Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Draft Borough Local

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Draft Borough Local Plan

Habitat Regulations: Preliminary Screening Opinion

December 2013

Planning and Property Service Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Town Hall St Ives Road Maidenhead SL6 1RF

1 Contents

Introduction and Background ...... 3 Brief Description of the Borough Local Plan ...... 7 Identification of Relevant Designated Sites ...... 8 Tables 1-5: Relevant designated sites ...... 9 Screening Criteria ...... 13 Screening of the Borough Local Plan ...... 14 Table 6: Categories of proposed actions ...... 16 Table 7: BLP Preferred Policy Options and their Likely Effects ...... 17 Screening Opinion ...... 22

Appendix A – Report on Screening of Sites (including Jacobs report) ...... 23 Appendix B – RBWM Addendum to Jacobs Report ...... 24 Appendix C – Conclusions on Likely Impacts on Designated Sites ...... 37

2 Introduction and Background

1.1 This preliminary screening opinion relates to the Draft Borough Local Plan Preferred Options (BLP) for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. The screening opinion should be read in conjunction with the BLP itself.

1.2 This screening opinion has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations Assessment). It considers whether or not the BLP is likely to have a significant effect on sites designated for their international importance to nature conservation.

1.3 The BLP is being published for public consultation from 10 January 2014 until 7 March 2014. It will subsequently be amended and published for a further round of pre-submission consultation. Subject to successful completion of examination, the council intends to adopt the BLP. At that point it will form part of the development plan for the borough.

1.4 The finalised screening opinion will form part of the evidence base used to consider the soundness of the BLP at examination. However, it should be noted that the remit of the Inspector does not extend to assessing the compliance of the BLP with the Habitats Directive (see below).

Background

1.5 The European Community (EC) Directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (92/43/EEC) (commonly known as the Habitats Directive) provides legal protection for habitats and species of European importance.

1.6 Articles 3-9 provide the legal means to protect habitats and species of EC interest through the establishment and conservation of a European-wide network of sites known as Natura 2000. Natura 2000 sites are Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated under the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) (commonly known as the Birds Directive).

1.7 Article 6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive sets out the decision-making tests for plans and projects affecting Natura 2000 sites. Article 6(3) establishes a requirement for an assessment as outlined below:

“Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans and projects, shall be subject to assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after ascertaining that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.”

1.8 While they are not European sites as a matter of law, it is national planning policy that the following sites are given the same protection as a European site:  potential Special Protection Areas and possible Special Areas of Conservation

3  listed or proposed Ramsar sites1  sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.

1.9 For simplicity, the term “designated site” has been used in this report to mean all current and potential Natura 2000 sites and Ramsar sites, plus any compensatory sites.

1.10 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (commonly known as the Habitat Regulations) translates European requirements into British law and requires the assessment of land use plans. The BLP constitutes a land use plan for the purpose of the Habitat Regulations.

1.11 Regulation 102(1) provides an opportunity to determine that significant environmental effects are unlikely and thus not requiring the undertaking of an appropriate assessment. Under Regulation 102(2), before making a determination under Regulation 102(1), the council is required to consult Natural England as the appropriate environmental body and have regard to any representations made.

1.12 The first stage of any Habitat Regulations Assessment is a Likely Significant Effect test. This is essentially a risk assessment to decide whether the full subsequent stage known as Appropriate Assessment is required. The relevant question is: “Is the Plan, either alone or in combination with other relevant projects and plans, likely to result in a significant effect upon designated sites?”

1.13 The objective is to “screen out” those plans and projects that can, without any detailed appraisal, be said to be unlikely to result in significant adverse effects upon designated sites, usually because there is no mechanism for an adverse interaction with European sites.

1.14 Although the legal requirement to undertake Habitat Regulations Assessment is clearly established, there is no standardised methodology for doing this. As a result, this report is based on previous work and the approach used has been developed in consultation with Natural England.

1.15 This preliminary screening report examines the BLP and:  Identifies by a screening process any relevant designated sites that could potentially be affected by policies and directions in the plan.  Outlines details of the nature conservation importance of the sites.  Identifies the possible impacts that the plan may have on features of nature conservation importance within the sites.  Assesses any development impacts that could potentially have a significant effect on the favourable conservation status of the sites.  Identifies any controls within the BLP and other development plan documents, strategies, policies and plans that could act to avoid or mitigate these effects.  Proposes amendments and alterations to the BLP where necessary to avoid these impacts.

1 Under the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance, sites important for waterfowl were designated. These sites are known as Ramsar sites.

4 Planning Policy

1.16 Saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan requires any new residential development which is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects. Such measures must be agreed with Natural England. Priority should be given to directing development to those areas where potential adverse effects can be avoided without the need for mitigation measures.

1.17 Where mitigation measures are required, local planning authorities should deliver a consistent approach to mitigation. The mechanism for implementing this policy is set out in the Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework as adopted by the TBH Joint Strategic Partnership and partners and stakeholders. The principles of this are incorporated into planning policy at a borough level, through the Thames Basin Heaths SPA SPD and a policy in the BLP.

1.18 The policy and SPD set out a mechanism by which significant effects on the SPA can be avoided or mitigated. This takes the form of a 5 km zone of influence around the SPA boundary, where measures must be taken to ensure that the integrity of the SPA is protected. Sunninghill, Sunningdale and most of Ascot fall within this 5 km zone of influence. There is no equivalent zone of influence around any other designated sites.

1.19 Within 400 m of the SPA boundary, an exclusion zone applies, where no net increase in the number of dwellings is permitted. This ensures that development within this zone avoids significant effects on the SPA. Parts of Sunningdale fall within this 400 m exclusion zone. There is no equivalent exclusion zone around any other designated sites.

1.20 Where residential development is proposed outside the exclusion zone but within the zone of influence, mitigation measures will be delivered prior to occupation and in perpetuity. Measures will be based on a combination of Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) and the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).

1.21 The SAMM project will monitor access to the SPA through surveys and other means, and deliver management on a strategic basis to ensure that access issues are addressed in a comprehensive way. SANG provides an alternative recreation destination to attract people to visit rather than visiting the SPA itself, and standards for SANG provision to serve the borough and mechanisms to ensure its delivery and availability in perpetuity are set out within policy and SPD.

1.22 The council will collect developer contributions towards mitigation measures, including the provision of SANG and joint contributions to the funding of SAMM, to provide access management and monitoring the effects of mitigation measures across the SPA. The justification for these contributions and the mechanism for their collection are set out in the Developer Contributions SPD.

1.23 This approach has been adopted by the council and agreed by Natural England as providing appropriate avoidance and mitigation of locally significant effects on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. In practical terms this also affords equal protection to the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC and Broadmoor to Bagshot Heaths SSSI, which are wholly contained within the SPA. This approach forms the basis of this screening opinion.

1.24 It should be noted that the BLP is still at the preferred options stage and further assessments may be required as the plan develops further. There is no statutory guidance on at what stage of plan production to best prepare an assessment under the Habitat Regulations. However, Natural England recommends that this begins at an early stage and if necessary continues through all the stages of plan production.

6 Brief Description of the Borough Local Plan

2.1 A Local Plan is a framework for guiding the future development and growth of an area. It may contain a vision, aims, planning policies, proposals for improving the area or providing new facilities. It can also allocate key sites for development, and will set out the council’s main planning policies against which decisions on planning applications will be made.

2.2 The vision for the BLP is that the borough will remain a place where everyone can thrive in a safe and healthy environment. The plan aims to deliver necessary development in a way which enhances the borough’s strengths and allows communities to maintain their individuality and character. The strategy is to build upon the existing pattern of towns and villages, with a particular focus on town centres and other accessible areas, building at higher densities in the right locations to maximise the efficient use of land.

2.3 Housing will mainly be directed to previously developed land within the main towns and other settlements. Larger offices will be focussed on town centres and defined employment areas. A network of town centres will be supported, with Maidenhead town accommodating the bulk of new development and Windsor reinforcing its historic character. Other areas within the borough will also see development, and in particular Ascot High Street has been identified by a neighbourhood plan group as an area for community-led regeneration.

2.4 A series of neighbourhood plans is being prepared by community groups across the borough. If the plans successfully pass examination and referendum they will be adopted by the council as part of the development plan. Neighbourhood plans will each be subject to their own Habitat Regulations screening and, if necessary, appropriate assessment. For clarity, although the neighbourhood plans will be complementary to the BLP, this screening opinion only relates to the BLP itself.

2.5 The BLP has main objectives as follows: (i) Conserve and enhance the special qualities of the borough’s built and natural environment. (ii) Meet the varied housing needs of residents in an appropriate way whilst steering development to the most sustainable locations. (iii) Enable the continued success and evolution of the borough’s distinct visitor economy. (iv) Enable the evolution and growth of the local business economy. (v) Promote the vitality and viability of our town centres so they are at the heart of our communities. (vi) Increase the opportunities available for people who wish to remain living in their own homes as they grow older or become infirm. (vii) Minimise the impact of flooding and any impact attributable to climate change. (viii) Seek to retain, improve and provide new facilities and other infrastructure to ensure a high quality of life for residents of all ages. (ix) Reduce the need to travel by car in the borough and encourage sustainable modes of transportation. (x) Promote the prudent use and sustainable management of minerals and their extraction in the borough. (xi) Promote the management of waste in a prudent and sustainable manner.

7 Identification of Relevant Designated Sites

3.1 Five designated sites lie wholly or partly within the borough, namely:  Chiltern Beechwoods SAC  South West London Water Bodies SPA and Ramsar  Thames Basin Heaths SPA  Thursby, Ash, Pirbright & Chobham SAC (part of Thames Basin Heaths SPA)  Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC

3.2 Relevant designated sites outside the borough are:  Broadmoor to Bagshot Heaths SSSI (part of Thames Basin Heaths SPA)  Burnham Beeches SAC

3.3 To consider what distance impacts of a plan might have and thereby which designated sites should be considered as part of an assessment, regard has been had to past decisions.

3.4 The last habitat regulations screening undertaken by the council was for the Draft Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Neighbourhood Plan in 2013. This considered a review of sites within a 5 km linear distance of the plan area to be sufficiently precautionary.

3.5 An earlier screening exercise in 2009 for the Maidenhead Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) reviewed sites within a 10 km radius of Maidenhead town centre. This greater distance was chosen to take account of possible downstream effects arising from enhancement of the waterways in Maidenhead town centre. The policy position on waterway enhancements was established in the AAP and is not proposed to be amended in the BLP, therefore it is not considered necessary to apply the greater 10 km distance in this instance.

3.6 Regard has also been had to development control procedure. Whilst all planning applications are considered individually, the furthest distance over which the council’s standard procedure is to consult Natural England on planning applications is within a 5 km distance of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Natural England are content with this approach.

3.7 Given this precedent, it is considered that a review of designated sites within the borough and within 5 km outside of the borough boundary provides an appropriate precautionary stance. All sites listed in 3.1 and 3.2, and no others, fall within this area of review. These sites and their characteristics are examined below. Note that the Thursby, Ash, Pirbright & Chobham SAC and the Broadmoor to Bagshot Heaths SSSI have been examined as part of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA as, in terms of assessing likely impacts, the issues raised are identical.

8 Tables 1-5: Relevant designated sites

Table 1: Chiltern Beechwoods SAC Main A fragmented series of beech woods covering some 1,276 ha, Characteristics: comprising Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and the Coppice, Ellesborough and Kimble Warrens, Hollowhill and Pullingshill Woods, Naphill Common, Windsor Hill, Aston Rowant, Bisham Woods and Ashridge Woods and Commons. Bisham Woods is the only part relevant to this exercise. The predominant habitat (88%) is broad-leaved deciduous woodland. There are also areas of dry grassland steppes (8%) and heath, scrub, maquis, garrigue and phygrana (4%). The soil and geology is a mix of basic, clay, and limestone, nutrient-poor, sand and sedimentary.

Conservation Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats Objective: of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features.

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:  The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;  The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;  The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;  The populations of qualifying species;  The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

Qualifying  Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous Features: substrates (Festuco-Brometalia); Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone  Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests; Beech forests on neutral to rich soils  Lucanus cervus; Stag beetle

Distance from Part within borough. Remainder > 5 km from borough boundary. borough:

Table 2: South West London Water Bodies SPA and Ramsar Main A series of seven embanked water supply reservoirs and former gravel Characteristics: pits, which support a range of man-made and semi-natural open-water habitats. The sites are important feeding and roosting grounds for wintering wildfowl and cover some 828 ha. The predominant habitat (70%) is made up of inland water bodies. There are also areas of improved grassland, humid and mesophile grassland and broad-leaved deciduous woodland. The soil and geology is a mix of alluvium, clay, and mud, neutral and sand.

9 Conservation Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, and the Objective: significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive.

Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:  The extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features;  The structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features;  The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely;  The populations of the qualifying features;  The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Qualifying  Anas strepera; Gadwall (Non-breeding) Features:  Anas clypeata; Northern shoveler (Non-breeding)

Distance from Part within borough. Remainder falls within 5 km of borough boundary. borough:

Table 3: Thames Basin Heaths SPA including Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC and Broadmoor to Bagshot Heaths SSSI Main A fragmented area of lowland heath covering some 8,400 ha, of which a Characteristics: small area measuring 0.27 ha is located within the borough. Part of a network of important bird conservation sites which in particular protects populations of three bird species. The soil and geology is mainly sand and gravel with a variety of habitats including heathland, acid grassland, acid woodland and bog.

Conservation SPA: Avoid the deterioration of the habitats of the qualifying features, Objective: and the significant disturbance of the qualifying features, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving the aims of the Birds Directive.

SAC: Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features.

SPA and SAC: Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:  The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;  The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;  The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species rely;  The populations of qualifying species;  The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

10 Qualifying SPA: Features:  Caprimulgus europaeus; European nightjar (breeding)  Lullula arborea; Woodlark (breeding)  Sylvia undata; Dartford warbler (breeding)

SAC:  Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Wet heathland with cross-leaved heath  European dry heaths  Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion

Distance from Very small part within borough. Part of remainder falls within 5 km of borough: borough boundary. Bulk of SPA > 5 km from borough boundary.

Table 4: Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC Main A large area of continuous woodland and parkland lying to the south of Characteristics: Windsor, stretching as far as Virginia Water and covering some 1,687 ha. The predominant habitat is mixed woodland (95%), with also areas of dry grasslands and inland water bodies. The soil and geology is a mix of acidic, clay, neutral and sand.

Qualifying  Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Features: Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici- Fagenion); Beech forests on acid soils  Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains; Dry oak-dominated woodland  Limoniscus violaceus; Violet click beetle

Distance from Majority within borough. Remainder falls within 5 km of borough borough: boundary.

Table 5: Burnham Beeches SAC Main A large block (some 382 ha) of predominantly lowland deciduous Characteristics: woodland. An extensive area of former beech wood-pasture with many old pollards and associated beech and oak high forest. One of the richest sites for saproxylic invertebrates in the UK, including over 60 Red Data Book species. The area of ancient semi-natural, lowland, acidic beech woodland is of international importance and the number of ancient pollard beeches is very significant.

Qualifying  Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Features: Taxus in the shrub layer (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici- Fagenion); Beech forests on acid soils.

Distance from Almost all falls within 5 km of borough boundary, with a small part > 5 km borough: from the boundary.

12 Screening Criteria

4.1 In carrying out this screening process, regard has been had to the main possible sources of effects on the integrity of designated sites, possible pathways to the designated sites and the effects on possible sensitive receptors in the designated sites. Only if there is an identifiable source, a pathway and a receptor is there likely to be a significant effect.

