Appendix E

Updated Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

E001 E002 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council E003 Mott MacDonald Mott MacDonald House 8-10 Sydenham Road Croydon CR0 2EE United Kingdom

T +44 (0)20 8774 2000 F +44 (0)20 8681 5706 mottmac.com

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Gibson Drive Tonbridge and Malling Kings Hill 323860 001 C West Malling ME19 4LZ Borough Mott MacDonald Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

January 2019September 2020

Mott MacDonald Group Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1110949. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom E004 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Issue and Revision Record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description DraftA 11/01/19 SW KA SM First Issue Second 22/01/19 SW KA CM Second Issue issueB Third IssueC 2930/01/19 SW CM CM Third Issue D 11/03/2020 SW SM CM Updated following NE comments E 30/07/2020 SW SM CM Updated following NE comments F 10/09/2020 CM JB CM Final

Document reference: 323860 | 001 | F

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This report has been pr epared sol ely for use by the party which commissi oned it (the ‘Client’) i n connecti on with the capti oned proj ect. It should not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed terms of r eliance with us (the ‘Reci pient(s)’) may rely on the content, i nformati on or any vi ews expressed i n the repor t. W e accept no duty of care, responsi bility or liability to any other r eci pient of thi s document. T his r eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etary intell ectual property.

Contents No representati on, w arranty or under taki ng, expr ess or im plied, is made and no responsi bility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Cli ent or any Reci pient(s), as to the accuracy or com pleteness of the i nformati on contai ned i n this r eport. For the avoidance of doubt this r eport does not in any w ay purpor t to i nclude any legal , insur ance or fi nanci al advice or opi nion.

We disclaim all and any liability w hether arising i n tort or contractor otherwise whichit might otherwise have to any party other than theClient or the Recipient(s), inrespect of this report, or any information attri buted to i t.

We accept no r esponsibility for any error or omission i n the r eport w hich is due to an error or omission i n data, information or statem ents supplied to us by other par ties incl udi ng the client (‘D ata’). We have not independently verified suchData and haveassumedit to be accurate, complete, reliable and current as of the date of such inform ation.

Forecasts presented i n this docum ent w ere pr epared usi ng Data and the report is dependent or based on D ata. Inevitably, som e of the assumptions used to develop the for ecasts will not be realised and unantici pated events and circumstances m ay occur. C onsequently M ott MacDonal d does not guarantee or warr ant the concl usi ons contained i n the repor t as there are likely to be differ ences betw een the for ecasts and the actual results and those di ffer ences may be m aterial. Whil e w e consi der that the inform ation and opini ons given i n this r eport are sound all parti es m ust rely on their ow n skill and j udgement when m aking use of it.

Under no circumstances m ay this report or any extr act or summary ther eof be used in connection wi th any public or private sec urities offering i ncluding any rel ated mem orandum or prospectus for any securities offering or stock exchange listing or announceme nt.

323860 | 001 | C | January 2019D January 2019September 2020 TMBC Habitats Regulation Assessment E005 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Glossary 9 Executive Summary 11

1. Introduction 12

2. Summary of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 14

3. Methodology 17

4. Pathways of Impact 25

5. Stage 1 Screening 30

6. Effects of the Plan In–Combination 50

7. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment 53

8. Conclusions 63

9. References 65

Appendices 69

A. HRA Screening Report Stage 1: Air Quality Report 70

B. HRA Screening Report Stage 2: Air Quality Report 128

C. Correspondence with Natural England 149

D. Screening of Local Plan Policies 152

E. Figures 179 Glossary 9 Executive Summary 11

1. Introduction 12

2. Summary of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 14

323860 | 001 | C | January 2019D January 2019September 2020 TMBC Habitats Regulation Assessment E006 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

3. Methodology 17

4. Pathways of Impact 25

5. Stage 1 Screening 30

6. Effects of the Plan In–Combination 50

7. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment 53

8. Conclusions 63

9. References 65

Appendices 69

A. HRA Screening Report Stage 1: Air Quality Report 70

B. HRA Screening Report Stage 2: Air Quality Report 128

C. Correspondence with Natural England 149

D. Screening of Local Plan Policies 152

E. Figures 179

323860 | 001 | C | January 2019D January 2019September 2020 TMBC Habitats Regulation Assessment E007 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Glossary

Term Definition Annual Exceedance This term is the statistical probability that a certain magnitude of flood will happen Probability (AEP) in a standard year. For example, a flood of 50% AEP has a 1 in 2 chance of occurring in any given year. Baseline Conditions The environment as it appears (or would appear) immediately prior to the implementation of the project together with any known or foreseeable future changes that will take place before completion of the project. Benefit Area Benefit Areas are sections of the frontage which have been determined to be hydrodynamically linked. That is, if a breach were to occur at one location within the Benefit Area, the flood water could extent across the benefit area. Divisions in Benefit Area are predominantly caused by changes in topography or unique characteristics of the landscape. Biodiversity Genetically determined variability amongst living organisms, including the variability within species, between species, and of ecosystems. Biodiversity Action Plan A strategy for conserving and enhancing wild species and wildlife habitats in the (BAP) UK. Habitat A place where an organism lives; a type of environment inhabited by a particular species and/or community; often characterised by dominant plant forms, physical characters, or a combination of these. Invertebrates Animals without a backbone e.g. insects, worms, and spiders. Mitigation The measures, including any process, activity, or design to avoid, reduce or remedy or compensate for negative effects of a project. Natura 2000 Natura 2000 is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. It stretches across all 28 EU countries, both on land and at sea. The aim of the network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats, listed under both the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive. Pathway The pathways of effects in the environment are the direct or indirect processes by which change occurs. Plan A purposeful, forward looking strategy or design, often with co-ordinated priorities, options, and measures, that elaborates and implements policy e.g. Shoreline Management Plans. Policy A general course of action or proposed overall direction that will be pursued and which guides ongoing decision making. Programme A coherent, organised agenda or proposed overall direction that will be pursued and which guides ongoing decision making. Project A proposed capital or revenue undertaking, typically involving the planning, design, and construction of a structure. Receptor The physical resource or group that will experience an effect as a result of the proposed development. Ramsar Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention. Receptor A defined individual environmental feature that has the potential to be affected by a project. Screening Focuses on proposals with potential significant negative environmental effects or with effects not fully known to eliminate those proposals. Site of Special Scientific An SSSI is a conservation designation denoting a protected area in the United Interest (SSSI) Kingdom, designated due to special interest in its flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features. They are protected by law to conserve their wildlife or geology. Source The origin of the cause of effects. Special Areas of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are strictly protected sites designated under Conservation (SAC) the EC Habitats Directive. Article 3 of the Habitats Directive requires the establishment of a European network of important high-quality conservation sites

9 E008 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Term Definition that will make a significant contribution to conserving the 189 habitat types and 788 species identified in Annexes I and II of the Directive (as amended). The listed habitat types and species are those considered to be most in need of conservation at a European level (excluding birds). Special Protection Areas Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are strictly protected sites classified in (SPA) accordance with Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive, which came into force in April 1979. They are classified for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed on Annex I of the Directive), and for regularly occurring migratory species. Standard of Protection The largest flood event, measured by AEP, that a scheme provides complete flood (SoP) protection against. The SoP can be managed in a variety of different ways (maintain, sustain, upgrade) over a project lifecycle.

10 E009 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Executive Summary

Mott MacDonald have been appointed by Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) to assist the Council in undertaking a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The objective of this assessment was to identify any aspects of the TMBC Local Plan that would have the potential to cause a likely significant effect on Natura 2000 or European sites (Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas and Ramsar sites), either in isolation or in combination with other plans and projects, and to devise appropriate mitigation strategies where such effects were identified. This HRA document considers the policies contained within TMBC’s Local Plan – Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Publication (September 2018).

There are five European Sites included within this HRA for the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan:

• North Downs Woodland Special Area Conservation (SAC); • Peters Pit Special Area Conservation (SAC); • Queendown Warren Special Area Conservation (SAC); • Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA); and, • Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar.

Due to the presence of these European Conservation Sites, there is a requirement for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) under the provisions of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and its implementation in the UK under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Under Regulation 21 an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is required for a plan or project which, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, is likely to have a significant effect on a European site and is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the site.

The following conclusions may be drawn with regards to the implications of the TMBC Local Plan and its effects on Natura 2000 interest features.

The HRA Stage 1 Screening assessed that there was the potential for the TMBC Local Plan alone and in-combination with other Plans in surrounding areas to have significant effects on the European sites through reduced air quality. However, air quality is discussed with separate Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports for the TMBC Local Plan. As a result of those assessments, either no likely significant effects are anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan in relation to air quality. or they have passed the Stage 2 test because there is no adverse effect on integrity. Recreational pressure was the only other impact pathway carried forward to Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment (AA), to be considered in further detail within this report.

The AA concluded that there would be no likely significantadverse effect, alone or in- combination, on the integrity of the identified European sites through increased recreational disturbance.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Publication (September 2018) document can be screened out from further consideration both alone and in-combinationcomplies with other projects or plans.the Habitats Regulations.

11 E010 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Report Mott MacDonald have been appointed by Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) to assist the Council in undertaking a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA). The emerging Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan is a document which will contain the strategic policies, site allocations and development management policies which will influence development in the borough until 2031.

The objective of this HRA is to identify any aspects of the Local Plan that would have the potential to cause a likely significant effect on Natura 2000 or European sites (Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Ramsar sites), either in isolation or in combination with other plans and projects. This HRA document considers the policies contained within TMBC’s Local Plan - Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Publication (September 2018). This report should be read in conjunction with the HRA Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports for Air Quality (Mott MacDonald 2019); the Stage 1: Air Quality can be found in Appendix A and the Stage 2: Air Quality in Appendix B.

This report presents the initial findings of the first stage of the HRA process, known as Screening. It identifies the likely potential significant adverse effects on protected European sites, both within the borough and those in close proximity, by development strategies set out in the Regulation 19 consultation document.

Where the Screening assessment identifies significant effects are likely in the absence of mitigation, Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken to provide further assessment. This is included as Section 7 of this report.

1.2 Background In September 2016 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council published aan HRA Screening report to support the Regulation 18 consultation for the emerging Local Plan development strategy.

This early Screening stage determined that the Local Plan had the potential for significant effects on one of the European sites, North Downs Woodlands SAC.

To inform the development of the Local Plan Strategy Policies, Natural England (NE) produced comments for the 2016 draft of the HRA, providing advice and highlighting significant effects. Natural England’s response to the HRA recommended identifying areas where traffic flow is predicted to increase as a result of housing allocations due to the air quality sensitivity of European Sites. The HRA was undatedupdated in May 2017 to reflect the comments received.

Subsequent to this, Natural England provided further comments on the HRA in their Regulation 19 and Post-Submission consultation representations, as well as through their Discretionary Advice Service (DAS), and the HRA has been updated accordingly. Copies of this correspondence can be found in Appendix C.

1.3 Study Area There is no pre-defined guidance that dictates the physical scope of an HRA of a Development Plan Document (DPD), such as a Local Plan. Therefore, the assessment has been guided

12 E011 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

primarily by the identified impact pathways rather than by arbitrary ‘zones’ in considering the physical scope. Current guidance (as described below), suggests that the following European sites be included in the scope of assessment:

• All sites within boundary of the borough; and • Other sites shown to be linked to development within the borough boundary through a known ‘pathway’. Briefly defined, pathways are routes by which a change in activity within the Local Plan area can lead to an effect upon a European site.

The application of a 7km buffer zone of the TMBC boundary has been considered sufficient for the purposes of screening development sites within this HRA, following consultation with Natural England (see Appendix C).

1.4 Legislation The need for Habitats Regulations Assessment is set out within Article 6 of the EC Habitats Directive 1992 and is interpreted into British law by the Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017. The ultimate aim of the Habitats Directive is to “maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest” (Habitats Directive, Article 2). This aim relates to habitats and species, not the European sites themselves, although the sites have a significant role in delivering favourable conservation status. The Natura 2000 designation stems from the Habitats Directive, it is a network of core breeding and resting sites for rare and threatened species, and some rare natural habitat types which are protected in their own right. It stretches across all 28 EU countries, both on land and at sea. The aim of the network is to ensure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats, listed under both the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive.These require plan-making authorities to appropriately assess the implications of their land use plans on European sites. These include sites designated as:

• Special Area of Conservation (SACs) – sites designated for flora, fauna and habitats of community interest under powers derived from the Habitats Directive; and, • Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – sites designated to conserve the habitat of protected wild birds to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution under powers derived from the Birds Directive (Directive 2009/147/EC). It is also Government policy for sites designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites) to be treated as having equivalent status to Natura 2000 sites.

13 E012 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

2. Summary of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan

2.1 Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2018) provides the high-level context for preparing Local Plans. This is supplemented by the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance which sets out how to implement the policies in the NPPF. These have shaped the focus and content of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) Local Plan.

The Local Plan is a development plan document that sets out a vision and a framework for the future development of Tonbridge & Malling Borough up to 2031. The Local Plan represents the starting point for decision-taking on planning applications. It includes a suite of policies including borough-wide strategic policies, allocations and local standards.

The purpose of these policies is to manage and facilitate sustainable development. The vision of the TMBC Local Plan is to support sustainable growth and the needs of the borough's population. Heritage and natural environment assets will be valued, with places and people connected across the borough and beyond.

The TMBC Local Plan has a proposed housing allocation of 6,834 dwellings sites as shown in Appendix E and Table 2-1 split across five strategic sites and a number of smaller development sites. Each strategic development site will comprise of new residential properties and associated infrastructure as required to support the additional population. Development of the strategic sites will be phased from 2019 to 2031 (the final year of the Local Plan), however some sites are also expected to have additional development beyond 2031. The Local Plan also includes a total of 38.5ha of employment land.

The development proposals for housing allocation sites are contained within the Local Plan are listed in Table 2.1, with respective distances from designated sites considered within this report. The distances presented are straight line distances to the nearest part of the designation. Locations of housing allocations identified within the Local Plan document can be seen in Appendix E. Where N/A is stated within the table below, these development sites are over 7km from European sites and are therefore screened out of further assessment.

14 E013 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council 15 Habitats Regulations Assessment

Table 2-1 Straight line distances of designated sites from development proposals within the Local Plan (km) ID Site Name No. North Downs Woodlands Peters Pit Queensdown Medway Estuary SAC SAC Warren SAC and Marshes SPA North Downs North Downs and Ramsar Woodlands Hailing Woodlands to Trottiscliffe Wouldham Escarpment to Detling Escarpment A Bushey Wood Phase 1 900 4.3 2.2 1.7 N/A N/A B Rear of Robin Hood Lane, Blue Bell Hill 26 6.5 1.5 3.0 6.9 N/A C 109 Hall Road, Aylesford 5 6.2 3.4 4.2 N/A N/A D Oil Depot, Station Road, Aylesford 14 6.1 2.9 3.8 N/A N/A E Nu-Venture Coaches, Mill Hail, Aylesford 8 5.4 3.7 3.6 N/A N/A F Land off Oakapple Lane, Barming 118 N/A 5.3 7.0 N/A N/A G South Aylesford (east of Hermitage Lane) 1000 6.9 3.3 4.9 N/A N/A H Borough Green Gardens Phase 1A+1B 1720 6.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A I Southways, Staleys Road, Borough Green 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A J Bell Lane, Burham 58 4.4 2.8 1.3 N/A N/A K Land off Cobdown Close, Ditton 9 4.8 4.5 3.7 N/A N/A L Station Road, Ditton 6 5.3 4.1 3.8 N/A N/A M North of London Road, Ditton 13 5.1 4.5 4.0 N/A N/A N East Malling Research Station (small parcel) 23 5.4 5.2 4.6 N/A N/A O East Malling Research Station (Ditton Edge) 216 5.4 4.8 4.6 N/A N/A P East Malling Research Station (Parkside) 205 5.1 2.6 4.8 N/A N/A Q Barfield House, Teston Rd, Offham 15 5.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A R Park House, 110-112 Mill Street, East Malling 5 5.4 6.4 N/A N/A N/A S Court Lane Nurseries, Hadlow 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A T South of Church Lane, East Peckham 35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A U Carpenters Lane, Hadlow 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A V Church Lane, East Peckham 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A W North of the Paddock, Hadlow 156 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X Land at Stocks Green Road, Hildenborough 105 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Y Kings Hill - Remainder 65 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Z Broadwater Farm, North of Kings Hill 825 5.8 N/A 6.5 N/A N/A

323860 | 001 | C | January 2019

E014 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council 16 Habitats Regulations Assessment

ID Site Name No. North Downs Woodlands Peters Pit Queensdown Medway Estuary SAC SAC Warren SAC and Marshes SPA North Downs North Downs and Ramsar Woodlands Hailing Woodlands to Trottiscliffe Wouldham Escarpment to Detling Escarpment AA Tonbridge Farm 54 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AB North of Dryhil Park Road, Tonbridge 44 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AC SouthwestSouth-west Tonbridge 480 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AD South of Vauxhall Gardens, Tonbridge 61 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AE Coblands Nursery, Trench Road, Tonbridge 319 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AF Drayton Road Industrial Estate, Tonbridge 51 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AG East of Offham Road, West Malling 12 4.3 25.2 1.76.8 N/A N/A AH Rear of London Road and Town Hill, West Malling 110 6.5 1.53.8 3.0 6.9 N/A AI Lands at Howlands Allotments, Wrotham 39 6.2 3.4 4.2 N/A N/A AJ North of Fairfield R, Borough Green 16 6.1 2.9 3.8 N/A N/A Total 6834 Source:

323860 | 001 | C | January 2019

E015 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

3. Methodology

3.1 Summary of HRA Process The requirement for a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) arises under the provisions of the EC Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and its implementation in the UK under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’). Under Regulation 21 an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is required for a plan or project which, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, is likely to have a significant effect on a European site and is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the site.

UK Government policy (ODPM Circular 06/05) requires that ‘Ramsar sites’, designated under the Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat), are subject to the same provisions. All sites in the process of being designated (candidate or possible sites) are also considered in the same way as fully designated sites. The term ‘international site’ is used throughout this report to refer to all such sites (Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), and Ramsar sites, and those in the process of being designated (e.g. pSPA, cSAC, Sites of Community Importance (SCI)).

European Commission guidance (2001) on the Habitats Directive sets out four distinct stages for assessment under the Directive:

• Stage 1: Screening – Identification of Natura 2000/ European sites that are within a zone of influence of the proposed Strategy Significance test – the process which initially identifies the likely effects upon a Natura 2000 Site of a plan or project, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, and considers whether these effects are likely to be significant. • Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment – the detailed consideration of the effect on the Natura 2000 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 will be any adverse effects on the integrity of the Site. • Stage 3: Assessment of alternative solutions – the process which examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the plan or project that avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the Site. This stage may also identify alternatives to achieving the project objectives that have greater or lesser adverse effects on the integrity of the Site. • Stage 4: Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse effects cannot be avoided – an assessment of whether the development is necessary for Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) and, if so, of the compensatory measures needed to maintain the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network. By completing the stages of assessment that are required under the Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations, an audit trail is generated that clearly documents the decisions that are made and the rationale for them. This process shall be referred to as the Habitats Regulations Assessment.

HRA, and specifically the detailed Appropriate Assessment (AA) stage, supports a decision by a 'Competent Authority' as to whether a proposed plan or project would have an adverse effect on

17 E016 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

the “integrity” of an international site; ODPM (2005) takes this to mean “the coherence of the site’s ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified”.

Following the Sweetman case (ECJ Case C-323/17) mitigation measures (referred to in the judgment as measures which are intended to avoid or reduce effects) should be assessed within the framework of an AA, it is not permissible to take account of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on a European site at the screening stage. Therefore, mitigation has not been considered during the HRA Stage 1 Screening assessment.

The decision is based upon the implications of a plan on the conservation objectives of the site. These objectives set out the physical, chemical and biological thresholds, and limits of activity and disturbance, which must be met to maintain integrity. An adverse effect on integrity (AEOI) is likely to be one that results in a deterioration of conservation status with regard to the qualifying feature(s) for which it was designated.

The assessment of effects on international sites applies a reverse burden of proof - if any doubt exists as to the effect of policy (taking into account any necessary mitigation measures), then ‘no adverse effect on integrity’ (NAEOI) cannot be concluded. In this situation alternative solutions must be sought. Where feasible alternatives do not exist then the plan or project can only proceed on the basis of imperative reasons of over-riding public interest (IROPI). This must be agreed by the Secretary of State and compensatory measures to offset damage/loss and to maintain the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network (and Ramsar sites) must be secured and ecologically-functional in advance of the damage.

Consultation is required with the appropriate Government department throughout this process to ensure the overall integrity of the international site network is not detrimentally impacted.

3.2 Approach of this Report This HRA comprises the first two stages of this process, an HRA Stage 1 test of Likely Significant Effects and subsequent Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment, as required. Providing that it can be demonstrated that the plan would not give rise to an adverse effect on the integrity of a European site, the plan can proceed. In this case, it is not necessary to consider stages 3 and 4, which are collectively referred to as ‘derogation’.

The Stage 1 Screening contained within this report has utilised screening matrices based upon a table template taken from the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2009). This template has used as the basis to represent the screening data as it is a recognised, standard tool that allows for comparable and concise assessment.

This report provides information to allow TMBC to undertake an AA of the Development Strategy in their role as the Competent Authority, in accordance with Regulation 63(2) of the Habitats Regulations (refer to Section 1.1). While sections of this report focus on the strategic development sites, the TMBC Local Plan has been considered in its entirety within this HRA and all development sites have been included within this assessment.

3.3 Summary of Previous Assessments The conclusions of the previous iterations of the HRA for the TMBC Local Plan (September 2016 and May 2017) are summarised in Table 3.1 below. This table shows the potential impacts that previous assessments have concluded the emerging TMBC Local Plan could have on

18 E017 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

European sites as part of the Screening stage of the HRA. In doing so it has taken into consideration the information available on the nature of the sites and reasons for their respective designations, whilst having regard to the precautionary principle and the in- combination effects with other plans.

Through the screening process it was determined that significant effects due to the emerging local plan on the conservation objectives of any of the protected sites either within the borough or in close proximity due to recreational impact are unlikely. However, following consultation with Natural England, further assessment of the effect of recreation was undertaken. The consultation response from Natural England is in Appendix C of this report. The need for further work into the potential for significant effects on the European sites due to air quality was also identified within the previous iterations of the HRA and supported by Natural England.

Table 3-1 Conclusions of previous assessments

Designated Site Recreational Impact Air Quality

North Downs Woodland SAC No likely significant effect Further investigation required

Peters Pit SAC Screened out Screened out

Queendown Warren SAC Screened out No likely significant effect

Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA No likely significant effect Screened out and Ramsar

3.4 Natura 2000 Sites Within Study Area Briefly defined, pathways are routes by which a change in activity within the Local Plan area can lead to an effect upon a European site. There are two internationally designated sites located within TMBC:

• North Downs Woodland SAC; and, • Peters Pit SAC. There are three European sites within 7km of the borough boundary which have been included within the HRA:

• Queendown Warren Special Area Conservation (SAC);

• Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA); and,

• Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar site. Details of these European sites are outlined in Section 5.

3.5 Determining Likely Significant Effects The test of Likely Significant Effect (LSE) is identified through the first part of the HRA process as described in Section 3.1. The HRA Stage 1 test of Likely Significant Effects subsequently defines the scope for any Appropriate Assessment. In determining LSE, the following steps have been undertaken:

• Identification of the hazards potentially created by the implementation of the TMBC Local Plan; • Identification of the interest features potentially exposed to the hazards; and,

19 E018 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

• Consideration of the potential exposure to the hazard and whether there is likely to be a significant effect on the relevant interest feature. The key potential hazards were associated with:

• Air quality changes as a result of strategic development and associated traffic flow increases; • Recreational pressure as a result of increase strategic development; and, • Hydrological changes as a result of strategic development.

Although the potential for hydrological changes was not considered within previous iterations of the HRA, this has now been identified as a potential pathway and has therefore been included for completeness.

Relevant recent case law helps to interpret when effects should be considered as a likely significant within aan HRA of a strategic plan. In the Waddenzee case, the European Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive stating that an effect should be considered ‘likely’, “if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on the site” (para 44). An effect should be considered ‘significant’, “if it undermines the conservation objectives” (para 48). Where a plan or project has an effect on a site “but is not likely to undermine its conservation objectives, it cannot be considered likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned” (para 47).

A relevant opinion delivered to the Court of Justice of the European Union commented that:

“The requirement that an effect in question be ‘significant’ exists in order to lay down a de minimis threshold. Plans or projects that have no appreciable effect on the site are thereby excluded. If all plans or projects capable of having any effect whatsoever on the site were to be caught by Article 6(3), activities on or near the site would risk being impossible by reason of legislative overkill.”

This opinion allows for the authorisation of plans and projects whose potential effects, alone or in combination, can be considered ‘trivial’ or de minimis; referring to such cases as those “that have no appreciable effect on the site‟. In practice such effects could be screened out as ‘insignificant’, having no likely significant effect.

3.6 Other Plans and Projects that May Act In-Combination Local Plans for neighbouring Local Authorities have been considered for potential in- combination effects. These are summarised in Table 3.3 below.

In addition to development plans, consideration was also made of the potential in-combination effects of development projects that are in the planning system, but are not yet completed, and of a scale to be capable of leading to potential significant effects in-combination with the TMBC Local Plan. Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) within the vicinity of Tonbridge (primarily located along the M20 or the north-east Kent coastline) were assessed for in- combination effects. Due to the nature of the NSIPs in the vicinity it is not considered that in- combination effects would occur and are therefore not considered further within this assessment.

20 E019 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Table 3-2 Relevant local plans and policies that may act in combination with the TMBC Local Plan

Aims of the Document Broad review of elements of the Document that are relevant to this Conclusions of the Document HRA

Maidstone Borough Local Plan 2017

To set the framework for Development plans and pollution To establish impact and pathways development within the Borough, pathways are addressed here: the following measures are ensuring an appropriate balance suggested; • between industry, residential Additional housing, industry • housing, and green spaces, for the buildings and associated Surveys to be undertaken period 2011 – 2013. infrastructure required establishing habitats, species • Recreational pressures (flora / fauna), and other • Hydrological pathways conservation features prior to • Reduced air quality development approval • New developments to protect and enhance the natural environment • Further impact on designated sites and mitigation outlined in the Maidstone Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA)

Maidstone Local Plan HRA 2016

To identify any aspects of the Local Development plans laid out in To address these potential impacts, Plan that would have the potential to Maidstone Local Plan (2016) are the following recommendations are cause a likely significant effect on addressed here: made; designated sites and to devise • A. The working of policy DM3 appropriate mitigation strategies, for New residential development – (historic and natural the period 2011 – 2031. recreational pressures • Distance of major A roads – air development) be reworded to quality pathway ensure new developments will not be acceptable if they are considered to have significant adverse effects on internationals designations. B. It is noted that appropriate funding for maintenance at designated sites (North Downs Woodlands SAC) needs to continue at an appropriate level to mitigate for existing and future effects of residential development.

Medway Council Local Plan 2018

To identify elements of the Medway Development plans and pollution To ensure the local plan does not Local Plan that may have adverse pathways are addressed here: hinder designated sites from effects on designated sites and meeting their conservation • mitigate potential pathways for the Requirement to provide 37,143 objectives; period 2012 – 2035. new homes by 2035 • Urban development creating • Development plans with lowest recreational pressures potential impacts • Hydrological pathways recommended • Reduced air quality • Lowest impact arising from N deposition avoiding degradation of habitat

21 E020 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Aims of the Document Broad review of elements of the Document that are relevant to this Conclusions of the Document HRA

• Further impact on designated sites and mitigation outlined in the Medway Council Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA)

Medway Local Plan Development Strategy HRA 2018

To outline conservation of habitats Potential effects on the European To mitigate impact of proposed and species for the Medway Core sites are summarised; developments in Local Plan, the Strategy, considering influential following measures are suggested; • European Sites, for the period 2012 Reduced air quality • – 2035. • Reduced water levels and Monitoring air quality at or near quality proposed strategic sites • Increased recreational • Phasing and management of disturbance construction to minimise air • Habitat fragmentation and loss pollutants • New developments to require sustainable drainage systems and demonstrate adequate water supply and treatment facilities • Developments that would lead to habitat loss or fragmentation not to be permitted

Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy HRA 2012

To identify areas where major The core strategy highlights the To reduce effects of urban change is required, allocate key need for additional housing, the development the following mitigation sites for development, and character below effects are considered: strategies are proposed: areas for protection and • • enhancement, for the period 2011 – Recreational disturbance Additional recreation grounds 2031. • Decline in water levels & quality to be created • Existing green spaces and sport facilities to be enhanced • Restrictions on use of personal watercraft in the waterways • Provide sustainable drainage systems in new development areas • Build residential homes to the Code for Sustainable Homes in terms of water use • Build non-residential developments to BREEAM excellent standards

Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2014

The extension of quarry and landfill The plan makes broad suggestions sites within Kent have the potential to mitigate effects of proposed to result in the following effects: developments:

• Reduced air quality • Materials used to be environmentally friendly Noise pollution – during construction • Location of any works to be agreed based of lowest possible impact on environmental value • Features lost to be reinstated

22 E021 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Aims of the Document Broad review of elements of the Document that are relevant to this Conclusions of the Document HRA

The Swale Borough Local Plan 2017

To outline the economic, social and The plan discusses effects of local To mitigate effects of local environmental prospects for the development including: development the plan suggests: Swale Borough, and consider • • management of natural assets, for Recreational pressures Development locations to be the period; 2014 – 2031. • Reduced air placed on sites with lowest possible impact • Sustainable materials to be used • Sustainable waste management processes to be used

Swale Borough Local Plan HRA 2015 and 2016

To identify any aspects of the Local Potential effects on the European The Council does not intend to Plan that would cause an adverse sites are summarised; undertake an Appropriate effect on the integrity of Natura 2000 Assessment of the Local Plan and • sites, otherwise known as European Reduced air quality concludes that an adequate policy sites SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites, • Reduced water resources framework is in place to ensure that either in isolation or in combination • Increased recreational pressure the Local Plan will not lead to a with other plans and projects; Likely Significant Effect on European sites either alone or in combination To advise on appropriate policy with other projects and plans. mechanisms for delivering mitigation where such effects are identified.

