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

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

March 2016

Executive summary

The Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) for the Anglian River Basin District (RBD) provides an overview of the range of flood risks from different sources across the 11 catchments of the RBD and more specifically from local flood sources in the South Essex Flood Risk Area (FRA). The RBD catchments are defined in the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and based on the natural configuration of bodies of water (rivers, estuaries, lakes etc.). The South Essex FRA was identified as having higher local flood risk by the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments.

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

Types of flood management measures % of RBD measures

Prevention – e.g. land use policy, relocating people at risk etc. 32% Protection – e.g. various forms of asset or property-based protection 48% Preparedness – e.g. awareness raising, forecasting and warnings 15% Recovery and review – e.g. the ‘after care’ from flood events 2% Other – any actions not able to be categorised yet 3%

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

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

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

FRMP RMA plans Screened out Measures from New cycle 1 measures existing plans measures1 Anglian RBD catchments 733 407 213 FRA South Essex 42 16 9 Total 775 (55%) 423 (30%) 222 (16%)

The HRA has been carried out for the set of measures for each RBD catchment that address main river, sea and reservoir flooding alongside any measures volunteered by RMAs that address local flooding and thus form a ‘RBD plan’ within the FRMP. Measures within FRAs that address high risk of local flooding in these areas have been considered in the HRA as separate ‘FRA plans’ within the FRMP. Both ‘RDB plan’ and ‘FRA plans’ are further considered in-combination by the HRA. The findings are a summary of the risks to European sites and an indication of the need for future HRAs at a project level when developing local actions, as well as considering how to avoid and mitigate any residual risks to European sites. For the Anglian RBD FRMP, the main conclusions from the stages of assessment across the 2 RMA plans of the FRMP are as follows:

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

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

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

The HRA considers the potential for in-combination effects with other plans and projects. Given the level of information currently available, the assessment has identified the plans where the greatest risk of in-combination effects occur, but a detailed assessment can only

1 Measures across several catchments are counted up for each catchment for HRA purposes which may be a different figure than reported in the FRMP.

3 be undertaken at the project level when details of location and design of measures are known. Key external plans to consider for in-combination effects are:

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

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

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

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ...... 6 1.1 Introducing this report ...... 6 1.2 Background to the FRMPs ...... 7 1.3 The Anglian RBD FRMP ...... 7 1.4 Background to the Habitats Regulations Assessment ...... 9 2 European sites in the Anglian RBD ...... 11 2.1 European sites that could be affected by the FRMP...... 12 2.2 European sites and their status for FRMPs ...... 12 2.3 European sites and their management ...... 13 3 Approach to the HRA ...... 15 3.1 Description of the FRMP programmes of measures ...... 15 3.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 16 3.3 Screening out catchments where no European sites are present ...... 16 3.4 Screening out measures that would not have physical effects ...... 16 3.5 Considering measures from existing plans ...... 17 3.6 Considering new measures for FRMP cycle 1 ...... 18 3.7 Considering the need for further stages of assessment ...... 18 4 Anglian River Basin District Catchments HRA ...... 19 4.1 Summary of Measures ...... 19 4.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 22 4.3 Consideration of results and conclusion ...... 60 5 South Essex Flood Risk Area HRA ...... 63 5.1 Summary ...... 63 5.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects ...... 64 5.3 Consideration of results and conclusion ...... 68 6 In combination effects with other plans and projects ...... 69 6.1 RBD and FRA FRMPs ...... 69 6.2 In-combination effects between RBD FRMPs ...... 70 6.3 In-combination effects with external plans ...... 70 7 Conclusion and Future HRAs ...... 72 Annex A: Table A1 – HRA screening table for the FRMP measure categories Table A2 – Management Catchments and European sites in the Anglian RBD /FRMP Table A3 – Mitigation and Control Measures

Annex B Anglian RBD European sites

1 Introduction

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

 Information on flooding from main river, sea and reservoirs being published for the catchments of the river basin district (RBD) are the responsibility of the Environment Agency (for English catchments).  Information on flooding from local sources being published for any Flood Risk Area (FRA) is the collective responsibility of Lead Local Flood Authorities within the FRA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2015-2021 period will be the first cycle of the FRMPs; however RMAs already plan for flooding and a large proportion of the FRMP measures are taken from existing plans that have already been consulted on and published. This includes plans such as Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) as well as Local Flood Risk Management Strategies that have been developed by local authorities. Some further strategic developments have been included for the 2015-2021 first cycle of the FRMP that build on existing plans and seek to address the key objectives of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, such as: strengthening joint working of RMAs, developing more integrated management of the water environment, and updated priorities from any new understanding of flood risks including the implications of climate change.

1.3 The Anglian RBD FRMP The Anglian river basin district is mainly rural, with more than half of its land used for agriculture and horticulture. In total over 7.1 million people live and work within the district, with many of the cities and towns proposing housing growth, along with the creation of jobs and services. The river basin district contains many areas that are protected due to their rare habitats and wildlife, and iconic landscapes, and these areas are primarily located along the coastline and in the estuaries of the district. The Anglian river basin district also has a rich heritage with many buildings and structures listed for their historic importance; many of these are located close to rivers, lakes and the coast.

The FRMP describes the scale of flood risk in the Anglian RBD which includes:  On average, 9% of the people who live in the RBD are at risk from flooding from rivers or the sea. However, in some of the catchments, for example the Witham, this risk can affect up to one-third of the population, due to the low lying nature of much of the land and associated towns and villages, and their proximity to the coast. As an average, 12% of primary roads and 22% of railways are at risk from fluvial or tidal flooding in the RBD.  There are 315 large raised reservoirs that hold at least 25,000 cubic meters (m3) of water above natural ground level. There are 170,135 people, 671 services (including hospitals, schools etc), 218km of primary roads and 119km of railways, plus 8,193 European designated wildlife sites at risk of flooding from reservoirs.  There are some areas where there is a risk of surface water flooding, such as the flood risk area (FRA) of South Essex, where 18% of the population are at risk. An

estimated 11% of the population and 22% of roads within the RBD are at risk from surface water flooding.  There are other sources of flooding that affect the RBD, such as ground water flooding and sewer flooding. The standard sewer design criteria is to prevent internal flooding from rainfall events up to a 1 in 30 year storm return period and external flooding from events up to a 1 in 20 year storm return period. Therefore, it is expected that events larger than this may cause flooding due to incapacity.

Figure 1 Anglian RBD catchments and Flood Risk Areas

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

 Six Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) (which are either partially or wholly within the Anglian RBD)  Ten Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) (which are either partially or wholly within the Anglian RBD)  Local Flood Risk Management Strategies (LFRMS) developed by LLFAs.

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

 Measures within the 11 RBD catchments of the Anglian RBD that the Environment Agency is responsible for,  Measures within the South Essex Flood Risk Area (FRA) for local sources of flooding that fall within the Combined Essex catchment of the Anglian RBD, and the South Essex catchment of the Thames RBD. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Essex County Council are responsible for these measures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment is the detailed consideration of the impact on the integrity of the European Site of the plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, with respect to the site’s conservation objectives and its structure and function. This is to determine whether there is objective evidence that adverse effects on the integrity of the site can be excluded. This stage also includes the development of mitigation to avoid or reduce any possible effects.

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

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

2 European sites in the Anglian RBD

Within the Anglian RBD there are 32 SACs, 27SPAs, and 28 Ramsar sites. Some of the sites have more than one designation such as The Wash, parts of which are designated as SPA, SAC and Ramsar.

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

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

Of the 28 Ramsar sites within the Anglian RBD, 14 are coastal sites and the remainder are freshwater sites. Most SPAs in the RBD are wetland habitats, and of these most are coastal apart from 10 freshwater sites, such as Rutland Water and the Nene Washes. The 32 SACs in the Anglian RBD range in size and nature from the very small Baston Fen (2 hectares (ha)), which is designated for its population of spined loach, to the Wash and North Norfolk Coast (107,720 ha), which is designated for a number of qualifying habitats, in addition to the Annex II species the harbour seal.

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

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

It is not possible from the outset to rule out, at the RBD scale, any (water-dependent or non water-dependent) European sites from being affected by the Anglian FRMP. The HRA (in particular Sections 4.2 and 5.2 for the FRA) reviews the European sites by management catchment, and determines whether any of the measures within the catchments are likely to lead to significant effects on European sites.

2.2 European sites and their status for FRMPs The Anglian RBMP provides summary information on the current status and baseline for water-dependent European sites as part of its monitoring data.

European sites in England, with the occasional exception, are also designated as SSSIs. Natural England monitors the conditions of SSSIs and their component units using six reportable condition categories: favourable; unfavourable recovering; unfavourable no change; unfavourable declining; part destroyed and destroyed.

The current status of water-dependent European site protected areas for the Anglian RBD is summarised in Table 1 below. This gives the current area of water-dependent SSSI units of European protected areas in different condition categories as currently recorded on Natural England’s designated site data system. SSSI units underpin European protected areas and Natural England only collects data at a SSSI unit level. When SSSI units are in favourable condition, they are deemed to be meeting their conservation objectives.

The table shows that for the Anglian RBD, 27% of water-dependent SSSI units of European protected area sites are currently not compliant with the condition requirements.

Table 1 Status of water-dependent European sites based on assessment of SSSIs units for the Anglian RBD (Extract from Natural England databases August 2015)

Condition Anglian RBD (ha)

Favourable 64,376

Destroyed /Part destroyed -

Unfavourable declining 1,920

Unfavourable no change 3,129

Unfavourable recovering 18,865

Total Area Unfavourable 23,914

% Unfavourable 27

The generic pressures on such sites in the Anglian RBD include abstraction, general water shortage, water pollution, invasive non native species and flooding and coastal erosion. There are also long term national threats to habitats and especially species, including climate change, alterations in hydrological and coastal processes and invasive non-native species.

2.3 European sites and their management As part of a new strategic approach to managing all England’s European sites, new measures needed to achieve favourable conservation status for all European sites in England have been developed by Natural England. These are collectively referred to as Site Improvement Plans (SIPs), and are being developed by the Improvement Programme for England’s Natura 2000 sites (IPENS). SIPs were published for all European sites in England in 20152.

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

 Alde-Ore Estuaries  Benacre to Easton Bavents  Broadland  Essex Estuaries  Great Yarmouth Winterton Horsey  Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths and Marshes  Norfolk Valley Fens  Ouse Washes  Portholme  River Wensum

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

 Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes & Gibraltar Point  Stour and Orwell Estuaries  The Wash and North Norfolk Coast

3 Approach to the HRA

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

3.1 Description of the FRMP programmes of measures

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

 Anglian River Basin District catchments (Environment Agency)  South Essex Flood Risk Area (LLFAs within the FRA).

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

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

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

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

3.1.3 Applying HRA In applying the HRA process, each RMA plan has been assessed separately. A final summary of conclusions and recommendations for future HRAs is provided that also draws on a high-level summary of the potential for in-combination effects of the FRMP with other key plans.

3.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects

This first stage of the HRA process requires consideration of screening and likely significant effects of measures on European sites. The tasks undertaken to complete this are as follows, and set out in more detail below:

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

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

 Chapter 4: Anglian River Basin District catchments  Chapter 5: South Essex Flood Risk Area.

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

3.4 Screening out measures that would not have physical effects Every measure included within the FRMP is categorised according to one of the following 4 categories, accompanied by an M-code:

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

Further definitions of each of the measures are set out in the FRMP according to a second tier of M-codes. For example, Prevention (M2) includes the second tier measure, M22, which

16 is defined as “Prevention, removal or relocation measure to remove receptors from flood prone areas or to relocate receptors to areas of lower risk”. These measure definitions have been used as the basis for the initial screening out of the measures that require no further consideration within the HRA.

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

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

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

The results from existing HRAs have considered the extent that they remain valid since they were published. This has been done by checking the status of the relevant European sites that were considered within the source plan’s HRA for any changes to site designations since the date of the HRA publication. The criteria were agreed with Natural England and comprised: whether there were any new /additional site designations, any changes in site boundaries, changes in designated site features, or any significant changes in site conditions.

The HRA results from Shoreline Management Plans are relatively recent with most published between 2010 and 2011. The HRA results from Catchment Flood Management Plans are a little older with most published between 2008 and 2010. The HRA results from Local Flood Risk Management Strategies are the most recent with the first ones being published around 2012 and most being published much more recently.

One of the main reasons for a likely change from when the effects of plan measures were reported in HRAs is where there have been boundary changes to European sites or to the

17 scope of condition of the interest features of the sites i.e. specific habitats, species etc. Where we have been advised that such changes have occurred and are significant then this has triggered further consideration of the validity of the existing HRA results that we have relied upon.

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

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

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

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

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

 that this HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower tier strategies, plans or projects that implement measures, nor does it give any weight to their outcomes. Consideration of potential impacts and options available to mitigate for those impacts should assist, but not influence or constrain any lower-tier assessments  that as local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope and scale are known, this may identify additional effects on European sites that have not been assessed here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial scale of plan.

4 Anglian River Basin District Catchments HRA

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

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

4.1 Summary of Measures The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for each of the 11 management catchments within the Anglian FRMP.

Figure 3 - Map of the Anglian river basin district and management catchments

A summary of the measures and their screening is given below for each catchment.

Table 2: Summary of measures by catchment

Management Number of measures Number of new measures

Catchment related to types of and known level of detail1

1 existing plans

sites

of of of of new of

Number measuresscreened in(out) Number measuresfrom existing plans Number measuresfor cycle one Number European Catchments with no screened in measures All catchments have some screened in measures. Catchments with all measures from existing plans All catchments have new measures.

Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP Anglian RBD 9 1 1 from CFMPs 8 0 not in proximity n/a Wide (18) 0 from LLFA plans 8 strategic/proximity unknown 0 specific/in proximity

Broadland 84 41 10 from CFMPs 43 2 not in proximity 12 Rivers (104) 19 from SMPs/other EA 15 strategic/proximity unknown plans 26 specific/in proximity 12 from LLFA plans Cam and Ely 31 22 1 from CFMPs 9 5 not in proximity 14 Ouse (50) 21 from LLFA plans 0 strategic/proximity unknown 4 specific/in proximity

Combined 111 63 9 from CFMPs 48 11 not in proximity 20 Essex (149) 46 from SMPs/other EA 0 strategic/proximity unknown plans 37 specific/in proximity 8 from LLFA plans East Suffolk 91 64 4 from CFMPs 27 8 not in proximity 16 (138) 30 from SMPs 0 strategic/proximity unknown 30 from LLFA plans 19 specific/in proximity

Nene 64 50 4 from CFMPs 14 5 not in proximity 9 (52) 15 from SMPs 0 strategic/proximity unknown 31 from LLFA plans 9 specific/in proximity

North 57 43 3 from CFMPs 14 1 not in proximity 6 Norfolk (76) 34 from SMPs 7 strategic/proximity unknown Rivers 6 from LLFA plans 6 specific/in proximity

North West 42 39 1 from CFMPs 3 0 not in proximity 14 Norfolk (46) 31 from SMPs 0 strategic/proximity unknown 7 from LLFA plans 3 specific/in proximity

Old Bedford 9 6 1 from CFMPs 3 0 not in proximity 8 and Middle (13) 5 from LLFA plans 0 strategic/proximity unknown Level 3 specific/in proximity

Upper and 17 12 1 from CFMPs 5 5 not in proximity 4 Bedford (22) 11 from LLFA plans 0 strategic/proximity unknown Ouse 0 specific/in proximity

Welland 41 33 5 from CFMPs 8 5 not in proximity 8 (43) 15 from SMPs 2 strategic/proximity unknown 13 from LLFA plans 1 specific/in proximity

Witham 51 21 2 from CFMPs 30 16 not in proximity 9 (15) 19 from SMPs 0 strategic/proximity unknown 14 specific/in proximity

Anglian RBD 13 12 0 from CFMPs 1 1 not in proximity and Humber (7) 12 from SMPs 0 strategic/proximity unknown RBD cross- 0 from LLFA plans 0 specific/in proximity border Overall Total 620 407 42 from CFMPs 213 59 not in proximity (733) 221 from SMPs 32 strategic/proximity unknown 144 from LLFA plans 122 specific/in proximity

% all 46% 30% 482 (3%) 221 (16%) 144 16% 59 (4%) 32 (2%) 122 (9%) measures2 (11%) 1 - all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets 2 - all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures 'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment) 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide 3 Measures across several catchments are counted up for each catchment for HRA purposes which may be a higher figure than reported in the FRMP.

Of the total of 1353 measures 46% have been screened in for HRA consideration (54% screened out). All management catchments within the Anglian RBD have some screened in measures and are considered further. There are 20 measures that are RBD-wide and are considered in section 4.2.4.12. Measures within the strategic area of the Fens are assessed within their relevant RBD catchments. There are a number of measures from neighbouring river basin districts that were included in Anglian RBD catchments, including measures from:  The Thames RBD and within the South Essex FRA which are considered within the FRA HRA section 5  The Humber RBD which are considered within a cross-border section 4.2.4.13.

