DOCSLIB.ORG

Habitats Regulations Assessment of Local Plan Review Pre-Submission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Habitats Regulations Assessment of Local Plan Review Pre-Submission HRA of Purbeck Local Plan Revised Housing Options Habitats Regulations Assessment of Local Plan Review pre-submission Durwyn Liley, Phil Saunders and Zoe Caals FOOTPRINT ECOLOGY, FOREST OFFICE, BERE ROAD, WAREHAM, DORSET BH20 7PA WWW.FOOTPRINT - ECOLOGY.CO.UK 01929 552444 Footprint Contract Reference: 542 Date: 27h May 2021 Version: Final Recommended Citation: Liley, D., Saunders, P., and Caals, Z. (2020). Habitats Regulations Assessment of the at pre-submission. Unpublished report by Footprint Ecology. 2 R e v i e w Summary This report provides the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Local Plan Review at pre-submission. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) require local authorities to assess the impact of their local plan on the internationally important sites for biodiversity in and around their administrative areas. Together, these Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites are known as European sites. The task is achieved by means of a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). An HRA asks very specific questions of a plan. Firstly, it ‘screens’ the plan to identify if there is a risk that certain policies or allocations may have a ‘likely significant effect’ on a European site, alone or (if necessary) in-combination with other plans and projects. If the risk of likely significant effects can be ruled out, then the plan may be adopted but if they cannot, the plan must be subjected to the greater scrutiny of an ‘appropriate assessment’ to find out if the plan will have an ‘adverse effect on the integrity’ of the European sites. Following an appropriate assessment, a Plan may only be adopted if an adverse effect on the integrity of the site can be ruled out. If necessary, a plan should be amended to avoid or mitigate any likely conflicts. The King’s Lynn and West Norfolk area holds a number of European sites and these support a wide range of qualifying features. The screening for likely significant effects identified likely significant effects relating to: • Loss of supporting habitat/functionally-linked land (Breckland SPA, Ouse Washes SPA/Ramsar, the North Norfolk Coast SPA/Ramsar and the Wash SPA/Ramsar); • General urban effects and avoidance of buildings by Stone Curlew (Breckland SAC/SPA, North Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC/Ramsar, Ouse Washes SPA/Ramsar) • Recreation impacts (Breckland SPA/SAC, Ouse Washes SPA/Ramsar, Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, Roydon Common & Dersingham Bog SAC, Roydon Common Ramsar, Dersingham Bog Ramsar, The Wash SPA/Ramsar, North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA/Ramsar and The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC) • Water-related impacts (River Wensum SAC, Ouse Washes SAC/SPA/Ramsar, the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, Breckland SAC, Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog SAC, Roydon Common Ramsar, Dersingham Bog Ramsar, North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA/Ramsar, The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC and the Wash SPA/Ramsar); • Air quality (Roydon Common & Dersingham Bog SAC, Dersingham Bog Ramsar, North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA/Ramsar, The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC, Breckland SAC/SPA and the Ouse Washes SAC/SPA). 3 R e v i e w These topics were taken to appropriate assessment. With respect to the loss of supporting habitat/functionally-linked land, there are a number of wide ranging bird species that are qualifying features of a number of European sites within or close to the Borough. There are risks from development leading to loss of supporting habitat that is functionally linked to the European site. We identify two locations where a need for project level HRA has been identified and is highlighted in the Plan. With the protective wording in place, adverse effects can be ruled out alone and in-combination given the scale of development and the allocation sites, all of which have been checked using GIS, knowledge of the relevant areas and the ecology of the bird interest. General urban effects and avoidance of buildings by Stone Curlews relates to issues with development in close proximity to European site boundaries. In terms of Breckland SPA and Stone Curlews, the avoidance of areas by birds due to the effect of buildings is addressed in Policy LP27 which limits growth within 1500m of the SPA unless particular criteria are met, such as the development is fully within an existing urban area. Only two allocations are within 1500m of the SPA; these are both at Feltwell (G35.1 and G35.3), and comply with the protective policy. A review of allocations outside the 1500m zone but within the potential area where development could impact on Stone Curlews that are using areas outside the SPA boundary indicates no risks. The policy ensures cumulative impacts are addressed and ensures in-combination effects can be ruled out. Checks for all relevant European sites for housing growth within 400m indicates very low levels of growth and all allocation sites have been checked. The