Humber River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 to 2021 Habitats Regulation Assessment

Humber river basin district Flood Risk Management Plan 2015 to 2021 Habitats Regulation Assessment

March 2016

Executive summary

The Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for the Humber River Basin District (RBD) provides an overview of the range of flood risks from different sources across the 15 catchments of the RBD and more specifically from local flood sources in the 3 Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) of Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice, West Midlands and Leicester Principal Urban Area. The RBD catchments are defined in the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and based on the natural configuration of bodies of water (rivers, estuaries, lakes etc.). The 3 FRAs were identified as having higher local flood risk by the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments.

The FRMP provides a range of objectives and programmes of measures identified to address risks from all flood sources. These are drawn from the many risk management authority plans already in place but also include a range of further strategic developments for the FRMP ‘cycle’ period of 2015 to 2021. The range of measures in the Humber RBD FRMP are reported under the following types of flood management action:

Types of flood management measures % of RBD measures

Prevention – e.g. land use policy, relocating people at risk etc. 33% Protection – e.g. various forms of asset or property-based protection 39% Preparedness – e.g. awareness raising, forecasting and warnings 22% Recovery and review – e.g. the ‘after care’ from flood events 2% Other – any actions not able to be categorised yet 3%

The purpose of the HRA is to report on the likely effects of the FRMP on the network of sites that are internationally designated for nature conservation (European sites), and the HRA has been carried out at the level of detail of the plan. Many measures do not have any expected physical effects on the ground, and have been screened out of consideration including most of the measures under the categories of Prevention, Preparedness, Recovery and Review. Others that may have effects but are in catchments that do not have any designated European sites have also been screened out of consideration.

Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have for a long time been addressing the range of flood risks through a range of plans and actions. Much of the Humber RBD FRMP presents measures that are ongoing from existing plans, which have already been subject to HRA. RMAs have considered the effects of these existing plan measures on European sites in published HRAs where required. These measures, their effects and agreed actions to mitigate the effects have been summarised under relevant RBD catchments and FRAs within this report. Where RMAs have identified new flood risk management priorities for the next FRMP cycle period between 2015 and 2021, then the measures to implement these have been considered alongside existing plan measures in this HRA.

The following table summarises the numbers of measures that the HRA has considered:

Screened out Measures from New cycle 1 FRMP RMA plans measures existing plans measures1 Humber RBD catchments 655 135 216 FRA Kingston-upon-Hull and 26 0 12 Haltemprice FRA West Midlands 79 7 0 FRA Leicester Principal Urban Area 17 0 0

Total 787 (68%) 142 (12%) 228 (20%)

The HRA has been carried out for the set of measures for each RBD catchment that address main river, sea and reservoir flooding alongside any measures volunteered by RMAs that address local flooding and thus form a ‘RBD plan’ within the FRMP. Measures within FRAs that address high risk of local flooding in these areas have been considered in the HRA as separate ‘FRA plans’ within the FRMP. Both ‘RDB plan’ and ‘FRA plans’ are further considered in-combination by the HRA. The findings are a summary of the risks to European sites and an indication of the need for future HRAs at a project level when developing local actions, as well as considering how to avoid and mitigate any residual risks to European sites. For the Humber RBD FRMP, the main conclusions from the stages of assessment across all 4 RMA plans of the FRMP are as follows:

A determination was made to screen out measures that would not have physical effects on any European sites.

The effects of the measures from existing plans include effects of measures to address coastal flooding from SMPs, measures to address main river flooding from CFMPs and measures to address local flooding from local strategies. Existing controls and mitigation from these plans include: for SMPs, development of coastal strategies, accompanied by more detailed HRAs for relevant SMP Policy Areas, and for CFMPs and Local Strategies more detailed appraisal and assessment on plans or projects arising out of the plans to demonstrate meeting the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended (Habitats Regulations).

The effects of the measures that are for new flood risk management priorities for the next FRMP cycle period of 2015 to 2021 have been considered within this strategic-plan level HRA as far as they can be assessed at this high level. This HRA considered the range of mitigation options that may be applicable. It is concluded that the measures are expected to be able to be avoided or mitigated as part of their development as local actions, and all measures have been identified as capable of being fully mitigated. It can therefore be concluded that at the plan level there is sufficient scope for ensuring no likely significant effects during its implementation. The detail of the controls and mitigation required will be assessed as part of requirements to meet consents under planning and other consenting mechanisms as part of a project level HRA, some of which may need to proceed to appropriate assessment in order to gather the necessary level of detail.

1 Measures across several catchments are counted up for each catchment for HRA purposes which may be a higher figure than reported in the FRMP. The HRA considers the potential for in-combination effects with other plans and projects. Given the level of information currently available, the assessment has identified the plans where the greatest risk of in-combination effects occur, but a detailed assessment can only be undertaken at the project level when details of location and design of measures are known. Key external plans to consider for in-combination effects are:

 Local Plans – plans of local planning authorities to determine consent for proposed developments including FCRM ‘Protection’ types of development and which require HRA for developments affecting European sites  Water Resource Management Plans – plans to manage the supply of water to communities by Water Companies.  River Basin Management Plans – plans that seek to ensure the objectives of water dependent European sites are maintained.  Marine Plans – plans to manage the sustainable use of marine resources for inshore areas.

This HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower tier strategies, plans or projects that implement measures. This plan-level HRA does not give any weight to subsequent lower-tier plans or projects and their HRA outcomes.

As local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope and scale are known, this may identify additional effects on European sites that have not been assessed here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial scale of plan. CONTENTS 1 Introduction ...... 7 1.1 Introducing this report ...... 7 1.2 Background to the FRMPs ...... 8 1.3 The Humber RBD FRMP ...... 8 1.4 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment ...... 11 2 European sites in the Humber RBD ...... 13 2.1 European sites that could be affected by the FRMP...... 14 2.2 European sites and their status for FRMPs ...... 15 2.3 European sites and their management ...... 16 3 Approach to the HRA ...... 17 3.1 Description of the FRMP programmes of measures ...... 17 3.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 18 3.3 Screening out catchments where no European sites are present ...... 18 3.4 Screening out measures that would not have physical effects ...... 18 3.5 Considering measures from existing plans ...... 19 3.6 Considering new measures for FRMP cycle 1 ...... 20 3.7 Considering the need for further stages of assessment ...... 20 4 Humber River Basin District Catchments HRA ...... 22 4.1 Summary of Measures ...... 22 4.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 24 4.3 Consideration of results and conclusion ...... 55 5 Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area HRA ...... 59 5.1 Summary of Measures ...... 59 5.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 60 5.3 Consideration of results and conclusion ...... 61 6 West Midlands Flood Risk Area HRA ...... 63 6.1 Summary of measures ...... 63 6.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 65 6.3 Consideration of results and conclusion ...... 66 7 Leicester Principal Urban Area Flood Risk Area HRA ...... 67 7.1 Screening and likely significant effects ...... 67 7.2 Consideration of results and conclusion ...... 68 8 In combination effects with other plans and projects ...... 69 8.1 RBD and FRA FRMPs ...... 69 8.2 In-combination effects between RBD FRMPs ...... 70 8.3 In-combination effects with external plans ...... 70 9 Conclusion and Future HRAs ...... 74 Annex A: Table A1 - HRA screening table for the FRMP measure categories Table A2 - Management catchments and European sites in the Humber RBD Table A3 - Mitigation and control measures Annex B Humber RBD European sites 1 Introduction

1.1 Introducing this report This report sets out the results of a strategic-plan level Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) into the likely significant effects on designated ‘European sites’ of the Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for the Humber River Basin District, published in December 2015. The HRA report has been prepared by the Environment Agency on behalf of the collective Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) that have responsibilities for information being published within the FRMP, and are thus the ‘competent authorities’ for the HRA of their respective published information, as follows:

 Information on flooding from main river, sea and reservoirs being published for the catchments of the river basin district (RBD) are the responsibility of the Environment Agency (for English catchments).

 Information on flooding from local sources being published for any Flood Risk Area (FRA) is the collective responsibility of Lead Local Flood Authorities within the FRA.

In preparing the HRA report the Environment Agency has consulted with Natural England (for English catchments) and Natural Resources Wales (for Welsh catchments). The Lead Local Flood Authorities in Flood Risk Areas are ‘competent authorities’ for HRA of their FRMP information and have agreed that this report will meet their HRA requirements.

FRMPs are new strategic plans for implementing the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 and the existing National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy for England. They have been developed for River Basin Districts (RBDs) and Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) and draw together information from a range of existing strategies and plans that are in place and continue to be maintained by Risk Management Authorities. The HRA has been carried out at the level of detail published in the FRMP and takes into account HRAs that have already been undertaken for measures in existing plans, and at the level of detail provided by these existing plans. Whilst a HRA at this strategic level cannot obtain the level of detail necessary for in-depth assessment, the HRA summarises the likely risks and potential need for controls and mitigation and the range of generic mitigation options available, which will then proceed through further consideration once measures are developed as specific local actions. In this way, this high- level HRA will be helpful for future HRAs that consider the effects on European sites at a project level.

The report describes each of the main stages and results of the FRMP HRA as follows:

 Describing the network of European sites within the RBD (chapter 2)  The approach to the HRA (chapter 3)  Screening and assessing likely significant effects (chapters 4,5,6,7)  Appropriate assessment, alternative solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) (chapters 4,5,6,7)  Conclusion and future HRAs (chapter 9)

1.2 Background to the FRMPs Flood risk management plans (FRMPs) highlight the hazards and risks from rivers, the sea, surface water, groundwater and reservoirs and set out how risk management authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, will manage flood risk. They are required by the European Union Floods Directive and the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. The FRMPs must be reviewed and reissued every six years to describe progress.

The Environment Agency is required to prepare FRMPs for all of England covering flooding from main rivers, the sea and reservoirs. Lead Local Flood Authorities (county councils and unitary authorities) must prepare flood risk management plans for flood risk areas (there are ten flood risk areas in England) where the risk of flooding from local sources is significant as identified in Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments.

The 2015-2021 period will be the first cycle of the FRMPs, however RMAs already plan for flooding and a large proportion of the FRMP measures are taken from existing plans that have already been consulted on and published. This includes plans such as Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) as well as Local Flood Risk Management Strategies that have been developed by local authorities.

Some further strategic developments have been included for the 2015-2021 first cycle of the FRMP that build on existing plans and seek to address the key objectives of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, such as: strengthening joint working of RMAs, developing more integrated management of the water environment, and updated priorities from any new understanding of flood risks including the implications of climate change.

1.3 The Humber RBD FRMP The Humber River Basin District (RBD) covers approximately 26,000km2 from the North York Moors to Birmingham, the Pennines to the North Sea and Stoke-on-Trent to Rutland. The Humber RBD ranges from the upland areas of the Peak District, South Pennines and the North York Moors with their internationally important peatlands, across the Derbyshire and Yorkshire Dales and the fertile river valleys of the Trent and Ouse, to the free-draining chalk of the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Wolds. Watercourses range from heavily modified to pristine natural chalk rivers.

The landscape includes steep sided valleys and rural communities along with large, historical industrial urban areas. Around 11.7 million people live and work within the Humber RBD. The population is split between the large urban conurbations of the great cities of the midlands and the north east, and small communities within very rural areas. The river basin district is predominantly rural, with more than 60% of its land used for agriculture. The Humber RBD comprises fifteen management catchments (see map in Figure 1).

The Humber RBD is one of the most diverse regions in England and this is therefore reflected in the varied flood response. These range from the rapidly responding catchments in the West Pennines, pumped catchments in East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire and tidal flooding in the Humber, Ouse and Trent.

The most recent widespread flooding was the tidal flooding experienced in December 2013. Land along the east coast flooded from the sea overtopping the tidal defences. On the 5th December 2013 many communities along the coast flooded, including Winteringham, South Ferriby, Barton Upon Humber, Immingham, Grimsby, Cleethorpes Hull and surrounding villages, Whitby and Scarborough. The tidal surge was the largest recorded along this coast.

Figure 1 Humber RBD catchments and Flood Risk Areas

The FRMP describes the scale of flood risk in the Humber RBD which includes:

 Of the almost 12 million people who live within the Humber RBD, on average 9% are at risk from flooding from rivers or the sea. However in some of the district’s management catchments, for example the Hull and East Riding catchment and the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme catchment, this risk is much greater affecting 57% and 32% of the respective populations, due to the low lying nature of much of the land and associated towns and villages, and their proximity to the coast and/or Humber Estuary.  16% of all agricultural land in the Humber RBD is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea.  34% of Environmental Permitting Regulation sites, which include heavy manufacturing industry, intensive agriculture, waste and landfill sites, and aggregate industries, are at risk from river and sea flooding.  12% of services (including schools and hospitals) and 26% of roads within the Humber RBD are at risk from surface water flooding.  There are other sources of flooding that affect the Humber RBD, such as ground water flooding and sewer flooding. The Environment Agency does not have national scale modelling and mapping for these sources of flooding, and so it is not possible to draw conclusions about the risks in this FRMP.  The coastline of the Humber RBD is among the most susceptible in England to coastal erosion and sediment movement with the North and East Yorkshire coasts amongst the fastest eroding coastlines in Europe.

The Humber RBD FRMP sets out the objectives and measures that have been drawn by risk management authorities from existing plans or newly developed for the FRMP cycle period of 2015-2021. Existing measures in the Humber RBD FRMP are derived from the following source plans:

 The Tyne to Flamborough Head and Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs)  Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs)  Local Flood Risk Management Strategies (FRMS) developed by LLFAs.

The FRMP is divided into the separate plans that are the responsibility of different risk management authorities, as follows:

 Measures within the 15 RBD catchments of the Humber RBD that the Environment Agency is responsible for,  Measures within the Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice FRA for local sources of flooding that Kingston-upon-Hull City Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority are responsible for. This FRA covers part of the Hull and East Riding management catchment.  Measures within the West Midlands FRA for local sources of flooding that the Lead Local Flood Authorities are responsible for. There are several local authorities within this FRA but the majority of it is covered by Birmingham City Council. This FRA covers part of the Tame Anker and Mease and Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchments.2  Measures within the Leicester Principal Urban Area FRA for local sources of flooding that Leicester City Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority are responsible for. This FRA covers part of the Soar management catchment.

1.4 Background to Habitats Regulations Assessment In England, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, commonly termed the Habitats Regulations, implements the European Union Habitats Directive (Directive (92/43/EEC) on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna, and certain elements of the Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). This legislation provides the legal framework for the protection of habitats and species of European importance in England.

Sites protected under the Habitats Regulations comprise Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), candidate SACs (cSAC), Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and, as a matter of government policy, to potential Special Protection Areas (pSPA) and Ramsar sites (sites designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention for their internationally important wetlands). These sites are referred to collectively as in this report as ‘European sites’.

Regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations requires that a ‘competent authority’ must consider the requirements of Habitats Directive in exercising any of its functions. Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive defines the requirements for assessment of plans and projects potentially affecting European sites. This requires that a competent authority, before deciding to undertake, or give any consent or authorisation for a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, must carry out an appropriate assessment. The term commonly referred to for the assessment process is ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’.

The Humber FRMP is considered to fit within the definitions of a ‘plan’ as defined by the Habitats Directive, and requires a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The FRMP is a high-level planning document for the Humber River Basin District (RBD) (see map in Figure 1), therefore potential impacts of the plan on European sites across the RBD are difficult to determine. Given the geographic scale and nature of the plan, the HRA has been tailored to be appropriate for the spatial area of coverage and the strategic nature of the plan.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment has followed a framework of four distinct stages, only moving to the next stage if required by the results of that stage of the assessment. The four stages are:

Stage 1: Screening and Likely Significant Effects is the process which initially identifies the likely impacts upon a European Site of a plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and considers whether these impacts may be significant. This stage also includes the development of mitigation to avoid or reduce any possible effects.

2 The West Midlands FRA also covers part of the Avon Warwickshire and Severn Middle Worcestershire management catchments within the Severn RBD. Measures for those management catchments will be assessed in the Severn FRMP HRA. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment is the detailed consideration of the impact on the integrity of the European Site of the plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, with respect to the site’s conservation objectives and its structure and function. This is to determine whether there is objective evidence that adverse effects on the integrity of the site can be excluded. This stage also includes the development of mitigation to avoid or reduce any possible effects.

Stage 3: Assessment of alternative solutions is the process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan or project that would avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of the European Site, should avoidance or mitigation be unable to avoid adverse effects.

