DOCSLIB.ORG

Manston Airport Report to Inform the Appropriate Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

RiverOak Strategic Partners Limited Manston Airport Report to Inform the Appropriate Assessment July 2018 Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Report for Copyright and non-disclosure notice RiverOak Strategic Partners The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by Amec Foster Wheeler (© Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2016) save to the extent that copyright has been legally assigned by us to Main contributors another party or is used by Amec Foster Wheeler under licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in this report. The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or Issued by copied to third parties without the prior written agreement of Amec Foster Wheeler. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may ................................................................................. otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below. Approved by Third-party disclaimer ................................................................................. Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to Amec Foster Wheeler any third party who is able to access it by any means. Amec Foster Wheeler excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever 12th Floor, arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not 25 Canada Square, however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or Canary Wharf, death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other London matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability. E14 5LQ Phone: 020 3215 1700 Management systems Doc Ref. 38199CR056i1 This document has been produced by Amec Foster Wheeler h:\projects\40820 sth manston airport post application\d Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited in full compliance with design\examination\00 deadlines\d1\draft 2\app-044\appendix the management systems, which have been certified to ISO 7.1 riaa_v2.doc 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 by LRQA. Document revisions No. Details Date 1 Draft 09/10/2017 2 Draft (version 2) 04/01/2018 3 Draft (version 3) 16/02/2018 4 Final March 2018 5 Final Issue 2 July 2018 July 2018 Doc Ref. 38199CR056i1 3 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Contents 1. Introduction 6 1.1 Background to and Purpose of this Report 6 1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment 7 1.3 Consultation 8 2. Methodology 9 2.1 HRA Screening (Stage 1) 9 2.1.1 Process Outline 9 2.1.2 Identifying In-Combination Effects, and Other Plans or Projects for Inclusion (Step 2, Stage 1) 9 2.1.3 Identification of the European Sites that Could Be Affected by the Proposed Development and Other Plans/Projects (Step 3, Stage 1) 10 2.1.4 Determining LSEs (Step 4, Stage 1) 11 2.2 Appropriate Assessment (Stage 2) 12 3. HRA Screening (Stage 1) 13 3.1 Step 1: Relationship Between the Proposed Development and the Conservation Management of European Sites 13 3.2 Step 2: Description of the Proposed Development 13 3.2.1 Description of the Site and the Surrounding Area 13 3.2.2 Summary Description of the Proposed Development 14 3.2.3 DCO Programme and Project Delivery 14 3.2.4 Other Developments and Plans 15 3.3 Step 3: Identification of Potential Effects on European Sites from the Proposed Development and Other Developments and Plans 15 3.3.1 Scope of Screening Principles 15 3.3.2 European Sites Included for Assessment 16 3.3.3 Identification of Potential Impacts 17 3.3.4 Screening Opinion and Consultation 18 3.3.5 Evidence Base 19 3.3.6 Identification of Geographical Parameters to Screen European Sites 20 3.3.7 Screening Summary 26 3.4 Step 4: Screening Assessment of Likely Significant Effects 26 4. Appropriate Assessment (Stage 2) 37 4.2 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA - Golden Plover (non-breeding) 39 4.2.2 Current Baseline 40 4.2.3 Future Baseline 44 4.2.4 Predicted Adverse Effects 44 4.2.5 In-combination Effects 51 4.3 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA – Little Tern (Breeding) 52 4.3.1 Current Baseline 52 4.3.2 Future Baseline 53 4.3.3 Predicted Adverse Effects 53 4.3.4 In-combination Effects 54 4.4 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA/ Ramsar - Turnstone (Non-Breeding) 55 4.4.1 Current Baseline 55 4.4.2 Future Baseline 56 4.4.3 Predicted Adverse Effects 56 4.4.4 In-combination Effects 57 4.5 Sandwich Bay SAC – Annex I habitats 57 4.5.1 Current Baseline 57 January 2019 Doc Ref. 38199CR056i1 4 