4.1.1 Risks from existing plan measures 30% of all FRMP measures (excluding Flood Risk Areas) are screened in and from existing plans, 3% are from CFMPs and 16% from SMPs. Most risks are from SMP measures where adverse effects identified in the SMP HRA for specific policy areas are being addressed.

Most risks to European sites that are being addressed by existing plans relate to the measures in SMPs (16%), and more specifically where the SMP is managing likely adverse effects, such as in the Combined Essex, East Suffolk and North-west Norfolk catchments.

4.1.2 Risks from new measures 16% of all FRMP measures (excluding Flood Risk Areas) are screened in and new measures, 2% are strategic without locations, 4% are not in proximity to any European sites and 9% are more specific improvements that are in proximity to sites. The most likely risks will be related to the development of local actions for the specific improvements in the next FRMP cycle and can be found in the Broadland Rivers, Combined Essex, East Suffolk and Witham catchments. The future strategic measures may also present a risk depending on where they are implemented.

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

Table 3 Management Catchments of the Anglian RBD /FRMP

Management Catchment Category Management Catchments Management catchments with no None European sites present. Management catchments with no None ‘screened in’ measures. Management catchments with all None measures from existing plans. Management catchments with new - Broadland Rivers - North-west Norfolk measures. - Cam & Ely Ouse - Old Bedford & - Combined Essex Middle Level - East Suffolk - Upper & Bedford - Nene Ouse - North Norfolk Rivers - Welland - Witham

4.2.1 Management catchments with no European sites present

All management catchments within the Anglian RBD have European sites present; therefore no management catchments have been ruled out of further consideration on this basis.

4.2.2 Management Catchments with no ‘screened in’ measures

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

4.2.3 Management Catchments with all measures from existing plans

There are no management catchments in the Anglian FRMP that contain only measures from existing plans and no new FRMP measures.

4.2.4 Management Catchments with New Measures

4.2.4.1 Broadland Rivers Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 45 43 5 41 99

The Broadland Rivers management catchment contains 12 European sites, which lie to the east of the catchment. The Breydon Water SPA and Ramsar sites cover the same area, near Great Yarmouth towards the south-east of the catchment, extending to the eastern

22 boundary at the North Sea coast. The Broadland SPA/Ramsar and Broads SAC cover the same area, distributed across the catchment between Stalham in the north and Beccles in the south. The Wensum River SAC is a linear designation along the River Wensum from Pattesley in the north-west to Norwich in the centre of the catchment. The Norfolk Valley Fens SAC comprises discrete pockets of fenland between Dereham and Norwich. Paston Great Barn SAC covers the area of the Paston Great Barn and its curtilage in the north-east corner of the catchment. Waveney and Little Ouse Valley Fens SAC and Redgrave & South Lopham Fens Ramsar cover the same area, between South Lopham and Redgrave. Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC covers a similar but wider area to Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA, along the Norfolk coast between Horsey and Winterton-on-Sea, on the eastern boundary of the catchment.

In total there are 188 measures for the Broadland Rivers catchment, of which 48 are new as part of the FRMP; 140 are actions from existing plans, of which 41 are screened in.

New measures

The 48 new measures are all from the Environment Agency, 43 of which are protection measures (M3) and are screened in for further consideration. There are 5 new measures relating to other flood prevention (M24) and public awareness & preparedness (M43) that are screened out of further assessment. The protection measures comprise 11 natural flood management/runoff and catchment management actions (M31), 3 water flow regulation actions (M32), and 29 other flood protection actions (M35).

Two of these measures comprise investigations (for Buxton and Aylsham), which are located at a distance (over 5km) from European sites in the catchment, and are therefore considered unlikely to give rise to significant effects on any European sites.

Seven are management catchment-wide measures, and a further 8 measures cover particular river catchments within the wider management catchment. The majority of the remaining 26 measures are flood risk management investigations, and are in close proximity to the Broads/Broadland European sites, Norfolk Valley Fens SAC or the River Wensum SAC.

The final solutions for all of these measures are not yet defined, and the FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented. The measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing Measures - Kelling Hard to Lowestoft SMP2

55 of the measures are from the Kelling Hard to Lowestoft SMP2, 15 of which are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3). The SMP2 measures comprise natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), channel, coastal & floodplain

23 works (M33), and other flood protection actions (M35). The measures primarily focus on the maintenance of existing defences and the management of redundant or failing defences. These 15 screened in SMP protection measures for the Broadland Rivers catchment implement the policies of the SMP2, which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Kelling Hard to Lowestoft SMP2 HRA Appropriate Assessment. The Appropriate Assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites resulting from the SMP2.

Existing Measures - Lowestoft to Felixstowe SMP2

There are 15 measures from the Lowestoft to Felixstowe SMP2, 4 of which are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3). The SMP2 measures comprise 2 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), and 2 channel, coastal & floodplain works measures (M33). All four measures are focused on Lowestoft and its south beach. These 4 screened in SMP2 protection measures for the Broadland Rivers catchment implement the policies of the SMP2, which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Lowestoft to Felixstowe SMP2 HRA Appropriate Assessment (January 2010).The HRA concluded that no adverse effect on integrity of European sites could not be concluded for 6 management units. A Statement of Case for IROPI was prepared, submitted to the Secretary of State, and signed off by August 2011.

Proposed mitigation: The Statement of Case for IROPI for the Lowestoft to Felixstowe SMP2 identified that adverse effects were anticipated upon the Benacre to Easton Bavents SPA and Minsmere to Walberswick SPA/Ramsar. Both sites are located south of the SMP2 actions recorded in the FRMP and so no adverse effects on the nearby coastal European sites were anticipated. Nevertheless, works will be adjacent to the Outer Thames Estuary SPA and the need for project level HRA to assess impacts on this potential new marine site will be considered associated with the appropriate consenting processes.

Existing Measures - Broadland CFMP

There are 22 measures from the Broadland CFMP, 10 of which are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3). The CFMP measures comprise 1 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measure (M31), and 1 channel, coastal & floodplain works measure (M33), 3 surface water management measures (M34), and 5 other flood protection measures (M35). These 10 screened in CFMP protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Broadland Rivers catchment implement the policies of the CFMP which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Broadland Rivers CFMP HRA (December 2008).

The Broadland Rivers CFMP HRA screening assessment concluded that there was the potential for likely significant effect, and an appropriate assessment was undertaken. The HRA identified that impacts were most likely to occur as a result of climate change, but could be exacerbated by policies to not increase or to reduce flood risk management activities. The extent of the changes that would occur were too uncertain at this stage and the assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites subject to monitoring the European sites.

Proposed mitigation comprised monitoring of the condition of European sites, and policies to determine possible effects of increased frequency of flooding resulting from climate change.

Existing Measures - Suffolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 27 measures from the Suffolk LFRMS, 6 of which are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3) comprising 1 channel, coastal & floodplain works measure (M33), 1 surface water management measure (M34), and 4 other flood protection measures (M35). These 6 screened in LFRMS protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Broadland Rivers catchment implement the policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Suffolk LFRMS HRA (October 2012).

The Suffolk LFRMS HRA3 concluded that all objectives of the strategy would either result in likely positive significant effect or no likely significant effect; therefore there was no requirement for appropriate assessment.

Proposed mitigation comprised a suite of safeguards, including project-specific HRA, of the proposals and actions within the LFRMS, with appropriate mitigation as required avoiding or reducing any likely significant negative effects.

Existing Measures - Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 21 measures from the Suffolk LFRMS, 6 of which are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3). The LFRMS measures comprise 1 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measure (M31), 1 surface water management measure (M34), and 4 other flood protection measures (M35). These 6 screened in LFRMS protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Broadland Rivers catchment implement the policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Norfolk LFRMS HRA.

The HRA screening assessment concluded that there would be no likely significant effect on European sites as modifications had been made to improve Policy E1 – Nature Conservation to include further protection for internationally designated nature conservation sites. Therefore, no Appropriate Assessment was required under the Habitats Regulations for the Norfolk LFRMS.

4.2.4.2 Cam & Ely Ouse Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 14 9 6 22 44

The Cam & Ely Ouse management catchment contains 14 European sites which are predominantly located in the eastern part of the Cam & Ely Ouse management catchment, comprising Breckland SPA and SAC, covering 39,433ha and 7,548ha respectively. The

3 Suffolk LFRMS HRA, Suffolk County Council, October 2012.

25 other European sites cover small pockets of land across the catchment, comprising mainly woodland and fenland sites, such as Wicken Fen and Eversden & Wimpole Woods.

In total there are 81 measures for the Cam & Ely Ouse catchment, of which 15 are new as part of the FRMP; 66 are actions from existing plans, of which 22 are screened in.

New measures

All of the new measures are proposed by the Environment Agency, 9 of which are flood risk protection actions (M3) and are screened in for further consideration. Of the new screened- out measures, 3 are flood prevention measures (M24), 1 is a flood forecasting & warning measure (M41), and 2 are public awareness & preparedness measures (M43). The flood protection measures comprise 1 natural flood management/run-off & coastal management measure (M31), and 8 other flood protection measures (M35).

Seven of the new measures are aimed at addressing flooding from main river, 1 from main river & ordinary watercourses, sea flooding, surface water and sewer flooding, and 1 from reservoir flooding. Most of the measures comprise localised investigation and assessments to determine flood risk and potential solutions to fluvial flooding.

Two actions are located in Cambridge and its suburbs and are a distance (over 5km) from European sites. A further action is located in a town at a distance (over 5km) from European sites, and 2 further actions are property level protection (PLP) for which there is no pathway for likely significant effect on European sites due to their localised nature. These measures, given the distances to the European sites and the lack of a pathway for causal effect, are considered unlikely to give rise to significant effects on any European sites.

The 4 remaining screened in actions pose a higher risk of likely significant effect as they are within 5km of European sites, comprising the Ouse Washes reservoir Middle Level Barrier Bank raising scheme and Denver Little Eyes sluice gate operation scheme which are close to the Ouse Washes SPA & Ramsar site, the Soham Lode Pumping Station refurbishment approximately 4.7km upstream of the Fenland SAC/Chippenham Fen Ramsar site, and a collaborative flood risk management approach for the Fens which could affect any of the European sites within the catchment.

These measures comprise investigations of flood risk and potential improvements, with no solutions defined. These measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing Measures - Great Ouse CFMP

One of the existing measures is from the Great Ouse CFMP, relating to other protection measures (M35) and is considered further below.

This measure is located in the Eastern Rivers Policy Unit 18 (North-west Norfolk) of the Great Ouse CFMP. The HR01 for the CFMP concluded that the application of Policy 2 (Reduce existing flood risk management actions) and 3 (Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level) in Policy Unit 18 could have likely significant effects upon The Wash, The Wash & North Norfolk Coast, and the Waveney & Little Ouse Valley Fens European sites. Accordingly an Appropriate Assessment was undertaken and concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of any of these European sites.

Proposed mitigation: The main mitigation measure was to ensure that implementation of CFMP policies could not be signed off until more detailed appraisal and assessment had shown that the requirements of the Habitats Regulations had been met, with all projects arising from the CFMP being subject to the Habitats Regulations process. Mitigation proposed as part of this process would then be implemented accordingly.

Existing Measures - Cambridgeshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

Three of the existing measures for the Cam & Ely Ouse management catchment are from the Cambridgeshire LFRMS, comprising 2 surface water protection measures (M34) and 1 other flood risk protection measure (M35), which have been screened in to this assessment. These measures constitute flood risk management investigations for Kings Hedges and Cherry Hinton, and a surface water management plan for Histon and Impington. These locations are all suburbs of Cambridge and are over 5km from any European sites.

These screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Cam & Ely Ouse management catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Cambridgeshire LFRMS HRA screening assessment (December 2012). This assessment concluded that the LFRMS was unlikely to have significant effects on European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Therefore an appropriate assessment was not required.

Proposed mitigation: The main mitigation measure set out in the Cambridgeshire LFRMS was that project-level HRA should be undertaken on all schemes originating from the LFRMS.

Existing Measures - Norfolk Flood Risk Management Strategy

Six of the existing measures are from the Norfolk Flood Risk Management Strategy, comprising natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), surface water management (M34), and other flood protection measures (M35), and are considered further below.

These measures are county-wide Norfolk measures. The HRA screening assessment for the Norfolk LFRMS (April 2015) concluded that there would be no likely significant effect on European sites as modifications had been made to improve Policy E1 – Nature Conservation to include further protection for internationally designated nature conservation sites. Therefore, no Appropriate Assessment was required under the Habitats Regulations for the Norfolk LFRMS.

Existing Measures – Suffolk Flood Risk Management Strategy

Eight of the existing measures are from the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Strategy, comprising water flow regulation (M32), surface water management (M34), and other flood protection measures (M35), which are considered further below

These measures comprise 3 Suffolk county-wide measures, 2 property level protection measures, 2 measures focused around Lakenheath and 1 Health & Safety measure focused at Mildenhall. The Suffolk LFRMS HRA4 screening assessment (October 2012) concluded no likely negative significant effect on European sites as project-specific HRAs for schemes related to the Suffolk LFRMS would be undertaken to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations.

Existing measures – Essex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 14 have been derived from the Essex LFRMS; 10 of which have been screened out as they relate to prevention (M23 & M24) and preparedness (M41, M43 & M44). Four measures have been screened in and considered below, comprising natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), water flow regulation (M32), and surface water management (M34).

These four screened in LFRMS measures constitute development of consenting policy, SUDs guidance, application of Urban Blue Corridors, and identification of environmental benefits within Essex County, which could be close to/within the European sites within the Cam & Ely Ouse management catchment. Therefore, these measures have the potential for likely significant effect upon these European sites. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Cam & Ely Ouse management catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Essex LFRMS HRA screening assessment (March 2013). This assessment concluded that the LFRMS does not have the potential to cause significant effects upon European sites, and that a Habitats Regulations appropriate assessment was not deemed necessary for the Essex LFRMS. However, the HRA screening assessment reports that the Essex LFRMS will ensure that the integrity of internationally designated sites will not be adversely affected as, before any further plans or measures in the Strategy are implemented, they must be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and must undergo an ‘appropriate assessment’ if they are likely to have a significant effect.

4.2.4.3 Combined Essex Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 20 48 37 63 112

4 Suffolk FRMS HRA, October 2012

The Combined Essex management catchment contains 20 European sites. These are mainly estuarine/coastal sites located in the east of the Combined Essex management catchment, including the Blackwater Estuary, the Crouch & Roach Estuaries, and Essex Estuaries designated sites. The majority of the sites have more than one designation. For example, nine sites have a Ramsar and SPA designation, giving a total of 18 designated sites. The new and existing measures for the South Essex FRA which fall within this catchment are examined separately in Section 5 of this HRA.

In total there are 260 measures for the Combined Essex catchment, 85 of which are new as part of the FRMP with 175 actions from existing plans, of which 63 are screened in.

New measures

All 85 new measures are from the Environment Agency; 48 of the new measures are protection measures (M3) and are screened in for further consideration; the remaining 37 are measures relating to flood risk prevention (M24), and public awareness and preparedness (M43) and have been screened out of further assessment.

Of the 48 Environment Agency new screened in protection measures, 16 are natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), 3 are water flow regulation (M32), 2 are channel, floodplain and coastal works (M33), 3 are surface water management measures (M34), and the remaining 24 are other flood protection measures (M35).

25 of the new measures are aimed at addressing flooding from main river, 1 from ordinary watercourse flooding, 11 from flooding from a combination of main river and ordinary watercourses, 10 address flooding from the sea, 5 aim to reduce coastal erosion and 9 target flooding from surface water. Some of these measures address multiple flood sources. Most of the measures comprise localised asset refurbishments, habitat improvement works, river catchment investigations and potential solutions to fluvial flooding.

Of the screened in measures, 20 are located in cities, towns and villages in Essex including Chelmsford, Heybridge, Wickford, Walton-on-the-Naze and Jaywick, 4 are other localised asset works, and another 4 are measures that apply across Essex, Norfolk & Suffolk. The remaining 20 screened in actions are estuarine and river catchment actions, some of which are within European sites (e.g. the Crouch & Roach, and Blackwater Estuaries).

As the European sites and the measures for the Combined Essex catchment are focused around the coastal eastern part of the management catchment (including the Colne, Stour and Blackwater Estuaries), there are only 11 actions that are a distance (at least 5km) from any European sites. These comprise flood risk management investigations at Lavenham, Nayland, Bures, Cavendish, Clare and Hundon, localised refurbishments at Borley, Chelmsford and Halstead, Chelmsford Flood Alleviation Scheme and a river enhancement scheme at Clare. These 11 measures, given the distances to the European sites, are not likely to give rise to significant effects on these sites.