4.2 Possible sources and pathways for effects arising from development and used in this screening are considered to be:  Water (water pollution and hydrology)  Air (air pollution)  Direct land-take  Habitat / species disturbance  Recreational pressure (increased population)

4.3 Operations that may damage the special interest of the designated sites are considered to be:  Damage or removal of any plant or plant remains (including recreational impacts)  Changes to drainage arrangements or watercourses  Pollution of watercourses  Water abstraction  Extraction of materials from the site  Dumping of materials on the site  Storage of materials on the site  Erection of structures on the site

4.4 Other impacts may arise as an indirect consequence of operations, for example the construction of new dwellings may increase the population of domestic cats in the area, which in turn may lead to increased predation from the designated sites. Secondary impacts such as this are considered to fall within the remit of recreational impacts.

13 Screening of the Borough Local Plan

5.1 The BLP has been analysed to assess whether it would be likely to result in locally significant effects on designated sites. The results are presented in the tables in Appendix C. It is important to note that it is the potential effects of the BLP itself that are being assessed, not the entirety of the planning strategy for the area.

5.2 In the normal course of events an assessment of a plan (outside the scope of the Habitat Regulations) would compare the effects arising from that plan with a baseline position of “the effects that would arise if the plan did not exist”. Thus if the plan contained a provision for something that would happen or continue to happen regardless of its existence – e.g. a continuation of a current site allocation – then the effect arising from the new plan would be zero.

5.3 In the case of Habitat Regulations Assessment, legal opinion indicates that this line of logic does not apply. Instead, under the relevant regulations, any plan or project likely to have an effect on a designated site has to be assessed, and that assessment is a snapshot in time that must occur when the plan or project is being brought forward. If the proposal relates to something that already exists but that has not been previously assessed for its impact on designated sites, then the likely effects of that proposal must initially be screened and, if necessary, further assessment undertaken.

5.4 The upshot of this is that if a site allocation was made in a plan before a relevant designated site was designated, and that allocation is rolled forward in the BLP, then the effects of that allocation on designated sites must be screened. This is regardless of the fact that the existence of the BLP will not change any effects arising from the site allocation.

5.5 There are two main elements to an assessment of the likely effects of the BLP: effects arising from site allocations and effects arising from policies. These are considered below, following which any interaction between the two elements is addressed.

5.6 All development plans must be read and implemented in their entirety, and the BLP is no exception. This means that some elements of the plan may have a likely effect on designated sites on their own, but there may be other elements of the plan that are designed to avoid or mitigate those effects. When considered together, the two elements of the plan would be balanced and the end result would be no effect on designated sites. Such in-combination effects are considered below, where required.

Site Allocations

5.7 The BLP contains a number of sites where various uses are allocated, including housing, business, industrial and mixed use sites. These are a combination of new sites where development potential has been identified, and existing sites where a previous policy allocation has been carried forward into the BLP.

5.8 For some sites, mainly those previously developed sites where housing is proposed, the BLP defines a specific quantum of development that is expected to happen. For other sites, for instance the various types of employment site, the BLP is less prescriptive and instead provides a supportive policy environment that enables development to happen without imposing specific limits on its size or form.

5.9 Edge of settlement housing sites are also not provided with a specific quantum of development in the plan. Development suitability will only be formally assessed following the BLP consultation. It should be noted that only sites considered to have limited environmental impacts would be allocated in the final version of the plan. Importantly, this means that not all identified edge of settlement sites would necessarily be developed, if indeed any are.

5.10 While the quantum of employment development is not specifically defined within the plan – the need for development is instead addressed in supporting evidence – there are policy controls over the type of employment development that is permitted in certain locations. For example, some sites are allocated primarily for industrial and warehousing use to reflect their current pattern of development, while on others a greater variety of types of employment floorspace is encouraged.

5.11 An initial screening of BLP site allocations has been undertaken by Jacobs and is attached at Appendix A. This screening was begun at a time when the BLP was still evolving, so as to provide the opportunity for the screening conclusions to be fed back and influence the plan. It does however mean that the list of sites screened is not precisely the same as that in the BLP as it is published for consultation – some screened sites have subsequently been removed from the plan while others have been added as they emerge. An addendum to the Jacobs report has therefore been prepared by the council to update the screening conclusions. This is attached as Appendix B.

5.12 Development of a number of urban sites will inherently produce diffuse effects, and it is difficult in general to attribute a specific effect to any specific development proposal. Certain exceptions apply, for instance in the case of development in proximity to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, where specific research has been undertaken into the behavioural patterns of residents and therefore the likely effects of development in any given location. A specific policy context has been put in place in response, to mitigate the effects of development, and this has been considered within this report.

5.13 The likely in-combination effects of site allocations have been considered as part of the Jacobs screening work and the addendum produced by the council. These are attached at Appendix B.

5.14 The main conclusions arising from the Jacobs report can be summarised as follows:  For BLP sites in the Ascot area that are within 5 km of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, mitigation in the standard form will be required.

 BLP sites in the Windsor area are largely urban-based and only in- combination effects are likely.

 Development of most BLP sites in the Maidenhead area is not considered to be significant but an in-combination assessment may be required.

 Employment allocations or previously developed land will generally not contribute any increasing threats to designated sites. Air pollution from industrial sites may be a potential issue.

15  A number of BLP sites can be screened out due to their distance from designated sites and the lack of identifiable impact sources and pathways. These are predominantly located within the Maidenhead area.

5.15 Issues raised in the Jacobs report and the suggested policy response in the BLP are considered in Appendix B. In general the conclusions of the Jacobs and council work indicate that no effects are likely to arise on designated sites as a result of the sites proposed for allocation in the BLP, subject to appropriate policy safeguards being put in place as detailed below.

Policies

5.16 The policy background as set out in Section 1 of this report has been accepted by the council and Natural England as being an appropriate response to the issue of development having potential significant effects on the SPA. The tables in Appendix C examine how this approach is applied to each of the relevant designated sites. They set out why significant effects are not considered to arise from the draft BLP.

5.17 All preferred policy options of the draft BLP have been screened for likely significant effects on the five designated sites. The effects associated with the plan can be sorted into nine categories, listed below. These categories determine which, if any, elements of the plan would be likely to have a significant effect on any interest feature of a designated site, alone or in combination with other plans and projects, directly or indirectly.

Table 6: Categories of proposed actions

Reasons why proposal will have no effect on a designated site 1 The proposal will not itself lead to development (e.g. it relates to design or other qualitative criteria for development, or it is not a land use planning policy). 2 The proposal makes provision for a quantum / type of development (and may or may not indicate one or more broad locations e.g. a District, town or suburb) but the location of the development is to be selected following consideration of options in lower tier plans. 3 No development could occur through this proposal alone, because it is implemented through subordinate proposals which are more detailed and therefore more appropriate to assess for their effects on designated sites and associated sensitive areas. 4 Concentration of development in urban areas will not affect designated sites and will help to steer development and land use change away from designated sites and associated sensitive areas. 5 The proposal will help steer development away from designated sites and associated sensitive areas, e.g. not developing in areas of flood risk or areas otherwise likely to be affected by climate change. 6 The proposal is intended to protect the natural environment, including biodiversity. 7 The proposal is intended to conserve or enhance the natural, built or historic environment, and enhancement measures will not be likely to have any effect on a designated site. Reason why proposal could have a potential effect 8 The proposal steers a quantum or type of development towards, or encourages development in, an area that includes a designated site or an area where

16 development may indirectly affect a designated site. Reason why proposal would be likely to have a significant effect 9 The proposal makes provision for a quantum, or kind of development that in the location(s) proposed would be likely to have a significant effect on a designated site. The proposal must be subject to Appropriate Assessment to establish, in light of the site’s conservation objectives, whether it can be ascertained that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the site.

5.18 Proposals falling within categories 1-7 are deemed not to have an effect on a designated site and can be eliminated from the assessment procedure (i.e. they are screened out). Those falling within category eight require further analysis, including consideration of any in combination effects, before a screening conclusion can be drawn. An Appropriate Assessment must be carried out for any proposal falling within category nine.

5.19 An assessment has been undertaken of the likely significant effects of preferred policy options in the draft BLP. While the precise wording of each policy is not yet determined2, and indeed cannot be in advance of the public consultation on the BLP, the intent behind each policy and its proposed contents have been examined and conclusions drawn from this. The following table indicates each preferred policy and the numbered categories (from above) into which its effects are considered likely to fall. For some policies, more than one category of effect may apply.

Table 7: BLP Preferred Policy Options and their Likely Effects

Policy Name Likely Effects BLP1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development 5 BLP2 Community-Led Development 2, 3 PLA1 Design 1 PLA2 Townscape and Landscape 1, 7 PLA3 Thames Riverside Corridor 6, 7 GBC1 Green Belt 3, 6 GBC2 Countryside Character 7 GBC3 New Residential Development in the Green Belt 7 GBC4 The Reuse and/or Replacement of Non-Residential 7 Buildings in the Green Belt GBC5 Equestrian Development in the Green Belt 7 GBC6 Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt 8 HOU1 Amount and Distribution of Housing 2, 3, 4 HOU2 Allocated Housing Development Sites 4, 8 HOU3 Meeting a Range of Housing Needs 1 HOU4 Affordable Housing 1, 2 HOU5 Affordable Housing Rural Exception Sites 2, 7 HOU6 Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople 2, 5 HOU7 Protection of Residential Land and the Housing Stock 4 HOU8 Housing Layout and Design 1 HOU9 Housing Density 1, 4 HOU10 Conversion of Dwellings 4

2 Policies BLP1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) and NE2 (Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area) are presented in a fully-developed form in the BLP Preferred Options document. This reflects the absence of any other policy options for these topics, as the policies fulfil specific legal or national policy requirements.

17 HOU11 Development involving Residential Gardens 4 HOU12 Extensions and Outbuildings within a Residential 7 Curtilage HOU13 Residential Amenity 1 EC1 Economic Development 2, 8 EC2 Defined Employment Sites 4, 8 EC3 Other Sites and Loss of Employment Uses 4 RET1 Hierarchy of Centres 2, 4 RET2 Maidenhead and Windsor Town Centres 4 RET3 District and Local Centres 4 RET4 Shops Outside of Centres 4 RET5 Markets 4 TM1 Tourism Development 4, 7 TM2 Visitor Accommodation 1 HE1 Historic Environment 1, 3, 7 HE2 Listed Buildings 7 HE3 Scheduled Ancient Monuments 1, 7 HE4 Archaeology 1, 7 HE5 Registered Parks and Gardens 1, 7 HE6 Conservation Areas 1, 7 HE7 Non-Designated Heritage Assets 1, 3, 7 NR1 Minerals Strategy 1, 3 NR2 Minerals – Preferred Areas of Future Working 5 NR3 Minerals – Environmental Impacts and Restoration 6, 7 NR4 Waste Strategy 1, 3, 6 NR5 Preferred Areas for New Facilities 5 NR6 Environmental Impacts and Restoration 6, 7 NR7 Providing for Waste in New Development 1 NR8 Sustainable Design and Construction 1, 7 NR9 Renewable Energy Generation 5, 6 NR10 Managing Flood Risk and Waterways 5, 6 EP1 Environmental Protection 1, 6 EP2 Air Pollution 1, 6 EP3 Artificial Light 7 EP4 Noise 1, 7 EP5 Contaminated Land and / or Water 6 NE1 Nature Conservation 1, 5, 6, 7 NE2 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 5, 6, 7 NE3 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows 1, 6 NE4 Open Spaces 7 NE5 Rights of Way and Access to the Countryside 1, 7 INF1 Community Facilities 4 INF2 Sustainable Transport 1, 2, 3 INF3 Planning Obligations and Developer Contributions 1 INF4 Telecommunications 2, 5, 7 INF5 Water Supply and Sewerage Infrastructure 1, 6

5.20 For those policies whose effects fall into categories 1-7, there will be no effect on designated sites and hence no further assessment needs to be undertaken. However, four preferred policies (GBC6, HOU2, EC1 and EC2 – highlighted in the table above) have effects that fall in whole or in part into category 8. This indicates that there is a potential effect on designated sites and that further consideration is required in order to be able to conclude whether the preferred policies should be

18 either screened out of or screened into a further stage of assessment. These highlighted preferred policies and any factors that may act to mitigate their effects in practice are considered in further detail below.

Sites Requiring Further Consideration

5.21 Preferred policies GBC6 and HOU2 have a potential effect because they will set out proposals for housing development within 5 km of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. This may lead to problems of disturbance from residents and domestic animals. Preferred policy EC1 has a potential effect because it will encourage development in town centres that may lead to increased traffic and air pollution. Preferred policy EC2 has a potential effect because it will provide for the retention of industrial premises within 5 km of designated sites, and this may lead to air pollution issues.

5.22 It is important to note that this categorisation relates to an assessment of the potential impact of the policies in isolation. Further work is therefore required to assess their potential effect in combination with other policies in the plan.

5.23 As with any development plan, the BLP is designed to be read and implemented in its entirety. As part of this, some policies are designed to mitigate the potential effects of others. There are other policies in particular that are relevant to assessing whether Policies GBC6, HOU2, EC1 and EC2 will in fact have a likely effect on designated sites.

5.24 With regard to Policies GBC6 and HOU2, the BLP contains a further Policy NE2 that will set out a mechanism to avoid or mitigate (as appropriate) any impact on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. This includes an exclusion zone within which no increase in dwellings is permitted, and a zone of influence within which specific mitigation measures are required.

5.25 This particular policy is presented in the BLP in its fully worked-up form, rather than as a preferred policy option. This reflects the legal status of what it is intended to achieve, and enables firm conclusions to be drawn as to its likely effects. The policy is consistent with the Thames Basin Heaths Delivery Framework and policies adopted by other local authorities. It can be concluded that Policy NE2 will ensure that Policies GBC6 and HOU2 will not have a negative impact on designated sites.

5.26 Policy EC1 will define a hierarchy of centres towards which development of main town centre uses is directed. Concentration of such uses in town centres should minimise the need to travel and maximise the potential for using non-car modes of transport, but the quantum of development itself may lead to some increase in car use and, therefore, air pollution.

5.27 The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges3 produced by the Highways Agency states that an increase in traffic will only affect areas of land up to 200 metres from a road where there will be a significant increase in traffic. The nearest defined centre to any designated site is Sunningdale district centre, which at its closest point is some 400 metres from the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. As distance from the centre increases, patterns of traffic growth and movement become very diffuse, and it is not considered that any road within 200 metres of the SPA is likely to see a significant increase in traffic as a result of development in the centre. Further, BLP Policy INF2 will encourage various measures to support and enhance sustainable transport,

3 www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/index

19 which will itself act to reduce any growth in road traffic arising from development. It can be concluded that Policy EC1 will not have an effect on designated sites.

5.28 Policy EC2 is a continuing allocation of employment sites, which will encourage retention of industrial and warehousing uses in certain specified locations. This is a roll-forward of an existing allocation which will see no change on the ground. Case law dictates that the likely effects of industrial use on designated sites should still be considered.

5.29 Some of the BLP employment sites are within 5 km of some designated sites – Burnham Beeches, Chiltern Beechwoods and Windsor Forest & Great Park SACs, plus South West London Water Bodies SPA. There are potential issues of air pollution arising from industrial processes on these sites if no mitigation measures are put in place. No air pollution effects are considered to arise from other employment uses such as offices.