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 4.5.2 Future Baseline 59 4.5.3 Predicted Adverse Effects 60 4.5.4 In-Combination Effects 63 4.6 Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar – Invertebrates 64 4.6.1 Current Baseline 64 4.6.2 Future Baseline 64 4.6.3 Predicted Adverse Effects 64 4.6.4 In-Combination Effects 65 5. Conclusions 66 6. References 67 Matrix Key: 4 Stage 1, Matrix A: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA 5 Evidence supporting conclusions 5 Stage 1, Matrix B: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar 6 Evidence supporting conclusions 6 Stage 1, Matrix C: Thanet Coast SAC 7 Evidence supporting conclusions 7 Stage 1, Matrix D: Sandwich Bay SAC 8 Evidence supporting conclusions 8 Stage 1, Matrix E: Outer Thames Estuary SPA 9 Evidence supporting conclusions 9 Stage 1, Matrix F: Margate and Long Sands SAC 10 Evidence supporting conclusions 10 Stage 1, Matrix G: Stodmarsh SPA 11 Evidence supporting conclusions 12 Stage 1, Matrix H: Stodmarsh SAC 13 Evidence supporting conclusions 13 Stage 1, Matrix I: Stodmarsh Ramsar 14 Evidence supporting conclusions 15 Stage 1, Matrix J: Blean Complex SAC 16 Evidence supporting conclusions 16 Potential Impacts 2 Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment Matrices 4 Stage 2, Matrix A: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay SPA 5 Evidence supporting conclusions 5 Stage 2, Matrix B: Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Ramsar 6 Evidence supporting conclusions 6 Stage 2, Matrix C: Sandwich Bay SAC 7 Evidence supporting conclusions 7 Table 1.1 HRA Consultation 8 Table 3.1 Identification of Geographic Parameters for HRA Screening of the Proposed Development 22 Table 3.2 Screening Assessment 28 Table 4.1 European Sites and their Qualifying Features, Taken Forward for Detailed Assessment 38 Table 4.2 Golden plover Populations and Selection Thresholds 40 Table 4.3 Peak Monthly Counts of Golden Plover in Pegwell Bay, from Winters 2000/01-2014/15 42 Table 4.4 Peak Counts of Turnstone from 2008/09 – 2012/13 for Pegwell Bay and the Thanet Coast 55 Table A.1 Impacts Considered within the Screening Matrices 2 Table B.1 European Sites (and Qualifying Interest Features) within 15km of the Order Limits 2 Table C.1 Consultee Comments to Scoping Report and 2017 PEIR 2 Table C.2 Consultee Comments to 2018 PEIR 5 Table E.1 Impacts considered within the Appropriate Assessment matrices 2 January 2019 Doc Ref. 38199CR056i1 5 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited Figure 3.1 European sites within 15km of the Order Limits Figure 4.1a Daytime noise levels at or above 80 dB (LAmax) Figure 4.1b Night time noise levels at or above 80 dB (LAmax) Figure 4.2a Daytime noise levels at or above 70 dB (LAmax) Figure 4.2b Night time noise levels at or above 70 dB (LAmax) Figure 4.3 Functional Habitat Survey 2016/17: peak counts of golden plover Figure 4.4 Pegwell Bay Distribution Survey 2016/17: peak counts of golden plover Figure 4.5 Henderson & Sutherland (2017): peak counts of golden plover in winter 2016/17 Figure 4.6 Proposed flights lines of aircraft under 500m in altitude Figure 4.7 Pegwell Bay Distribution Survey 2016/17: peak counts of turnstone Figure 4.8 Sandwich Bay SAC – extent of the Priority Habitat, sand dunes Appendix A Screening Matrices (Stage 1) Potential Impacts Appendix B Designation Information Appendix C Scoping Opinion, Consultee Responses Appendix D Conservation Objectives Appendix E Appropriate Assessment Matrices (Stage 2) January 2019 Doc Ref. 38199CR056i1 6 © Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 1. Introduction 1.1 Background to and Purpose of this Report 1.1.1.1 This Report forms one of a suite of documents, which together support and explain in detail the content and nature of RiverOak Strategic Partners (hereafter referred to as ‘RiverOak’) Development Consent Order (DCO) application in respect of the Manston Airport Project (the ‘Proposed Development’); the proposals and their policy context are more fully described in the Planning Statement (Environment Statement [ES] Chapter 4: Planning Policy Context) and related supporting documentation accompanying the DCO application. The description for the Proposed Development is provided in ES Chapter 3: Description of the Proposed Development. This report is an appendix (Appendix 7.1) to ES Chapter 7: Biodiversity. 1.1.1.2 RiverOak is seeking a DCO (incorporating powers of compulsory acquisition of interests and rights in land) to acquire, re-develop and re-open Manston Airport in Ramsgate, Kent.
Recommended publications
  • Landscape Assessment of Kent 2004