The other 37 new screened in measures are closer to European sites and will be subject to a project consenting process, and associated requirement for consideration of project level HRA.

The nature of the new measures comprising investigations, or catchment studies means that the final solutions are not yet defined, or where works are defined they are localised. The FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented, and these measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures – Essex & South Suffolk SMP2

There are 117 measures from the Essex & South Suffolk SMP2, 42 of which are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3) and measures involving removal/relocation of receptors (M22), as considered below.

The Essex & South Suffolk SMP2 covers the coastline from Landguard Point in Suffolk (close to the Stour & Orwell Estuaries European sites) south to Southend-on-Sea in Essex (within the Benfleet & Southend Marshes European sites). The 42 SMP2 prevention and protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Combined Essex catchment implement the policies of the SMP2, which have been previously assessed in the Essex & South Suffolk SMP2 HRA5 (Appendix M to the SMP2, January 2012). This assessment concluded that SMP2 policy in almost all management units has the potential to have a likely significant effect on European sites and, despite proposed mitigation, it was not possible to conclude no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites.

A Statement of Case for IROPI was prepared to be signed off by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement of Case primarily focused on saltmarsh loss as a result of coastal squeeze and included a commitment to monitor the rate of loss to inform the extent of compensatory saltmarsh habitat creation. Compensatory habitats will be delivered in advance of losses through the Environment Agency Anglian Habitat Creation Programme.

Existing plan measures - Thames Estuary 2100 Plan

Nine of the measures are from the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, 5 of which are screened out as they relate to flood avoidance (M21) and preparedness measures (M43). The remaining 4 of these measures are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3), comprising 1 channel, coastal & floodplain works measure (M33), and 3 other flood protection measures (M35).

The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan covers the tidal Thames from Teddington in West London, through to Sheerness and Shoeburyness at the estuary mouth in Kent and Essex, hence spans the Anglian RBD and Thames RBD. The 4 screened in Plan protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Combined Essex catchment implement the policies of the Thames Estuary Plan, which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations

5 Essex & South Suffolk SMP2 Appendix M – Habitats Regulations Assessment Report, January 2012.

30 in the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan HRA Appropriate Assessment (2009). This assessment concluded that there would be an adverse effect on integrity of European sites resulting from the Plan. However, the only Anglian RBD European sites upon which the Plan is anticipated to have a significant effect are the Benfleet & Southend Marshes SPA & Ramsar sites, which are also where the 4 FRMP measures are located – in Action Zone 8 – Leigh-on-Sea and Southend-on-Sea. A Statement of Case for IROPI was submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment in October 2010 and approved.

Proposed mitigation: The Statement of Case committed to providing compensatory habitat for predicted intertidal habitat losses due to coastal squeeze. In addition, enhancement of existing non-designated grazing marsh habitat is required. This will provide ‘insurance’ that the integrity of the Natura 2000 grazing marsh features will be maintained in favourable condition.

Existing plan measures - North Essex CFMP

Fourteen of the measures are from the North Essex CFMP, 7 of which are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3). The North Essex CFMP covers all watercourses within the catchments of the Rivers Stour, Colne, Blackwater, and Chelmer, and the smaller watercourses that flow directly into estuaries or the sea. The 7 screened in CFMP protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Combined Essex catchment implement the policies of the CFMP, which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the North Essex CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment (December 2008). This assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effect on integrity of European sites due either to the distance of the site from the policy unit or due to the limited change in fluvial flow relative to tidal flows or sediment flux because of the CFMP policy proposed.

Proposed mitigation: Given that no adverse effects were identified, limited mitigation was proposed. The one exception was a commitment to ensure that any changes to Abberton Reservoir management would be subject to specific HRA.

Existing plan measures - South Essex CFMP

Six of the measures are from the South Essex CFMP, 2 of which are screened in as they are flood risk protection measures (M3). The South Essex CFMP covers the catchments of the rivers Crouch, Roach and Mardyke, as well as smaller independent watercourses along the Thames Estuary and on the Dengie peninsula, and others that flow directly into estuaries or the sea. The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Combined Essex catchment implement policies of the CFMP, which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the South Essex CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment (December 2008). This assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites.

Existing plan measures – Suffolk Flood Risk Management Strategy

Twenty four of the measures are from the Suffolk LFRMS, 5 of which are screened in as these are flood risk protection measures (M3). The Suffolk LFRMS covers flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses in the county of Suffolk, and elsewhere in East Anglia (parts of Essex, Norfolk and parts of Cambridgeshire) where

Suffolk watercourses discharge. The measures screened in comprise 3 Suffolk-wide measures, a Surface Water Management Plan for Sudbury/Great Cornard, and a channel clearance scheme for Long Melford. The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Combined Essex catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Suffolk LFRMS HRA (October 2012). This screening assessment concluded no likely negative significant effect on European sites as project-specific HRAs for schemes related to the Suffolk LFRMS would be undertaken to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations.

Proposed mitigation comprises a suite of safeguards, including project-specific HRA of the proposals and actions within the LFRMS, with appropriate mitigation as required to reduce any likely significant negative effects. (Suffolk LFRMS HRA, October 2012).

Existing plan measures - South Essex Surface Water Management Plan

Three of the existing measures for the Combined Essex catchment are from the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan, all of which are surface water management measures (M34). Given that the measures will apply in urban areas there will be no significant effects on any European sites.

Existing plan measures – Southend-on-Sea Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 2 have been derived from the Southend-on-Sea LFRMS relating to public awareness & preparedness (M43), and have been screened out of further assessment as there is no pathway for likely significant effect on European sites from this type of measure.

4.2.4.4 East Suffolk Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 16 27 4 64 134

The East Suffolk management catchment contains 16 European sites. The sites are located in the eastern part of the East Suffolk management catchment, predominantly associated with coastal and estuarine sites. Exceptions are Dews Ponds SAC designated for great crested newts, The Sandlings SPA heathland designated for populations of nightjar and woodlark, and Staverton Park and the Thicks SAC woodland designated for old acidophilous oak.

In total there are 229 measures for the East Suffolk catchment, 31 of which are new as part of the FRMP, and 198 are from existing plans.

New Measures

The 31 new measures are from the Environment Agency, 27 of which constitute protection measures; the remaining 4 are measures relating to flood risk prevention (M24) and public awareness and preparedness (M43) and have been screened out of further assessment.

Of the 27 Environment Agency new screened in protection measures, 6 are natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), 3 are water flow regulation (M32), 1 is channel, floodplain and coastal works (M33), and the remaining 17 are other protection measures (M35).

Fifteen of the new measures are aimed at addressing flooding from main river, 5 from main rivers & ordinary watercourses, 11 target flooding from the sea, 2 address coastal erosion, and 5 address surface water flooding. Most of the measures (approximately 17) comprise localised investigation and assessments to determine flood risk and potential solutions to fluvial flooding.

Most of the new screened in actions for the East Suffolk management catchment are within 5km of, or hydrologically connected to, European sites.

There are 8 actions which are a distance (over 5km) from European sites or for which there is no pathway for likely significant effect, comprising flood risk management investigations for Laxfield, Bramfield, Carlton-cum-Kelsale, Framlingham, Great Blakenham, Halesworth, Saxmundham, and Stowmarket. Given the distance to the European sites, these 8 measures are not likely to give rise to significant effects.

The remaining measures comprise investigations, assessment, habitat enhancement, pollution reduction, or localised works. The final solutions for these measures are not yet defined, and the FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented. These measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower- tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures – Essex & South Suffolk SMP2

Of the existing plan measures, 56 have been derived from the Essex & South Suffolk SMP2. However, 48 of these measures relate to avoidance measures (M21), removal or relocation of receptors (M23), other flood prevention measures (M24), flood forecasting & warning (M41), emergency event response planning/contingency planning (M42), public awareness & preparedness (M43), environmental recovery, clean & restoration activities (M52), and other recovery & review measures (M53), and have been screened out. Eight of the measures relate to flood risk prevention (M22) and protection (M31/M35) and have been screened in and considered below.

The 8 screened in SMP measures are located within Management Unit A (Stour & Orwell) of the Essex & South Suffolk SMP2. This management unit is located in proximity to the Stour & Orwell Estuaries SPA & Ramsar Site. The HRA concluded that no adverse effect on integrity of European sites could not be concluded. This was due to the loss of coastal grazing marsh habitat through proposed managed realignments resulting in an adverse effect on dark-bellied Brent geese and other species reliant on coastal grazing marsh (features of the Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Ramsar sites).

A statement of case for IROPI was prepared and submitted to the Secretary of State and subsequently approved in May 2012. The Regional Habitat Creation Programme is identified as the means of securing compensatory habitat.

Proposed mitigation Compensatory habitats will be delivered in advance of losses through the Environment Agency Anglian Regional Habitat Creation Programme. It was estimated that 45ha of non-saltmarsh compensatory habitat would be required in Epoch 1.

Existing plan measures – Lowestoft to Felixstowe SMP2

There are 78 measures from the Lowestoft to Felixstowe SMP2, 22 of which constitute protection measures; the remaining 56 are measures relating to flood risk prevention (M24), emergency event response planning/contingency planning (M42), public awareness and preparedness (M43), and other preparedness actions (M44) and have been screened out of further assessment.

The majority of the 22 screened in SMP2 measures are located within or adjacent to European sites within the SMP2 area. The screened in measures incorporated into the FRMP for the East Suffolk management catchment implement policies of the SMP2 which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Lowestoft to Felixstowe SMP2 HRA Appropriate Assessment (January 2010).The HRA concluded that no adverse effect on integrity of European sites could not be concluded for 6 management units affecting the Benacre to Easton Bavents SPA and the Minsmere-Walberswick SPA/Ramsar. A Statement of Case for IROPI was prepared, submitted to the Secretary of State, and signed off by August 2011.

Proposed mitigation: Compensatory habitats will be delivered in advance of losses through the Environment Agency Anglian Regional Habitat Creation Programme. Existing plan measures – East Suffolk CFMP

Of the existing plan measures, 8 have been derived from the East Suffolk CFMP. However, 4 of these measures relate to flood prevention measures (M24) and have been screened out of further consideration; 4 of the measures relate to natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31) and other protection measures (M35) and have been screened in and considered below.

The 4 screened in CFMP measures are located within Policy Units 1 (Suffolk Coasts & Heaths), 2 (Ipswich & suburbs), 3 (Gipping Corridor), 5 (East Suffolk settlements), and 6 (East Anglian Plain) of the East Suffolk CFMP. These policy units cover most of the CFMP area; 3 of the 4 measures are located in the Suffolk Coasts & Heaths policy unit, and the remaining measure in the Ipswich 7 suburbs policy unit, hence are in proximity to the majority of the European sites within the catchment. The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the East Suffolk catchment implement policies of the CFMP which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the East Suffolk CFMP HRA (January 2009).

The HRA concluded that there would be no likely significant effect of the CFMP policies upon 7 of the 8 policy units; a likely significant effect was predicted for CFMP policies within Policy Unit 1 (Suffolk Coasts & Heaths). However, an appropriate assessment could not be undertaken at this high plan level due to an absence of CFMP policy details. Any further

34 plans, strategies or projects in the Suffolk Coasts & Heaths policy unit must be assessed (alone and in-combination) for their potential impacts on European sites in accordance with the Habitats Directive.

Proposed mitigation: the mitigation and enhancement measures have been built into the policy appraisal and are integral to the policy options. Habitats Regulations assessments will be undertaken on strategies/projects falling out of the CFMP.

Existing plan measures – Blyth Estuary Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 3 have been derived from the Blyth Estuary Strategy, all of which relate to other flood protection measures (M35), and have been screened in and considered here. The Blyth Estuary measures are located within and adjacent to the Minsmere-Walberswick SPA & Ramsar sites and have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Blyth Estuary Strategy HRA (November 2008). The appropriate assessment concluded that no adverse effects on site integrity of the Minsmere-Walberswick SPA & Ramsar sites could not be concluded, hence a Statement of Case for IROPI was submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Proposed mitigation: The Statement of Case proposed that compensatory habitat would be provided through the Environmental Agency’s Anglian Regional Habitat Creation Programme to include the provision of at least 40ha of reedbed and 23ha of freshwater grazing marsh.

Existing plan measures – Suffolk Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 53 have been derived from the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Strategy. However, 26 of these measures relate to flood prevention measures (M24), emergency event response planning/contingency planning (M42), public awareness and preparedness (M43), and other preparedness actions (M44), and have been screened out of further consideration; 27 of the measures relate to water flow regulation measures (M32), channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33), surface water management (M34) and other protection measures (M35), and have been screened in and considered below.

The 27 screened in LFRMS measures are located throughout the East Suffolk management catchment, although predominantly in the Suffolk Coasts & Heaths area, and as such at least 21 of these measures have the potential to affect European sites in the management catchment. The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the East Suffolk catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Suffolk LFRMS HRA (October 2012). This screening assessment concluded no likely negative significant effect on European sites as project- specific HRAs for schemes related to the Suffolk LFRMS would be undertaken to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations.

Proposed mitigation comprises a suite of safeguards, including project-specific HRA, of the proposals and actions within the LFRMS, with appropriate mitigation as required to reduce any likely significant negative effects. The HRA screening assessment reported that “project- specific Appropriate Assessments will satisfy the requirements of the Habitats Directive and where necessary, trigger reference to Natural England acting as a further safeguard to the Conservation Objectives of the European sites.” (Suffolk LFRMS HRA, October 2012).

4.2.4.5 Nene Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 9 14 11 50 41

The Nene management catchment contains 9 European sites. The sites are predominantly located along the River Nene (such as the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA and Ramsar site) and close to Peterborough (such as Orton Pit SAC). While there are 9 designations these are broadly spread across 4 sites, as all but one of the sites (Orton Pit SAC) carry multiple designations.

In total there are 116 measures for the Nene catchment, 25 of which are new as part of the FRMP, 91 from existing plans.

New Measures

The 25 new measures are from the Environment Agency, 14 of which constitute protection measures; the remaining 11 are measures relating to flood risk prevention (M24) and flood forecasting & warning (M41) and have been screened out of further assessment.

All of the 14 screened in new measures are aimed at addressing flooding from main river, one also addresses flooding from the sea, and another also addresses surface water flooding. Most of the measures comprise localised investigation and assessments to determine flood risk and potential solutions to fluvial flooding.

Of the 14 screened in new actions, 5 are unlikely to have a significant effect upon European sites as they are not hydrologically connected to European sites and 4 of these actions are a distance (over 5km) from European sites; the remaining action is property level protection, so there is no pathway to European sites. The remaining 9 screened in new actions have the potential to affect European sites as these measures are near (within 5km) of a European site, and on the basis of available information regarding these measures, it is not possible to rule that that the measures wouldn’t be hydrologically connected to European sites within the catchment. All of these 9 measures involve works along the Nene which are potentially in proximity to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA & Ramsar site, and the Nene Washes SPA & Ramsar sites.

Project level control through the consenting process and associated requirement for consideration of project level HRA (see sub-section below - Project Level Control and Mitigation) will ensure these measures will not result in adverse effect on European sites. The nature of the measures comprise investigations, assessment, or localised works, the final solutions are not yet defined, and the FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented. Therefore, these measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the

36 conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing Plan Measures – Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2

Of the existing plan measures, 20 have been derived from the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2. However, 5 of these measures relate to avoidance measures (M21), flood forecasting & warning (M41), emergency event response planning/contingency planning (M42), and public awareness & preparedness (M43) and have been screened out of further consideration; the remaining 15 measures relate to removal/relocation measures (M22), channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33) and other flood management measures (M61) and have been screened in and considered below.

The 15 screened in SMP2 measures are located within Policy Development Zone 1 (Gibraltar Point to Wolferton Creek) of the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2, and 2 of these measures cover all of The Wash SMP2 area. The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Nene catchment implement policies of the SMP2 which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Gibraltar to Hunstanton SMP2 HRA Appropriate Assessment (August 2010).

The HRA concluded that there would be no adverse effect on site integrity for 3 of the 4 policy development zones (PDZs) of the SMP2, but that there could be an adverse effect on site integrity for PDZ1 (Gibraltar Point to Wolferton Creek), within which the screened in existing measures are located. The Appropriate Assessment determined that it could not be concluded that there would be no adverse effect on integrity of European sites within this PDZ (comprising Gibraltar Point, Saltfleetby & Theddlethorpe Dunes & Gibraltar Point SAC, The Wash SPA & Ramsar, and the Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC). However, the adverse effects are likely to occur in epochs 2 and 3 (2025-2105) and there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the extent and significance of any effects. Natural England, following consultation with Defra, therefore supported a conclusion of ‘no adverse effect on integrity of the site’ for this SMP2, pending a programme of coastal monitoring that would facilitate a more certain assessment associated with SMP3.

