the Cuckmere. It It is entirely outside the Schemes - (6km) Wallers Haven catchment and so there are no hydrological links to Pevensey Eastbourne Levels cSAC or Ramsar. As such, no significant effects to the qualifying features Chalk Block Pevensey of the designated site are anticipated. No No No Levels Ramsar (6km)(6km) CU-12 Conjunc Conjunctive Stodmarsh Abstraction from the River Stour at Plucks Gutter is located 2.5km downstream Yes Yes Yes tive Use Use Use of SAC (2.5km) of Stodmarsh SAC and so no impact to the freshwater habitats utilised by Surface Desmoulin’sDesmoulin's whorl snail are anticipated. However, pipeline construction Water & Stodmarsh immediately adjacent to the SAC could affect the site’s hydrology and so further Yes Yes Yes Groundwater SPA (2.6km) assessment is required. An assessment of the flows in the Stour and Stodmarsh - Great Stour beyond Plucks Gutter is required to determine the potential impact on the Stodmarsh management of water levels and flows and salinity levels to the marsh and Yes Yes Yes Ramsar reclaimed land. This option sets out to manage and enhance groundwater (2.6km) storage within the Chalk through greater utilisation of high flows in the River Stour; this has the potential to sustain baseflow and flow in headwater springs and streams for longer periods by extending the period of groundwater recession.recession. However, However, there are sufficient uncertainties uncertainties for this option to be taken to the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA.

141141

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Thanet Coast Abstraction from the River Stour at Plucks Gutter would be located Yes Yes Yes and approximately 6.8km ups tream of the SPA/Ramsar. Upstream abstraction could Sandwich reducereduce the amount and quality of freshwater reaching reaching the estuary. A significant Bay SPA effect could therefore arise especially when combined with water use associated (6.8km) with other plans and projects (e.g. water diversion for irrigation/ domestic/industrial use). As such, abstraction associated with this option should be assessed in more detail at the next stage of screening.

Thanet Coast See Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA, above. Yes Yes Yes and Sandwich Bay Ramsar (6.8km)

Sandwich The site’s qualifying features are unlikelyikely to be be highly highly sensitive to river river No No No Bay SAC abstraction 6.8km upstream and so no significant effect is anticipated. (6.8km)

142142

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX H: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – WATER TREATMENT GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? WT-8 WTW SWS Bewl None within N/A No No No Expansi junction 5km Skm on increase 14.614.6 Ml/d Mild WT-9 WTW SWS Bewl None within N/A No No No Expansi junction 5km Skm on increase 10 Ml/dMild WT-10 WTW SWS Bewl None within N/A No No No Expansi junction 5km Skm on increase 5 Ml/dMild

143143

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX I: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – DEMAND MANAGEMENT GIS ID Option type Option name European site Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option and distance from combinati likely to from option. option on with have a alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? DM- Leakage Additional pressure Unknown – The installation of PRVs would likely involve localised No No No 167 Management management - InstallII potentially and minor construction activity above existing more Pressure Reduction multiple sites. infrastructure. Where such works would be undertaken Valves (PRV s) within, or immediately adjacent to, European sites there is is potential potential for impacts impacts associated with physical physical loss (e.g. destruction of habitat), non-physical disturbance (e.g. noise) and toxic contamination (e.g. water pollution). Due to the likely temporary and localisedlocalised natur natur e of the works in combination with the implementationimplementation of appropriate mitigation mitigation (e.g. (e.g. timing works to avoid sensitive periods, use of pollution prevention techniques, planning works to avoid sensitive locations etc) no significant effects are anticipated.antici ated. DM- Leakage Enhance pressure logging to N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 175 Management optimise PRV Settings that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. DM- Water Retrofit dual or variable flush N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 223 Efficiency (domestic) -Installing dual or that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. variable flush systems DM- Water Greywater re-use - N/AfA This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 263 Efficiency Wastewater collected and re - that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. used DM- Water Rainwater harvesting - internal internal N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 271 Efficiency and external daily use that would result in impacts to European sites.

144144

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option type Option name European site Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option and distance from combinati likely to from option. option on with have a alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? DM- Water Household water audits - To N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 287 Efficiency assess water use and offer that w ould result in impacts to European sites. provision or installation of water saving devices DM- Water Water efficient products pay N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 319 Efficiency back calculator on company that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. website DM- Water Water efficient white goods N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 327 Efficiency discount vouchers - offered that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. with bills or online for use DM- Leakage DMA data analysis N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 351 Management improvements – enhance ALC that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. resourceresource prioritisation prioritisation DM- Leakage DMA Reconfiguration - Modify N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 359 Management DMA boundaries to improve that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. leak detection DM- Leakage Innovative Leak location N/AfA This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 367 Management techniques - Pressure logging that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. and hydraulic h draulic modelling modellin DM- Leakage Leakage driven mains Unknown – Mains replacement would likely involve construction No No No 375 Management replacement potentially activity above existing infrastructure. Where such multiple sites. works would be undertaken within, or immediately adjacent to European sites there is potential for impactsimpacts associated with physical physical loss loss (e.g. (e.g. destruction destruction of habitat), non-physical disturbance (e.g. noise) and toxic contamination (e.g. water pollution). However, due to the likely temporary and localised nature of the works in combination with the implementation of