To update the HRA following changes in allocated development sites and major changes to policy wording

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Core Strategy 2007

To set out the social, economic, and The strategy discusses the need for Aims to reduce adverse impacts and environmental needs of the Borough additional residential and industrial ensure sustainable development and delivery through sustainable buildings, potentially resulting in the include: developments plans, for the period following effects: • 2007 – 2021. Concentrating development on • Recreational pressures on previously used or damaged green spaces and waterways land • Increased traffic flow from • Improving public transport increased number of residents services to reduce traffic flow and employees in the industrial • Optimise use of renewable developments energy sources • Use of sustainable construction techniques • Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

3.7 Other Plans of Relevance The table below (Table 3.4) shows further management and summary plans for designated sites that may have relevance to the Local Plan and this HRA which have been considered within this report.

23 E022 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Table 3-3 Relevant documents that may have relevance to the TMBC Local Plan and this HRA

Broad review of elements of the Document that are relevant to this Aims of the Document Conclusions of the Document HRA

Boxley Warren Local Nature Reserve Summary Plan 2012

To outline local designation, Issues with recreational impact are Management methods are habitats, flora, fauna and herein addressed (historic and present discussed to maintain natural management policies adopted to day), including; features; maintain quality of all the • • aforementioned, for the period 2012 Off-road cycling and motorcycling Grazing – 2017. • Fly tipping • Coppicing • Pedestrians and dog walkers Plans for enhancement include;

• Encourage wildlife connectivity within site and to others nearby • Wildlife surveys to establish knowledge on species present • Install new fences to protect boundary • Engage community & raise awareness

Holly Hill Woodland Management Plan 2010

To outline objectives and methods Issues relating to anti-social To reduce effects of recreational for sustainable forest management, behaviour, resulting in pressures, the following in line with the vision for recreational pressures include: management techniques are maintaining biodiversity, landscape suggested: • and public access, for the period Illegal access from off-road • 2010 – 2019. vehicles Access improvements • Pedestrians and dog preventing entrance of walkers vehicles • Community wardens patrolling site at evenings and weekends • Dog deposit bins to be installed and maintained • Continue coppicing regime to maintain soil structure and encourage regeneration

24 E023 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

4. Pathways of Impact

4.1 Introduction The following potential pathways of impact are discussed below; habitat fragmentation and loss, disturbance, reductions in air quality, reduction in water quality, changes to hydrological regime or water levels. The potential for these pathways to lead to impacts upon the European sites was assessed and those scoped in have been assessed on a site by site basis in Section 5.

4.2 Direct Habitat/ Species Fragmentation and Loss The TMBC Local Plan does not propose direct land take within European sites, and development site allocations have avoided designated sites of international, national and local importance, along with areas of ancient woodland and priority habitats. However, there is potential for land take of habitats located outside the designated site which support qualifying features of the designated sites. This is of particular importance for the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar, part of the Greater Thames complex, which are designated for diversity of bird species. These bird species will utilise a wide range of habitat types and locations, outside those core areas contained within the SPA and Ramsar designation. Therefore, the strategic sites proposed by the TMBC local plan could support habitats of functional importance to qualifying species of European sites.

An assessment of the functional land associated with the European sites has been undertaken, utilising the Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s) associated with these sites (Table 4.1). One strategic site is located within the IRZ of Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar. There are three strategic developments within the IRZ of North Downs Woodlands SAC and Peter’s Pit SAC, and one within the IRZ for Queendown Warren SAC.

Although the strategic developments are within the IRZ for North Downs Woodlands, only Bushey Wood is considered to be within close proximity (within approximately 2km). As the strategic site, nor the site at Rear of Robin Hood Lane, Bluebell Hill, will not result in the loss of beech forest, for which the North Downs Woodlands SAC is designated for, no fragmentation or loss of habitats or species is anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan.

Similarly, no loss of calcareous grassland or scrub habitats, qualifying features of Queendown Woodland SAC, will be lost as a result of the Bushey Wood strategic site and therefore, or the sites at Rear of Robin Hood Lane, Bluebell Hill or Rear of London Road and Town Hill, West Malling. Therefore, no fragmentation or loss of habitats or species is anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan.

The three strategic sites within the IRZ of Peter’s Pit SAC are in excess of 1.5km from the designated site. Similarly, the site at Bell lane, Burham is over 1.3km from Peter’s Pit. Therefore, these sites are considered to be outside of the dispersal range of great crested newts, the qualifying feature of the SAC, and no fragmentation or loss of habitats or species is anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan.

The Bushey Wood strategic site is also located within the IRZ of Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar is the. As this site consists predominantly of arable fields it is considered unlikely to be a supporting habitat for bird species for which the European site is designated and therefore will not result in fragmentation or loss of habitats or species is anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan. In addition. However, there are no RSPB reserves where SPA/Ramsar species are recorded in the vicinity of Bushey Wood. The Bird Wise North Kent Mitigation Strategy (2018) applies a buffer of 6km around the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar (and others). Although the key concern of that report is recreational pressure, it suggests that habitats over 6km from the Greater

25 E024 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Thames Complex are not of significant importance to the bird species that are qualifying features of the European sites. An increase in residential dwellings would be highly likely to increase the cat population within the locality, which could detrimentally impact the population dynamics of qualifying species both within and immediately adjacent to a European site designated for bird species. However, as the strategic sites are a substantial distance from Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar (10km) it is considered unlikely that cats would travel that distance and therefore this is not considered to be a possible effect of the TMBC Local Plan.In addition, the habitats present within the Bushey Wood strategic site are unlikely to provide functional connected habitats for bird species for which the SPA and Ramsar are designated due to infrastructure, such as the M2, and urbanisation between the designated site and Bushey Wood likely influencing bird movements. It is considered that these built up areas are not attractive to bird species for foraging or nesting and will negatively influence flight paths. For example, species will more likely follow a river corridor than fly over urban areas, thereby increasing the distance between the SPA and Bushey Wood. This rationale also applies to the non-strategic development sites, as the development sites are over 7km from the European sites and barriers to dispersal are present in the intervening distance. Therefore, as this site is a substantial distance from Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar (10km) it is not considered that fragmentation or loss of habitats or species will occur due to the TMBC Local Plan.

Additionally, the TMBC Local Plan identifies Green Infrastructure and Ecological Networks, and Policy LP19 Habitat Protection and Creation seeks to strengthen these networks. Therefore, severance of green corridors or limiting the movement of those species which are primary qualifying features of the designated sites is not considered to occur as a result of the plan or in-combination effects with adjacent local plans.

Considering the above, fragmentation or loss of habitats or species within or of key importance to European sites as a result of the TMBC Local Plan is not considered further within this report.

Table 4-1 Strategic Sites located within European Site Impact Risk Zones

SSSI Impact Risk Strategic Development Site Zone

Bushey Wood South Borough Green Broadwater SouthwestS Aylesford Farm, Kings outh-west Hill Tonbridge

North Downs Yes Yes Yes No No Woodlands SAC Peter’s Pit SAC Yes Yes No Yes No Queendown Yes No No No No Warren SAC Medway Estuary Yes No No No No and Marshes SPA and Ramsar

4.3 Disturbance Many of the European sites within the Tonbridge and Malling Borough are sensitive to disturbance by increased recreational pressure. In particular, the North Downs Woodland SAC which lies within Tonbridge and Malling Borough, and partly within Maidstone and Gravesham Boroughs and within 1.5km of the Medway Unitary Authority, has been described as particularly vulnerable to disturbance by anti-social behaviour.

26 E025 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Similarly, the large number of wading birds within Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar are sensitive to disturbance through increased visitor numbers, The Bird Wise North Kent Mitigation Strategy (2018) outlines that dogs off leads are responsible for a significant number of flight events which disrupt wading bird feeing behaviour, forcing the birds to expend significant amounts of energy. The strategy provides several mitigation recommendations for reducing disturbance to the wading birds, including: greater public engagement through an increased wardening service, this would advocate more responsible use of areas such as Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar, the launch of “A North Kent Dog Project” which would set out a code of conduct for dog walkers via a website and site specific access enhancements, such as new footpaths and signage to divert visitors away from sensitive feeding habitat. The resource for this strategy will be funded by developer contributions for dwellings within 6km of the North Kent Marshes, in recognition that a rising local population could be detrimental to these protected sites. Although this agreement does not apply to TMBC (due to the distance of the borough from the European site), the strategy is relevant to the consideration of potential increases in recreational pressure due to the TMBC Local Plan.

‘Significant’ disturbance is defined by The Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) as:

“Disturbance should be judged as significant if an action (alone or in combination with other effects) impacts on (water)birds in such a way as to be likely to cause impacts on populations of a species through either

• changed local distribution on a continuing basis; and/or • changed local abundance on a sustained basis; and/or • the reduction of ability of any significant group of birds to survive, breed, or rear their young.” (Fox and Madsen, 1997) As suggested above, greater recreational usage such as an increase in dog walkers and cyclists can have detrimental impacts on a site. Increase in dog-fouling can locally increase the nutrient levels at a site and could potentially alter the sites floristic characteristics, particularly on those with uncompetitive specialist species. Furthermore, increased footfall can contribute to the wearing of access tracks (formal or otherwise) and exacerbate general erosive damage to specialist habitats within the designated site.

Elevated traffic volumes on the roads immediately surrounding the European sites has the potential to increase noise disturbance to habitats on the road periphery of European sites.

Due to the distancedistances between strategicdevelopment and European sites, the potential effects of increased light and noise pollution generated by the development of the strategic sites themselves is not considered to result in impacts to the European sites and is not considered further within this report.

No disturbance of Queendown Warren SAC is anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan, due to the distance of the European site from strategic sites (the closest being over 9km from the SAC), and the distance of the SAC from roads (closest road is over 300m from the SAC). Therefore, this is not considered further within this report.

4.4 Reduction in Air Quality Where a European designated site is within 200m of a road, the site’s quality could be impacted by a reduction in air quality. Nitrogen oxides have the potential to contribute to altered deposition rates and impact ground flora. Therefore, where a European site is located within 200m of a main road it has been subject to a complete air quality assessment, contained with two separate reports (see the

27 E026 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

HRA Stage 1 and Stage 2: Air Quality reports in Appendix A and B). Therefore, the significance of potential impacts due to air quality are not assessed within this report.

4.5 Reduction in Water Quality There is potential for adverse effects as a result of a reduction in water quality where hydrological connections exist between European sites and strategic sites contained within the TMBC Local Plan. The generation of runoff from newly urbanised surfaces has the potential to carry a suite of contaminants including heavy metals, major nutrients (e.g. sodium, nitrate and phosphorus), litter and rubber residue from roads (Tong and Chen 2002). Where hydrological connections allow, this could lead to a detrimental impact upon qualifying habitat features and species within European sites. The magnitude of the impact is likely to depend on the hydrological connection itself, including the underlying bedrock and draining capability within and immediately surrounding the strategic or European sites. The potential for impacts to water quality have therefore been screened into the assessment where there is a hydrological connection between a development site or the road network connected to proposed development sites.

4.6 Changes to Water Levels and Site Hydrology An expanding urban landscape will have a demonstrable impact upon the surrounding hydrological regime. The TMBC Local Plan’s impact on hydrological dynamics is likely to be complex. Sites which rely upon the water table level to support their qualifying features could therefore be directly impacted by the Local Plan. This is particularly true of Peter’s Pit SAC where the site’s qualifying feature is the population of great crested newts which rely upon the waterbodies within the site as breeding habitat. Great crested newts exhibit meta-population dynamics, and therefore are likely to use a number of waterbodies to support a large newt population. These ponds are thought to be a mixture of ground fed and rain-fed water bodies (although predominantly rain-fed); therefore, alteration of the hydrological integrity within this SAC could have significant consequences for the quality of ponds habitat on site, and the connectivity of suitable habitat for the qualifying species.

4.7 Screening Pathways Summary Table 4.2 contains a summary of the European designated sites and the relevant pathways of impact which are likely to have a detrimental effect on the sites qualifying features.

Table 4-2 Impact Pathways Considered within the Local Plan

European Disturbance Disturbance Air Water Hydrology Direct (Recreational) (light and Quality Quality Habitat/ Designated noise) Species Site Fragmen tation

North Downs Scoped in Scoped in Scoped Scoped out Scoped out Scoped out Woodlands SAC out (Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment)

North Downs Scoped in Scoped in Scoped in Scoped out Scoped out Scoped out Woodlands SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment)

Peter’s Pit SAC Scoped in Scoped in Scoped in Scoped out Scoped in Scoped out

Queendown Scoped in Scoped out Scoped Scoped out Scoped out Scoped out Warren SAC out

28 E027 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

European Disturbance Disturbance Air Water Hydrology Direct (Recreational) (light and Quality Quality Habitat/ Designated noise) Species Site Fragmen tation

Medway Estuary Scoped in Scoped in Scoped in Scoped out Scoped in Scoped out and Marshes SPA and Ramsar

29 E028 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

5. Stage 1 Screening

5.1 Introduction The following Stage 1 Screening (contained in Section 5.3.) has been produced to assess the potential effects resulting from the TMBC Local Plan on European sites and their qualifying features. The assessment includes an appraisal of any other plans or projects which, in combination with the proposed development, might be likely to have a significant effect on the European sites. Should it not be possible to rule out any likely significant effects, then the next stage of HRA, a Stage 2 - Appropriate Assessment will be undertaken.

The Screening has been carried out considering the following effects that might lead to significant effects on the identified European sites:

• Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation; • Disturbance to key species; • Emissions and other effects on water; and, • Air pollution.

5.2 Screening of Policies The components of the Local Plan have been screened against the potential impact pathways identified in Section 4 due to the potential for significant effects on the European sites identified in Section 3. The screening of policies within the TMBC Local Plan – Publication (Regulation 19) September 2018 document can be found in Appendix D.

A summary of the Policies within TMBC Local Plan screened in for further consideration are listed in Table 5.1 below. Where policies have been screened in, the potential for the policies to impact the designated sites have been considered based on increased visitor numbers and potential effects on Recreational Pressure. As for air quality, the impacts of the policies on additional vehicle movement has been considered, where possible, within the traffic data used within the assessment.

Table 5-1 Summary Screening of TMBC Local Plan Policies Potential Impact Pathways

Policy Ref Recreational Pressure Air Quality Hydrological Impacts LP3: Housing provision Yes Yes No LP4: Economic provision No Yes No LP5: Settlement hierarchy Yes Yes No LP6: Rural exception sites Yes Yes No LP8: Retail development No Yes No LP10: Infrastructure requirements No Yes No LP25: Housing allocations – overview Yes Yes No LP27: Strategic Site – Bushey Wood, Yes Yes No Eccles LP28: Strategic Site – South Aylesford Yes Yes No LP29: Strategic Site – Borough Green Yes Yes Yes gardens LP30: Strategic Site – Broadwater Farm, Yes Yes No north of Kings Hill LP31: Strategic Site – south-west No Yes Yes Tonbridge

30 E029 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Potential Impact Pathways LP32: Safeguarded land Yes Yes No LP33: Areas of opportunity Yes Yes No LP34: Employment sites and land No Yes No LP35: Employment land: former Aylesford No Yes No newsprint site LP36: Employment land allocations No Yes No LP37: Other employment land No Yes No opportunities

5.3 Relevant Conservation Objectives and Favourable Condition Criteria Conservation objectives are Natural England’s statutory advice to operators and competent authorities, and are used as the baseline against which possible damaging operations are evaluated. They outline the detailed habitat and environmental conditions necessary to maintain or restore favourable condition of site features and site integrity. Conservation objectives thus serve as the basis for evaluation under the Habitats Regulations. In determining significant effects, Natural England’s Conservation Objectives along with the accompanying Supplementary Advice documents (where applicable) have been reviewed for each of the Natura 2000 sites.

Natural England produce Favourable Condition Tables (FCT) have been used to inform the assessment of impact on the Natura 2000 sites. The FCT’s set out standards for favourable condition of a SSSI associated with each Natura 2000 site. These are defined with particular reference to the specific designated features and are based on a selected set of attributes for features which most effectively define favourable condition. When the features of each SSSI’s unit meet these attributes, they are said to be in ‘favourable condition’.

The vulnerability of the sites has also been assessed by reviewing Site Improvement Plans (SIP). SIP’s have been developed for each Natura 2000 site in England as part of the Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 sites. The plans provide a high-level overview of the issues (both current and predicted) affecting the condition of the Natura 2000 features on the site(s) and outlines the priority measures required to improve the condition of the features.

– Conservation Objectives Natural England has developed conservation objectives for each Natura 2000 site, these are outlined below.

• North Downs Woodlands SAC Natural England Conservation objectives for the site are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, by maintaining or restoring;

• The extent and distribution of the qualifying natural habitats; • The structure and function (including typical species) of the qualifying natural habitats; and, • The supporting processes on which the qualifying natural habitats rely.

• Peter’s Pit SAC Natural England Conservation objectives for the site are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, by maintaining or restoring;

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of qualifying species; • The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species;

31 E030 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

• The supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely; • The populations of qualifying species, and, • The distribution of qualifying species within the site. In addition, Natural England provides supplementary advice for Peter’s Pit SAC, which sets out targets with supporting/explanatory notes. These relate specifically to Peter’s Pit SAC, and specify the habitat suitability, number of ponds, condition of ponds and terrestrial habitat, extent of habitat, soil types and levels of air pollutants that should be maintained.

• Queendown Warren SAC Natural England Conservation objectives for the site are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, by maintaining or restoring;

• The extent and distribution of the qualifying natural habitats; • The structure and function (including typical species) of the qualifying natural habitats; and, • The supporting processes on which the qualifying natural habitats rely.

• Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA Natural England Conservation objectives for the site are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring;

• The extent and distribution of the habitats of qualifying species; • The structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species; • The supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely; • The populations of qualifying species; and, • The distribution of qualifying species within the site. As the SPA is a part of the Swale & Medway European Marine Site (EMS) the Conservation Objectives should be used in conjunction with the Regulation 33 Conservation Advice document for the EMS. The conservation objective for the marine component of the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA are:

• Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the internationally important populations of regularly occurring Annex 1 bird species, under the Bird Directive, in particular: o Shingle Beaches; o Shallow Coastal Water; o Intertidal Mudflats; and, o Intertidal Saltmarsh. • Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the international important populations of regularly occurring migratory bird species, under the Bird Directive, in particular: o Intertidal Mudflats; and, o Intertidal Saltmarsh. • Subject to natural change, maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the international important assemblage of waterfowl, under the Bird Directive, in particular: o Shallow Coastal Water; o Intertidal Mudflats; and,

32 E031 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

o Intertidal Saltmarsh. • The extent and distribution of the qualifying natural habitats; • The structure and function (including typical species) of the qualifying natural habitats; and, • The supporting processes on which the qualifying natural habitats rely.

In addition, Natural England provides supplementary advice for Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA, which sets out targets with supporting/explanatory notes. These relate specifically to this SPA and specify the targets for breeding and non-breeding bird assemblages diversity and abundance, species specific abundance, maintaining habitat connectivity, function and extent, levels of air pollutants, water quality and reducing disturbance caused by human activity.

For Ramsar sites, a decision has been made by Defra and Natural England not to produce Conservation Advice packages, instead focussing on the production of High Level Conservation Objectives. As the provisions on the Habitats Regulations relating to Habitat Regulations Assessments (HRAs) extend to Ramsar sites, Natural England considers the Conservation Advice packages for the overlapping European Marine Site designations to be, in most cases, sufficient to support the management of the Ramsar interests. For Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar the conservation objectives and vulnerability of the SPA, as outlined in above, are considered relevant to the Ramsar site.

– Consideration of Site Integrity Government guidance defines the integrity of a site as ‘the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified’ (ODPM, 2005).

An adverse effect on integrity is likely to be one that prevents the site from maintaining at least the same contribution to favourable conservation status (as defined in the Habitats Directive) for the relevant feature as it did at the time of its designation.

The assessment, therefore, determines if any of the hazards have the potential to adversely affect the achievement of the conservation objectives of any Natura 2000 interest feature, either directly or indirectly through an effect on the ecological structure and/or function of the site.

5.4 Screening Matrices A screening matrix for each of the European Sites scoped in to the HRA are presented below. The screening matrices are based on the table template taken from Annex C: Screening Matrix, DMRB Volume 11 Section 4 Part 1 HS 44/09. The following matrices draw upon the findings of the screening of policies within Appendix D, and the potential impact pathways identified in Section 4.

– North Downs Woodlands SAC

Plan or project name: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council HRA Natura 2000 Sites under consideration: North Downs Woodlands SAC (as the SAC is in two parts, the titles of the associated SSSIs are used to differentiate the two- Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment SSSI and Wouldham to Detling Escarpment SSSI) Date: 04/01/2019 Author: CD Verified: SW Description of project and plan: Size and scale of plan TMBC Local plan states a net requirement of 6834 dwellings by

2031 across the development sites.

33 E032 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Land-take No land-take would be required from the North Downs Woodlands SAC. Distance from the European Site or key There are four strategic developments either fully within 7km or features of the site (from edge of the partly within 7km of the SAC; Bushey Wood, South Aylesford, project assessment corridor) Borough Green and Broadwater Farm with a total of 4445 residential units. A total of 18 smaller development sites, with a total housing allocations of a total of 898 units, are within 7km of the SAC. The Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment section of the SAC (Grid reference TQ680641) is located 4.3km north-west of the purposed Bushey wood development, 6.6km north west of the Borough Green development, 6.9km north west of South Aylesford development and 5.8km north of Broadwater Farm, Kings Hill development with a total pf 4445 residential units. There are a total of 17 smaller development sites with a total of 780 units. The Wouldham to Detling Escarpment section of the SAC (Grid reference TQ770599) is located 2.2km east of the purposed Bushey Wood development and 3.3km north east of the South Aylesford development with a total of 1900 units. There are 17 smaller sites with a total of 883 units.

The location of the SAC and strategic sites is presented in Appendix E. Resource requirements (from the There are no resource requirements from the European Site. European Site or from areas in proximity to the site, where of relevance to consideration of impacts) Emissions (e.g. polluted surface water The site is situated on a steep chalk escarpment on free draining runoff – both soluble and insoluble soil. As such, there are no hydrological links between the site and pollutant, atmospheric pollution) any of the Local Plans developments. The Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment section of the SAC lies within 200m of several minor roads or lanes. However, as these are small rural roads and the nearest develop site is 4.3km away, there is not anticipated to be any significant increase in traffic along these roads and air quality is unlikely to be negatively impacted.

As the closest point of the Wouldham to Detling Escarpment section is 200m of the A229, there is potential for increased air pollution at this section of the SAC. Stand-alone air quality reports for Stages 1 and 2 of this HRA can be found in Appendix A and B. Excavation requirements (e.g. impacts of No excavation works would be required within or adjacent to local hydrogeology) North Downs Woodlands SAC. Characteristics of European Site Name of European Site and its EU code North Downs Woodlands UK0030225 European Site size 288.58Ha. Key features of the European Site The site comprises 63% mature Beech forest, 23% coniferous including the primary reasons for selection woodland featuring notable mature yew stands and 14% dry and any other qualifying interests calcareous grassland cover, which are of particular importance to orchids. Qualifying features: • Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles (Yew- dominated woodland) (priority habitat) • Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests (Beech forests on neutral to rich soils)

34 E033 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

• Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone) Vulnerability of the European Site The latest condition assessment of the associated SSSI’s found the SAC to be in predominantly favourable condition, or unfavourable-recovering. However, units of the sites are in unfavourable-no change or unfavourable-declining condition. The following threats have been identified as negative threats/ pressures of high importance to the conservation status of the SAC, as identified in the in the Natura 2000 data form and the Site Improvement Plan: • Invasive species • Air pollution: impact of atmospheric nitrogen deposition • Public access/ recreational disturbance • Forestry and woodland management Assessment criteria Individual elements of the Plan likely to give rise to impacts on the European site. Significant impacts from reduced air quality are possible in the Wouldham to Detling Escarpment SSSI section of the SAC as the A249 and A229 both run within 200m. No significant effects from air quality are anticipated in the Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment SSSI section as no major roads run within 200m of the site. Air Quality is discussed in detail in the stand-alone Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports in Appendix A and B. An increase in local residences could increase the number of visitors using the site recreationally. Recreational pressure has been identified as a high-level threat to the quality of habitats within the SAC. Both sections of the SAC have multiple public footpaths running through them, including the North Downs Way.

Initial assessments for North Downs Woodlands SAC (Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment SSSI) and North Downs Woodlands SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment SSSI) are presented separately below. Likely changes to the key characteristics of the site and the details of the European site arising as a result of: North Downs Woodlands SAC (Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment SSSI) Reduction of habitat area The strategic sites are not anticipated to result in a reduction in the habitat area of the European site, and land take is not proposed as part of the TMBC Local Plan. Disturbance to key species Recreational pressure is one of four threats highlighted as high importance to the conservation of the SAC. An increase in local residents could: • Increase dog- walkers which may lead to an increase in nutrients deposited on the site due to increased defecation rates • Increased trampling may disturb woodland and grassland ground flora • Increased visitor numbers may increase litter and fly tipping • Increased anti-social behaviour such as motor- cycling within the SAC, potentially decreasing the quality of the habitats within the site • Erosions of the thin soils within the SAC may reduce the distribution of key species Habitat or species fragmentation Land take within the SAC, connected habitats or supporting functional beech woodland will not occur as a result of the TMBC Local Plan, therefore no fragmentation of habitats or species will occur.

35 E034 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Reduction in species density No reduction in density of species associated with the SAC are anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan. Changes in key indicators of conservation North Downs Woodlands SAC (Halling to Trottiscliffe value (water quality, etc.) Escarpment SSSI) is comprised of free-draining chalk soils and is situated at the top of steep escarpments. Therefore, due to the substrate and its elevated position within the landscape, the site is not considered sensitive to hydrological changes. Therefore, no changes in key indicators of conservation value are anticipated. Climate change A changing climate (rising global temperatures, more extreme weather events and changes to sea levels) is likely to further exacerbate the potential impacts detailed above. Expanding urban populations invariably contribute to climate change and therefore must be assessed as part of this HRA. The site’s resilience to the impacts of climate change could be decreased as a result of the recreational pressures and reduction in habitat quality as a result of activities linked to the local plan. Likely impacts on the European site as a whole in terms of: Interference with the key relationships that Soil structure could be damaged by increased visitor usage and define the structure of the site anti-social behaviour. Interference with key relationships that The structure and diversity of the beech forest could be damaged define the function of the site. by increased visitor usage and anti-social behaviour, disrupting the function and integrity of the SAC. Significance as a result of the identification of impacts set out above in terms of: Reduction of habitat area No likely significant effects. Disturbance to key species Potential for significant effects as a result of recreational impacts. Habitat or species fragmentation No likely significant effects. Change to key elements of the site (e.g. No likely significant effects. water quality, hydrological regime, etc.)

Potential for likely significant effects: Outcome of screening stage Recreational pressure cannot be screened out and a Stage 2 AA has been undertaken. Are the appropriate statutory Previous Natural England correspondence can be found in environmental bodies in agreement with Appendix C. this conclusion? This updated HRA has not been fully reviewed by Natural England but has been updated upon their advice.

North Downs Woodlands SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment SSSI) Reduction of habitat area The development sites are not anticipated to result in a reduction in the habitat area of the European site, and land take is not proposed as part of the TMBC Local Plan. Changes in air quality have the potential to alter species composition and cause habitat degradation but is unlikely to directly cause a reduction in habitat area.

Disturbance to key species Development of Masterplan areas at South Aylesford and Bushey Wood Eccles could increase traffic on the strategic road networks within 200m. Increased levels of nitrogen deposition (as a result of increased traffic volumes) may lead to adverse impacts upon the grassland and woodland on site. Further assessment has been undertaken on the potential significant

36 E035 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

effects of changes in air quality, see Stage 1 and Stage 2: Air Quality Reports in Appendix A and B for more details.

Recreational pressure is one of four threats highlighted as high importance to the conservation of the SAC. An increase in local residents could: • Increase dog- walkers which may lead to an increase in nutrients deposited on the site due to increased defecation rates • Increased trampling may disturb woodland and grassland ground flora • Increased visitor numbers may increase litter and fly tipping • Increased anti-social behaviour such as motor- cycling within the SAC, potentially decreasing the quality of the habitats within the site • Erosions of the thin soils within the SAC may reduce the distribution of key species Habitat or species fragmentation Land take within the SAC, connected habitats or supporting functional beech woodland will not occur as a result of the TMBC Local Plan, therefore no fragmentation of habitats or species will occur. Reduction in species density The Stage 1 air quality screening found that levels of air pollutants at North Downs Woodlands SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment SSSI) currently exceed the critical load for nitrogen deposition within mixed woodlands. The likely increases to atmospheric particulate matter as a result of the Local Plan could reduce the floristic diversity within the grassland sward, whilst erosive damage by increased trampling could reduce the suitability of soils, reducing the viable habitat area and the diversity of species within the SAC. Appendix A and B contain the Stage 1 and 2: Air Quality reports for the TMBC Local Plan. Changes in key indicators of conservation North Downs Woodlands SAC (Wouldham to Detling value (water quality, etc.) Escarpment SSSI) comprises free-draining chalk soil and is situated at the top of steep escarpments. Therefore, due to the substrate and its elevated position within the landscape, the site is not considered sensitive to hydrological changes. Therefore, no changes in key indicators of conservation value are anticipated. Climate change A changing climate (rising global temperatures, more extreme weather events and changes to sea levels) is likely to further exacerbate the potential impacts detailed above. Expanding urban populations invariably contribute to climate change and therefore must be assessed as part of this HRA. The site’s resilience to the impacts of climate change could be decreased as a result of the recreational pressures and reduction in habitat quality as a result of activities linked to the local plan. Likely impacts on the European site as a whole in terms of: Interference with the key relationships that Soil structure could be damaged by increased visitor usage, define the structure of the site anti-social behaviour and decrease air quality. Interference with key relationships that The structure and diversity of the beech forest could be define the function of the site. damaged by increased visitor usage and anti-social behaviour, disrupting the function and integrity of the SAC. Significance as a result of the identification of impacts set out above in terms of: Reduction of habitat area Potential for significant effects as a result of changes in air quality.