Proposed mitigation comprised a programme of additional studies that would support the management of the site, inform subsequent coastal strategies and provide a basis for the HRA for SMP3.

Existing Plan Measures - Nene CFMP

Of the existing plan measures, 9 have been derived from the River Nene CFMP. However, 5 of these measures relate to flood prevention measures (M21), flood forecasting & warning (M41), emergency event response planning/contingency planning (M42), and public awareness & preparedness (M43), and have been screened out of further consideration; 4 of the measures relate to natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), water flow regulation (M32) and channel, coastal & floodplain works measures (M33) and have been screened in and considered below.

One of the 4 screened in CFMP measures is catchment-wide, while the remaining 3 are located close to the Nene Washes or Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits European sites so have the potential for a likely significant effect upon them. However, these screened in protection

37 measures implement policies of the CFMP which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Nene CFMP HRA screening assessment (August 2008). The HRA screening assessment concluded that there would be a likely significant effect of the CFMP policies in 7 of the 14 policy units including Northampton Central, the River Nene Corridor, Rushden & Raunds, and Peterborough & the Nene Washlands which contain the Nene Washes and Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits European sites. There was considered to be too much uncertainty to determine whether there would be an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites. Further plans, strategies or projects falling out of the Nene CFMP must be assessed (alone and in-combination) for their potential impacts on European sites in accordance with the Habitats Directive.

Existing Plan Measures - Northamptonshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 50 have been derived from the Northamptonshire LFRMS. However, 22 of these measures relate to flood prevention measures (M21 & M23) and preparedness measures (M41, M42, M43 and M44), and recovery & review measures (M51), and have been screened out of further consideration; 28 of the measures relate to natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), channel, coastal & floodplain works measures (M33), surface water management (M34), and other flood protection measures (M35), and have been screened in and considered below.

Seven of the 28 screened in measures are county-wide, 18 are localised flood risk improvement works, and the remaining 3 are localised surface water management plans (SWMPs). The urban nature of SWMP actions suggests that these are unlikely to significantly affect European sites. However, the county-wide and localised flood risk improvement works have the potential for a likely significant effect upon the European sites of the Nene management catchment. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Nene catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Northamptonshire LFRMS HRA screening assessment (September 2013). The HRA screening assessment concluded that the Nene Washes SPA & Ramsar have been screened out because they were outside the 10km screening radius and the identified impact pathways were considered unlikely to lead to any significant effect on the site based on the current scope of the LFRMS and the conservation objectives/vulnerabilities of the site. The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA/Ramsar site was however screened in for further assessment. The measures proposed in the LFRMS are likely to lead to a reduction in the frequency of surface water flooding in the county. However, some habitats rely on localised flooding events or inundation by water and as such an action has been included in the strategy to assess each designated habitat to establish if flooding of the site would be positive, negative or neutral. Whilst the screening assessment acknowledges that there are schemes within the plan that could potentially lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA, it has been concluded due to the very early stages of the scheme evaluation, design and potential locations, it is not possible to measure any potential likely significant effects.

Proposed mitigation: Further assessment/mitigation proposals were not deemed necessary at this stage as further work or scheme development would be subject to standard planning practice, consenting or Environment Agency Permit and will have to undergo further rigorous HRA. Furthermore, the screening assessment states that “the Strategy level does not remove the need for a Habitats Regulations assessment at individual project level, regardless of whether or not the project is consistent with the LFRMS. As a result of uncertainties concerning the potential impacts of the LFRMS action plan on the European site, scheme level detail will facilitate a more detailed assessment of effects and design of mitigation to avoid or reduce effects. Consequently, any project arising out of the strategy will be assessed to ensure any adverse effects on integrity of European sites are avoided.”

Existing Plan Measures - Peterborough Local Flood Risk Management Strategy6

Of the existing plan measures, 12 have been derived from the Peterborough LFRMS. However, 9 of these measures relate to flood prevention measures (M21 & M24), preparedness measures (M42, M43 and M44), and recovery & review measures (M53), and have been screened out of further consideration; 2 of the measures relate to channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33), and the remaining measure to other flood protection measures (M35), and these have been screened in and considered below.

The 3 screened in measures are located in Peterborough and have the potential to have a likely significant effect upon the Nene Washes SPA, SAC & Ramsar site and the Orton Pits SAC. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Nene catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Peterborough LFRMS HRA screening assessment (October 2014). The HRA screening assessment concluded that none of the actions proposed by PCC in the LFRMS are considered likely to have a significant effect on any of the internationally designated sites within the study area. This is primarily due to the location of the action areas and their distance from the designated sites, and also the small-scale nature of the works proposed.

Proposed mitigation: Further assessment/mitigation proposals were not deemed necessary at this stage as further work or scheme development would be subject to standard planning practice, consenting and will have to undergo further rigorous environmental assessment in the form of a HRA. It has been identified that the works to the Counter Drain undertaken as part of Action P18 may have some beneficial impacts on the adjacent Nene Washes SPA and Ramsar site through improvement in habitats and water quality.

4.2.4.6 North Norfolk Rivers Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 6 14 3 43 73

6 As there is uncertainty as to where the 12 measures from the Peterborough FRMS are to be deployed and different parts of Peterborough are covered by three different catchments, on a precautionary basis the measures are repeated under the three catchments (Nene, Old Bedford and Middle Level, Welland).

The North Norfolk Rivers management catchment contains 6 European sites. These are located on the coastal northern part of the North Norfolk Rivers management catchment, comprising The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC, The Wash SPA and Ramsar, and the North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and Ramsar.

In total there are 133 measures for the North Norfolk Rivers catchment, 17 of which are new as part of the FRMP and 116 are from existing plans. Measures from existing plans are from the Hunstanton to Kelling Hard SMP2 (61), the Kellinghard to Lowestoft SMP2 (28), the North Norfolk CFMP (6) and the Norfolk LFRMS (21).

New measures

The 17 new measures are from the Environment Agency; 14 of these constitute measures for flood risk protection (M3) and are screened in for assessment. The 3 remaining measures are other flood prevention measures (M24) and public awareness & preparedness measures (M43) and are screened out of further assessment.

Of the 14 Environment Agency screened in new protection measures, 5 are natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), 1 is for surface water management (M34), and 8 are other flood protection measures (M35). 10 of the new measures are aimed at addressing flooding from main river, 3 aimed at addressing flood risk from main rivers & ordinary watercourses, 3 target sea flooding (including one coastal erosion measure), 2 target surface water flooding, and one targets sewer flooding.

Approximately 7 of the measures comprise localised investigation and assessments to determine flood risk and potential solutions to fluvial flooding. Most of these new actions are located within 5km of the European sites; however as these actions constitute investigations, there is no pathway for likely significant effect at this high level. 7 of the measures are catchment-wide measures for which there is the potential for likely significant effect on European sites. Only 1 action South Creake flood risk management is unlikely to have a significant effect on European sites as it is a distance (over 5km) from any European sites.

Given the distances to the European sites, the nature of the measures comprising investigations, assessment, or localised works, and that the final solutions are not yet defined, the FRMP does not specify or constrain how or where the measures are implemented. These measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures - Hunstanton to Kelling Hard SMP2

Of the 61 measures from the Hunstanton to Kelling Hard SMP2, 31 relate to flood prevention (M21 and M24) and preparedness for flood events (M41, M42, M43 and M44); these measures have been screened out of the assessment. 30 SMP measures relate to removal or relocation of receptors (M22), natural flood management (M31), channel, coastal &

40 floodplain works (M33), and other methods of flood protection (M35) and are considered further below.

There are 3 policy sub units of the SMP where no adverse effect on site integrity could not be concluded. These are SF2a, SF2b and SF3b. These units are close to the European sites of The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC, The Wash SPA and Ramsar, and the North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and Ramsar. A case for IROPI was prepared, submitted to the Secretary of State and subsequently approved.

Proposed mitigation: The Appropriate Assessment for the SMP highlighted uncertainty as to the extent of compensatory habitat required. Monitoring was to be undertaken to provide greater certainty on the requirements, and the Regional Habitat Creation Programme would be the means of provision of the habitat.

Existing plan measures – Kelling Hard to Lowestoft SMP2

There are 28 measures from the Kelling Hard to Lowestoft SMP2; 24 of which are screened out of the assessment, as they relate to prevention measures (M23 & M24) and preparedness for flooding (M43 & M44). The 4 remaining measures are removal or relocation measures (M22) and protection measures – channel, coastal and floodplain works (M33), considered below.

The 4 screened in SMP2 measures incorporated within the North Norfolk Rivers management catchment implement the policies of the SMP2 which were assessed by the Kelling Hard to Lowestoft HRA and Appropriate Assessment (February 2010). The Appropriate Assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites resulting from the SMP2.

Proposed mitigation: Avoidance and mitigation measures including making medium and long term policies conditional, and further studies and monitoring which will be implemented through an action plan will ensure that this SMP has no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites.

Existing plan measures – North Norfolk CFMP

Six of the existing measures for the North Norfolk Rivers management catchment are from the North Norfolk CFMP, 3 of which are screened out of the assessment as they relate to prevention measures (M24) and preparedness for flooding (M44). The 3 remaining measures are natural flood management (M31), water flow regulation (M32) and surface water management (M34), considered below.

The 3 screened in CFMP measures incorporated within the North Norfolk Rivers management catchment implement the policies of the CFMP which were assessed by the North Norfolk CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment summary (December 2008). The Appropriate Assessment concluded that there would not be an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites as mitigation measures are generally included as part of the policy options.

Proposed mitigation: Plans, strategies or projects arising from the CFMP preferred policies are not to be put into effect until they have been subject to a more detailed appraisal and

41 assessment to ensure they do not lead to adverse effects, alone or in combination, on any Natura 2000 or Ramsar site (North Norfolk CFMP Appendices, December 2008, Table B8).

Existing plan measures – Norfolk Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

There are 21 measures from the Norfolk LFRMS; 15 of which are screened out of the assessment as they relate to prevention measures (M21, M23 & M24) and preparedness for flooding (M42, M43 & M44). The 6 remaining measures are protection measures – natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), surface water management (M34), and other flood protection measures (M35), considered below.

The 6 screened in LFRMS measures incorporated within the North Norfolk Rivers management catchment of the FRMP, implement the policies of the LFRMS, which have been previously assessed in the Norfolk LFRMS HRA screening assessment. The screening assessment concluded that there would be no likely significant effect on European sites as modifications had been made to improve Policy E1 – Nature Conservation, to include further protection for internationally designated nature conservation sites. Therefore, no Appropriate Assessment was required under the Habitats Regulations for the Norfolk LFRMS.

4.2.4.7 North-west Norfolk Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 14 3 4 39 42

The North-west management catchment contains 14 European sites which are predominantly located in the coastal northern part of the management catchment, comprising primarily The Wash SPA & Ramsar and The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC. The other European sites cover small pockets of land across the management catchment, including Roydon Common Ramsar, and Roydon Common & Dersingham Bog SAC.

In total there are 88 measures for the North-west Norfolk catchment, 7 of which are new as part of the FRMP and 81 from existing plans. Measures from existing plans are from the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2 (20), the Hunstanton to Kelling Hard SMP2 (38), the Great Ouse CFMP (1), and the Norfolk LFRMS (22).

New measures

The 7 new measures are from the Environment Agency, 4 of which comprise other prevention measures (M24) and flood preparedness (M41 & M43) and are screened out of further assessment. The remaining 3 measures are flood risk protection (M3) (1 channel, coastal & floodplain works measure (M33) and 2 other protection measures (M35)) and are screened in for assessment.

One of the new screened in measures is aimed at addressing flooding from multiple sources: from main river & ordinary watercourses, flooding from the sea, surface water flooding and sewer flooding. This constitutes a measure to develop a collaborative flood risk management approach to the Fens. The wide fenland coverage of this measure means that there is potential for likely significant effect upon European sites in the catchment. However, this is

42 unlikely given the strategic nature of this action. The other two screened in new measures are aimed at addressing flooding from the sea. These measures comprise localised works in King’s Lynn to maintain current erosion protection and coastal defences of the town. Both of these actions are within 5km of The Wash SPA and Ramsar, and The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC, hence there is the potential for likely significant effect upon these European sites. However, given the nature of the measures comprising localised works within/close to the urban area of King’s Lynn, and that the final solutions are not yet defined, significant effect is unlikely as mitigation should be incorporated into the design of these schemes to avoid effects on European sites. In addition, the FRMP does not constrain or specify how or where the measures are implemented, and these measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures - Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2

Twenty of the existing measures for the North-west Norfolk management catchment are from the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2. Four are screened out of the assessment as they relate to prevention measures (M21) and preparedness for flooding (M42). The 16 remaining measures are channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33), and other flood protection measures (M35), considered below.

The 16 screened in SMP2 measures incorporated within the North-west Norfolk management catchment implement the policies of the SMP2 which were assessed by the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2 HRA Appropriate Assessment (August 2010) which reported that consideration of the effects of SMP policy had been central to the development of these policies. However, it was not possible to develop mitigation measures to avoid adverse effects (coastal squeeze) on all European sites within the SMP area that are predicted to result from the available options. Therefore the Appropriate Assessment concluded that no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites could not be concluded. However, the adverse effects are likely to occur in epochs 2 and 3 (2025-2105) and there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the extent and significance of any effects. Natural England, following consultation with Defra, therefore supported a conclusion of ‘no adverse effect on integrity of the site’ for this SMP2, pending a programme of coastal monitoring that would facilitate a more certain assessment associated with SMP3.

Proposed mitigation comprised a programme of additional studies that would support the management of the site, inform subsequent coastal strategies and provide a basis for the HRA for SMP3.

Existing plan measures - Hunstanton to Kelling Hard SMP2

There are 38 existing measures for the North-west Norfolk management catchment from the Hunstanton to Kelling Hard SMP2, 23 of which are screened out of the assessment as they

43 relate to prevention measures (M21 and M24) and preparedness for flooding (M41, M42, M43, and M44). The 15 remaining measures are 4 removal & relocation measures (M22), 3 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), 7 other flood protection measures (M35), and 1 other flood risk management measure (M61) considered below. All of these measures are located along the coastline of the North-west Norfolk catchment, close to the European sites of The Wash SPA & Ramsar and The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC.

These 15 screened in SMP2 measures incorporated within the North-west Norfolk management catchment implement the policies of the SMP2 which have been previously assessed as part of the Hunstanton to Kelling Hard SMP2 HRA Appropriate Assessment (June 2010), which reported that the 3 policy sub units where no adverse effect on site integrity could not be concluded are SF2a, SF2b and SF3b. These units are close to the European sites of The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC, The Wash SPA and Ramsar, and the North Norfolk Coast SAC, SPA and Ramsar, as are the 15 screened in measures. A case for IROPI was prepared, submitted to the Secretary of State and subsequently approved.

Proposed mitigation: The Appropriate Assessment for the SMP highlighted uncertainty as to the extent of compensatory habitat required. Monitoring was to be undertaken to provide greater certainty of the requirements and the Regional Habitat Creation Programme would be the means of provision of the habitat.

Existing plan measures – Great Ouse CFMP

One of the existing measures for the North-west Norfolk management catchment is from the Great Ouse CFMP, which is another flood protection measure (M35) and is screened in to the assessment and considered below.

The screened in CFMP measure incorporated within the FRMP for the North-west Norfolk management catchment, implements the policies of the CFMP, which have been previously assessed as part of the Great Ouse CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment (July 2010).

The measure is located in the Fens CFMP Policy Unit 24 and the Eastern Rivers Policy Unit 18. The Great Ouse CFMP HRA screening assessment determined that application of Policy 4 (Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future) in Policy Unit 24 could cause likely significant effect on the Ouse Washes, the Wash, The Wash & North Norfolk Coast, Fenland, Wicken Fen, and Woodwalton Fen European sites. The application of Policy 2 (Reduce existing flood risk management actions) and 3 (Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level) in Policy Unit 18 could have likely significant effects upon The Wash, The Wash & North Norfolk Coast, and the Waveney & Little Ouse Valley Fens European sites. Accordingly an Appropriate Assessment was undertaken and concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of any of these European sites.

Existing plan measures – Norfolk Flood Risk Management Strategy

22 of the existing measures for the North-west Norfolk management catchment are from the Norfolk LFRMS, 15 of which are screened out of the assessment as they relate to prevention measures (M21, M23 and M24) and preparedness for flooding (M42, M43, and M44). The 7 remaining measures are 2 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), 1 surface water management measure (M34), and 4 other flood protection measures (M35), considered below. 6 of the 7 screened in measures are Norfolk county- wide and could have a likely significant effect upon any of the European sites in the North- west Norfolk management catchment, while the remaining measure is based in Islington and is a distance (over 5km) from any European sites so is unlikely to have a significant effect.