5.30 The BLP contains three other policies which, when taken in combination, will act to reduce the risk of air pollution from industry to such a level that effects on designated sites are considered unlikely. Policy EP1 will put in place principles of environmental protection, including that development should not individually or in combination have an unacceptable impact on environmental quality. Policy EP2 relates to air pollution, and will state that proposals should mitigate their impacts on air pollution. Policy NE1, relating to nature conservation, will secure that proposals must avoid damage to designated sites, and that those sites will be maintained, protected and enhanced. It can be concluded that the combination of Policies EP1, EP2 and NE1 will ensure that Policy EC2 will not in reality have an effect on designated sites.

5.31 It can be seen as a result of this analysis that any apparent impacts arising from Preferred Policies GBC6, HOU2, EC1 and EC2 will be avoided by the presence of other policies in the BLP, or by the diffuse nature of increases in traffic. The BLP forms a cohesive whole and, when considered in its entirety, it is apparent that there will be no effect on designated sites arising from its policies. This position is dependent on the other policies identified being retained in the final version of the BLP, as is the council’s intention. Subject to this being done, it can be concluded that all the preferred policies considered above can be screened out of any further analysis. No further assessment of the effect of those policies needs to be undertaken.

In Combination Effects

5.32 The Habitat Regulations requires the consideration of significant effects of a plan or programme arising from in combination effects with other plans or programmes. It can be considered that this will fall into two categories: those effects associated with regional strategic plans and proposals and those relating to more localised effects.

5.33 The South East Plan considered the in-combination effects of the region’s projects and plans at a strategic level. Although the plan itself has now been revoked, this assessment remains relevant and it is not considered necessary to further assess any regionally strategic plans.

5.34 It is clearly neither practical nor necessary to assess the in combination effects of the BLP within the context of all other plans and projects within the South East. In practice, therefore, in-combination assessment is of greatest relevance when the plan would otherwise be screened out because its individual contribution is inconsequential.

5.35 For the purposes of this assessment, it has been determined that, due to the nature of the identified impacts, the key other plans and projects relate to the additional housing, transport and employment allocations proposed for other neighbouring authorities over the lifetime of the BLP. These have all been individually assessed under the Habitat Regulations, including any mitigation measures they themselves include, and this process will have included an assessment of in-combination effects arising at the time of assessment. They have been taken into account in this assessment.

5.36 Sections of this report above have considered the in-combination effects of sites proposed for allocation. Within the overall position that it will not be necessary to develop all the identified edge of settlement sites, it can be concluded that no in- combination effects are likely to arise from those that are developed. Similarly, the in- combination effects of policies have been considered, and the conclusion drawn that no in-combination effects are likely to arise.

5.37 The third element to an in-combination assessment is to ascertain whether the interaction of sites and policies itself generates any in-combination effects. In this case, there are potential effects arising from the development of certain sites (e.g. those in proximity to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA), but those effects have previously been considered in an analysis of the relevant policies e.g. Policy HOU2 which allocates housing sites. No further effects are considered to arise from the interaction between sites and policies. It can be concluded that no effects on designated sites are likely to arise from the combination of site allocations and policies in the BLP.

5.38 As detailed in Appendix C, no likelihood has been found of significant effects on designated sites arising from the BLP. Given this conclusion, and the analysis above of the likely effects of site allocations, policies and the interaction between the two, it is not considered that any in-combination effects could arise from the BLP as a whole.

21 Screening Opinion

6.1 Under Regulation 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 the council must consult with Natural England before determining whether or not a plan or programme is likely to have significant effects. A copy of this report will be sent to Natural England requesting their opinion, alongside consultation on the BLP itself.

6.2 It is the council’s preliminary opinion that the BLP is unlikely to have significant effects on the integrity of designated sites, and that therefore a full Appropriate Assessment of the plan is not required.

6.3 The council will review this opinion and, as the competent authority, will make a formal determination following consultation with Natural England. Natural England’s opinion will be reflected in the final version of this report, to be published following the consultation on the BLP.

22 Appendix A – Report on Screening of Sites

A1.1 The report in this appendix was commissioned from Jacobs and is an analysis of proposed allocated sites within the BLP. It assesses their likely effects, alone and in combination, on designated sites.

A1.2. The sites considered in the Jacobs report are the sites that were proposed for inclusion in the BLP at the time that the report was written. The report represents, and can only ever represent, a snapshot in time.

A1.3. As further work has been undertaken on the BLP the proposed site allocations have further evolved. As a result there are two sites in the Jacobs report that are now no longer proposed for inclusion in the BLP, and a group of additional sites that is being considered for inclusion in the plan.

A1.4. The additional sites have been considered as an addendum to the report. Not all of these sites may find a place in the BLP when it is published for consultation, and not all will be allocated for development in the final version of the BLP, but all need to be considered at this time in order to determine whether to screen out or screen in their likely effects.

A1.5 The addendum has been compiled by the council and does not form part of the Jacobs report. The conclusions of the Jacobs report and the addendum should be read in conjunction with one another.

An analysis of the proposed Allocated Sites within the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Unitary Authority Area

27th September 2013

Document Control Sheet BPP 04 F8 Version 15; March 2013

Project: Ecological Services to RBWM Client: RBWM Project No: B1593700 Document title: Spatial analysis of the Allocated Sites within the RBWM area Ref. No:

Originated by Checked by Reviewed by NAME NAME NAME ORIGINAL Adrian Hutchings Nick Clark Nick Clark

NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the INITIALS

Approved by above document(s) have been subjected to Nick Clark Jacobs’ Check and Review procedure and

that I approve them for issue NC DATE 27/09/13 Document status Final

REVISION NAME NAME NAME

NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the INITIALS

Approved by above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs’ Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue

DATE Document status

REVISION NAME NAME NAME

NAME As Project Manager I confirm that the INITIALS

Approved by above document(s) have been subjected to Jacobs’ Check and Review procedure and that I approve them for issue

DATE Document status

Jacobs U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs 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.

This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.

Executive Summary

Jacobs has been commissioned by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (RBWM) to undertake an analysis and broad assessment of proposed Allocation Sites for the emerging Local Plan for the Borough. This work forms part of the evidence base and is a pre-cursor to a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening exercise to be undertaken by RBWM.

This report delivers the findings of the analysis exercise and includes:

• the locations of each Allocated Site in relation to European and other designated and non-statutory nature conservation sites; • an understanding of the qualifying interest features (habitats and species) for which the European sites are designated and brief notes on the sensitivities and threats at each site; • an analysis and broad assessment investigating the proximity and groupings of Allocated Sites in relation to the European sites in the specified zone of influence.

The Allocated Sites in the Ascot area are the main concern given that a small number are located very close to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and all others are found within the designated 5km mitigation zone. The Thames Basin Heaths SPA framework guidance will need to be applied for all sites within the 5km mitigation zone. The process identified ten Allocated Sites that may have a significant effect on the SPA, either alone or in-combination with other developments and plans in the vicinity.

The Allocated Sites in the Windsor area are largely urban-based and, whilst they may not contribute any significant increased threat to European Sites above the current background levels, they should still be considered in-combination with other developments and plans in the area. Ten Allocated Sites are located close to the Windsor Forest and Great Park Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and may contribute a significant effect if developed.

The development of most Allocated Sites in the Maidenhead area when considered alone is not considered to be significant, but given the scale of residential development proposed in the emerging Local Borough Plan an in-combination assessment should not be ruled out. This is particularly the case with one site which is close to the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC.

A number of sites are ’Employment’ allocations or are listed as previously developed land and generally these will not contribute any increasing threats to European Sites. However, some of the Employment sites are Industrial areas and the potential impact of airborne pollution on the Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC should be considered both alone and in-combination. It is assumed that the HRA screening process has already been undertaken on previously developed sites and these can be screened-out. However, other sites in the vicinity should still be considered in-combination with these previously developed sites during the screening process.

The analysis has shown that a number of Allocated Sites can be recommended for screening-out due to their distance from European Sites and the lack of identifiable impact sources and pathways. These are predominantly located within the Maidenhead area. A note of caution is given here due to the large scale of the proposed development

in the area as a whole. Potential significant effects, especially in relation to increased recreation pressure on the Windsor Forest and Great Park and Chilterns Beechwoods SACs may result and should be considered as part of the in-combination assessment in the HRA screening process.

Contents

1 Introduction 5 1.1 Background 5 1.2 Deliverables 5

2 Methodology 6 2.1 Methodology 6 2.2 The Analysis Criteria 7 2.3 The grouping of Allocated Sites for analysis 8

3 Nature Conservation Interests & Objectives of European Sites in the Borough 9 3.1 Nature conservation interest of the European Sites 9

4 Analysis of sites 14 4.1 Introduction 14 4.2 Sites which are located within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA mitigation zones 14 4.3 Sites which should be considered carefully in the HRA screening process due to their proximity to a European site 15 4.4 Employment sites which should be carefully considered on the basis of their industrial uses alone and in-combination with other plans and policies 20 4.5 Previously developed sites 21 4.6 Remaining Allocated Sites which are located at distance from a European site 22

5 Summary 24

6 References and documents consulted 26

Appendix A. Figures 27

Appendix B. List of Allocated Sites 31

Appendix C. Summary of Allocated Sites proximity to the European designated sites in the area 34

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

A Habitats Regulations Assessment is the process by which the requirements of the Habitats Directive are practically implemented in order to ensure and demonstrate compliance. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 transposed the Habitats Directive into national law and came into force on 30th October 1994. The Regulations have been subsequently amended several times and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 consolidate all the various amendments made to the 1994 Regulations in respect of England and Wales. It appraises the potential for plans or projects to significantly affect European designated sites or Natura 2000 sites, i.e. Special Areas of Conservation, (SACs), and Special Protection Areas (SPAs). In accordance with national planning policy and best practice guidelines, potential and candidate Natura 2000 sites, as well as Ramsar sites, are also subject to HRA.

It should be noted that European protected sites (the ‘Natura 2000 Network’) are of exceptional importance for the conservation of important species and natural habitats within the European Union. The purpose of undertaking HRA on land use plans is to ensure that protection of the integrity of European sites is an integral part of the planning process at a regional and local level.

The location of all Allocated Sites considered in this work is given graphically in Figures 1-3 in Appendix A and listed in Appendix B.

1.2 Deliverables

This report delivers the findings of the analysis exercise and includes:

• the locations of each Allocated Site in relation to European and other designated and non-statutory nature conservation sites; • an understanding of the qualifying interest features (habitats and species) for which each European site is designated and brief notes on the sensitivities and threats at each site; • an analysis and broad assessment investigating the proximity and groupings of Allocated Sites in relation to the Natura 2000 sites.

2 Methodology

2.1 Methodology

The work reported here does not constitute a full HRA screening exercise of the proposed Allocated Sites for the emerging Local Borough Plan. This requires a much larger exercise involving a review of all Plans and Policies, including the emerging Local Plan. The full HRA screening exercise is to be undertaken by RBWM.

This analysis focuses primarily on the proximity of sites to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, and, where relevant, also considers other European sites in the Borough area. A Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery Framework and a Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document (Part 1) (July 2010 RBWM publication) have been developed and these set out the recommendations on measures to enable the delivery of dwellings in the vicinity of the SPA without having a significant effect on the SPA as a whole (Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership Board 12 th Feb 2009).

In summary, all new residential development resulting in a net increase in the number of dwellings within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA could have a significant effect on the integrity of the SPA designation, either alone or when considered in combination with other development. The agreed approach to mitigating this effect is based on a two pronged approach, both of which are required to be undertaken to ensure effective mitigation is provided. They are:

• the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), and • financial contributions towards strategic access management and monitoring.

The principles behind this framework are given in Box 1 below.

Box 1. The Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery Framework - principles

Residential development proposals which are likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) must demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects.

A zone of influence is defined, set at 5 km linear distance from the SPA boundary. Within this zone, proposals for residential development must take measures to ensure that the integrity of the SPA is protected.

Within the 5 km zone of influence, an exclusion zone is defined, set at 400 m linear distance from the SPA boundary. Proposals for a net increase in dwellings within this exclusion zone will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated through an Appropriate Assessment that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.

Development proposals for a net increase of dwellings outside the exclusion zone but within the zone of influence will be required to deliver mitigation measures prior to occupation and in perpetuity. Mitigation measures will be based on both the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and a contribution towards Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM).

The following standards and arrangements will apply for SANG provision and access management: a) A minimum of 8 hectares of SANG land (after discounting to account for current access and capacity) will be provided per 1,000 new occupants. b) Development resulting in a net increase of 10 or more dwellings will be required to be within a specified linear distance of a SANG that has capacity to cater for the consequent increase in residents. The relevant distance will differ for each SANG and will be calculated depending on its size. c) Development resulting in a net increase of fewer than 10 dwellings will not

be required to be within a specified distance of a SANG, provided that a

sufficient quantity of SANG land exists overall to cater for the consequent

increase in residents. d) Large developments may be expected to provide bespoke mitigation for which the SANG requirement may vary according to the size and proximity of the development to the SPA. These solutions must be agreed with Natural England. e) Access management measures will be provided strategically through cooperation between local authorities.

2.2 The Analysis Criteria

A broad assessment of the pathways and receptors for impacts is made in this analysis but it is not a substitute for a full screening assessment of the impact of the Allocated Sites either alone or in-combination with other developments and plans on the qualifying features of the relevant European sites. The details of possible sources and the degree of magnitude of impacts are generally unknown at this stage in the development of the Local Plan. This is therefore a broad assessment based on proximity and scale of development rather than an assessment of the uses of sites and any in-combination effects with other sites and plans. 7

In this broad assessment the potential sources and pathways for effects arising from development in the proposed Allocated Sites are considered to be:

• Recreational pressure including habitat and species disturbance;

• Direct land take;

• Air and water pollution – a distance related criteria.

Two of these criteria require further clarification:

Recreational Pressure

For most European sites in the Borough, excluding the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, it is generally considered in this Assessment that any recreational pressures arising from development will be diffuse and therefore not significant, and/or very difficult to assess independently. Similarly, this applies to those Allocated Sites which are proposed to be used for ‘Employment’ only. However, where appropriate due to proximity, scale and/or a particular grouping of development activities, the cumulative effect of recreation pressure assuming all developments take place in that area has been assessed.

Air and water pollution

Guidance from the Environment Agency (EA) with regard to water and air pollution has been taken into account during the screening of European sites in the Borough. The EA has set recommended zones of influence for certain types of activities. Outside of these zones, significant effects associated with the development of the Allocated Sites on European sites arising from water and air pollution are considered unlikely to arise. The largest precautionary zone of influence considered by the EA is 5km; that is, most operations with the potential to cause direct water and/or air pollution impacts located further than 5km from the boundary of a European site are considered very unlikely to have a significant effect on the special interest of that site.

2.3 The grouping of Allocated Sites for analysis

Given their spatial distribution, the Allocated Sites, fall naturally into three groups:

• the Ascot or Thames Basin Heaths Group (Figure 1 Appendix A);

• the Windsor Group (Figure 2 Appendix A); and

• the Maidenhead Group (Figure 3 Appendix A).