145145

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option type Option name European site Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option and distance from combinati likely to from option. option on with have a alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? appropriate mitigation (e.g. timing works to avoid sensitive periods, use of pollution prevention techniques, planning planning works to avoid sensitive locations locations etc) it would be possible to avoid significant effects to the qualifying features of any any affected European European sites. As such, significant effects to European sites are not anticipated alth ough a site specific assessment of each option would be undertaken when the full scheme details are made available. DM- Water Schools water audit and retrofit N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 383 Efficiency that would r result in impacts to European sites. DM- Water Hotel efficiency packs N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 415 Efficiency that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. DM- Water Integrated water & energy N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 423 Efficiency efficient retrofit programme that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. delivered by third parties DM- Water Strawberry Production efficient N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 439 EfficiencyEfficienc irrigation roll out that would result result in in impacts im to European sites. DM- Water Leaking toilets (domestic) - N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 447 Efficiency repair of that would result in impacts to European sites. DM- Water Leaking toilets (non- N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 455 Efficiency household) - repair repair of that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. DM- Water Retrofit dual or variable flush N/A This option does not involve or influence any activities No No No 463 Efficiency (nonhousehold)(nonhousehold) - Installing Installing that would result result in in impacts impacts to European European sites. dual or variable flush

146146

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

APPENDIX J: PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF FEASIBLE OPTIONS LIST – DESALINATION

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? DS-7 Desalin Desalination None within N/A No No No ation at Newhaven 5km Skm 10 Ml/d output (RZ2) - Mid Sussex DS-10 Desalin Desalination Pevensey Abstraction of seawater directly from the sea or a sea-front lagoon would not No No No ation coupled to Levels cSAC affect the SAC as the site is not notable for marine habitats or species. The SAC biomass- (4.3km) is not positioned between the proposed locations of abstraction and water fuelled power treatment and and so impacts impacts associated with pipeline pipeline construction are also unlikely. plant

Pevensey The Ramsar site’s main sensitivities relate to the effects of pollution and the No No No Levels introductionintroduction of invasive invasive or non non- native plant species. As the Ramsar site is 4.3km Ramsar from the proposed location of water treatment (The Mount Service Reservoir)ir) (4.3km) and in excess of 6km from the point of abstraction, this option is unlikely to result inin a significant significant effect to the qualifying qualifying features of the Ramsar Ramsar site due due to its its distance from the site boundary.

Hastings The proposals are outside the boundary of the SAC and so no impacts to the No No No Cliffs SAC integrityintegrity of the site are are anticipated as as the site’s site's only sensitivities sensitivities relate relate to habitat habitat (4.5km) loss as a result of erosion and agricultural practices.

147147

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and

south east ~ Appropriate Ass essment July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Dungeness The sensitivities of Dungeness SAC relate to abstraction, physical disturbance, No No No SAC (16km habi tat loss and air pollution. At a distance of 16km, the construction and along coast) operation of the proposed desalination plant would be unlikely to result in such impacts.

Dungeness The operation of the proposed desalination plant would involve the release of Yes Yes Yes to Pett Pett Level Level hypersaline discharge from the reverse osmosis process. The plume would SPA (13km spread over the sea bed and could have impacts on marine ecology and along coast) fisheries depending on the location of the discharge pipe. These impacts might relaterelate to temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen, as well as hyper salinity. Although the impacts are likely to be local to the dispersion area, it is possible that this area may be of importance or value for the prey items of the notable species and/or a valuable foraging/hunting area for the notable species themselves. As such, a significant impact impact to the integrity integrity of the SPA cannot yet be ruled out.

Dungeness, The operation of the proposed desalination plant would involve the release of Yes Yes Yes Romney hypersaline discharge from the reverse osmosis process. The plume would Marsh and spread over the sea bed and could have impacts on marine ecology and Rye Bay fisheries depending on the location of the discharge pipe. These impacts might pSPA and relaterelate to temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen, as well as hyper salinity. pRamsar Although the impacts are likely to be local to the dispersion area, it is possible (11km along that this area may may be be of importance importance or value for the prey prey items items of the notable notable coast) species and/or a valuable foraging/hunting area for the notable species themselves. As such, a significant impact impact to the integrity integrity of the pSPA and pRamsar cannot yet be ruled out.

148148

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Assessment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? DS-1 Desalin Reculver RO Thanet Coast The SAC’s principal sensitivities are associated with erosion, physical No No No ation Desalination SAC (4km) destruction, recreation and fishing. The proposed desalination of brackish of brackish groundwater abstracted from boreholes 4km from the SAC is unlikely to groundwater significantly affect the qualifying features of the site and the localised saline discharges associated with the outfall pipe are not likely to result in physical damage or disturbance to the SAC. Disturbance during construction of the outfall is likely to be localised and temporary and would not result in physical damage to the qualifying features. No other WRMP options have impact pathways to the SAC. As such, no in-combination effects to the SAC are anticipated.