Stage 4: Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse effects remain is made with regard to whether or not the plan or project is necessary for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and, if so, of any required compensatory measures. 2 European sites in the Humber RBD

Within the Humber RBD there are 45 European sites. There are 31 SACs, 9 SPAs, and 5 Ramsar sites. Two sites, Humber Estuary and Lower Derwent Valley, are designated as SAC, SPA and Ramsar across their site areas. There are also 2 sites, North Pennine Moors and North York Moors, which have both SAC and SPA designation. Figure 2 shows the European sites present and the management catchments of the Humber RBD.

Thirty three of the European sites are also designated as a WFD Protected Area (26 water dependent SACs and 7 water dependent SPAs).

Figure 2 - Map of the European sites in the Humber River Basin District

Although most of the European sites contain a variety of habitat types, broadly speaking they could be described as coastal and marine sites, freshwater sites comprising rivers, lakes, canals and other wetlands and terrestrial sites such as woodlands, grasslands and moorlands.

The 31 SAC sites in the management catchment are many and varied, and range from calaminarian grassland sites such as Ox Close, mesophile grassland such as Ensor’s Pool in Warwickshire; and numerous freshwater sites including Cannock Chase Extension Canal in the Midlands and the River Derwent in East Yorkshire.

The 9 SPA’s in the RBD include 2 estuarine/coastal sites – the Humber Estuary and Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs on the east coast of the RBD. The remaining sites are generally moorland sites such as the North and South Pennine Moors and North York Moors, and lowland freshwater sites such as the Derwent Valley and Hornsea Mere, both in East Yorkshire.

Of the 5 Ramsar wetlands, 4 are freshwater with the other being the Humber Estuary which is coastal/estuarine. Lower Derwent Valley and Midland Meres and Mosses are lowland freshwater sites whilst Malham Tarn is the only upland site, north of Skipton in the west of the RBD.

The size of European sites within the Humber RBD range in scale. Smaller sites include Ensor’s Pool at 3.8Ha and Bees Nest and Green Clay pits at 14Ha, to the Humber Estuary and the North York Moors at 36,000Ha and 44,000Ha respectively.

As can be seen in Figure 2, most of the European sites flank the west, north and east perimeters of the RBD. There are relatively few sites to the centre of the RBD, or to the south. These areas are where population centres such as Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham and Doncaster are located.

Annex B contains a summary of the European sites present within the Humber RBD. Table A2 in Annex A presents a summary of the European sites present within the management catchments of the Humber RBD. In a number of cases European sites cross over the boundary of two or more management catchments, therefore a number of European site names/designations may appear against more than one management catchment.

2.1 European sites that could be affected by the FRMP The Humber FRMP is a long term plan for the water environment, which could potentially affect both water dependent and non water-dependent European sites and their qualifying features.

It is not possible from the outset to rule out, at the RBD scale, any (water-dependent or non water-dependent) European sites from being affected by the Humber FRMP. The HRA (in particular Section 4.2 and 5.2 / 6.2 / 7.2 for the 3 FRAs) reviews the European sites by management catchment, and determines whether any of the measures within the catchments are likely to lead to significant effects on European sites. 2.2 European sites and their status for FRMPs Some European site interest features (habitats and species) are considered as water- dependent for the purposes of the WFD. This means those European sites with one or more water-dependent feature are included on the register of protected areas, as required by Article 6 of the WFD.

The Humber RBMP provides summary information on the current status and baseline for water dependent European sites as part of its monitoring data.

European sites in England, with the occasional exception, are also designated as SSSIs. SSSI component units underpin the European sites and Natural England only collect data at the SSSI unit level.

Natural England monitors the condition of SSSIs using six reportable condition categories: favourable; unfavourable recovering; unfavourable no change; unfavourable declining; part destroyed and destroyed. When SSSI units are in favourable condition, they are deemed to be meeting their conservation objectives.

Table 1 gives the current condition status of water-dependent SSSI units in the Humber RBD which are also WFD protected areas, as currently recorded on Natural England’s designated site data system.

Table 1 Status of water-dependent European sites in the Humber RBD based on assessment of their component SSSI units (Extract from Natural England databases August 2015) from Condition Humber RBD (ha) Favourable 18,167 Destroyed / Part destroyed - Unfavourable declining 524 Unfavourable no change 2,803 Unfavourable recovering 95,637 Total Area Unfavourable 98,964 % Unfavourable 84

This shows that for the Humber RBD, a large proportion (84%) of water-dependent SSSI units of European sites are currently not compliant with the condition requirements. This is higher than all of the other RBDs.

The pressures on such sites in the Humber RBD vary between sites. Many of the moorland/upland sites, such as the South Pennine Moors, North York Moors and Peak District Dales have pressures relating to the fact they are large areas and provide a recreational resource for areas with higher population densities such as Bradford, Sheffield and York. These sites list vandalism, public access and third party development as pressures. They all also cite changes in hydrological regimes and species distribution which may be more related to the changing climate and national pressures on biodiversity. The linear riverine sites such as the River Derwent and River Mease SACs cite water pollution and changes in land management as pressures, with the Mease also listing siltation and dams and weirs.

Almost all sites list invasive plants as a pressure, with many of the larger sites also citing disease as a threat which may also be reflective of the changing climate and national pressures on biodiversity.

2.3 European sites and their management As part of a new strategic approach to managing all England’s European sites, new measures needed to achieve favourable conservation status for all European sites in England have been developed by Natural England. These are collectively referred to as Site Improvement Plans (SIPs), and are being developed by the Improvement Programme for England’s Natura 2000 sites (IPENS). SIPs were published for all European sites in England in 20153.

The Humber FRMP recognises SIPs include actions where flood risk management is specifically a mechanism for their delivery. The following are the relevant SIPs for Humber RBD:

 Site Improvement Plan: Humber Estuary (SIP108)  Site Improvement Plan: Lower Derwent Valley (SIP058)  Site Improvement Plan: Peak District Dales (SIP168)  Site Improvement Plan: River Derwent (SIP195)  Site Improvement Plan: River Mease (SIP196)  Site Improvement Plan: Thorne and Hatfield Moors (SIP246).

3 Site Improvement Plans for the Humber River Basin District can be found on: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/6287197783195648

3 Approach to the HRA

The steps undertaken to complete the HRA are as follows:  describe the plan and the measures proposed  screen and assess the likely significance of any effects on European sites  consider need for further stages of assessment (i.e. appropriate assessment, alternative solutions and IROPI)  determine a plan level conclusion

3.1 Description of the FRMP programmes of measures The Humber River Basin District Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) is a joint publication of several plans required under the Flood Risk Regulations that are the separate responsibilities of specific Risk Management Authorities (RMAs), as follows:

 Humber River Basin District catchments (Environment Agency)  Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area (LLFAs within the FRA)  West Midlands Flood Risk Area (LLFAs within the FRA)  Leicester Principal Urban Area Flood Risk Area (LLFAs within the FRA).

3.1.1 River Basin District Catchments FRMPs for the River Basin District (RBD) are being published by the Environment Agency (for English catchments) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) (for Welsh catchments), and are focused on measures principally to address flood sources from main river, the sea and reservoirs. The measures have been divided into catchments based on the River Basin Management Plans (where they are called ‘management catchments’).

Production of the FRMPs for the RBDs is the legal duty of the Environment Agency and NRW. Where any voluntary information on local sources of flooding within RBD catchments has been provided by LLFAs, these are published by joint agreement in the RBD FRMP. The Environment Agency and NRW are also the competent authority under the Habitats Regulations for the RBD FRMPs.

3.1.2 Flood Risk Areas FRMPs for Flood Risk Areas (FRAs) are being published by the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) where the FRAs lie within their administrative boundaries. Production of the FRMPs for the FRAs are the legal duty of the respective LLFAs. The LLFAs responsible for the FRA FRMPs are also the competent authority under the Habitats Regulations.

Where a RBD includes one or more FRA, as is the case for the Humber RBD, the measures that have been developed specifically for these FRA FRMPs are presented and assessed separately.

3.1.3 Applying HRA In applying the HRA process, each RMA plan has been assessed separately. A final summary of conclusions and recommendations for future HRAs is provided that also draws on a high-level summary of the potential for in-combination effects of the FRMP with other key plans. 3.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects This first stage of the HRA process requires consideration of screening and likely significant effects of measures on European sites. The tasks undertaken to complete this are as follows, and set out in more detail below:

 screening out catchments where no European sites are present  screening out measures that would not have physical effects  considering measures from existing plans, with mitigation / controls already agreed in HRAs for any likely significant effects, or in some cases potential adverse effect on site integrity  considering new measures and their likely significant effects, with mitigation / controls where considered necessary  conclusion from screening and likely significant effects.

The results of these tasks for each RMA’s plan of the FRMP are provided in the following chapters:

 Chapter 4: Humber River Basin District catchments  Chapter 5: Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area  Chapter 6: West Midlands Flood Risk Area  Chapter 7: Leicester Principal Urban Area Flood Risk Area.

3.3 Screening out catchments where no European sites are present Where there are no European sites present in a catchment, it was determined that no further consideration of measures in the catchment is required. Given the level of detail in the plan where the FRMP measures are mainly strategic in nature and are not specific on their precise location, there is insufficient details to consider downstream or down drift effects beyond the catchment. However, such screening for cross-catchment effects will be a requirement in assessing local plans and projects.

3.4 Screening out measures that would not have physical effects Every measure included within the FRMP is categorised according to one of the following 5 categories, accompanied by an M-code:

 Prevention (M2) - reducing the impacts of flooding through land use and development policy, relocation of assets at risk, or measures to divert the hazard to avoid harm.  Protection (M3) - protecting people from the risk of flooding; for example, by the maintenance, refurbishment of existing defences or building new defences.  Preparedness (M4) - by taking actions that prepare people for flooding; for example, by improving awareness of flood risk, or by providing warning and forecasting for floods.  Recovery and review (M5) - supporting recovery after flooding has happened and reviewing how things can be improved; for example, by improving the availability of recovery services such as providing temporary accommodation.  Other (M6) – measures not fitting in to any of the above categories.

Further definitions of each of the measures are set out in the FRMP according to a second tier of M-codes. For example, Prevention (M2) includes the second tier measure, M22, which is defined as “Prevention, removal or relocation measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas or to relocate receptors to areas of lower risk”. These measure definitions have been used as the basis for the initial screening out of the measures that require no for further consideration within the HRA.

The measure codes and their definitions are included as Table A1 (in Annex A to this document). Measures under ‘Preparedness’ (M4) and ‘Recovery and review’ (M5) will not result in development, demolition or changes of management ‘on the ground’ that could result in effects on European sites. These were therefore screened out from any further consideration. Similarly, under the ‘Prevention’ category (M2), only the removal or relocation of receptors from flood prone areas could potentially affect European sites. The measures that have been screened in to the assessment are set out below and have been highlighted in Table A1:  M22 – Prevention – removal or relocation (category)  M3 – Protection – all sub-categories  M6 – Other – not yet defined.

3.5 Considering measures from existing plans Risk Management Authorities have a range of plans in place for developing and implementing measures related to flooding from main river (in Catchment Flood Management Plans), to flooding from the sea (in Shoreline Management Plans) and related to local sources of flooding (e.g. in Local Flood Risk Management Strategies). These plans have been subject to HRA where relevant, and have reported on the effects on European sites consistent with the level of detail of the plans.

For this HRA, these existing HRAs have been used to summarise the effects of measures from existing plans that are now set out under specific RBD catchments or FRAs. For many RBD catchments and FRAs there are multiple existing plans covering the geographic area but also some existing plans that are split across RBD catchments or FRAs. Nonetheless we have separated out the ‘screened in’ measures from individual existing plans and referenced the specific HRA results that apply to them.

The results from existing HRAs have considered the extent that they remain valid since they were published. This has been done by checking the status of the relevant European sites that were considered within the source plan’s HRA for any changes to site designations since the date of the HRA publication. The criteria were agreed with Natural England and comprised: whether there were any new / additional site designations, any changes in site boundaries, changes in designated site features, or any significant changes in site conditions. The HRA results from Shoreline Management Plans are relatively recent with most published between 2010 and 2011. The HRA results from Catchment Flood Management Plans are a little older with most published between 2008 and 2010. The HRA results from Local Flood Risk Management Strategies are the most recent with the first ones being published around 2012 and most being published much more recently.

One of the main reasons for a likely change from when the effects of plan measures were reported in HRAs is where there have been boundary changes to European sites or to the scope of condition of the interest features of the sites i.e. specific habitats, species etc. Where we have been advised that such changes have occurred and are significant then this has triggered further consideration of the validity of the existing HRA results that we have relied upon.

3.6 Considering new measures for FRMP cycle 1 In reviewing the range of measures across existing plans covering all sources of flooding, Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) have taken the opportunity to put forward further strategic developments for the next 6 year cycle of the FRMP. These ‘new measures’ focus on: strengthening the joint working of RMAs across all flood sources; developing more integrated management of the water environment as set out in the River Basin Management Plans and other related plans; and updating flood risk information to help manage risks with communities.

For this HRA we have reviewed the set of new measures that have been ‘screened in’ for each catchment. As they are mostly ‘strategic’ measures without specific information on location or the form of action that would be developed on the ground, we have considered a range of factors that would give rise to any likely risks from this set of measures in a specific catchment, which includes:

 their general proximity in the catchment to European sites  whether they aim to address sources of flooding that are local, or main river or related to the coast  the mix of types of new measures within the catchment denoted by their M-codes (i.e. whether they are mainly maintenance, or channel works, or new solutions).

General proximity was considered by narrowing down the set of measures within a catchment to those that were closer in general and more likely to be connected to European sites by the hydrology of the catchment rather than applying specific buffer distances to individual measures.

3.7 Considering the need for further stages of assessment HRA steps were carried out for each RBD catchment of the RBD plan that is the responsibility of the Environment Agency. Further HRA steps were carried out for each FRA (by catchment) that is the responsibility of respective Lead Local Flood Authorities. The determination for each catchment or FRA that there are no likely significant effects to European sites, is based on the following assumptions:

 that this HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower tier strategies, plans or projects that implement measures, nor does it give any weight to their outcomes. Consideration of potential impacts and options available to mitigate for those impacts should assist, but not influence or constrain any lower-tier assessments.

 that as local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope and scale are known, that this may identify additional effects on European sites that have not been assessed here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial scale of plan.

4 Humber River Basin District Catchments HRA

This chapter sets out the results of carrying out the HRA on the measures for the Humber RBD catchments that are for flooding from main river, sea and reservoirs and for local flooding sources outside of Flood Risk Areas. This is the FRMP information for which the Environment Agency is the FRMP ‘statutory authority’ and HRA ‘competent authority’. The Flood Risk Area FRMP information for which other RMAs have responsibility has been considered separately in later chapters of the HRA (see sections 5, 6 and 7).