    Landscape Assessment of Kent 2004

    CHILHAM: STOUR VALLEY Location map: CHILHAMCHARACTER AREA DESCRIPTION North of Bilting, the Stour Valley becomes increasingly enclosed. The rolling sides of the valley support large arable fields in the east, while sweeps of parkland belonging to Godmersham Park and Chilham Castle cover most of the western slopes. On either side of the valley, dense woodland dominate the skyline and a number of substantial shaws and plantations on the lower slopes reflect the importance of game cover in this area. On the valley bottom, the river is picked out in places by waterside alders and occasional willows. The railway line is obscured for much of its length by trees. STOUR VALLEY Chilham lies within the larger character area of the Stour Valley within the Kent Downs AONB. The Great Stour is the most easterly of the three rivers cutting through the Downs. Like the Darent and the Medway, it too provided an early access route into the heart of Kent and formed an ancient focus for settlement. Today the Stour Valley is highly valued for the quality of its landscape, especially by the considerable numbers of walkers who follow the Stour Valley Walk or the North Downs Way National Trail. Despite its proximity to both Canterbury and Ashford, the Stour Valley retains a strong rural identity. Enclosed by steep scarps on both sides, with dense woodlands on the upper slopes, the valley is dominated by intensively farmed arable fields interspersed by broad sweeps of mature parkland. Unusually, there are no electricity pylons cluttering the views across the valley. North of Bilting, the river flows through a narrow, pastoral floodplain, dotted with trees such as willow and alder and drained by small ditches.
  • Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan

    Download Kent Biodiversity Action Plan

    The Kent Biodiversity Action Plan A framework for the future of Kent’s wildlife Produced by Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group © Kent Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group, 1997 c/o Kent County Council Invicta House, County Hall, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1XX. Tel: (01622) 221537 CONTENTS 1. BIODIVERSITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KENT PLAN 1 1.1 Conserving Biodiversity 1 1.2 Why have a Kent Biodiversity Action Plan? 1 1.3 What is a Biodiversity Action Plan? 1.4 The approach taken to produce the Kent Plan 2 1.5 The Objectives of the Kent BAP 2 1.6 Rationale for selection of habitat groupings and individual species for plans 3 2. LINKS WITH OTHER INITIATIVES 7 2.1 Local Authorities and Local Agenda 21 7 2.2 English Nature's 'Natural Areas Strategy' 9 3. IMPLEMENTATION 10 3.1 The Role of Lead Agencies and Responsible Bodies 10 3.2 The Annual Reporting Process 11 3.3 Partnerships 11 3.4 Identifying Areas for Action 11 3.5 Methodology for Measuring Relative Biodiversity 11 3.6 Action Areas 13 3.7 Taking Action Locally 13 3.8 Summary 14 4. GENERIC ACTIONS 15 2.1 Policy 15 2.2 Land Management 16 2.3 Advice/Publicity 16 2.4 Monitoring and Research 16 5. HABITAT ACTION PLANS 17 3.1 Habitat Action Plan Framework 18 3.2 Habitat Action Plans 19 Woodland & Scrub 20 Wood-pasture & Historic Parkland 24 Old Orchards 27 Hedgerows 29 Lowland Farmland 32 Urban Habitats 35 Acid Grassland 38 Neutral & Marshy Grassland 40 Chalk Grassland 43 Heathland & Mire 46 Grazing Marsh 49 Reedbeds 52 Rivers & Streams 55 Standing Water (Ponds, ditches & dykes, saline lagoons, lakes & reservoirs) 58 Intertidal Mud & Sand 62 Saltmarsh 65 Sand Dunes 67 Vegetated Shingle 69 Maritime Cliffs 72 Marine Habitats 74 6.
  • Kentish Stour Catchment Management P Consultation