scale of growth and locations involved mean that adverse effects on integrity from urban effects can be ruled out for all European sites, alone or in-combination. There is no need for mitigation. In terms of impacts from increased recreation, adverse effects on integrity in the absence of any mitigation could not be ruled out for Breckland SPA/SAC; Roydon Common & Dersingham Bog SAC, Roydon Common Ramsar, Dersingham Bog SAC; The Ouse Washes SPA/SAC/Ramsar; The North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA/Ramsar, the North Norfolk Coast & the Wash SAC, The Wash SPA/Ramsar. Risks relate to the overall quantum of growth within the Plan and the potential in-combination effects. It is therefore necessary for the Local Plan Review to ensure there is sufficient mitigation. The county-wide mitigation strategy ‘RAMs’ provides the means to provide and secure the necessary mitigation. Without the RAMs in place there is no means to address the effects from the overall quantum of growth within the Plan. It is therefore essential that the RAMs is formally in place and running smoothly by the time the plan is adopted. Various European sites have water-dependent qualifying features which could be affected by development. Adverse effects on integrity from water-related impacts are ruled out alone or in-combination for the: River Wensum SAC, Ouse Washes SAC/SPA/Ramsar, the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC, Breckland SAC, North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA/Ramsar, The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC and the Wash SPA/Ramsar. Adverse effects on integrity for all these sites are eliminated due to the scale of growth, the locations in relation to the European sites and qualifying features and through protective measures established through the review of consent/licensing of abstraction and management of water quality as controlled by the statutory agencies. For Roydon Common and Dersingham Bog SAC protective wording has been included within the plan in relation to three allocations in close proximity (around 1km from the SAC): G29.1; 4 R e v i e w G29.2; G41.2. The wording identifies the need for project level Habitats Regulation Assessment and provision of suitable mitigation where necessary. This ensures necessary hydrological checks are made and any issues relating to drainage or hydrology adequately resolved in the site design before development can be allowed to proceed. With respect to air quality, the issues are complicated as there is a general trajectory of improving air quality and vehicle emissions are improving. Likely significant effects were for sites where there are roads within 200m. Detailed assessment rules out adverse effects on integrity for North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA/Ramsar, The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC, Breckland SAC/SPA and the Ouse Washes SAC/SPA. There is no need for mitigation. With respect to Roydon Common & Dersingham Bog SAC/Dersingham Bog Ramsar some uncertainty remains and in the absence of mitigation, it is not possible to rule out adverse effects on integrity as a result of plan-led growth and increased traffic flows along the A149. The risks relate to a single short section of road and further evidence gathering is required in order to identify any necessary mitigation and ensure this is in place. A strategy is being produced by the Council. This strategy is referred in Policy LP27 and policy wording ensures any development is dependent on the strategy. With this ‘break’ in place adverse effects on integrity from air quality can be ruled out for Roydon Common & Dersingham Bog SAC/Dersingham Bog Ramsar. 5 HRA of Purbeck Local Plan Revised Housing O p t i o n s Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 9 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 10 Context ......................................................................................................................... 10 Habitats Regulations Assessment process ................................................................... 10 European sites ........................................................................................................................ 11 Role of the competent authority .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy
    Appendix A Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Consultation Draft March 2015 1 Blank 2 Part One - Flooding and Flood Risk Management Contents PART ONE – FLOODING AND FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT ..................... 5 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 5 2 What Is Flooding? ........................................................................... 8 3. What is Flood Risk? ...................................................................... 10 4. What are the sources of flooding? ................................................ 13 5. Sources of Local Flood Risk ......................................................... 14 6. Sources of Strategic Flood Risk .................................................... 17 7. Flood Risk Management ............................................................... 19 8. Flood Risk Management Authorities ............................................. 22 PART TWO – FLOOD RISK IN NORFOLK .................................................. 30 9. Flood Risk in Norfolk ..................................................................... 30 Flood Risk in Your Area ................................................................ 39 10. Broadland District .......................................................................... 39 11. Breckland District .......................................................................... 45 12. Great Yarmouth Borough .............................................................. 51 13. Borough of King’s