This section covers the following stages of the assessment:  Summary of measures being assessed  Screening and assessment of likely significant effects  Consideration of results and conclusion

4.1 Summary of Measures The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for each of the 15 management catchments within the Humber FRMP (see figure 3). Figure 3 - Map of the Humber River Basin District and management catchments

A summary of the measures and their screening for each catchment is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Summary of measures by catchment

Management 1 Number of measures related Number of new measures

1 1

Catchment to types of existing plans 1 and known level of detail

of of of of

of new of new

umber umber

measures

present in

cycleone

catchment

N N Number

management

measuresfor

existing plans

measuresfrom sitesEuropean

Number screened in(out) Catchments with no European sites present 0 Soar No screened in measures as no European sites present 0 (21) Catchments with no screened in measures All remaining catchments have some screened in measures Catchments with all measures from existing plans All remaining catchments have new measures Sub-total 0 (21) 0 0 % all measures 0% 0% Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP Humber RBD 8 0 8 0 not in proximity n/a Wide (12) 8 strategic/proximity unknown 0 specific/in proximity Aire and 47 5 3 from LLFA plans 42 27 not in proximity 9 Calder (85) 2 from CFMP 1 strategic/proximity unknown 14 specific/in proximity Derwent 11 4 4 from CFMPs 7 7 not in proximity 4 Derbyshire (11) 0 strategic/proximity unknown 0 specific/in proximity Derwent 34 20 1 from SMPs 14 0 not in proximity 11 Humber (77) 19 from LLFA plans 6 strategic/proximity unknown 8 specific/in proximity Don and 54 2 2 from LLFA plans 52 50 not in proximity 7 Rother (46) 0 strategic/proximity unknown 2 specific/in proximity Dove 11 3 3 from LLFA plans 8 1 not in proximity 4 (25) 7 strategic/proximity unknown 0 specific/in proximity Esk and 42 41 2 from SMPs/other EA plans 0 0 not in proximity 5 Coast (37) 39 from LLFA plans 0 strategic/proximity unknown 0 specific/in proximity Hull and East 14 2 2 from LLFA plans 12 10 not in proximity 7 Riding (22) 0 strategic/proximity unknown 2 specific/in proximity Idle and Torne 6 5 5 from CFMPs 1 0 not in proximity 6 (11) 0 strategic/proximity unknown 1 specific/in proximity Louth 19 2 2 from CFMPs 17 15 not in proximity 3 Grimsby and (44) 1 strategic/proximity unknown Ancholme 1 specific/in proximity Lower Trent 13 11 5 from CFMPs 2 1 not in proximity 3 and Erewash (19) 6 from LLFA plans 1 strategic/proximity unknown 0 specific/in proximity Swale, Ure, 25 12 6 from CFMPs 13 7 not in proximity 8 Nidd and (48) 6 from LLFA plans 2 strategic/proximity unknown Upper Ouse 4 specific/in proximity Tame Anker 19 3 3 from LLFA plans 16 13 not in proximity 3 and Mease (59) 1 strategic/proximity unknown 2 specific/in proximity Staffordshire 28 19 9 from CFMPs 9 0 not in proximity 7 Trent Valley (117) 10 from LLFA plans 9 strategic/proximity unknown 0 specific/in proximity Wharfe and 21 6 6 from LLFA plans 15 14 not in proximity 8 Lower Ouse (41) 0 strategic/proximity unknown 1 specific/in proximity Sub-total 362 135 33 from CFMPs 216 145 not in proximity (644) 2 from SMPs/other EA plans 36 strategic/proximity unknown 100 from LLFA plans 35specific/in proximity % all 35% 13% 21% 145(14%) 36(4%) 35 (3%) measures2 Overall Total 362 135 33 from CFMPs 216 see above (665) 2 from SMPs/other EA plans 100 from LLFA plans % all 42% 12% 313(3%) 2(<1%) 100(10%) 21% measures2 1 - all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets 2 - all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures 'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment) 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide 3 Measures across several catchments are counted up for each catchment for HRA purposes which may be a higher figure than reported in the FRMP.

Of the total of 1027 measures 35% have been screened in for HRA consideration (65% screened out). All management catchments within the Humber RBD have some screened in measures and are considered further, with the exception of the Soar Management Catchment.

There are 20 measures that are RBD-wide and are considered in section 4.2.4.1.

There are a number of measures from neighbouring river basin districts, from the Anglian RBD and Severn RBD that were included in Humber RBD catchments and which are considered separately in section 4.2.4.16.

4.1.1 Risks from existing plan measures 13% of all FRMP measures (excluding Flood Risk Areas) are screened in and from existing plans, 3% are from CFMPs and <1% from SMPs. Most risks are from SMP measures where adverse effects identified in the SMP HRA for specific policy areas are being addressed.

Most risks to European sites that are being addressed by existing plans relate to the (<1%) measures in SMPs, and more specifically where the SMP is managing likely adverse effects, specifically in the Hull and East Riding Management Catchment.

4.1.2 Risks from new measures 21% all FRMP measures (excluding Flood Risk Areas) are screened in and new measures, 4% are strategic without locations, 14% are not in proximity to any European sites and 3% are more specific improvements that are in proximity to sites. The most likely risks will be related to the development of local actions for the specific improvements in the next FRMP cycle and can be found in catchments such as; Derwent Humber; Aire and Calder; Hull and East Riding; Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme; and Wharf and Lower Ouse. The future strategic measures may also present a risk depending on where they are implemented.

4.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects The management catchments that make up the Humber RBD FRMP are set out in table 3 below. The colour coding in the table summarises the nature and source of the bundle of measures, which forms the basis for how each management catchment has been assessed. The following sub-sections consider each of the management catchments in turn.

Table 3: Management Catchments of the Humber RBD/FRMP

Management Catchment Management Catchments Category Management catchments with no Soar European sites present. Management catchments with no None ‘screened in’ measures. Management catchments with all None measures from existing plans. Management catchments with Aire and Calder Derwent Derbyshire new measures. Derwent Humber Don and Rother Dove Esk and Coast Hull and East Riding Idle and Torne Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme Lower Trent and Erewash Swale, Ure, Nidd and Upper Tame Anker and Mease Ouse Staffordshire Trent Valley Wharf and Lower Ouse

4.2.1 Management catchments with no European sites present

There is one management catchment within the Humber RBD with no European sites present.

4.2.1.1 Soar Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 0 1 9 5 6

The Soar management catchment contains no European sites and therefore its measures have been screened out of further consideration on this basis.

4.2.2 Management Catchments with no ‘screened in’ measures

All management catchments within the Humber RBD have screened in measures, therefore no management catchments have been ruled out of further consideration on this basis.

4.2.3 Management Catchments with all measures from existing plans

There are no management catchments within the Humber RBD with only measures from existing plans, therefore no management catchments have been ruled out of further consideration on this basis.

4.2.4 Management Catchments with New Measures

4.2.4.1 Humber River Basin District European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 45 8 12 0 0

Within the Humber RBD there are 45 European designated sites, 31 SACs, 9 SPAs, and 5 Ramsar sites. More details of the sites present can be found in section 2 of this report.

New measures

In total there are 20 new measures in the FRMP that will be applied across the whole of the Humber RBD. Twelve of them are screened out of this assessment as they relate to flood prevention and recovery, through mapping and modelling and data collection, and flood preparedness such as improving flood forecasting and warning, increasing public awareness and emergency response planning. One measure is to have on-site reservoir plans in place for all Environment Agency high risk reservoirs.

The 8 new measures in the FRMP which are screened into this assessment all relate to flood protection.

There is 1 water flow regulation measure (M32) in relation to high risk reservoir regulation under the Reservoirs Act 1975 which does not involve physical works so will not impact upon European sites.

There are 5 other protection measures (M35) which are all strategic and do not involve direct works on the ground. The measures mainly relate to ways of working and improving efficiency but there is one to produce opportunity mapping for working with natural processes.

There is 1 new measure involving channel, coastal and floodplain works (M33). This does not involve on the ground works nor relate to specific locations but is a more general strategic approach to flood risk management asset maintenance.

There is 1 new measure relating to natural flood management (M31) being applied across all Humber RBD management catchments in relation to opportunities to reducing local flood risk and delivering WFD outcomes through habitat creation/restoration, re-naturalising watercourses and working with natural processes. This measure will enhance the biodiversity value of areas where it is applied. As the locations are yet to be determined it is not known whether they will be within or near a European site. Potential risks to designated site from such measures would include habitat changes as a result of woodland planting and land management changes, or loss of freshwater habitat as a result of realignment of banks to reinstate natural floodplains.

Given the general scope and the strategic scale of the measures, the FRMP does not specify or constrain how or where measures are implemented. The measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA and for appropriate mitigation. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A).

Given the avoidance and mitigation options available to ensure adequate project-level controls are in place, the strategic plan-level measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on the European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures

There are no existing plan measures across the Humber RBD.

4.2.4.2 Aire and Calder Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 9 42 36 5 49

The Aire and Calder management catchment contains 9 European sites. This comprises, 5 SACs, 3 SPAs and one Ramsar site. The majority of these lie to the west of the Aire and Calder management catchment, comprising, the North and South Pennine Moors (SAC & SPA), the Peak District Moors (SPA) and the Craven Limestone Complex (SAC) which cover a significant area of the upland areas to the north and west of the management catchment. These sites are designated for a number of habitats including heathland, dry grassland and raised bog and support important population of birds such as curlew, snipe and peregrine. The Denby Grange Colliery Pond (SAC), designated for its population of great crested newts is near Wakefield, which is further south and east, and Malham Tarn (Ramsar) is to the north.

New measures

There are 78 new FRMP measures in the Aire and Calder management catchment with 36 of them screened out of this assessment. These are measures to complete feasibility studies and carry out model reviews and do not involve any physical works.

Of the 42 screened in measures, the majority of them will not have any impact on European sites by virtue of their location. These measures appear in urban centres such as Huddersfield and Leeds, which do not contain any European sites.

There are a number of new measures for the Upper Aire catchment in areas such as Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd. These areas are much closer (as little as 0.5km) to the South Pennine Moors SAC and SPA, however the measures are works to assets (or proposed new assets) within the populated areas in the valley bottom, outside of the designated sites and as such impacts to these sites will be avoided.

Of these new measures, the only one with the potential to impact on designated sites is Mythomroyd flood alleviation scheme. This could potentially have impacts on the South Pennine Moors SAC and SPA if upland management/natural flood management was taken forward as an option. However this would likely be in conjunction with other interventions that are more localised. If this was taken forward, the associated land use changes may impact on the South Pennine Moors European site through issues such as changes in habitat balance, changes to hydraulic regimes and disturbance of bird species such as golden plover and merlin. This would be mitigated by careful management and design of such features and timing of works. No options would be implemented if they were thought to have potential for impacts on interest features of these sites. It may also be possible to improve some features of these sites through careful design of interventions.

At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). Given the avoidance and mitigation options available to ensure adequate project-level controls are in place, the strategic plan-level measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on the European sites. This is a plan- level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures – River Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP

There is 1 measure from the River Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP (2010) which is screened out of this assessment. It is an M24 measure relating to modelling and strategic partnership working in managing flood risk across the Humber catchment. As the measure does not involve physical works, there will be no impacts upon European sites.

Existing plan measures - Kirklees Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 32 measures from the Kirklees Flood Risk Management Strategy. Twenty nine of the measures relate to investigations with no physical works or policy measures (M2 – Protection). These have been screened out of further assessment.

Of the 3 screened in measures, 1 is to implement a maintenance regime based on risk. Maintenance works have the potential to impact on European sites where assets are located next to or within them. Impacts could occur via physical disturbance to habitats and species. As the location and scope of work is not yet set out, there is sufficient opportunity to ensure that any impacts can be managed out at project level via scheme level HRA.

There are 2 measures related to potential capital works. These are to work with significant landowners to employ land management techniques which reduce the rate of surface water runoff, and to develop a programme of schemes to be funded through local levy. These measures have the potential to impact on European sites through direct disturbance to habitats and species, and indirectly through hydrological changes which may then affect vegetation communities and sediment balance. As these measures are not fixed in terms of location and scope, it is considered that any impacts on European sites can be managed by ensuring schemes are designed to avoid impacts, completion of project level HRA where necessary and specific mitigation such as timing and location of works. With this mitigation applied these measures are not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites.

Existing plan measures - Calderdale Flood Risk Management Strategy

There is 1 new measure to carry out further investigations into groundwater, surface water and ordinary watercourse flood risk. As this measure is for investigations and does not involve on the ground works this measure is screened out. Existing plan measures - Leeds Flood Risk Management Strategy

Existing plan measures - Wakefield Flood Risk Management Strategy

Existing plan measures - Bradford Flood Risk Management Strategy

Existing plan measures - North Yorkshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

The North Yorkshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy has already undergone its own SEA and HRA which concluded that it was uncertain of the impact these actions could have upon the N2K sites. Any on the ground works in or near any European site, will go through a detailed HRA at the project level, and adopt appropriate mitigation if required, to ensure that they do not have an adverse effect on the European site.

4.2.4.3 Derwent Derbyshire Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 4 7 6 4 5

The Derwent Derbyshire management catchment contains 4 European sites; Gang Mine SAC, Peak District Dales SAC, South Pennine Moors SAC and Peak District Moors SPA. The sites are in the northern upper half of the catchment which is predominantly rural and is part of the Peak District National Park. The sites are designated for various heath and grassland habitats which are home to species such as merlin, golden plover and dunlin. The River Wye flows though the Peak District Dales SAC and is home to brook lamprey and white clawed crayfish. The city of Derby is in the bottom of the management catchment.

New Measures

There are 13 new FRMP measures in this management catchment, 7 of which are measure types that are within the scope of this assessment. The other 6 measures relate to preparedness such as flood warnings and community flood wardens and are therefore screened out of this assessment.

Of the 7 new measures considered in this assessment, 1 of them involves physical channel and floodplain works (M33), the other 6 all relate to water flow regulation (M32) and are in various locations around Derby itself and therefore not in proximity to any SACs or SPAs.

The new M33 measure for the River Wye is in the urban areas of Bakewell and Ashford in the Water which are approximately between 1.5-4 kilometres downstream of the Peak District Dales SAC. The works on the River Wye are therefore unlikely to impact upon the SAC whose interest features include ash woodland, calcareous grasslands, heathland and fen communities.

Existing plan measures - River Trent CFMP

There are 9 existing measures which were in the River Trent Catchment Flood Management Plan (2008). Five of the measures relate to flood prevention and avoidance and are therefore not within the scope of this assessment.

Of the 4 measures considered in this assessment 1 relates to a new flood bund on the River Ecclesbourne in Duffield which is over 10km away from a European site and therefore will not impact upon a European site.

The other 3 measures apply generically across multiple management catchments and relate to delivering WFD outcomes through habitat creation, re-naturalising watercourses and working with natural processes.

These 3 measures should enhance the biodiversity value of the areas where they are applied. As the locations for these measures are yet to be determined it is not known whether they will be within or near a European site. If they are within or near a European site, they will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for consideration of project level HRA (see Table A3, Annex A). This will enable the projects to be designed to avoid or adequately mitigate for any adverse effects on European sites. The appropriate assessment of the River Trent CFMP concluded for this management catchment area (policy unit 3 in the CFMP) that it was “not likely to result in significant damage to features for which these sites are designated”. 4.2.4.4 Derwent Humber Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 11 14 27 20 50

The Derwent Humber management catchment contains 11 European sites. The Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SAC and SPA is the only coastal site and contains important bird species such as puffin and razorbill. The remaining sites consist of 2 SPA sites, 1 Ramsar site, 6 SAC sites and 1 pSPA for Flamborough and Filey Coast. Flamborough Head and the North York Moors sites are the largest in the management catchment, to the north and east of the catchment. The River Derwent is a linear site which runs from Malton in the north, to the confluence with the River Ouse at Boothferry and is designated for its support of an abundance of water crowfoot and a significant population of lamprey. The Lower Derwent Valley is a SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. The remaining SACs are smaller sites designated for heath or bog habitat and, in the case of Ellers Wood and Sand Dale, for the presence of Geyers whorl snail.

New measures

There are 41 new measures in the FRMP, of which 27 have been screened out. The measures screened out relate to flood prevention (M24) and flood preparedness (M4) and include investigations, which do not involve physical works, and engagement and emergency planning work, such as improving forecasting, and developing community flood plans.

Of the 14 measures that are screened in, all involve physical works to control flood risk and/or improve the WFD status of waterbodies within the management catchment. Six measures are general management catchment wide measures to deliver programmes of flood risk management works and maintenance programmes. No detail is given on individual schemes. As these measures are not defined in scope or geographical location at this stage, the presence or absence of effects on European sites cannot be determined. There will be opportunities at project level to ensure that, where there is a risk of impact to a designated site, appropriate mitigation can be adopted and project level HRA will be completed. Mitigation could include timing and location of works, design of schemes to avoid impacts and further assessment to determine the likelihood of impacts.

The 8 remaining measures all have the potential to impact on the River Derwent SAC. They include measures for flood risk management asset refurbishment at Stamford Bridge and refurbishment of flood gates at Malton. The river is designated for the presence of water crowfoot and water starwort, as well as its population of river lamprey. These works have the potential to impact on interest features through mechanisms such a direct disturbance or damage to vegetation, changes in sediment regime or hydrology which may result in conditions being unsuitable for the interest features, and through noise and vibration causing disturbance to lamprey, especially if sheet piling is adopted. Mitigation measures would include timing of works to avoid sensitive periods, design of scheme to avoid hydrological or sediment changes, and setting back of defences away from the river where possible to avoid physical impacts. Projects would be subject to project level HRA to determine effects and appropriate mitigation, and no measures would be implemented until any impacts and mitigation have been agreed with NE.