37 E036 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Disturbance to key species Potential for significant effects as a result of recreational impacts. Habitat or species fragmentation No likely significant effects. Change to key elements of the site (e.g. This section of the North Downs Woodlands SAC lies within water quality, hydrological regime, etc.) 200m of the affected road network that is anticipated to see an increase in volume of traffic due to development of the Bushey wood and South Aylesford strategic sites. As such, there is potential for decreased air quality and an increase in nitrogen deposition. Refer to the Stage 1 and Stage 2: Air Quality Reports in Appendix A and B for more details. Potential for likely significant effects: Recreational pressure cannot be screened out and a Stage Outcome of screening stage 2 AA has been undertaken. Changes in air quality cannot be screened out and a Stage 2 AA has been undertaken. Are the appropriate statutory Previous Natural England correspondence can be found in environmental bodies in agreement with Appendix C. this conclusion? This updated HRA has not been fully reviewed by Natural England but has been updated upon their advice.

– Peters Pit SAC

Plan or project name: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council HRA Natura 2000 Sites under consideration: Peter’s Pit SAC Date: 04/01/2019 Author: DL Verified: SW Description of project and plan: Size and scale of plan TMBC Local plan states a net requirement of 6834 dwellings by 2031 across the development sites. Land-take No land-take would be required from the North Downs Woodlands SAC.

Distance from the European Site or key Three strategic sites are within 7km of Peter’s Pit SAC: Bushey features of the site (from edge of the Wood 1.7km to the south, South Aylesford 4.9km to the south project assessment corridor) and Broadwater Farm 6.5km to the south-west with a total allocation of 2725 units. A total of 16 smaller development sites, with a total housing allocation of 136 units are within 7km of the SAC. The location of the SAC is presented in Appendix E. Resource requirements (from the There are no resource requirements from the European Site. European Site or from areas in proximity to the site, where of relevance to consideration of impacts)

Emissions (e.g. polluted surface water Although Peter’s Pit SAC sits on a Principal Aquifer it is not runoff – both soluble and insoluble hydrologically linked to the Bushey Wood strategic site. There is pollutant, atmospheric pollution) no potential pathway for contaminated materials to flow from Bushey Wood to Peter’s Pit through polluted surface run-off. Broadwater Farm, Kings Hill and South Aylesford are not hydrologically connected to the SAC. The site at Bell Lane, Burham is within the same principal aquifer as Peter’s Pit SAC.

As the closest point of the SAC is within 200m of the affected road network for the TMBC Local Plan, there is potential for increased air pollution at this section of the SAC. Stand alone air

38 E037 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

quality reports for Stages 1 and 2 of this HRA can be found in Appendix A and B.

Excavation requirements (e.g. impacts of No excavation works would be required within or adjacent to the local hydrogeology) SAC. Characteristics of European Site(s) Name of European Site and its EU code Peter’s Pit SAC UK0030237 European Site size 28.91Ha Key features of the European Site The site has been designated for its large breeding population including the primary reasons for selection of Great crested newt, Triturus cristatus. and any other qualifying interests Vulnerability of the European Site No issues have been identified at Peter’s Pit SAC (JNCC). The associated SSSI’s latest condition assessment found the site to be in favourable conservation status at all units. Assessment criteria Individual elements of the project likely to give rise to impacts on the European site. Significant impacts from reduced air quality are possible at Peter’s Pit SAC. Air Quality is discussed in detail in the stand-alone Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports in Appendix A and B. An increase in local residences may increase the number of visitors using the site recreationally. Initial assessment Likely changes to the key characteristics of the site and the details of the European site arising as a result of: Reduction of habitat area The development sites are not anticipated to result in a reduction in the habitat area of the European site, and land take is not proposed as part of the TMBC Local Plan. Changes in air quality have the potential to alter species composition and cause habitat degradation but is unlikely to directly cause a reduction in habitat area.

Disturbance to key species Development of Masterplan areas at South Aylesford, Broadwater Farm, Kings Hill and Bushey Wood could increase traffic on the strategic road networks within 200m. Increased levels of nitrogen deposition (as a result of increased traffic volumes) my lead to adverse impacts upon the grassland and woodland on site. Further assessment has been undertaken on the potential significant effects of changes in air quality, see Stage 1 and Stage 2: Air Quality Reports in Appendix A and B for more details.

Although no PRoW exists across the site, there is the potential for an increase in recreational pressure from members of the public associated with Bushey Wood. An increase in local residents could: • Increase dog- walkers which may lead to an increase in nutrients deposited on the site due to increased defecation rates • Increased trampling may disturb woodland and grassland ground flora • Increased visitor numbers may increase litter and fly tipping • Increased anti-social behaviour such as motor- cycling within the SAC, potentially decreasing the quality of the habitats within the site Erosions of the thin soils within the SAC may reduce the distribution of key species

39 E038 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Habitat or species fragmentation Land take within the SAC, connected habitats or supporting functional beech woodland will not occur as a result of the TMBC Local Plan, therefore no fragmentation of habitats or species will occur. Reduction in species density The Stage 1 air quality screening found that levels of air pollutants at Peter’s Pit SAC currently exceed the critical load the habitats present. The likely increases to atmospheric particulate matter as a result of the Local Plan could displace sensitive species within the SAC, reducing the quality of the SAC and the species richness of the site. Appendix A and B contain the Stage 1 and 2: Air Quality reports for the TMBC Local Plan.

If recreational pressure from dog walkers (refer to “Disturbance to key species” for further details) causes significant disturbance to great crested newts, it is likely that there will be a reduction in breeding success. Changes in key indicators of conservation The proposed development at Bushey Wood is not linked value (water quality, etc.) hydrologically to Peter’s Pit SAC. Peter’s Pit sits on a principal aquifer that is not linked to any of the site at Bell Lane, Burham; however, the aquatic habitats within Peter’s Pit will not be altered by development sites in the Local Plan1.3km away. The site is also sufficiently far from the River Medway flood zone to rule out impacts from surface water contamination in extreme flooding events. Neither Bushey Wood nor Peter’s Pit are in Source Protection zones. Therefore, no changes in key indicators of conservation value are anticipated. Climate change A changing climate (rising global temperatures, more extreme weather events and changes to sea levels) is likely to further exacerbate the potential impacts detailed above. Expanding urban populations invariably contribute to climate change and therefore must be assessed as part of this HRA. The site’s resilience to the impacts of climate change could be decreased as a result of the recreational pressures and reduction in habitat quality as a result of activities linked to the local plan. Likely impacts on the European site as a whole in terms of: Interference with the key relationships that Soil structure and waterbody structure could be damaged by define the structure of the site increased visitor usage and changes in air quality. Interference with key relationships that The structure and diversity of the waterbodies and terrestrial define the function of the site. habitat within the site could be damaged by increased visitor usage and changes in air quality, disrupting the function and integrity of the SAC. Significance as a result of the identification of impacts set out above in terms of: Reduction of habitat area Potential for significant effects as a result of changes in air quality. Disturbance to key species Potential for significant effects as a result of recreational impacts. Habitat or species fragmentation No likely significant effects. Change to key elements of the site (e.g. The SAC lies within 200m of the affected road network that is water quality, hydrological regime, etc.) anticipated to see an increase in volume of traffic due to development of the Broadwater Farm Kings Hill, Bushey wood and South Aylesford strategic sites. As such, there is potential for decreased air quality and an increase in nitrogen deposition. Refer to the Stage 1 and Stage 2: Air Quality Reports in Appendix A and B for more details. Outcome of screening stage Potential for likely significant effects:

40 E039 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Recreational pressure cannot be screened out and a Stage 2 AA has been undertaken. Changes in air quality cannot be screened out and a Stage 2 AA has been undertaken. Are the appropriate statutory Previous Natural England correspondence can be found in environmental bodies in agreement with Appendix C. this conclusion? This updated HRA has not been fully reviewed by Natural England but has been updated upon their advice.

– Queendown Warren SAC

Plan or project name: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council HRA Natura 2000 Sites under Queendown Warren SAC consideration: Date: 04/01/2019 Author: CD Verified: SW Description of project and plan: Size and scale of plan TMBC Local plan states a net requirement of 6834 dwellings by 2031 from the development sites. Land-take No land-take would be required from Queendown Warren SAC. Distance from the European Site or No strategic developments are within 7km of the SAC; however, the key features of the site (from edge of SAC is within 7km of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough boundary. the project assessment corridor) Two smaller development sites with a housing allocation of 136 isare within 7km of the SAC. Queendown Warren SAC lies 9.9km to the north east of the closest strategic site, South Aylesford (grid reference: TQ 83246 63191) The location of the SAC is presented in Appendix E. Resource requirements (from the There are no resource requirements from the European Site. European Site or from areas in proximity to the site, where of relevance to consideration of impacts) Emissions (e.g. polluted surface water Due to the distance of the SAC from the closest point (9.9km) of runoff – both soluble and insoluble the nearest Masterplan area no impacts are anticipated as a result pollutant, atmospheric pollution) of atmospheric pollution due to the TMBC Local Plan. The SAC is not hydrologically connected to any strategic sites.

Excavation requirements (e.g. impacts No excavation works would be required within or adjacent to the of local hydrogeology) SAC. Characteristics of European Site

Name of European Site and its EU Queendown Warren SAC UK0012833 code European Site size 14.48Ha Key features of the European Site Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site: including the primary reasons for • selection and any other qualifying 6210 Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on interests calcareous substrates Festuco-Brometalia (*important orchid sites) This habitat covers 11.14 Ha of the site. This site hosts the priority habitat type "orchid rich sites". Queendown Warren consists of CG3 Bromus erectus grassland. It contains an important assemblage of rare and scarce species, including early spider-orchid Ophrys sphegodes, burnt orchid Orchis ustulata and man orchid Aceras anthropophorum. And,

41 E040 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

• 9130 Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests which covers 1.51ha of the site

Vulnerability of the European Site The SAC is considered to be in ‘favourable’ condition, though the following threats have been identified in the Natura 2000 data form: • Air pollution, air borne pollutants • Changes in biotic conditions • Other ecosystem modifications

In addition, the following activities have a high negative effect on the European site, as identified in the Site Improvement Plan: • Species decline • Habitat fragmentation • Air pollution: risk of atmospheric nitrogen deposition

Modification of cultivation practices within the SAC are reported to have a high positive impact upon the quality of the habitats of the SAC. Assessment criteria Individual elements of the project likely to give rise to impacts on the European site. The distance between the Local Plan delivery areas and the SAC is extensive (over 9km), it is unlikely that the developments proposed as part of the local plan would give rise to significant impacts at Queendown Warren SAC. The intervening landscape between the SAC and the borough is a mixture of expanding urbanisation and designated greenbelt. Due to the distance and lack of interconnected eco-systems between the SAC and the borough, airborne and hydrological pathways for impact are unlikely to directly significantly affect the SAC. The most tenuous connection to the designated site is derived from the proximity of the strategic road network within 310m to the north of the site; the potential for effects due to changes in air quality have been screened out in a stand-alone Stage 1 report, see Appendix A. Initial assessment Likely changes to the key characteristics of the site and the details of the European site arising as a result of: Reduction of habitat area The development sites are not anticipated to result in a reduction in the habitat area of the European site, and land take is not proposed as part of the TMBC Local Plan. Disturbance to key species Disturbance to key species is considered unlikely to occur as a result of the TMBC Local Plan, due to the intervening distance between the SAC and strategic sites. Habitat or species fragmentation Land take within the SAC, connected habitats or supporting functional beech woodland will not occur as a result of the TMBC Local Plan, therefore no fragmentation of habitats or species will occur. Reduction in species density No reduction in density of species associated with the SAC are anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan. Changes in key indicators of Proposed developments are not linked hydrologically to the SAC. It conservation value (water quality, etc.) is not considered likely that the Local development area is linked hydrologically to the SAC. Climate change A changing climate (rising global temperatures, more extreme weather events and changes to sea levels) is likely to further exacerbate the potential impacts detailed above. Expanding urban populations invariably contribute to climate change and therefore must be assessed as part of this HRA. Queendown Warren SAC’s resilience to the impacts of climate change is likely to be linked to the integrity of the ecological network in which it sits. The local plan will not likely impact the functionality of this ecological network. Likely impacts on the European site as a whole in terms of:

42 E041 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Interference with the key relationships No interference with key relationships that define the structure of the that define the structure of the site site are anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan. Interference with key relationships that No interference with key relationships that define the function of the define the function of the site. site are anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan. Significance as a result of the identification of impacts set out above in terms of: Reduction of habitat area No likely significant effects. Disturbance to key species No likely significant effects. Habitat or species fragmentation No likely significant effects. Change to key elements of the site No likely significant effects. (e.g. water quality, hydrological regime, etc.) Outcome of screening stage No likely significant effects. Are the appropriate statutory Previous Natural England correspondence can be found in Appendix environmental bodies in agreement C. with this conclusion? This updated HRA has not been fully reviewed by Natural England but has been updated upon their advice.

– Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar

Plan or project name: Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council HRA

Natura 2000 Sites under consideration: Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar

Date: 07/01/2019 Author: ET/ GG Verified: SW

Description of project and plan:

Size and scale of the plan TMBC Local plan states a net requirement of 6834 dwellings by 2031. A map of the Tonbridge Ecological designations in relation to development sites is located in Appendix E.

Land-take No land take is required within the SPA and Ramsar.

Distance from the European Site or key Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar Site lies features of the site (from edge of the project 10.4km from the closest major development site at Bushey assessment corridor) Wood. There are no smaller development sites with 7km.

The South West-west Tonbridge and Bushey Wood strategic sites are hydrologically connected to the SPA and Ramsar Site. South West Tonbridge is situated on the Medway floodplain, approximately 54km upstream of the SPA and Ramsar site, with drainage ditches connecting the site to the River Medway. Drainage ditches within the proposed Bushey Wood site also lead to the river, 18km upstream of the SPA. Borough Green Gardens strategic site is adjacent to the start of the River Bourne which is hydrologically connected to the Medway, approximately 60km upstream of the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar. No small sites are adjacent to rivers which flow to the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar.

43 E042 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

The location of the SPA and Ramsar is presented in Appendix E.

Resource requirements (from the European There are no resource requirements from the European Site. Site or from areas in proximity to the site, where of relevance to consideration of impacts)

Emissions (e.g. polluted surface water runoff – Possible hydrological connections are present between two both soluble and insoluble pollutant, strategic development sites and the SPA and Ramsar site. atmospheric pollution) Therefore, construction and operation of these strategic sites may generate water-borne pollution that could enter the catchment of the SPA and Ramsar. However, requirements of the in the Water Framework Directive for any development ensure that no detrimental effects to watercourses can occur. Therefore, significant impacts upon the SPA and Ramsar, which is a considerable distance downstream (the nearest strategic site is 18km upstream) of these potential hydrological connections, are anticipated.

An assessment of air quality impacts has been completed separately, please refer to the Stage 1 and Stage 2: Air Quality Reports in Appendix A and B for more details.

Excavation requirements (e.g. impacts of local No excavation works would be required within or adjacent to hydrogeology) the SPA or Ramsar site.

Characteristics of European Site

Name of European Site and its EU code Medway Estuary and Marches SPA UK9012031 and Ramsar UK11040

European Site size 4684.36Ha

Key features of the European Site including the This SPA qualifies under Article 4.1 by supporting populations primary reasons for selection and any other of European importance of the following species listed on qualifying interests Annex I of the Directive: During the breeding season;

• Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, 28 pairs representing at least 4.7% of the breeding population in Great Britain • Little Tern Sterna albifrons, 28 pairs representing at least 1.2% of the breeding population in Great Britain

Over winter;

• Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta, 314 individuals representing at least 24.7% of the wintering population in Great Britain (5 year peak mean 1991/2 - 1995/6)

This SPA also qualifies under Article 4.2 by supporting populations of European importance of the following migratory species:

On passage;

• Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula

44 E043 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Over winter;

• Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica • Dark-bellied Brent Goose Branta bernicla bernicla • Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina • Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola • Pintail Anas acuta • Redshank Tringa totanus • Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula • Shelduck Tadorna tadorna

The SPA also qualifies under Article 4.2 by regularly supporting at least 20,000 waterfowl

The Ramsar qualifies for Criterion 2: The site supports a number of species of rare plants and animals. The site holds several nationally scarce plants, including sea barley Hordeum marinum, curved hard-grass Parapholis incurva, annual beard-grass Polypogon monspeliensis, Borrer's saltmarsh-grass Puccinellia fasciculata, slender hare`s-ear Bupleurum tenuissimum, sea clover Trifolium squamosum, saltmarsh goose-foot Chenopodium chenopodioides, golden samphire Inula crithmoides, perennial glasswort Sarcocornia perennis and one-flowered glasswort Salicornia pusilla. A total of at least twelve British Red Data Book species of wetland invertebrates have been recorded on the site. These include a ground beetle Polistichus connexus, a fly Cephalops perspicuus, a dancefly Poecilobothrus ducalis, a fly Anagnota collini, a weevil Baris scolopacea, a water beetle Berosus spinosus, a beetle Malachius vulneratus, a rove beetle Philonthus punctus, the ground lackey moth Malacosoma castrensis, a horsefly Atylotus latistriatuus, a fly Campsicnemus magius, a solider beetle, Cantharis fusca, and a cranefly Limonia danica. A significant number of non-wetland British Red Data Book species also occur.

The Ramsar qualifies under Criterion 5 Assemblages of international importance: Species with peak counts in winter: 47637 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003).

The Ramsar qualifies under Criterion 6 Species/populations occurring at levels of international importance: Species with peak counts in spring/autumn:

• Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola • Common redshank Tringa totanus totanus

Species with peak counts in winter:

• Dark-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla • Common shelduck Tadorna tadorna • Northern pintail Anas acuta • Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula • Red knot Calidris canutus islandica • Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina

Species/populations identified subsequent to designation for possible future consideration under criterion 6:

• Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica

45 E044 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Vulnerability of the European Site The condition assessment of the SSSI units associated with the SPA/Ramsar states that 53.72% of the site is in unfavourable- recovering condition, and 45.56% unfavourable-declining, with conditional assessments undertaken in 2010-2017. The unfavourable status of the SAC is due to a decline in numbers of bird populations.

The following threats have been identified for the Medway Estuary and Ramsar SPA in the Natura 2000 data form:

• Invasive non-native species • Air Pollution • Outdoor sports and leisure activities, recreational activities • Change in abiotic conditions • Changes in biotic conditions

The following threats/ negative pressures on the SPA and Ramsar has been identified from the Site Improvement Plan: • Coastal squeeze • Public access/ disturbance • Invasive species • Changes in species distributions • Fisheries: Commercial marine and estuarine • Illicit vehicles • Air pollution: risk of atmospheric nitrogen deposition

Assessment criteria Individual elements of the Plan likely to give rise to impacts on the European site.

Significant impacts from reduced air quality are possible at Medway Estuary and Ramsar SPA. Air Quality is discussed in detail in the stand-alone Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports in Appendix A and B. An increase in local residences may increase the number of visitors using the site recreationally. Medway Estuary and Marsh SPA and Ramsar site is hydrologically connected to three strategic development sites. However, due to the requirement for development to comply with the Water Framework Directive, and the distance of the proposed Scheme from the SPA/ Ramsar, changes in water levels or water quality within the SPA/Ramsar are not anticipated. Bushey Wood is the only strategic site within the IRZ of the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar; however, this site is not located within the flood zone of the SPA/Ramsar and therefore no hydrological changes due to increases in impermeable areas or groundwater flow are anticipated.

There is the potential for changes in recreational pressure from occupiers of the larger strategic sites, such as Bushey Wood, Borough Green and Broadwater Farm, due to the nature of the designated site.

Initial assessment

The key characteristics of the site and the details of the European site should be considered in identifying potential impacts. Describe any likely changes to the site arising as a result of:

Reduction of habitat area The development sites are not anticipated to result in a reduction in the habitat area of the European site, and land take is not proposed as part of the TMBC Local Plan. Changes in air quality have the potential to alter species composition and cause habitat degradation but is unlikely to directly cause a reduction in habitat area.

46 E045 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Disturbance to key species Development of the strategic sites within the TMBC Local Plan have the potential to result in increased levels of nitrogen deposition (as a result of increased traffic volumes), which may lead to tangible effects on terrestrial habitats of the SPA/Ramsar. Further assessment has been undertaken on the potential significant effects of changes in air quality, see Stage 1 and Stage 2: Air Quality Reports in Appendix A and B for more details.

Although qualifying bird species favour coastal habitats and are therefore highly unlikely to utilise habitats within or adjacent Bushey Wood strategic development are- which consists predominantly of arable fields over 10km from the SPA/Ramsar; there is the potential for an increase in recreational pressure from members of the public associated with Bushey Wood, Borough Green and Broadwater Farm, Kings Hill. An increase in local residents could:

• Increase dog- walkers which may lead to an increase in nutrients deposited on the site due to increased defecation rates • Increase flight-responses of birds disturbed by loose dogs • Increase trampling may disturb intertidal and foreshore habitats • Increase visitor numbers may increase litter and fly tipping Habitat or species fragmentation Land take within the SAC, connected or supporting habitats will not occur as a result of the TMBC Local Plan, therefore no fragmentation of habitats or species will occur.

Reduction in species density Potential changes in air quality are unlikely to result in a reduction in species density; however, Appendix A and B contain the Stage 1 and 2: Air Quality reports for the TMBC Local Plan. Recreational impacts associated with increased local residents and therefore visitors to the SPA/Ramsar may result in further disturbance of qualifying bird species, leading to further reductions of populations.

Changes in key indicators of conservation The TMBC Local Plan is not anticipated to result in changes value (water quality, etc.) effects to water quality or levels within the SPA and Ramsar. Compliance with the requirements of the Water Framework Directive will ensure that no impacts to watercourses occur upstream of the Medway Estuary. In addition, due to the distance between the strategic sites and the SPA/Ramsar, any pollutants entering the surrounding drainage network during construction would be greatly diluted if and by the time they reached the SPA. Potential marginal increases in levels of pollutants would be further diluted by the flushing effect of the tidal environment. Therefore, no changes in key indicators of conservation value are anticipated.

Climate change A changing climate (rising global temperatures, more extreme weather events and changes to sea levels) is likely to further exacerbate the potential impacts detailed above. Expanding urban populations invariably contribute to climate change and therefore must be assessed as part of this HRA. The site’s

47 E046 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

resilience to the impacts of climate change could be decreased as a result of the recreational pressures and reduction in habitat quality as a result of activities linked to the local plan.

Likely impacts on the European site as a whole in terms of:

No changes are anticipated that would affect the structure of Interference with the key relationships that the site given the distance of the proposed sites from the SPA define the structure of the site and Ramsar. The proposed startegic development sites would not interfere with key relationships that define the site such as water levels, flows, sediment deposition, and tidal cycle.

Interference with key relationships that define The key relationship that defines the function of the site is the the function of the site. provision of foraging habitat in support of populations of overwintering birds. The proposed strategic site developments could potentially affect the extent or quality of the foraging habitat and populations of species present due to increased recreational pressures at the site.

Significance as a result of the identification of impacts set out above in terms of:

Reduction of habitat area Potential for significant effects as a result of recreational impacts and changes in air quality.

Disturbance to key species There is the potential for disturbance to qualifying species due to recreation pressures.

Habitat or species fragmentation No likely significant effects.

Change to key elements of the site (e.g. water There would be no change to key elements within the site, such quality, hydrological regime, etc.) as the health of habitats for which it is designated due to changes in water quality, however there is the potential for impacts to the SPA due to changes in air quality from increased traffic on local roads. Refer to the Stage 1 and Stage 2: Air Quality Reports in Appendix A and B for more details. Potential for likely significant effects: Recreational pressure cannot be screened out and a Stage Outcome of screening stage 2 AA has been undertaken. Changes in air quality cannot be screened out and a Stage 2 AA has been undertaken.

Are the appropriate statutory environmental Previous Natural England consultation contained in Appendix bodies in agreement with this conclusion? C This updated HRA has not been fully reviewed by Natural England but has been updated upon their advice.

5.5 Conclusions of the Stage 1 Screening The completion of the Stage 1 Screening Matrices for the North Downs Woodlands SAC, Queendown Warren SAC, Peter’s Pit SAC and Medway Marshes SPA and Ramsar have allowed for the test for LSE to be undertaken. This has resulted in a conclusion of no likely significant effects on Queendown Warren SAC. However, there is potential for likely significant effects on North Downs

48 E047 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Woodlands SAC, Peters Pit SAC, Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA, and Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar. The below table (Table 5.12) summarises the results of the Stage 1 Screening. Where the potential for likely significant effects cannot be ruled out the impact pathways have been taken forward to Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment.

Table 5-1-2 Effects of the TMBC Local Plan alone European Disturbance Air Quality Disturbance Hydrology Designated Site (light and noise) (Recreational)

North Downs No likely significant No likely significant Potential for significant No likely significant Woodlands SAC effect effect effect effect (Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment)

North Downs No likely significant Potential for Potential for significant No likely significant Woodlands SAC effect significant effect effect effect (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment)

Peters Pit SAC No likely significant Potential for Potential for significant No likely significant effect significant effect effect effect

Queendown Warren No likely significant No likely significant No likely significant No likely significant SAC effect effect effect effect

Medway Estuary No likely significant Potential for No likelyPotential for No likely significant and Marshes SPA effect significant effect significant effect effect and Ramsar

49 E048 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

6. Effects of the Plan In–Combination

The above conclusion of the Stage 1 assessments have allowed for the in-combination effects of other relevant plans and policies to be considered. The in-combination effects on each Natura 2000 site are discussed below.

6.1 North Downs Woodlands SAC The Maidstone Local Plan HRA (2016) concludes that recreational impacts upon North Downs Woodlands SAC will not occur as a result of the Maidstone Local Plan. The Maidstone HRA also rules out the potential for significant effects as a result of air quality changes, as no change in NOx concentrations or nitrogen deposition are anticipated.

Medway Local Plan Development Strategy (2018) and HRA (2011) indicate there are likely to be reduced air quality effects, as a result of increased traffic on roads adjacent to the designated site; Harp Farm Road, Detling Hill, The Street, and Pilgrims Way. It is expected that this will lead to increased Nitrogen deposition on surrounding habitats, with potential degradation and negative effects on resident wildlife. Further air quality assessment is required to establish whether likely significant effects will occur as a result of nitrogen deposition due to the Medway Local Plan. However, the Medway Local Plan HRA ruled out significant effects on the SAC due to disturbance from recreational pressure; disturbance is not currently a limiting factor within the associated SSSI condition assessment, and there are alternative woodlands for Medway residents.

The Swale Borough Local Plan (2017) indicates that local development may lead to reduced air quality and increased recreational disturbance, specifically through development of the A2. Increased traffic on the nearby road will lead to an increased number of recreational users and traffic flow with the potential to degrade the landscape. In order to avoid this the plan suggests routing options be agreed within sites creating the lowest possible environmental impact and avoiding significant effects.

Therefore, in-combination effects may occur at North Downs Woodlands SAC as a result of changes in air quality. The potential for significant effects as a result of changes in air quality are discussed in the stand along Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports in Appendix A and B.

6.2 Peter’s Pit SAC Medway Local Plan Development Strategy (2018) and HRA (2018) states that no likely significant effects associated with water quality or levels will occur due to the Local Plan, as no allocations are in the vicinity of the SAC. Recreational disturbance is not identified as a threat to this SAC, the site is in favourable condition and great crested newts are not likely to be disturbed by any minimal increase in visitors associated with site allocations in the plan; therefore, no likely significant effects and anticipated as a result of recreational pressure. However, the HRA indicates there are likely to be reduced air quality effect; further air quality assessment is required to establish whether likely significant effects will occur as a result of nitrogen deposition due to the Medway Local Plan.

Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy HRA (2012) screened out significant effects on Peters Pit as a result of changes in air quality or recreational pressure. Significant effects due to changes in water levels were ruled out at the AA stage, due to the control of abstraction and discharge operations within the policies of the Local Plan.

The Maidstone Local Plan HRA (2016) screened out significant effects due to both water resources and recreational pressure.

50 E049 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Therefore, in-combination effects with the Medway Local Plan Development Strategy may occur at Peter’s Pit SAC as a result of changes in air quality. The potential for significant effects as a result of changes in air quality are discussed in the stand along Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports in Appendix A and B.

6.3 Queendown Warren SAC Maidstone Local Plan HRA (2016) indicates there is potential for increased recreational pressure that could arise from new residential development provided within the Maidstone Local Plan. There are three proposed site allocations including; GT1(14): The Ash, Yelsted Road, Stockbury, 0.9km from the SAC, GT1(12), and GT1(13) are located within 1.7km of the SAC, H1(30) is located 7.3km from the SAC. However, the HRA concludes that Maidstone residents will be more likely to visit alternative sites and found no in-combination effects on the SAC. The Maidstone Local Plan HRA also screened out air quality as an impact pathway.

Medway Local Plan Development Strategy HRA (2018) found no significant effects on Queendown Warren SAC.

The Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy HRA (2012) screened out significant effects on Queendown Warren SAC as a result of recreational pressure and changes in air quality. Significant effects due to changes in water quality were ruled out at the AA stage.

The Swale Local Plan HRA (2015 and 2016) concluded no likely significant effects on Queendown Warren SAC.

Recreational disturbance is not considered to be a threat to this site from the TMBC Local Plan; there is limited parking and therefore most visitors will be cyclists or on foot. The site’s favourable condition status indicates that existing levels of use are not impacting the qualifying grassland habitats, despite the proximity of existing housing within 1km of the SAC. The HRA reports produced for Medway and Maidstone conclude that, since the main population centres lie outside the probable core recreational catchment of this SAC, it is considered that no likely significant effect of the will arise either alone or in combination with other projects and plans.

Therefore, no in-combination effects are anticipated at Queendown Warren SAC.

6.4 Medway Estuary & Marshes SPA and Ramsar The Maidstone Local Plan HRA (2016) screened out air quality as an impact pathway, and recreational impacts due to the distance and lack of access to Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar.

Medway Local Plan Development Strategy (2018) and HRA (2018) indicates there are likely to be environmental pressures arising from the plans to provide additional housing (approximately 37,000). Four scenarios were considered to establish which would have the lowest impact on the European designated sites, as the aim on the plan was to avoid hindering the sites meeting their conservation objectives. The HRA concludes that with the inclusion of mitigation measures would maintain the integrity of the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar; however, further air quality assessment is planned to inform the selection of the preferred scenario and assess any potentially adverse impacts.

Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy HRA (2012) screened out significant effects as a result of changes in air quality. Significant effects due to changes in water quality and recreation pressure were ruled out at the AA stage.

The Swale Local Plan HRA (2015 and 2016) concluded no likely significant effects on Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar due to the inclusion of an adequate policy framework.