These 7 screened in LFRMS measures incorporated into the FRMP for the North-west Norfolk management catchment implement the policies of the Norfolk LFRMS which have been previously assessed as part of the Norfolk LFRMS HRA. The HRA screening assessment concluded that there would be no likely significant effect on European sites as modifications had been made to improve Policy E1 – Nature Conservation to include further protection for internationally designated nature conservation sites. Therefore, no Appropriate Assessment was required under the Habitats Regulations for the Norfolk LFRMS.

4.2.4.8 Old Bedford & Middle Level Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 8 3 4 6 9

The Old Bedford & Middle Level management catchment contains 8 European sites. These are distributed around the Old Bedford & Middle Level management catchment, comprising predominantly the Ouse Washes SPA and Ramsar site. The other European sites cover smaller pockets of land across the management catchment, such as the Fenland SAC, and Woodwalton Fen Ramsar site.

In total there are 22 measures for the Old Bedford & Middle Level catchment, 7 of which are new as part of the FRMP and 15 from existing plans. Measures from existing plans are from the Peterborough LFRMS (12), Norfolk LFRMS (1), Cambridgeshire LFRMS (1), and the Great Ouse CFMP (1).

New measures

The 7 new measures are from the Environment Agency, 4 of which comprise other prevention measures (M24) and flood preparedness (M41 & M43) which are screened out of further assessment. The remaining 3 measures are flood risk protection (M3) (1 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measure (M31), 1 channel, coastal & floodplain works measure (M33), and one other flood protection measure (M35) which are screened in for assessment.

The natural flood management/run-off and catchment management measure constitutes the Ouse Washes Reservoir Middle Level Barrier Bank investigation which is located adjacent to

45 the Ouse Washes SPA and Ramsar site and so could potentially have a significant effect upon these European sites. However, this is an investigative measure and once the solution is defined, this will be subject to project-specific HRA. The channel, coastal and floodplain works measure constitutes the Great Fen project which is aimed at addressing flooding from main river and ordinary watercourses. The Great Fen project is located between Woodwalton Fen and Holme Fen in Cambridgeshire, hence could cause a likely significant effect upon a European site as Woodwalton Fen is a Ramsar site and forms part of the Fenland SAC. However, given that this is a habitat creation scheme, there is unlikely to be a significant effect upon any European sites. The other new flood protection measure is development of a collaborative and strategic flood risk management approach to the Fens which could affect any of the European sites in the Old Bedford & Middle Level management catchment. However, as this is a strategic measure, it is unlikely to have a significant effect upon any European sites.

Furthermore, as the final solutions are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain or specify how or where the measures are implemented. These measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures – Peterborough Flood Risk Management Strategy7

Twelve of the existing measures for the Old Bedford & Middle Level management catchment are from the Peterborough LFRMS, 9 of which are screened out of the assessment as they relate to prevention measures (M21 and M24), preparedness for flooding (M42, M43, and M44), and recovery & review measures (M53). The 3 remaining measures are 2 channel, coastal & floodplain works measures (M33) and 1 other flood protection measure (M35) which have been screened in to this FRMP HRA. All of these measures are located in Peterborough and have the potential to have a likely significant effect upon the Nene Washes SPA, SAC & Ramsar site and the Orton Pits SAC. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Old Bedford & Middle Level catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Peterborough LFRMS HRA screening assessment (October 2014). The HRA screening assessment concluded that none of the actions proposed by PCC in the LFRMS are considered likely to have a significant effect on any of the internationally designated sites within the study area. This is primarily due to the location of the action areas and their distance from the designated sites, and also the small-scale nature of the works proposed.

7 As there is uncertainty as to where the 12 measures from the Peterborough FRMS are to be deployed and different parts of Peterborough are covered by three different catchments, on a precautionary basis the measures are repeated under the three catchments (Nene, Old Bedford and Middle Level, Welland).

Proposed mitigation: Further assessment/mitigation proposals were not deemed necessary at this stage as further work or scheme development would be subject to consenting and will have to undergo a further HRA. The works to the Counter Drain undertaken as part of Action P18 may have some beneficial impacts on the adjacent Nene Washes SPA and Ramsar site through improvement in habitats and water quality.

Existing plan measures – Norfolk Flood Risk Management Strategy

One of the existing measures for the Old Bedford & Middle Level management catchment is from the Norfolk LFRMS, and constitutes channel, coastal works & floodplain works (M33) so has been screened in to this FRMP HRA. This measure is located in Welney, adjacent to the Ouse Washes SPA, SAC & Ramsar site and so has the potential to cause a significant effect upon the European sites. However, this screened in protection measure incorporated into the FRMP for the Old Bedford & middle Level catchment implements policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Norfolk LFRMS HRA screening assessment. The HRA screening assessment concluded that there would be no likely significant effect on European sites as modifications had been made to improve Policy E1 – Nature Conservation to include further protection for internationally designated nature conservation sites. Therefore, no Appropriate Assessment was required under the Habitats Regulations for the Norfolk LFRMS.

Existing plan measures – Cambridgeshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

One of the existing measures for the Old Bedford & Middle Level management catchment is from the Cambridgeshire LFRMS, comprising a surface water protection measure (M34), which has been screened in to this assessment. This measure constitutes a flood alleviation scheme for March, Cambridgeshire. This is aimed at targeting surface water flooding and is over 5km from a European site, hence this scheme is unlikely to cause a significant effect on a European site. Furthermore, this screened in protection measure incorporated into the FRMP for the Old Bedford & Middle Level management catchment implements policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Cambridgeshire LFRMS HRA screening assessment (December 2012). This assessment concluded that the LFRMS was unlikely to have significant effects on European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Therefore an appropriate assessment was not required.

Proposed mitigation: The main mitigation measure set out in the Cambridgeshire LFRMS was that project-level HRA should be undertaken on all schemes originating from the LFRMS.

Existing plan measures – Great Ouse CFMP

One of the existing measures for the Old Bedford & Middle Level management catchment is from the Great Ouse CFMP, which constitutes an other flood protection measure (M35) and has been screened in to this FRMP HRA. This measure is located in the Counter Drain and has the potential to have a likely significant effect upon the Ouse Washes SPA, SAC & Ramsar site. However, this screened in protection measure incorporated into the FRMP for the Old Bedford & Middle Level catchment implement policies of the CFMP which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Great Ouse CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment (July 2010).This measure is located in the Fens CFMP Policy Unit

24. The Great Ouse CFMP HRA screening assessment determined that application of Policy 4 (Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future) in Policy Unit 24 could cause likely significant effect on the Ouse Washes, the Wash, The Wash & North Norfolk Coast, Fenland, Wicken Fen, and Woodwalton Fen European sites. The CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of any of these European sites

4.2.4.9 Upper & Bedford Ouse Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 4 5 6 12 16

The Upper & Bedford Ouse management catchment contains 4 European sites which are predominantly located to the north-east of the management catchment, comprising the Ouse Washes SPA, SAC & Ramsar and Portholme SAC.

In total there are 39 measures for the Upper & Bedford Ouse catchment, 11 of which are new as part of the FRMP and 28 from existing plans. Measures from existing plans are from the Northamptonshire LFRMS (25), Cambridgeshire LFRMS (1), and Great Ouse CFMP (2).

New measures

All 11 of the new measures are from the Environment Agency; 6 of the new measures comprise other prevention measures (M24) and flood preparedness (M43) and are screened out of further assessment. The remaining 5 measures are other flood risk protection measures (M35) and are screened in for assessment.

Two of the new measures are the Welland, Nene, and Upper & Bedford Ouse Property Level Protection (PLP) measure targeted at reducing main river flood risk and surface water flooding risk, and the Upper Ouse PLP measure aimed at addressing flooding from main river and ordinary watercourses. As both of these measures are PLP, there is no pathway for these measures to cause a likely significant effect on a European site. The remaining 3 screened in measures relate to flood risk investigations in Fenstanton, St Neots and Swavesey respectively, which are a distance (over 5km) from any European sites.

Given the nature of the measures comprising localised PLP and flood risk investigations, and that the final solutions are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain or specify how or where the measures are implemented. These measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are

48 screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures – Northamptonshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 25 have been derived from the Northamptonshire LFRMS. However, 15 of these measures relate to flood prevention measures (M21 & M23) and preparedness measures (M41, M42, M43 and M44), and recovery & review measures (M51), and have been screened out of further consideration; 10 of the measures relate to natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), channel, coastal & floodplain works measures (M33), surface water management (M34), other flood protection measures (M35), and other flood risk management measures (M61) and have been screened in and considered below.

Nine of the 10 screened in measures are Northamptonshire county-wide, and 1 is localised surface water flood risk improvement works. These county-wide and localised flood risk improvement works could cause a likely significant effect upon the European sites of the Upper & Bedford Ouse management catchment. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Upper & Bedford Ouse catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Northamptonshire LFRMS HRA screening assessment (September 2013). The HRA screening assessment concluded that the Nene Washes SPA & Ramsar have been screened out because they were outside the 10km screening radius and the identified impact pathways were considered unlikely to lead to any significant effect on the site based on the current scope of the LFRMS and the conservation objectives/vulnerabilities of the site. The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA/Ramsar site was however screened in for further assessment. The measures proposed in the LFRMS are likely to lead to a reduction in the frequency of surface water flooding in the county. However, some habitats rely on localised flooding events or inundation by water and as such an action has been included in the strategy to assess each designated habitat to establish if flooding of the site would be positive, negative or neutral. Whilst the screening assessment acknowledges that there are schemes within the plan that could potentially lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA, it has been concluded due to the very early stages of the scheme evaluation, design and potential locations, it is not possible to measure any potential likely significant affects.

Proposed mitigation comprised consenting processes and the associated HRA requirements. Any project arising out of the strategy will be assessed to ensure that any adverse effects on the integrity of European sites are avoided.

Existing Measures - Cambridgeshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

One of the existing measures for the Upper & Bedford Ouse management catchment is from the Cambridgeshire LFRMS, constituting a surface water protection measure (M34), which has been screened in to this assessment. This measure constitutes the development of a surface water management plan for Godmanchester which is situated adjacent to Portholme SAC, hence the potential exists for a significant effect upon this European site.

This screened in protection measure incorporated into the FRMP for the Upper & Bedford Ouse management catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Cambridgeshire LFRMS HRA screening assessment (December 2012). This assessment concluded that the LFRMS was unlikely to have significant effects on European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Therefore an appropriate assessment was not required.

Proposed mitigation: The main mitigation measure set out in the Cambridgeshire LFRMS was that project-level HRA should be undertaken on all schemes originating from the LFRMS.

Existing plan measures – Great Ouse CFMP

Two of the existing measures for the Upper & Bedford Ouse management catchment are from the Great Ouse CFMP, comprising 1 other prevention measure (M24) which has been screened out of further assessment, and 1 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measure which has been screened in to this FRMP HRA. This measure is the River Ivel restoration scheme in Bedfordshire and is a distance (over 5km) from any European sites, hence there is unlikely to be a significant effect upon any European sites in the catchment. However, this screened in protection measure incorporated into the FRMP for the Upper & Bedford Ouse catchment implements policies of the CFMP which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Great Ouse CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment (July 2010). The CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of any European sites as this would be avoided by ensuring that implementation of CFMP policies could not be signed off until more detailed appraisal and assessment had shown that the requirements of the Habitats Regulations had been met.

4.2.4.10 Welland Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 8 8 6 33 37

The Welland management catchment contains 8 European sites. The 8 European sites are predominantly located in the central part of the Welland management catchment, including Rutland Water SPA & Ramsar, Barnack Hills & Holes SAC, and Baston Fen SAC, although The Wash European site borders the eastern boundary of the management catchment.

In total there are 84 measures for the Welland catchment, 14 of which are new as part of the FRMP and 70 are from existing plans. Measures from existing plans are from the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2 (20), the River Welland CFMP (10), the Northamptonshire LFRMS (27), Peterborough LFRMS (12), and Rutland LFRMS (1).

New measures

The 14 new measures are from the Environment Agency, 6 of which comprise other prevention measures (M24) and flood preparedness measures (M41, M43 & M44) and are screened out of further assessment. The remaining 8 measures are flood risk protection

(M3) (2 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), 3 coastal & floodplain works measures (M33) and 3 other flood protection measures (M35)), and are screened in for assessment.

Seven of the new screened in measures are aimed at addressing flooding from main river. In addition, 2 of these measures are also aimed at reducing surface water flooding. The remaining measure is aimed at addressing flooding from main river plus ordinary watercourses, flooding from the sea, surface water flooding and sewer flooding. Most of the measures comprise securing funding, and undertaking localised investigation and assessments to determine flood risk and potential solutions to flooding.

Three measures are located in Greater Peterborough which are over 5km from European sites, as is the Stamford Refurbishment Project measure. There is no pathway for likely significant effect upon a European site with the Welland & Nene PLP measure due to its localised nature. Given the distances to the European sites, the nature of the measures comprising investigations, assessment, or localised works, and that the final solutions are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain or specify how or where the measures are implemented, and the measures will be subject to subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level, the measures are not likely to lead to a significant effect on European sites.

The 3 remaining screened in new measures have the potential to cause a likely significant effect upon European sites as they have a wide coverage of the Welland catchment and could be within 5km of, or hydrologically linked to, European sites. These are the Upper Welland WFD & Flood Risk Management project, Welland Banks Refurbishment project, and the development of a collaborative flood risk management approach to the Fens.

These measures comprise strategic plans, investigations of flood risk and potential improvements, with no solutions yet defined. All measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures – Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2

The 15 screened in SMP measures are located within Policy Development Zone 1 (Gibraltar Point to Wolferton Creek) of the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2, and 2 of these

51 measures cover all of The Wash SMP2 area. The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Welland catchment implement policies of the SMP2 which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Gibraltar to Hunstanton SMP2 HRA Appropriate Assessment (August 2010).

The HRA concluded that there would be no adverse effect on site integrity for 3 of the 4 policy development zones (PDZs) of the SMP2, but that there could be an adverse effect on site integrity for PDZ1 (Gibraltar Point to Wolferton Creek), within which zone the screened in existing measures are located. The Appropriate Assessment determined that it could not be concluded that there would be no adverse effect on integrity of European sites within this PDZ (comprising Gibraltar Point, Saltfleetby & Theddlethorpe Dunes & Gibraltar Point SAC, The Wash SPA & Ramsar, and the Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC). However, the adverse effects are likely to occur in epochs 2 and 3 (2025-2105) and there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the extent and significance of any effects. Natural England, following consultation with Defra, therefore supported a conclusion of ‘no adverse effect on integrity of the site’ for this SMP2, pending a programme of coastal monitoring actions as part of the SMP2 action plan, which should be followed up by the Wash SMP partnership if any discernible trends towards adverse effect on site integrity are observed.

Proposed mitigation comprised a programme of additional studies that would support the management of the site, and inform subsequent coastal strategies. The studies include identifying compensatory measures for potential coastal squeeze related to the Wash intertidal zone.

Existing plan measures – River Welland CFMP

Of the existing plan measures, 10 have been derived from the River Welland CFMP. However, 5 of these measures relate to avoidance measures (M21), flood forecasting & warning (M41), emergency event response planning/contingency planning (M42), and public awareness & preparedness (M43) and have been screened out of further consideration; the remaining 5 measures relate to natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33) and other flood protection measures (M35) and have been screened in and considered below.

The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Welland catchment implement policies of the CFMP which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Welland CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment (November 2008). One of the 5 screened in CFMP measures is Welland catchment-wide involving maintenance of existing flood risk management assets, while one of the other 4 screened in measures is located within each of the Policy Units 2 (Floodplain of the Rivers Welland & Glen), 4 (Market Harborough), 7 (Peterborough) and 8 (Spalding). The CFMP policy in Policy Unit (PU) 2 was to reduce existing flood risk management actions (accepting that flood risk will increase with time), while in PU4 it was to continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting that flood risk will increase in time from this baseline) and in PUs 7 & 8 was to take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future (responding to the potential increase in risk from urban development, land use change and climate change). These policies in these units were considered in the HRA Appropriate Assessment of the Welland CFMP and it was considered that none of the CFMP policies would have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European site (Baston Fen

(SAC), The Wash (Ramsar, SPA and SAC), Rutland Water (SPA/Ramsar), Barnack Hills and Holes (SAC), or Grimsthorpe (SAC)).