There are also measures in this bundle which are involved with improving the status of the River Derwent SSSI/SAC. These include changing the management of Barmby barrage to maintain optimum water levels upstream to improve the Derwent SSSI and to work in partnership with NE on the Derwent River Restoration Plan. These measures have the potential to impact on the Derwent SAC via the same impacts as those above, however as the measures are solely aimed at improving the condition of the Derwent the risk is lower. Similar mitigation as that referred to above would be adopted, for example project level HRA and timing of works. As the measures are working to improve the status of the Derwent SAC, measures found to have likely significant negative impacts would not be taken forward.

There is a measure to look at catchment scale solutions to reduce flood risk at Helmsley. This measure could include tree planting in the upper catchment, and could impact on the North York Moors SAC and SPA. The impact could be direct via habitat damage and disturbance, or through changes in hydrology, sediment movement etc. Project level HRA would be carried out of works involved land management/changes in the North York Moors. The likely mitigation would be timing of works, and careful design and location of new habitats to complement the existing interest features of the site. As this measure is focussed on positive land management changes and working with natural processes, measures that were shown to have a likely significant effect on the site would not be implemented.

Existing plan measures - Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP

The FRMP contains 17 SMP measures, 16 of which are screened out as they are other flood prevention measures (M24). There is 1 measure screened in as it involves works to deliver coastal assets or maintain existing assets in line with the SMP. The Tyne to Flamborough Head SMP has been subject to an appropriate assessment. The management areas to which the SMP action refers were screened out of the appropriate assessment at the scoping stage because they either did not occur close to European sites, or the policies proposed would not cause likely significant effects on these sites. From this it is concluded that the SMP measure is not likely to give rise to significant effects.

Existing plan measures - Scarborough Coastal Defence Strategy

The FRMP contains 14 measures from the Scarborough Coastal Defence Strategy (2007). One of them relates to managing and reviewing the stategy and is screened out of this assessment.

The other 13 are screened in as they involve physical works to maintain existing coastal defences or make additional provision to improve the standard of protection. The nearest European site to Scarborough is Flamborough Head, approximately 17km away. Natural England were consulted during the preparation of the strategy and confirmed that an appropriate assessment was not required. These measures will therefore not have a significant effect on any European sites.

Existing plan measures - Filey Coastal Strategy

There is 1 measure to review this strategy in partnership with others. As this does not involve any physical works this measure is screened out. From this it is concluded that the measure is not likely to give rise to significant effects.

Existing plan measures – River Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP

There are 2 measures from the River Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP (2010), both of which are screened out of this assessment. They are M24 measures relating to modelling and strategic partnership working in managing flood risk across the Humber catchment. As the measures do not involve physical works themselves, there will be no impacts upon European sites.

Existing plan measures – City of York Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 19 measures from the City of York Council Flood Risk Management Strategy (2014). Fifteen measures are screened out as they relate to flood prevention, preparedness and flood recovery (M2, M4 and M5 measures) focussing on activities such as planning and development guidance, funding, partnership working and emergency planning.

The four measures screened in are all flood protection measures (M35) that will involve physical works to rivers and floodplains. The locations of these works are not yet determined in terms of geography or scope and there is potential for them to impact on European sites in this catchment. Project level HRA would be developed for any aspect of these measures that has the potential to cause an impact on a European site, and if necessary mitigation such as location and timing of works to avoid sensitive species and habitats and scheme design to reduce impacts (see also section 4.3.3 and Table A3 in Annex A.

Existing plan measures - North Yorkshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 2 strategic measures relating to programming and the delivery of flood alleviation projects within the North Yorkshire County Council area. These measures themselves do not involve physical works but the projects will do. As the locations for the projects are still to be determined it is not known whether they will be within or near a European site. If they are within or near a European site, they will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for consideration of project level HRA (see Table A3, Annex A). This will enable the projects to be designed to avoid or adequately mitigate for any adverse effects on European sites. The North Yorkshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy has already undergone its own SEA and HRA which concluded that it was uncertain of the impact these actions could have upon the N2K sites. Any on the ground works in or near any European site, will go through a detailed HRA at the project level, and adopt appropriate mitigation if required, to ensure that they do not have an adverse effect on the European site.

4.2.4.5 Don and Rother Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 7 52 22 2 24

The Don and Rother management catchment contains 7 European sites. The (Peak District*) South Pennine Moors SPA* and SAC lie to the west of the management unit, between Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester to the west. These areas are designated for a number of habitats and species including heath and bird species such as peregrine and merlin. The Humber estuary lies to the east of the catchment, with Thorne and Hatfield Moors SPA and SAC to the south east close to the Humber and bordering the Idle and Torne management catchment. These sites are designated as areas of raised bog capable of regeneration, and also support a nationally important population of breeding nightjar.

New measures

There are 74 new FRMP measures by the Environment Agency, of which 22 are screened out. The measures screened out relate to flood prevention and preparedness (M2 and M4 measures), particularly relating to Community Flood Plans and modelling projects.

Of the 52 measures screened in, 50 propose physical works that are not located within or close to European sites, and therefore will not have any likely significant effects on European sites.

There are 2 measures which also involve physical works but the purpose of those works is river restoration of the River Rother and the delivery of the Water Level Management Plan for Shirley Pool SSSI. As these works are to deliver ecological improvements and are away from European sites they are not envisaged to have an impact upon European sites.

Existing plan measures - River Trent CFMP

There are 2 measures from the River Trent CFMP (2008), both of which are screened out of this assessment. The measures both relate to flood prevention (M2) through integrating estuarine strategies and as do not involve physical works are not likely to impact upon on any European sites. Existing plan measures – River Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP

Existing plan measures – Barnsley Flood Risk Management Strategy

There is 1 measure from the Barnsley Flood Risk Management Strategy to carry out further investigations into causes of groundwater, ordinary watercourse and surface water flooding in the Barnsley Metropolitan District area, with mitigation measures to be implemented through the FRMS.

The Barnsley Metropolitan District area does not contain any European sites therefore this measure will not have any likely significant effects upon European sites.

Existing plan measures – Derbyshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

There is 1 measure from the Derbyshire Flood Risk Management Strategy to carry out further investigations into causes of groundwater, ordinary watercourse and surface water flooding in the Derbyshire County Council area, with mitigation measures to be implemented through the FRMS. The measure has potential to impact on European sites, if works are within or close to designated sites. Given that the measure is not defined in scope or geography at this stage, there is potential for any issues to be designed out at scheme level, and managed through project level HRA, and/or mitigation (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A).

This measure is not expected to give rise to likely significant effects on any European sites.

Existing plan measures – Doncaster Flood Risk Management Strategy

There is 1 measure from the Doncaster Flood Risk Management Strategy to carry out further investigations into causes of groundwater, ordinary watercourse and surface water flooding in the Doncaster Metropolitan District area, with mitigation measures to be implemented through the FRMS. The measure has potential to impact on European sites, if works are within or close to designated sites. Given that the measure is not defined in scope or geography at this stage, there is potential for any issues to be designed out at scheme level, and managed through project level HRA, and/or mitigation (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A).

This measure is not expected to give rise to likely significant effects on any European sites.

Existing plan measures - North Yorkshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 17 measures from the North Yorkshire County Council Flood Risk Management Strategy (2015). Fifteen measures are screened out as they relate to flood prevention, preparedness and flood recovery (M2, M4 and M5 measures). There are 2 strategic measures relating to programming and the delivery of flood alleviation projects within the North Yorkshire County Council area. These measures themselves do not involve physical works but the projects will do. As the locations for the projects are still to be determined it is not known whether they will be within or near a European site. If they are within or near a European site, they will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for consideration of project level HRA (see Table A3, Annex A). This will enable the projects to be designed to avoid or adequately mitigate for any adverse effects on European sites.

Existing plan measures – Rotherham Flood Risk Management Strategy

There is 1 measure from the Rotherham Flood Risk Management Strategy to carry out further investigations into causes of groundwater, ordinary watercourse and surface water flooding in the Rotherham Metropolitan District area, with mitigation measures to be implemented through the FRMS.

The Rotherham Metropolitan District area does not contain any European sites therefore this measure will not have any likely significant effects upon European sites.

Existing plan measures – Sheffield Flood Risk Management Strategy

There is 1 measure from the Sheffield Flood Risk Management Strategy to carry out further investigations into causes of groundwater, ordinary watercourse and surface water flooding in the Sheffield Metropolitan District area, with mitigation measures to be implemented through the FRMS. The measure has potential to impact on European sites, if works are within or close to designated sites. Given that the measure is not defined in scope or geography at this stage, there is potential for any issues to be designed out at scheme level, and managed through project level HRA, and/or mitigation (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A).

This measure is not expected to give rise to likely significant effects on any European sites.

4.2.4.6 Dove Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 4 8 22 3 3

The Dove management catchment contains 4 European sites; Bees Nest and Green Clay Pits SAC, Peak District Dales SAC, South Pennine Moors SAC and Peak District Moors SPA. The sites are in the north east of the catchment which is part of the Peak District National Park.

The European sites are designated for various heath and grassland habitats, including calcareous grasslands, and are home to species such as merlin, golden plover, dunlin and great crested newt. The River Wye flows though the Peak District Dales SAC and is home to brook lamprey and white clawed crayfish.

The Dove management catchment is predominantly rural with villages distributed throughout and a few larger market towns such as Leek, Ashbourne and Uttoxeter.

New measures

There are 30 new FRMP measures in the Dove management catchment, 8 of which are measure types that are within the scope of this assessment. The other 22 measures relate to prevention and preparedness such as flood warnings, hydrological modelling and also flood recovery and are therefore screened out of this assessment.

Of the 8 new measures considered in this assessment, 4 of them are channel, coastal and floodplain works (M33), 2 are other protection (M35), 1 is a prevention measure (M22) and 1 is a combination of protection measures (M31 and M34).

One of the new measures involving channel, coastal and floodplain works is at in relation to a surface water pumping station at Stretton, Burton on Trent which is 15km away from the SACs and SPAs and is therefore unlikely to impact upon them. The 3 other new measures involving channel, coastal and floodplain works do not have detailed locations at this point in time but as they relate to maintaining flood defence structures and investigating opportunities to reduce flood risk, they are not envisaged to result in a likely significant effect on European sites.

The 2 other new protection measures are from Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and are to assess structural conditions of existing structures such as bridges and culverts and to make sure that any such structures required for new development are of an appropriate standard. These measures are unlikely to impact upon the European sites given they are on existing structures.

The prevention measure relates to new development and remedial works to, or removal of, culverts so is unlikely to impact upon the European sites. If such works were to happen in the European sites, they would be subject to a detailed HRA at project level and also require appropriate regulatory consent from the relevant authorities.

The new combined protection measure relates to natural flood management through tree planting to reduce erosion and run off rates and installing woody debris in channel to slow run off from the headwaters of catchments to the more populated areas downstream. Locations are still to be determined but there is a possibility that the works could take place within, or near to, any of the 4 European sites present in this catchment. If the works are in or near any European site, they will go through a detailed HRA at the project level, and include appropriate mitigation if required, to ensure that they do not have an adverse effect on the European site. The works have the potential to complement the European site features as well as the landscape of the Churnet Valley.

Existing plan measures - Staffordshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 3 existing measures screened into this assessment from the Staffordshire Flood Risk Management Strategy. Two relate to channel, coastal and floodplain works (M33) in Marchington, near Uttoxeter, and Rolleston on Dove, near Burton on Trent. Both locations are approximately 20km away from the European sites and therefore are unlikely to impact upon them.

The third measure relates to surface water management (M34) and is a strategic measure for delivering the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy across Staffordshire, The measure itself does not involve physical works. Any physical works to arise from the strategy will be assessed at project level to ensure no impacts upon European sites including adopting mitigation measures as outlined in section 4.3.3 and Table A3 in Annex A.

The 3 measures screened out of this assessment are generic across the catchment and relate to preparedness (M4) and community action plans for flood warning improvements, raising awareness of flood risk and promoting flood response planning.

The existing measures within the Dove management catchment are therefore not likely to lead to significant effect on the European sites.

4.2.4.7 Esk and Coast Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 5 0 17 42 20

There are 5 European sites in the Esk and Coast management catchment; Beast Cliff- Whitby (Robin Hood's Bay) SAC, Arnecliff & Park Hole Woods SAC, North York Moors SAC and SPA and Fen Bog SAC. The sites are a mix of coastal and upland moorland habitats with notable interest features being vegetated sea cliffs, old sessile oak woods, wet and dry heaths and transition mires and quaking bogs. The sites are home to a variety of flora and fauna, particularly Killarney fern, golden plover and merlin.

The Esk and Coast management catchment is nearly all wholly within the North York Moors National Park (Whitby and surrounding urban fringe is not in the national park) and is predominantly rural with villages scattered throughout. The town of Whitby is on the coast and is where the River Esk enters the North Sea.

New measures

There are 17 new FRMP measures in the Esk and Coast management catchment which are all screened out of this assessment as they predominantly relate to preparedness, such as flood warnings and flood resilience, and also flood recovery.

Existing plan measures - North East Shoreline Management Plan

The North East Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2) (February 2007) covers the coastline from River Tyne to Flamborough Head. The Esk and Coast management catchment contains management areas MA18-MA25 of the SMP2. MA25 is the area between Saltwick Nab to Hundale Point (Robin Hoods Bay) and thus includes Beast Cliff-Whitby (Robin Hood's Bay) SAC.

There are 9 SMP measures screened out of this assessment that are all prevention measures (M24) which involve either studies or strategies rather than physical works or relate to delivering the coastal monitoring programme.

There are 2 measures from the SMP screened into the assessment for this management catchment. The first is from Scarborough Borough Council relating to a potential scheme to improve flood risk and coastal erosion in Staithes Harbour. The management area that includes Staithes Harbour was identified at an early stage of the HRA for the SMP as not having a likely significant effect on a European site.

The second is from North Yorkshire National Park authority relating to the retreat of the Cleveland Way trail. The Cleveland Way is a 110 mile national trail which runs around the North York Moors and coastline including the Beast Cliff-Whitby (Robin Hood's Bay) SAC. Measures relating to the retreat and/or realignment of the trail were included in the North East SMP2 and the Whitby Coastal Strategy (2012). This measure has undergone further study and therefore any implications for European sites are discussed below under the Robin Hood’s Bay Coastal Strategy.

Existing plan measures – Esk and Coastal Streams CFMP

There are 3 preparedness measures (M4) from the Esk and Coastal Streams CFMP which are screened out of this assessment. The measures relate to community engagement and community flood plans and do involve physical works so will not impact upon European sites.

Existing plan measures - North Yorkshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Existing plan measures – Robin Hoods Bay Coastal Strategy

The Robins Hood Bay Coastal Strategy covers 24.2km of coastline between Whitby and Hundale Point, just north of Scalby. The Beast Cliff to Whitby (Robin Hoods Bay) SAC site is located within the strategy area. The North York Moors SPA and SAC site is approximately 500 meters from the coastline.

There are 9 measures in the Humber FRMP from the Robin Hoods Bay Coastal Strategy. Three of them are measures from Scarborough District Council and Environment Agency that are screened out as they relate to strategy investigations and reviewing the strategy and therefore do not involve physical on the ground works.

The preferred management options for the Robin Hoods Bay study area were adaptive management strategy and active intervention that will not involve any construction works or alterations to the coastline.

There are 2 screened in measures from the North Yorkshire National Park Authority relating to developing an adaptive management strategy and property roll-back in the north of Robin Hoods Bay village. North Yorkshire County Council also have 1 screened in measure in the north of the village involving a drainage scheme. These are located close to, but not within, the Beast Cliff to Whitby (Robin Hoods Bay) SAC site.

Scarborough District Council have 3 measures screened in that involve physical channel, coastal and floodplain works (coded M33) which both relate to proposed improvements to the main sea wall in Robin Hoods Bay which may be within the Beast Cliff to Whitby (Robin Hoods Bay) SAC site.

The Robin Hoods Bay Coastal Strategy underwent SEA which included HRA Screening for the Beast Cliff-Whitby (Robin Hood's Bay) SAC (Appendix G of the Robin Hood’s Bay Coastal Strategy Study Strategy Appraisal Report). The HRA screening identified that there would be no impact on any of the European designated sites and therefore it was considered that an Appropriate Assessment was not required for the Robin Hood’s Bay Coastal Strategy Study.