51 E050 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Therefore, in-combination effects may occur at Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar as a result of changes in air quality in-combination with the Medway Local Plan Development Strategy. The potential for significant effects as a result of changes in air quality are discussed in the stand along Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports in Appendix A and B.

6.5 Conclusion of In-Combination Effects The assessment of potential in-combination effects has not resulted in additional impact pathways being screened in for Stage 2 AA. The below Table 6.1 summarises the results of the Stage 1 Screening following the in-combination assessment.

Table 6-1 Summary of in-combination effects European Air Quality Recreational Hydrology Designated Site

North Downs Potential for significant Potential for significant No likely significant Woodland SAC effect effect effect

Peters Pit SAC Potential for significant No likelyPotential for No likely significant effect significant effect effect

Queendown Warren No likely significant No likely significant No likely significant SAC effect effect effect

Medway Estuary Potential for significant Potential for significant No likely significant and Marshes SPA effect effect effect and Ramsar

The only potential significant effects anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan in-combination with other plans or policies are from air quality changes due to the Medway Local Plan upon North Downs Woodlands SAC, Peter’s Pit SAC and Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar. The air quality assessment for the TMBC Local Plan is contained within Appendix A and B of this report, within two stand-alone reports.

The potential for significant effects as a result of increased recreational pressure could not be screened out during the Stage 1 Screening; therefore, this impact pathway has been taken forward to Stage 2 AA and is subject to further assessment in Section 7.

52 E051 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

7. Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment

7.1 Introduction Following Stage 1 Screening and test of Likely Significant Effects (LSE); two Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) one Special Protection Area (SPA) and one Ramsar site were identified as potentially sensitive to increased recreational pressure as a result of the TMBC Local Plan. This Appropriate Assessment (AA) outlines the likely significant impacts upon each site and examines the likelihood the local plan will lead to an adverse impact upon the European site’s integrity.

Three European designated sites were identified as potentially vulnerable to decreased levels of air quality and were subject to AA. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 air quality reports can be found in Appendix A and B.

7.2 Recreational Pressure Current research suggests that visitors to European sites within the South East of England can be grouped into 2 categories (Natural England 2008); those arriving by foot and those arriving by other means. The majority of site users (70%) are thought to arrive by car and live within 5km of the car parking for the European site in question. Visitors by foot tend to live within 400m of an access point to the site. Therefore, these distinctions have been applied in the below assessments of potential impacts upon each designated site. A buffer zone of 6km has been considered sufficient for the consideration of recreational pressure on European sites as a result of the TMBC Local Plan based on work undertaken by NE and the North Kent Marshes Planning Group.

Research also indicates that provision of safe and adequate parking either within the site itself or linked to the site by an attractive route is desirable, as is sign posting, circular routes of around 2.5km within the site, toilets, litter bins and well managed but non-surfaced path wayspathways. Access restrictions are unappealing for visitors and for dog owners it is important that dogs are permitted to exercise freely. To determine the likelihood of increased recreational pressure, the presence of attractive features at designated sites is considered as an indicator of potential increased site use. This has been compared to the facilities available at alternative local greenspaces in Table 7.1 below, where the distance travelled (based on shortest likely journey) from each strategic development site has been calculated. Whilst Table 7.1 contains alternative sites and distance of travel from strategic sites only, the same options for alternative greenspace provision. apply to smaller development sites. Visitor site choice is also context dependent; other local greenspaces with the same landscape character have been identified and are used as a comparison for the European sites (Table 7.1).

53 E052 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Table 7-1 Comparison of access and facilities at European sites or alternative greenspace locations

European Designated Site Character, Distance from Alternative Distance from Alternative Access/ Site Access and Parking European Site to Greenspace Alternative Greenspace Greenspace Parking/ Development Area to Closest Development Character Facilities Area

12.7 km from Cobtree North Downs Mature Woodland 4.35 km35km from Woodland Car park (charges apply) Bushey Wood Manor Park Woodlands SAC and calcareous Bushey Wood

Halling to Trottiscliffe grassland. Facilities: Escarpment Small car park at Leybourne Lakes, woodland and Car park (charges apply), café, Holly Hill. Walk 2.7 km7km from Eccles, Lake grassland toilets, public owned Bushey Wood required into site. Country Park Paths poorly

maintained but some 9.17km from South Mereworth Mature mixed PRoW. 9.17km from South Recreational routes and National Aylesford Woods Woodland Aylesford Trail PRoWs. No toilets or other facilities Partially private land. No parking 11.26km from Mature broadleaved Oaken Wood 6.28km from South PRoWs through woodland. South Aylesford woodland Aylesford Roadside Parking 11.58km from Manor Park 2.89km from Kings Hill Lake, wildflower Car park, café, toilets, public owned Kings Hill Country Park meadows, woodland mosaic

8.9km from Trosley Woodland and 5.48km from Borough Car park (charges apply), café, Borough Green Country Park calcareous grassland Green toilets, 9.3km from Leybourne Lakes, woodland and 6.7km from Broadwater Car park (charges apply), café, Broadwater Farm, Lake grassland Farm, Kings Hill toilets, public owned Kings Hill Country Park

Mereworth Mature mixed 2.6km from Broadwater Recreational routes and National Woods Woodland Farm, Kings Hill Trail PRoWs. Partially private land. No parking Mature broadleaved Oaken Wood 9.3km from Broadwater PRoWs through woodland. woodland Farm, Kings Hill Roadside Parking

54 E053 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

European Designated Site Character, Distance from Alternative Distance from Alternative Access/ Site Access and Parking European Site to Greenspace Alternative Greenspace Greenspace Parking/ Development Area to Closest Development Character Facilities Area

Manor Park 2.9km from Kings Hill Lake, wildflower Car park, café, toilets, public owned Country Park meadows, woodland mosaic

7.08km from Cobtree Car park (Charges apply) café, North Downs Mature Woodland 4.35km from Bushey Woodland Bushey Wood Manor Park toilets, Woodlands SAC and calcareous Wood

Wouldham to Detling grassland Escarpment Roadside parking- Blue Bell Hill 5.47km from Bushey Mature beech Free car park, picnic area and 0.5km walk from Nature Wood woodland managed walking trails site reserve

Burnham 5.47km from Bushey Woodland and Walking trails, picnic area. Down Wood calcareous grassland Roadside parking and ponds Taddington Mature broadleaved Roadside parking adjacent to 6.44km from Bushey Woods woodland woodland wood 6.0 km from South Oaken Wood 6.28km from South Mature broadleaved PRoWs through woodland. Aylesford Aylesford woodland Roadside parking 6.0 km from Kings Manor Park 2.9km from Kings Hill Lake, wildflower Parking, café, toilets Hill Country Park meadows, woodland mosaic 11.43km from Trosley 5.47km from Borough Woodland and Car park (charges apply), café, Borough Green Country Park Green calcareous grassland toilets, 10.14km from Mereworth Mature mixed 9.33km from South Recreational routes and National South Aylesford Woods woodland Aylesford Trail PRoWs. Partially private land. No parking Leybourne 7.56km from Bushey Car park (charges apply), café, Peter’s Pit SAC Ponds, scrub and 3.22km from Bushey Lakes and woodland Lakes Wood toilets grassland mosaic Wood Country Park

Roadside Parking. 3.22km from Tyland Barn 4.35km from Bushey Footpath Runs Ponds, woodlands, Car park, café, toilets, Bushey Wood Visitor Wood meadows

55 E054 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

European Designated Site Character, Distance from Alternative Distance from Alternative Access/ Site Access and Parking European Site to Greenspace Alternative Greenspace Greenspace Parking/ Development Area to Closest Development Character Facilities Area

through the site. No Centre and facilities. Nature Park Holborough 4.67km from Bushey Ponds, scrub and marsh Car park Marshes Wood mosaic Nature Reserve Burham 3.22km from Bushey River, marsh and Circular paths following seas wall Marsh Wood scrub. Tidal reed bed route. Roadside parking

9.9km from South Leybourne 6.7km from South Lakes and woodland Car park (charges apply), café, Aylesford Lakes Aylesford toilets Country Park Tyland Barn 6.8km from South Ponds, woodlands, Car park, café, toilets, Visitor Aylesford meadows Centre and Nature Park Holborough 9.4km from South Ponds, scrub and marsh Car park Marshes Aylesford mosaic Nature Reserve Burham 9.9km from South River, marsh and Circular paths following seas wall Marsh Aylesford scrub. Tidal reed bed route. Roadside parking

11.2km Leybourne 6.7km from Lakes and woodland Car park (charges apply), café, Broadwater Farm, Lakes Broadwater Farm, toilets Kings Hill Country Park Kings Hill Holborough 9.4km from Ponds, scrub and marsh Car park Marshes Broadwater Farm, mosaic Nature Kings Hill Reserve Medway Marshes Tidal saltmarshes, 18.82km from Darland 15.93km from Bushey Chalk grassland and Car park, dogs allowed SPA and Ramsar grazing marshes, Bushey Wood Banks Wood panoramic views

56 E055 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

European Designated Site Character, Distance from Alternative Distance from Alternative Access/ Site Access and Parking European Site to Greenspace Alternative Greenspace Greenspace Parking/ Development Area to Closest Development Character Facilities Area small shell Nature beaches. Reserve Small car parks Holborough 4.67km from Bushey Large Car Park. Dogs permitted on Ponds, scrub and marsh throughout site Marshes Wood leads mosaic Nature Reserve

Burham 3.22km from Bushey River, marsh and Circular paths following seas wall Marsh Wood scrub. Tidal Reed bed route. Roadside parking. Dogs permitted on leads

Nashenden 7.4km from Bushey Chalk grassland and Roadside parking. 3.5km circular Down Nature Wood views over Medway route. Dogs permitted. Reserve Riverside 18.34km from Bushey Tidal saltmarshes, Adjacent to the SPA/Ramsar, Country Park Wood grazing marshes, visitor centre, café toilets small shell beaches.

Temple 13.51km from Bushey Woodland, meadow Roadside parking Marsh Wood and tidal saltmarsh Capstone 12.71 km from Bushey Ancient woodland and Car park, lakeside café, cycle Wood Wood large lakes paths, toilets. Award winning Country Park “green flag site” Ranscombe 10.78km from Bushey Chalk grassland and Dogs on leads, parking available Farm Wood bluebell woodlands Country Park and Nature Reserve

57 E056 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

58 E057 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

7.3 North Downs Woodlands SAC

– Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment The Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment section of the North Downs Woodlands SAC is sensitive to damage by recreational pressure. The Holly Hill Wood public open space and Whitehorse Wood & Holly Hill Local Wildlife Site (LWS) lies immediately adjacent to this section of the North Downs Woodlands SAC, with public rights of way (PRoW) that lead into the SAC. The Woodland Management Plan (2010) for public open space indicates there are recreational pressures in the area as a result of illegal access by off-road vehicles and dog walkers not cleaning up after their pets. Under the Valley of Visions Landscape Partnership Scheme, the Securing the Landscape Project was set up in the Medway Gap to help manage the illegal activity and reduce potential impacts in a joint initiative with stakeholders including Kent Police and local landowners. A Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) for the area is funded through this project.

Development within 6km of this site could increase pedestrian and motorised traffic, potentially worsening identified recreational pressures. Off road vehicles as well as all terrain bikes have been recorded and documented as having a negative impact on woodlands adjacent to the SAC. Damage is associated predominantly within the yew woodland where the natural lack of understory lends itself to desire paths and bike routes; the creation of these routes is eroding soil around the roots of the trees (Natural England 2016).

As there are no development sites within 400m of the site, it is considered unlikely that the TMBC Local Plan would result in an increase in visitors arriving by foot. There are however, three large strategic development sites within 7km of this section of the SAC. Visitor numbers to other SACs within the South- East of England are positively correlated with an increase in local population numbers (Medway Council 2018). Increased visitor numbers have the potential to exacerbate the existing pressures within the site, in this case contributing to erosive damage of soils surrounding mature tree roots. However, in light of the research discussed above, several factors are likely to limit the attraction of visitors to this section of the SAC. and 17 smaller development sites. Nevertheless, the Local Plan contains policies requiring the provision of additional publicly accessible open space, or at least contributions to enhance existing open space, as part of major residential development. This will help, to an extent, to avoid adverse effects occurring to the SAC through recreational pressure.

The Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment section of the SAC is poorly signposted, with very little parking. There is also a lack of visitor facilities, such as toilets which could discourage recreational users.

Most importantly, thereThere are existing green spaces with similar habitat characteristics to North Downs Woodlands located closer to the strategic development areas than the SAC (Table 6.1). There are five sites in total that are closer to strategic sites than the North Downs Woodlands SAC Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment. These sites provide larger car parking facilities, are better sign posted, have toilets and in some cases refreshments, all of which would likely appeal to recreational users. Several examples listed in the above table are also advertised on local websites, thereby actively encouraging visitors, a resource that will likely result in alternative sites being more readily discovered by an incoming community, who could be unfamiliar with the area.

With these factors considered, though it is likely an increasing urbanised landscape will increase visitor numbers to local green space, it is unlikely that the Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment

59

E058 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

section of North Downs Woodlands SAC will be of particular draw to significant numbers of the population. Ongoing mitigation (detailed within the existing site improvement plan, summarised in Table 3.4) which seeks to reduce uncontrolled access points and bike usage of the site will also reduce the appeal of the site to this type of user. It can be considered that provided funding continues at an appropriate level to ensure measures are suitably maintained (such as fencing, gateways or entrance points and pathways) that the marginal contribution of additional visitors that will result from the TMBC Local Plan should remain manageable through the existing arrangements.

Therefore, for these reasons the TMBC Local Plan will not impact on the integrity of the designated site.

– Wouldham to Detling Escarpment In the same manner as described above, the Wouldham to Detling Escarpment section of the SAC is sensitive to recreational pressures, particularly within the yew woodland stands. Boxley Warren Local Nature Reserve Summary Plan (2012) indicates a historic severe problem with fly tipping and illegal access by motorbikes and 4x4s. Measures taken to protect the site have radically reduced these problems, but abuse does continue, mainly in the form of off-road cycling and motorcycling. Fly tipping and dumping of cars still occurs from time to time, on and around the reserve. There are also recreational pressures from pedestrians and dog walkers straying from the footpaths, as they are not generally allowed on the rest of the reserve. Measures taken to reduce impacts are not described within the Summary Plan.

Two strategic development sites and 17 smaller development sites are within 7km of this section of the SAC, however no residential proposals are within 400m of the site access points. There are long distance hiking routes bisecting this section of the SAC. Usage of these long- distance trails is unlikely to increase as a result of the TMBC Local Plan, users of which are also are likely to adhere to permitted routes, lessening the impact to the site.

An increase in visitors by car is likely, as a result of an increasing local population and as with the Halling to Trottiscliffe section of the SAC this could exacerbate already evident erosive damage to the site. However, baseline visitor data was collected for Boxley Warren Local Nature Reserve (LNR) in 2012 (within the Wouldham to Detling Escarpment section of the SAC). The baseline data showed 59 visitors over 6 days in October and 85 over 3 days in July, visiting throughout the day and week but largely on weekend mornings. For the winter data, only 17% of the visitors were from the Tonbridge and Malling Borough. The baseline data suggests that usage of the site is relatively low, which may be for the following two reasons.

There are two main access routes within the SAC; the first must be accessed from roadside parking on Old Chatham Road, where the roadside parking is heavily restricted, with access to the site gained via an urbanised footpath which runs under the A229 and over the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL). The access from parking to site is approximately 0.5 km, which could be undesirable to routine users. Although this access track leads walkers past a local land mark, The White Horse Stone, it is currently showing signs of damage by graffiti, which is likely to detract from the site’s aesthetic appeal.

The second access point is the west of the site, off the Pilgrim’s Way road near Detling. The parking at this location is limited to small laybys which are poorly service by access tracks. In addition to these access issues, there is limited sign provision for visitors looking to access the site, which limits incidental discovery of the SAC, and though the large woodland tracts may appeal to some visitors, they are unlikely to appeal to those seeking numerous vistas or a variety of habitats.

60

E059 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

As part of this assessment several existing alternative natural sites have been identified between this section of the SAC and the TMBC strategic site proposals (Table 7.1), which are considered to be more attractive to recreational users. There are five sites in total that are closer to strategic sites than the North Downs Woodlands SAC Wouldham to Detling Escarpment. In addition, the above factors which currently limit visitor numbers will not be improved by the local plan and it is considered unlikely that the SAC would provide a significant draw to the residents of the strategic development areas over alternative green space within the locality.

Therefore, the TMBC local plan iswill not considered to have a significant likely impactan adverse effect upon the integrity of the North Downs Woodlands SAC as visitor numbers and recreational impacts are not likely towill only increase significantlyby a minimal amount if at all.

7.4 Peter’s Pit SAC Peter’s Pit SAC has not been identified as particularly vulnerable to recreational pressure (Natural England 2014), and therefore no current management actions are in place to address disturbance within the site.

An increase in recreational visitors, particularly those with dogs could disturb the habitats on site used by the GCN population (the primary qualifying feature for designation). Dogs exercising within the ponds or increasing the eutrophication levels by fouling within these habitats would reduce water quality and consequently reduce the suitability for this species.

There are no strategic development areas within 400m of Peter’s Pit; therefore, the proposals of the local plan are unlikely to increase pedestrian arrivals to the site. AWhile three strategic development sites and 16 smaller sites are within 7km of Peter’s Pit, a significant increase in visitors arriving by car is also unlikely due to the lack of parking within or close to the site. Further, as with the other European sites considered within this assessment, there are amplefour alternative green spaces within closer proximity to thevarious Strategic development sites; these sites have been highlighted as they are similar in character and arguably more appealing to visitors due to the amenities and ease of access provided within the sites. (Table 7.1). One alternative site is closer to Peter’s Pit SAC than the nearest strategic site.

Therefore, there will be no adverse effect on integrity at Peter’s Pit.

7.5 Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar The Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar is highly sensitive to recreational pressure. The unfavourable condition of the SSSI units associated with the site are due to a decline in populations present of in qualifying wader species; it is thought that this decline in recent years is likely due to increased levels of disturbance by visitor numbers (North Kent SAMMS Project Board 2018). Disturbance of the birds has been attributed particularly to flight events which disrupt wader feeding behaviour and are thought to be significantly increased by dogs exercising off lead within sensitive areas of the site.

A mitigation strategy has been implemented to reduce such disturbance within the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar (among other sites). Research to inform this mitigation strategy included surveys on recreational usage of the site and others similar in North Kent. The research indicated that the vast majority of routine site users were from within 6km of the North Kent Marshes. SuggestingThis suggests that residents within the Strategic development areas proposed by the TMBC Local Plan would be outside the typical catchment area for regular visitors. It is therefore unlikely that TMBC Local Plan will have a significant impact upon the disturbance levels at the SPA and Ramsar, as the closest Strategic development area is over

61

E060 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

10km away at the closest point. (the closest development site is Rear of Robin Hood Lane, Blue Bell Hill, which is over 7.5km from the SPA and Ramsar).

In addition, alternative green spaces with facilities and natural features lie between the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar and the strategicdevelopment sites of the TMBC Local Plan. A total of eight sites lie between the closest strategicdevelopment sites and Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar.

Therefore, there will be no adverse effect on integrity at Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar.

7.6 Conclusions It is considered unlikely that theThe TMBC Local Plan withwill not have a significant adverse impact upon the level of recreational pressure at North Downs Woodlands SAC and Peter’s Pit SAC as new residents to the area are likely to be drawn to a combination of local country parks and nature reserves. Country Parks and public access nature reserves are numerous within the landscape between the Natura 2000 sites discussed above, often providing attractive facilities to visitors. It is therefore considered unlikely that the SACs will become particularly favourable destinations for significant numbers of residents. Therefore, the TMBC Local Plan iswill not anticipated to have an adverse effect on the integrity of North Downs Woodlands SAC or Peter’s Pit SAC.

In addition to the above factors, Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar is over 10km from the closest strategic development area, a distance which is outside the catchment of typical users. It can therefore be concluded that no likely significant effect is anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan and no adverse effects on the integrity of the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar site.

62

E061 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

8. Conclusions

This report outlines the methods used and the findings arising from the Habitat Regulations Assessment Stage 1 Screening test for Likely Significant Effects (LSE) and Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment (AA) for Tonbridge and Mallling Borough Council’s (TMBC) Local Plan Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Publication (September 2018).

The first stage of the HRA process (Screening and test for LSE) identified the potential effects of the TMBC Local Plan on the following European sites (air quality is considered within two separate stand-alone Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports, found in Appendix A and B):

• North Downs Woodlands SAC: o Recreational pressure; and, o Air quality. • Peter’s Pit: o Recreational pressure; and, o Air Quality. • Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site: o Recreational pressure; and, o Air Quality. The Screening assessed that there was also the potential for the TMBC Local Plan to act in- combination with other Plans in surrounding areas to have significant effects on the European sites through reduced air quality. However, air quality is discussed with separate Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports for the TMBC Local Plan (found in Appendix A and B). Recreational pressure was the only impact pathway carried forward to the next stage of the HRA process, Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment (AA), to be considered in further detail.

The AA concluded that there would be no likely significantadverse effect, alone or in- combination, on the integrity of the identified Europeandesignated sites through increased recreational disturbance. Residents are likely to be drawn to a combination of local country parks and nature reserves or alternative open spaces. Country Parks and public access nature reserves are numerous within the landscape surrounding the European sites. It is therefore considered that the European sites will not become favourable destinations for significant numbers of residents. The AA also concluded that there would be no likely significantadverse effect, alone or in-combination, on the integrity of the identified European sites through increased changes in air quality.

As a result of this assessment, no likely significant effects are anticipated as a result of the TMBC Local Plan.

complies with the Habitats Regulations Assessment. It can be concluded that the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Councils Local Plan Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Publication (September 2018) document can be screened out from further consideration both aloneproceed and in-combination with other projects or plans.

The findings of this plan level HRA do is not remove the need to undertake HRA for lower level, project scale/ implementation plans where there is potential for significant effect on one or more European sites. The findings of this HRA should be revisited instopped by the light of any

63

E062 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

significant changes to the TMBC Local Plan, or that of surrounding areas, and used to inform any future assessment work. Habitats Regulations.

64

E063 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

9. References

Aecom. 2016. Maidstone Borough Council. Habitat Regulations Assessment for: Maidstone Borough Local Plan – Publication (Regulation 19)

Aecom. 2016. ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment. Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan Proposed Main Modifications June 2016

Air Pollution Information System (APIS). 2013 http://www.apis.ac.uk/

Arup. 2018. Medway Local Plan Development Strategy – Interim Considerations of the Implications of Development Strategy Scenarios on European Sites

Conservation of Habitats Directive. 2017. No. 1012. The conservation of habitats and species regulations

ECJ. 2012. Advocate General’s Opinion to CJEU in Case C-258/11 Sweetman and others v An Bord Pleanala 22nd Nov 2012.

ECJ 2004. ECJ Case C-127/02 “Waddenzee‟

ECJ 2018. ECJ Case Case C-323/17 People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta; 12 April 2018

Dore, AJ., Rowe, EC., Jones, L., Stevens, CJ., Vieno, M., Sutton, M., Mills, G., Evans, CD., Helliwell, RC. 2009. Measures to Evaluate Benefits to UK Semi- Natural Habitats of Reductions in Nitrogen Deposition.

Enfusion. 2012. Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy. Proposed submission. Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

Fox, A. D. and Madsen, J. 1997. Behavioural and Distributional Effects of Hunting Disturbance on Waterbirds in Europe: Implications for Refuge Design. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 1-13.

Forestry Commission England. 2018. Holly Hill Woodland Management Plan

Hall, J., Dore, A., Heywood. E., Broughton. R., Stedman. J., Smith. R., & Hanlon. S. 2006. Assessment of the Environmental Impacts Associated with the UK Air Quality Strategy

Highways England. 2009. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 11 Section 4. HS 44/09. Annex C: Screening Matrix

Histle, W. 2012. Maidstone Borough Council. Reserve summary plan for Boxley Warren Local Nature Reserve (2012- 2017)

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2016. Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive (includes candidate SACs, Sites of Community Importance and designated SACs). Standard Data Form: North Downs Woodlands. UK0030225

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2016. Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive (includes candidate SACs, Sites of Community Importance and designated SACs). Standard Data Form: Peter`s Pit. UK0030237

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2008. Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands. Medway Estuary and Marshes. UK11040

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2016. Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive (includes candidate SACs, Sites of Community Importance and designated SACs). Standard Data Form: Queendown Warren SAC. UK0012833

Kent County Council. 2016. Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan- 2013 -30 Planning for the future of minerals and waste in Kent

65

E064 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

North Kent SAMMS Project Board.2018. North Kent Bird Wise Mitigation Strategy available at https://birdwise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Mitigation-Strategy.pdf. Accessed 09.01.2019

Medway Council. 2018. Medway Local Plan Development Strategy HRA – Interim Consideration of the Implications of Development Strategy Scenarios on European Sites

Medway Council. 2018. Medway Council Local Plan 2012 – 2035. Development Strategy – Regulation 18 Consultation Report

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 2018. National Planning Policy and Framework

Mott MacDonald. 2018. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan: Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Mott MacDonald. 2018. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan: Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

Natural England. 2018. European Site Conservation Objectives for North Downs Woodlands Special Area of Conservation Site code: UK0030225

Natural England. 2018. European Site Conservation Objectives for Queendown Warren Special Area of Conservation Site Code: UK0012833

Natural England. 2018. European Site Conservation Objectives for Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation Site Code: UK0030237

Natural England. 2015. European Site Conservation Objectives: Supplementary advice on conserving and restoring site features Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (UK0030237)

Natural England. 2014. European Site Conservation Objectives for Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area Site Code: UK9012031

Natural England. 2014. Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS): Site Improvement Plan North Downs Woodlands. Site Code: UK0030225

Natural England. 2014. Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS): Site Improvement Plan Peters Pit. Site Code: UK0030237

Natural England. 2015. Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS): Site Improvement Plan Queendown Warren. Site Code: UK0012833

Natural England. 2014. Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS): Site Improvement Plan Greater Thames Complex. Site Code: UK9009171, UK9012031, UK9012021, UK9012011

Natural England. 2008 Guidelines for the creation of Suitable Accessible Natural Green Space (SANGS)

Office of The Deputy Prime Minister. 2005. Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the Planning System

Office for the Deputy Prime Minster. 2009. Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation- Statutory Obligations and their impacts within the Planning System

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. 2018. Local Plan Regulation 19 Pre- submission

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. 2016. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan: Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. 2018. Report of the Director of Planning, Housing and Environmental Health.

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council. 2017. Local Development Framework Core Strategy

66

E065 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.1994. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitats

URS Infrastructure and Environment UK Limited. 2015. ‘Bearing Fruits 2031: The Swale Borough Local Plan Part 1: Submission Version Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening.’

67

E066 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

68

E067 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Appendices

A. HRA Screening Report Stage 1: Air Quality Report 70 B. HRA Screening Report Stage 2: Air Quality Report 128 C. Correspondence with Natural England 149 D. Screening of Local Plan Policies 152 E. Figures 179 A. HRA Screening Report Stage 1: Air Quality Report 70 B. HRA Screening Report Stage 2: Air Quality Report 128 C. Correspondence with Natural England 149 D. Screening of Local Plan Policies 152 E. Figures 179 E.1 Tonbridge Ecological Designations in Relation to Strategic Sites E.2 Ecological Designations in Relation to the Development Site Information E.3 Location of Country Parks in Relation to Development Sites and Local Development Plans

69 E068 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

A. HRA Screening Report Stage 1: Air Quality Report

70

E069

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan

Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air

Quality Screening)

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council

E070

Mott MacDonald Victory House Trafalgar Place Brighton BN1 4FY United Kingdom

T +44 (0)1273 365000 F +44 (0)1273 365100 mottmac.com

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Gibson Building Tonbridge and Malling Gibson Drive 391898 2 F Kings Hill TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening West Malling Borough Mott MacDonald Council Local Plan ME19 4LZ Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

January 2019March 2020

Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1243967. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council United Kingdom

E071 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Issue and Revision Record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A May 2018 S. Arora C. Mills C. Mills Draft for comment J. Brookes B July 2018 S. Arora J. Brookes C. Mills Second issue C December C. Mills J. Brookes C. Mills Draft updates to NE comments 2018 D January C. Mills J. Brookes C. Mills Addressing TMBC comments 2019 E January C. Mills M. O’Brien C. Mills Addressing Counsel’ 2019 comments F January C. Mills J. Brookes C. Mills Final 2019 G March J. Brookes C. Mills C. Mills Updated following NE 2020 consultation responses

Document reference: 391898 | 2 | F G |

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This R eport has been prepar ed sol ely for use by the party w hich commissi oned it (the 'Client') in connection wi th the capti oned pr oject. It shoul d not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party w ho has expr essly agreed terms of reli ance with us (the 'Recipi ent(s)') may r ely on the content, information or any views expr essed in the R eport. T his R eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etary intell ectual pr operty and we accept no duty of car e, r esponsibility or li ability to any other recipi ent of t his R eport. N o repr esentati on, w arranty or undertaki ng, express or im plied, is made and no responsi bility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Client or any Reci pient(s), as to th e accuracy or com pleteness of the i nformati on contai ned i n this R eport. F or the avoi dance of doubt thi s Report does not i n any w ay pur port to i nclude any legal, insurance or fi nanci al advice or opi nion.

We disclaim all and any liability w hether arising i n tort, contr act or otherwise w hich we might otherwise have to any party other than the Cli ent or the Reci pient(s), in respect of this Report, or any inform ation contained in it. W e accept no responsi bility for any error or omissi on in the Report w hich is due to an error or omissi on in data, i nformation or statements supplied to us by other parti es i ncludi ng the Cli ent (the 'Data'). We have not independently verified the D ata or otherwise exami ned i t to determi ne the accuracy, com pleteness, sufficiency for any purpose or feasi bility for any particular outcome incl uding fi nanci al.

Forecasts presented i n this docum ent w ere pr epared usi ng the Data and the Repor t is dependent or based on the D ata. Inevitably, som e of the assumptions used to develop the for ecasts will not be realised and unantici pated events and circumstances m ay occur. C onsequently, we do not guarantee or w arrant the conclusions contained in the R eport as ther e are likely to be differences betw een the forecasts and the actual results and those dif fer ences may be m aterial. While we consi der that the inf ormation and opini ons given in this R eport are sound all parti es m ust rely on their ow n skill and judgem ent when m aking use of it.