Existing plan measures – Northamptonshire Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 27 have been derived from the Northamptonshire LFRMS. However, 17 of these measures relate to flood prevention measures (M21 & M23) and preparedness measures (M41, M42, M43 and M44), and recovery & review measures (M51), and have been screened out of further consideration; 10 of the measures relate to natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), surface water management (M34), other flood protection measures (M35), and other flood risk management measures (M61) and have been screened in and considered below.

Eight of the 10 screened in measures are Northamptonshire county-wide, 1 is a surface water management plan for Kettering, and the remaining measure is a flood risk management plan for Corby. As Kettering and Corby are a distance from any European sites, there are unlikely to be any significant effects upon European sites arising from these measures. The Northamptonshire-wide measures have more potential to cause a likely significant effect upon the European sites. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Welland catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Northamptonshire LFRMS HRA screening assessment (September 2013). The HRA screening assessment concluded that the Nene Washes SPA & Ramsar have been screened out because they were outside the 10km screening radius and the identified impact pathways were considered unlikely to lead to any significant effect on the sites based on the current scope of the LFRMS and the conservation objectives/vulnerabilities of the sites. The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA/Ramsar site was however screened in for further assessment. The measures proposed in the LFRMS are likely to lead to a reduction in the frequency of surface water flooding in the county. However, some habitats rely on localised flooding events or inundation by water and as such an action has been included in the strategy to assess each designated habitat to establish if flooding of the site would be positive, negative or neutral. Whilst the screening assessment acknowledges that there are schemes within the plan that could potentially lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA, it has been concluded due to the very early stages of the scheme evaluation, design and potential locations, it is not possible to measure any potential likely significant affects.

Proposed mitigation comprised consenting and the associated requirement for a HRA. Consequently, any project arising out of the strategy will be assessed to ensure that any adverse effects on the integrity of European sites are avoided.

Existing plan measures – Peterborough Flood Risk Management Strategy8

Of the existing plan measures, 12 have been derived from the Peterborough LFRMS. However, 9 of these measures relate to flood prevention measures (M21 & M24),

8 As there is uncertainty as to where the 12 measures from the Peterborough FRMS are to be deployed and different parts of Peterborough are covered by three different catchments, on a precautionary basis the measures are repeated under the three catchments (Nene, Old Bedford and Middle Level, Welland).

53 preparedness measures (M42, M43 and M44), and recovery & review measures (M53), and have been screened out of further consideration; 2 of the measures relate to channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33), and the remaining measure to other flood protection measures (M35), and these have been screened in and considered below.

The 3 screened in measures are located in Peterborough and have the potential to have a likely significant effect upon the Nene Washes SPA, SAC & Ramsar site and the Orton Pits SAC. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Welland catchment implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Peterborough LFRMS HRA screening assessment (October 2014). The HRA screening assessment concluded that none of the actions proposed by PCC in the LFRMS are considered likely to have a significant effect on any of the internationally designated sites within the study area. This is primarily due to the location of the action areas and their distance from the designated sites, and also the small-scale nature of the works proposed.

Proposed mitigation comprised further work or scheme development being subject to consenting processes and the associated requirement for HRA. It has been identified that the works to the Counter Drain undertaken as part of Action P18 may have some beneficial impacts on the adjacent Nene Washes SPA and Ramsar site through improvement in habitats and water quality.

Existing plan measures – Rutland Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 1 has been derived from the Rutland LFRMS. However, this measure relates to other flood prevention (M24) and so has been screened out of further consideration in this Anglian FRMP HRA.

4.2.4.11 Witham Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 9 30 4 21 11

The Witham management catchment contains 9 European sites which are located in the coastal eastern part of the Witham management catchment, comprising (from south to north) The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC, The Wash SPA & Ramsar, Gibraltar Point SPA & Ramsar site, Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes & Gibraltar Point SAC, and the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC & Ramsar site.

In total there are 66 measures for the Witham catchment, 34 of which are new as part of the FRMP and 32 are from existing plans. Measures from existing plans are from the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2 (4), Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2 (20), the River Witham CFMP (7), and the Rutland LFRMS (1).

New measures

All 34 of the new measures are from the Environment Agency, 4 of which comprise other prevention measures (M24) and flood preparedness (M41, M43 & M44) and are screened

54 out of further assessment. The remaining 30 measures are flood risk protection (M3) (17 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measures (M31), 10 coastal & floodplain works measures (M33), and 3 other flood protection measures (M35)) and are screened in for assessment.

Twenty of the new screened in measures are aimed at addressing flooding from main river. Five measures target flooding from main rivers & ordinary watercourses, 6 measures are aimed at reducing tidal flooding, 2 measures target surface water flooding, 1 measure addresses sewer flooding and another targets groundwater flooding. Most of the measures comprise localised works, or investigation and assessments to determine flood risk and potential solutions to flooding.

Sixteen measures are over 5km from any European sites. Given the distances to the European sites, the nature of the measures comprising investigations, assessment, or localised works and that the final solutions are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented, and the measures will be subject to subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level, the measures are not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites.

However, there are 14 measures with the potential for likely significant effect on European sites as they are hydrologically linked with, or within 5km of European sites. Three of these actions are located in the town of Boston, Lincolnshire and are upstream of the Wash European sites. The remaining measures are the Lincshore Beach Recharge and wider catchment scale works, such as the Witham Catchment Review of Flood Risk Management Assets, the Black Sluice Catchment Works Study, and development of a collaborative approach for flood risk management in the Fens. These could be hydrologically linked to, and impact on, European sites, particularly as all the European sites in this management catchment are estuarine/coastal sites and so will be downstream of any catchment works. Some of these projects are ongoing and already being delivered and have previously undergone project-level HRA.

All measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower- tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures – Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2

Of the existing plan measures, 4 have been derived from the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2, all of which relate to removal/relocation measures (M22), channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33) and other flood management measures (M61) and have been screened in and considered below.

The 4 screened in SMP measures are primarily focused on the area between Skegness and Gibraltar Point, with one focused on the area between Mablethorpe and Skegness. All concern monitoring or studies to improve the evidence base for future decisions. The

55 screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Witham catchment implement policies of the SMP2 which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2 HRA.

The SMP was subject to a HRA which concluded that there was the potential for significant effects only on the Humber Estuary designated site as a result of sediment supply issues. Mitigation proposed for this issue included further works to investigate this in the first epoch, and compensatory habitat in the outer estuary. The SMP HRA was subject to an IROPI Statement of Case which was approved by Defra.

However as the Witham catchment does not include the Humber Estuary, and given the nature of measures, there will be no likely significant effects on European sites.

Existing plan measures – Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2

The 15 screened in SMP measures are located within Policy Development Zone 1 (Gibraltar Point to Wolferton Creek) of the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2, and 2 of these measures cover all of The Wash SMP2 area. The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Witham catchment implement policies of the SMP2 which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Gibraltar Point to Hunstanton SMP2 HRA Appropriate Assessment (August 2010).

The HRA concluded that there would be no adverse effect on site integrity for 3 of the 4 policy development zones (PDZs) of the SMP2, but that there could be an adverse effect on site integrity for PDZ1 (Gibraltar Point to Wolferton Creek), within which zone the screened in existing measures are located. The Appropriate Assessment determined that it could not be concluded that there would be no adverse effect on integrity of European sites within this PDZ (comprising Gibraltar Point, Saltfleetby & Theddlethorpe Dunes & Gibraltar Point SAC, The Wash SPA & Ramsar, and The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC). However, the adverse effects are likely to occur in epochs 2 and 3 (2025-2105) and there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the extent and significance of any effects. Natural England, following consultation with Defra, therefore supported a conclusion of ‘no adverse effect on integrity of the site’ for this SMP2, pending a programme of coastal monitoring actions as part of the SMP2 action plan, which should be followed up by the Wash SMP partnership if any discernible trends towards adverse effects on site integrity are observed.

Proposed mitigation comprised a programme of additional studies that would support the management of the site and inform subsequent coastal strategies. The studies include identifying compensatory measures for potential coastal squeeze related to the Wash intertidal zone.

Existing plan measures – River Witham CFMP

Of the existing plan measures, 7 have been derived from the River Witham CFMP. However, 5 of these measures relate to other flood prevention measures (M24), emergency event response planning/contingency planning (M42), and public awareness & preparedness (M43) and have been screened out of further consideration; the remaining 2 measures relate to natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), and channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33) and have been screened in and considered below.

The screened in existing measure relating to delivery of the Boston Combined Strategy Phase 3 is located within Policy Unit 10 (Boston) of the Witham CFMP, while the Lincolnshire WFD catchment improvements measure is primarily focused in the Bain catchment between 2015-21, which is Policy Unit 6 of the Witham CFMP. The policy in PU10 was to take further action to reduce flood risk, while the policy in PU6 was to reduce current levels of flood risk management. The screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the Witham catchment implement policies of the CFMP which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Witham CFMP HRA screening assessment (September 2008). The conclusions of the HRA screening were that none of the CFMP policies could cause a likely significant effect on any European sites and there was no requirement therefore for an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations.

Proposed mitigation: No further specific mitigation measures were identified at the policy level. At a lower level in our planning hierarchy, appropriate levels of environmental assessment, including HRA, will be undertaken which will identify more relevant mitigation measures to the impacts arising.

Existing plan measures – Rutland Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 1 has been derived from the Rutland LFRMS. However, this measure relates to other flood prevention measures (M24) and so has been screened out of further consideration in this Anglian FRMP HRA.

4.2.4.12 Anglian River Basin District wide measures European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 87 8 14 1 4

The Anglian RBD contains 87 European sites which are distributed across the RBD, although coverage of European sites is focused in estuarine/coastal environments.

In total there are 27 measures RBD wide measures for the Anglian RBD, 22 of which are new as part of the FRMP.

New measures

Of the 22 new measures for the catchment, 8 are screened in to this assessment and 14 are screened out. Twenty of the new measures are from the Environment Agency, and the remaining 2 are from Anglian Water’s Asset Management Plan (comprising other prevention

57 measures (M24) and other preparedness measures (M44) which are screened out of further assessment). Of the Environment Agency new RBD-wide measures, 12 comprise avoidance measures (M21), other prevention measures (M24) and flood preparedness measures (M41, M42, M43 & M44) and are screened out of further assessment. The remaining 8 measures are flood risk protection (M3) (1 natural flood management/run-off & catchment management measure (M31), 1 water flow regulation measure (M32), 1 coastal & floodplain works measure (M33), 4 other flood protection measures (M35), and 1 other flood risk management measure (M61)) and are screened in for assessment.

The actions comprise maintaining flood storage reservoirs to meet the Reservoirs Act 1975 (as amended), working with natural processes to manage flood risk, adapting the defences from all sources of flooding to climate change, developing a prioritised programme of eel & fish passage works, and the capital flood risk management asset reconditioning programme. The RBD-wide coverage of these measures means that there is a potential for likely significant effect on European sites from any of these new screened in measures, hence further programme/project level HRA will be required for all of these measures.

Given the nature of the measures comprising investigations, assessment, and localised works (as part of the Reconditioning Programme for example) and that the final solutions are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain or specify how or where the measures are implemented. These measures will be subject to project level control through the relevant consenting process and the associated requirement for the consideration of project level HRA. At this strategic plan level, a range of mitigation options have been identified (see section 4.3.3 and also Table A3 in Annex A). In light of the mitigation options available to adequately avoid or mitigate for impacts, the measures are screened as not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites. This is a plan-level conclusion and does not remove the need for lower-tier HRA, nor does it influence the conclusions or specific need for appropriate assessment to investigate mitigation options in more detail.

Existing plan measures – Anglian Water Asset Management Plan

All of the 5 existing plan measures have been derived from the Anglian Water Services Asset Management Plan (AMP). However, 4 of these measures relate to flood risk avoidance (M21), flood risk reduction (M23) and other preparedness measures (M44) and have been screened out of further assessment in this FRMP HRA. The remaining measure relates to other flood risk protection measures (M35) and has been screened in for further assessment.

This screened in measure constitutes Anglian Water’s programme of flood resilience to the most susceptible water and water recycling assets. The RBD-wide coverage of this measure means that there is a potential for likely significant effect on European sites in the Anglian RBD; however, this RBD-wide measure implements policies of the Anglian Water Asset Management Plan which has previously been assessed under the Habitats Regulations screening assessment of the Anglian Water Asset Management Plan. This found that certain schemes would have a likely significant effect on European sites (the Broads SAC and Broadland SPA and Ramsar, and the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA and Ramsar) hence an appropriate assessment was undertaken for these schemes which concluded that with there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of any European sites with the implementation of mitigation measures.

Proposed mitigation: water quality treatment for the Norwich water re-use scheme (Whitlingham STW to Norwich WTW - 9.4km pipeline) and Ruthamford North RZ Transfer 1 (Hannington reservoir to Salcey reservoir - 20.6km pipeline) as incorporated into the design of these schemes.

4.2.4.13 Anglian and Humber River Basin District cross border measures New measures Existing plan measures Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 1 1 12 6

In total there are 20 cross border measures, all between the Anglian RBD and the Humber RBD, two of which are new as part of the FRMP, and 18 of which are existing measures; all from the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2.

New measures

Both of the new measures are from the Environment Agency, 1 of which is a flood risk reduction measure (M23) and is screened out of further assessment. The remaining measure is a flood risk protection measure for water flow regulation (M32) and is screened in for further assessment. This new screened in measure relates to a flood risk management project at Louth which is over 2km from any European sites and involves localised works. Therefore, it is very unlikely that this measure would have a significant impact on any European sites in either of the RBDs.

Existing plan measures – Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2

All of the existing plan measures have been derived from the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2. However, 6 of these measures relate to flood avoidance (M21), flood forecasting & warning (M41), emergency event response planning/contingency planning (M42), public awareness & preparedness (M43), or other preparedness measures (M44) and have been screened out of further consideration; the remaining 12 measures relate to removal or relocation measures (M22), channel, coastal & floodplain works (M33) and other flood risk management measures (M61) and have been screened in and considered below.

The screened in existing measures are high level studies, working with communities to raise awareness, in addition to coastal monitoring programmes. None of the measures propose on the ground works therefore it is concluded these measures are not likely to give rise to significant effects on European sites.

Furthermore, these cross-border screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP implement policies of the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2 which have

been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Flamborough Head to Gibraltar Point SMP2 HRA appropriate assessment which concluded that the SMP has the potential to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Humber Estuary SPA, SAC and Ramsar site. Therefore a Statement of Case for IROPI was prepared in December 2010 which set out the compensatory habitat to be provided to address the predicted impacts of the SMP policies in epochs 1 and 2. This habitat would be delivered through the Environment Agency’s North-east habitat creation programme and Anglian habitat creation programme, including creation of approximately 100 ha of new intertidal habitat adjacent to the Outer Humber Estuary by 2025.

Proposed mitigation: At a lower level in our planning hierarchy, appropriate levels of environmental assessment, including HRA, will be undertaken.

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

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

4.3.1 Risks from existing plan measures 30% of measures are from existing plans of which 3% are from CFMPs, 16% are from SMPs, and 11% from LLFA plans. Most risks are from SMP measures where adverse effects identified in HRAs for specific policy areas are being addressed.

All risk management authorities responsible for implementing the measures in the FRMP that are sourced from the existing CFMPs and SMPs, where risks to Europeans sites have been identified, are required to take account of the HRAs of those plans (as identified in section 4.2 above) and any mitigation proposals or statements made within them. Most risks to European sites that are being addressed by existing plans relate to the 221 measures in SMPs, and more specifically where the SMP is managing likely adverse effects such as in the catchments of Broadland Rivers, East Suffolk, and Combined Essex.

4.3.2 Risks from new measures 16% of measures are new of which 2% are strategic and therefore not specific to a particular location. 4% are not in proximity to any European sites and 9% are more specific improvements that are in proximity to sites. The most likely risks will be related to the development of local actions for the specific improvements in the next FRMP cycle and can be found in the Broadland Rivers, Combined Essex, East Suffolk and Witham catchments. The future strategic measures may also present a risk depending on where they are implemented.

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

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

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

Mitigation Implementation of measures at the subsequent tier of plan or project, if deemed likely to result in significant effect on one or more European sites, may need to include mitigation to avoid or reduce potential effects. Specification of mitigation should be tailored to the specifics of a project, and to the sites and features potentially affected, through the project level HRA process and through consultation with Natural England, ideally early in a project’s appraisal and design. That way, mitigation can be incorporated into the way that the project is designed and built, tailored to the specifics of the site/s and their qualifying features, and therefore be most effective in avoiding or reducing potential adverse effects. Project-level mitigation for European site species would consider the potential impacts arising from construction and operation of the project/measure, alongside any site specific sensitivities of the affected species. Depending on the nature of the project, identification of the use of habitats in proximity by qualifying species and the functioning role of those supporting habitats affected, may either be established by existing data/studies or may need to be established through site survey.