Existing plan measures – Whitby Coastal Strategy

There are 34 measures in the Humber FRMP from the Whitby Coastal Strategy (2012). The strategy area covers five kilometres of coastline between Sandsend and Whitby’s Abbey Cliff, and extends two kilometres into the River Esk estuary, up to the A171 road bridge. There are no European sites within the strategy area.

There are 2 screened out measures from Scarborough District Council and Environment Agency that relate to reviewing the strategy and updating the Humber FRMP therefore do not involve physical on the ground works. Scarborough District Council have 29 screened in measures, all of which involve physical works (M33) throughout the strategy area to maintain or improve coastal protection and managing the risk of tidal flooding. North Yorkshire County Council also have 2 screened in measures involving channel, floodplain and coastal works in or near Sandsend and the A174.

The remaining measure is from the North Yorkshire National Park Authority relating to the retreat and/or realignment of the Cleveland Way trail in the Sandsend Cliffs management unit as per the North East SMP.

No HRA was carried out for the Whitby Coastal Strategy due to there being no European sites in the strategy area and Natural England agreed to that approach. Therefore it is deemed that the existing measures will not impact European sites.

Existing plan measures – Runswick Bay Coastal Strategy

There are 2 screened out measures (M24) from this plan from the Environment Agency and Scarborough District Council. These relate to reviewing the strategy and ensure the FRMP is updated accordingly. The measures do not involve physical works and therefore will not have an impact upon the European sites.

Existing plan measures – Staithes Harbour Study

There is 1 M24 screened out measure relating to integrating the Staithes Harbour Study 2 (2002) into one Integrated Coastal Strategy for the Scarborough District Council area and ensuring the FRMP reflects that. The measure is strategy related and does not involve physical works and therefore will not have an impact upon the European sites.

The existing measures within the Esk and Coast management catchment are therefore not likely to lead to significant effect on the European sites that are present.

4.2.4.8 Hull and East Riding Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 7 12 5 2 17

The Hull and East Riding management catchment contains 7 European sites. The sites are predominantly coastal and estuarine, with the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and Ramsar to the south of the management catchment, and Flamborough Head (*and Bempton Cliffs) SPA* and SAC* along the east coast section. There are 2 inland sites, the river Derwent, which meets the river Ouse to the west of the management catchment, and Hornsea Mere, which is to the east.

New measures

There are 17 new FRMP measures for the catchment of which 5 have been screened out of this assessment because they relate to measures which do not involve any physical works such as flood forecasting and Community Flood Plans. Of the 12 measures screened in, the majority of them lie in areas more than 2km away from designated sites, and are not defined in terms of scope or location. Two of the measures are located within close proximity to the Humber Estuary, these are at the River Hull Headwaters, Easington and Skeffling. Skeffling and Easington works are located immediately adjacent to the estuary and have the potential to impact on the site via direct physical disturbance or indirectly through changes in hydrological regime etc. As the scope of these works is not yet defined, project level HRA will be adopted if appropriate to ensure schemes are designed to avoid impacts on the Humber site.

Existing plan measures - North Yorkshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Existing plan measures – River Hull Integrated Catchment Study

There are 2 measures from the River Hull Integrated Catchment Study which are both coded M24 and therefore screened out of this assessment. Both measures relate to partnership working between the local authority, Environment Agency and other organisations in finalising and delivering the recommendations of the study.

4.2.4.9 Idle and Torne. European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 6 1 7 5 4

There are 6 European sites contained within the Idle and Torne management catchment: Birklands & Bilhaugh SAC; Hatfield Moor SAC; part of Thorne & Hatfield Moors SPA; Thorne Moor SAC, partly within this management catchment but lies predominantly in the Don and Rother management catchment; the upstream extent of the Humber Estuary SPA and Humber Estuary Ramsar site are on the River Trent adjacent to the Idle and Torne management catchment.

Birklands & Bilhaugh SAC supports extensive areas of old acidophilous oak woodland and the site is particularly notable for its remnant ancient and decaying oak trees which support rich assemblages of invertebrates and fungi.

The Hatfield and Thorne Moors SACs and SPA consist of an extensive lowland raised mire system adjacent to the Humber estuary and comprise the largest remaining lowland peatland in England. The diverse mosaic of habitats contributes greatly to the ornithological interest, which comprises breeding species, notably nightjar. The sites have been grouped together in their recently published Site Improvement Plan (Natural England, 2014).

The Idle and Torne is a mix of urban and rural land use. Doncaster, Worksop and Mansfield are the biggest towns and the Isle of Axholme is a notable agricultural area with extensive land drainage.

New measures

There is 1 new Environment Agency measure in the FRMP for the Idle and Torne management catchment. It is an action to use modelling data to develop future options for the maintenance regime, pumping regime and creation of habitat, linking to the delivery of the Isle of Axholme Strategy. The measure itself does not involve a direct intervention in the Isle of Axholme so will not impact upon the European sites.

This measure could subsequently involve physical works in the Isle of Axholme near to the neighbouring European sites of Humber Estuary, Hatfield Moor and Thorne & Hatfield Moors. Physical works in or near these sites will go through a detailed HRA at the project level, and include appropriate mitigation if required, to ensure that they do not have an adverse effect on the European site.

There are 7 new measures that are screened out of this assessment. Six of them relate to flood forecasting, flood warnings and hydraulic modelling (M43) and one relates to flood prevention (M24).

Existing plan measures – River Trent CFMP

The Idle and Torne management catchment overlaps 2 policy units from the River Trent CFMP (August 2008). There are 9 existing CFMP measures, 5 of which are within the scope of this assessment. The 4 existing CFMP measures not in the scope of this assessment relate to flood prevention and preparedness including integrating estuarine strategies.

Of the 5 measures within scope, 3 measures relate to planning improving heavily modified watercourses, enhancing designated nature conservation sites and delivering WFD objectives. Locations are still to be determined but there is a possibility that the works could take place within, or near to, any of the European sites present in this management catchment. If the works are in or near any European site, they will go through a detailed HRA at the project level, and include appropriate mitigation if required, to ensure that they do not have an adverse effect on the European site.

The other 2 measures relate to long term management of existing pumping stations at Keadby on the River Trent and West Stockwith on the River Idle.

West Stockwith drains the Isle of Axholme into the River Trent. It is over 12km away from Hatfield Moor SAC and Thorne & Hatfield Moors SPA and is therefore unlikely to significantly upon those sites.

Keadby pumping station drains a large area of the Isle of Axholme and pumps it into the River Trent within the Humber Estuary SAC and Humber Estuary Ramsar.

The Appropriate Assessment for the River Trent CFMP concluded that there was potential to result in significant impact on qualifying features within for Hatfield Moor SAC, Thorne Moor SAC, Thorne & Hatfield Moors SPA, Humber Estuary SAC and Humber Estuary Ramsar sites (all in CFMP policy unit 1) but that the CFMP was unlikely to result in significant damage to features in the Birklands & Bilhaugh SAC.

Subsequent to the River Trent CFMP, the Isle of Axholme Flood Risk Management Strategy has provided greater certainty as to the longer term management of Keadby Pumping Station. The HRA for the strategy concluded that effects on the Humber Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar from works act Keadby pumping station could be avoided as the infrastructure can be accessed from the landward side. Hatfield Moor SAC and SPA could be affected by changes to the pumping regime as a result of optimising the inland pumping stations. However, this could only take place once an Appropriate Assessment has been conducted. The agreed mitigation is that should an assessment identify likely an adverse effect then the changes to the pumping regime would not be carried out.

4.2.4.10 Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 3 17 5 2 39 There are 3 European sites in the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment. These all cover the Humber Estuary which is designated as SAC, SPA and Ramsar. The site lies to the north of the management catchment and is a coastal/estuarine site. The site is designated for various habitats including saltmarsh and mudflat, as well is its populations of over wintering birds including bittern, curlew and golden plover.

New measures

There are 22 new measures for the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment. Seventeen of these have been screened in to the assessment, with 5 being screened out, because they relate to working with others to develop flood risk strategies (M35), to improve modelling (M24) and to provide property level protection (M23).

Of the remaining 17 measures, 9 of them relate to projects that are proposed by the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy which was approved in 2007. This strategy has its own habitats regulations assessment and IROPI case to cover direct losses as a result of new assets or refurbishment of existing and also coastal squeeze impacts. Project level HRA being developed for each scheme, which would cover localised disturbance issues etc. As this assessment has been approved by Natural England and Defra these measures have not been assessed further.

The new measures that relate to projects that are not covered by the strategy comprise measures to provide flood defence works at Louth, improve wetland provision in the Ancholme valley, with opportunities for joint flood risk management and WFD benefits, a flood alleviation scheme at Barrow upon Humber and maintenance of assets within the management catchment. Of these measures, all but the asset management measure and the works at Barrow upon Humber are located at least 2 km away from the estuary and are likely to involve localised works. If works altered the hydraulic or sediment regime of the rivers they are located on, this would be very unlikely to impact on the Humber Estuary, because of its size and scale in comparison to such water bodies. There is potential for lamprey or individual bird species to be impacted by works, which are an interest feature of the Humber European sites. Impacts would be mitigated at project level through timing and location of works, and working methods. For this reason these measures are not considered to have likely significant effects on the Humber Estuary.

The measures to maintain assets and to improve protection at Barrow upon Humber have the potential to impact on the estuary where assets border the perimeter of the site, including the designated clay pits behind the estuary defences. Impacts could include physical habitat disturbance and disturbance of SPA birds such as avocet and curlew. As the measures are not yet defined in scope or location, this issue can be managed at the project level. Project level HRA would be adopted where a risk of significant effects was identified and appropriate mitigation measures are required to be in place. Mitigation could include location and timing of works and design of works to reduce impacts.

Existing plan measures - Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP

There are 22 measures from the SMP that was subject to an HRA, but they have all been screened out of further assessment as they involve further studies, working with communities to raise awareness and coastal monitoring programmes.

Existing plan measures - Grimsby and Ancholme CFMP

There are 17 measures from the Grimsby, Louth and Ancholme, of which 15 are screened out. The measures that are screened out relate to improving flood warning services (M24 – other prevention) and influencing planning policy (M21 – avoidance) to prevent unsustainable development in the floodplain.

Of the 2 measures that are screened in, one is to review asset management and maintenance plans to identify opportunities to deliver WFD outcomes and re-naturalise watercourses, and the other is to restore sections of waterbody in the Lincolnshire Chalk streams in line with WFD requirements, with emphasis on land management measures to reduce run off rates.

The Grimsby and Ancholme CFMP states that the risk to the Humber Estuary as a result of CFMP actions is very low, because of the high sediment load of the estuary and the relatively small scale of tributaries on which works are likely to occur. There is potential for interest features of the Humber European sites such as overwintering and breeding birds, lamprey, seals and coastal habitats, to be disturbed or impacted by works. Impacts would be mitigated at the project level through timing and location of works, and adopting appropriate working methods. The HRA for the CFMP concluded that there would be no likely significant effect on the Humber Estuary European sites.

Existing plan measures – River Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP

4.2.4.11 Lower Trent and Erewash European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 3 2 8 11 11

There are 3 European sites in the Lower Trent and Erewash management catchment. These are all for the Humber Estuary, which has SAC, SPA and Ramsar designations. The estuary lies to the northern tip of this narrow management catchment.

New measures

There are 8 new measures in the FRMP that have been screened out of this assessment as they relate to flood prevention and preparedness (M2 and M4), particularly flood warning and flood forecasting and involve studies and modelling and not physical works.

The FRMP contains 2 new screened in measures. The first is to investigate opportunities to store water in Bottesford. As this measure lies 10km from the nearest designated site, this measure is considered not likely to give rise to significant effects on European sites.

The second is a strategic measure relating to the delivery of the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy and ensuring flood risk management activity complies with environmental legislation. This measure itself does not involve physical works and is therefore not likely to give rise to significant effects on European sites. Any works carried out for the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy will undergo project level assessment and if appropriate adopt mitigation as outlined in section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A.

Existing plan measures - Trent CFMP

There are 11 measures that are from the River Trent CFMP. Of these measures, 6 have been screened out as they relate to carrying out investigations or modelling (M2 prevention and M6 other codes) as opposed to physical works.

There are 5 measures that have been screened in. These measures relate to delivery of an FCRM tidal strategy programme, habitat creation in targeted areas to improve designated sites, changes in land management practices to reduce run off, investigate options to withdraw from existing defences where they provide no flood risk management benefit and to return watercourses to a more naturalised state at Derby and other outlying areas.

The Trent CFMP concluded that some of the measures could impact on European sites, and their interest features such as lamprey, because of the nature and range of flood risk management works. However it also noted that given that actions were not fixed in terms of geography or scope, measures could be adopted at project level to ensure adverse impacts were avoided, or mitigated. With this mitigation applied the HRA concluded that the measures are not likely to give rise to significant effects.

Existing plan measures – River Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP

Existing plan measures - Nottingham FRMS

The Nottingham FRMS has 9 measures, 3 of which are screened out as they are modelling and strategy related (M2 and M6) and do not involve physical works. The six measures screened in all have the potential to lead to physical works to reduce flood risk. The proposed locations are in excess of 50km away from any European sites in the catchment at locations such as Gunthorpe, Lowdham, Titchfield Park and Trowell. These measures are therefore considered not likely to impact upon European sites.

4.2.4.12 Swale, Ure, Nidd and Upper Ouse European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 8 13 16 12 32

There are 8 European sites within the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Upper Ouse management catchment. The North York Moors and North Pennine Moors SAC and SPA form the largest areas in the management catchment, and border the east and west sides of the management catchment respectively. They are designated for their diverse habitats, including wet heath, dry heath and blanket bog that support various important bird species including breeding curlew and golden plover. The North Pennine Dales Meadows borders the catchment to the north. The remaining 3 sites are all SAC sites and are to the north of York (Strensall Common), south of Harrogate (Ox Close) and north of Wetherby (Kirk Deighton). Of these 3 remaining only Kirk Deighton is water dependent, and this site supports a population of great crested newts.

New measures

Of the 29 new measures in the Swale, Ure, Nidd and Upper Ouse management catchment, 16 of which are screened out. The majority of the screened out measures are flood preparedness (M4) relating to flood forecasting, flood warning and public awareness and flood prevention measures (M2) that either relate to development planning policy and guidance, including sustainable flood risk and drainage solutions, or to investigations and/or studies to inform further works.

There are 13 new flood protection measures screened into this assessment. Two of them are strategic and relate to the management and delivery of flood risk management works and strategies across the catchment but do not involve physical works in their own right and therefore will not impact upon European sites.

There are 4 measures that relate to maintenance or refurbishment works to individual specific pumping stations dispersed across the catchment. There are 7 measures which involve physical works on river channels and existing flood defence assets such as walls, gabions and sluices in Catterick, Pannal, Ripon and in the centre of York. Given the urban locations for these works there are no designated sites which could be affected, with many of the locations being a significant distance (more than 2km) away from any European sites.

There is potential for lamprey to be impacted by in river works, which are an interest feature of the Humber designated site. Impacts to lamprey would be mitigated at project level through timing and location of works, and working methods.

Existing plan measures - Ouse CFMP

There are 8 measures from the River Ouse CFMP, 2 of which have been screened out as they relate to flood warning and Community Flood Plans.

Two of the screened in measures are projects where works are already on-going and do not impact upon European sites

The other 4 screened in measures are flood protection measures (M3) that involve potential physical works to the River Ure and its floodplain in, and near to, Boroughbridge. The Ouse CFMP was subject to a habitats regulations assessment which concluded that there were risks to designated sites for some plan measures and recommended project level HRA to be completed for measures which risk impacting on such sites. The projects for these 4 measures will all undergo detailed project level assessment and if appropriate adopt mitigation as outlined in section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A. Therefore these measures are not likely to impact upon European sites.

Existing plan measures – City of York Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Existing plan measures - North Yorkshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

4.2.4.13 Staffordshire Trent Valley European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 7 9 98 19 19

There are 7 European sites within the Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment. Two of the sites are designated as both SAC and Ramsar sites, Midlands Meres and Mosses – Phase 1 and 2. These sites consist of lowland open water (e.g. ponds, fen, flashes) and peatland and support species such as skylark and bittern. These sites lie at various locations around the northern half of the management catchment.

The remaining 3 sites are all SACs and comprise Cannock Chase, to the south, Mottley Meadows near Penkridge and Pasturefields Salt Marsh, an inland salt meadow near Stafford.