Stodmarsh Stodmarsh SAC is located 6.7.7km to the south of the proposed borehole Yes Yes Yes SAC (6.7km) locations. Given the depth of abstraction from an aquifer separated from the sea and the distance from Stodmarsh SAC, an interaction between the deep groundwater abstraction and the site is considered to be very unlikely. However, there i is uncertainty relating to the effect of the option on the chemical mixing of water between the Chalk and Thanet Sands and how this may affect the site. As Desmoulin’s whorl snail favours calcareous environments, a change in pH or an increaseincrease in in salinity could result significantly affect the habitat suitability for this species.

It is therefore recommended that this option be assessed further using the respectiverespective regional regional groundwater model model to address the most likely likely source of water. FurtherFurther model development may be required to address density dependent flow associated with the saline / freshwater interface. This assessment should also consider the potential for in-combination effects with SW-14. 14.

149149

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? Stodmarsh Stodmarsh SPA is located 6.7.7km from the proposed borehole locations. As No No No SPA (6 .7km) discussed above, there is uncertainty relating to the effect of groundwater abstraction for DS-1 1 on water availability and the chemical mixing of water between the Chalk and Thanet Sands and how this may affect the SPA.

Wintering bitterns (on(one of the two qualifying species) favour sites sites with extensive extensive

reedbeds that they use for roosting and hunting. As common reed is tolerant of a

variety of aquatic conditions (e.g. freshwater and brackish), changes in water

quality associated with DS-1 abstraction is not likely to affect the integrity of the

reedbed or fen habitats favoured by this species. Alterations to the water

chemistry or water availability is also unlikely to affect the integrity of the SPA for

hen harriers (the(the other qualifying species) as this species predominantly preys

upon passerines, waders and small mammals, and roosts in reedbeds or car

woodland; these features of Stodmarsh SPA would not be affected by water

quality changes associated with DS-1 abstraction.

As such, abstraction associated with DS-1 1 is considered unlikely to result in significant effects to the integrity of Stodmarsh SPA.

Stodmarsh Stodmarsh qualifies for species protection under Ramsar criterion 2 as it Yes Yes Yes Ramsar supports six British Red Data Book wetland invertebrates, two nationally rare (6.7.7km) plants, and five nationally scarce species. The site also supports a diverse assemblage of rare wetland birds. The qualifying species/populations are gadwall (Anas strepera) (breeding(breeding and spring/autumn population population counts), bittern, bittern, shoveler and hen harrier (all winter population counts).

Stodmarsh Ramsar is located 6.7km from the proposed borehole locations. As

discussed above, there is uncertainty relating to the effect of groundwater

abstraction for DS-1 on water availability and the chemical mixing of water

between the Chalk and Thanet Sands and how this may affect the site.

150150

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)?

It is therefore recommended that this option be assessed further using the respectiverespective regional regional groundwater model model to address the most likely likely source of water. FurtherFurther model development may be required to address density dependent flow associated with the saline / freshwater interface. This assessment should also consider the potential for in-combination effects with SW-14. 14.

Bleanlean The site’s qualifying features are unlikely to be highly sensitive to brackish water No No No Complex abstraction or treatment. The site is not located between the proposed SAC (1.2 km) abstraction site at Reculver and the treatment site at Ford and so no impacts associated with pipeline construction are anticipated.

Two other WRMP options have impact pathways to Blean Complex SAC: SW-14 and TR-77b. As construction activity outside the SAC is unlikely to result in a significant impact to the woodland habitats for which the site is designated, no inin- combination effects are anticip ated.

As such, no significant effects to the qualifying features of the site is anticipated either alone or in -combination with other WRMP options.

Thanet Coast The proposed boreholes and transfer pipelines would be located within close Yes Yes Yes and proximity to the SPA and so non-physical disturbance (e.g. noise, visual Sandwich presence, human presence) during construction and operation of the boreholes Bay SPA and could potentially have a significant effect, although this is likely to be avoidable Ramsar through mitigation (e.g. restricting the working area, using acoustic/visual (scheme screens, timing works to avoid sensitive periods etc). within site boundary)

151151

WRMP14 HRA Screening Report and Appropriate Ass essment southeast~ July 2014

GIS ID Option Option European Potential for effects on qualifying features? Effect Effect in Is option type name site and from combinati likely to distance option on with have a from option. alone? other significant plans and effect on projects? European site(s)? The construction of a 2km sub-sea outfall pipe would almost certainly be located within the boundary of the SPA (and Ramsar site) with potential impacts including physical loss, physical damage, non-physical disturbance, toxic contamination and non-toxic contamination. During operation, the outfall would release a hypersaline discharge into the sea which could have iimpacts on marine e cology annihd fisheri es see dependi ng on t he location of t tedhe dis ch arge pipe. These iimpacts migight b beee related to t emp erat ur e, pH Had and d i ssolve d oxy ge n as wellII as hyp er sal ini ty.. As such, significant effects cannot be ruled out.

One other draft WRMP option has an impact pathway to the SPA/Ramsar: SW- 14. Appropriate Assessment of DS-1 should also take into consideration potential in -combination effects with SW -14. 14.

152152