Construction-related mitigation should consider managing the timing of activities to avoid ecologically sensitive periods, such as breeding, over-wintering or migratory passage periods for birds, or migratory periods for anadromous fish. The exact timings for these construction ‘windows’ may vary for different sites in the RBD, depending on the presence, distribution and proximity of qualifying species present. For the purposes of avoidance or reduction of visual or noise disturbance to species, the use of techniques such as screening, segregation or establishing buffer zones, recognising that some species may be more vulnerable or sensitive than others (for example different bird species can vary in their flight response) may also be considered. For potential construction impacts on habitats, such as loss of habitat or physical damage, key construction-focused mitigation should focus on the avoidance of working on, or in proximity to sensitive habitats, and development of site sensitive construction techniques. This may for example include avoiding heavy plant usage in particular areas, or screening/creation of buffer zones to avoid any disturbance or physical damage. This can be informed through site specific/project-level HRA, and supporting survey where necessary, to establish the presence, nature and sensitivities of potentially affected habitats. For potential operational effects, sensitive and sympathetic design can minimise or avoid effects, such as appropriate location or layout of any structures (set-back from sensitive habitats) or minimising footprints where possible. Project-level HRA should also consider potential changes in physical processes, such as changes to flows/velocities and the physical regime, and potential water quality changes, for example due to the addition or removal of a structure or a changed profile of the riparian zone/channel banks. Such effects, as identified through the HRA, should inform a project’s appraisal and the building of suitable mitigation into the design.

4.3.4 Conclusion The assessment above has considered the FRMP information in RBD catchments that the Environment Agency are responsible for and has screened the measures as having no likely significant effect. This is concluded in light of the range of avoidance and mitigation measures available. Regulatory controls will identify any risks to European sites when the actions required to implement the measures are developed. The FRMP itself also makes it clear that before any measures in the plan are implemented they must be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations by the relevant competent authority. This is already the case for measures from existing plans where HRAs have identified risks to European sites and where any adverse effects that cannot be ruled out have been addressed through appropriate mitigation and compensatory provision. It is concluded that at this strategic-plan level, the measures are screened as being not likely to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects (see chapter 6). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites). Lower-tier assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in this high- level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

5 South Essex Flood Risk Area HRA

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

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

5.1 Summary The initial screening and assessment of likely significant effects reviewed the measures for the Combined Essex and South Essex catchments within which the South Essex Flood Risk Area (FRA) is situated, as illustrated in Figure 4 below. The majority of the FRA, hence the majority of FRA measures, are situated within the Combined Essex management catchment. An overall summary of the LLFA FRA measures is presented in Table 4.

Figure 4 Map of the European sites in the South Essex FRA and Management Catchments

Table 4 Summary of South Essex FRA measures by catchment

Management Number of measures Number of new measures

Catchment related to types of and known level of detail1

1 existing plans

Number of measuresscreened in(out) Number of measuresfrom existing plans Number of new measuresfor cycle one Number of sitesEuropean Catchments with no screened in measures All FRA catchments have some screened in measures. Catchments with all measures from existing plans South 4 4 4 from Local Strategies 0 4 Essex (10) Catchments with new measures for cycle 1 of the FRMP Combined 21 12 10 from Local 9 2 not in proximity 20 Essex (32) Strategies 0 strategic/proximity 1 from SWMP unknown 1 from CFMP 7 specific/in proximity Overall Total 25 16 14 from Local 9 2 not in proximity (42) Strategies 0 strategic/proximity 1 from SWMP unknown 1 from CFMP 7 specific/in proximity % all 37% 24% 14 (21%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 13% 2 (3%) 0 (0%) 7 (10%) measures 1 - all numbers are of 'screened in' measures, except those in brackets. 2 - all %s are of total of all 'screened in and out' measures. 'in proximity' means being generally in the same part of the catchment (specific distances are not applied, but further detail is provided in the assessment). 'specific' is where a measure is place specific, 'strategic' is where a measure is catchment or RBD-wide.

Of the total of 67 measures for the South Essex FRA, 25 (37%) have been screened in for HRA consideration, and 42 (63%) screened out.

5.1.1 Risks from existing plans measures Sixteen (24%) measures are screened in and from existing plans, constituting the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan, the Southend-on-Sea Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, the Essex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, and South Essex CFMP. The main risks being managed by these plans in the Combined Essex and South Essex catchments are flooding from main river, ordinary watercourses, the sea, groundwater and surface water flooding.

5.1.2 Risks from new measures Nine (13%) measures are screened-in and new of which 2 (3%) are not in proximity to European sites, while the remaining 7 (10%) are specific and in proximity to European sites.

5.2 Screening and Likely Significant Effects

5.2.1 Combined Essex Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 20 9 7 12 25

The Combined Essex management catchment contains 20 European sites. They lie predominantly in the coastal south-eastern part of the Combined Essex management catchment, and are predominantly coastal estuarine sites, such as the Essex Estuaries SAC, and the Benfleet & Southend Marshes SPA. While the catchment includes 20 European sites, only 6 intersect with the South Essex Flood Risk Area.

In total there are 53 measures for the South Essex FRA within the Combined Essex management catchment, 16 of which are new as part of the FRA FRMP. Fourteen of the 37 existing plan measures are also contained within the Thames RBD South Essex catchment.

New measures

There are 16 FRA new measures for the Combined Essex management catchment, constituting 7 other prevention measures (M24) which have been screened-out of further consideration, and 9 flood protection measures [1 water flow regulation measure (M32), 6 surface water management measures (M34), and 2 other protection measures (M35)] which are screened in for further assessment, considered further below.

Eight of the 9 screened in new measures are from Lead Local Flood Authorities and relate to flood risk management options investigations for South Benfleet and New Thundersley, and surface water management plans for 6 towns in the FRA. The remaining measure is an Environment Agency action for an investigation into the flooding of Nevendon Brook along Borwick Lane, Wickford.

Of the 9 screened in measures, 7 are within 5km of European sites, including Castle Point, South Benfleet and New Thundersley, which are adjacent to the Benfleet & Southend Marshes SPA/Ramsar, and Wickford which is approximately 2km west of the Crouch & Roach Estuaries and Essex Estuaries European sites. All of these measures have the potential to cause a likely significant effect on the designated sites. The remaining 2 screened in new measures are over 5km from any European sites and therefore unlikely to have a significant effect on any European site.

Given the distances to the European sites, the nature of the measures comprising investigations, assessment, and localised works, and that the final solutions are not yet defined, the FRMP does not constrain how or where the measures are implemented, and the measures will be subject to subsequent appraisal and assessment at the project level, the measures are not likely to lead to significant effect on European sites.

Project level control through the consenting process for these measures, and associated requirement for consideration of project level HRA (see Table A3 in Annex A) will ensure these measures are not likely to lead to significant effects on the European sites.

Existing plan measures – South Essex Surface Water Management Plan

Of the existing plan measures, 1 has been derived from the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan relating to surface water management (M34), and has been screened in. This measure constitutes works arising from the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan. As these works are generally focused in urban areas, effects on European sites are not anticipated. However, any potential for effects can only be determined at the project level and will be subject to project level assessment.

Existing measures – Southend-on-Sea Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

Of the existing plan measures, 21 have been derived from the Southend-on-Sea LFRMS, 15 of which relate to prevention (M21, M23 & M24), preparedness (M43 & M44) and recovery & review (M53), and have been screened out of further assessment, while 6 have been screened in and considered below [natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), surface water management (M34), and other flood protection measures (M35)].

These screened in LFRMS measures constitute flood risk improvement investigations within and around Southend-on-Sea, which is adjacent to Benfleet & Southend Marshes European site, hence these measures have the potential for likely significant effects upon this European site. However, the screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the South Essex FRA catchment implement policies of the Southend-on-Sea LFRMS, for which it has been determined that there is no requirement for Habitats Regulations assessment (Southend-on-Sea LFRMS, June 2015). The justification provided for this is that the LFRMS is a high level strategic document which does not contain any measures or actions which have the potential to cause significant effects upon European sites. However, the LFRMS determines that should actions which have the potential to cause significant effects be suggested, an appropriate assessment will be undertaken at the project level.

Existing measures – Essex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

These four screened in LFRMS measures constitute development of consenting policy, SUDs guidance, application of Urban Blue Corridors, and identification of environmental benefits within Essex County, which could be close to/within the European sites within the Combined Essex management catchment. Therefore, these measures have the potential for likely significant effect upon these European sites. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the South Essex FRA implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Essex LFRMS HRA screening assessment (March 2013). This assessment concluded that the LFRMS does not have the potential to cause significant effects upon European sites, and that a Habitats Regulations appropriate assessment was not deemed necessary for the Essex LFRMS. However, the HRA screening assessment reports that the Essex LFRMS will ensure that the integrity of internationally designated sites will not be adversely affected as, before any further plans or measures in the Strategy are implemented, they must be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and must undergo an ‘appropriate assessment’ if they are likely to have a significant effect.

Existing measures – South Essex Catchment Flood Management Plan

One of the measures is from the South Essex CFMP and is screened in as it is a flood risk protection measure relating to natural flood management/run-off and catchment management (M31). The South Essex CFMP covers the catchments of the rivers Crouch,

Roach and Mardyke, as well as smaller independent watercourses along the Thames Estuary and on the Dengie peninsula, and others that flow directly into estuaries or the sea. This screened in existing protection measure incorporated into the FRMP for the South Essex FRA in the Combined Essex catchment implements policies of the CFMP, which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the South Essex CFMP HRA Appropriate Assessment (December 2008). This assessment concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites.

5.2.2 South Essex Management Catchment European New measures Existing plan measures sites Screened in Screened out Screened in Screened out 4 0 0 4 10

The South Essex management catchment contains 4 European sites which lie predominantly in the estuarine southern part of the South Essex management catchment, and comprise the Thames Estuary & Marshes SPA and Ramsar site, and the Benfleet & Southend Marshes SPA and Ramsar. While the catchment includes 20 European sites, only 6 intersect with the South Essex Flood Risk Area.

In total there are 14 measures for the South Essex FRA within the South Essex management catchment, all of which are existing measures within the Essex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.

Existing measures – Essex Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

All 14 of the existing plan measures have been derived from the Essex LFRMS; 10 of which have been screened out as they relate to prevention (M23 & M24) and preparedness (M41, M43 & M44). Four measures have been screened in and considered below, comprising natural flood management/run-off & catchment management (M31), water flow regulation (M32), and surface water management (M34).

These four screened in LFRMS measures constitute development of consenting policy, SUDs guidance, application of Urban Blue Corridors, and identification of environmental benefits within Essex County, which could be close to/within the European sites within the South Essex management catchment. Therefore, these measures have the potential for likely significant effect upon the four European sites of the South Essex catchment. However, these screened in protection measures incorporated into the FRMP for the South Essex FRA implement policies of the LFRMS which have been previously assessed under the Habitats Regulations in the Essex LFRMS HRA screening assessment (March 2013). This assessment concluded that the LFRMS does not have the potential to cause significant effects upon European sites, and that a Habitats Regulations appropriate assessment was not deemed necessary for the Essex LFRMS. However, the HRA screening assessment reports that the Essex LFRMS will ensure that the integrity of internationally designated sites will not be adversely affected as, before any further plans or measures in the Strategy are implemented, they must be subject to the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and must undergo an ‘appropriate assessment’ if they are likely to have a significant effect.

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

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

The 14 screened in measures of the FRA from existing South Essex LLFA local strategies have referenced control requirements under the planning and consenting regulations that will ensure project level HRAs are carried out when and where relevant.

Two of the 9 new screened in measures for the FRA are at this stage considered to not lie in proximity to the European sites of the Combined Essex management catchment. The remaining 7 new screened in measures are within 5km of European sites, such as the Benfleet & Southend Marshes SPA & Ramsar and the Essex Estuaries SAC. Project level controls will be required when these are developed as local actions, if in proximity to European sites.

5.3.1 Conclusion At the strategic-plan level of the South Essex FRA, the measures are screened as being not likely to have any significant effects on any European sites, alone or in combination with other plans or projects (see Chapter 6). Given this conclusion, there is no requirement to progress to the next stage of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (an ‘appropriate assessment’ to examine the question of adverse effect on the integrity of European sites). Lower-tier assessments will be required and will be assisted by the information gathered in this high-level assessment, but their conclusions will not be influenced by this HRA, and each individual plan or project must be assessed as necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

6 In combination effects with other plans and projects

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

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

The potential for in-combination effects lies with the following potential interactions:  The RBD FRMP with the FRA FRMP  Between different RBD FRMPs  The RBD FRMP with other external plans within the RBD.

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

6.1 RBD and FRA FRMPs FRAs geographically overlay one or more RBD catchment and as distinct ‘plans’ addressing local flood sources may have measures that coincide with wider RBD catchment measures addressing flooding from main rivers, sea and reservoirs. Together these measures have the potential to cause in-combination effects on nearby European sites depending on their nature, location and relationship. At the strategic-plan level of the HRA, such in-combination effects on specific European sites cannot be considered. Instead the HRA highlights where risks of in-combination effects may in general be higher and which project level assessments should consider further as follows:

 Most FRAs are in urban areas where there are less European sites present so most measures are less likely to be in proximity to them  Most measures in FRAs are drawn from existing plans (local strategies and surface water management plans) that will have considered their flood management

measures alongside any in the same strategic area under CFMPs and SMPs, including any in-combination effects on European sites in any HRA.  The combination of measures with highest risks of in-combination effects not considered under existing plans will be where there are specific improvement measures that are new in the FRMP under both the RBD catchment (main river/sea flooding) and the FRA (local flooding) that are in close proximity to each other and a European site.

6.2 In-combination effects between RBD FRMPs The Anglian RBD shares a border with three other RBDs:

 Humber to the north  Severn to the west  Thames to the south.

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

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

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

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

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

Water Resource Management Plans: Anglian Water Services is the predominant supplier within the RBD. Parts of the RBD are supplied by Affinity Water (East and Central), Essex and Suffolk Water and Cambridge Water. The water resource management plans set out the investment needed to ensure that there is sufficient water to continue supplying communities over the 25 years from 2015 to 2040. For Anglian Water, Affinity Water and Essex and Suffolk Water, a HRA was undertaken on their plans and all concluded that the plans will have no significant effects on European sites, alone or in combination with other known plans and projects, consistent with the implementation of appropriate mitigation. In the case of Cambridge Water it appears that a HRA was not undertaken. However, the plan does indicate that the need for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was considered. The company took the decision that a SEA was not required on the basis that the plan was for a small area, did not propose options to meet a supply demand balance deficit and would not be likely to lead to significant environmental effects. We have assumed that, for similar reasons, a HRA was also not undertaken.

River Basin Management Plan (RBMP): RBMPs set statutory objectives for river, lake, groundwater, estuarine and coastal water bodies and summarise the measures needed to achieve them. Because water is linked to land, they also inform decisions on land-use planning. The RBD that provides the spatial boundary for the FRMP is the same as that used for the RBMP. The planning timeframe is also the same, so the plan for the period 2015-21 is currently being prepared. Water-dependent European sites are designated as “Protected Areas” under the Water Framework Directive, and the RBMPs include measures to ensure that the objectives for these areas are achieved. While it is unlikely that the plan will result in a significant effect on a European site, a HRA is being undertaken to identify any risks and unanticipated effects.

Marine Plans: Marine plans set out priorities and directions for future development within the plan area, inform sustainable use of marine resources and help marine users understand the best locations for their activities, including where new developments may be appropriate. Marine plans are proposed for the inshore and offshore areas of England. Only interactions with the inshore plan would be expected. Marine plans are required to be produced by 2021.

The East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans were produced in April 2014. These Plans cover the East of England coast from Flamborough Head in the north to Felixstowe, in the south, and extending from mean high water to 12 nautical miles offshore, including inland areas influenced by the tide, such as The Broads. A Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment was required for these Plans which concluded that the Plans would have no adverse effect on the integrity of European sites, either alone or in-combination, provided that two mitigation measures are implemented. These constitute iterative plan review (IPR) involving implementing the Plans with regard to ongoing monitoring and project level design developments, as well as ensuring that project level HRA is undertaken and can demonstrate compliance with the Habitats Regulations.

7 Conclusion and Future HRAs

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

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

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

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

This HRA does not remove the need for HRA at a subsequent level, i.e. lower-tier strategies, plans or projects that implement measures, including the need for detailed appropriate assessment where required. As local actions are developed at a project level and the details of their scope and scale are known, this may identify additional effects on European sites that have not been assessed here, or were not appropriate to consider at this spatial scale of plan.