New measures

There are 107 new measures in the management catchment, of which 98 are screened out. These screened out measures are largely policy related measures, such as limiting run off rates, preventing development in flood risk areas and working to ensure climate change adaptation requirements are included in new development proposals. Of the 9 measures that are screened in, 3 are related to M2 (prevention) codes such as retrofitting of SuDS to existing developments. The remaining 3 are M3 codes, and include de-culverting, and river restoration. All of these schemes have the potential to lead to on the ground works. Impacts to European sites could be direct impacts such as physical disturbance and habitat damage, or indirect through changes to hydrological regimes, sediment inputs etc resulting from de- culverting and river restoration schemes.

As the works for these 9 measures are not yet geographically fixed, nor defined in scope, project level HRA will be adopted if necessary to ensure impacts on European sites are avoided. Mitigation could include timing and location of works, and design of schemes to avoid impacts. In additional to this, measures such as de-culvering and retrofitting of SuDs may have the potential to improve the condition of European sites through a reduction of sediment or nutrient input for example.

Existing plan measures

There are 19 measures from existing plans in the Staffordshire Trent Valley management catchment. These measures relate to flood forecasting, flood data improvement, working in partnership and non specific measures such as continuing with watercourse maintenance throughout the management catchment. On this basis they have been screened out of further consideration.

Existing plan measures - Staffordshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 10 screened in measures from this LLFA strategy. The strategy was subject to a Habitats Regulations assessment which concluded that with proposed mitigation the FRMS was not likely to give rise to significant effects on any European sites.

Existing plan measures - Trent CFMP

The remaining 9 screened in measures are from the Trent CFMP and relate to more specific improvement measures. This plan was subject to a habitats regulations assessment which stated that for both policy units within the management catchment (6 and 7), there was potential for impacts to European sites, however with mitigation applied, including land management changes and appropriate design of works at scheme level a conclusion of no likely significant effect was concluded.

4.2.4.14 Tame Anker and Mease European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 3 16 56 3 3

The Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment contains 3 European sites, all are SAC sites and two of them are linear sites. They are located to the east (River Mease), the West (Cannock Chase Extension Canal and the south (Ensors Pool) of the management catchment. They are all freshwater sites. The River Mease is designated because of its abundance of water crowfoot, and supporting of a large population of bullhead and spined loach.

New measures

There are 72 measures in the management catchment of which 56 have been screened out. The screened out measures are M2 measures which relate to policy actions such as controlling development in the floodplain, and ensuring climate change adaptation measures are included in new developments.

Of the 16 measures that are screened in there is one M22 measure which is to protect functional floodplain with no locations specified. The remaining 15 are M3 measures which relate to actions that can be undertaken anywhere in the management catchment, such as continuing maintenance on existing assets, reducing flood risk to homes, reducing flood risk to historic buildings, de-culverting and river restoration, and implementation of WFD measures. As these actions could be carried out anywhere in the management catchment, there is potential for them to impact on European sites. However the scope, design and location of these measures is not yet defined, therefore project level controls such as location of works, scheme design and timing of works could all be adopted through the project level HRA, if likely significant effects were identified during scheme development. In addition to this, all EA maintenance programmes are subject to screening to ensure no impacts to designated sites.

Thirteen of these measures are identified as being too far from any designated sites for impacts to occur with many of the measures being in central Birmingham, or other urban locations, such as Walsall, and Sandwell. These areas are greater than 2km away from any designated sites.

There are 2 measures which have the potential to impact on European sites. The first is to reduce flood risk at Barton Under Needwood. This settlement is 1km upstream of the River Mease SAC, and the flood risk is from Barton Brook which is a tributary of the river Mease. Works in this area have the potential to impact on the site as a result of changes in hydraulic regimes, changes in geomorphology, and potentially direct physical disturbance. This could damage the water crowfoot, which is sensitive to water levels, and changes in sediment regime could impact on bullhead. The exact nature of a scheme is unknown at this stage, however project level HRA will be adopted if necessary to ensure impacts on the River Mease SAC are avoided. Mitigation could include sympathetic design and working practices to avoid impacts and timing of works to avoid spawning season.

The second measure is to continue to maintain the Nuneaton Food relief channel. Ensors Pool SAC lies to the South west of Nuneaton, less than 1km away. The pool is designated as it holds a large population of native white clawed crayfish, however it is not within the floodplain as is not linked to the river. For this reason maintenance works are thought to be unlikely to have an impact on the site, however given the close proximity of the pool to flood relief works, more detailed assessment to confirm would be carried out prior to any significant maintenance work and appropriate mitigation adopted if required.

Existing plan measures- Staffordshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 3 measures relating to flood prevention and preparedness (M2 and M4) screened out of this assessment.

There are 2 measures screened in that comprise channel, coastal and floodplain works (M33). These measures are to investigate drainage solutions for surface water in Barton Under Needwood and Lower Penn. The exact nature of these schemes are unknown at this stage, however project level HRA will be adopted if necessary to ensure impacts on the River Mease SAC are avoided. The strategy was subject to a Habitats Regulations assessment which concluded that with proposed mitigation the FRMS was not likely to give rise to significant effects on any European sites.

Existing plan measures- Warwickshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

There is 1 measure from the Warwickshire Flood Risk Management Strategy screened into this assessment - other protection (M35). The measure comprises supporting flood alleviation measures under consideration by the Environment Agency by safeguarding possible sites for flood storage and other channel works. The measure does not involve physical works and the location of potential schemes are unknown at this stage, however project level HRA will be adopted if necessary to ensure impacts on European sites are avoided.

4.2.4.15 Wharfe and Lower Ouse European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 8 15 9 6 32

The Wharfe and Lower Ouse management catchment contains 8 European sites. The North Pennine Moors lie to the north and east of the management catchment, and the South Pennine Moors lie to the south and west. These are the largest European sites in the management catchment and are upland areas designated for a variety of habitats including bog, marsh and heath, and birds such as merlin and golden plover. The River Derwent SAC is a linear site which is designated for its supporting a population of water crowfoots, as well as river lamprey. Skipwith Common SAC in the south of the management catchment is designated as an area of wet and dry heath. The Craven Limestone Complex SAC is located to the north west and contains a variety of habitats including raised bogs and alkaline fens, as well as a population of native white clawed crayfish and bullhead.

New measures

There are 24 measures in the Wharfe and Lower Ouse catchment. Nine measures have been screened out of further assessment. These measures all relate to further investigations and flood forecasting/planning (M4) and do not propose any on the ground works.

Of the 15 screened in measures all relate to flood protection (M3) and involve physical works to reduce flood risk. One of them is to implement and deliver measures set out in the Upper Wharfe SSSI Restoration plan (2013). This is an on-going programme of work with successes to date including riparian fencing and planting, targeted flood bank removal & culvert opening.

Fourteen of the screened in measures are greater than 2km away from any designated sites, and no measures are proposed with sufficiently wide ranging impacts to impact on them.

There is 1 measure proposed to carry out work to maintain the tidal Ouse flood banks at various locations. This has the potential to impact on the River Derwent SAC, which adjoins the River Ouse at Barmby Barrage. Impacts on the River Derwent could involve direct damage to habitats if works are in close proximity, and disturbance to species such as lamprey if piling works are proposed. As the River Derwent is separated from the Ouse by the barrage, it is considered unlikely that impacts would occur. However, project level HRA and any associated mitigation, such as scheme design to avoid impacts, and timing of works, will be adopted if appropriate once locations are identified.

Existing plan measures – River Hull and Coastal Streams CFMP

Existing plan measures – City of York Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Existing plan measures - North Yorkshire County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

4.2.4.16 Cross Boundary measures Management catchment New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out

Louth, Grimsby Ancholme 0 1 1 6 Soar 0 1 0 1 Tame, Anker and Mease 0 0 1 0

There are 11 cross boundary measures within the Humber FRMP with the majority of them being in the Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme management catchment.

Of the 8 measures in Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme, 7 are from the Anglian Water Asset Management Plan. Six of these are screened out of this assessment as they relate to flood prevention (M2) and preparedness (M4) and do not involve physical works. There is 1 other protection measure (M35) which is a strategic measure relating to increasing the flood resilience of Anglian Water’s most susceptible water and water recycling assets. The measure itself does not involve physical works and the location of potential works are unknown at this stage, however project level HRA will be adopted if necessary to ensure impacts on European sites are avoided.

The new measure in Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme relates to M4 (prevention) and has been screened out.

Both measures in the Soar catchment have been screened out, because there are no European sites within this management catchment.

The measure in the Tame, Anker and Mease catchment relates to delivery of the local Warwickshire local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The LLFA is responsible for complying with requirements for HRA in the delivery of the strategy.

4.3 Consideration of results and conclusion

The assessment of likely significant effects has been carried out for each catchment in turn. The risks to European sites for those measures drawn from existing plans have been considered together with reference to existing HRAs and existing controls in place. The potential risks arising from new strategic priorities for the next FRMP cycle have also been considered.

In all catchments the conclusions are that likely significant effects can be avoided or mitigated by appropriate controls and actions that are currently in place or will be in place at a project level, when local actions are developed to implement the plan. 4.3.1 Risks from existing plan measures 13% of measures are from existing plans of which 3% are from CFMPs and <1% from SMPs. Most risks are from SMP measures where adverse effects identified in HRAs for specific policy areas are being addressed.

All risk management authorities responsible for implementing the measures in the FRMP that are sourced from the existing CFMPs and SMPs, where risks to Europeans sites have been identified, are required to take account of the HRAs of those plans (as identified in section 4.2 above) and any mitigation proposals or statements made within them. Most risks to European sites that are being addressed by existing plans relate to the <1% measures in SMPs and more specifically where the SMP is managing likely adverse effects specifically the Hull and East Riding Catchment.

4.3.2 Risks from new measures 21% of measures are new, of which 4% are strategic, 14% are not in proximity to any European sites and 3% are more specific improvements that are in proximity to sites. The most likely risks will be related to the development of local actions for the specific improvements in the next FRMP cycle and can be found in catchments such as; Derwent Humber; Aire and Calder; Hull and East Riding; Louth, Grimsby and Ancholme; and Wharf and Lower Ouse. The future strategic measures may also present a risk depending on where they are implemented.

4.3.3 Control and Mitigation for main risks from new cycle 1 measures Controls The principal controls for the development of local actions from new FRMP measures that are more specific and are in the proximity of European sites comprise the consenting procedures, in place to assess proposed actions in order to authorise implementation. Actions involving construction or creation of new, or changes to, alteration or improvement of existing flood defence structures affecting main river are likely to require planning permission. In some cases, flood risk management may ordinarily be permitted development. Other types of actions may require controls under Flood Defence Consents from the Environment Agency for main rivers or Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for non- main watercourses.

Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for project level HRA is determined through the planning process, the required information is submitted with the planning application, with the assessment being the responsibility of the local planning authority as competent authority. A determination is made in consultation with Natural England. Even where the action would normally be permitted development, approval of the local planning authority is required where a development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site.

As part of these consenting mechanisms, the measures cannot receive approval to proceed until it has been demonstrated that they will not result in adverse effects on integrity of any affected European sites. Or, where an adverse effect cannot be avoided, a case for ‘Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest’ (IROPI) that includes the identification of compensatory measures is approved by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Table A3 in Annex A provides additional detail on the consenting processes and the consideration of the Habitats Regulations as they relate to measures to address flooding from the various flooding sources (e.g. main river, ordinary watercourses, tidal, reservoir).

Mitigation Implementation of measures at the subsequent tier of plan or project, if deemed likely to result in significant effect on one or more European sites, may need to include mitigation to avoid or reduce potential effects. Specification of mitigation should be tailored to the specifics of a project, and to the sites and features potentially affected, through the project level HRA process and through consultation with Natural England, ideally early in a project’s appraisal and design. That way, mitigation can be incorporated into the way that the project is designed and built, tailored to the specifics of the site/s and their qualifying features, and therefore be most effective in avoiding or reducing potential adverse effects. Project-level mitigation for European site species would consider the potential impacts arising from construction and operation of the project / measure, alongside any site specific sensitivities of the affected species. Depending on the nature of the project, identification of the use of habitats in proximity by qualifying species and the functioning role of those supporting habitats affected, may either be established by existing data / studies or may need to be established through site survey. Construction-related mitigation should consider managing the timing of activities to avoid ecologically sensitive periods, such as breeding, over-wintering or migratory passage periods for birds, or migratory periods for anadromous fish. The exact timings for these construction ‘windows’ may vary for different sites in the RBD, depending on the presence, distribution and proximity of qualifying species present. Avoidance or reduction of visual or noise disturbance to species may also consider the use of techniques such as screening, segregation or establishing buffer zones, recognising that some species may be more vulnerable or sensitive than others (for example different bird species can vary in their flight response). For potential construction impacts on habitats, such as loss of habitat or physical damage, key construction-focused mitigation should focus on the avoidance of working on, or in proximity to sensitive habitats, and development of site sensitive construction techniques. This may for example include avoiding heavy plant usage in particular areas, or screening / creation of buffer zones to avoid any disturbance or physical damage. This can be informed through site specific / project-level HRA, and supporting survey where necessary, to establish the presence, nature and sensitivities of potentially affected habitats. For potential operational effects, sensitive and sympathetic design can minimise or avoid effects, such as appropriate location or layout of any structures (set-back from sensitive habitats) or minimising footprints where possible. Project-level HRA should also consider potential changes in physical processes, such as changes to flows / velocities and the physical regime, and potential water quality changes, for example due to the addition or removal of a structure or a changed profile of the riparian zone / channel banks. Such effects, as identified through the HRA, should inform a project’s appraisal and the building of suitable mitigation into the design. 4.3.4 Conclusion The assessment above has considered the FRMP information in RBD catchments that the Environment Agency are responsible for and has screened the measures as having no likely significant effect. This is concluded in light of the range of avoidance and mitigation measures available. Regulatory controls will identify any risks to European sites when the actions required to implement the measures are developed. The FRMP itself also makes it clear that before any measures in the plan are implemented they must be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations by the relevant competent authority. This is already the case for measures from existing plans where HRAs have identified risks to European sites and where any adverse effects that cannot be ruled out have been addressed through appropriate mitigation and compensatory provision. It is concluded that at this strategic-plan level the measures are screened as being not likely to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects (see chapter 8). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites). Lower-tier assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in this high- level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

5 Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area HRA

This section sets out the results of carrying out the HRA on the measures for the Kingston upon Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area that are for flooding from local sources (ordinary watercourses surface water, groundwater, etc.) and are the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) within the Flood Risk Area. This is the FRMP information for which these LLFAs are the FRMP ‘statutory authority’ and HRA ‘competent authority’.

The Lead Local Flood Authorities in Flood Risk Areas are ‘competent authorities’ for HRA of their FRMP information and have agreed that this report will meet their HRA requirements.

This section covers the following stages of the assessment:

 Summary of measures being assessed  Screening and assessment of likely significant effects  Consideration of results and conclusion.

5.1 Summary of Measures The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for the Hull and East Riding management catchment which includes the Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice Flood Risk Area (FRA) as illustrated in Figure 3 below. An overall summary of the LLFA FRA measures is presented in Table 4.

Figure 3: Map of the European sites in the Kingston-upon-Hull FRA and Management Catchments

Table 4 Summary of Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice FRA measures by

catchment

Management Number of measures Number of new measures and Catchment related to types of existing known level of detail1

of of of of

plans

of new of new

one

umber umber umber

measures

N N N

umber

European sitesEuropean

measuresfrom

existing plans1 N

screened in(out) measures for cycle measuresfor cycle Catchments with no screened in measures All FRA catchments have some screened in measures. Catchments with all measures from existing plans All FRA catchments have new measures. Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP Hull and 12 0 12 0 not in proximity 7 East Riding (26) 8 strategic/proximity unknown 4 specific/in proximity Overall Total 12 0 12 0 not in proximity (26) 8 strategic/proximity unknown 4 specific/in proximity

% all 32% 0% 32% 0 (0%) 8 (21%) 4 (11%) measures 1 - all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets. 2 - all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures. 'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment). 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide.

Of the total of 38 measures, 12 (32%) have been screened in for HRA consideration, and 26 (68%) screened out. All of the 12 screened in measures are new and within the FRA part of the Hull and East Riding catchment.