Information and opi nions ar e current only as of the date of the Report and w e accept no responsi bility for updati ng such information or opi nion. It shoul d, therefor e, not be assum ed that any such inform ati on or opi nion conti nues to be accurate subsequent to the date of the Report. U nder no circum stances m ay this Report or any extract or summ ary thereof be used i n connecti on with any public or private securities offeri ng incl udi ng any related m emor andum or pr ospectus for any securiti es offering or stock exchange listi ng or announcem ent.

By acceptance of this Repor t you agree to be bound by this disclaim er. T his disclaim er and any issues, disputes or cl aims arising out of or in connection wi th it (whether contractual or non-contractual i n natur e such as cl aims i n tort, from br each of statute or regul ati on or otherwise) shall be governed by, and co nstr ued i n accordance with, the law s of Engl and and W ales to the exclusion of all conflict of l aws principles and r ules. All disputes or claims arising out of or r elati ng to this discl aimer shall be subject to the excl usive jurisdicti on of the English and Welsh courts to w hich the parties irrevocably submit.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E072 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Contents

Executive summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Background 5

3 Baseline conditions 15

4 Assessment approach 25

5 Air quality impacts of new development 34

6 Conclusions 41

Appendices 42

A. Traffic data 43

B. Model verification 48

C. Sensitivity analysis 54 Executive summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Background 5

3 Baseline conditions 15

4 Assessment approach 25

5 Air quality impacts of new development 34

6 Conclusions 41

Appendices 42

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E073 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

A. Traffic data 43

B. Model verification 48

C. Sensitivity analysis 54

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E074 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 1 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Executive summary

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan with a time horizon of 2031. An assessment has been undertaken to provide an evidence base for air quality impacts of the TMBC Local Plan on sensitive designated habitats, in the context of the European Union Habitat Regulations. The assessment has considered whether additional traffic, in combination with planned growth in neighbouring authorities, would result in significant impacts on designated ecological sites during the lifetime of the emerging Local Plan up to 2031. The process of determining whether plans may adversely affect a designated site requires a formal assessment of the implications of any new plans or projects. This process is collectively described as the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA). There are three HRA Stages:

● Stage 1. Likely significant effects (evidence gathering and screening) (the stage described in this document) ● Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment and ascertaining the effect on site integrity (necessary if there are found to be likely significant effects) ● Stage 3. Mitigation measures and alternative solutions (required when an option has been found to have adverse effects on the integrity of the site). The first stage within the HRA process consists of a screening exercise which identifies the likely significant effects from the plan or project on the designated sites and qualifying features. This document summarises the approach and outcomes of the stage 1 screening assessment for air quality only under TMBC’s Local Plan HRA process. The focus of the assessment is on determining the air quality impacts of the proposed development through dispersion modelling. This report therefore primarily presents the methodology and results of the dispersion modelling exercise. The assessment involved dispersion modelling of traffic impacts associated with the proposed TMBC Local Plan in isolation and in combination with other development in neighbouring authorities, at two Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) within Tonbridge and Malling and a Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar within Medway:

● Peter’s Pit SAC, designated for Triturus cristatus (Great crested newt) ● North Downs Woodland SAC, designated for yew-dominated woodland, beech forests on neutral to rich soils, and dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone. ● Medway Estuary & Marshes SPA and Ramsar designated for up to 13 species of bird as presented Table 10 Growth scenarios in neighbouring districts, for example committed development and neighbouring authorities’ local plans, have been accounted for in the traffic data used within this assessment by using information from the Department for Transport (DfT) TEMPro database, which takes into account planned (ie draft) and adopted strategic development plans across districts to estimate projected numbers of jobs and households in future years. The traffic growth factors calculated in TEMPro therefore account for the cumulative impacts of growth both within TMBC and within neighbouring districts.

Impacts on another designated site located within 7km of TMBC, and the Ashdown Forest SAC (located over 13km from TMBC but included in the screening stage due to recent case law

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E075 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 2 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

developments highlighting its sensitivity) were screened out as insignificant during this Stage 1 assessment, due to the low increases in traffic flows due to the TMBC Plan in isolation. Increases were derived by comparing the predicted ‘without development’ traffic flows in 2031 with the ‘with development’ flows in 2031 The following increases in traffic flows are predicted due to TMBC’s Local Plan:

● Queensdown Warren SAC: no traffic increases predicted on roads within 200m of the site (beyond which air quality effects of roads are generally not detectable above background concentrations) ● Ashdown Forest SAC: increase of three Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flows predicted. Traffic changes were screened as potentially significant or not by considering two different sets of available guidance (Highways England and draft Institute of Air Quality Management, IAQM) and applying the precautionary principle.

Concentrations of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Nitrogen (N) deposition rates have been predicted at discrete receptor locations representing the worst-case locations with respect to the designated site boundaries and adjacent roads. Results were compared with the NOX Critical Level (CLE) of 30µg/m3 (applicable to all designated sites in the assessment) and the N deposition Critical Load (CLO) (site-specific values determined by an ecology specialist based on the N sensitivity of the underlying habitats).

The results show that the in-combination assessment predicted increases in NOx concentrations at Peter’s Pit SAC above1% of the NOx CLE. The total NOx concentration in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to be well below the CLE. Predicted increases in N deposition at Peter’s Pit SAC would be above 1% of the minimum N deposition CLO of 5kg/ha/yr applied to the habitat at this location. Therefore, these impacts have not been screened out and have been considered in a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment for air quality.

The NOx increase at North Downs Woodland (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) in the in- combination scenario is predicted to be above 1% of the CLE at the eastern side (adjacent to the A249) and on the western side (close to the A229). Total NOx remains below the CLE at both of these modelled receptors. Nitrogen deposition impacts at North Downs Woodland (east), where the underlying habitat is classified as Yew-dominated woodland, are predicted to above 1% of the minimum CLO of 5kg/ha/yr. The increase at North Downs Woodland (west), where the habitat is classified as ‘Beech forests on neutral to rich soils’ is also predicted to be above 1% of the minimum CLO of 10kg/ha/yr. Background deposition at both of these locations exceeds the minimum and maximum CLOs, and therefore both the ‘without development’ and ‘with development’ scenarios predict an exceedance of the CLO in 2031. Therefore, these impacts have not been screened out and have been considered in a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment for air quality.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E076 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 3 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

1 Introduction

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan with a time horizon of 2031. In collating the evidence base in advance of the Examination in Public, currently scheduled for Spring 2019, there is a need to understand the air quality implications of the emerging development strategy on sensitive designated habitats, in the context of the European Union Habitat Regulations.

1.1 Overview This report undertakes a Habitat Regulations Screening Assessment for air quality impacts on designated sites within TMBCs geographic boundary and in adjacent unitary authorities and boroughs where in-combination effects could occur.

This report supplements the overarching Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report and focuses solely on air quality.

1.2 Pollutants of concern The main pollutants of concern with respect to road traffic impacts on sensitive ecological sites are Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and subsequent Nitrogen (N) deposition. Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for plant growth; however, inputs of excess nitrogen into an ecosystem can result in detrimental effects. Excess nitrogen can cause a bloom of fast growing plants so that other plants are starved of nutrients and light and eventually die; this chain of events is known as eutrophication. Nitrogen oxides can also have direct harmful effects on sensitive lower plants such as lichens and bryophytes. Therefore, the HRA Screening Assessment is focussed on these pollutants only.

1.3 Aims of study This report summarises the process and outcomes of the ‘Stage 1: Air Quality Screening’ assessment under the Habitat Regulations, for the emerging TMBC Local Plan, with the following objectives:

● Identify designated sites at risk of significant effects caused by changes in air quality arising from the development identified in TMBC’s Local Plan, and growth scenarios in neighbouring districts/unitary authorities ● Assess the existing air quality and ecological status of the designated sites (existing baseline) ● Quantitatively predict the air quality and N deposition at the designated sites without the Local Plan taking place in 2031 (end of plan period - future baseline) ● Quantitatively predict the air quality and N deposition in 2031 with the Local Plan taking place ● Assess whether or not the development identified in TMBC’s Local Plan, and growth scenarios in neighbouring Boroughs/unitary authorities, results in needing to undertake an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ of air quality impacts in the vicinity of sensitive ecological designated international sites In conjunction with this HRA screening, an assessment is required of whether or not the development of the Local Plan will result in a worsening of air quality at sensitive human health

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E077 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 4 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

receptors, focussing on air quality management areas (AQMAs). This aspect is addressed in the separate Air Quality Evidence Base report, produced by Mott MacDonald for TMBC in May 2018.

1.4 Report structure and content This Stage 1 air quality screening report is structured as follows:

● Section 1 (this section): introduction ● Section 2 sets out the background and context for the Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan, air quality and ecology legislation, and relevant transport policies ● Section 3 assesses the baseline conditions of the current air quality and ecological status of designated sites, including a review of previous studies in the area ● Section 4 describes the assessment approach ● Section 5 presents the air quality impacts on designated sites ● Section 6 provides conclusions from the study.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E078 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 5 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

2 Background

2.1 Strategic development proposed

2.1.1 Tonbridge and Malling TMBC is carrying out a comprehensive review of Local Plan policies in line with the National Planning Policy Framework1. The air quality screening assessment was undertaken based on traffic data produced from the Transport Assessment which was developed from an iteration of the development strategy in the draft Local Plan that was available at the time the evidence was prepared.

Since the completion of the Transport Assessment and production of the traffic data to support the air quality screening assessment there has been further rationalisation to the sizes of the development sites and the total quantum of residential units included in the Regulation 19 Plan. Table 1 presents the number of units assumed in the Transport Assessment used to inform the air quality assessment and the latest numbers included in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.

There is a decrease in the overall quantum of development in the Regulation 19 Plan of 2,322 units across the borough compared to the quantum assumed within the Transport Assessment and a decrease in the number of units in the north-east part of the borough where Peter’s Pit and North Downs Woodland are located.. In addition, the Transport Assessment assumed 41.7ha of employment land within its assumptions whereas the final iteration of the Local Plan assumed 38.5ha of new employment land.

It is considered that Taking account of the changes in the overallreduced quantum of developments assumed within the traffic data used to inform this assessment and the final numberdevelopment in the Regulation 19 Plan would reduce the predicted traffic flows used in this assessment and thereforeand comparing this with the data that informed this assessment, as illustrated in Table 1, it is reasonable to state that the conclusions reached are conservative.

Table 1: Comparison of total number of residential units Whole borough North east area Regulation 19 Local Plan 6,834 3,633 development number Total number assumed in traffic 9,156 5,174 data used in air quality assessment

2.1.2 Growth scenarios in neighbouring districts/unitary authorities The traffic data used in the assessment has been generated using the following information:

● Traffic surveys to establish existing flows at selected junctions and links; ● TEMPro database, which considers strategic development plans across districts based on estimated projected numbers of jobs and households in future years, to growth existing flows; ● TRICS which is a database used for determining trip generation from new developments for transport planning purposes; and

1 Department for Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E079 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 6 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

● Census 2011 journey to work data. TEMPro growth factors (released in April 2017) have been used in this assessment as these were the latest at the time of assessment and are based on 2014 to 2016 local plan data collected by DfT from local authorities. TEMPro factors are derived on the basis of committed development and draft and final Local Plans available at the time the TEMPro data is collated. The factors take account of specific planned growth scenarios in its own and neighbouring (and further afield) districts and present the cumulative impacts of growth both within TMBC and within other districts.

The likely level of vehicular traffic generated by the Tonbridge & Malling Local Plan has been calculated using the TRICS 2017 database. Inputs into the TRICS database take account of the proposed developments included within the Local Plan.

To isolate the specific impacts of Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan traffic growth, and avoid double counting these impacts, the number of jobs and households in TEMPro for the Tonbridge and Malling area has been adjusted, thereby not taking into the account growth currently assumed in TEMPro for the Local Plan. The adjusted TEMPro traffic growth factors for future years (referred to as background growth) have been applied to the existing traffic flows. These traffic flows are referred to as the ‘future year, without development’ flows.

The Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan trip generation, has been calculated by Mott MacDonald traffic consultants based on the specific housing and employment proposals in the draft Local Plan at the time of commencement of the Transport Assessment using TRICS. The calculated trip generation includes all trip purposes (commuting, business, education, shopping, personal business, leisure). The distribution of these trips is based on the Census 2011 journey to work data. No distribution is readily available for any of the other trip purposes. The journey to work distribution has therefore been applied to all trip purposes. The National Travel Survey (NTS) shows that commuter trips (journeys to work) are on average longer than education, shopping or leisure trips. The distribution adopted therefore leads to an overestimation of vehicle trip lengths and therefore impacts in the assessment.

The calculated Local Plan vehicular movements have been manually added to the growthed traffic flows to provide the ‘future year with development’. Refer to the Transport Assessment prepared by Mott MacDonald for further details of the traffic assumptions and calculations.

Where changes between the ‘with development’ and ‘without development’ scenarios are presented in this assessment, these refer to the changes due to the TMBC Local Plan only. To fully account for ‘in-combination effects’ an additional scenario has been assessed which uses the same ‘with development’ traffic which accounts for the maximum traffic flows (due to Growth in TMBC and growth in surrounding authorities) but compares these to the base flows from 2016 because it is not possible to isolate the ‘in-combination effects’ from the general background growth. This in-combination assessment therefore assumes no growth in traffic between 2016 and 2031 in a without development scenario and assesses the worth case in combination effects.

Therefore, ‘in combination effects’ have been accounted for in the assessment by determining the total in combination concentrations (ie due to growth in neighbouring authorities and in TMBC) compared with concentrations predicted using the base year (2016) traffic flows.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E080 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 7 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

2.2 Legislation and policy

2.2.1 Habitats legislation The European Commission (EC) Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) affords special protection to areas with a high conservation value in terms of the species and habitats present. The Directive is transposed into legislation in England through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations), which consolidate the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 with subsequent amendments. The Habitats Regulations also transpose certain aspects of the EU Wild Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds).

The Regulations provide for the designation and protection of 'European sites', the protection of 'European protected species', and the adaptation of planning and other controls for the protection of European Sites. European designated sites form a network referred to as ‘Natura 2000’, comprised of

● Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), including candidate SACs, which are important for either habitats or species (listed in Annexes I and II of the Habitats Directive respectively) ● Special Protection Areas (SPA), including proposed SPAs, which are designated to maintain the conservation status of rare or vulnerable species of bird listed on Annex 1 of the Wild Birds Directive. Under the Habitat Directive, a Habitat Regulation Assessment (HRA) is required to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which either alone, or in combination, is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (provided it is not directly connected with the management of the site for nature conservation). In determining whether a plan may affect a Natura 2000 site, it is important to recognise that the assessment should be appropriate to the likely scale, importance, and impact of the development.

In addition to Natura 2000 sites, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the Ramsar Convention, 1971), enables the designation of Ramsar sites, which are wetland sites designated for their internationally important assemblages of species. Under the Regulations, Ramsar sites are afforded the same level of protection as Natura 2000 sites, and therefore plans or projects potentially affecting Ramsar sites are also required to undergo HRA.

2.2.1.1 Role of the ‘competent authority’ Under the Habitats Regulations, competent authorities (ie any Minister, government department, public body, or person holding public office), have a general duty to have regard to the EC Habitats Directive and Wild Birds Directive. This typically takes the form of restricting commercial, industrial and residential development in the vicinity of European sites, ensuring appropriate management of the areas and preventing the destruction or harm of protected species. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) is a ‘competent authority’ responsible for enforcing the Habitat Regulations.

As a public body Natural England has important statutory duties and responsibilities as defined in the Habitats Regulations. Natural England becomes a ‘competent authority’ under the Regulations when the exercise of its functions will or may affect Natura 2000 sites.

The competent authority will only agree to a plan/project after having ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned. This includes whether the

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E081 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 8 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

conservation status of the primary interest features (often known as the ‘qualifying features’) of the site could be affected. A qualifying interest refers to the species that a site has been designated for, such as a particular species of lichen, bat, flower, or bird.

2.2.1.2 HRA process The process of determining whether plans may adversely affect a designated site requires a formal assessment of the implications of any new plans or projects. This process is collectively described as the HRA. There are three HRA Stages:

● Stage 1. Likely significant effects (evidence gathering and screening) ● Stage 2. Appropriate Assessment and ascertaining the effect on site integrity (necessary if there are found to be likely significant effects) ● Stage 3. Mitigation measures and alternative solutions (required when an option has been found to have adverse effects on the integrity of the site) The first stage within the HRA process consists of a screening exercise which identifies the likely significant effects from the plan or project on the designated sites and qualifying features. This document summarises the approach and outcomes of the stage 1 screening assessment under TMBC’s Local Plan HRA process. A key component of the HRA process is the application of the ‘precautionary principle’ wherever uncertainties exist. The precautionary principle is embedded into understanding and consideration of all significant effects, and within the Habitats Regulations themselves. Adverse effects are always assumed if there is uncertainty within the available information. If it is found that the project is likely to impose significant effects on the designated sites, then a Stage 2 ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is required to consider what the effects may be, and whether they are likely to significantly affect the condition and integrity of each designated site. A Stage 2 ‘Appropriate Assessment’ and Stage 3 ‘Mitigation and alternative solutions’ are outside the scope of this document and, if required, would be produced separately.

2.2.2 Air quality legislation and policy

2.2.2.1 Overview Various European Union (EU) Air Quality Directives, UK Air Quality Regulations and UK policy documents provide air quality criteria relevant to the protection of designated sites. These criteria are typically presented as critical levels (CLE) and critical loads (CLO) for the protection of vegetation (APIS, 2013); the definition of these terms is as follows:

● Critical Levels (CLE) - “gaseous concentrations of pollutants above which direct adverse effects on vegetation or ecosystems may occur according to present knowledge. Therefore, when pollutant concentrations exceed the critical level it is considered that there is risk of harmful effects.” ● Critical Loads (CLO)- “a quantitative estimate of an exposure to one or more pollutants below which significant effects on specific sensitive elements of the environment do not occur according to present knowledge…Exceedance of critical load is used as an indication of the potential for harmful effects to ecosystems.” CLE are presented as an atmospheric concentration measured over a given exposure period, for example an annual mean in µg/m3. CLO are given as kg Nitrogen/ha/yr for nitrogen

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E082 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 9 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

deposition (eutrophication) and as keq/ha/yr2 for acid deposition. Excess nitrogen deposition can also lead to acidification of freshwater and soils, although this is more pertinent in upland areas with high rainfall (for example the Scottish Highlands) than lowland habitats such as the Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity of Tonbridge and Malling (Dore et al., 2009). The effects of acidification as a result of nitrogen deposition are therefore not considered further in this assessment.

A summary of the relevant air quality legislation and policy is presented below.

2.2.2.2 EU Air Quality Directives and UK Air Quality Regulations Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe was adopted in May 2008, merging and replacing three previous ‘daughter directives’. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 and The Air Quality Standards (Amendment) Regulations 2016 transpose the limit values contained within the Ambient Air Quality Directive; this includes CLE and target values for the protection of vegetation from oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ozone (O3). These standards are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Limit values, target values and long-term objectives for the protection of vegetation Pollutant Standards Averaging period/ Value parameter Nitrogen Limit value for the protection Calendar year 30μg/m³ (a) oxides (NOx) of vegetation Sulphur Limit value for the protection Calendar year and winter 20μg/m³ (a) dioxide (SO2) of ecosystems (1st October to 31st March) (b) Ozone (O3) Target value for the AOT 40 , calculated from 1 18,000μg/m³/hr averaged protection of vegetation hour values from May to July over five years (c) Long term objective for the AOT 40 (b), calculated from 1 6,000μg/m³/hr (d) protection of vegetation hour values from May to July Source: UK Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 Notes: (a) Critical Level (b) ‘AOT 40’ refers to the accumulated concentration over 40 parts per billion (c) Target value (d) Long term objective

EU Directive 2008/50/EC also contains guidance on the locations where standards for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems apply and these have been transposed into the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. To assess compliance with the Air Quality Standards Regulations, sampling points targeted at the protection of vegetation must be sited:

● More than 20km from an agglomeration (ie an area with a population of more than 250,000) ● More than 5km away from an industrial source regulated under Part A of the Environment Act 1990 (and/or Part A1 sites under the Environmental Permitting Regulations) ● More than 5km away from motorways or major roads with traffic counts of more than 50,000 vehicles per day ● More than 5km away from built up areas of more than 5,000 people. Therefore, designated sites within these areas do not have the benefit of protection from statutory air quality limit values. However, it is recognised that it is Natural England’s policy and the Environment Agency’s policy to apply the UK Air Quality Regulations limit values to all

2 The unit eq (a keq is 1000 eq) refers to molar equivalent of potential acidity resulting from eg reduced nitrogen.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E083 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 10 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

sensitive ecological sites when considering potential effects (Environment Agency, 2006). As a precautionary approach, this policy has also been applied within this assessment.

2.2.2.3 Non- statutory standards The 2007 Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (AQS) (Defra, 2007), sets out air quality objectives and policy options to improve air quality, including protection of the environment. There is no legal requirement to meet these objectives except in as far as they mirror any equivalent legally binding limit values in the EU Directives or UK Regulations described above. In the case of the values for the protection of vegetation presented in Table 2, the AQS objectives mirror the CLEs, target value and long-term objective.

Defra and the Environment Agency publish guidance notes that are designed to provide information relevant to those sectors which are regulated under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. ‘Air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit’ relates to air emissions; the latest version of this was published in February 2016. This guidance provides CLE for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems, which are applied to all sensitive nature conservation sites. The CLEs for NOx are presented in Table 3 and derived from the World Health Organisation (WHO) Regional Office for Europe “Air Quality Guidelines for Europe” in 3 2000 (WHO, 2000). WHO suggests an annual mean CLE for NOX of 30µg/m (mirroring that later included in the Air Quality Directive) and a provisional 24-hour mean CLE of 75µg/m3. These values are also supported by Natural England.

Table 3: Relevant non-statutory critical levels for the protection of vegetation and ecosystems Pollutant Concentration (µg/m3) Measured as (a) NOx (as NO2) 30 Annual mean 75 Daily mean Notes: (a) World Health Organisation (WHO), 2000 Source: Defra / Environment Agency ‘Air emissions risk assessment for your environmental permit’ guidance

Although air quality effects on designated sites are not solely associated with the atmospheric concentrations of pollutants, there are currently no statutory environmental quality standards in relation to deposition. However, critical loads (CLO) as defined in section 2.2.2.1 are applied as non-statutory standards. CLOs are habitat and site specific, and therefore no universal national standards exist. CLOs applicable to the designated sites considered within this assessment are described in Section 3 (baseline conditions). The AQS states that it is committed to reaching the long-term objectives of no exceedances of critical loads and critical levels.

2.3 Spatial scope For the purposes of this HRA screening assessment, only ecological receptors have been included in the model as impacts on human health receptors within 200m of the modelled road network are considered separately in the TMBC Local Plan Air Quality Evidence Base assessment produced by Mott MacDonald3.

The following designated sites have been identified within Tonbridge and Malling:

● North Downs Woodland SAC (Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment and Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) ● Peter’s Pit SAC

3 Mott MacDonald (2018). Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan, Air Quality Evidence Base.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E084 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 11 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

In addition, two designated sites have been identified within 7km of the boundary of Tonbridge and Malling:

● Queensdown Warren SAC (Maidstone Borough Council) ● Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar (Medway Council, Swale Borough Council) Additionally, potential traffic impacts at the Ashdown Forest SAC (Wealden District Council), located approximately 13.6km south west of Tonbridge and Malling, have been considered due to the recently highlighted sensitivities at this site4. I

The location of these sites is illustrated in Figure 1.

For impacts on air quality arising from traffic emissions, guidance produced by the Highways Agency advises that contributions from vehicle emissions are generally imperceptible above background concentrations farther than 200 metres from the source5. Therefore, for the assessment of road traffic emissions, consideration has only been given to ecological receptors located within 200 metres of roads with potentially significant traffic changes. It should be noted that in some areas it was necessary to extend the modelled road network beyond the extent of applicability of the traffic counts provided to cover roads within 200m of the designated sites, in order to determine the impact of the Local Plan on these sensitive areas.

To determine whether traffic changes are potentially significant or not, criteria outlined within Highways England’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) HA207/07 have been considered which suggests that changes in traffic flows of 1000 AADT or 200 HDVs within 200m of a designated site should be investigated further. In addition, draft guidance released for consultation by the IAQM6 suggests that a possible risk of a significant change in air quality could be caused by a change in AADT of one percent. For the purposes of this assessment, both sets of guidance have been considered and the precautionary principle applied to identify potentially significant changes in traffic flows.

Traffic data has been provided by Mott MacDonald transport consultants for roads predicted to experience an increase in traffic flows as a result of the Local Plan development. Table 4 summarises the roads within 200m of the above designated sites for which traffic data has been provided, and the predicted changes in traffic flows.

Table 4: Summary of designated sites and potentially significant traffic changes from the TMBC Local Plan in isolation Designated Roads within 200m? 2031 traffic increase(a) DMRB IAQM Included site criteria criteria in HRA? AADT HDV As % of triggered triggered AADT ? ? North Downs A229 Bluebell Hill, 5,902 82 9.6 Yes Yes Yes Woodland SAC Maidstone (N of (b) (Wouldham to Rochester Road) Detling A249 Detling Hill, Detling 3,350 46 8.0 Yes Yes Yes Escarpment) (E of Pilgrims Way junction)

4 The Ashdown Forest SAC has been the subject of three court judgements, the most recent of which was a High Court Judgement on 20 March 2017 (Wealden District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, SSCLG), focussing on the consideration of cumulative impacts on the Ashdown Forest SAC. As a result of these judgements, impacts on the Ashdown Forest have received greater scrutiny and there is a requirement to consider the impacts of the TMBC Local Plan in combination with the impacts of other neighbouring authorities’ strategic development proposals. 5 Highways England (2007). Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. Volume 11, Section 3. HA 207/07. http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol11/section3/ha20707.pdf 6 IAQM (November 2017). A guide to navigating the assessment of air quality effects on designated sites. Consultation draft.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E085 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 12 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Designated Roads within 200m? 2031 traffic increase(a) DMRB IAQM Included site criteria criteria in HRA? AADT HDV As % of triggered triggered AADT ? ? North Downs None - - - No No No Woodland SAC (Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment) Peter’s Pit Rochester Road (E of 95 1 1.6 No Yes Yes SAC Bull Lane junction)(b) Queensdown None(c) - - - No No No Warren SAC Medway A289 Pier Road, 85 1 0.3 No No No Estuary and Gillingham (E of B2004 Marshes SPA junction) and Ramsar Ashdown A26 (between junction 3 0 0.0 No No No Forest SAC with A22 and Sweethaws Lane, Crowborough) Notes: (a) Change between the predicted two-way ‘with development’ traffic flows and the predicted ‘without development’ traffic flows in 2031, ie the increase in traffic due to the TMBC Local Plan development alone – refer to section 2.1.2 for further information (b) Note these road links were extended beyond the extent of applicability of the traffic counts provided to cover roads within 200m of the designated sites (c) Minor roads only within 200m, therefore not included in the transport modelling assessment. The M2 motorway is the closest major road, but is further than 200m from this designated site Source: Mott MacDonald

Considering both the DMRB criteria (increase >1000 AADT or >200HDV) and IAQM criteria (>1% of the without-development AADT), only North Downs Woodland SAC and Peter’s Pit SAC are considered to have potentially significant traffic changes within 200m of the boundary, and therefore only these two sites have been considered in detail when looking at the changes in traffic caused by the TMBC Local Plan in isolation in this Stage 1HRA Screening Assessment.

The traffic increases of 85 AADT and three AADT on links close to the Medway Estuary and Ashdown Forest respectively were screened out as insignificant as they did not trigger either the Highways England or IAQM criteria when looking at the TMBC Local Plan in isolation.

It is acknowledged that HRA requires the assessment of ‘in combination effects’ of the TMBC Local Plan with development from other neighbouring authorities and boroughs. Therefore, as described in 2.1.2, the future year ‘with development’ flows have been compared to the 2016 base flows.

In-combination effects have not been assessed at the Ashdown Forest as the traffic modelling indicates that vehicles from TMBC are unlikely to travel towards the Ashdown Forest to access the Sussex districts, as more favourable routes (eg the M25/M23/A23 or A21) are expected to be used instead and the increase in AADT at the Ashdown Forest as a result of the TMBC Local Plan is predicted to be 3 AADT. Any change in Nitrogen deposition created by an additional 3 AADT would be insignificant and not possible to measure. This view is supported by Natural England in correspondence provided during consultation on an earlier version of this report.

In addition, recent (ie March 2018) recovered appeal decisions for planning applications in the vicinity of Ashdown Forest7 and the recent adoption of the Mid-Sussex Local Plan indicate that

7 For example, see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684620/18-03- 01_DL_IR_Turners_Hill_Road.pdf

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E086 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 13 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

the Secretary of State has ruled that such small increases in traffic flows do not require detailed assessment. Therefore, inclusion of the Ashdown Forest in this assessment is not considered necessary and screening out impacts on these sites using the appropriate guidance, as has been done for this assessment is appropriate.

Table 5 presents the traffic increase when comparing the 2016 base flows and the 2031 scenario which includes additional traffic generated by the TMBC Local Plan and development in surrounding authorities. When assessing in-combination effects the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar is also screened into the assessment.

Table 5: Summary of designated sites and potentially significant traffic changes from in- combination effects Designated Roads within 200m? 2031 traffic increase(a) DMRB IAQM Included site criteria criteria in HRA? AADT HDV As % of triggered triggered AADT ? ? North Downs A229 Bluebell Hill, 8,849 354 15.1 Yes Yes Yes Woodland SAC Maidstone (N of (b) (Wouldham to Rochester Road) Detling A249 Detling Hill, Detling 5,359 214 13.5 Yes Yes Yes Escarpment) (E of Pilgrims Way junction) Peter’s Pit Rochester Road (E of 388 16 6.7 No Yes Yes SAC Bull Lane junction)(b) Medway A289 Pier Road, 1,516 68 5.0 Yes Yes Yes Estuary and Gillingham (E of B2004 Marshes SPA junction) and Ramsar Notes: (a) Change between the predicted two-way ‘with development’ in 2031 and the 2016 Base flows, ie the increase in traffic due to the TMBC Local Plan development, other Local Plan developments and natural traffic growth– refer to section 2.1.2 for further information (b) Note these road links were extended beyond the extent of applicability of the traffic counts provided to cover roads within 200m of the designated sites Source: Mott MacDonald

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E087 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 14 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Figure 1: Designated sites

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E088 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 15 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

3 Baseline conditions

3.1 Air quality

3.1.1 Overview Total air pollutant concentrations comprise of a background and local component. The background concentration is determined by regional, national, and international emissions, and often represents a significant proportion of the total pollutant concentration. The local component is determined by local pollutant sources such as roads, and in this case, has been considered using the ADMS-Roads model.