    [Show full text]
  • Appropriate Assessment (Submission)
    June 2007 North Norfolk District Council Planning Policy Team Telephone: 01263 516318 E-Mail: [email protected] Write to: Jill Fisher, Planning Policy Manager, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9EN www.northnorfolk.org/ldf All of the LDF Documents can be made available in Braille, large print or in other languages. Please contact 01263 516321 to discuss your requirements. Core Strategy Appropriate Assessment (Submission) Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 The Appropriate Assessment Process 4 3 Consultation and Preparation 5 4 Evidence gathering for the Appropriate Assessment 6 European sites that may be affected 6 Characteristics and conservation objectives of the European sites 8 Other relevant plans or projects 25 5 Appropriate Assessment and Plan analysis 28 Tables Table 4.1 - Broadland SPA/SAC qualifying features 9 Table 4.2 - Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA/SAC 12 Table 4.3 - North Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC qualifying features 15 Table 4.4 - Norfolk Valley Fens SAC qualifying features 19 Table 4.5 - Overstrand Cliffs SAC qualifying features 21 Table 4.6 - Paston Great Barn SAC qualifying features 23 Table 4.7 - River Wensum SAC qualifying features 24 Table 4.8 - Neighbouring districts Core Strategy progress table 27 Table 5.1 - Screening for likely significant effects 29 Table 5.2 - Details of Settlements in policies SS1, SS3, SS5 and SS7 to SS14 and how policy amendments have resulted in no likely significant effects being identified 35 Maps Map 4.1 - Environmental Designations 7 Map 4.2 - Broadland Environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Regulations Assessment: Breckland Council Submission Core Strategy and Development Control Policies
    Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Site Specific Allocations & Policies Document, Wymondham Area Action Plan, Long Stratton Area Action Plan and Cringleford Neighbourhood Development Plan, undertaken for South Norfolk Council October 2013 Natural Environment Team HRA of Site Allocations Document, Wymondham AAP, Long Stratton AAP and Cringleford Neighbourhood Plan for South Norfolk Council October 2013 Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Site Specific Allocations and Policies Document, the Wymondham Area Action Plan, the Long Stratton Area Action Plan and the Cringleford Neighbourhood Development Plan Executive Summary As required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, before deciding to give consent or permission for a plan or project which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, the competent authority is required to make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site’s conservation objectives. This document is a record of the Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Sites Allocation Document, undertaken for South Norfolk Council. Additionally, proposed development at Wymondham, as described in the emerging Wymondham Area Action Plan, at Long Stratton, as described in the emerging Long Stratton Area Action Plan and proposed housing in the parish of Cringleford, guided by the emerging Cringleford Draft Neighbourhood Plan, are assessed Three groups of plans are reviewed with respect to their conclusions with respect to potential in-combination effects. These are plans for The Greater Norwich Development Partnership, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Breckland District Council, and The Broads Authority including local development plans and the Tourism Strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Accounting for National Nature Reserves
    Natural England Research Report NERR078 Accounting for National Nature Reserves: A Natural Capital Account of the National Nature Reserves managed by Natural England www.gov.uk/naturalACCOUNTING FOR-england NATIONAL NATURE RESERVES Natural England Research Report NERR078 Accounting for National Nature Reserves: A Natural Capital Account of the National Nature Reserves managed by Natural England Tim Sunderland1, Ruth Waters1, Dan Marsh2, Cat Hudson1 and Jane Lusardi1 Published 21st February 2019 1 Natural England 2 University of Waikato, New Zealand This report is published by Natural England under the Open Government Licence - OGLv3.0 for public sector information. You are encouraged to use, and reuse, information subject to certain conditions. For details of the licence visit Copyright. Natural England photographs are only available for non commercial purposes. If any other information such as maps or data cannot be used commercially this will be made clear within the report. ISBN 978-1-78354-518-6 © Natural England 2018 ACCOUNTING FOR NATIONAL NATURE RESERVES Project details This report should be cited as: SUNDERLAND, T., WATERS, R.D., MARSH, D. V. K., HUDSON, C., AND LUSARDI, J. (2018). Accounting for National Nature Reserves: A natural capital account of the National Nature Reserves managed by Natural England. Natural England Research Report, Number 078 Project manager Tim Sunderland Principal Specialist in Economics Horizon House Bristol BS1 5TL [email protected] Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone who contributed to this report both within Natural England and externally. ii Natural England Research Report 078 Foreword England’s National Nature Reserves (NNRs) are the crown jewels of our natural heritage.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan
    Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan Regulation 18 HRA Report May 2021 Habitats Regulations Assessment of the South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan Regulation 18 HRA Report LC- 654 Document Control Box Client South Norfolk Council Habitats Regulations Assessment Report Title Regulation 18 – HRA Report Status FINAL Filename LC-654_South Norfolk_Regulation 18_HRA Report_8_140521SC.docx Date May 2021 Author SC Reviewed ND Approved ND Photo: Female broad bodied chaser by Shutterstock Regulation 18 – HRA Report May 2021 LC-654_South Norfolk_Regulation 18_HRA Report_8_140521SC.docx Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of this report ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2 The South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan ................................................................... 3 2.1 Greater Norwich Local Plan .................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 South Norfolk Village Cluster Housing Allocations Plan ................................................................................ 3 2.3 Village Clusters ..........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm Appendix 22.14 Norfolk Vanguard Onshore Ecology Consultation Responses
    Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm Appendix 22.14 Norfolk Vanguard Onshore Ecology Consultation Responses Preliminary Environmental Information Report Volume 3 Author: Royal HaskoningDHV Applicant: Norfolk Boreas Limited Document Reference: PB5640-005-2214 Date: October 2018 Photo: Ormonde Offshore Wind Farm Date Issue Remarks / Reason for Issue Author Checked Approved No. 20/07/18 01D First draft for Norfolk Boreas Limited review GC CD DT 20/09/18 01F Final for PEIR submission GC CD AD/JL Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 2 Consultation responses Norfolk Vanguard ............................................................... 1 3 References ........................................................................................................... 27 Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page ii Tables Table 2.1 Norfolk Vanguard Consultation Responses 2 Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page iii Glossary of Acronyms CoCP Code of Construction Practice DCO Development Consent Order EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Environmental Statement ETG Expert Topic Group HVAC High Voltage Alternating Current HVDC High Voltage Direct Current PEIR Preliminary Environmental Information Report SoS Secretary of State Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page iv This page is intentionally blank. Preliminary Environmental Information Report Norfolk Boreas Offshore Wind Farm PB5640-005-2214 October 2018 Page v 1 Introduction 1. Consultation is a key driver of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, and throughout the lifecycle of the project, from the initial stages through to consent and post-consent. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Action Plan
    BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN April 2018 BROADS IDB – BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN Front cover images (L-R) Marsh Harrier ©Artur Rydzewski; Norfolk Hawker © Milo Bostock; Water Soldier; Water Vole; Berney Marshes ©Mike Page; BIDB Digger BROADS IDB – BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN FOREWORD This Biodiversity Action Plan (Second Edition) has been prepared by the Broads Internal Drainage Board in accordance with the commitment in the Implementation Plan of the DEFRA Internal Drainage Board Review for IDB’s, to produce their own Biodiversity Action Plans by April 2010. As such, the original version was published in January 2010. This revised version aims to continue to align the Broads IDB with biodiversity policy and more specifically, the Biodiversity document for England, “Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for Englands’ Wildlife and Ecosystem Services” and build on the Government’s 25 Year Environmental Plan; A Green Future. In doing so, the document strives to demonstrate the Board’s commitment to fulfilling its duty as a public body under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to conserve biodiversity. Many of the Board’s activities have benefits and opportunities for biodiversity, not least its water level management and watercourse maintenance work. It is hoped that this Biodiversity Action Plan will help the Board to maximise the biodiversity benefits from its activities and demonstrate its contribution to the targets as part of the Biodiversity 2020 strategy and achieve wider environmental improvement within its catchments. The Board has adopted the Biodiversity Action Plan as one of its policies and subject to available resources is committed to its implementation. It will review the plan periodically and update it as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitats Regulations Assessment: Draft Scoping Report