3 Nature Conservation Interests & Objectives of European Sites in the Borough

3.1 Nature conservation interest of the European Sites

The information detailed in Table 1 below is derived from information from:

• Natural England;

• Joint Nature Conservation Committee; and

• the following sources:

o JNCC - SACS in the UK at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1458

o Natural England undated European Site Conservation Objectives for Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation Site code: UK0012724 at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/UK0012724- Chiltern-Beechwoods-SAC_tcm6-31795.pdf

o Wokingham Borough Council (2011) Draft Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Wokingham Borough’s Supplementary Planning Documents associated with the delivery of the Strategic Development Locations allocated in the Core Strategy June 2011

o Greater London Authority 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report ERM for GLA at www.london.gov.uk/shaping- london/london-plan

Table 1. European Nature Conservation sites in the Borough - descriptions and objectives

Qualifying Interest Site (area) Conservation Objectives Site Sensitivities Threats (Habitats and Species) Thames Basin Breeding populations of: Nightjar • Water quality - e.g. pollution through • Changes in Heaths SPA (Caprimulgus europaeus) groundwater and surface run-off management • Nightjar (Caprimulgus • Maintain the population above sources practices (8,274.72 ha) europaeus) 198 pairs (75%) • Water level - maintenance of a high • Increased • Woodlark (Lullula Woodlark (Lullula arborea) and stable water table recreational pressure arborea) • Maintain the population above • 112 pairs (75%) Disturbance to bird feeding and • Dartford Warbler (Sylvia roosting habitat (noise / visual)

undata) Dartford Warbler • Spread of non-native / invasive (Sylvia undata) • species Maintain the population above 334 pairs (75%) • Scrub encroachment

• Atmospheric pollution (nutrient deposition and acidification)

• Development pressure

South West London Internationally important Maintain, in favourable • Water quality - e.g. pollution through • Eutrophication and Waterbodies SPA / populations of: condition, the habitats for the groundwater and surface run-off siltation of water Ramsar populations of migratory bird sources bodies • Shoveler ( Anas clypeata ) species of European (828.14 ha) importance, with particular • Disturbance to bird feeding and • Increased • Gadwall (Anas strepera ) reference to open water and roosting habitat (noise / visual) recreational pressure surrounding marginal habitats • Maintenance of a high and stable water table

• Siltation (e.g. excessive poaching of lake margins by stock, suspended sediments leading to transport of nutrients)

• Scrub or tree encroachment

Qualifying Interest Site (area) Conservation Objectives Site Sensitivities Threats (Habitats and Species) • Spread of non-native / invasive species

• Development pressure

• Diffuse air pollution from traffic and agriculture

Windsor Forest and • Large population of Maintain, in favourable • Water quality - e.g. pollution through • Changes in Great Park SAC ancient trees condition, the European dry groundwater and surface run-off management heath, Northern Atlantic wet sources practices (1,687.26 ha) • Most important site in the heath and the habitats for the UK for fauna associated population of Stag Beetle • Maintenance of a high and stable • Increased with decaying timber or (Lucanus cervus ) water table recreational pressure ancient trees. • Maintenance of appropriate grazing • Old acidophilous oak regime woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains • Spread of non-native / invasive species • Atlantic acidophilous • beech forests with Ilex Scrub encroachment and sometimes also • Atmospheric pollution (nutrient Taxus in the shrub layer deposition and acidification) (Quercion robori- petraeae or Ilici- • Development pressure Fagenion )

• Violet Click Beetle (Limoniscus violaceus )

Qualifying Interest Site (area) Conservation Objectives Site Sensitivities Threats (Habitats and Species) Chiltern • Semi-natural dry • Avoid the deterioration of the • Development pressure • Changes in Beechwoods SAC grasslands and scrubland qualifying natural habitats and management on calcareous substrates the habitats of qualifying • Atmospheric pollution (nutrient practices (1,276.48 ha) species, ensuring the integrity deposition and acidification) • Festuco-Brometalia of the site is maintained • Increased • Maintenance of a high and stable recreational pressure • Asperulo-Fagetum beech • Achieve Favourable water table forests Conservation Status of each of the qualifying features • Water quality - e.g. pollution through • Stag Beetle ( Lucanus groundwater and surface run-off cervus ) sources

Burnham Beeches • Atlantic acidophilous • Maintain the designated • Water quality - e.g. pollution through • Changes in SAC beech forests with Ilex habitats and geological features groundwater and surface run-off management and sometimes also in favourable condition sources practices (382.76 ha) Taxus in the shrub layer • • • (Quercion robori-petraeae Promote natural woodland Maintenance of water table Increased composition and structure recreational pressure or Ilici-Fagenion ) • Development pressure

• Spread of non-native / invasive species

• Scrub encroachment

• Atmospheric pollution (nutrient deposition and acidification)

Thursley, Ash, • Northern Atlantic wet • Maintain the designated • Water quality - e.g. pollution through • Changes in Pirbright and heaths with Erica tetralix habitats in favourable condition groundwater and surface run-off management Chobham SAC sources practices (linked with the • European dry heaths Thames Basin • • Maintenance of water table Increased Heaths SPA) recreational pressure • Depressions on peat • Spread of non-native / invasive substrates of the (5,138 ha) species Rhynchosporion • Scrub encroachment

Qualifying Interest Site (area) Conservation Objectives Site Sensitivities Threats (Habitats and Species) • Atmospheric pollution (nutrient deposition and acidification)

• Development pressure

4 Analysis of sites

4.1 Introduction

A summary table of the results of the proximity analysis is given in Appendix C. The recommendations resulting from the proximity analysis are given below.

4.2 Sites which are located within the Thames Basin Heaths SPA mitigation zones

The sites listed in Table 2 below are those which sit within the Thames Basin Heath SPA mitigation zones at 5,000m and 7,000m distance from the SPA boundary. In accordance with the Natural England framework guidance, all new residential development resulting in a net increase in the number of dwellings within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths could have a significant effect on the integrity of the SPA designation, either alone or when considered in combination with other development. The agreed two-pronged approach is noted in Section 2.1 above and will include the provision of SANG land.

During the HRA screening process these considerations should be taken into account for those Allocated Sites in the Ascot area where house and mixed residential use is proposed.

Table 2. Allocated Sites with proposed residential use located within the mitigation zones of the TBH SPA

Thames Basin Heath SPA Site Proposed Allocated site No. allocation 400m 5000m 7000m buffer buffer buffer Sunningdale Park, Larch 2 Mixed No Yes Yes Avenue

Sunningdale car park and 3 Mixed No Yes Yes surrounds

Shorts Recycling Centre, St 4 Mixed No Yes Yes George's Lane, Ascot

5 Ascot Gas Holder site Housing No Yes Yes

Telephone Exchange, Upper 9 Housing No Yes Yes Village Road, Sunninghill High Peak, Holcombe House 11 and the White House off Housing No Yes Yes London Road, Sunningdale

15 Silwood Park, Sunningdale Mixed No Yes Yes

Ascot station car park, 16 Housing No Yes Yes Station Hill

Site Allocated site Proposed Thames Basin Heath SPA No. allocation 17 Ascot Centre Mixed No Yes Yes

18 Heatherwood Hospital Mixed No Yes Yes

4.3 Sites which should be considered carefully in the HRA screening process due to their proximity to a European site

A number of Allocated Sites require further investigation and careful consideration in the HRA screening process as development alone or in-combination may have a significant effect on a European site. Those sites which are largely located in an urban area and therefore not considered to contribute significantly to an increase in recreation pressure and infrastructure development above background levels are also included here. It is important to recognise that when judged in-combination with other developments and plans the effect of developing these sites may be significant.

These are given in Table 3 below. Note that Allocated Sites are listed in relation to their proximity to each other as well within each area.

Table 3. Results of the proximity analysis showing Allocated Sites which require consideration alone or in-combination during the HRA screening process.

Key Consideration should be given to this Allocated site alone or in combination with other developments and plans when undertaking the HRA screening exercise. Located in an urban setting and therefore not considered to contribute significantly to an increase in recreation pressure and infrastructure development etc, above background levels, but when judged in-combination with other developments and plans the effect may be significant.

Development Proposed Site No. Allocated site Potential effect on European Site Type Allocation

Ascot Group A large mixed development at 1.74km distance from Thames Basin Heaths (TBH) (within the 400-5000m buffer) and 1.24km from Windsor Forest &Great Park (WF&GP). Anticipated likely effects due to rise in recreation pressure and 2 Sunningdale Park, Larch Avenue Mixed 100 hence disturbance, including probable transport infra-structure development due to close proximity to European sites. Likely effects alone and in-combination of potentially 750 dwelling units in the area Anticipated likely effects due to rise in recreation pressure and hence disturbance, including probable transport infra-structure 3 Sunningdale car park and surrounds Mixed 30 development due to close proximity to TBH alone and likely in-combination effects of potentially 750 dwelling units in the area on both the TBH and WF&GP. Anticipated likely significant effect as increase in recreation pressure/transport infrastructure 4 Shorts Recycling Centre, St George's Lane, Ascot Mixed 50 development/air quality issues alone and in- combination of potentially 750 dwelling units in the vicinity of TBH SPA and WF&GP SAC.

Development Proposed Site No. Allocated site Potential effect on European Site Type Allocation A larger development to the above located close to the TBH, but anticipated alone and in- Residential combination effects of potentially 750 dwelling 5 Ascot Gas Holder site 70 housing only units in the vicinity.

A small development at some distance from both TBH and WF&GP (2.67km and 2.33km respectively). Anticipated in-combination effects Telephone Exchange, Upper Village Road, 9 Housing 10 only of potentially 750 dwelling units in the Sunninghill vicinity.

High Peak, Holcombe House and the White As above, close proximity to TBH. Alone and in- 11 Housing 20 House off London Road, Sunningdale combination.

A mixed use development located within the 400-5000m TBH buffer and close to WF&GP 15 15. Silwood Park, Sunningdale Mixed use TBC (610m). In-combination effects likely only with a total of 290 dwellings in the area likely.

Residential 16 Ascot station car park, Station Hill 50 As above housing only

A large development located within the 400- Mixed use, 5000m TBH buffer with anticipated effects both including retail, alone and in–combination with the others 17 Ascot Centre leisure and 210 planned in the area. office uses

(residential led)

A large development located within the 400- 5000m TBH buffer with anticipated effects both 18 Heatherwood Hospital Mixed 200 alone and in–combination with the others planned in the area.

Development Proposed Site No. Allocated site Potential effect on European Site Type Allocation

Windsor Group

A distance of approximately 2.32km from WF&GP, but when considered in-combination 20 Garden Centre, Dedworth Road, Windsor Housing 35 with other developments and plans with potential for a total of 510 units in the area, may have a significant effect on this European site.

Squires Garden Centre, Maidenhead Road, 21 Housing 40 As above Windsor

An urban based location therefore not anticipated to significantly increase recreation pressure/transport infrastructure development beyond background levels, but close proximity 76 The Parade and Car Park, Ruddlesway, Windsor Housing 15 to WF&GP (1.78km) may lead to significant effects when considered in-combination with other developments in the vicinity (510 potential units). As above but even closer proximity to WF&GP (1.66km) may lead to significant effects when 75 Sawyers Close, Windsor Housing 180 considered in-combination with other developments in the vicinity (510 potential units).

94 Vale Road Industrial Estate Mixed 110 As above

Residential housing and 83 Land rear of 38-39 Peascod Street, Windsor retail retained 45 As above at Peascod Street frontage

Development Proposed Site No. Allocated site Potential effect on European Site Type Allocation

85 Riverside Walk Office Building, Windsor Housing 40 As above

As above, but very close to WF&GP (440m) and Residential 93 TA Centre, Bolton Road, Windsor 20 may cause significant effects both alone an in- housing only combination.

An urban based location therefore not anticipated to significantly increase recreation pressure/transport infrastructure development beyond background levels, but close proximity 67 95, Straight Road, Old Windsor Housing 10 to WF&GP (1.17km) may lead to significant effects when considered in-combination with other developments in the vicinity (510 potential units). As above and proximity to WF&GP is similar 68 Straight Works, Straight Road, Old Windsor Housing 20 (1.18km).

Maidenhead Group Anticipated effect alone and in-combination due to proximity (2.24km from CB SAC) and Cookham Gas Holder, Whyteladyes Lane, increase in recreation pressure/transport 25 Housing 40 Cookham Rise infrastructure development and in-combination effects of potentially 1000 dwelling units in the Maidenhead area.

Key to site abbreviations:

TBH – Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area SWLWB – South West London Water Bodies Special Protection Area and Ramsar site WFGP – Windsor Forest and Great Park Special Area of Conservation BB – Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation CB – Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation

4.4 Employment sites which should be carefully considered on the basis of their industrial uses alone and in-combination with other plans and policies

There are a number of Allocated Sites which have been designated for “Employment” use only and generally these are considered to have negligible effects on the European sites. However, a number of these (shaded in Table 4 below) are Industrial sites and, whilst at this stage in the development of the Local Plan the nature of these sites is unknown, they should be considered carefully in the HRA screening process. It is acknowledged that routine regulatory procedures will be applied to the development of these sites, but of particular concern here is the proximity of the Ascot and Windsor Industrial sites to the Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC. The air quality sensitivities of this site (within the 5km EA buffer for air pollution) and uncertainty over likely effects will require more information on specific uses to be able to complete the HRA screening process. If there is any uncertainty in the potential effects of these sites on European designated sites then an Appropriate Assessment will be necessary. These sites are given in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Sites recommended for screening out on the basis of being designated for Employment and other non-residential uses, but should still be considered in-combination with other developments and plans.

General Area No. Name of site location (Ha) 13 Ascot Business Park, South Ascot Ascot 3.98

14 Queen's Road Industrial Estate, Sunninghill Ascot 0.45

23 Priors Way Industrial Estate Bray 3.8

26 Part of Lower Mount Farm, Cookham Cookham 5.16

29 Manor House Lane Industrial Estate, Datchet Datchet 0.62

30 Ditton Park, Datchet Datchet 19.57

Maidenhead Office Park and Barloworld, Westacott 35 Hurley 15.24 Way, Littlewick Green

38 Little Farm Nursery, North Town Moor, Maidenhead Maidenhead 3.7

39 Furze Platt Industrial Estate Maidenhead 6.1

Eastern part of Kings Grove / Boyn Valley Industrial 58 Maidenhead 2.48 Estate, Maidenhead

60 Vanwall Road Business Area, Maidenhead Maidenhead 13.3

61 Norreys Drive, Maidenhead Maidenhead 10.07

62 Cordwallis Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Maidenhead 9.41

General Area No. Name of site location (Ha) 63 Howarth Road Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Maidenhead 2.32

Woodlands Business Park, Woodlands Park, 64 Maidenhead 1.26 Maidenhead

65 Foundation Park, Cannon Lane, Maidenhead Maidenhead 5.14

88 Imperial House, Alma Road, Windsor Windsor 1.84

89 Windsor Dials, Arthur Road, Windsor Windsor 0.98

90 Vansittart Industrial Estate, Windsor Windsor 2.07

91 Centrica, Maidenhead Road, Windsor Windsor 2.86

92 Fairacres Industrial Estate, Tinkers Lane, Windsor Windsor 2.47

4.5 Previously developed sites

A number of Allocated Sites are listed as previously developed land. On this basis, and on the assumption that previous HRA screening and assessments have been conducted on these areas for the current development activity, then it is recommended that they are screened-out when considered alone. However any new development activity in- combination with other developments and plans in the area should be considered in the HRA screening process. These sites are given in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Sites recommended for screening out on the basis of being previously developed but should still be considered in-combination with other developments and plans

General Proposed Estimated Area No. Name of site location allocation scale (Ha) 2 Sunningdale Park, Larch Avenue Ascot Mixed 100 4.08 Shorts Recycling Centre, St 4 Ascot Mixed 50 5.67 George's Lane, Ascot 15 Silwood Park, Sunningdale Ascot Mixed TBC 9.53

18 Heatherwood Hospital Ascot Mixed 200 7.44 Garden Centre, Dedworth Road, 20 Bray Housing 35 1.27 Windsor Squi res Garden Centre, 21 Bray Housing 40 0.74 Maidenhead Road, Windsor Land at Water Oakley Farm, 22 Bray Housing 40 9.04 Windsor Road Part of Lower Mount Farm, 26 Cookham Employment TBC 5.16 Cookham Woolley Hall and Woolley Grange, 31 Hurley Housing 45 14.7 Westacott Way, Littlewick Green

General Proposed Estimated Area No. Name of site location allocation scale (Ha) Grove Business Park, Cannon Lane, 33 Hurley Mixed 60 7.97 White Waltham Maidenhead Office Park and 35 Barloworld, Westacott Way, Hurley Employment TBC 15.24 Littlewick Green

4.6 Remaining Allocated Sites which are located at distance from a European site

A number of Allocated Sites are located some distance from the nearest European designated site, outside of the TBH mitigation zones and are considered to be relatively benign in terms of impacts on the European sites in the borough. However, it should be reiterated that these Allocated Sites have not been assessed in-combination with other developments and plans as this will be undertaken as part of the HRA screening process. Therefore these sites should still be considered in due course.