    Kentish Stour Catchment Management P Consultation

    NRA Southern 11 National Rivers Author'u Informatlcn Centre KENTISH STOUR Head Office CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT P Class N o---------------------- CONSULTATION REPORT Accession No J).QhLOf.___ NRA National Rivers Authority Southern Region MISSION STATEMENT The NRA’s mission is : "We will protect and improve the water environment by the effective management of water resources and by substantial reductions in pollution. We will aim to provide effective defence for people and property against flooding from rivers and the sea. In discharging our duties we will operate openly and balance the interests of all who benefit from and use rivers, groundwaters, estuaries, and coastal waters. We will be businesslike, efficient and caring towards our employees”. Our Aims are to : Achieve a continuing overall improvement in the quality of rivers, estuaries and coastal waters, through the control of pollution. Manage water resources to achieve the right balance between the needs of the environment and those of the abstractors. Provide effective defence for people and property against flooding from rivers and the sea. Provide adequate arrangements for flood forecasting and warning. Maintain, improve and develop fisheries. Develop the amenity and recreation potential of inland and coastal waters and associated lands. Conserve and enhance wildlife, landscape and archaeological features associated with inland and coastal waters of England and Wales. Improve and maintain inland waters and their facilities for use by the public where the NRA is the navigation authority. Ensure that dischargers pay the costs of the consequences of their discharges, and, as far as possible, to recover the costs of environment improvements from those who benefit.
  • River Stour (Kent) Internal Drainage Board Biodiversity Action Plan 2021

    River Stour (Kent) Internal Drainage Board Biodiversity Action Plan 2021

    River Stour (Kent) InternalRiver Drainage Board – Biodiversity Stour Action Plan (Kent) Internal Drainage Board Stodmarsh National Nature Reserve Biodiversity Action Plan 2021-2025 1 River Stour (Kent) Internal Drainage Board – Biodiversity Action Plan 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. What is Biodiversity and why is it important? ....................................................................... 1 1.2. Legislative Background ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Policy & Strategic Background.............................................................................................. 2 1.4. Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.5. Vision ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.6. Aims ....................................................................................................................................... 3 2. The IDB BAP Process ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.1. The Biodiversity Audit............................................................................................................ 5 2.2. Objectives, Targets and Actions
  • South-East England: Lowestoft to Dungeness

    South-East England: Lowestoft to Dungeness

    Coasts and seas of the United Kingdom Region 7 South-east England: Lowestoft to Dungeness edited by J.H. Barne, C.F. Robson, S.S. Kaznowska, J.P. Doody, N.C. Davidson & A.L. Buck Joint Nature Conservation Committee Monkstone House, City Road Peterborough PE1 1JY UK ©JNCC 1998 This volume has been produced by the Coastal Directories Project of the JNCC on behalf of the Project Steering Group. JNCC Coastal Directories Project Team Project directors Dr J.P. Doody, Dr N.C. Davidson Project management and co-ordination J.H. Barne, C.F. Robson Editing and publication S.S. Kaznowska, A.L. Buck Administration & editorial assistance J. Plaza, P.A. Smith, N.M. Stevenson The project receives guidance from a Steering Group which has more than 200 members. More detailed information and advice comes from the members of the Core Steering Group, which is composed as follows: Dr J.M. Baxter Scottish Natural Heritage R.J. Bleakley Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland R. Bradley The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales Dr J.P. Doody Joint Nature Conservation Committee B. Empson Environment Agency C. Gilbert Kent County Council & National Coasts and Estuaries Advisory Group N. Hailey English Nature Dr K. Hiscock Joint Nature Conservation Committee Prof. S.J. Lockwood Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences C.R. Macduff-Duncan Esso UK (on behalf of the UK Offshore Operators Association) Dr D.J. Murison Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment & Fisheries Department Dr H.J. Prosser Welsh Office Dr J.S. Pullen WWF UK (Worldwide Fund for Nature) Dr P.C.