Background pollutant concentrations are spatially and temporally variable throughout the UK. Information on air quality within the UK is available from a variety of sources including Local Authorities, national network monitoring sites and other published sources. The primary sources of data examined in this assessment are from TMBC, Defra and the Air Pollution Information System (APIS).

3.1.2 Local Authority monitoring

3.1.2.1 Automatic monitoring There is a rural background monitoring site located in neighbouring Maidstone district (‘Maidstone Rural’), approximately 1.1km north east of the closest designated site, North Downs Woodland. This site monitors NOX, SO2 and PM10 concentrations.

In addition, TMBC undertakes automatic monitoring for NOX and NO2 at one site within the borough (‘Tonbridge Roadside 2’). This automatic monitoring site is located in central Tonbridge, on the A26 within the Tonbridge High Street AQMA, approximately 18.3km south west of North Downs Woodland SAC. The monitor is classified as a roadside site and is therefore not considered representative of background concentrations.

The locations of monitoring sites discussed within this section are presented in Figure 2.

Automatic monitoring results from the Maidstone Rural monitoring site are presented below in Table 6. The data shows that annual mean NOX concentrations at the rural site have been 3 consistently low, and well below the UK NOX limit value of 30µg/m (as NO2) for the protection of vegetation.

Table 6: Automatic monitoring data for NOX 3 (a) Site name Site National Grid reference Annual mean NOx concentration (µg/m ) classification X Y 2015 2016 2017(b) Maidstone Rural Rural 580108 159703 15.9 16.7 15.9 (CM2) background Notes: (a) Data capture for all sites and years is >75% Source: Kent and Medway Air Quality Monitoring Network (KentAir) http://www.kentair.org.uk/

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E089 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 16 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Figure 2: Monitoring sites relevant to this assessment

Source: Tonbridge and Malling Annual Status Report 2017

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E090 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 17 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

3.1.2.2 Non-automatic monitoring

TMBC undertakes non-automatic monitoring of NO2 with diffusion tubes at 54 sites across the district. The majority of TMBC’s diffusion tubes are installed at roadside/kerbside sites, which are not considered representative of background locations, but have been used in the process of model verification as described in section 4.4 and Appendix A.B. Diffusion tube monitoring includes three urban background monitoring sites, as shown in Figure 2 above.

Monitoring results for the urban background monitoring sites are presented in Table 7. To estimate the NOX value from monitored NO2, the NOX to NO2 ratio from the corresponding Defra background square in 2016 has been used. The monitoring data shows that NOX concentrations at all background sites are well below the CLE of 30µg/m3.

Table 7: Diffusion tube monitoring data for NO2 at background sites

Site name Site National Grid Annual mean NO2 Annual mean NOx ID reference concentration (µg/m3) concentration (µg/m3) X Y 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 Offham Road, West TN10 567617 157635 14.9 17.3 14.4 20.1 23.3 19.4 Malling Wilson Road, TN18 560263 148509 12.2 13.6 13.6 16.3 18.2 18.2 Tonbridge Harrison Road, TN95 560830 157004 14.8 16.1 14.0 20.1 21.8 19.0 Borough Green Source: TMBC Air Quality Annual Status Report 2017 All tubes have been bias adjusted Data capture for all sites and years is >75%

3.1.3 Defra Projected Background Concentrations

Defra provides estimates of background pollution concentrations for NOX, NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 across the UK for each one-kilometre grid square for every year from 2015 to 2030. Future year projections have been developed from the base year of the background maps, which is currently 2015. The maps include a breakdown of background concentrations by emission source, including road and industrial sources which have been calibrated against 2015 UK monitoring data. Background maps can be adjusted to remove road sources modelled in ADMS-Roads, in order to prevent double counting of the contribution of these sources to background concentrations. However, as only a limited number of roads within each grid square have been modelled, no sector removal has been carried out. This is considered a conservative but appropriate approach.

Background concentrations for the 1km grid squares covering the designated sites are presented in Table 8 below for 2016 (base year), 2025 (an interim year, for comparison) and 2030 (the latest available Defra year, assumed to be representative of the final Local Plan year of 2031). The data shows mapped background concentrations for all pollutants are below the relevant objectives.

Table 8: Defra projected background concentrations of NOX and NO2 for designated sites in 2016 and 2030 (µg/m3) Designated 1km grid square locations 2016 2025 2030 site X Y NOX NO2 NOX NO2 NOX NO2 575500 160500 21.4 15.5 15.6 11.6 13.8 10.3 North Downs 576500 160500 19.1 13.9 14.4 10.7 12.9 9.7 Woodland SAC 576500 159500 20.0 14.6 14.6 10.9 13.0 9.8

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E091 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 18 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Designated 1km grid square locations 2016 2025 2030 site X Y NOX NO2 NOX NO2 NOX NO2 577500 159500 17.9 13.1 13.2 9.9 11.8 8.9 578500 159500 16.9 12.4 12.4 9.4 11.1 8.4 579500 159500 16.6 12.3 12.1 9.2 10.8 8.2 578500 158500 19.9 14.5 13.9 10.4 12.1 9.2 579500 158500 21.7 15.7 14.7 11.0 12.7 9.6 571500 162500 16.5 12.2 12.2 9.2 11.0 8.3 572500 162500 16.4 12.1 12.1 9.1 10.9 8.3 Peter’s Pit SAC 571500 163500 16.1 11.9 11.9 9.0 10.7 8.1 572500 163500 16.2 12.0 12.0 9.0 10.8 8.2 Source: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-maps

3.1.4 Comparison with monitored concentrations

The NOX background concentration for the 1km grid square containing the Maidstone Rural background monitoring site in 2016 has been compared against the corresponding monitored data, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Comparison of monitored and Defra projected background concentrations for NOx Background site 1km grid square Pollutant 2016 concentration (µg/m3) Scaling factor X Y Monitored Mapped

CM2 580500 159500 NOx 16.7 16.5 1.012 Source: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/laqm-background-maps The ratio of the monitored and Defra background data is 1.012, indicating that the Defra background maps are predicting accurately for rural background sites in the study area. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to use Defra background concentrations (as presented in Table 8 above) in the assessment.

3.2 Designated sites Table 10 summarises key information from the citations for the two designated located within TMBC under consideration in this HRA screening assessment. Information is also presented on site conservation objectives and priority issues identified in Natural England’s ‘site improvement plans,’ where available.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E092 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 19 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Table 10: Designated site citations Parameter North Downs Woodland Peter’s Pit Medway Estuary and Marshes Site area 287.55ha 28.30ha 4684ha Local Authorities TMBC, Gravesham, Medway, Maidstone Borough. TMBC Medway, Swale, Kent Site description This site consists of mature beech Fagus sylvatica Peter’s Pit is an old chalk quarry with adjoining The Medway Estuary and Marshes is located in forests and yew Taxus baccata woods on steep soil-stripped fields on the North Downs, with north Kent. The estuary forms a single tidal slopes. The stands lie within a mosaic of scrub, scattered ponds situated amongst grassland, system with the Swale and joins the southern part other woodland types, and areas of unimproved scrub, and woodland. The ponds have widely of the Thames Estuary between the Isle of Grain grassland on thin chalk soils. The beech and yew fluctuating water levels and support large breeding and Sheerness. woodland is on thin chalk soils and where the populations of great crested newt Triturus The site has a complex arrangement of tidal ground flora is not shaded dog’s mercury Mercurialis cristatus. channels, which drain around large islands of salt perennis predominates. Associated with it is stinking The site has undulating terrain in which many rain marsh and peninsulas of grazing marsh. There are iris (Iris foetidissima) and several very scarce fed ponds, of various sizes, have developed. Five large areas of mudflat, which have high densities species such as lady orchid (Orchis purpurea) and ponds are sufficiently large to support very of invertebrates providing a good food source for stinking hellebore (Helleborus foetidus). substantial populations of amphibians, particularly wading birds. Grazing marsh can also be found The chalk grassland, on warm south-facing slopes, the great crested newt. The value of the site for landward of some sea walls in the area. Small is dominated by upright brome Bromopsis erecta newts is enhanced by the presence, around the shell beaches occur too, particularly in the outer and sheep’s-fescue Festuca ovina but supports edges and between the ponds, of areas of scrub parts of the estuary. The area is very flat and low many other plants which are characteristic of with loose rock which serve as day and winter lying, with large expanses of uninterrupted views. unimproved downland, including the nationally rare refuges. Aquatic vegetation provides shelter in the The complex and diverse mixes of coastal habitats ground pine Ajuga chamaepitys. pond environment. support important numbers of waterbirds throughout the year. In summer, the estuary supports breeding waders and terns, whilst in winter it holds important numbers of geese, ducks, grebes and waders. The middle and outer parts of the estuary represent the most important areas for the birds. Important areas for birds include the Saltings and Hoo flats on the north side and the stretch from Copperhouse marshes eastwards towards Chetney marshes on the south side. The islands within the Medway also provide good habitat for SPA birds, in particular some of the breeding species. Qualifying Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles (Yew- Triturus cristatus (Great crested newt) SPA: 8 features dominated woodland) (priority habitat ) Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), Breeding Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests (Beech forests on Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), Non-breeding neutral to rich soils) Breeding bird assemblage, Breeding Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: Dark-bellied brent goose (Branta bernicla on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) (Dry bernicla), Non-breeding grasslands and scrublands on chalk or limestone)

8 Some of the natural habitats and species listed in the Habitats Directive and for which SACs have been selected are priorities for conservation at a European scale and are subject to special provisions in the Directive and the Habitats Regulations. These priority natural habitats and species are denoted by an asterisk (*) in Annex I and II of the Directive.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E093 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 20 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Parameter North Downs Woodland Peter’s Pit Medway Estuary and Marshes Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpina), Non-breeding Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola), Non-breeding Knot (Calidris canutus), Non-breeding Little tern (Sternula albifrons), Breeding Pintail (Anas acuta), Non-breeding Redshank (Tringa totanus), Non-breeding Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula), Non- breeding Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), Non-breeding Waterbird assemblage, Non-breeding Ramsar: Annual bead-grass (Polypogon monspeliensis) Beetle (Malachius vulneratus) Borrer's salmarsh-grass (Puccinesllia fasciculata) Cranefly (Limonia danica) Curved hard-grass (Parapholis incurva) Dancefly (Poeciloborthrus ducalis) Dark-bellied brent goose (Branta bernicla bernicla) Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpina) Fly (Anagnota collini) Fly (Campsicnemus magius) Fly (Cephalops perspicuus) Golden samphire (Inula crithmoides) Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola) Ground beetle (Polistichus connexus) Ground lackey moth (Malacosoma castrensis) Horsefly (Atylotu latistriatuus) Knot (Calidris canutus) One flowered glasswort (Salicornia pusilla) Perennial glasswort (Salicornia perennis) Pintail (Anas acuta) Redshank (Tringa totanus) Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) Rove beetle (Philonthus punctus) Sea barley (Hordeum marinum) Sea clover (Trifolium squamosum) Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna) Slender hare's-ear (Bupleurum tenuissiumum)

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E094 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 21 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Parameter North Downs Woodland Peter’s Pit Medway Estuary and Marshes Small goose foot (Chenopodium chenopodioides) Solider beetle (Cantharis fusca) Water beetle (Berosus spinosus) Weevil (Baris scolopacea) Component Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment – all component Peter’s Pit - all of the component SSSI units are in Medway Estuary and Marshes – of the 29 SSSI condition SSSI units are in ‘favourable’ or ‘unfavourable – ‘favourable’ condition with no identified threats to component SSSI units 26 are in ‘unfavourable – recovering’ condition except one unit in condition11. recovering’ condition. Motney Hill (021) is ‘unfavourable – no change’ condition. Three units ‘Unfavourable - No change’, Medway Intertidal have a medium condition threat risk, others have no (100) is ‘Unfavourable – declining’ and Lappel identified condition threat 9. Bank (106) is ‘destroyed’. Wouldham to Detling Escarpment – all of the Four units have a high threat risk and one has a component SSSI units are in ‘favourable’ or medium threat risk.12 ‘unfavourable – recovering’ condition. One unit has a medium condition threat risk, others have no identified condition threat.10 Conservation Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained Ensure that, subject to natural change, the objectives restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as contributes to achieving the Favourable site contributes to achieving the favourable appropriate, and that the site contributes to Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by conservation status of its qualifying features, by achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive, by maintaining or restoring: maintaining or restoring; maintaining or restoring: ● The extent and distribution of the qualifying ● The extent and distribution of the habitats of ● The extent and distribution of the habitats of the natural habitats qualifying species qualifying features ● The structure and function (including typical ● The structure and function of the habitats of ● The structure and function of the habitats of the species) of the qualifying natural habitats qualifying species qualifying features ● The supporting processes on which the qualifying ● The supporting processes on which the habitats ● The supporting processes on which the habitats natural habitats rely of qualifying species rely of the qualifying features rely ● The populations of qualifying species ● The populations of qualifying features ● The distribution of qualifying species within the ● The distribution of qualifying features within the site site Site ● Public access/disturbance None at present. None at present. improvement ● Forestry and woodland management plan: priority ● Invasive species issues ● Air pollution: impact of atmospheric nitrogen deposition.

9https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteUnitList.aspx?SiteCode=S1003779&SiteName=halling&countyCode=&responsiblePerson=&unitId=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea= 10https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteUnitList.aspx?SiteCode=S1001339&SiteName=wouldham&countyCode=&responsiblePerson=&unitId=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea= 11https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteUnitList.aspx?SiteCode=S1001745&SiteName=peter&countyCode=&responsiblePerson=&unitId=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea= 12 https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/SiteUnitList.aspx?SiteCode=S1000244&SiteName=&countyCode=&responsiblePerson=&unitId=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E095 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 22 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Source: Natural England https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.uk/

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E096 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 23 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

3.2.1 Nitrogen deposition and critical loads The UK Air Pollution Information System (APIS) is a web-based database that incorporates available research on air pollution and its environmental impacts. The database allows users to search for information on particular air pollution issues (eg acidification, eutrophication), pollutants (eg SO2, NOX), habitats (eg Native Pine Woodland and Acid Grassland) and species/species groups (eg Scots Pine, Brown Trout, Mosses). In addition, the system provides overviews on the pollutants, receptors, and impacts, as well as a glossary and relevant literature.

The primary use of the database for air quality assessments is the facility that enables the user to search for location-specific background pollutant (NOx, SO2, NH3) concentrations and deposition (nitrogen and acid) rates for relevant habitats.

APIS uses a combination of measured and modelled data sources in formulating its outputs. Measured data is obtained from UK monitoring networks such as those operated by Defra and individual Local Authorities. The nitrogen deposition rates at the two designated sites within the study area have been obtained from APIS and are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Estimated nitrogen deposition for each key feature/habitat at the designated sites Designated site Feature/habitat Total deposition (kg N/ha/yr) Range (min-max) Average Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles 22.82 - 26.74 24.43 North Downs Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests 22.82 - 26.74 24.43 Woodland SAC Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies on 13.86 - 15.54 14.62 calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) Peter’s Pit SAC Triturus cristatus - Great crested newt 12.46 - 12.46 12.46 Sterna hirundo (Northern/Eastern Europe - breeding) - 7.7 - 13.2 10.8 Medway Estuary and Common tern Marshes SPA and Sterna albifrons (Eastern Atlantic - breeding) - Little tern 10.6 - 22 13.2 Ramsar Circus cyaneus - Hen harrier 10.6 - 22 13.2 Source: APIS (www.apis.ac.uk). Data is based on a 3-year mean for 2014-16.

APIS also produces estimates of CLOs for each habitat type present at a given location, as shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Critical load ranges at the designated sites Designated Habitat CLO class Empirical CLO site (kg N/ha/yr) Yew-dominated woodland Coniferous woodland 5-15 North Downs Beech forests on neutral to rich soils Fagus woodland 10-20 Woodland SAC Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or Sub-Atlantic semi-dry calcareous 15-25 limestone grassland Peter’s Pit Broadleaved and mixed yew woodland Yew-dominated woodland 5-15 SAC(a) Supralittoral sediment (acidic type) Coastal stable dune grasslands - 8-10 Medway Estuary acid type and Marshes SPA and Dwarf shrub heath Northern wet heath: Calluna- 10-20 Ramsar dominated wet heath (upland moorland)

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E097 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 24 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Notes: (a) No comparable habitat with established critical load estimate (according to APIS information for this SAC), as sensitivity to N deposition depends on N and P (phosphorous) limitation and is therefore site specific. CLO information for the underlying SSSI (Peter’s Pit – Terrestrial Habitat Unit 5) is presented instead, applying the most conservative CLO range. Source: APIS (www.apis.ac.uk)

As shown in Table 11 and Table 12, the estimated background deposition for both of the woodland habitats at North Downs Woodland SAC exceeds the corresponding CLOs for nitrogen deposition, regardless of which end of the range is applied. The average nitrogen deposition for calcareous grasslands is just below the minimum nitrogen deposition CLO.

At Peter’s Pit SAC, the underlying SSSI adjacent to the modelled roads in this assessment is ‘Peter’s Pit – Terrestrial Habitat Unit 5’ which is a broadleaved and mixed yew woodland habitat. The average background nitrogen deposition at this site exceeds the minimum end of the CLO range but is slightly lower than the higher end of the range.

At Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar, the estimated background deposition for both habitats exceeds the corresponding minimum CLOs for nitrogen deposition.

3.3 Summary

Monitored concentrations of NOx at background Local Authority monitoring sites are in good agreement with Defra modelled background concentrations, which are deemed representative of background concentrations at the designated sites. These concentrations are well below the NOx CLE.

However, nitrogen deposition estimates obtained through APIS show that nitrogen deposition at the North Downs Woodland SAC exceeds the CLO range for woodland habitats. Nitrogen deposition at the Peter’s Pit SAC is towards the higher end of the CLO range for the underlying habitat, meaning it exceeds the minimum CLO.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E098 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 25 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

4 Assessment approach

4.1 Overview This section sets out the approach that has been taken for the assessment of impacts on air quality as a result of the proposed Local Plan.

4.2 Assessment years and scenarios A base year of 2016 has been modelled to enable verification of the model against monitored air quality data. Predicted changes in air quality have also been modelled for the end of the plan period (2031), including a ‘with-development’ and ‘without-development’ scenario to allow the impacts of the proposed Local Plan to be determined.

In summary, the following scenarios were modelled:

● Base year, 2016 ● Scenario 1 TMBC Local Plan in isolation (2031 with-development compared to Final year, 2031 without-development) ● Scenario 2 In combination effects (2031 with-development compared to Base year, 2016)

4.3 Modelling approach

4.3.1 Model selection The assessment uses the latest version of a dispersion model called ‘ADMS13-Roads’ (version 4.1.1, released January 2018); a PC-based model of dispersion in the atmosphere of pollutants released from road traffic sources, produced and validated by Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants (CERC). This model is widely used in the UK, including by Local Authorities for Review and Assessment purposes and to support planning application assessments.

4.3.2 Meteorological data The most important meteorological parameters governing atmospheric dispersion of pollutants are wind direction, wind speed and atmospheric stability as described below:

● Wind direction determines the sector of the compass into which the plume is dispersed ● Wind speed affects the distance which the plume travels over time and can affect plume dispersion by increasing the initial dilution of pollutants and inhibiting plume rise ● Atmospheric stability is a measure of the turbulence of the air, and particularly of its vertical motion. It therefore affects the spread of the plume as it travels away from the source. New generation dispersion models, such as ADMS-roads, use a parameter known as the Monin- Obukhov length that, together with the wind speed, describes the stability of the atmosphere. For meteorological data to be suitable for dispersion modelling purposes, a number of meteorological parameters are measured on an hourly basis. These parameters include wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover and temperature.

13 ADMS (Advanced Dispersion Modelling Software)

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E099 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 26 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

There are only a limited number of sites where the required meteorological measurements are made in the region around the study area. The closest representative site is Gatwick Airport, approximately 15km west of the Borough. The modelling has used 3 years of hourly sequential meteorological data from 2015 to 2017. Wind roses for the data are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Gatwick Airport meteorological station windroses C:\Users\aro58132\Mott MacDonald\E&S TMBC HRA LP AQ UK - Do\Develop\Modelling\Model Files\Model Inputs\Met Data\Gatwick_16.met

2015 C:\Users\aro58132\Mott MacDonald\E&S TMBC HRA LP AQ UK - Do\Develop\Modelling\Model2016 Files\Model Inputs\Met Data\Gatwick_16.met C:\Users\aro58132\Mott MacDonald\E&S TMBC HRA LP AQ UK - Do\Develop\Modelling\Model Files\Model Inputs\Met Data\Gatwick_15.met 350° 0° 10° 0° 350° 0° 10° 350° 10° 340° 340° 20° 20° 340° 1000 20° 10001000 330° 30° 330° 330° 30° 30° 320° 40° 320° 40° 800 320° 800 40° 310° 50° 310° 800 50° 600 600 300° 60° 310° 300° 60° 50°

400 290° 400 70° 290° 600 70° 300° 60° 200 280° 200 80° 280° 80° 400 270° 290° 90° 270° 90° 70°

260° 100° 260° 100° 280° 200 80° 250° 110° 250° 110°

240° 120° 240° 270°120° 90° 230° 130° 230° 130° 220° 140° 220° 140° 260° 210° 150° 100° 210° 150° 200° 160° 200° 160° 190° 180° 170° 190° 180° 170° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) 0 3 6 10 16 (knots) 250° 110° Wind speed Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s) 0 1.520173.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s) Scale C:\Users\aro58132\Mott MacDonald\E&S TMBC HRA LP AQ UK - Do\Develop\Modelling\Model Files\Model240° Inputs\Met Data\Gatwick_17.met 120°

350° 0° 10° 340° 1000 20° 230° 130° 330° 30° 320° 40° 800 220° 140° 310° 50° 600 210° 150° 300° 60° 200° 160° 290° 400 70° 190° 180° 170°

280° 200 80° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots)

270° 90° Wind speed

260° 100° 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s)

250° 110°

240° 120°

230° 130°

220° 140° 210° 150° 200° 160° 190° 180° 170° 0 3 6 10 16 (knots)

Wind speed 0 1.5 3.1 5.1 8.2 (m/s) 4.3.3 Terrain and surface roughness The presence of elevated terrain can affect the dispersion of pollutants by increasing turbulence and, hence, plume mixing which can reduce ground level concentrations. There are no significant terrain features in the study area which have slopes with a gradient of greater than a one in ten elevation gain. Therefore, in accordance with the model user manual, terrain data has not been included with the assessment. Local changes in elevation (ie individual roads with steep gradients) have been accounted for in the emission factors used, as described in section 4.3.5).

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E100 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 27 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Roughness of terrain over which a plume passes can have a significant effect on dispersion by altering the velocity profile with height, and the degree of atmospheric turbulence. The modelled area is at present a mixture of agricultural land and small towns, with receptors generally located within small urban residential areas. A surface roughness of 0.5 has been assigned, representative of parkland and open suburbia. The meteorological data site (Gatwick Airport) has also been assigned a surface roughness of 0.5, due to the suburban area to the south west of the site (where the predominant wind direction is from).

4.3.4 Traffic data The prediction of changes in air quality, including the assessment of ‘in combination’ effects of other predicted growth in surrounding districts Local Plans, is reliant on the availability of traffic data. For this assessment, traffic flows in 24 hour annual average daily traffic (AADT) flow format have been provided by Mott MacDonald traffic consultants for:

● 2016 base year ● 2031 final plan year, with and without development Traffic flows and speeds are predominantly derived from previous surveys, automatic traffic counts (ATC) and DfT traffic count sites. In some cases, the traffic consultants used professional judgement to make assumptions about the data in order to provide more complete data coverage. Where speed data was not available or not reliable, the speed limits applicable to the road have been used instead.

Traffic data has been provided with a breakdown of LDVs and HDVs, and average speed in kph for each road link included in the study area. Appendix A presents the traffic data used for this assessment.

4.3.5 Emission factors The Emission Factor Toolkit (EFT) (Version 8.0.1), released December 2017, has been used to provide emissions factors for use within the modelling based on road traffic flows, Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) percentage and vehicle speeds for each of the links included in the model. The EFT has been run using a year of 2030 (the latest available year), to represent the final Local Plan year of 2031. Uncertainties regarding this assumption are discussed in section 4.4 below.

At junctions, speeds have been reduced to 20kph. This is more conservative than the approach suggested in Defra Local Air Quality Management: Technical Guidance (LAQM (TG16)) guidance (Defra, 2016a) which suggests a 10kph reduction for ‘non-busy’ junctions:

“For a busy junction, assume that traffic approaching the junction slows to an average of 20 kilometres per hour. In general, these speeds are relevant for approach distances of approximately 25 metres.

For other junctions (non-motorway) and roundabouts where some slowing of traffic occurs, you should assume that the speed is 10 kilometres per hour slower than the average free flowing speed’’.

However, a reduction to 20kph across all junctions was considered appropriate given the potential for heavy congestion to occur at junctions within the modelled areas and following model adjustment as part of the verification process which showed the model performed better when assuming slower junction speeds. A 10 kilometre per hour reduction on vehicle speed has been assumed at roundabouts.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E101 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 28 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Certain roads within the study area also experience significant localised changes in elevation. Gradients can affect air quality by increasing the emission rate of vehicles travelling uphill, reducing emissions from vehicles travelling downhill, and also by altering the distance from the road to nearby receptors. This has been accounted for in the dispersion modelling assessment by using Defra guidance on factoring emissions for gradient changes14, and by adjusting the relative heights of roads and receptors in the model for the A249 Detling Hill, which runs adjacent to the North Downs Woodland SAC.

4.4 Addressing uncertainty Dispersion modelling has associated with it an inherent level of uncertainty, primarily as a result of:

● Uncertainties with emissions data ● Uncertainties with traffic data ● Uncertainties with projections of future background concentrations ● Uncertainties with recorded meteorological data ● Simplifications made in the model algorithms or post processing of the data that represent atmospheric dispersion or chemical reactions. The performance of the roads aspect of the air quality model has been evaluated in this assessment using air quality measurements to verify model outputs. The model outputs have then subsequently been adjusted against the measurements to improve the robustness of the predictions. This model verification process has been undertaken in line with Defra guidance and is discussed in Appendix A.B.

Uncertainties regarding assumptions on future changes in emissions factors and background concentrations are discussed below.

4.4.1 Background concentrations and deposition rates Defra’s emission factor toolkit and projected background maps assume a certain level of improvement in air quality in future years, as the vehicle fleet composition gradually changes to include a greater proportion of lower emission vehicles. However, the assumptions made are known to be uncertain and the rate of improvement in recent years has been slower than Defra projections suggest. Therefore, the Defra tools may overestimate the extent of air quality improvements by the final Local Plan year of 2031. IAQM draft guidance suggests that ‘reasonable assumptions’ should be made about expected improvements over the Local Plan lifetime. It is considered too conservative to assume no improvement, but not conservative enough to assume the Defra projections are accurate. Therefore, this assessment has assumed that background concentrations in 2025 (the interim Local Plan year) will be representative of background concentrations at the final Local Plan year. This assumes some level of improvement, but at a slower rate than the Defra projections and is therefore considered a reasonable approach.

Emission factors from the latest available Defra toolkit year of 2030 have been used (representing emission factors in 2031). It is considered that using earlier emission factors, in

14 Defra’s TG16, Chapter 7, Section 3 – Estimating Emissions, contains guidance on incorporating gradient effects into calculated emission rates: “Road gradient can have a significant effect on vehicle emissions. Even hills with slight gradients can increase the power demanded from the vehicle engine, particularly for HDVs. As the power-demand increases, emissions increase. For vehicles going down the hill, the opposite occurs, and emissions decrease. Therefore, calculated vehicle emissions may need to be adjusted…For passenger cars and LDVs, the normal speed-related EFs should be used, taking into account that the average speed on the hill section may differ from that on the flatter sections either side of the hill. However, road gradients can lead to larger and significant changes in emissions generated by HDVs.”

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E102 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 29 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

addition to 2025 background concentrations, is likely to be overly conservative. Nevertheless, a scenario assuming 2025 background and 2025 emissions been presented as a sensitivity test in Appendix DC.

Guidance is also available on the adjustment of background nitrogen deposition rates to future years. DMRB suggests a 2% annual reduction is appropriate, however this is now widely acknowledged to be an overestimation of the improvements. Therefore, a 2% reduction has been applied up the interim year of 2025, and background deposition rates in 2025 have been assumed to be representative of the final Local Plan year of 2031. Whilst this approach is not prescribed in any guidance, it is widely acknowledged within the professional air quality community to be a reasonable approach to addressing uncertainty over future changes in background deposition rates. The use of a consistent interim year to determine background concentrations and background deposition rates is appropriate and provides consistency in the assumptions made.

4.5 Calculating deposition Rates of nitrogen deposition (referred to as ‘deposition flux’) are directly related to concentrations of atmospheric pollutants which contain nitrogen. The deposition flux (F) of a pollutant is calculated using the following equation:

F = Vd x C

Where...

C is the annual mean concentration of the pollutant (in µg/m 3);

Vd is the deposition velocity in m/s (this value changes according to the pollutant and the type of vegetation it is being deposited to; values are typically determined experimentally and are available in the relevant literature);

F is the deposition flux (in units of µg/m2/s, which can be converted to units of kg/ha/year by multiplying the deposition flux by a conversion factor of 96, for comparison with published values and critical load ranges).

For the purposes of this assessment, deposition velocities have been taken from AQTAG guidance, reproduced in Table 13 for NOX (as NO2). It should be noted that these deposition velocities are considered to be conservative to other velocities published in other guidance such as DMRB. The results from the assessment assuming the lower deposition velocities based on DMRB guidance are presented in Appendix DC.

Table 13: Nitrogen dioxide deposition velocity Pollutant Habitat type Deposition velocity (m/s)

NOx as NO2 Grassland 0.0015 Forest 0.003 Source: Air Quality Technical Advisory Group

4.6 Assessment criteria A number of approaches can be used to determine whether the potential air quality effects of a proposed development are significant. However, there remains no universally recognised definition of what constitutes ‘significance’ for air quality effects.