ANNEX A

Table A1 HRA screening table for the FRMP measure categories

Measure Measure description Screened Justification code in or out M2 Prevention M21 Prevention, avoidance measure to prevent the location of new or Out Comprises prevention and avoidance measures therefore additional receptors in flood prone areas such as land use planning unlikely to result in physical intervention. policies or regulation M22 Prevention, removal or relocation measure to remove receptors from In Removal or relocation measures may involve physical flood prone areas or to relocate receptors to areas of lower risk intervention, with potential for effects on European sites where these interventions are in proximity. Screened in on a precautionary basis. M23 Prevention, reduction measures to adapt receptors to reduce the Out Flood risk prevention /reduction /adaption to buildings etc will adverse consequences in the event of a flood actions or buildings, not result in physical interventions affecting European sites. public networks etc M24 Prevention, other prevention measures to enhance flood risk Out Flood risk modelling /assessment will not result in physical prevention (may include flood risk modelling and assessment, flood interventions affecting European sites. vulnerability assessment, maintenance programmes or policies etc) M3 Protection M31 Natural flood management/run off and catchment management. In Measures to reduce the flow into natural or artificial drainage systems such as overland flow interceptors and/or storage, enhancement of infiltration, etc and including in-channel, flood plan works and the reforestation of banks, that restore natural systems to help slow flow and store water. M32 Water flow regulation. Measures involving physical intervention to In Measures comprise physical activities or interventions resulting regulate flows such as construction modification or removal of water in actual changes on the ground or effects on flows /movement retaining structures (e.g. dams or other on-line storage areas) or of water and changes to physical processes. development of existing flow regulation rules and which have significant impact on the hydrological regime. M33 Channel, coastal and floodplain works. Measures involving physical In interventions to freshwater channels, mountain streams, estuaries, coastal water and flood prone areas of land, such as construction, modification or removal of structures or the alteration of channels, sediment dynamics, management dykes etc. M34 Surface water management measures involving physical In

Measure Measure description Screened Justification code in or out interventions to reduce surface water flooding, typically, but not exclusively in an urban environment such as enhancing artificial drainage capacity or through SuDS M35 Other measures to enhance protection against flooding which may In include flood defences, asset maintenance programmes or policies. M4 Preparedness M41 Flood forecasting and warning. Measures to establish or enhance a Out flood forecasting or warning system. M42 Emergency event response planning/contingency planning measures Out to establish or enhance flood event institutional emergency response Measures do not comprise or result in physical changes or planning interventions. M43 Public awareness and preparedness. Measures to establish the Out public awareness or preparedness for flood events. M44 Other measures to establish or enhance preparedness for flood Out events to reduce adverse consequences. M5 Recovery and review M51 Recovery and review (planning for recovery and review phases is in Out principle part of preparedness) individual and society recovery, clean up and restoration activities (buildings, infrastructure etc). Health and Measures on the whole do not comprise or result in physical mental health supporting actions, inc managing stress disaster changes or interventions. Measures involving physical activity financial assistance (grants, tax) inc disaster legal assistance, are focused on restoration at a local level, i.e. buildings etc., disaster unemployment assistance, temporary or permanent, none of which considered likely to result in physical effects on relocation, other. European sites. M52 Environmental recovery, clean up and restoration activities (with Out several sub-topics as mould protection, well-water safety and securing hazardous material containers). M53 Other recovery, review and lessons learnt from flood events, Out insurance policies. M6 Other M61 Other measures not fitting in to any of the other categories (M2-4) or In M61 code includes a variety of different kinds of measures, but their sub-categories. includes measures such as habitat creation, floodplain restoration, managed realignment. Therefore screened in on a precautionary basis.

Table A2 Management Catchments and European sites in the Anglian RBD /FRMP

Management European Site Managemen European Site Catchment t Catchment Broadland  Breydon Water SPA North-west  Breckland SPA  Breydon Water Ramsar Norfolk  Dersingham Bog Ramsar  Broadland SPA  Norfolk Valley Fens SAC  Broadland Ramsar  North Norfolk Coast SAC  Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA  North Norfolk Coast SPA  Norfolk Valley Fens SAC  North Norfolk Coast Ramsar  Paston Great Barn SAC  Ouse Washes SAC  Redgrave & South Lopham Fens Ramsar  Ouse Washes SPA  River Wensum SAC  Ouse Washes Ramsar  The Broads SAC  Roydon Common & Dersingham Bog SAC  Waveney & Little Ouse Valley Fens SAC  Roydon Common Ramsar  Winterton-Horsey Dunes SAC  The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC  The Wash SPA  The Wash Ramsar

Cam & Ely  Breckland SAC Old Bedford  Fenland SAC Ouse  Breckland SPA & Middle  Nene Washes SAC  Chippenham Fen Ramsar Level  Nene Washes SPA  Devil’s Dyke SAC  Nene Washes Ramsar  Eversden & Wimpole Woods SAC  Ouse Washes SAC  Fenland SAC  Ouse Washes SPA  Norfolk Valley Fens SAC  Ouse Washes Ramsar  Redgrave & South Lopham Fens Ramsar  Woodwalton Fen SAC  Rex Graham Reserve SAC  Ouse Washes SAC  Ouse Washes SPA  Ouse Washes Ramsar  Waveney & Little Ouse Valley Fens SAC  Wicken Fen Ramsar

Management European Site Managemen European Site Catchment t Catchment Combined  Abberton Reservoir SPA Upper &  Ouse Washes SAC Essex  Abberton Reservoir Ramsar Bedford  Ouse Washes SPA  Benfleet & Southend Marshes SPA Ouse  Ouse Washes Ramsar  Benfleet & Southend Marshes Ramsar  Portholme SAC  Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 4) SPA  Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 4) Ramsar  Colne Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 2) SPA  Colne Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 2) Ramsar  Crouch & Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3) SPA  Crouch & Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 3) Ramsar  Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1) SPA  Dengie (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 1) Ramsar  Essex Estuaries SAC  Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5) SPA  Foulness (Mid-Essex Coast Phase 5) Ramsar  Hamford Water SAC  Hamford Water SPA  Hamford Water Ramsar  Stour & Orwell Estuaries SPA  Stour & Orwell Estuaries Ramsar

East Suffolk  Alde-Ore & Butley Estuaries SAC Welland  Barnack Hills & Holes SAC  Alde-Ore Estuary SPA  Baston Fen SAC  Alde-Ore Estuary Ramsar  Grimsthorpe SAC  Benacre to Easton Bavents Lagoons SAC  Rutland Water SPA  Benacre to Easton Bavents Lagoons SPA  Rutland Water Ramsar  Deben Estuary SPA  The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC

Management European Site Managemen European Site Catchment t Catchment  Deben Estuary Ramsar  The Wash SPA  Dew’s Ponds SAC  The Wash Ramsar  Minsmere-Walberswick Heaths & Marshes SAC  Minsmere-Walberswick SPA  Minsmere-Walberswick Ramsar  Orfordness-Shingle Street SAC  Sandlings SPA  Staverton Park & The Thicks Wantisden SAC  Stour & Orwell Estuaries SPA  Stour & Orwell Estuaries Ramsar

Nene  Nene Washes SAC Witham  Gibraltar Point SPA  Nene Washes SPA  Gibraltar Point Ramsar  Nene Washes Ramsar  Humber Estuary SAC  Orton Pit SAC  Humber Estuary SPA  The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC  Humber Estuary Ramsar  The Wash SPA  Saltfleetby-Theddlethorpe Dunes & Gibraltar  The Wash Ramsar Point SAC  Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA  The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC  Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Ramsar  The Wash SPA  The Wash Ramsar

North Norfolk  North Norfolk Coast SAC Rivers  North Norfolk Coast SPA  North Norfolk Coast Ramsar  Norfolk Valley Fens SAC  Overstrand Cliffs SAC  The Wash & North Norfolk Coast SAC

Table A3 Mitigation and Control Measures

Flooding source Legal /consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations  Measures involving construction /creation of new, or changes to /alteration /improvement of existing flood Measures to address flooding from rivers defence structures and main river channels /floodplain generally require planning permission from the local (main river) planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

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

Measures to flooding from rivers  Measures involving construction /creation of new, or changes to /alteration /improvement of existing flood (ordinary watercourses) defence structures and ordinary watercourse river channels /floodplain generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main river requires Ordinary Watercourse Consent from either the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) or Internal Drainage Board (IDB). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the LLFA /IDB as competent authority.  Smaller scale measures for flood defence works, improvements or alterations to all other watercourses that aren’t main river, and measures comprising maintenance, such as replacement, repair or refurbishment of existing structures, may fall under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the

Flooding source Legal /consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.

 Measures involving construction /creation of new, or changes to /alteration /improvement of existing coastal Flooding from the Sea /tidal flood defence structures and estuary /coastal frontage (above mean low water) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works below the mean high water spring tidal limit (including the waters of every estuary, river or channel where the tide flows up to the mean high water spring tide limit) require a Marine Works Licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application. The HRA is determined by the MMO as competent authority.  Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Maintaining coast protection works does not require a marine licence when carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency or a coast protection authority, provided the activity is carried out within the existing boundaries of the works being maintained. Some coast protection works maintenance activities also do not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures involving construction /creation of new, or changes to /alteration /improvement of existing coastal Coastal erosion /tidal flood defence structures and estuary /coastal frontage (above mean low water) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures involving works below the mean high water spring tidal limit require a Marine Works Licence from the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application. The HRA is determined by the MMO as competent authority.

Flooding source Legal /consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations  Measures involving works on or near a main river, flood or sea defences requires Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency, under the Water Resources Act 1991, Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the consenting process, with a HRA submitted with the consent application, determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Maintaining coast protection works does not require a marine licence when carried out by, or on behalf of, the Environment Agency or a coast protection authority, provided the activity is carried out within the existing boundaries of the works being maintained. Some coast protection works maintenance activities also do not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures involving construction /creation of new, or changes to /alteration /improvement of existing Surface water flooding structures to address surface water flooding (e.g. culverts, drainage ditches /channels) generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address surface water flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Defence Consent /Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency /LLFA /IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river /ordinary watercourses).  Measures involving maintaining existing structures to address surface water flooding may not require planning permission, falling under the remit of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined, and if likely significant effects predicted, Regulation 73 of the Habitats Regulations places a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order, requiring written notification of approval of the local planning authority. HRA process then as for planning permission.  Measures to address groundwater flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Groundwater flooding Defence Consent /Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency /LLFA /IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river /ordinary watercourses).  Measures to address groundwater flooding involving the construction /creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning

Flooding source Legal /consenting processes and consideration of Habitats Regulations Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding in proximity to main river or ordinary watercourses requires Flood Sewer flooding Defence Consent /Ordinary Watercourse Consent from the Environment Agency /LLFA /IDB for work on or near all other watercourses that aren’t main rivers. HRA requirements as for measures to address flooding from rivers (main river /ordinary watercourses).  Measures to address sewer flooding involving the construction /creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding involving the construction /creation of above ground structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  Measures to address sewer flooding by sewerage undertakers may fall within their Permitted Development powers under authority The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.  New reservoirs /impounding structures, or alterations or removals of existing structures, require an Flooding from reservoirs Impoundment Licence from the Environment Agency (Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by Water Act 2003), Environment Act 1995, Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006). Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the licensing application process, with HRA determined by the Environment Agency as competent authority.  Measures involving construction /creation of new reservoirs /impounding structures, or changes to /alteration /of existing structures generally require planning permission from the local planning authority under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Where a European site is potentially affected, the need for HRA is determined through the planning process, with HRA submitted with the planning application, determined by the local planning authority as competent authority.

Annex B – Anglian RBD European sites Site ID Name of Site SPA, SAC, Area (ha)* Ramsar Alde, Ore and Butley UK0030076 Estuaries# SAC 1633 Barnack Hills and UK0030031 Holes SAC 24 UK0030085 Baston Fen# SAC 2 Benacre to Easton UK0013104 Bavents Lagoons# SAC 327 UK0019865 Breckland# SAC 7544 UK0030037 Devil`s Dyke SAC 8 UK0030133 Dew`s Ponds# SAC 7 UK0013690 Essex Estuaries# SAC 46110 Eversden and UK0030331 Wimpole Woods SAC 67 UK0014782 Fenland# SAC 619 UK0030043 Grimsthorpe SAC 0.4 UK0030170 Humber Estuary# SAC 36657 Minsmere to Walberswick Heaths UK0012809 and Marshes# SAC 1257

UK0030222 Nene Washes# SAC 86 UK0012892 Norfolk Valley Fens# SAC 616 UK0019838 North Norfolk Coast# SAC 3162 Orfordness – Shingle UK0014780 Street# SAC 888 UK0030053 Orton Pit # SAC 141 UK0013011 Ouse Washes# SAC 333 UK0030232 Overstrand Cliffs# SAC 30 UK0030235 Paston Great Barn SAC 1 UK0030054 Portholme# SAC 92 UK0019866 Rex Graham Reserve SAC 3 UK0012647 River Wensum# SAC 307 Roydon Common and UK0012801 Dersingham Bog# SAC 353 Saltfleetby– Theddlethorpe Dunes UK0030270 and Gibraltar Point# SAC 968 Staverton Park and The Thicks, UK0012741 Wantisden SAC 84 UK0013577 The Broads# SAC 5890 The Wash and North UK0017075 Norfolk Coast# SAC 107720 Waveney and Little UK0012882 Ouse Valley Fens# SAC 194 Winterton – Horsey UK0013043 Dunes# SAC 427 UK0030377 Hamford Water# candidate 50 82

SAC UK9009141 Abberton Reservoir# SPA 718 UK9009112 Alde-Ore Estuary# SPA 2404 Benacre to Easton UK9009291 Bavents# SPA 471 Benfleet and UK9009171 Southend Marshes# SPA 2284 Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast UK9009245 Phase 4) # SPA 4403 UK0019865 Breckland# SPA 39433 UK9009181 Breydon Water# SPA 1204 UK9009253 Broadland# SPA 5509 Colne Estuary (Mid- UK9009243 Essex Coast Phase 2) # SPA 2720 Crouch and Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex UK9009244 Coast Phase 3) # SPA 1745 UK9009261 Deben Estuary# SPA 981 Dengie (Mid-Essex UK9009242 Coast Phase 1) # SPA 3134 Foulness (Mid-Essex UK9009246 Coast Phase 5) # SPA 10942 UK9008022 Gibraltar Point# SPA 422 Great Yarmouth UK9009271 North Denes# SPA 160 UK9009131 Hamford Water# SPA 2189 UK9006111 Humber Estuary# SPA 37630 Minsmere- UK9009101 Walberswick# SPA 2020 UK9009031 North Norfolk Coast# SPA 7862 UK9008031 Nene Washes# SPA 1520 Outer Thames UK9020309 Estuary# SPA 379268 UK9008041 Ouse Washes# SPA 2493 UK9008051 Rutland Water# SPA 1555 UK9020286 Sandlings SPA 3406 Stour and Orwell UK9009121 Estuaries# SPA 3673 UK9008021 The Wash# SPA 62044 Upper Nene Valley UK9020296 Gravel Pits# SPA 1358 UK11001 Abberton Reservoir Ramsar 718 UK11002 Alde–Ore Estuary Ramsar 2534 Benfleet and UK11006 Southend Marshes Ramsar 2284 Blackwater Estuary (Mid-Essex Coast UK11007 Phase 4) Ramsar 4403 UK11008 Breydon Water Ramsar 1204 UK11010 Broadland Ramsar 5568 83

UK11014 Chippenham Fen Ramsar 112 Colne Estuary (Mid- UK11015 Essex Coast Phase 2) Ramsar 2714 Crouch and Roach Estuaries (Mid-Essex UK11058 Coast Phase 3) Ramsar 1745 UK11017 Deben Estuary Ramsar 981 Dengie (Mid-Essex UK11018 Coast Phase 1) Ramsar 3134 UK11019 Dersingham Bog Ramsar 158 Foulness (Mid-Essex UK11026 Coast Phase 5) Ramsar 10942 UK11027 Gibraltar Point Ramsar 422 UK11028 Hamford Water Ramsar 2189 UK11031 Humber Estuary Ramsar 37988 Minsmere– UK11044 Walberswick Ramsar 2009 UK11046 Nene Washes Ramsar 1520 UK11048 North Norfolk Coast Ramsar 7862 UK11051 Ouse Washes Ramsar 2514 Redgrave and South UK11056 Lopham Fens Ramsar 127 UK11061 Roydon Common Ramsar 195 UK11062 Rutland Water Ramsar 1333 Stour and Orwell UK11067 Estuaries Ramsar 3673 UK11072 The Wash Ramsar 62044 Upper Nene Valley UK11083 Gravel Pits Ramsar 1358 UK11077 Wicken Fen Ramsar 255 UK11078 Woodwalton Fen Ramsar 209 # Denotes if the site is a WFD: Natura 2000 protected area site. *Area denoted is for the entire designated area rather than the area within the RBD boundary.

84 www.gov.uk/environment-agency

LIT 10242 85