  • Kent Rare Plant Register Draft Species Accounts Part D

    1 Kent Rare Plant Register Draft species accounts Part D Compiled by Geoffrey Kitchener and the Kent Botanical Recording Group Issue date: February 2018 2 Kent rare plant register This section of the register covers: Dactylorhiza incarnata Dactylorhiza maculata Daucus carota subsp. gummifer Descurainia sophia Dianthus armeria Dianthus deltoides Dipsacus pilosus Drosera rotundifolia Dryopteris aemula It is issued in draft, pending further development. Records, photographs and information regarding the Kentish occurrences of these plants will be welcome. The register accounts give priority to data from 2010 onwards, but some historic data are also included (however, in the data tables, generally no specific sites without post-1970 records) so as to indicate trends and where the plant may yet be discovered or rediscovered See the Kent webpage of the BSBI website at http://www.bsbi.org.uk/kent.html for: the full Kent rare plant register list the introduction to the register a list of ‘probably extinct’ Kent plants. Abbreviations used in the text: Recorders’ initials: JA Jan Armishaw RC Ray Clarke JBe Jim Bevan RF Rosemary FitzGerald AB Alan Blackman JBel J. Belsey RMB Rodney Burton BD Mrs B. Dodds JB John Badmin RR Rosemary Roberts BH Betsy Hewson JP Joyce Pitt SH Sam Hartley BW Brian Woodhams JRP John Palmer SB Sue Buckingham CC Chris Cook JT John Taplin SK Sarah Kitchener CR Chris Rose JW Jo Weightman SM S. Steve McArragher DJ David Johnson LH Lorna Holland SW Steve Weeks DM Daphne Mills LR Lliam Rooney PW Philip Wilson DS David Steere MGa Megan Gasson WHG W.H.
  • Kent Botany 2016 Continues the Series of Annual Reports of Botanical Developments in Kent

    Kent Botany 2016 Continues the Series of Annual Reports of Botanical Developments in Kent

    0 KKeenntt BBoottaannyy 22001166 1 Kent Botany 2016 Contents Page Introduction 1 Plant records: selection criteria and recorders 2 Plant records for East Kent (vice county 15) 4 Plant records for West Kent (vice county 16) 15 References 29 Compiled by Geoffrey Kitchener (February 2017, web version 1) Front cover: gametophytes of Trichomanes speciosum (Killarney Fern) at Hungershall Rocks. Photo 20 March 2016 © Stephen Lemon. Introduction Kent Botany 2016 continues the series of annual reports of botanical developments in Kent. It is issued primarily as a web version, maintained on the Kent page of the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland (BSBI) website, http://www.bsbi.org.uk/ and this should be regarded as the definitive version. The web version is more extensively illustrated than the hard copy version issued in the Kent Field Club Bulletin, but the text in both cases is substantially similar. Highlights Highlights for 2016 included the following. Carex x prolixa, a very rare hybrid between two rare plant register sedge species, was found at Preston Marshes. Lotus angustissimus (Slender Bird's-foot-trefoil), feared extinct in Kent, has been sighted in quantity. Trichomanes speciosum (Killarney Fern), in its gametophyte form, was discovered, new to Kent, in several Wealden sandrock outcrops. Eight taxa new to East Kent (vice county 15) and a similar number new to West Kent (vice county 16) were recorded. Recording in Kent, 2016 Recording priorities were re-set at the Kent Botanical Recording Group (KBRG) AGM on 2 April. The existing target of good county recording coverage for the period 2010-19 inclusive would be maintained (the period is a BSBI ‘date class’ which would enable comparison with other date classes, to identify trends in plant distribution).
  • Local Environment Agency Plan (LEAP) Consultation Draft