Guidance is available from a range of regulatory authorities and advisory bodies on how best to determine and present the significance of effects within an air quality assessment. It is generally

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E103 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 30 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

considered good practice that, where possible, an assessment should communicate effects both numerically and descriptively.

Air quality assessments of impacts on ecological receptors generally start with screening out of ‘insignificant’ effects. Guidance from the UK Environment Agency15, IAQM16 and Highways England17 tend towards the use of a 1% screening criteria. Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment, where the predicted change in concentration between the Do Minimum (DM) and Do Something (DS) scenarios is less than 1% of the NOx CLE, impacts are considered to be insignificant and the CLEs for that site have not been assessed further. Similarly, the change in nitrogen deposition between the DM and DS scenarios has been compared with 1% of the applicable CLO for each habitat/site, with impacts less than 1% screened out as insignificant.

It is important to note that where impacts are greater than 1%, effects are not necessarily considered ‘significant’. The assessment of significance for these impacts is required in an Appropriate Assessment t, based on professional knowledge relating to the specific nitrogen sensitivities of the habitats and sites under consideration.

4.7 Receptors The assessment has primarily focused on those receptors likely to experience the highest concentrations and/or greatest change in concentrations as a result of the proposed development.

The dispersion modelling included a discrete ‘worst-case’ receptor at the boundary of each designated site, closest to the road links expected to have the greatest increases in traffic. Receptor locations are presented in Table 14 shown in Figure 4. As described in section 2.3 there are no roads within 200m of North Downs Woodland SAC (Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment), Queenstown Warren SAC and changes in traffic on roads adjacent to Ashdown Forest SAC are negligible and therefore impacts at these locations have not been considered.

Table 14: Modelled ecological receptors ID Receptor National Grid Distance to Designated Underlying Empirical CLO (kg name reference road (m) site habitat N/ha/yr) X Y 1 Peter’s Pit 572146.2 163029.7 0 Peter’s Pit Broadleaved 5-15 SAC and mixed yew woodland 2 North Downs 579399.3 158447.1 11 North Downs Yew- 5-15 Woodland Woodland dominated (Wouldham to SAC woodland Detling Escarpment) East 3 North Downs 575310.0 160257.1 163 Beech forests 10-20 Woodland on neutral to (Wouldham to rich soils Detling Escarpment) West

15 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/air-emissions-risk-assessment-for-your-environmental-permit 16 Draft IAQM guidance released for consultation in 2017 suggests that where changes in concentrations are less than 1% of the critical level, detailed assessment of nitrogen deposition may not be necessary. 17 DMRB considers increases in NOx of less than 0.3ug/m3 (ie 1% of the NOx critical level) to be imperceptible; increases of over 0.4ug/m3 where the critical level is exceeded indicate that further analysis in the form of nitrogen deposition calculations are required.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E104 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 31 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

ID Receptor National Grid Distance to Designated Underlying Empirical CLO (kg name reference road (m) site habitat N/ha/yr) X Y 4 Medway 579416.9 168875.9 57 Medway Supralittoral 8-10 Estuary and Estuary & sediment Marshes Marshes SPA, RAMSAR Source: Mott MacDonald

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E105 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 32 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Figure 4: Modelled ecological receptors

Source: Defra Spatial Data Catalogue (environment.data.gov.uk)

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E106 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 34 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

5 Air quality impacts of new development

5.1 Overview This Section presents the potential impacts predicted to occur as a result of the proposed Local Plan within Tonbridge and Malling. The assessment is based on an iteration of the development strategy in the draft Local Plan that was available at the time the evidence was prepared.

Impacts have been predicted at the ecological receptors identified within section 4.7 for the final Local Plan year (2031). As noted in Section2.3, this assessment presents predicted changes for the TMBC Local Plan in isolation and in-combination with other neighbouring authorities.

5.2 Critical levels

5.2.1 TMBC Local Plan

Modelled results at the four ecological receptors are presented in Table 15 for the NOX CLE.

Table 15: Modelled NOx CLE results – TMBC Local Plan Receptor Base year Future year NOx concentration (µg/m3) Change Total DS Total DS total NOx (a) as % of as % of exceedance 3 BG Total DM Total DS Change (e) (µg/m ) (b) (c) (d) CLE CLE of CLE? NOx NOx NOx Peter’s Pit SAC 33.3 12.0 17.5 17.6 0.12 0.4 58.6 No North Downs 82.1 14.7 25.8 26.4 0.62 2.1 88.1 No Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) East North Downs 38.4 15.6 20.8 21.3 0.51 1.7 71.2 No Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) West Notes: (a) BG: Background concentrations from Defra background maps (year 2025 assumed) (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie without Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background. (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (d) CLE: Critical level for NOx (30µg/m3) (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

The results indicate that predicted increases at Peter’s Pit SAC would be just 0.12µg/m3 NOx, which is less than 1% of the NOx CLE. The total NOx concentration in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to be well below the CLE (just 58.7% of the CLE). Therefore, these impacts are considered to be insignificant and do not require further assessment.

Impacts at North Downs Woodland are predicted to be greater than at Peter’s Pit, with a predicted increase in NOx concentrations due to the Local Plan of 2.1% of the CLE at the eastern side (adjacent to the A249) and 1.7% on the western side (close to the A229). Total NOx remains below the CLE at both of these modelled receptors, however the impacts require further consideration by an ecologist as they exceed the 1% screening criteria. The Stage 2 HRA report ‘Appropriate Assessment’ for air quality provides further assessment of this.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E107 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 35 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

5.2.2 In-combination effects

Modelled results at the four ecological receptors are presented in Table 16 for the NOX CLE.

Table 16: Modelled NOx CLE results – In-combination effects Receptor Base year Future year NOx concentration (µg/m3) Change Total DS Total DS total NOx (a) as % of as % of exceedance 3 BG Total DM Total DS Change (e) (µg/m ) (b) (c) (d) CLE CLE of CLE? NOx NOx NOx Peter’s Pit SAC 33.3 12.0 17.2 17.6 0.39 1.3 58.7 No North Downs 82.1 14.7 25.3 26.4 1.14 3.8 88.1 No Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) East North Downs 38.4 15.6 20.6 21.3 0.76 2.5 71.2 No Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) West Medway Estuary 37.5 16.8 21.4 21.7 0.27 0.9 72.2 No & Marshes SPA and Ramsar Notes: (a) BG: Background concentrations from Defra background maps (year 2025 assumed) (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie based on 2016 base flows) contribution added to background. (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (d) CLE: Critical level for NOx (30µg/m3) (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

The results indicate that predicted increases at Peter’s Pit SAC would be 0.39µg/m3 NOx, which is 1.3% of the NOx CLE. The total NOx concentration in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to be well below the CLE (just 58.7% of the CLE). Therefore, these impacts cannot be screened as insignificant and require further assessment.

Impacts at North Downs Woodland have a predicted increase in NOx concentrations due to the in-combination effects of 3.8% of the CLE at the eastern side (adjacent to the A249) and 2.5% on the western side (close to the A229). Total NOx remains below the CLE at both of these modelled receptors, however the impacts require further as they exceed the 1% screening criteria.

The results indicate that predicted increases at Medway Estuary & Marshes SPA and Ramsar would be just 0.9µg/m3 of NOx, which is less than 1% of the NOx CLE. The total NOx concentration in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to be below the CLE (72.2% of the CLE). Therefore, these impacts are considered to be insignificant and do not require further assessment.

A sensitivity analysis presented in Appendix DC which assumes there is no improvement in emissions beyond 2025. The sensitivity analysis confirms that the changes of CLE at Peter’s Pit and North Downs Woodland is above 1% of the standard. It also suggests the changes a Medway Estuary and Marshes could also be above 1% of the CLE and therefore this has also been considered within the ‘Appropriate Assessment’.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E108 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 36 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

5.3 Critical loads

5.3.1 TMBC Local Plan Modelled results at the four ecological receptors are presented in Table 17 for the nitrogen deposition CLO.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E109 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 37 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Table 17: Modelled nitrogen deposition CLO results – TMBC Local Plan Receptor Most N- Base year Future year nitrogen Change CLO Change Change Total DS Existing BG sensitive 2016 N- deposition (kg/ha/yr) N-dep (d) as % of as % of exceedance exceedance habitat dep (Min- Min CLO BG of Min CLO? of Min CLO? BG(a) Total Total present (kg/ha/yr) Max) (e) DM DS NOx NOx (b) (c) Peter’s Pit SAC Broadleaved 17.4 10.4 12.0 12.0 0.035 5-15 0.7 0.3 Yes Yes and mixed yew woodland North Downs Yew- 44.1 22.3 25.5 25.7 0.178 5-15 3.6 0.8 Yes Yes Woodland SAC dominated (Wouldham to woodland Detling Escarpment) East North Downs Beech forests 31.6 22.3 23.8 23.9 0.148 10-20 1.5 0.7 Yes Yes Woodland SAC on neutral to (Wouldham to rich soils Detling Escarpment) West Notes: (a) BG: Maximum background deposition from APIS, adjusted by 2% annually from 2016 to an interim year 2025 (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie without Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background. (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (d) CLO: For each site, the most nitrogen sensitive habitats have been selected and the minimum critical load from available ranges for that habitat is used in the % change calculations, to provide a conservative assessment (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E110 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 38 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

The results indicate that predicted increases in nitrogen deposition at Peter’s Pit SAC would be just 0.035 kg/ha/yr, which is less than 1% of the minimum N deposition CLO applied to the habitat at this location. It should be noted that the modelled receptor location is at the closest boundary to the road, and the minimum CLO has been applied, and therefore the assessment is conservative. Total N deposition in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to exceed the minimum CLO, however this is attributed to the high existing background N deposition which would already exceed the minimum CLO. Total N deposition is below the maximum CLO for the habitat. Overall, taking account of the small increase in N deposition associated with the Local Plan, and the high background N deposition rates, these impacts are considered to be insignificant and do not require further assessment.

Impacts at North Downs Woodland East, where the underlying habitat is classified as Yew- dominated woodland, are predicted to be 3.6% of the minimum CLO of 5kg/ha/yr, corresponding to an increase of 0.178kg/ha/yr. The increase at North Downs Woodland West is predicted to be 0.148kg/ha/yr, which is 1.5% of the minimum CLO of 10kg/ha/yr. Background deposition at both of these locations exceeds the minimum and maximum CLOs, and therefore both the Do- Minimum and Do-Something scenarios predict an exceedance of the CLO in 2031. These N deposition impacts require further consideration by an ecologist as they exceed the 1% screening criteria. Further assessment of the impacts have been presented in the ‘Appropriate Assessment’.

Comparison of the 2031 DS nitrogen deposition rates with the predicted base year (2016) deposition indicates that exceedances of the CLO are predicted to be much worse in the base year, and that future nitrogen deposition at the three ecological sites is expected to be much lower despite the increase in traffic flows. This can primarily be attributed to expected improvements in vehicle emission factors and a reduction in background concentrations in future years.

5.3.2 In combination effects Modelled results at the three ecological receptors are presented in Table 17 for the nitrogen deposition CLO.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E111 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 39 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Table 18: Modelled nitrogen deposition CLO results – In combination effects Receptor Most N- Base year Future year nitrogen Change CLO Change Change Total DS Existing BG sensitive 2016 N- deposition (kg/ha/yr) N-dep (d) as % of as % of exceedance exceedance habitat dep (Min- Min CLO BG of Min CLO? of Min CLO? BG(a) Total Total present (kg/ha/yr) Max) (e) DM DS NOx NOx (b) (c) Peter’s Pit SAC Broadleaved 17.4 10.4 11.9 12.0 0.112 5-15 2.2 1.1 Yes Yes and mixed yew woodland North Downs Yew- 44.1 22.3 25.3 25.7 0.329 5-15 6.6 1.5 Yes Yes Woodland SAC dominated (Wouldham to woodland Detling Escarpment) East North Downs Beech forests 31.6 22.3 23.7 23.9 0.220 10-20 2.2 1.0 Yes Yes Woodland SAC on neutral to (Wouldham to rich soils Detling Escarpment) West Medway Supralittoral 24.0 18.2 18.9 18.9 0.038 8-20 0.5 0.2 Yes Yes Estuary & sediment Marshes SPA Notes: (a) BG: Maximum background deposition from APIS, adjusted by 2% annually from 2016 to an interim year 2025 (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie based on 2016 traffic flows ) contribution added to background. (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (d) CLO: For each site, the most nitrogen sensitive habitats have been selected and the minimum critical load from available ranges for that habitat is used in the % change calculations, to provide a conservative assessment

(e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E112 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 40 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

The results indicate that predicted increases in nitrogen deposition at Peter’s Pit SAC would be just 0.112 kg/ha/yr, which less than 2.2% of the minimum N deposition CLO applied to the habitat at this location. It should be noted that the modelled receptor location is at the closest boundary to the road, and the minimum CLO has been applied, and therefore the assessment is conservative. Total N deposition in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to exceed the minimum CLO, however this is attributed to the high existing background N deposition which would already exceed the minimum CLO. Total N deposition is below the maximum CLO for the habitat. These N deposition impacts require further consideration as they exceed the 1% screening criteria. Further assessment of the impacts have been presented in the Stage 2 ‘Appropriate Assessment’.

Impacts at North Downs Woodland East, where the underlying habitat is classified as Yew- dominated woodland, are predicted to be 6.6% of the minimum CLO of 5kg/ha/yr, corresponding to an increase of 0.329kg/ha/yr. The increase at North Downs Woodland (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) West is predicted to be 0.220kg/ha/yr, which is 2.2% of the minimum CLO of 10kg/ha/yr. Background deposition at both of these locations exceeds the minimum and maximum CLOs, and therefore both the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios predict an exceedance of the CLO in 2031. These N deposition impacts require further consideration as they exceed the 1% screening criteria. Further assessment of the impacts have been presented in the ‘Appropriate Assessment’.

Impacts at Medway Estuary and Marshes, where the underlying habitat is classified as Supralittoral sediment, are predicted to be 0.5% of the minimum critical load of 8kg/ha/yr. It should be noted that the modelled receptor location is at the closest boundary to the road, and the minimum CLO has been applied, and therefore the assessment is conservative. Total N deposition in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to exceed the minimum CLO, however this is attributed to the high existing background N deposition which would already exceed the minimum CLO. Total N deposition is below the maximum CLO for the habitat. Overall, taking account of the small increase in N deposition associated with the Local Plan, and the high background N deposition rates, these impacts are considered to be insignificant and do not require further assessment.

Appendix DC presents sensitivity analysis of the results by assuming there is no improvement in vehicle emissions beyond 2025. The results demonstrate that the predicted percentage change of the critical load increases but remains below one percent for Medway Marshes and Estuary and supports the conclusion that impacts at Medway marshes and estuary are insignificant.

Appendix DC also presents a sensitivity analysis of the deposition velocities used in the assessment. The results show that in the sensitivity analysis the contributions to nitrogen deposition from the TMBC Local Plan in-combination are lower than the method assumed for the main assessment and therefore the conclusions reached are conservative.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E113 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 41 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

6 Conclusions

The air quality assessment involved dispersion modelling of traffic impacts associated with the proposed TMBC Local Plan in isolation and in combination with other planned and committed development and growth in neighbouring authorities. Changes on NOx concentrations and nitrogen deposition rates at the following designated sites were assessed:

● Peter’s Pit SAC ● North Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) ● Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar The traffic data used in the assessment was produced using the Department of Transport’s TEMPro factors to derive background growth factors for traffic in future years. Traffic generation due to the TMBC Local Plan was calculated separately using TRICS and added to the background growth to generate future year traffic flows.

Impacts on other designated sites within 7km of TMBC (North Downs Woodland SAC (Halling to Trottiscliffe Escarpment), Queensdown Warren SAC and Medway Estuary SPA and Ramsar), and the Ashdown Forest SAC (which was considered due to recent developments in case law) were screened out as there either no affected roads within 200m of the site or changes in traffic flows were insignificant.

The Stage1Stage 1 air quality screening assessment for the TMBC Local Plan, in combination with other development in neighbouring authorities concludes:

● There is the potential for a greater than 1% increase in NOx concentrations and nitrogen deposition when compared to the CLE and minimum CLO at Peter’s Pit. ● There is the potential for a greater than 1% increase in NOx concentrations and nitrogen deposition when compared to the CLE and minimum CLO at The North Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) ● There is the potential for in-combination effects to have a greater than 1% increase in NOx concentrations, as presented in the sensitivity analysis in Appendix C, when compared to the CLE at Medway Estuary and Marshes. Nitrogen deposition is predicted to below 1% of the minimum CLE in all scenarios and therefore considered insignificant. Therefore, the conclusions of the Stage 1 air quality screening assessment are that a further Appropriate Assessment is required at Peters Pit SAC and North Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) for changes in NOx and nitrogen deposition. In addition, considering the sensitivity analysis undertaken changes in NOx concentrations at Medway Estuary and Marshes could also be above 1% of the CLE and therefore this has also been considered within the Appropriate Assessment for completeness.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E114 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 42 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Appendices

A. Traffic data 43 B. Model verification 48 C. Sensitivity analysis 54 A. Traffic data 43 B. Model verification 48 C. Sensitivity analysis 54

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E115 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 43 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

A. Traffic data

A.1 Overview This appendix presents the traffic data used within the assessment, as provided by Mott MacDonald traffic consultants. The Transport Assessment provides further details on the assumptions used to generate the traffic data used within this assessment.

A.2 Traffic flows Table 19 presents the traffic data received by Mott MacDonald traffic consultants for use in the modelling assessment. Roads with potentially significant changes in traffic flows were identified in accordance with the approach outlined in section 2.3. Figure 5 illustrates the geographical extent of these roads relative to the designated sites.

Other roads not directly relevant to the assessment of impacts on ecological sites have been included within the dispersion model to enable model verification against monitored data. This process is described in detail in Appendix B. The full extent of the dispersion model is also shown in Figure 5.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E116 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 44 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Table 19: Traffic data ID Link Description Speed Base (2016) 2031 DM 2031 DS Potentially significant (kph) traffic impacts on eco AADT HDV (%) AADT HDV (%) AADT HDV (%) site?(a) 1 Pilgrims Way, Eccles (E of Bull Lane junction) WB 66 3,401 3% 3,573 3% 4,512 3% No EB 66 3,231 3% 3,394 3% 4,365 2% 2 Bull Lane (S of Rochester Road/Pilgrims Way NB 49 1,355 5% 1,424 5% 2,347 3% No junction) SB 53 1,411 4% 1,483 4% 2,375 3% 3 Rochester Road (E of Bull Lane junction) NB 54 2,814 4% 2,957 4% 3,003 4% Yes SB 53 2,979 4% 3,130 4% 3,178 4% 4 A229 Bluebell Hill, Maidstone (N of Rochester NB 106 29,381 7% 30,866 7% 33,805 6% Yes Road) SB 104 28,893 8% 30,354 8% 33,318 7% 5 A20 Coldharbour Lane, Allington (N of NB 69 18,714 9% 19,660 9% 28,688 6% No Coldharbour Roundabout) SB 64 17,887 7% 18,791 7% 27,848 5% 6 A20 London Road, Allington (E of Coldharbour WB 60 13,588 4% 14,275 4% 14,831 4% No Roundabout) EB 67 13,588 5% 14,275 5% 14,831 5% 7 A20 London Road, Allington (W of Coldharbour WB 65 11,875 6% 12,476 6% 22,089 4% No Roundabout) EB 65 11,936 6% 12,539 6% 22,123 4% 8 Hall Road, Quarry Wood (N of A20 London Rd) NB 53 4,548 4% 4,778 4% 4,867 4% No SB 49 5,030 3% 5,284 3% 5,374 3% 9 A20 London Road, Quarry Wood (E of Hall WB 57 15,041 7% 15,801 7% 17,976 6% No Road) EB 53 15,022 7% 15,781 7% 17,970 6% 10 Mills Road, Quarry Wood NB 38 8,387 7% 8,811 7% 8,811 7% No SB 40 9,831 5% 10,328 5% 10,328 5% 11 A20 London Road, Quarry Wood (W of Hall WB 56 9,660 4% 10,149 4% 12,234 3% No Road) EB 59 9,522 4% 10,003 4% 12,102 4% 12 New Hythe Lane, Larkfield (N of A20 London NB 41 5,448 3% 5,724 3% 5,751 3% No Road) SB 46 5,665 3% 5,952 3% 5,979 3% 13 A20 London Road, Larkfield (E of New Hythe WB 57 12,128 3% 12,741 3% 14,826 2% No Lane) EB 58 12,065 4% 12,675 4% 14,774 3% 14 A20 London Road, Larkfield (W of New Hythe WB 49 10,417 2% 10,944 2% 13,029 2% No Lane) EB 47 9,320 4% 9,791 4% 11,891 4% 15 WB 103 15,515 7% 16,300 7% 17,373 6% No

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E117 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 45 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

ID Link Description Speed Base (2016) 2031 DM 2031 DS Potentially significant (kph) traffic impacts on eco AADT HDV (%) AADT HDV (%) AADT HDV (%) site?(a) A228 Ashton Way (N of Tower View EB 103 15,515 7% 16,300 7% 17,408 6% Roundabout) 16 Red Hill, Wateringbury NB 63 1,660 5% 1,744 5% 2,242 4% No SB 63 1,803 6% 1,894 6% 2,412 5% 17 A26 Tonbridge Road, Wateringbury (E of Red WB 50 6,898 4% 7,247 4% 7,664 4% No Hill) EB 54 7,364 3% 7,737 3% 8,182 3% 18 B2015 Bow Road, Wateringbury NB 50 5,526 3% 5,805 3% 6,233 3% No SB 46 5,114 3% 5,372 3% 5,821 3% 19 A26 Tonbridge Road, Wateringbury (W of Red WB 52 4,085 4% 4,291 4% 4,504 4% No Hill) EB 51 4,296 4% 4,513 4% 4,755 4% 20 A227 Wrotham Road, Borough Green (N of WB 47 4,369 2% 4,565 2% 2,692 2% No Fairfield Road) EB 47 4,865 3% 5,083 3% 2,887 3% 21 A25 Maidstone Road, Borough Green (W of WB 51 7,329 3% 7,659 3% 3,526 3% No Crouch Lane) EB 53 5,911 3% 6,177 3% 1,750 3% 22 A25 Sevenoaks Road, Borough Green (W of WB 50 8,282 3% 8,654 3% 2,825 3% No A227 Western Road) EB 45 8,307 2% 8,681 2% 1,953 2% 23 A25 Sevenoaks Road, Borough Green WB 52 5,041 4% 5,268 4% 1,574 4% No (between Western Road roundabout and EB 52 4,982 5% 5,206 5% 867 5% A25/High Street junction) 24 A227 Western Road, Borough Green (E of WB 43 3,062 3% 3,199 3% 1,388 3% No A227/A25 roundabout) EB 45 3,911 2% 4,087 2% 1,660 2% 25 High Street, Borough Green NB 39 2,263 2% 2,364 2% 2,204 2% No SB 36 2,237 2% 2,337 2% 2,157 2% 26 Lower Haysden Lane, Tonbridge (W of Upper WB 53 401 1% 424 1% 670 1% No Haysden Lane/Brook Street junction) EB 56 396 1% 419 1% 674 1% 27 Brook Street, Tonbridge (E of Upper Haysden WB 50 2,764 3% 2,922 3% 4,153 2% No Lane/Brook Street junction) EB 49 2,825 3% 2,987 3% 4,261 2% 28 Upper Haysden Lane, Tonbridge (W of Lower NB 69 2,631 3% 2,781 3% 3,418 3% No Haysden Lane/Brook Street junction) SB 71 2,624 4% 2,774 4% 3,389 3% 29 A289 Pier Road, Gillingham (W of B2004 WB 66 16,091 6% 16,904 6% 16,947 6% No junction) EB 66 17,288 4% 18,163 4% 18,205 4%

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E118 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 46 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

ID Link Description Speed Base (2016) 2031 DM 2031 DS Potentially significant (kph) traffic impacts on eco AADT HDV (%) AADT HDV (%) AADT HDV (%) site?(a) 30 A289 Pier Road, Gillingham (E of B2004 WB 56 16,034 4% 16,844 4% 16,887 4% No junction) EB 53 13,963 5% 14,669 5% 14,710 5% 31 A249 Detling Hill, Detling (E of Pilgrims Way WB 78 17,266 11% 18,139 11% 19,823 10% Yes junction) EB 78 22,457 11% 23,592 11% 25,259 10% 32 Hermitage Lane (N of Hermitage Court NB 70 9,520 4% 10,001 4% 12,032 3% No junction) (NB: based on November 2016 ATC) SB 72 9,424 3% 9,901 3% 11,974 3% 33 M20 (between J4 and J5) WB 113 60,352 9% 63,404 9% 65,557 8% No EB 113 60,204 7% 63,248 7% 65,702 6% 34 M26 (between A227 overbridge and J2A) WB 113 29,045 2% 30,351 2% 31,793 2% No EB 113 22,623 3% 23,640 3% 25,025 3% 35 High Street, Tonbridge NB 37 8,688 2% 9,185 2% 11,022 2% No SB 35 9,720 3% 10,275 3% 12,354 3% 36 A21 Tonbridge Bypass (W of A26 intersection) NB 113 22,557 3% 23,846 3% 24,485 3% No SB 113 21,933 3% 23,187 3% 23,734 3% 37 A26 (between junctions with A22 and Two 64 10,820 5% 11,439 5% 11,441 5% No Sweethaws Lane, Crowborough) way 38 A22 (between junctions with A26 and A272, W Two 97 19,058 4% 20,148 4% 20,148 4% No of Maresfield) way 39 New junction of the new Borough Green & Platt NB 64 - - - - 7,572 3% No relief road with the A227 SB 64 - - - - 8,451 2% 40 New junction of the new Borough Green & Platt NB 64 - - - - 6,086 3% No relief road with the A20 at Nepicar SB 64 - - - - 6,034 2% Notes: WB: Westbound; EB: Eastbound; SB: Southbound; NB: Northbound; ‘-‘: indicates road does not exist in scenario (a) As determined using the criteria outlined in section 2.3 ie roads within 200m of designated sites that meet either the Highways England or IAQM criteria for potentially significant increases in traffic flows Source: Mott MacDonald

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E119 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 47 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Figure 5: Modelled traffic links around North Downs Woodland SAC and Peter’s Pit SAC

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E120 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 48 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

B. Model verification

B.1 Overview Model verification is a process by which checks are carried out to determine the performance of a dispersion model at a local level, primarily by comparison of modelled results with monitoring data. Differences between modelled and monitored data may occur as a result of uncertainties associated with a number of model inputs including:

● Traffic flows, speeds, and vehicle splits ● Emissions estimates ● Background concentrations ● Meteorological data ● Surface roughness length and terrain The verification process involves investigating uncertainties and minimising them either through informed refinement of model input parameters or adjustment of the model output if it is deemed necessary.

B.2 Methodology Guidance produced by Defra18 provides a methodology for model verification including calculation methods and directions on the suitability of monitoring data.

A total of 23 roadside sites have been used for verification. Sites were selected based on their proximity to modelled road links, suitability as ‘roadside’ sites (ie based on the Local Authority classifications and revised according to the distance to nearest roads), availability of 2016 data and absence of any unusual activities nearby (eg construction works) that may have affected monitored concentrations in 2016. Some of the diffusion tubes are triplicate sites, with three tubes deployed at the same location.

Verification of NO2 concentrations has been carried out using 2016 results from the roadside sites. Background concentrations used in the model verification have been taken from the Defra background maps and are presented in Table 20.

Table 20: Background concentrations used in model verification Location Annual mean concentration 2016 (µg/m³)

NOx NO2 TN78 17.1 12.6 TN79 17.1 12.6 TN93 17.1 12.6 TN94 17.1 12.6 TN87 17.1 12.6 TN71 17.1 12.6 TN86 17.1 12.6 TN88 17.1 12.6 TN89 17.1 12.6

18 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2016), Local Air Quality Management – Technical Guidance (16).

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E121 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 49 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Location Annual mean concentration 2016 (µg/m³)

NOx NO2 TN90 17.1 12.6 DF1_DF2_DF3 20.1 14.6 TN60_TN62_TN63 20.1 14.6 TN68 20.1 14.6 TN102 20.1 14.6 TN103 20.1 14.6 DF7_DF8_DF9 26.5 18.7 TN57_TN58_TN59 26.5 18.7 TN64 26.5 18.7 DF4_DF5_DF6 33.2 22.7 TN49_TN53_TN54 33.2 22.7 NAS30 25.0 17.5 NAS27 26.4 18.4 NAS31 26.4 18.4 Source: Defra Local Air Quality Management https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/review-and-assessment/tools/background- maps.html

Table 21 presents the monitored data used within the verification.

Table 21: Monitored data used in model verification Location Monitor type Annual mean monitored concentration 2016 (µg/m³)

NOx NO2 TN78 Diffusion tube 60.3 33.7 TN79 Diffusion tube 52.9 30.4 TN93 Diffusion tube 72.4 38.9 TN94 Diffusion tube 48.8 28.5 TN87 Diffusion tube 52.3 30.1 TN71 Diffusion tube 35.9 22.3 TN86 Diffusion tube 41.0 24.8 TN88 Diffusion tube 45.2 26.8 TN89 Diffusion tube 42.9 25.7 TN90 Diffusion tube 42.9 25.7 DF1_DF2_DF3 Diffusion tube 84.4 44.3 TN60_TN62_TN63 Diffusion tube 85.7 44.8 TN68 Diffusion tube 52.8 30.8 TN102 Diffusion tube 30.4 20.0 TN103 Diffusion tube 38.2 23.9 DF7_DF8_DF9 Diffusion tube 75.8 41.8 TN57_TN58_TN59 Diffusion tube 57.2 33.7 TN64 Diffusion tube 51.3 31.0 DF4_DF5_DF6 Diffusion tube 54.4 33.1 TN49_TN53_TN54 Diffusion tube 49.7 30.9 NAS30 Diffusion tube 57.9 33.6 NAS27 Diffusion tube 64.1 36.5 NAS31 Diffusion tube 57.4 33.5

Note: NOx values for diffusion tubes derived from Defra NOx to NO2 calculator

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E122 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 50 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

B.3 Verification results

Table 22 presents the model results for NO2, prior to adjustment. The results are also presented graphically in Figure 6. At the majority of monitoring sites, the modelled NO2 concentration is below the monitored value, although at some sites the modelled concentrations are greater than the monitored value. On this basis it has been concluded that the model is generally under predicting annual mean NO2 concentrations within the study area, although some areas have overpredictions. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to calculate different adjustment factors to apply to different areas of the model.