5.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects

5.2.1 Hull and East Riding Management Catchment European sites New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 7 12 26 0 0

The Hull and East Riding management catchment contains 7 European sites. Two sites are located on the coastal/estuarine margin to the east and south of the management catchment - the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and Ramsar and Flamborough Head SPA and Bempton Cliffs SAC and SPA. The remaining European sites are both freshwater sites.

New Measures

There are 38 new measures in the Hull and East Riding management catchment within the Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice FRA. There are 26 measures screened out. The majority of them (18 measures) are flood preparedness (M4) or flood recovery (M5) measures relating to flood forecasting, flood warning, public awareness and increasing collaboration between Risk Management Authorities. The other 8 measures are flood prevention measures (M2) largely relating to development planning and guidance including Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).

There are 12 measures screened into the assessment which all relate to flood protection (M3). Eight measures are strategic and relate to the management and delivery of flood defence schemes and strategies across the catchment but do not involve physical works in their own right and therefore will not impact upon European sites.

The remaining 4 measures all relate to localised works for replacement or reconstruction of structures to address flooding from ordinary watercourses and main river or surface water flooding within urban areas of Hull. The geographical location of 3 of these measures is not fixed whilst 1 measure is targeted at a specific culvert on Mill Beck.

Due to the nature of the Humber Estuary designated sites, which lie adjacent to the city of Hull, the 4 measures all have the potential to impact upon the sites. The mechanism of potential impacts could range from direct impacts, such as disturbance of interest features (bird species) that are using areas adjacent to project locations, changes in habitat in localised areas due to changes in surface water discharge regimes or potential direct loss of habitat. There is also the potential for improvement, for example an intervention reducing the quantity of polluted water entering the estuary during a flood event, or the implementation of SuDS scheme improving local habitats for SPA interest features.

As the measures are not geographically fixed, nor are they fixed in scope, any potential works can be designed to avoid impacts on interest features or habitats. This would involve actions such as alteration of scheme design (footprint etc), timing of works to avoid working in key areas during sensitive periods, or screening of works.

Existing measures

There are no existing plan measures for the Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice FRA within the Hull and East Riding management catchment.

5.3 Consideration of results and conclusion The assessment of likely significant effects has been carried out for each catchment in the FRA in turn, and considered the risks to European sites and existing controls in place for existing plans as well as the potential risks in the development of future local actions related to new strategic development measures for the next FRMP cycle.

In all catchments the conclusions are that likely significant effects will be avoided or mitigated by appropriate controls and actions that are currently in place or will be in place at a project level when local actions are developed to implement the plan.

Of the 12 new measures for the FRA none are, at this stage, specific enough to be confirmed as ‘in proximity’ to European sites. Project level controls will also be required when these are developed as local actions.

5.3.1 Conclusion At this strategic-plan level of the Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice FRA the measures are screened as being not likely to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects (see chapter 8). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites). Lower-tier assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in this high-level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

6 West Midlands Flood Risk Area HRA

This section sets out the results of carrying out the HRA on the measures for the West Midlands Flood Risk Area that are for flooding from local sources (ordinary watercourses surface water, groundwater, etc.) and are the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) within the Flood Risk Area. This is the FRMP information for which these LLFAs are the FRMP ‘statutory authority’ and HRA ‘competent authority’. This section covers the following stages of the assessment:

 Summary of measures being assessed  Screening and assessment of likely significant effects  Consideration of results and conclusion.

6.1 Summary of measures The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for each of the catchments that incorporate parts of the West Midlands Flood Risk Area (FRA).

The West Midlands FRA lies predominantly in the Humber RBD, but part is also included in the Severn RBD. However, the HRA for the FRA FRMP is covered in its entirety in this document.

Approximately 75% of the FRA is within the Tame, Anker and Mease management catchment with approximately 20% being within the Severn Middle Worcestershire management catchment. The remaining 5% is split between the Staffordshire Trent Valley and Avon Warwickshire management catchments. The management catchments and FRA boundary are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Map of the European sites in the West Midlands FRA

The assessment for the FRA was initially based on the catchments that include part of the FRA area and therefore include all of the European sites within those catchments. However, it is important to note that only one European site is located within the FRA, Fens Pools SAC in the Severn Middle Worcestershire catchment and thus only measures in this catchment have been assessed. An overall summary of the FRA measures is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Summary of West Midlands FRA measures by catchment

Management Number of measures Number of new measures and

1 1

Catchment related to types of known level of detail

of of of

of of existing plans

of new of new

one

in(out)

umber umber umber

N N N

Within FRA

umber

existing plans

measuresfrom sitesEuropean

measures for cycle measuresfor cycle measures screened measuresscreened Catchments with no European sites within the West Midlands FRA Avon 0 Warwickshire (1) As there are no European sites within these management catchments within, or in proximity to, the West Midlands FRA, the new or existing measures have been deemed unlikely to Tame Anker 0 and Mease (54) have an impact upon European sites and screened out of further assessment (see numbers in brackets) Staffordshire 0 Trent Valley (13) Catchments with no screened in measures All FRA catchments have some screened in measures. Catchments with all measures from existing plans All FRA catchments have new measures.

Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP Severn Middle 8 7 7 from LLFA plans 1 0 not in proximity 1 Worcestershire (11) 1 strategic/proximity unknown 0 specific/in proximity

Overall Total 8 7 7 from LLFA plans 1 1 strategic/proximity unknown (79) % all measures 9% 8% 1% 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%)

1 - all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets. 2 - all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures. 'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment). 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide.

Of the total of 87 measures, 8 (9%) have been screened in for HRA consideration, and 79 (91%) have been screened out on the basis that no European sites are nearby or due to the nature of the measures.

6.1.1 Risks from existing plans measures The 7 (8%) screened in measures are all from existing local Flood Risk Management Strategies or Local Authority Plans as detailed in section 6.2.1.

6.1.2 Risks from new measures There is 1 new measure in the management catchment which has a European site within West Midlands FRA, but it is strategic without locations.

6.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects

6.2.1 Severn Middle Worcestershire European sites New measures Existing plan measures within FRA Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 1 1 0 7 11

The Severn Middle Worcestershire management catchment contains 3 European sites. However, only one of these, Fens Pools SAC, is within the West Midlands FRA. Fens Pools SAC comprises three canal feeder reservoirs and has a variety of wetland, grassland and scrub habitats in its 20.4ha area. The site is designated for its population of great crested newts.

New measures

There is 1 new measure for West Midlands FRA in this management catchment. The measure relates to implementing the Worcestershire Flood Risk Management Strategy which is currently in development and will be required to meet HRA requirements. The measure at the level of the plan is of a strategic nature that and does not impact upon European sites and is thus not required to be considered further in this FRMP HRA.

Existing Measures

There are 11 existing measures screened out of this assessment which are all flood avoidance measures (M21). These measures are all from the Black Country Core Strategy and relate to planning and development guidance for discharge rates, de-culverting opportunities and improving rivers and floodplain across the 4 local authorities that the strategy covers (Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton).

There are 7 surface water management measures (M34) screened in. Six of them are from the Black Country Core Strategy and relate to development planning and guidance for drainage including Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). These measures set planning policy and guidance as to how drainage implications for new development should be considered rather than specify physical on the ground action; therefore the measures will not have an impact upon European sites.

The remaining measure relates to implementing the Staffordshire Flood Risk Management Strategy. This strategy has undergone a HRA which concluded that, with the adoption of mitigation as detailed in the HRA, the Shropshire and Staffordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy is not likely to have any significant negative effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

6.3 Consideration of results and conclusion The assessment of likely significant effects has been carried out for each catchment in the FRA in turn, and considered the risks to European sites and existing controls in place for existing plans as well as the potential risks in the development of future local actions related to new strategic development measures for the next FRMP cycle.

In all catchments the conclusions are that measures are sufficiently distant from European sites as not present a risk or that likely significant effects will be avoided or mitigated by appropriate controls and actions that are currently in place or will be in place at a project level when local actions are developed to implement the plan.

The single new FRMP measure for West Midlands FRA, at this stage, does not involve direct physical works so will not impact upon European sites. Any subsequent physical works relating to the measure will undergo their own assessment and adopt appropriate mitigation if required.

6.3.1 Conclusion At this strategic-plan level of the West Midlands FRA the measures are screened as being not likely to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects (see chapter 8). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites). Lower-tier assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in this high-level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

7 Leicester Principal Urban Area Flood Risk Area HRA

This section sets out the results of carrying out the HRA on the measures for the Leicester Principal Urban Area Flood Risk Area that are for flooding from local sources (ordinary watercourses surface water, groundwater, etc.) and are the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) within the Flood Risk Area. This is the FRMP information for which these LLFAs are the FRMP ‘statutory authority’ and HRA ‘competent authority’. This section covers the following stages of the assessment:

 Summary of measures being assessed  Screening and assessment of likely significant effects  Consideration of results and conclusion.

7.1 Screening and likely significant effects The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for the Soar management catchment which covers the Leicester Principal Urban Area Flood Risk Area (FRA) as illustrated in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5 Map of the European sites in the Leicester Principal Urban Area FRA and Management Catchments

There are 22 measures within the Soar management catchment however as this management catchment contains no European sites these have been screened out of further consideration.

7.2 Consideration of results and conclusion As there are no European sites present in the Soar management catchment and in the Leicester Principal Urban Area FRA it is concluded that there is no likely significant negative effect on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects (see chapter 8). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites).

8 In combination effects with other plans and projects

The Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations require competent authorities to consider the assessment of effects on a European site in combination with other plans or projects. The Habitats Regulations Assessment of the FRMP has demonstrated that, for those measures where there is a potential effect on a European site, there is insufficient detail available at this stage to understand the site-specific context in terms of location or outline design of the flood risk management solution to be able to assess the likely effects in the detail necessary to advise on site- specific avoidance and mitigation required. Rather, the assessment has set out the range of avoidance, mitigation and control measures that can be applied, and there is enough confidence in the breadth and type of measures available to screen out likely significant effects for the purposes of plan-level assessment.

The application of HRA requirements at the project or lower-tier plan level will take place when a greater level of detail will be available. Given the lack of available information on the location and design of solutions and therefore the associated effects, we are also unable to meaningfully assess the in-combination effects with other plans and projects. This section has therefore set out the types of plans and projects where interactions are possible and more detailed consideration of these will be required in the HRAs for projects or lower tier plans.

The potential for in-combination effects lies with the following potential interactions:

 The RBD FRMP with the FRA FRMP  Between different RBD FRMPs  The RBD FRMP with other external plans within the RBD.

The in combination effects with existing Risk Management Authority plans during the period of the plan, including Shoreline Management Plans, Catchment Flood Management Plans and Local Strategies, have been considered as part of the FRMP assessments undertaken within each RBD catchment and flood risk area (see previous sections). This is because the FRMP has already considered how the objectives and measures of these existing plans combine and relate to the 6 year cycle 2015 to 2021 of the FRMP.

8.1 RBD and FRA FRMPs FRAs geographically overlay one or more RBD catchments and as distinct ‘plans’ addressing local flood sources may have measures that coincide with wider RBD catchment measures addressing flooding from main rivers, sea and reservoirs. Together these measures have the potential to cause in-combination effects on nearby European sites depending on their nature, location and relationship. At the strategic-plan level of the HRA such in-combination effects on specific European sites in unable to be considered. Instead the HRA highlights where risks of in-combination effects may in general be higher and which project level assessments should consider further as follows:

 Most FRAs are in urban areas where there are less European sites present so most measures are less likely to be in proximity to them  Most measures in FRAs are drawn from existing plans (local strategies and surface water management plans) that will have considered their flood management measures alongside any in the same strategic area under CFMPs and SMPs, including any in-combination effects on European sites in any HRA.  The combination of measures with highest risks of in-combination effects not considered under existing plans, will be where there are specific improvement measures that are new in the FRMP under both the RBD catchment (main river/sea flooding) and the FRA (local flooding) that are in close proximity to each other and a European site.

8.2 In-combination effects between RBD FRMPs The Humber RBD shares a border with five other RBDs:

 Northumbria to the north  Solway and Tweed to the north west (less than 15 miles bordering)  North West to the west  Severn to the south west  Anglian to the south east.

There are some European sites that span the borders of these Humber RBD borders.

In general more FRMP measures are located close to where the risks of flooding to people and property are greatest and as a result less are located close to the water shed margins of catchments that are the borders of RBDs. There are however, catchment or RBD wide measures that relate to these borders and often involve working with natural processes. At this level of the plan, the nature of such measures on any specific European sites that cross RBD borders are not sufficient to identify effects and such measures are considered to result in no likely significant effects to cross border European sites. Such effects may be important for lower tier plans and project level assessments to consider when more details of the measures and the effects are known.

8.3 In-combination effects with external plans Potential for in-combination effects with external plans will depend on the specific locations and design of actions or measures arising from the FRMP, external plan or project. Nevertheless, a number of plans that could give rise to projects that have the potential to contribute to an in-combination effect have been identified.

At this stage, given the uncertainty of location and design of measures in the FRMP, there is limited value in examining other plans in detail and speculating on where interactions might occur. The approach taken was to identify key plans that should be considered in the HRAs for projects or lower tier plans or strategies, as described below. However, this is not a definitive list; there are a range of plans and projects that will need to be taken account of in the HRAs for lower-tier plans projects, when considering potential in-combination effects.

8.3.1 Local Plans Local Plans set out a vision and a framework for the future development of the area, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities and infrastructure – as well as a basis for safeguarding the environment, adapting to climate change and securing good design. During their development and before they are adopted, plans will be subject to an HRA where there is the potential for significant effects on a European site or sites. Other local plans that may be relevant to also consider relate to transport, minerals and waste.

8.3.2 Water Resource Management Plans There are 4 water companies supplying the Humber RBD area. Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water between them cover the majority of the RBD area with South Staffordshire Water and Anglian Water also supplying some areas. Water companies are required to produce a Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) every 5 years which sets out the investment required to maintain water supply in their consumer area for the next 25 years.

Yorkshire Water WRMP

Yorkshire Water current WRMP was produced in 2014. Of the suite of schemes that form the preferred option of this plan, one scheme, the River Ouse raw water transfer scheme (D20) has the potential to impact on the Humber Estuary. The impact was identified on one Humber SAC interest feature, river and sea lamprey, who migrate up the River Ouse. The potential for this scheme to reduce dissolved oxygen levels in the water was highlighted as a potential mechanism for significant effects. The WRMP proposed that any additional raw water abstraction would be in the summer months, most likely June – September, which is outside of the spawning period for river lamprey, and overlaps by 1 month (June) with migratory sea lamprey.

The HRA concluded the adverse impacts would be minor adverse, as dissolved oxygen levels are not proved to impact on migratory routes, but that further work would be carried out at project level to further inform an assessment of the detailed impacts.

As the Humber FRMP proposes works on the banks of the tidal River Ouse, and schemes on the lower reaches of the River Hull, which is also a migratory route there is potential for cumulative effects with this WRMP. This would occur as a result of piling works or other physical works that further disturb lamprey on their migratory routes. Potential mitigation for this issue would be to ensure timing of works to prevent overlap of Yorkshire Water abstraction and Environment Agency bank works with the potential to impact on lamprey. This proposed mitigation would be further refined at the project level, as more detailed programmes of works are developed for both parties.

Severn Trent Water WRMP

Severn Trent Water supplies more than 4.2 million households and businesses in the Midlands and mid-Wales. There is currently sufficient water resource to meet customers’ needs.

In the short to medium term, the 2015 Severn Trent Water WRMP is driven by the need to address environmentally unsustainable levels of water abstraction through reducing the amount of water taken from the environment, by providing local environmental improvements and by providing alternative sources of water supply where necessary.

In the longer term, the WRMP deals with the significant uncertainties around the potential impacts of climate change on water resources. The company will continue with their long term drive to reduce the amount of water abstracted. The WRMP also includes investment to address asset deterioration as15% of water mains and 20% of sewers are more than 100 years old.

The WRMP HRA found that there were unlikely to be any significant effects on European sites from the WRMP, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Natural England and Natural Resources Wales were consulted during preparation of the HRA Screening Report.

South Staffordshire Water WRMP

South Staffordshire Water serves large parts of the Black Country, including Walsall, Sandwell and Dudley, together with areas such as Tamworth, Uttoxeter, Burton, Lichfield, Sutton Coldfield and Cannock and supply 330 million litres of water every day.

South Staffordshire Water currently maintains a surplus of supply over the expected demand for water and this will continue for the duration of the WRMP.