    North Norfolk 2016 - 2036 HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT Draft Scoping Report May 2017 North Norfolk District Council Planning Policy Team Telephone: 01263 516318 E-Mail: [email protected] Write to: Planning Policy Manager, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9EN www.north-norfolk.gov.uk/localplan All documents can be made available in Braille, audio, large print or in other languages. Please contact 01263 516318 to discuss your requirements. Draft HRA Scoping - North Norfolk District Council – Emerging Local Plan Executive Summary Habitats Regulations Assessment is required in accordance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, (amended 2012); in order to ensure that plans and projects do not have a likely significant effect on any European designated sites for nature conservation. Such plans or projects can only proceed if the competent authority is convinced they will not have an “adverse effect on the integrity of a European site”. Where there is uncertainty over the effects then the competent authority will need to demonstrate how these can be avoided and what mitigation can be put in place. A Local Plan is the subject of Habitats Regulations Assessment, which is the responsibility of the plan-making body (in this case North Norfolk District Council) to produce. This scoping report provides the background and review of evidence to support the commencement of screening and the final Habitats Regulations Assessment of the North Norfolk Core Strategy and Site Allocations documents. This report considers: • The European designated sites within and outside the plan area affected. • The characteristics of these sites and their conservation objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society
    20 NOV 2Q02 I FXCHA^O'-"> 1 Norfolk Bird Report - 2001 Editor: Giles Dunmore Editorial 95 Review of the Year 98 Wetland Bird Surveys for Breydon and The Wash 1 05 Norfolk Bird Atlas 1 07 Systematic List 1 09 Introductions, Escapes, Ferals and Hybrids 248 Earliest and Latest Dates of Summer Migrants 253 Latest and Earliest Dates of Winter Migrants 254 Non-accepted and non-submitted records 255 Contributors 256 Ringing Report 258 Hunstanton Cliffs: a Forgotten Migration Hotspot 268 1 Yellow-legged Gulls in Norfolk: 1 96 -200 1 273 Marmora’s Warbler on Scolt Head - a first for Norfolk 28 Pallas’s Grasshopper Warbler at Blakeney Point - the second for Norfolk 283 Blyth’s Pipit at Happisburgh in September 1 999 - the second for Norfolk 285 Norfolk Mammal Report - 2001 Editor: Ian Keymer Editorial 287 Bats at Paston Great Barn 288 Memories of an ex-editor 298 Harvest Mice: more common than suspected? 299 Are we under-recording the Norfolk mink population? 301 National Key Sites for Water Voles in Norfolk 304 A Guide to identification of Shrews and Rodents 309 Published by NORFOLK AND NORWICH NATURALISTS’ SOCIETY Castle Museum, Norwich, NRl 3JU (Transactions Volume 35 part 2 October 2002) Please note that the page numbering in this report follows on from part 1 of the Transactions pub- lished in July 2002 ISSN 0375 7226 www.nnns.org.uk Keepsake back numbers are available from David & Iris Pauli, 8 Lindford Drive, Eaton, Norwich NR4 6LT Front cover photograph: Tree Sparrow (Richard Brooks) Back cover photograph: Grey Seal (Graeme Cresswell) NORFOLK BIRD REPORT - 2001 Editorial x On behalf of the Society 1 am pleased to present the annual report on the Birds of Norfolk.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eastern Counties, — ——
    ^^^^^ gh Guides : ——- h^ ==h* - c\J : :ct> r ^c\i ==^JQO - T— ""> h»- [~^co '-_ 7 —^^— :n UOUNTIES /t\u* ton ^¥/ua( vY "IP Grantham ' TaUdngh oihv Mort.ml l y'iii.oco..^i>s ^u , ! v , ^i,,:;;^ , i / v '"'''.v/,,. ;r~ nsiimV *\ ?. ' kXOton /lEICESTERY Monftw /{, r fontf* k ^> h'i .;-"" A0% .-O Krlmarsh\ Blisw.wfli.i2 'oad&J Eelmdon. "VTolvei J''u/<}, upthill r9tc Ami? LoAviibo- 'Widfc *Baldock effbhurn f J Marti}*?' Ihxatingfard eitfktoii 7 " gifzzarcL t^r ' t>un.sti ^OXFORD '/'> Ainershain. finest WytHtrnd^iL Bickuuuis>^ Watliagtnti >^Hi^TV^cHnb£ ^M Shxplake- jfe-wrffa^eR E A PI Nla ^ | J. Bartholomew", E3ix k 4t> fcs J«<00®»»®00 o ocoo iO>l>Ot>l>N0500 o o t-o •0000500^000 OOO o ft ,'rH0D»O0006Q0CMlO>LO H00«3 . o CD Ocp CO COO O O OOCOO ^•OOOOOOOOO o o o o Q 5 m taWOWOOOCO>OiO •io»oo>o CO rHrHrHrHi-HrHrHrHrH . rH rH rH rH ^•COOOOOOOOO _CO O O 3 ojlOrHOrHrHrHGOOO :* :'i>ho 3 rHrH<MrHrHt-lr-l<M<M . • rH rH <M O ft . ocococococoococo CO CO CO CO 3 • t» d- t~ i>- rH (MH^HHHIMiMN • <M <M rH <M •oooomooojohoiooo ^5 rH oJcO<NO<M^<MCOOOOOOCO<MO rHrHCQrHr-1 rHrHrH<MrH(MrHrH<M IrHOCOOOOOCOCOCO 00 O CO 'oo r3 :C5000^ocooooocooo o o Q 525 : oq : : : :§? : : : : : O a OQ r-4 : o • : : :^3 : : : : * a a o 3 O : : : : : : : : : : « : a ^ ft .ft .o • n • o3 • o •J25 o9 S • 0) cS . CO . :oq • :,3 : B :ra : flo -»j cS rQ 2 s.d tJD ? B fcr - 00 O ?+3 J* ^b-3 a p 5 3 8.5 g^ - » * +•+* * * H—H— -r-+-»-+-f-+* * +-+ * * -f--r- Tast.