Table 6. Allocated Sites recommended for screening out

General Proposed Estimated Area No. Name of site location allocation scale (Ha) Windsor Police Station, Alma Central 95 Housing 0 0.32 Road Windsor Central 96 Post Office Site, William Street Housing 0 0.25 Windsor 30 Ditton Park, Datchet Datchet Employment 0 19.57

97 Land west of Cannon Lane Maidenhead Education 0 24.91

98 Land on Clivemont Road Maidenhead Housing 0 0.41 Claires Court Girls School, 99 Maidenhead Housing 45 1.63 College Road Claires Court School, Ray Mill 100 Maidenhead Housing 15 0.72 Road West Little Farm Nursery, North 38 Maidenhead Leisure uses 0 3.7 Town Moor, Maidenhead 7-9 Bridge Avenue, 41 Maidenhead Housing 25 0.12 Maidenhead 12 -13 Bridge Avenue, 42 Maidenhead Housing 9 0.08 Maidenhead 43 150 Bath Road, Maidenhead Maidenhead Housing 15 0.32 35, 37 and 33 Velmead Works 44 Lower Cookham Road, Maidenhead Housing 20 0.25 Maidenhead Belmont Place, Belmont Road, 45 Maidenhead Housing 20 0.22 Maidenhead 46 DTC, Gringer Hill, Maidenhead Maidenhead Housing/mix 120 2.01 Berkshire House, High Street, 47 Maidenhead Housing 60 0.16 Maidenhead

General Proposed Estimated Area No. Name of site location allocation scale (Ha) Employment areas to the east 49 Maidenhead Housing 30 0.55 of Oldfield Rd, Maidenhead Exclusive House, Oldfield 50 Maidenhead Housing 25 0.27 Road, Maidenhead Maidenhead Lawn Tennis 51 Club, All Saints Avenue, Maidenhead Housing 25 0.75 Maidenhead Middlehurst, Boyn Valley 52 Maidenhead Housing 15 0.28 Road, Maidenhead Western section of Kings 53 Grove Industrial Estate, Boyn Maidenhead Housing 60 1.29 Valley Road, Maidenhead Shoppenhangers Manor, 54 Maidenhead Housing 50 1.84 Manor Lane, Maidenhead Land to rear of Whitebrook 55 Park, Lower Cookham Road, Maidenhead Housing 35 1.38 Maidenhead Reform Road Industrial Estate, 56 Maidenhead Mixed 100 6.99 Maidenhead Stafferton Way, Former Park 59 Maidenhead Mixed/emp 200 13.86 and Ride, Maidenhead Summerleaze office and 66 Maidenhead Housing 40 0.96 workshop, Summerleaze Road Minton Place, Victoria Street, 70 Windsor Housing 110 0.36 Windsor Windsor Fire Station, St Marks 71 Windsor Housing 10 0.2 Road Area between Alma Road and 80 Windsor Housing 85 0.89 Goslar Way, Windsor Crown House and Charriott 81 House, Victoria Street, Windsor Housing 45 0.3 Windsor

5 Summary

The above exercise forms an element of the full HRA screening required for the proposed Allocated Sites in the emerging Local Borough Plan. This work has primarily focused on a proximity analysis and a broad assessment of potential effects given the scale and, to a lesser extent, the purpose of the proposed developments. This work forms a part of the evidence base for the HRA screening exercise to be undertaken by RBWM.

The Allocated Sites in the Ascot area are the main concern given that a small number are located very close to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and all others are found within the 5km mitigation zone. The process identified ten Allocated Sites in this respect that may have a significant effect on the SPA, either alone or in-combination with other developments and plans in the vicinity (see Table 3). On current evidence approximately 750 additional residential units are proposed in the emerging Local Borough Plan. The TBH SPA framework guidance will need to be applied for all sites within the 5km mitigation zone.

In the Windsor area ten Allocated Sites are located close to the Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC (Table 3). Whilst these are largely urban-based schemes and may not contribute any significant increased threat above the current background levels, they should still be considered in-combination with other developments and plans in the area during the screening process. On current evidence approximately 500 additional units are proposed in the Windsor area in the emerging Local Borough Plan.

The development of most Allocated Sites in the Maidenhead area when considered alone is not considered to be significant, but 1,000 additional residential units are proposed in the emerging LBP for the area and as such in-combination assessment should not be ruled out. This is particularly the case with one site listed in Table 3 which is close to the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC. This site will need to be considered carefully at the HRA screening stage.

A number of sites are identified as “Employment” allocations and generally these will not contribute any increasing threats to European Sites. However, some of these sites are allocated as Industrial areas and, whilst the details of these sites is currently unknown, the potential impact of airborne pollution on the WFGP SAC should be considered both alone and in-combination. These sites sit within the 5km EA buffer for air pollution for European Sites (see Table 4.).

There are also a number of previously developed sites in the current Allocation list for which it is assumed that the HRA screening process has already been undertaken and can be screened-out. However, other sites in the vicinity should still be considered in- combination with these previously developed sites during the screening process. These are given in Table 5.

Finally, the analysis has shown that a number of Allocated Sites can be recommended for screening-out due to their distance away from European Sites and the lack of identifiable impact sources and pathways (see Table 6.). These are predominantly located within the Maidenhead area where on current evidence approximately 1,000 dwelling units are proposed within the Allocated Sites of the emerging LBP. A caveat is therefore given here with this recommendation for screening out, in that even at distance from any European Site the scale of these proposals may lead to significant effects,

especially in relation to increased recreation pressure on the WFGP and Chilterns Beechwoods SACs. A detailed in-combination assessment should be undertaken particularly for the site listed in Table 3 which is located close to the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC.

6 References and documents consulted

References

Greater London Authority 2009 Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Report ERM for GLA at www.london.gov.uk/shaping-london/london-plan

JNCC - SACS in the UK at http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1458

Natural England (March 2009) The Assessment of Regional Spatial Strategies and Sub- regional strategies under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, David Tyldesley Associates for Natural England, Peterborough

Natural England undated European Site Conservation Objectives for Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation Site code: UK0012724 at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/UK0012724-Chiltern-Beechwoods-SAC_tcm6- 31795.pdf

RBWM, (2010) Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning Document (Part 1) (July 2010 RBWM publication

Scott Wilson, Levett-Therivel, Treweek EC (2006) Appropriate Assessment of Plans.

Thames Basin Heaths Strategic Partnership Board (2009) Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery Framework , South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA Ltd)

Wokingham Borough Council (2011) Draft Habitat Regulations Assessment for the Wokingham Borough’s Supplementary Planning Documents associated with the delivery of the Strategic Development Locations allocated in the Core Strategy June 2011

Documents consulted

English Nature (1997) Habitats regulations guidance note - Appropriate Assessment (Regulation 48) The Conservation Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 - HRGN 1

English Nature (2001) Habitats regulations guidance note - determination of Likely Significant Effect HRGN 3

English Nature (2001) Habitats regulations guidance note - Alone or in-combination HRGN 4

Appendix A. Figures

Appendix B. List of Allocated Sites

No. Name of site General Current Proposed Estimated Commentary Area location allocation allocation scale (Ha) 2 Sunningdale Park, Larch Avenue Ascot Green Belt MDS Mixed 100 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 4.08 3 Sunningdale car park and surrounds Ascot None Mixed 30 Site within the urban area 1.67 4 Shorts Recycling Centre, St George's Lane, Ascot Ascot Green Belt Mixed 50 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 5.67 5 Ascot Gas Holder Site, Sunninghill Ascot None Housing 70 Site within urban area 2.08 9 Telephone Exchange, Upper Village Road, Sunninghill Ascot None Housing 10 Site within urban area 0.21 11 High Peak, Holcombe House and the White House off Asco t None Housing 20 Site within urban area 2.26 London Road, Sunningdale 13 Ascot Business Park, South Ascot Ascot Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation as 3.98 employment 14 Queen's Road Industrial Estate, Sunninghill Ascot Employment Employment 0 Suitable fo r continued designation for 0.45 employment 15 Silwood Park, Sunningdale Ascot GB - Maj dev site Mixed 0 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 9.53 suitable for employment designation 16 Ascot Station Car Park and Cloverleaf Cars, Ascot Ascot Green B elt Housing 50 Neighbourhood Plan identified site as 1.03 opportunity 17 Ascot centre regeneration area Ascot Green Belt Mixed 210 Neighbourhood Plan identified site as an 18.46 opportunity 18 Heatherwood Hospital Ascot Green Belt MDS Mixed 200 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 7.44 20 Garden Centre, Dedworth Road, Windsor Bray Green Belt Housing 35 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 1.27 21 Squires Garden Centre, Maidenhead Road, Windsor Bray Green Belt Housing 40 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 0.74 22 Land at Water Oakley Farm, Windsor Road Bray Green Belt Housing 40 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 9.04 23 Priors Way Industrial Estate Bray Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 3. 8 Employment 95 Windsor Police Station, Alma Road Central Windsor None Housing 0 0.32 96 Post Office Site, William Street Central Windsor None Housing 0 0.25 25 Cookham Gas Holder, Whyteladyes Lane, Cookham Cookham None Housing 40 Site within urban area 1.23 Rise 26 Part of Lower Mount Farm, Cookham Cookham Green Belt Employment 0 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 5.16 29 Manor House Lane Industrial Estate, Datchet Datchet Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 0.62 employment 30 Ditton Park, Datchet Datchet Employment Employment 0 Existing developed site in Green Belt 19.57 suitable for employment 31 Woolley Hall and Woolley Grange, Westacott Way, Hurley Green Belt Housing 45 Existing developed site in the Gr een Belt 14.7 Littlewick Green 33 Grove Business Park, Cannon Lane, White Waltham Hurley Green Belt Mixed 60 Existing developed site in the Green Belt 7.97 35 Maidenhead Office Park and Barloworld, Westacott Hurley Employment Employment 0 Existing d eveloped site in the Green Belt 15.24 Way, Littlewick Green suitable for employment designation 97 Land west of Cannon Lane Maidenhead None Education 0 24.91 98 Land on Clivemont Road Maidenhead Employment Housing 0 0.41 99 Claires Court Girls School, College Road Maiden head Education Housing 45 1.63 100 Claires Court School, Ray Mill Road West Maidenhead Education Housing 15 0.72 38 Little Farm Nursery, North Town Moor, Maidenhead Maidenhead Green Belt Leisure uses 0 Leisure in Green Belt Opportunity 3.7 39 Furze Platt Industrial Estate Maidenhead Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 6.1 employment

No. Name of site General Current Proposed Estimated Commentary Area location allocation allocation scale (Ha) 41 7-9 Bridge Avenue, Maidenhead Maidenhead Town Centre Housing 25 Site within urban area 0.12 42 12 -13 Bridge Avenue, Maidenhead Maidenhead Town Centre Housing 9 Site within urban area 0.08 43 150 Bath Road, Maidenhead Maidenhead None Housing 15 Site within urban area 0.32 44 35, 37 and 33 Velmead Works Lower Cookham Road, Maidenhead None Housing 20 Site within urban area 0.25 Maidenhead 45 Belmont Place, Belmont Road, Maidenhead Maidenhead Employment Housing 20 Potentially available employment site 0.22 46 DTC, Gringer Hill, Maidenhead Maidenhead Employment Housing/mix 120 Potentially available employment site 2.01 47 Berkshire House, Hig h Street, Maidenhead Maidenhead Town Centre Housing 60 Potentially available employment site 0.16 49 Employment areas to the east of Oldfield Rd, Maidenhead Employment Housing 30 Potentially available employment site 0.55 Maidenhead 50 Exclusive House, O ldfield Road, Maidenhead Maidenhead Employment Housing 25 Potentially available employment site 0.27 51 Maidenhead Lawn Tennis Club, All Saints Avenue, Maidenhead None Housing 25 Site within urban area 0.75 Maidenhead 52 Middlehurst, Boyn Valley Road, Ma idenhead Maidenhead None Housing 15 Site within urban area 0.28 53 Western section of Kings Grove Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Employment Housing 60 Potentially available employment site 1.29 Boyn Valley Road, Maidenhead 54 Shoppenhangers Manor, Manor L ane, Maidenhead Maidenhead None Housing 50 Site within urban area 1.84 55 Land to rear of Whitebrook Park, Lower Cookham Maidenhead Employment Housing 35 Vacant employment building 1.38 Road, Maidenhead 56 Reform Road Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Maiden head Employment Mixed 100 Adjacent to waterways proposal 6.99 58 Eastern part of Kings Grove / Boyn Valley Industrial Maidenhead Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 2.48 Estate, Maidenhead employment 59 Stafferton Way, Former P ark and Ride, Maidenhead Maidenhead Opportunity Mixed/emp 200 Regeneration opportunity linked to 13.86 Maidenhead town centre 60 Vanwall Road Business Area, Maidenhead Maidenhead Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 13 .3 employment 61 Norreys Drive, Maidenhead Maidenhead Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 10.07 employment 62 Cordwallis Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Maidenhead Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 9. 41 employment 63 Howarth Road Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Maidenhead Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 2.32 employment 64 Woodlands Business Park, Woodlands Park, Maidenhead Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued de signation for 1.26 Maidenhead employment 65 Foundation Park, Cannon Lane, Maidenhead Maidenhead Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 5.14 employment 66 Summerleaze office and workshop, Summerleaze Maidenhead Green Belt Housing 40 0. 96 Road 67 95 Straight Road, Old Windsor Old Windsor None Housing 10 Potentially available employment site 0.28 68 Straight Works, Straight Road, Old Windsor Old Windsor None Housing 20 Potentially available employment site 0.55 70 Minton Place, Victoria Str eet, Windsor Windsor None Housing 110 0.36 71 Windsor Fire Station, St Marks Road Windsor None Housing 10 0.2 75 Sawyers Close, Windsor Windsor None Housing 180 7.6 76 The Parade and Car Park, Ruddlesway, Windsor Windsor None Housing 15 Site withi n urban area 0.61 80 Area between Alma Road and Goslar Way, Windsor Windsor None Housing 85 Potentially available employment site 0.89 81 Crown House and Charriott House, Victoria Street, Windsor none Housing 45 Potentially available employment s ite 0.3 Windsor 83 Telephone Exchange and parking area, Bachelors Windsor None Housing 45 Site within urban area 0.61 Acre, Windsor

No. Name of site General Current Proposed Estimated Commentary Area location allocation allocation scale (Ha) 85 Riverside Walk Office Building, Windsor Windsor None Housing 40 Potentially available employment site 0.21 88 Imperial House, Alma Road, Windsor Windsor Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation form 1.84 employment 89 Windsor Dials, Arthur Road, Windsor Windsor Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 0.98 employment 90 Vansittart Industr ial Estate, Windsor Windsor Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 2.07 employment 91 Centrica, Maidenhead Road, Windsor Windsor Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 2.86 employment 92 Fairacres Industria l Estate, Tinkers Lane, Windsor Windsor Employment Employment 0 Suitable for continued designation for 2.47 employment 93 TA Centre, Bolton Road Windsor None Housing 20 0.5 94 Vale Road Industrial Estate Windsor Employment Mixed 110 Site within urban a rea 1.91