An SEA for the South Staffordshire Water WRMP was deemed not to be required. This was because there was no deficit in supply over the 25 year plan period and options for increased supply were not under consideration. This also meant that no HRA was undertaken.

Anglian Water WRMP

The company supplies water to approximately 2 million households in East Anglia, the adjacent areas of the South East, Midlands, Yorkshire, Humberside and to households in Hartlepool. Rainfall in their supply area is significantly less than the national average and their supply area is classed as an area of severe water stress. There are many wetland and conservation sites of national and international importance in their area. Safeguarding these vital assets and maintaining supplies to customers are the two objectives of the WRMP.

There are no European sites in the Anglian Water area of the Humber RBD although the Humber Estuary is adjacent to their area. The HRA for the 2015 Anglian Water WRMP concluded that the HRA demonstrated that with implementation of mitigation measures the WRMP preferred plan will not have adverse effects on site integrity of a European site.

8.3.3 River Basin Management Plans River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) set statutory objectives for river, lake, groundwater, estuarine and coastal water bodies and summarise the measures needed to achieve them. Because water is linked to land, they also inform decisions on land-use planning. The RBD that provides the spatial boundary for the FRMP is the same as that used for the RBMP. The planning timeframe is also the same, so the plan for the period 2015-21 is currently being prepared. Water-dependent European sites are designated as “Protected Areas” under the Water Framework Directive, and the RBMPs include measures to ensure that the objectives for these areas are achieved. While it is unlikely that the plan will result in a significant effect on a European site, an HRA is being undertaken to identify any risks and unanticipated effects. 8.3.4 Marine Plans Marine plans form part of a new plan-led system for marine activities, providing greater coherence in policy and a forward-looking, proactive and spatial planning approach to the management of the marine areas, their resources and the activities and interactions that take place within them. They provide policy and spatial guidance for an area and help ensure that decisions within a plan area contribute to delivery of national and area-specific policy objectives. All public authorities taking authorisation or enforcement decisions that affect - or might affect - the English marine area must do so in accordance with marine plans unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. The FRMP would only be expected to have interaction with the inshore plan.

East Marine Plans

The marine plans for the East Inshore and Offshore Marine Plan Areas were published by Defra in April 2014. A HRA was undertaken to identify whether the East Inshore and Offshore marine plans (alone, or in combination with other plans or projects) were likely to have a significant effect on any European sites, and, if so, whether they may have an adverse effect on the integrity of such sites.

The HRA concluded that application of two key mitigation measures outlined in the HRA, including future project level HRA, that the East Marine Plans would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of a European/Ramsar site either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects, subject to the application of appropriate mitigation measures. 9 Conclusion and Future HRAs

This HRA has been carried out at the level of published detail in the FRMP. For measures from existing plans, the HRA has summarised the results from existing HRAs of these plans. For any new strategic measures provided for the new FRMP cycle (2015-2021), the HRA has considered the effects at a strategic level, as local actions will be developed at lower tiers of plans or projects. The HRA has determined a conclusion for each of the 4 RMA plans: Humber RBD FRMP and the 3 FRA FRMPs: Kingston-upon-Hull and Haltemprice, West Midlands and Leicester Principal Urban Area. The HRA provides a basis to identify options to avoid or mitigate for impacts to give confidence that the plan can be screened as having no likely significant effect. The HRA also makes clear that these will require further case-specific consideration during determination of any authorisations or consents by the relevant competent authority as to their effects on European sites, and then inform the appropriate mechanisms to be applied to secure any mitigation required.

The strategic nature of the FRMP limits the extent to which in-combination effects can be considered. Nevertheless, the potential for in-combination effects has been considered and a summary of the plans that will be important for assessments at project level to consider have been identified.

The HRA conclusions for the FRMP is that there is sufficient scope for future avoidance and mitigation to have confidence that the plan can be screened out of any likely significant effects. This is based on controls already in place for measures from existing plans (with agreed HRAs and the necessary avoidance, mitigation or compensation secured), and controls that projects will have in place when developing local actions for any new strategic measures in the FRMP.

Future HRAs should make specific reference to this strategic-plan HRA for risks related to the ‘screened in’ measures where they are considered close enough to European sites to need detailed consideration at project level. Future HRAs should also make specific reference to HRAs for existing plans with agreed controls in place, and to any further controls and mitigation in this strategic HRA related to any new strategic developments for the new cycle of the FRMP.

This HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower-tier strategies, plans or projects that implement measures, including the need for detailed appropriate assessment where required.

ANNEX A

Table A1 HRA screening table for the FRMP measure categories

Measure Measure description Screened Justification code in or out M2 Prevention M21 Prevention, avoidance measure to prevent the location of new or additional Out Comprises prevention and avoidance measures receptors in flood prone areas such as land use planning policies or regulation therefore unlikely to result in physical intervention. M22 Prevention, removal or relocation measure to remove receptors from flood In Removal or relocation measures may involve prone areas or to relocate receptors to areas of lower risk physical intervention, with potential for effects on European sites where these interventions are in proximity. Screened in on a precautionary basis. M23 Prevention, reduction measures to adapt receptors to reduce the adverse Out Flood risk prevention / reduction / adaption to consequences in the event of a flood actions or buildings, public networks etc buildings etc will not result in physical interventions affecting European sites. M24 Prevention, other prevention measures to enhance flood risk prevention (may Out Flood risk modelling / assessment will not result in include flood risk modelling and assessment, flood vulnerability assessment, physical interventions affecting European sites. maintenance programmes or policies etc) M3 Protection M31 Natural flood management/run off and catchment management. Measures to In reduce the flow into natural or artificial drainage systems such as overland flow interceptors and/or storage, enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in- channel, flood plan works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. M32 Water flow regulation. Measures involving physical intervention to regulate In flows such as construction modification or removal of water retaining structures Measures comprise physical activities or (e.g. dams or other on-line storage areas) or development of existing flow interventions resulting in actual changes on the regulation rules and which have significant impact on the hydrological regime. ground or effects on flows / movement of water and M33 Channel, coastal and floodplain works. Measures involving physical In changes to physical processes. interventions to freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal water and flood prone areas of land, such as construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics, management dykes etc. M34 Surface water management measures involving physical interventions to In reduce surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively in an urban environment such as enhancing artificial drainage capacity or through SuDS M35 Other measures to enhance protection against flooding which may include In Measure Measure description Screened Justification code in or out flood defences, asset maintenance programmes or policies. M4 Preparedness M41 Flood forecasting and warning. Measures to establish or enhance a flood Out forecasting or warning system. M42 Emergency event response planning/contingency planning measures to Out establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response planning Measures do not comprise or result in physical M43 Public awareness and preparedness. Measures to establish the public Out changes or interventions. awareness or preparedness for flood events. M44 Other measures to establish or enhance preparedness for flood events to Out reduce adverse consequences. M5 Recovery and review M51 Recovery and review (planning for recovery and review phases is in principle Out part of preparedness) individual and society recovery, clean up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure etc). Health and mental health supporting Measures on the whole do not comprise or result in actions, inc managing stress disaster financial assistance (grants, tax) inc physical changes or interventions. Measures disaster legal assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, temporary or involving physical activity are focused on restoration permanent, relocation, other. at a local level, i.e. buildings etc., none of which M52 Environmental recovery, clean up and restoration activities (with several sub- Out considered likely to result in physical effects on topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous material European sites. containers). M53 Other recovery, review and lessons learnt from flood events, insurance Out policies. M6 Other M61 Other measures not fitting in to any of the other categories (M2-4) or their sub- In M61 code includes a variety of different kinds of categories. measures, but includes measures such as habitat creation, floodplain restoration, managed realignment. Therefore screened in on a precautionary basis.

Table A2 Management Catchments and European sites in the Humber RBD

Management European Site Managemen European Site Catchment t Catchment Aire and  Craven Limestone Complex SAC Derwent  Gang Mine SAC Calder  Denby Grange Colliery Ponds SAC Derbyshire  Peak District Dales SAC

 Malham Tarn Ramsar  Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors  North Pennine Dales Meadows SAC Phase 1) SPA  South Pennine Moors SAC  North Pennine Moors SAC  North Pennine Moors SPA  Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1) SPA  South Pennine Moors SAC  South Pennine Moors Phase 2 SPA

Derwent  Ellers Wood & Sand Dale SAC Don and  Humber Estuary Ramsar Humber  Fen Bog SAC Rother  Humber Estuary SAC  Flamborough Head SAC  Humber Estuary SPA  Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA  Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors  Lower Derwent Valley Ramsar Phase 1) SPA  Lower Derwent Valley SAC  South Pennine Moors SAC  Lower Derwent Valley SPA  Thorne & Hatfield Moors SPA  Thorne Moor SAC  North York Moors SAC  North York Moors SPA  River Derwent SAC  Skipwith Common SAC

Dove  Bees Nest & Green Clay Pits SAC Esk and  Arnecliff & Park Hole Woods SAC  Peak District Dales SAC Coast  Beast Cliff-Whitby (Robin Hood's Bay) SAC

 Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors  Fen Bog SAC Phase 1) SPA  North York Moors SAC  South Pennine Moors SAC  North York Moors SPA

Management European Site Managemen European Site Catchment t Catchment Hull and East  Flamborough Head SAC Idle and  Birklands & Bilhaugh SAC Riding  Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA Torne  Hatfield Moor SAC

 Hornsea Mere SPA  Humber Estuary Ramsar  Humber Estuary Ramsar  Humber Estuary SAC  Humber Estuary SAC  Thorne & Hatfield Moors SPA  Humber Estuary SPA  Thorne Moor SAC

 River Derwent SAC

Louth,  Humber Estuary Ramsar Lower Trent  Humber Estuary Ramsar Grimsby and  Humber Estuary SAC and Erewash  Humber Estuary SAC Ancholme  Humber Estuary SPA  Humber Estuary SPA

Swale, Ure,  Kirk Deighton SAC Tame, Anker  Cannock Extension Canal SAC Nidd and  North Pennine Dales Meadows SAC and Mease  Ensor's Pool SAC Upper Ouse  North Pennine Moors SAC  River Mease SAC

 North Pennine Moors SPA  North York Moors SAC  North York Moors SPA  Ox Close SAC  Strensall Common SAC

Staffordshire  Cannock Chase SAC Wharfe and  Craven Limestone Complex SAC Trent Valley  Cannock Extension Canal SAC Lower Ouse  North Pennine Dales Meadows SAC  Midland Meres & Mosses - Phase 1 Ramsar  North Pennine Moors SAC  Midland Meres & Mosses Phase 2 Ramsar  North Pennine Moors SPA  Mottey Meadows SAC  River Derwent SAC  Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC  Skipwith Common SAC  West Midlands Mosses SAC  South Pennine Moors SAC

 South Pennine Moors Phase 2 SPA

There are no European sites within the Soar management catchment. Table A3 Mitigation and Control Measures Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing flood Measures to address flooding from defence structures and main river channels / floodplain generally require planning permission from the local rivers (main river) planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

 Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Smaller scale measures for flood defence works, improvements or alterations to main river channels, and measures comprising maintenance, such as replacement, repair or refurbishment of existing structures, may not require planning permission, but fall under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effect is predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.

Measures to flooding from rivers  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing flood (ordinary watercourses) defence structures and ordinary watercourse river channels / floodplain generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main river requires Ordinary Watercourse Consent from either the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) or Internal Drainage Board (IDB). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the LLFA / IDB as competent authority.  Smaller scale measures for flood defence works, improvements or alterations to all other watercourses that aren’t main river, and measures comprising maintenance, such as replacement, repair or refurbishment of existing structures, may fall under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission. Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing coastal / Flooding from the Sea tidal flood defence structures and estuary / coastal frontage (above mean low water) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works below the mean high water spring tidal limit (including the waters of every estuary, river or channel where the tide flows up to the mean high water spring tide limit) require a Marine Works Licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application. The HRA is determined by the MMO as competent authority.  Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Maintaining coast protection works does not require a marine licence when carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency or a coast protection authority, provided the activity is carried out within the existing boundaries of the works being maintained. Some coast protection works maintenance activities also do not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing coastal / Coastal erosion tidal flood defence structures and estuary / coastal frontage (above mean low water) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works below the mean high water spring tidal limit require a Marine Works Licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application. The HRA is determined by the MMO as competent authority.  Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority. Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations  Maintaining coast protection works does not require a marine licence when carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency or a coast protection authority, provided the activity is carried out within the existing boundaries of the works being maintained. Some coast protection works maintenance activities also do not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures involving construction / creation of new, or changes to / alteration / improvement of existing structures Surface water flooding to address surface water flooding (e.g. culverts, drainage ditches / channels) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address surface water flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Defence Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river / ordinary watercourses).  Measures involving maintaining existing structures to address surface water flooding may not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures to address groundwater flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Groundwater flooding Defence Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river / ordinary watercourses).  Measures to address groundwater flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Defence Sewer flooding Consent / Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency / LLFA / IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main Flooding source Legal / consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations river / ordinary watercourses).  Measures to address sewer flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding involving the construction / creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding by sewerage undertakers may fall within their Permitted Development powers under authority The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  New reservoirs / impounding structures, or alterations or removals of existing structures, require an Impoundment Flooding from reservoirs Licence from the Environment Agency (Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by Water Act 2003), Environment Act 1995, Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the licensing application process, with HRA determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Measures involving construction / creation of new reservoirs / impounding structures, or changes to / alteration / of existing structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority. Annex B – Humber RBD European sites

Site ID Name of Site Designation UK0030142 ARNECLIFF & PARK HOLE WOODS# SAC UK0030086 BEAST CLIFF-WHITBY (ROBIN HOOD'S BAY)# SAC UK0030087 BEES NEST & GREEN CLAY PITS# SAC UK0012740 BIRKLANDS & BILHAUGH SAC UK0030107 CANNOCK CHASE# SAC UK0012672 CANNOCK EXTENSION CANAL# SAC UK0014776 CRAVEN LIMESTONE COMPLEX# SAC UK0030036 DENBY GRANGE COLLIERY PONDS# SAC UK0030039 ELLERS WOOD & SAND DALE# SAC UK0012646 ENSOR'S POOL# SAC UK0030332 FEN BOG# SAC UK0013036 FLAMBOROUGH HEAD# SAC UK9006101 FLAMBOROUGH HEAD & BEMPTON CLIFFS# SPA UK0012817 GANG MINE SAC UK0030166 HATFIELD MOOR# SAC UK9006171 HORNSEA MERE# SPA UK0030170 HUMBER ESTUARY# SAC UK9006111 HUMBER ESTUARY# SPA UK11031 HUMBER ESTUARY Ramsar UK0030178 KIRK DEIGHTON# SAC UK0012844 LOWER DERWENT VALLEY# SAC UK9006092 LOWER DERWENT VALLEY# SPA UK11037 LOWER DERWENT VALLEY Ramsar UK11038 MALHAM TARN Ramsar UK11043 MIDLAND MERES & MOSSES - PHASE 1 Ramsar UK11080 MIDLAND MERES & MOSSES PHASE 2 Ramsar UK0030051 MOTTEY MEADOWS# SAC UK0014775 NORTH PENNINE DALES MEADOWS SAC UK0030033 NORTH PENNINE MOORS SAC UK9006272 NORTH PENNINE MOORS SPA UK0030228 NORTH YORK MOORS# SAC UK9006161 NORTH YORK MOORS# SPA UK0030234 OX CLOSE SAC UK0012789 PASTUREFIELDS SALT MARSH# SAC UK0019859 PEAK DISTRICT DALES# SAC UK9007021 PEAK DISTRICT MOORS (SOUTH PENNINE MOORS PHASE 1)# SPA UK0030253 RIVER DERWENT# SAC UK0030258 RIVER MEASE# SAC UK0030276 SKIPWITH COMMON# SAC UK0030280 SOUTH PENNINE MOORS# SAC UK9007022 SOUTH PENNINE MOORS PHASE 2# SPA UK0030284 STRENSALL COMMON# SAC UK9005171 THORNE & HATFIELD MOORS SPA UK0012915 THORNE MOOR# SAC UK0013595 WEST MIDLANDS MOSSES# SAC

# Denotes if the site is a WFD: Natura 2000 protected area site. *Area denoted is for the entire designated area rather than the area within the RBD boundary.

www.gov.uk/environment-agency

LIT 10245