    Local Environment Agency Plan (LEAP) Consultation Draft

    Southern Southern LEAPs local environment agency plan KENTISH STOUR ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW MAY 1999 Kentish Stour Area Key Details General Conservation Area (sq km) 1081 Sites of Special Scientific Interest 31 Water Dependant SSSIs 14 Administrative Details National Nature Reserves 3 Councils and the % of the Kent area they Ramsar or Special Protection Areas 4 administer Water dependent Special Areas of Ashford 21.8 Conservation 2 Canterbury 23.4 Sites of Nature Conservation Interest 18 Dover 29.7 Maidstone 1.5 Fisheries Shepway 13.0 Length of EC Designated Fisheries (km): Swale 0.6 Freshwater Thanet 10 Cyprinid 36.6 Salmonoid 4.5 Population Year Population Water Quality 1991 452 000 River Ecosystem Classification as % of the 2001 (Estimate) 476 400 Stour catchment between 1995-1997 Class RE1 0 Water Resources RE2 37.33 Rainfall (mm/yr) RE3 50.34 Average 246 RE4 1.90 Drought Conditions 125 RE5 10.43 Number of licensed Abstractions Chemical GQA as % of sites in each class for Surface Water 216 the Stour catchment Ground Water 127 Class Impoundments 2 A 2.94 B 61.01 C 2.61 Flood Defence D 9.71 Coastline including main tidal waters E 0 80.6 Number of EC Designated Main River including main tidal lengths Bathing Waters 12 254.6 Sea Defences Agency Responsibility Pollution Prevention and Control 17.9 Licensed Waste Sites 47 Tidal Banks Agency Responsibility Processed Industry Regulations 7 38.1 Radioactive Substance Regulations 10 (sites authorised to accumulate and dispose of radioactive waste) “Maps are reproduced from Ordanance Survey 1:50, 000 scale map by the Environment Agency with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
  • Canterbury Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal

    Canterbury Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal

    Canterbury Landscape Character and Biodiversity Appraisal DRAFT August 2012 Copyright Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited. All rights reserved. This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Engineering U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document.
  • Ministry of Defence

    Ministry of Defence

    Ministry of Defence SSSI unit condition (ha) UNFAVOURABLE UNFAVOURABLE NO UNFAVOURABLE Percent SSSI held by SSSI name Whole SSSI area (ha) FAVOURABLE PART DESTROYED DESTROYED MoD area RECOVERING CHANGE DECLINING MoD ALKHAM, LYDDEN AND SWINGFIELD WOODS 228.33 99.1 7.5 106.6 46.69% APPLEBY FELLS 10,693.02 453.7 4,532.2 4,985.8 46.63% ASH TO BROOKWOOD HEATHS 1,576.12 482.4 830.8 94.4 1,407.6 89.31% ASHDOWN FOREST 3,209.28 92.0 201.1 293.1 9.13% BARNHAMCROSS COMMON 69.08 0.1 0.1 0.16% BARROW BURN MEADOWS 5.18 2.9 2.3 5.2 100.00% BARROW MEADOW 5.67 5.6 5.6 99.29% BASINGSTOKE CANAL 101.15 5.3 8.6 19.1 0.2 33.1 32.76% BENFLEET AND SOUTHEND MARSHES 2,373.69 98.6 98.6 4.15% BILLSMOOR PARK AND GRASSLEES WOOD 112.58 4.3 0.3 4.6 4.09% BIRKLANDS AND BILHAUGH 505.73 206.1 1.5 207.6 41.05% BIRKLANDS WEST AND OLLERTON CORNER 414.64 61.7 6.6 68.2 16.46% BLANDFORD CAMP 28.69 3.6 25.1 28.7 99.97% BOURLEY AND LONG VALLEY 823.90 7.1 783.1 32.1 822.3 99.80% BOWES MOOR 4,489.89 0.3 0.3 0.01% BOWNESS COMMON 803.29 26.5 26.5 3.30% BOX MINE 58.74 0.2 0.2 0.39% BRADENHAM WOODS, PARK WOOD & THE COPPICE 134.93 0.0 0.0 0.01% BRAMSHOTT AND LUDSHOTT COMMONS 371.14 0.3 102.2 102.5 27.61% BRATTON DOWNS 400.08 119.1 44.7 0.2 0.0 164.1 41.01% BRAUNTON BURROWS 1,339.74 1.2 589.8 9.0 600.0 44.78% BRECKLAND FARMLAND 13,392.58 1,552.4 1,552.4 11.59% BRECKLAND FOREST 18,126.08 462.5 462.5 2.55% BRIDGHAM & BRETTENHAM HEATHS 441.70 200.9 200.9 45.48% BROADMOOR TO BAGSHOT WOODS AND HEATHS 1,696.33 81.2 495.7 576.9 34.01% BROWNDOWN 66.47 61.4 61.4 92.36% BROXHEAD AND KINGSLEY COMMONS
  • Landscape Assessment of Kent Volume 3