Appendix C. Summary of Allocated Sites proximity to the European designated sites in the area

Thames Basin Heath SPA Development Proximity to nearest Proximity to nearest Site No. Allocated site Type SPA (name of site)* SAC (name of site)* 400m buffer 5000m buffer 7000m buffer Ascot Group

1.74km (TBH) 2 Sunningdale Park, Larch Avenue Mixed 1.24km (WFGP) No Yes Yes 7.44km (SWLWB)

0.42km (TBH) 6.76km 3 Sunningdale car park and surrounds Mixed 1.31km (WFGP) No Yes Yes (SWLWB)

3.55km (TBH) 9.51km 4 Shorts Recycling Centre, St George's Lane, Ascot Mixed 2.48km (WFGP) No Yes Yes (SWLWB)

5 Ascot Gas Holder site Housing 4.05km (TBH) 2.29km (WFGP) No Yes Yes

Telephone Exchange, Upper Village Road, 2.67km (TBH) 9 Housing 2.33km (WFGP) No Yes Yes Sunninghill 8.81km (SWLWB)

High Peak, Holcombe House and the White 0.56km (TBH) 11 Housing 1.83km (WFGP) No Yes Yes House off London Road, Sunningdale 7.15km (SWLWB)

3.86km (TBH) 13 Ascot Business Park, South Ascot Employment 3.12km (WFGP) No Yes Yes 9.88km (SWLWB)

2.35km (TBH) 8.53km 14 Queen's Road Industrial Estate, Sunninghill Employment 2.40km (WFGP) No Yes Yes (SWLWB)

2.03km (TBH) 7.30km 15 Silwood Park, Sunningdale Mixed 0.61km (WFGP) No Yes Yes (SWLWB)

16 Ascot station car park, Station Hill Housing 3.78km (TBH) 2.95km (WFGP) No Yes Yes

17 Ascot Centre Mixed 4.38km (TBH) 2.43km (WFGP) No Yes Yes

4.79km (TBH) 18 Heatherwood Hospital Mixed 3.10km (WFGP) No Yes Yes 10.58km (SWLWB)

Windsor Group

6.96km (SWLWB) 20 Garden Centre, Dedworth Road, Windsor Housing 1.79km (WFGP) No No No >11km (TBH)

Squires Garden Centre, Maidenhead Road, 6.80km (SWLWB) 21 Housing 2.32km (WFGP) No No No Windsor >11km (TBH)

8.50km (SWLWB) 22 Land at Water Oakley Farm, Windsor Road Housing 2.03km (WFGP) No No No >10km (TBH)

>10km (SWLWB) 3.37km (WFGP) 6.74km 23 Priors Way Industrial Estate Employment No No No >12km (TBH) (Burnham Beeches)

1.90 km (SWLWB) 29 Manor House Lane Industrial Estate, Datchet Employment 2.87km (WFGP)) No No No >8km (TBH)

Site No. Allocated site Development Proximity to nearest Proximity to nearest Thames Basin Heath SPA Type SPA2.04km (name (SWLWB) of site)* SAC (name of site)* 30 Ditton Park, Datchet Employment 3.80km (WFGP) No No No >10km (TBH)

1.12km (SWLWB) 67 95 Straight Road, Old Windsor Housing 1.17km (WFGP) No No No 7.53km (TBH)

1.16km (SWLWB) 68 Straight Works, Straight Road, Old Windsor Housing 1.18km (WFGP) No No No 7.75km (TBH) 1.43km (WFGP) 3.73km (SWLWB) 70 Minton Place, Victoria Street, Windsor Housing No No No >13km (TBH)

3.99km (SWLWB) >8km 71 Windsor Fire Station, St Marks Road Housing 0.98km (WFGP) No No No (TBH)

5.73km (SWLWB) 75 Sawyers Close, Windsor Housing 1.66km (WFGP) No No No >11km (TBH)

6.47km (SWLWB) 76 The Parade and Car Park, Ruddlesway, Windsor Housing 1.78km (WFGP) No No No >11km (TBH)

Area between Alma Road and Goslar Way, 4.17km (SWLWB) >8km 80 Housing 0.98km (WFGP) No No No Windsor (TBH)

Crown House and Charriott House, Victoria 3.70km (SWLWB) >9km 81 Housing 1.39km (WFGP) No No No Street, Windsor (TBH)

Telephone Exchange and parking area, Bachelors 2.67km (TBH) 83 Housing 2.33km (WFGP) No No No Acre, Windsor 8.81km (SWLWB)

3.83km (SWLWB) 85 Riverside Walk Office Building, Windsor Housing 2.3km (WFGP) No No No >11km (TBH)

4.12km (SWLWB) >9km 88 Imperial House, Alma Road, Windsor Employment 0.99km (WFGP) No No No (TBH)

3.95km (SWLWB) 89 Windsor Dials, Arthur Road, Windsor Employment 1.57km (WFGP) No No No >10km (TBH)

4.2km (SWLWB) >10km 90 Vansittart Industrial Estate, Windsor Employment 1.54km (WFGP) No No No (TBH)

5.70km (SWLWB) 91 Centrica, Maidenhead Road, Windsor Employment 1.82km (WFGP) No No No >11km (TBH)

6.69km (SWLWB) 92 Fairacres Industrial Estate, Tinkers Lane, Windsor Employment 1.36km (WFGP) No No No >11km (TBH)

3.52km (SWLWB) >8km 93 TA Centre, Bolton Road Housing 0.44km (WFGP) No No No (TBH)

5.24km (SWLWB) 94 Vale Road Industrial Estate Mixed 1.30km (WFGP) No No No >11km (TBH)

3.95km (SWLWB) 95 Windsor Police Station, Alma Road Housing 1.57km (WFGP) No No No >10km (TBH)

3.95km (SWLWB) 96 Post Office Site, William Street Housing 1.57km (WFGP) No No No >10km (TBH)

Maidenhead Group

Site No. Allocated site Development Proximity to nearest Proximity to nearest Thames Basin Heath SPA Type SPA (name of site)* SAC1.84km (name (Chiltern of site)* Beechwoods south) Cookham Gas Holder, Whyteladyes Lane, >10km (SWLWB) 25 Housing 6.30km (Chiltern No No No >15km (TBH) Cookham Rise Beechwoods 11.40km (Burnham Beeches) 1.84km (Chiltern Beechwoods south) >15km (SWLWB) 26 Part of Lower Mount Farm, Cookham Employment 6.30km (Chiltern No No No >11km (TBH) Beechwoods 11.40km (Burnham Beeches) 4.13km (Chiltern Woolley Hall and Woolley Grange, Westacott >10km (SWLWB) Beechwoods south) and 31 Housing No No No Way, Littlewick Green >10km (TBH) 6.24km (Chiltern Beechwoods north) 11.40km (Burnham Grove Business Park, Cannon Lane, White >15km (SWLWB) Beeches) 33 Mixed No No No Waltham >11km (TBH) 6.30km (Chiltern Beechwoods 10.4km (Burnham Maidenhead Office Park and Barloworld, >15km (SWLWB) Beeches) 35 Employment No No No Westacott Way, Littlewick Green >12km (TBH) 4.89km (Chiltern Beechwoods 11.33km (Burnham >15km (SWLWB) Beeches) 97 Land west of Cannon Lane Education No No No >11km (TBH) 6.26km (Chiltern Beechwoods 3.45km (Burnham >13km (SWLWB) 98 Land on Clivemont Road Housing Beeches) 6.26km No No No >15km (TBH) (Chiltern Beechwoods) 3.45km (Burnham >13km (SWLWB) 99 Claires Court Girls School, College Road Housing Beeches) 6.26km No No No >15km (TBH) (Chiltern Beechwoods) 5.42km (Burnham >13km (SWLWB) Beeches) 100 Claires Court School, Ray Mill Road West Housing No No No >16km (TBH) 4.02km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 5.57km (Burnham Little Farm Nursery, North Town Moor, >13km (SWLWB) Beeches) 38 Leisure uses No No No Maidenhead >16km (TBH) 3.37km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 2.64km (Chiltern >14km (SWLWB) Beechwoods) 39 Furze Platt Industrial Estate Employment No No No >15km (TBH) 6.61km (Burnham Beeches) 6.17km (Burnham >12km (SWLWB) Beeches) 41 7-9 Bridge Avenue, Maidenhead Housing No No No >14km (TBH) 4.72km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 6.17km (Burnham >12km (SWLWB) Beeches) 42 12-13 Bridge Avenue, Maidenhead Housing No No No >14km (TBH) 4.72km (Chiltern Beechwoods) >10km (SWLWB) 3.54km (Chiltern 43 150 Bath Road, Maidenhead Housing No No No >10km (TBH) Beechwoods south) 4.45km (Burnham 35, 37 and 33 Velmead Works Lower Cookham >14km (SWLWB) Beeches) 44 Housing No No No Road, Maidenhead >15km (TBH) 4.43km (Chiltern Beechwoods)

Site No. Allocated site Development Proximity to nearest Proximity to nearest Thames Basin Heath SPA Type SPA (name of site)* SAC6.44km (name (Burnham of site)* >10km (SWLWB) 45 Belmont Place, Belmont Road, Maidenhead Housing Beeches) 3.44km No No No >15KM (TBH) (Chiltern Beechwoods) 3.44km (Chiltern >10km (SWLWB) Beechwoods south) 46 DTC, Gringer Hill, Maidenhead Housing/mix No No No >15KM (TBH) 6.44km (Burnham Beeches) 6.36km (Burnham >12km (SWLWB) 47 Berkshire House, High Street, Maidenhead Housing Beeches) 3.46km No No No >14km (TBH) (Chiltern Beechwoods) 4.03km (Burnham Employment areas to the east of Oldfield Rd, >12km (SWLWB) Beeches) 49 Housing No No No Maidenhead >17km (TBH) 4.08km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 5.57km (Burnham >12km (SWLWB) Beeches) 50 Exclusive House, Oldfield Road, Maidenhead Housing No No No >14km (TBH) 5.20km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 7.53km (Burnham Maidenhead Lawn Tennis Club, All Saints Avenue, >14km (SWLWB) 51 Housing Beeches) 3.37km No No No >15km (TBH) Maidenhead (Chiltern Beechwoods) 7.08km (Burnham >12km (SWLWB) Beeches) 52 Middlehurst, Boyn Valley Road, Maidenhead Housing No No No >14km (TBH) 4.32km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 7.63km (Burnham Western section of Kings Grove Industrial Estate, >12km (SWLWB) 53 Housing Beeches) 4.27km No No No >14km (TBH) Boyn Valley Road, Maidenhead (Chiltern Beechwoods) 7.98km (Burnham Shoppenhangers Manor, Manor Lane, >13km (SWLWB) Beeches) 54 Housing No No No Maidenhead >13km (TBH) 5.31km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 4.03km (Burnham Land to rear of Whitebrook Park, Lower Cookham >12km (SWLWB) Beeches) 55 Housing No No No Road, Maidenhead >17km (TBH) 4.08km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 6.04km (Burnham >12km (SWLWB) Beeches) 56 Reform Road Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Mixed No No No >14km (TBH) 4.17km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 7.63km (Burnham Eastern part of Kings Grove / Boyn Valley >12km (SWLWB) 58 Employment Beeches) 4.27km No No No >14km (TBH) Industrial Estate, Maidenhead (Chiltern Beechwoods) 5.67km (WFGP) 5.1km Stafferton Way, Former Park and Ride, >10km (SWLWB) (Chiltern Beechwoods 59 Mixed/emp No No No Maidenhead >10km (TBH) south) 6.5km (Burnham Beeches) 8.44km (Burnham >13km (SWLWB) Beeches) 60 Vanwall Road Business Area, Maidenhead Employment No No No >13km (TBH) 4.17km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 8.44km (Burnham >13km (SWLWB) Beeches) 61 Norreys Drive, Maidenhead Employment No No No >13km (TBH) 4.17km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 3.45km (Burnham >13km (SWLWB) 62 Cordwallis Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Employment Beeches) 6.26km No No No >15km (TBH) (Chiltern Beechwoods) 6.21km (Burnham >12km (SWLWB) 63 Howarth Road Industrial Estate, Maidenhead Employment Beeches) No No No >14km (TBH) 5.03km (Chiltern

Site No. Allocated site Development Proximity to nearest Proximity to nearest Thames Basin Heath SPA Type SPA (name of site)* SAC (nameBeechwoods) of site)*

9.93km (Burnham Woodlands Business Park, Woodlands Park, >14km (SWLWB) 64 Employment Beeches) 5.5km No No No >12km (TBH) Maidenhead (Chiltern Beechwoods) 9.83km (Burnham >13km (SWLWB) Beeches) 65 Foundation Park, Cannon Lane, Maidenhead Employment No No No >14km (TBH) 4.39km (Chiltern Beechwoods) 5.42km (Burnham Summerleaze office and workshop, Summerleaze >13km (SWLWB) Beeches) 66 Housing No No No Road >16km (TBH) 4.02km (Chiltern Beechwoods)

Appendix B – RBWM Addendum to Jacobs Report

B1.1 This addendum consists of two parts:  Sites in the Jacobs report that are no longer proposed for allocation in the BLP.  Sites that have been added to those under consideration for the BLP since the Jacobs report.

B1.2 The implications of both these changes are considered below, along with details of the sites added and removed.

B1.3 Sites no longer proposed for allocation:  95: Windsor Police Station, Alma Road, Windsor  98: Land on Clivemont Road, Maidenhead

B1.4 Removal of these sites makes no difference to the conclusions of the Jacobs report so this matter is not considered any further.

B1.5 Sites added to those under consideration:  1B: Area west of Whyteladyes Lane, Cookham Rise  3A: Area around Spencers Farm; East of Cookham Road, Maidenhead  3F: Area west of Sheephouse Road, Maidenhead  4A: Strip of land west of Cannon Lane, Cox Green  4B: Area south of railway and north of Breadcroft Lane, Cox Green  5A: Area including Maidenhead Golf Course  5B: Area west of A404M, Maidenhead  5C: Triangle M4 / A308M / Ascot Road, Maidenhead  5D: Area north of Kimbers Lane, Maidenhead  5E: Area south of Harvest Hill Road, Maidenhead  6A: Stafferton Way, Braywick  7A: Land west of Holyport – Area between Ascot Road and Holyport Road  8A: Area north of A308, south of Maidenhead Road, Windsor  8B: Area south of A308, east of Oakley Green Road and north of Dedworth Road, Windsor  8C: Area south of Dedworth Road and west of Broom Farm Estate, Windsor  11A: Area south of Old Ferry Drive, Wraysbury  11B: Area south of the Drive, Wraysbury  11C: Area south of Waylands, Wraysbury  11E: Area east of St Andrew’s Close, Wraysbury  11F: Area around Tithe Farm, Wraysbury  12A: Area north of Church Road, Old Windsor  12B: Area west of Old Windsor and north of Crimp Hill, Old Windsor  13C: Area south of Ascot High Street

B1.6 Sites that have been added to the list considered for inclusion in the BLP are shown in the following tables. A broad area was initially identified for each of these locations, However, when assessing the likely impacts of developing the sites, only that part of each site believed to be available and developable has been considered.