    [Show full text]
  • The Norfolk & Norwich
    L c£H£RAl * 3 may ,*,UBRARY^ x TRANSACTIONS OF THE NORFOLK & NORWICH NATURALISTS’ SOCIETY Vol. 24 PART 4 APRIL 1978 ISBN 0375 7226 : : OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY 1977-78 President: Ms D. M. Maxey ‘Greenfields’, Swanton Road, Dereham. President-Elect Mr P. J. Trett Victoria Road, Great Yarmouth Vice-Presidents: P. R. Banham, A. Bull, K. B. Clarke, E. T. Daniels, K. C. Durrant, E. A. Ellis, R. Jones, M. J. Seago, J. A. Steers, E. L. Swann, F. J. Taylor-Page General Secretary: R. E. Baker 25 Southern Reach, Mulbarton, NR14 8BU Tel. Mulbarton 70609 Assistant Secretary: (Membership and Publications) Ms J. Wakefield Post Office Lane, Saxthorpe, NR 11 7BL Assistant Secretary: (Minutes) P. W. Lambley Castle Museum, Norwich Excursion Secretary: Ms J. Robinson 5 Southern Reach, Mulbarton NR14 8BU Tel. Mulbarton 70576 Treasurer: D. A. Dorling St. Edmundsbury, 6 New Road, Hethersett Tel. Norwich 810318 Assistant Secretary: J. E. Timbers The Nook, Barford, Norfolk Editor: E. A. Ellis Wheatfen Broad, Surlingham, Norwich Auditor: E. L. Swann 282 Wootton Road, King’s Lynn, Norfolk Committee: M. J. Baker, G. Dunmore, Dr A. Davy (University Representative) Dr S. Cole, Ms C. Gurney, G. Hart, R. Hancy, P. W. Lambley (Museum Representative), J. Secker, Ms J. Smith, P. M. C. Stevens (Norfolk Naturalists’ Trust), P. Wright (Nature Conservancy Representative). ORGANISERS OF PRINCIPAL SPECIALIST GROUPS Birds {Editor of the Report) M. J. Seago, 33 Accacia Road, Thorpe, Norwich Mammals (Editor of the Report) R. Hancy, 124 Fakenham Road, Taverham NR8 6QH Plants: P. W. Lambley and E. L. Swann Fungi: E.
    [Show full text]
  • Delineation of the MIKE 11 River Glaven Channel and Location of Cross-Sections
    HYDROECOLOGICAL MONITORING AND MODELLING OF RIVER-FLOODPLAIN RESTORATION IN A UK LOWLAND RIVER MEADOW By Hannah Marie Clilverd UCL A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1 SIGNED DECLARATION I, Hannah Marie Clilverd confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 2 ABSTRACT Channelization and embankment of rivers has led to major ecological degradation of aquatic habitats worldwide. River restoration can be used to restore favourable hydrological conditions for target processes or species. This study is based on rarely available, detailed pre- and post-restoration hydrological data collected from 2007–2010 from a wet grassland meadow in Norfolk, UK. Based on these data, coupled hydrological/hydraulic models were developed of pre-embankment and post-embankment conditions using the MIKE-SHE/MIKE-11 system. Fine-scale plant and chemical sampling was conducted on the floodplain meadow to assess the spatial pattern of plant communities in relation to soil physicochemical conditions. Simulated groundwater levels for a 10-year period were then used to predict changes in plant community composition following embankment-removal. Hydrology was identified as the primary driver of plant community composition, while soil fertility was also important. Embankment removal resulted in widespread floodplain inundation at high river flows and frequent localised flooding at the river edge at lower flows. Subsequently, groundwater levels were higher and subsurface storage was greater. The restoration had a moderate effect on flood-peak attenuation and improved free drainage to the river.
    [Show full text]