    Landscape Assessment of Kent Volume 3

    NORTH DARENT: DARENT VALLEY PHOTOGRAPH CONTEXT Regional: Kent Downs AONB Condition CONSERVE & REINFORCE CONSERVE good REINFORCE CREATE & CONSERVE & CONSERVE & moderate REINFORCE CREATE RESTORE RESTORE & CREATE RESTORE CREATE poor low moderate high CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES Rural and secluded. Intensively farmed scarp foot with hedges and shaws. Thick belts of trees along valley bottom along river, rail and road. Sensitivity Unenclosed pasture and chalky arable fields in the north - occasional woods and overgrown hedges. Urban influences - horseyculture and golf courses. LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS Condition Condition Moderate. This open valley is rural and is coherent as an intensively farmed chalk scarp foot with Pattern of elements: Coherent. pastures on the higher slopes. In the lower valley, fragmented and mixed land use, in addition to the well-vegetated rail corridor disturbs the visual unity of the area, however, Detracting features: Few. there are few really detracting features. Hedgerows to the upper pastures are also Visual Unity: Unified. fragmented and wooded ridges are receding. Due to the intensity of the land use, and the changing cultural perspective of land used for amenity use such as a golf course, the cultural Cultural integrity: Variable. integrity of the area is moderate, and the ecological integrity is weak. Ecological integrity: Weak. Functional Integrity: Weak. Sensitivity Sensitivity Very High. The wide curve of the valley is a dominant element in this area, which is has a mixed use Distinctiveness: Unique/Rare. and an intermittent tree cover. Visibility is high. The rural landscape has many historic elements. Exceptional mill villages clustered on the Continuity: Historic. river and farms scattered throughout the valley frequently display vernacular building styles Sense of Place: Strong.
  • Manston Airport Development Consent Order

    Manston Airport Development Consent Order

    Manston Airport Development Consent Order Preliminary Environmental Information Report Volume 2: Biodiversity, Freshwater Environment, Historic Environment, Land Quality and LVIA June 2017 For consultation Scheme Name Manston Airport DCO Promoter’s Name RiverOak Strategic Partners Author Amec Foster Wheeler Document Number TR020002/SC/02/2 2 2017 Consultation Suite of Consultation Documents 1.1 As part of the statutory consultation under section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 a suite of consultation documents relating to the proposal to reopen Manston Airport is available to the public. Together these documents give an overview of the development proposals including information on the potential benefits and impacts of the Project, environmental considerations and the business case. The documents also provide further information on the consultation process and enable the public to submit their feedback. 1.2 This consultation also forms part of RiverOak’s initial engagement on the design of airspace and procedures associated with the airport. As such it is an opportunity for members of the community to highlight any factors which they believe RiverOak should take into account during that design phase. Having taken all such factors into account, the subsequent proposals for flightpaths and airspace will be subject to a separate round of consultation once the DCO application has been made. 1.3 The suite of consultation documents includes: 1. a Consultation Leaflet giving an overview of the proposals and details of where more information about the Project can be found; 2. a Feedback Form in order to collect responses to the consultation; 3. an Overview Report giving a summary of the proposals including the potential benefits and impacts of the Project, how we propose to mitigate against potential impacts, and a non-technical summary of the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR); 4.