Table A1: Extra Sites Considered for Consultation Thames Basin Heaths SPA Proximity to Proximity to 400 m 5 km 7 km No. Site Development type nearest SPA nearest SAC buffer buffer buffer Maidenhead Group 1B Area west of Whyteladyes Housing >15 km (SWLWB) 1.4 km (Chiltern N N N Lane, Cookham Rise Beechwoods) 3A Area around Spencers Farm; Housing, Possible >13 km (SWLWB) 2.8 km (Chiltern N N N East of Cookham Road, School Beechwoods) Maidenhead 3F Area west of Sheephouse Housing >12 km (SWLWB) 4.1 km (Chiltern N N N Road, Maidenhead Beechwoods) 4A Strip of land west of Cannon Housing, Possible >12 km (TBH) 3.9 km (Chiltern N N N Lane, Cox Green Community Facilities Beechwoods) 4B Area south of railway and north Housing >12 km (TBH) 4.6 km (Chiltern N N N of Breadcroft Lane, Cox Green Beechwoods) 5A Area including Maidenhead Housing >11 (SWLWB) 4.6 km (WFGP) N N N Golf Course 5B Area west of A404M, Housing >11 (SWLWB) 4.4 km (WFGP) N N N Maidenhead 5C Triangle M4 / A308M / Ascot Housing, Possible >11 km (SWLWB) 3.9 km (WFGP) N N N Road, Maidenhead Leisure 5D Area north of Kimbers Lane, Housing >12 km (SWLWB) >5 km (WFGP) N N N Maidenhead 5E Area south of Harvest Hill Housing >11 km (SWLWB) 4.3 km (WFGP) N N N Road, Maidenhead 6A Stafferton Way, Braywick Housing with Mixed / >11 km (SWLWB) >5 km (Chiltern N N N Employment Uses, Beechwoods) Possible Leisure

25 7A Land west of Holyport – Area Housing >10 km (SWLWB) 3.2 km (WFGP) N N N between Ascot Road and Holyport Road Windsor Group 8A Area north of A308, south of Housing >6 km (SWLWB) 1.6 km (WFGP) N N N Maidenhead Road, Windsor 8B Area south of A308, east of Housing >6 km (SWLWB) 1.1 km (WFGP) N N N Oakley Green Road and north of Dedworth Road, Windsor 8C Area south of Dedworth Road Housing >6 km (SWLWB) 0.8 km (WFGP) N N N and west of Broom Farm Estate, Windsor 11A Area south of Old Ferry Drive, Housing 0.2 km (SWLWB) 2.0 km (WFGP) N N N Wraysbury 11B Area south of the Drive, Housing 0.1 km (SWLWB) 2.1 km (WFGP) N N N Wraysbury 11C Area south of Waylands, Housing Immediately 2.2 km (WFGP) N N N Wraysbury adjacent (SWLWB) 11E Area south of St Andrew’s Housing 0.2 km (SWLWB) 2.1 km (WFGP) N N N Close, Wraysbury 11F Area around Tithe Farm, Housing Immediately 2.8 km (WFGP) N N N Wraysbury adjacent (SWLWB) 12A Area north of Church Road, Housing 1.1 km (SWLWB) 1.1 km (WFGP) N N N Old Windsor 12B Area west of Old Windsor and Housing 1.9 km (SWLWB) 0.6 km (WFGP) N N N north of Crimp Hill, Old Windsor Ascot Group 13C Area south of Ascot High Housing and Commercial 3.6 ha (TBH) 2.4 km (WFGP) N Y Y Street (Town Centre Uses)

Table A2: Analysis of Extra Sites No. Site Notes Maidenhead Group Cookham section 1B Area west of Whyteladyes  This site is a relatively small urban extension, comprising c. 75 dwellings. Lane, Cookham Rise  The site is more than 5 km from any SPA but in much closer proximity to a SAC (Chiltern Beechwoods). The scale of development and the characteristics of this particular SAC combine to make increased recreational pressure of potential concern. However, a number of factors will act to mitigate any impact in reality.  The SAC is comprised largely of woodland, which is by its nature resilient to recreational disturbance. Public access is already possible to the SAC, with no apparent adverse impacts arising. Further, a preferred policy option in the BLP requires that development must avoid damage to SACs.  Given the relatively small number of dwellings possible on this site, it is not considered likely that its development would have an adverse effect on designated sites. When considering the in- combination effect of developing this site and other BLP sites in the Cookham area, the cumulative dwelling total is still relatively low. There is no reason to suppose that an in- combination effect would be likely when the sites in isolation would not have an adverse effect. Northern Maidenhead section 3A Area around Spencers Farm;  This site is an urban extension that would involve rounding-off a settlement boundary. It would East of Cookham Road, therefore share many characteristics with previously identified urban sites in terms of having Maidenhead diffuse impacts.  The site is more than 5 km from any SPA but in closer proximity to a SAC (Chiltern Beechwoods). The scale of development at c. 540 dwellings (if developed entirely for housing) and the characteristics of this particular SAC combine to make increased recreational pressure of potential concern. However, a number of factors will act to mitigate any impact in reality, and these are explained above in the consideration of Site 1B.  Although the scale of development proposed on this site is larger in scale than that at Site 1B, the site is further from the SAC and much closer and better related to the recreational destinations available in the Maidenhead area. This will act to limit the number of trips likely to be made to the

27 SAC. It is possible that a school may be developed on part of this site; if so, then there will be scope to build fewer dwellings and the impact of development on the SAC would be reduced further.  Given all these factors, it is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  With regard to in-combination effects, the same arguments and logic apply as when considering the individual impacts. No sites in northern Maidenhead are considered to have an individual impact and the cumulative effect of developing all the sites is considered to produce the same type of effects. Therefore no in-combination effects are likely. 3F Area west of Sheephouse  This site is another urban extension in northern Maidenhead. At c. 55 dwellings it is much smaller Road, Maidenhead than Site 3A and is further away from the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC. It shares many of the characteristics of Site 3A as described above, but any effects arising from development will be proportionately smaller.  It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 3A. Western Maidenhead section 4A Strip of land west of Cannon  This site is a small urban extension, comprising c. 40 dwellings. It would function as part of Lane, Cox Green Maidenhead and would therefore share many characteristics with previously identified urban sites in terms of having diffuse impacts.  It is of a similar scale to Site 3F considered above and, given its size and location, would be likely to have similar characteristics.  Given the small number of dwellings possible on this site, and its functional relationship to Maidenhead, it is not considered likely that its development would have an adverse effect on designated sites.  With regard to in-combination effects, the same arguments and logic apply as when considering the individual impacts. No sites in western Maidenhead are considered to have an individual impact and the cumulative effect of developing all the sites is considered to produce the same type of effects. Therefore no in-combination effects are likely.

28 4B Area south of railway and  This site is an urban extension, comprising c. 140 dwellings. Although larger than the nearby Site north of Breadcroft Lane, 4A identified above, it would similarly function as part of Maidenhead and would therefore share Cox Green many characteristics with previously identified urban sites in terms of having diffuse impacts.  Although the scale of development proposed on this site is larger in scale than that at Site 4A, the site is further away from the SAC and much closer and better related to the recreational destinations available in the Maidenhead area. The presence of the railway line and a narrow underbridge to the north will also act as a perceptual barrier to movement in the direction of the SAC and reinforce the functional relationship to Maidenhead. These factors will act to limit the number of trips likely to be made to the SAC.  Given all these factors, it is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 4A. Southern Maidenhead section 5A Area including Maidenhead  This large site is on the edge of Maidenhead urban area and would take the form of an urban Golf Course extension. Various options are possible in the order of 100, 400 or 1,000 dwellings spreading from the north of the site.  The site is more than 5 km from any SPA and 4.6 km from the nearest SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park). As such its impacts can be assumed to be at the lower end of the scale of seriousness, although these would increase with the number of dwellings.  The SAC is comprised largely of woodland and parkland, which is by its nature resilient to recreational disturbance. Managed access is already widely available to many areas of the SAC, which is Crown land. The SAC is very large and the amount of land available to absorb extra public access is likewise large. The site is close and well related to the recreational destinations available in the Maidenhead area. This will act to limit the number of trips likely to be made to the SAC. Further, a preferred policy option in the BLP requires that development must avoid damage to SACs.  These factors combined lead to the conclusion that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites. When considering in-combination effects, it is relevant that a number of relatively large sites exist in the southern Maidenhead area. While the impact of each is considered acceptable, it would be prudent to not allocate the maximum possible amount of development across all sites in the final version of the BLP.

29 5B Area west of A404M,  This site is also on the urban edge but less well related to existing development than is Site 5A. Maidenhead Development could comprise c. 190 dwellings to the northern part of the area.  In terms of location and distance to designated sites, this site is almost identical to Site 5A although the quantum of development is likely to be smaller, with consequentially less impact arising.  It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 5A. 5C Triangle M4 / A308M / Ascot  This site has natural boundaries created by the presence of two motorways and a major road. It is Road, Maidenhead close to Maidenhead but, given the somewhat isolated nature of the site, the impacts arising from its development would be likely to be diffuse. This is reinforced by its proximity to a motorway junction, which would enable leisure trips to be made easily over a wide and diffuse area rather than be concentrated in a small and localised area.  The site is more than 5 km from any SPA but closer to a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park). The scale of development at c. 400 dwellings and the characteristics of this particular SAC combine to make increased recreational pressure of potential concern. However, a number of factors will act to mitigate any impact in reality, and these are explained above in the consideration of Site 5A. It should be further noted that, if the site is developed for leisure purposes with consequently fewer dwellings, the impact arising will be further reduced.  No extra impacts on designated sites are considered likely to arise from development of this site.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 5A. 5D Area north of Kimbers Lane,  This site is more than 5 km from any designated site and is not considered to have an effect in Maidenhead isolation. Likewise, the likely scale of development of c.50-100 dwellings is not considered likely to have an in-combination effect when considered with other sites in the area. 5E Area south of Harvest Hill  This site is an urban extension with scope for c. 115 dwellings. In terms of location and distance Road, Maidenhead to designated sites, this site is similar to Site 5A although the quantum of development is likely to be smaller, with consequentially less impact arising.  It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 5A.

30 6A Stafferton Way, Braywick  This site is a variation of Site 59 from the Jacobs report with different boundaries. This site is more than 5 km from any designated site and is not considered to have an effect in isolation. Likewise, the likely scale of development of c.50-100 dwellings with other employment and possibly leisure uses is not considered likely to have an in-combination effect when considered with other sites in the area. 7A Land west of Holyport - Area  This site is an urban extension that is more than 5 km from any SPA but closer to a SAC between Ascot Road and (Windsor Forest and Great Park). Development options comprise c. 200 dwellings (on the Holyport Road northern half) or c. 400 dwellings (across the whole site).  There are similarities to Site 5A in terms of location and likely impacts, albeit that the site is closer to a SAC but the likely scale of development is smaller.  It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 5A. Windsor Group Western Windsor section 8A Area north of A308, south of  This site is an urban extension and would share many characteristics with previously identified Maidenhead Road, Windsor urban sites in terms of having diffuse impacts.  The site is more than 5 km from any SPA but in much closer proximity to a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park). The scale of development at c. 120 dwellings and the characteristics of this particular SAC combine to make increased recreational pressure of potential concern. However, a number of factors will act to mitigate any impact in reality, and those related to the SAC are set out under Site 5A above. In addition, alternative recreational destinations in the form of the river Thames and associated leisure land are even closer to the site than the SAC. Further, a preferred policy option in the BLP requires that development must avoid damage to SACs.  No adverse impacts are apparent from the existing public access to the SAC and no extra impacts are considered likely from the increase that may be caused by development of this site. With regard to in-combination effects, the same arguments and logic apply as when considering the individual impacts. No sites in western Windsor are considered to have an individual impact and the cumulative effect of developing all the sites is considered to produce the same type of effects. Therefore no in-combination effects are likely.

31 8B Area south of A308, east of  This site is also an urban extension with similar characteristics to Site 8A. Site 20 from the Jacobs Oakley Green Road and report is contained within this wider site and the in isolation effects of developing the larger site north of Dedworth Road, are considered to be similar. Windsor  The scale of development at c. 480 dwellings is greater than Site 8A but the location and other characteristics are similar. The likely impact of development and factors that would mitigate that are considered under Site 8A.  No extra impacts are considered likely from the increase that may be caused by development of this site.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 8A. 8C Area south of Dedworth  This site is also an urban extension with similar characteristics and scale (c. 175 dwellings) to Road and west of Broom Site 8A. The likely impact of development and factors that would mitigate that are considered Farm Estate, Windsor under Site 8A.  No extra impacts are considered likely from the increase that may be caused by development of this site.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 8A. Wraysbury section 11A Area south of Old Ferry  This site is a small urban extension at c. 50 dwellings. It is very close to an SPA (South West Drive, Wraysbury London Water Bodies) and within 2 km of a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park).  The close proximity to an SPA is of potential concern. There is no exclusion zone around this SPA (unlike the Thames Basin Heaths SPA) so there is no in principle reason why development should not occur on this site, but the likely urbanising effect of development might have an adverse effect on the birds that use the SPA. The impact on the SAC and relevant mitigating factors are set out under Site 8A.  On balance, and in light of the small scale of development proposed on this site, it is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  When considering in-combination effects, it is relevant that a number of sites exist in the Wraysbury area. While not of great size, they are very close to the SPA and, in some cases, physically adjacent. While the impact of each is considered acceptable, it would be prudent to not allocate the maximum possible amount of development across all sites in the final version of the BLP. 11B Area south of the Drive,  This site is also a small urban extension at c. 50 dwellings. It is very close to an SPA (South West

32 Wraysbury London Water Bodies) and just over 2 km from a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park).  The scale of potential impacts and mitigating factors are considered under Site 11A. It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 11A. 11C Area south of Waylands,  This site is also a small urban extension at c. 50 dwellings. It is immediately adjacent to an SPA Wraysbury (South West London Water Bodies) and just over 2 km from a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park).  The scale of potential impacts and mitigating factors are considered under Site 11A. It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 11A. 11E Area south of St Andrew's  This site is a very small urban extension at c. 25 dwellings. It is very close to an SPA (South West Close, Wraysbury London Water Bodies) and just over 2 km from a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park).  The scale of potential impacts and mitigating factors are considered under Site 11A. It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 11A. 11F Area around Tithe Farm,  This site is also a very small urban extension at c. 26 dwellings replacing farm buildings. It is Wraysbury immediately adjacent to an SPA (South West London Water Bodies) and over 2 km from a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park).  The scale of potential impacts and mitigating factors are considered under Site 11A. It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 11A. Old Windsor section 12A Area north of Church Road,  This site is a small urban extension at c. 30 dwellings. It is just over 1 km from an SPA (South Old Windsor West London Water Bodies) and a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park).  There is no exclusion zone around this SPA (unlike the Thames Basin Heaths SPA) so there is no in principle reason why development should not occur on this site, but the likely urbanising effect of development might have an adverse effect on the birds that use the SPA. The impact on the SAC and relevant mitigating factors are set out under Site 8A.  On balance, and in light of the small scale of development proposed on this site, it is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  When considering in-combination effects, it is relevant that two sites exist in the Old Windsor

33 area. The number of dwellings possible, combined with the relative proximity to designated sites, could give rise to impacts. It would therefore be prudent to not allocate the maximum possible amount of development across all sites in the final version of the BLP. 12B Area west of Old Windsor  This site is a larger urban extension with the potential for c. 90 dwellings on the northern section, and north of Crimp Hill, Old 160 on the middle section and 100 on the southern section. It is almost 2 km from an SPA but Windsor within 1 km of the Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC.  The scale of potential impacts and mitigating factors are considered under Site 12A. It is considered that development of this site is unlikely to lead to adverse effects on designated sites.  In-combination effects are considered under Site 12A. Ascot Group 13C Area south of Ascot High  This site is a slight extension of Sites 4 and 17 considered in the Jacobs work. It comprises c. 260 Street dwellings across the site (including 50 for Shorts Recycling Facility in the south).  Given the location within 5 km of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, mitigation would be required for any development in this area. This would take the form of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring which, in combination, would ensure that any effects on designated sites were mitigated.  The location within 3 km of a SAC (Windsor Forest and Great Park) is also a potential concern. Potential impacts and mitigation are considered under Site 8A.  In total, the likely effects on designated sites, both in isolation and in combination, are considered to be the same as previously identified.

34 B1.5 From the above analysis the following conclusions can be drawn:

 There is no change identified to the likely impacts arising from developing sites in the Ascot area. Development will be subject to the established policy approach to mitigate impact on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

 Development of sites in the Windsor group have the potential to have an effect on designated sites. In reality there are factors that will act to constrain such effects and ensure that the integrity of designated sites is maintained. Western Windsor sites do not give cause for concern. It would be prudent to not allocate the maximum possible amount of development across all sites in the Wraysbury or Old Windsor areas in the final version of the BLP.

 Development of sites in the Cookham area have the potential to have an effect on designated sites. Here again, in reality there are factors that will act to constrain such effects and ensure that the integrity of designated sites is maintained.

 In the Maidenhead area, the northern and western areas are not considered to give rise to concern. In the southern area, only in-combination effects are of potential concern. In reality this is unlikely to be an issue, although it would be prudent to not allocate the maximum possible amount of development across all sites in the southern Maidenhead area in the final version of the BLP

Issues raised by Jacobs and suggested response

B1.6 Turning to the conclusions of the Jacobs report, a number of issues were raised that Jacobs considered required further work in order to come to a view as to whether appropriate assessment was required for certain sites. These matters are considered below, together with a suggested policy response for the BLP where appropriate.

 Issue: The Thames Basin Heaths SPA framework guidance will need to be applied for all sites within the 5km mitigation zone.  Response: This is secured by preferred policy NE2 in the BLP.

 Issue: Allocated sites in the Windsor area should be considered in- combination with other developments and plans in the area.  Response: In-combination assessment has been undertaken and no significant effects are considered likely to arise in reality, provided that the final version of the BLP does not allocate the maximum possible amount of development across all sites in the area.

 Issue: In-combination assessment should not be ruled out for allocated sites in the Maidenhead area, given the scale of development proposed, particularly for sites close to the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC.  Response: In-combination assessment has been undertaken and no significant effects are considered likely to arise in reality. Only a limited scale of development is proposed in particularly close proximity to the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC. The location of other proposed development will ensure that its effects are felt in a diffuse manner that will not impact on designated sites.

35  Issue: The potential for airborne pollution from industrial sites should be considered.  Response: Preferred policies EP1, EP2 and NE1 in the BLP will work together to reduce the risk of air pollution from industry to such a level that effects on designated sites are considered unlikely. A reference could be inserted in preferred policy EC2 to state that light industry (which has by definition less of an effect on pollution) will be encouraged.

36 Appendix C – Conclusions on Likely Impacts on Designated Sites

Table C1: Burnham Beeches SAC Sources, Potential Likelihood of Pathways or impact Mitigating factors and comments significant Operation from Plan effect Water (water None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on water pollution or None pollution and hydrology, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water hydrology) quality. No area within the borough feeds water into the SAC, so the BLP can have no impact on water supply. Air (air Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased ownership and use of cars, None pollution) leading to possible impact on air pollution. The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/index) states that an increase in traffic will only affect areas of land up to 200m from a road where there will be a significant increase in traffic. Further, a BLP policy acts to support and encourage sustainable modes of transport. Industrial development of certain sites could also lead to air pollution, but the effects of this are avoided by a combination of BLP policies that protect the environment, minimise air pollution and protect designated sites. For these reasons the BLP will not have an adverse impact on air quality in the area. Direct land None The BLP does not propose any development within designated sites so there will be no land None take take. Habitat / Low A BLP policy requires the conservation of protected species, avoiding damage to designated None species sites and ensuring that those sites will be maintained, protected and enhanced. Greater levels disturbance of development in the area could lead to increased pressures on designated sites and impacts arising from greater pet ownership (disturbance and predation). Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP policy. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact on habitat or species disturbance in the area. Recreational Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None

37 pressure designated sites. Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set (increased out in this report and secured by a BLP policy. The SAC is also comprised largely of population) woodland, which is resilient to recreational disturbance. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact arising from recreational pressure. Damage or Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None removal of any designated sites, which could potentially include the removal of plants. Any development in plant or plant the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP remains policy. In particular, the educational aspects of the SAMM and SANG projects will help to limit (including any removal of plants from designated areas. Further, a BLP policy requires conservation of recreational protected species and enhancements to biodiversity. For these reasons the BLP will not have impacts) an adverse impact on plant removal. Changes to None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on drainage arrangements None drainage or watercourses. No area within the borough feeds water into the SAC, so there can be no arrangements / impact on water supply. watercourses Pollution of None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on pollution of None watercourses watercourses, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water quality. Water None The BLP contains no proposals for water abstraction. Although the SAC has a zone of None abstraction influence for water quantity, no area within the borough feeds water into the SAC, so there can be no impact on water supply. Extraction of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites. The Replacement None materials from Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire specifies certain areas for minerals extraction and the BLP the site supports extraction in these areas, none of which are within the designated sites. Dumping of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for dumping materials on the site the site would require planning permission. Storage of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for storing materials on the site the site would require planning permission. Erection of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there is None structures on no scope for the erection of structures on the sites. Any proposals for erection of structures on

38 the site the site would require planning permission.

Table C2: Chiltern Beechwoods SAC Sources, Potential Likelihood of Pathways or impact Mitigating factors and comments significant Operation from Plan effect Water (water None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on water pollution or None pollution and hydrology, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water hydrology) quality. Air (air Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased ownership and use of cars, None pollution) leading to possible impact on air pollution. The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/index) states that an increase in traffic will only affect areas of land up to 200m from a road where there will be a significant increase in traffic. Further, a BLP policy acts to support and encourage sustainable modes of transport. Industrial development of certain sites could also lead to air pollution, but the effects of this are avoided by a combination of BLP policies that protect the environment, minimise air pollution and protect designated sites. For these reasons the BLP will not have an adverse impact on air quality in the area. Direct land None The BLP does not propose any development within designated sites so there will be no land None take take. Habitat / Low A BLP policy requires the conservation of protected species, avoiding damage to designated None species sites and ensuring that those sites will be maintained, protected and enhanced. Greater levels disturbance of development in the area could lead to increased pressures on designated sites and impacts arising from greater pet ownership (disturbance and predation). Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP policy. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact on habitat or species disturbance in the area. Recreational Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None pressure designated sites. Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set (increased out in this report and secured by a BLP policy. The SAC is also comprised largely of

39 population) woodland, which is resilient to recreational disturbance. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact arising from recreational pressure. Damage or Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None removal of any designated sites, which could potentially include the removal of plants. Any development in plant or plant the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP remains policy. In particular, the educational aspects of the SAMM and SANG projects will help to limit (including any removal of plants from designated areas. Further, a BLP policy requires conservation of recreational protected species and enhancements to biodiversity. For these reasons the BLP will not have impacts) an adverse impact on plant removal. Changes to None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on drainage arrangements None drainage or watercourses. arrangements / watercourses Pollution of None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on pollution of None watercourses watercourses, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water quality. Water None The BLP contains no proposals for water abstraction. None abstraction Extraction of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites. The Replacement None materials from Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire specifies certain areas for minerals extraction and the BLP the site supports extraction in these areas, none of which are within the designated sites. Dumping of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for dumping materials on the site the site would require planning permission. Storage of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for storing materials on the site the site would require planning permission. Erection of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there is None structures on no scope for the erection of structures on the sites. Any proposals for erection of structures on the site the site would require planning permission.

Table C3: South West London Water Bodies SPA and Ramsar Sources, Potential Likelihood of Pathways or impact Mitigating factors and comments significant Operation from Plan effect Water (water None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on water pollution or None pollution and hydrology, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water hydrology) quality. The site largely consists of reservoirs and any water used from them will be appropriately treated prior to human consumption. Air (air Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased ownership and use of cars, None pollution) leading to possible impact on air pollution. The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/index) states that an increase in traffic will only affect areas of land up to 200m from a road where there will be a significant increase in traffic. Further, a BLP policy acts to support and encourage sustainable modes of transport. Industrial development of certain sites could also lead to air pollution, but the effects of this are avoided by a combination of BLP policies that protect the environment, minimise air pollution and protect designated sites. For these reasons the BLP will not have an adverse impact on air quality in the area. Direct land None The presence of active reservoirs means that the BLP does not propose any development None take within designated sites, so there will be no land take. Habitat / Low A BLP policy requires the conservation of protected species, avoiding damage to designated None species sites and ensuring that those sites will be maintained, protected and enhanced. Greater levels disturbance of development in the area could lead to increased pressures on designated sites and impacts arising from greater pet ownership (disturbance and predation). Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP policy. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact on habitat or species disturbance in the area. Recreational Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None pressure designated sites, particularly for those sites that physically adjoin the SAC. Any development (increased in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a population) BLP policy. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact arising from recreational pressure.

41 Damage or Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None removal of any designated sites, which could potentially include the removal of plants, although few plants plant or plant will exist owing to the presence of reservoirs across most of the SPA. Any development in the remains area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP (including policy. In particular, the educational aspects of the SAMM and SANG projects will help to limit recreational any removal of plants from designated areas. Further, a BLP policy requires conservation of impacts) protected species and enhancements to biodiversity. For these reasons the BLP will not have an adverse impact on plant removal. Changes to None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on drainage arrangements None drainage or watercourses. The site largely consists of reservoirs and the continued presence of water arrangements / on the site is secured by the plan. watercourses Pollution of None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on pollution of None watercourses watercourses, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water quality. The site largely consists of reservoirs and any water used from them will be appropriately treated prior to human consumption. Water None The BLP contains no proposals for water abstraction. The site largely consists of reservoirs None abstraction and the continued presence of water on the site is secured by the plan. Extraction of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites. The Replacement None materials from Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire specifies certain areas for minerals extraction and the BLP the site supports extraction in these areas, none of which are within the designated sites. Dumping of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for dumping materials on the site the site would require planning permission. Storage of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for storing materials on the site the site would require planning permission. Erection of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there is None structures on no scope for the erection of structures on the sites. Any proposals for erection of structures on the site the site would require planning permission.

Table C4: Thames Basin Heaths SPA (including Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC and Broadmoor to Bagshot Heaths SSSI) Sources, Potential Likelihood of Pathways or impact Mitigating factors and comments significant Operation from Plan effect Water (water None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on water pollution or None pollution and hydrology, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water hydrology) quality. Air (air Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased ownership and use of cars, None pollution) leading to possible impact on air pollution. The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/index) states that an increase in traffic will only affect areas of land up to 200m from a road where there will be a significant increase in traffic. Further, a BLP policy acts to support and encourage sustainable modes of transport. For these reasons the BLP will not have an adverse impact on air quality in the area. Direct land None The BLP does not propose any development within designated sites so there will be no land None take take. Habitat / Low A BLP policy requires the conservation of protected species, avoiding damage to designated None species sites and ensuring that those sites will be maintained, protected and enhanced. Greater levels disturbance of development in the area could lead to increased pressures on designated sites and impacts arising from greater pet ownership (disturbance and predation). Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP policy. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact on habitat or species disturbance in the area. Recreational Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None pressure designated sites. Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set (increased out in this report and secured by a BLP policy, following the approach set out in South East population) Plan Policy NRM6 and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA SPD. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact arising from recreational pressure. Damage or Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None removal of any designated sites, which could potentially include the removal of plants. Any development in

43 plant or plant the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP remains policy. In particular, the educational aspects of the SAMM and SANG projects will help to limit (including any removal of plants from designated areas. Further, a BLP policy requires conservation of recreational protected species and enhancements to biodiversity. For these reasons the BLP will not have impacts) an adverse impact on plant removal. Changes to None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on drainage arrangements None drainage or watercourses. arrangements / watercourses Pollution of None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on pollution of None watercourses watercourses, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water quality. Water None The BLP contains no proposals for water abstraction. None abstraction Extraction of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites. The Replacement None materials from Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire specifies certain areas for minerals extraction and the BLP the site supports extraction in these areas, none of which are within the designated sites. Dumping of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for dumping materials on the site the site would require planning permission. Storage of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for storing materials on the site the site would require planning permission. Erection of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there is None structures on no scope for the erection of structures on the sites. Any proposals for erection of structures on the site the site would require planning permission.

Table C5: Windsor Forest and Great Park SAC Sources, Potential Likelihood of Pathways or impact Mitigating factors and comments significant Operation from Plan effect Water (water None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on water pollution or None pollution and hydrology, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water hydrology) quality. Air (air Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased ownership and use of cars, None pollution) leading to possible impact on air pollution. The Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (www.dft.gov.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/index) states that an increase in traffic will only affect areas of land up to 200m from a road where there will be a significant increase in traffic. Further, a BLP policy acts to support and encourage sustainable modes of transport. Industrial development of certain sites could also lead to air pollution, but the effects of this are avoided by a combination of BLP policies that protect the environment, minimise air pollution and protect designated sites. For these reasons the BLP will not have an adverse impact on air quality in the area. Direct land None The BLP does not propose any development within designated sites so there will be no land None take take. Habitat / Low A BLP policy requires the conservation of protected species, avoiding damage to designated None species sites and ensuring that those sites will be maintained, protected and enhanced. Greater levels disturbance of development in the area could lead to increased pressures on designated sites and impacts arising from greater pet ownership (disturbance and predation). Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP policy. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact on habitat or species disturbance in the area. Recreational Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None pressure designated sites. Any development in the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set (increased out in this report and secured by a BLP policy. The SAC is also comprised largely of population) woodland, which is resilient to recreational disturbance. Hence the BLP will have no specific impact arising from recreational pressure.

45 Damage or Low Greater levels of development in the area could lead to increased recreational pressures on None removal of any designated sites, which could potentially include the removal of plants. Any development in plant or plant the area will be subject to mitigation measures as set out in this report and secured by a BLP remains policy. In particular, the educational aspects of the SAMM and SANG projects will help to limit (including any removal of plants from designated areas. Further, a BLP policy requires conservation of recreational protected species and enhancements to biodiversity. For these reasons the BLP will not have impacts) an adverse impact on plant removal. Changes to None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on drainage arrangements None drainage or watercourses. arrangements / watercourses Pollution of None The BLP contains no proposals that would have an adverse effect on pollution of None watercourses watercourses, and a BLP policy requires development not to have a detrimental effect on water quality. Water None The BLP contains no proposals for water abstraction. None abstraction Extraction of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites. The Replacement None materials from Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire specifies certain areas for minerals extraction and the BLP the site supports extraction in these areas, none of which are within the designated sites. Dumping of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for dumping materials on the site the site would require planning permission. These matters would in any case be under the control of the Crown as landowner. Storage of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there None materials on will be no impact from construction works. Any proposals for storing materials on the site the site would require planning permission. These matters would in any case be under the control of the Crown as landowner. Erection of None The BLP does not propose development in the vicinity of designated sites and hence there is None structures on no scope for the erection of structures on the sites. Any proposals for erection of structures on the site the site would require planning permission. These matters would in any case be under the control of the Crown as landowner.