Table 22: Model verification results for NO2 (unadjusted)

Monitor ID Monitored total NO2 (µg/m³) Modelled total NO2 (µg/m³) % difference TN78 33.7 19.5 -42.3 TN79 30.4 19.0 -37.6 TN93 38.9 22.3 -42.7 TN94 28.5 20.4 -28.4 TN87 30.1 20.7 -31.2 TN71 22.3 19.5 -12.6 TN86 24.8 20.0 -19.4 TN88 26.8 22.2 -17.1 TN89 25.7 19.4 -24.5 TN90 25.7 19.6 -23.8 DF1_DF2_DF3 44.3 37.5 -15.4 TN60_TN62_TN63 44.8 38.1 -15.0 TN68 30.8 27.4 -11.2 TN102 20.0 20.1 0.6 TN103 23.9 23.2 -2.8 DF7_DF8_DF9 41.8 33.5 -19.9 TN57_TN58_TN59 33.7 30.4 -9.8 TN64 31.0 32.1 3.6 DF4_DF5_DF6 33.1 34.5 4.3 TN49_TN53_TN54 30.9 31.8 2.8 NAS30 33.6 28.2 -16.0 NAS27 36.5 28.8 -21.2 NAS31 33.5 32.2 -3.9 Source: Mott MacDonald

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E123 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 51 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Figure 6: Total NO2 (before adjustment of road NOx)

50 y = 1.1819x ) 3 40 (µg/m 2

30

Total NO2 Y=X +25% 20 -25% +10% Totalmonitored NO -10% Linear (Total NO2) 10 10 20 30 40 50

3 Total modelled NO2 (µg/m )

Source: Mott MacDonald

To derive the adjustment factors for this assessment, monitoring sites were first assigned to one of two areas depending on the location and type of adjacent road link:

● Gradient links: Monitoring sites/receptors adjacent to road links considered likely to have elevated emissions due to steep gradients (as described in section 4.3.3) ● Al other areas: Applies to all road links that do not fall into the above categories.

Following this assignment, the modelled road NOX contributions have been compared to monitored road NOX contributions to derive an adjustment factor for each of the area types:

● Gradient links: 2.81 – applied to North Downs Woodlands East ● All other areas: 1.34 – applied to North Downs Woodlands West and Peter’s Pit SAC

The adjustment factors have been applied to the modelled road NOX contributions and added to background NOX concentrations to give total corrected NOX at the verification sites. The final stage of the verification process involves applying the NOX to NO2 relationship presented in Section 4.4. Table 23 presents the total adjusted modelled NO2 and the monitored NO2 after the adjustment factor has been applied. Figure 7 illustrates that, following adjustment, the model is generally performing well, with most sites within ±10% and all sites within ±25% agreement.

Table 23: Adjusted modelled NO2 results Site ID Adjustment Monitored total Modelled corrected Adjusted % area NO2 (µg/m³) total NO2 (µg/m³) difference TN78 Gradient 33.7 30.8 -8.6 TN79 30.4 29.6 -2.6 TN93 38.9 37.8 -2.9 TN94 28.5 33.2 16.6

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E124 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 52 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Site ID Adjustment Monitored total Modelled corrected Adjusted % area NO2 (µg/m³) total NO2 (µg/m³) difference TN87 All others 30.1 23.4 -22.4 TN71 22.3 21.8 -2.4 TN86 24.8 22.4 -9.6 TN88 26.8 25.3 -5.5 TN89 25.7 21.7 -15.7 TN90 25.7 21.9 -14.8 DF1_DF2_DF3 44.3 44.3 -0.1 TN60_TN62_TN63 44.8 45.0 0.5 TN68 30.8 31.4 1.9 TN102 20.0 22.0 9.8 TN103 23.9 26.0 9.0 DF7_DF8_DF9 41.8 38.1 -8.8 TN57_TN58_TN59 33.7 34.1 1.3 TN64 31.0 36.4 17.3 DF4_DF5_DF6 33.1 38.3 15.6 TN49_TN53_TN54 30.9 34.7 12.3 NAS30 33.6 31.7 -5.8 NAS27 36.5 32.1 -12.0 NAS31 33.5 36.6 9.1 Source: Mott MacDonald

Figure 7: Total NO2 (after adjustment of road NOx)

50

y = 0.9998x 40 ) 3 (µg/m

2 30 Total NO2

Y=X

+25% 20 -25% +10%

-10%

MonitoredtotalNO Linear (Total NO2) 10 10 20 30 40 50 3 Modelled total NO2 (µg/m )

Source: Mott MacDonald

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E125 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 53 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

To further investigate model uncertainty, the root mean squared error (RMSE) and fractional bias (FB) were calculated for each of the adjustment areas in accordance with Defra’s TG(16). Table 24 presents the calculated values before and after model adjustment.

Table 24: RMSE and fractional bias Adjustment Before adjustment After adjustment area RMSE (µg/m3) Fractional Bias RMSE Fractional Bias Gradient 12.99 0.474 2.86 0.001 All others 5.10 0.133 3.32 0.011 Source: Mott MacDonald

RMSE is used to define the average error or uncertainty of the model; it has an ideal value of zero however Defra TG(16) states that values should be at least within ±25% of the objective (ie 3 3 for annual mean NO2, 25% of 40µg/m = 10µg/m ) and ideally within 10% (ie for annual mean NO2, less than 4µg/m3).

The fractional bias of the model may be used in order to identify if the model shows a systematic tendency to over or under predict. FB values vary between +2 and -2, with an ideal value of zero. Negative values suggest a model over-prediction and positive values suggest a model under-prediction.

Following adjustment, the RMSE values calculated indicate that the model performance is improved and all RMSE values are less than 4µg/m3. The FB values indicate that the model has a tendency to slightly under-predict, however FB values are close to zero and the model is therefore considered to be performing well.

B.4 Summary Two different adjustment factors have been derived and applied to modelled NOx concentrations across the study area. Following adjustment, the model is performing well.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E126 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 54 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

C. Sensitivity analysis

C.1 Emission Sensitivity

C.1.1 Critical Levels Table 25 presents the results compared to the critical levels assuming emission factors do not improve beyond 2025 for the in-combination scenario. The sensitivity analysis reinforces the conclusion from the main assessment and confirms that the changes of CLE at Peter’s Pit and North Downs Woodland is above 1% of the standard. It also suggests the changes a Medway Estuary and Marshes could also be above 1% of the CLE and therefore this has also been considered within the ‘Appropriate Assessment’ for completeness.

C.1.2 Critical Loads

Table 26 presents nitrogen deposition results compared to the critical loads assuming emission factors do not improve beyond 2025 for the in-combination effects. The results demonstrate that the predicted percentage change of the critical load increases but remains below one percent for Medway Marshes and Estuary. This supports the conclusion from the main assessment that impacts at Medway Marshes and Estuary are insignificant.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E127 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 55 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Table 25: Modelled NOx CLE results – In-combination effects (2025 emission factors) Receptor Base Future year NOx concentration Change Total Total DS year (µg/m3) as % of DS as exceedance (e) total NOx CLE % of of CLE? (µg/m3) CLE

BG(a) Total Total Change (d) DM DS NOx NOx NOx (b) (c) Peter’s Pit SAC 33.3 12.0 19.7 20.2 0.57 1.9 67.4 No North Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) East 82.1 14.7 31.1 32.8 1.71 5.7 109.3 Yes North Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment)West 38.4 15.6 22.9 24.1 1.12 3.7 80.2 No Medway Estuary & Marshes SPA 37.5 16.8 23.5 23.9 0.39 1.3 79.8 No Notes: (a) BG: Background concentrations from Defra background maps (year 2025 assumed) (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie based on 2016 base flows) contribution added to background (but based on 2025 emission factors). (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (but based on 2025 emission factors) (d) CLE: Critical level for NOx (30µg/m3) (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

Table 26: Modelled nitrogen deposition CLO results – In combination effects (2025 emission factors) Receptor Most N- Base year Future year nitrogen Change CLO Change Change Total DS Existing BG sensitive 2016 N- deposition (kg/ha/yr) N-dep (d) as % of as % of exceedance exceedance habitat dep (Min- Min CLO BG of Min CLO? of Min CLO? BG(a) Total Total present (kg/ha/yr) Max) (e) DM DS NOx NOx (b) (c) Peter’s Pit SAC Broadleaved 17.4 10.4 12.6 12.8 0.164 5-15 3.3 1.58 Yes Yes and mixed yew woodland North Downs Yew- 44.1 22.3 27.0 27.5 0.492 5-15 9.8 2.21 Yes Yes Woodland SAC dominated (Wouldham to woodland Detling Escarpment) East

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E128 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 56 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Receptor Most N- Base year Future year nitrogen Change CLO Change Change Total DS Existing BG sensitive 2016 N- deposition (kg/ha/yr) N-dep (d) as % of as % of exceedance exceedance habitat dep (Min- Min CLO BG of Min CLO? of Min CLO? BG(a) Total Total present (kg/ha/yr) Max) (e) DM DS NOx NOx (b) (c) North Downs Beech forests 31.6 22.3 24.4 24.7 0.323 10-20 3.2 1.45 Yes Yes Woodland SAC on neutral to (Wouldham to rich soils Detling Escarpment) West Medway 24.0 18.2 19.2 19.2 0.056 8-20 0.7 0.31 Yes Yes Estuary & Marshes SPA Notes: (a) BG: Maximum background deposition from APIS, adjusted by 2% annually from 2016 to an interim year 2025 (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie based on 2016 traffic flows) contribution added to background (but based in 2025 emission factors). (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (but based in 2025 emission factors) (d) CLO: For each site, the most nitrogen sensitive habitats have been selected and the minimum critical load from available ranges for that habitat is used in the % change calculations, to provide a conservative assessment (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E129 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 57 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

C.2 Nitrogen deposition velocity sensitivity Table 27 and Table 28 present a sensitivity test of the maximum nitrogen deposition when using the nitrogen deposition velocity included within DMRB. It presents this sensitivity test when assuming 2030 and 2025 emission factors for the in-combination assessment as this worst case.

The results show that when applying this method, the contributions to nitrogen deposition from the TMBC Local Plan in-combination are lower than the method assumed for the main assessment. However, it demonstrates that that in all cases the nitrogen deposition at North Downs Woodland East is above 1% of the minimum critical load for the in-combination effects.

This is consistent with the findings of the main assessment and therefore demonstrates that the conclusions of the Stage 1 Screening Report for air quality to undertake an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ for nitrogen deposition at the North Downs Woodland SAC is robust.

It also demonstrates that in none of the scenarios is 1% of the critical load exceeded at Peter’s Pit or the Medway Estuary and Marshes. Nitrogen deposition when applying the DMRB approach is less than 1% of the critical load at Peter’s Pit and therefore it confirms that the approach used in the main assessment (which predicts deposition above 1%) is conservative and demonstrates that the assessment has undertaken a precautionary approach.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E130 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 58 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Table 27: Modelled nitrogen deposition CLO results – In combination effects (DMRB deposition velocity and 2030 emission factors) Receptor Most N- Base year Future year nitrogen Change CLO Change Change Total DS Existing BG sensitive 2016 N- deposition (kg/ha/yr) N-dep (d) as % of as % of exceedance exceedance habitat dep (Min- Min CLO BG of Min CLO? of Min CLO? BG(a) Total Total present (kg/ha/yr) Max) (e) DM DS NOx NOx (b) (c) Peter’s Pit SAC Broadleaved 17.4 10.4 11.6 11.6 0.020 5-15 0.4 0.2 Yes Yes and mixed yew woodland North Downs Yew- 44.1 22.3 24.0 24.0 0.058 5-15 1.2 0.3 Yes Yes Woodland SAC dominated (Wouldham to woodland Detling Escarpment) East North Downs Beech forests 31.6 22.3 23.7 23.8 0.040 10-20 0.4 0.2 Yes Yes Woodland SAC on neutral to (Wouldham to rich soils Detling Escarpment) West Medway 24.2 18.2 19.7 19.7 0.014 8-20 0.2 0.1 Yes Yes Estuary & Marshes SPA Notes: (a) BG: Maximum background deposition from APIS, adjusted by 2% annually from 2016 to an interim year 2025Yes (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie based on 2016 traffic flows ) contribution added to background (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (d) CLO: For each site, the most nitrogen sensitive habitats have been selected and the minimum critical load from available ranges for that habitat is used in the % change calculations, to provide a conservative assessment (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E131 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 59 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

Table 28: Modelled nitrogen deposition CLO results – In combination effects (DMRB deposition velocity and 2025 emission factors) Receptor Most N- Base year Future year nitrogen Change CLO Change Change Total DS Existing BG sensitive 2016 N- deposition (kg/ha/yr) N-dep (d) as % of as % of exceedance exceedance habitat dep (Min- Min CLO BG of Min CLO? of Min CLO? BG(a) Total Total present (kg/ha/yr) Max) (e) DM DS NOx NOx (b) (c) Peter’s Pit SAC Broadleaved 17.4 10.4 11.7 11.7 0.031 5-15 0.6 0.3 Yes Yes and mixed yew woodland North Downs Yew- 44.1 22.3 24.3 24.4 0.086 5-15 1.7 0.4 Yes Yes Woodland SAC dominated (Wouldham to woodland Detling Escarpment) East North Downs Beech forests 31.6 22.3 23.8 23.9 0.059 10-20 0.6 0.3 Yes Yes Woodland SAC on neutral to (Wouldham to rich soils Detling Escarpment) West Medway 24.2 18.2 19.8 19.8 0.020 8-20 0.2 0.1 Yes Yes Estuary & Marshes SPA Notes: (a) BG: Maximum background deposition from APIS, adjusted by 2% annually from 2016 to an interim year 2025 (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie based on 2016 traffic flows ) contribution added to background (but based in 2025 emission factors). (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (but based in 2025 emission factors) (d) CLO: For each site, the most nitrogen sensitive habitats have been selected and the minimum critical load from available ranges for that habitat is used in the % change calculations, to provide a conservative assessment (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019G | January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E132 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 60 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening)

mottmac.com

391898 | 2 | F | January 2019January 2019March 2020 TMBC HRA Stage 1 Air Quality Screening E133 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

B. HRA Screening Report Stage 2: Air Quality Report

128

E134

It

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council TMBC HRA Stage 2 E135

Mott MacDonald Victory House Trafalgar Place Brighton BN1 4FY United Kingdom

T +44 (0)1273 365000 F +44 (0)1273 365100 mottmac.com

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Gibson Building Tonbridge and Malling Gibson Drive 391898 3 D Kings Hill https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC- West Malling BoroughHabitatRegulations Council Assessment Air Quality LocalAppropriate Assessment Plan Stage2 RevD_tracks.docx ME19 4LZ Habitat RegulationsMott MacDonald Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

January 2019September 2020

Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1243967. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council United Kingdom TMBC HRA Stage 2

E136 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

Issue and Revision Record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description A Dec 2019 C. Mills J. Brookes C. Mills Draft for comment B Jan 2019 C. Mills J. Brookes C. Mills Second C Jan 2019 C. Mills S. White C. Mills Addressing Counsels comments D Jan 2019 C. Mills J. Brookes C. Mills Final E March 2020 J. Brookes C. Mills C. Mills Final following NE consultation response F July 2020 C. Mills J. Brookes C. Mils Updated following NE consultation response G September C. Mills J. Brookes / S. C. Mills Updated 2020 White following further NE consultation response

Document reference: 391898 | 3 | D

Information class: Standard

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties.

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.

This R eport has been prepar ed sol ely for use by the party w hich commissi oned it (the 'Client') in connection wi th the capti oned pr oject. It shoul d not be used for any other purpose. N o person other than the Client or any party w ho has expr essly agreed terms of reli ance with us (the 'Recipi ent(s)') may r ely on the content, information or any views expr essed in the R eport. T his R eport is confi denti al and contains pr opri etary intell ectual pr operty and we accept no duty of car e, r esponsibility or li ability to any other recipi ent of this R eport. N o repr esentati on, w arranty or undertaki ng, express or im plied, is made and no responsi bility or liability is accepted by us to any party other than the Client or any Reci pient(s), as to the accuracy or com pleteness of the i nformati on contai ned i n this R eport. F or the avoi dance of doubt thi s Report does not i n any w ay pur port to i nclude any legal, insurance or fi nanci al advice or opi nion.

We disclaim all and any liability w hether arising i n tort, contr act or otherwise w hich we might otherwise have to any party other than the Cli ent or the Reci pient(s), in respect of this Report, or any inform ation contained in it. W e accept no responsi bility for any error or omissi on in the Report w hich is due to an error or omissi on in data, i nformation or statements supplied to us by other parti es i ncludi ng the Cli ent (the 'Data'). We have not independently verified the D ata or otherwise exami ned i t to determi ne the accuracy, com pleteness, sufficiency for any purpose or feasi bility for any particular outcome incl uding fi nanci al.

Forecasts presented i n this docum ent w ere pr epared usi ng the Data and the Repor t is dependent or based on the D ata. Inevitably, som e of the assumptions used to develop the for ecasts will not be realised and unantici pated events and circumstances m ay occur. C onsequently, we do not guarantee or w arrant the conclusions contained in the R eport as ther e are likely to be differences betw een the forecasts and the actual results and those differ ences may be m aterial. While we consi der that the information and opini ons given in this R eport are sound all parti es m ust rely on their ow n skill and judgem ent when m aking use of it.

Information and opi nions ar e current only as of the date of the Report and w e accept no responsi bility for updati ng such information or opi nion. It shoul d, therefor e, not be assum ed that any such inform ati on or opi nion conti nues to be accurate subsequent to the date of the Report. U nder no circum stances m ay this Report or any extract or summ ary thereof be used i n connecti on with any public or private securities offeri ng incl udi ng any related m emor andum or pr ospectus for any securiti es offering or stock exchange listi ng or announcem ent.

By acceptance of this Repor t you agree to be bound by this disclaim er. T his disclaim er and any issues, disputes or cl aims arising out of or in connection wi th it (whether contractual or non-contractual i n natur e such as cl aims i n tort, from br each of statute or regul ati on or otherwise) shall be governed by, and constr ued i n accordance with, the law s of Engl and and W ales to the exclusion of all conflict of l aws principles and r ules. All disputes or claims arising out of or r elati ng to this discl aimer shall be subject to the excl usive jurisdicti on of the English and Welsh courts to w hich the parties irrevocably submit.

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E137 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

Contents

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1

2 Summary of predicted impacts 2 2.1 Overview 2 2.2 Critical Levels 2 2.3 Critical Loads 3

3 Assessment of significance 5 3.1 Overview 5 3.2 Ecological interpretation 6 3.3 Conclusion 8

4 Options for minimising air quality impacts from new development 10 4.1 Overview 10 4.2 Generic good practice mitigation measures to reduce emissions 10

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E138 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 1 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview This Stage 2 ‘Appropriate Assessment’ for air quality has been undertaken following the outcomes presented in the Stage 1 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) air quality screening report. The Stage 1 report should be read alongside this ‘Appropriate Assessment’ as it provides all relevant background information.

The Stage 1 HRA air quality screening predicted that changes in concentrations of atmospheric nitrogen oxides (NOx) would be above 1% of the critical level at North Downs Woodland SAC and Peter’s Pit SAC when assessed in-combination with development from surrounding authorities. Sensitivity analysis indicated that there was the potential that in combination effects at Medway Estuary & Marshes SPA and Ramsar would result in changes in atmospheric concentrations above 1% of the critical level and therefore a precautionary approach has been undertaken and this has been considered in the ’Appropriate Assessment’.

The Stage 1 HRA air quality screening report for air quality concluded that the change in nitrogen deposition at North Downs Woodland SAC was above 1% of the minimum critical load when assessing the TMBC Local Plan in isolation. In addition, the report concluded that when assessing the in-combination effects, the North Downs Woodland SAC and Peter’s Pit SAC both had a change in nitrogen deposition above 1% of the minimum critical load and required further ‘Appropriate Assessment’.

The Stage 1 HRA screening report concluded that changes in nitrogen deposition were assessed to be insignificant at all other designated sites when assessing the TMBC Local Plan in isolation or via in-combination effects.

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E139 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 2 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

2 Summary of predicted impacts

2.1 Overview The Stage 1 HRA air quality screening report for air quality presents the assessment methodology and assumptions for air quality assessment. This section of the ‘Appropriate Assessment’ provides a summary of the results from the modelling assessment for in- combination effects as these represent the worst case. The outputs from the modelling assessment have been used to inform the assessment of significance of in-combination air quality impacts of the TMBC Local Plan on the ‘Natura 2000’ and Ramsar designated sites identified.

2.2 Critical Levels

Modelled results at the four ecological receptors are presented in Table 1 for the NOX CLE.

Table 1: Modelled NOx CLE results – In-combination effects Receptor Base Future year NOx concentration (µg/m3) Change Total DS Total DS year total (a) as % of as % of exceedan BG Total DM Total DS Change (e) NOx (b) (c) (d) CLE CLE ce of NOx NOx NOx (µg/m3) CLE? Peter’s Pit 33.3 12.0 17.2 17.6 0.39 1.3 58.7 No SAC North 82.1 14.7 25.3 26.4 1.14 3.8 88.1 No Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpmen t) East North 38.4 15.6 20.6 21.3 0.76 2.5 71.2 No Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpmen t) West Medway 37.5 16.8 21.4 21.7 0.27 0.9(f) 72.2 No Estuary & Marshes SPA Notes: (a) BG: Background concentrations from Defra background maps (year 2025 assumed) (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie based on 2016 base flows) contribution added to background. (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (d) CLE: Critical level for NOx (30µg/m3) (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold. (f) Sensitivity testing at Stage 1 indicated that this the change of the CLE could be above 1% and therefore this has been considered within the ‘Appropriate Assessment’

The results indicate that predicted increases at Peter’s Pit SAC would be 0.39µg/m3 NOx, which is 1.3% of the NOx CLE. The total NOx concentration in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to be well below the CLE (58.7% of the CLE).

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E140 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 3 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

Impacts at North Downs Woodland SAC have a predicted increase in NOx concentrations due to the in-combination effects of 3.8% of the CLE at the eastern side (adjacent to the A249) and 2.5% on the western side (close to the A229). Total NOx remains below the CLE at both of these modelled receptors.

The results indicate that predicted increases at Medway Estuary & Marshes SPA and Ramsar would be 0.27µg/m3 of NOx, which is less than 1% of the NOx CLE. The total NOx concentration in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to be below the CLE (72.2% of the CLE). Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis relating to improvements in emissions demonstrates that changes on NOx could be above 1% of the CLE and therefore this site has also been included in the assessment of significance.

2.3 Critical Loads Modelled results at the three ecological receptors are presented in Table 2 for the nitrogen deposition CLO.

The results indicate that predicted increases in nitrogen deposition at Peter’s Pit SAC would be just 0.112 kg/ha/yr, which is 2.2% of the minimum N deposition CLO applied to the habitat at this location. It should be noted that the modelled receptor location is at the closest boundary to the road, and the minimum CLO has been applied, and therefore the assessment is conservative and the biggest impacts which are predicted only occur across a small area of the designated site, the majority of which is greater than 200 metres from the road. Total N deposition in the final Local Plan year of 2031 is predicted to exceed the minimum CLO, however this is attributed to the high existing background N deposition which would already exceed the minimum CLO. Total N deposition is below the maximum CLO for the habitat.

Impacts at North Downs Woodland (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) East, where the underlying habitat is classified as Yew-dominated woodland, are predicted to be 6.6% of the minimum CLO of 5kg/ha/yr, corresponding to an increase of 0.329kg/ha/yr at the closest location to the road. The increase at North Downs Woodland (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) West is predicted to be 0.220kg/ha/yr, which is 2.2% of the minimum CLO of 10kg/ha/yr. Background deposition at both of these locations exceeds the minimum and maximum CLOs, and therefore both the Do-Minimum and Do-Something scenarios predict an exceedance of the CLO in 2031.

It should be noted that a precautionary critical load of 5kg/ha/yr has been used for the North Downs Woodland (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) East, based on the underlying habitat being classified as Yew-dominated woodland. The 5 kg/ha/yr critical load (CL) for yew woodland is largely based on sensitivity of lichen associated with yew woodland, which is not a notified feature of the site. However, exceedance against a CLO of 10 kg/ha/yr can be considered appropriate in this case (i.e. for both beech and yew woodlands at this site). Using a CLO of 10 kg/ha/yr, the change in CLO to the area of the North Downs Woodland SAC (east) adjacent to A249 can be predicted as 3.3% rather than 6.6% presented in Table 2.

The AQ impacts to the area of the SAC (west) adjacent to the A229 (given as 2.2% of the CL) would impact a very small finger of woodland on the edge of this unit.

Nitrogen deposition impacts at Medway Estuary and Marshes have been screened out in the Stage 1 screening report and therefore not considered further.

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E141 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 4 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

Table 2: Modelled nitrogen deposition CLO results – In combination effects Receptor Most N- Base year Future year nitrogen Change CLO Change Change Total DS Existing BG sensitive 2016 N- deposition (kg/ha/yr) N-dep (d) as % of as % of exceedance exceedance habitat dep (Min- Min CLO BG of Min CLO? of Min CLO? BG(a) Total Total present (kg/ha/yr) Max) (e) DM DS NOx NOxN- N- dep (c) dep (b) Peter’s Pit SAC Broadleaved 17.4 10.4 11.9 12.0 0.112 5-15 2.2 1.1 Yes Yes and mixed yew woodland North Downs Yew- 44.1 22.3 25.3 25.7 0.329 5-15 6.6 1.5 Yes Yes Woodland SAC dominated (Wouldham to woodland Detling Escarpment) East North Downs Beech forests 31.6 22.3 23.7 23.9 0.220 10-20 2.2 1.0 Yes Yes Woodland SAC on neutral to (Wouldham to rich soils Detling Escarpment) West Notes: (a) BG: Maximum background deposition from APIS, adjusted by 2% annually from 2016 to an interim year 2025 (b) Total DM: Do-minimum scenario (ie based on 2016 traffic flows ) contribution added to background. (c) Total DS: Do-something scenario (ie with Local Plan development in 2031) contribution added to background (d) CLO: For each site, the most nitrogen sensitive habitats have been selected and the minimum critical load from available ranges for that habitat is used in the % change calculations, to provide a conservative assessment (e) Values less than 1% are considered ‘insignificant’. Values greater than 1% require further analysis and are highlighted in bold.

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docx E142 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 5 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

3 Assessment of significance

3.1 Overview The modelling of the impacts of nitrogen oxides and nitrogen deposition on the North Downs Woodland SAC and Peter’s Pit SAC are above 1% of the applicable critical level and critical load at the closest point to the nearest road passing the designations. Contributions of roads to pollutant concentrations and nitrogen deposition reduce with distance from the road and are generally considered to be imperceptible beyond 200 metres from the roadside1.

3.1.1 NOx Concentrations The base year (2016) NOx concentrations are predicted to be above the CLE at Peter’s Pit, North Downs Woodland (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) and Medway Estuary and Marshes. Most notably at North Downs Woodland East (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment), concentrations are predicted to be nearly three times the CLE. In comparison, the future year (2031) DS concentrations are below the CLE at all modelled receptors; these results indicate that impacts of increased traffic as a result of the proposed Local Plan will be offset by improving vehicle emission factors and background concentrations, such that future year concentrations are expected to be much lower than the base year of 2016 and do not exceed CLE.

For the three designated sites the marginal increases in NOx concentrations of the TMBC Plan in combination will only marginally retard the predicted improvements in future year NOx concentrations and resultant concentrations are predicted to be below the CLE. Therefore, the impacts are concluded to be insignificant. Therefore, there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated sites. Considering the conservation objectives to maintain or restore the concentrations of air pollutants to at or below the site-relevant CLE, the Local Plan will not affect the conservation objectives of the site, as the future year NOx emissions are predicted to be below the CLE with or without the Local Plan.

3.1.2 Nitrogen Deposition The assessment of nitrogen deposition has looked at two parts of the North Downs Woodland SAC Wouldham to Detling Escarpment. One section ‘North Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) East’ which lies adjacent to the A249 and one section ‘North Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) West’ which is adjacent to the A229.

The SSSI underlying North Downs Woodland SAC East is Wouldham to Detling Escarpment (Lynch Bank, unit number 26), which is a relatively small unit such that the majority of the unit is within 200m of the road and therefore overall SSSI condition as assessed is likely to be affected by road emissions.

The SSSI underlying North Downs Woodland SAC West is Wouldham to Detling Escarpment (White Horse Stone Woodland, unit number 15). This unit is largely located away from road sources; however, the boundary of the SSSI is approximately 160m from the A229 road and therefore the impacts of road emissions at this location are not expected to be substantially different than impacts further into the SSSI (given that impacts from road emissions typically revert to background levels around 200m from the road).

1 DMRB

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E143 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 6 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

In the base year of the assessment the minimum critical loads are exceeded at both modelled locations in the North Downs Woodland and at Peter’s Pit.

In the future year the baseline nitrogen deposition rates at North Downs Woodland SAC (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) and Peter’s Pit is predicted to continue to exceed the applicable minimum critical load values although background nitrogen deposition is predicted to reduce. This reduction is a result of improvements in vehicle emissions over time as the fleet will continually have a higher proportion of newer vehicles meeting more stringent emission standards and has a greater proportion of electric or hybrid vehicles.

As reported in section 2, the worst case in-combination impacts will result in an increase in nitrogen deposition at the worst affected locations at North Downs Woodlands East of 0.329kg/ha/yr, at North Downs Woodlands West of 0.220kg/ha/yr, and at Peter’s Pit of 0.112kg/ha/yr.

Whilst these increases are above 1% of the minimum critical load the increases range between 1-1.5% of the prediction background nitrogen deposition in the future year. In addition, it should be noted that the total road contribution to nitrogen deposition at the designatesdesignated sites is only a small proportion of the total nitrogen deposition. WhilstAlthough the additional nitrogen deposition will marginally retard the predicted significant background improvements from the base year to the future year, the resultant total nitrogen deposition areis still predicted to be significantly below the current baseline values. The predicted increases in nitrogen deposition are approximately equal to one year of background improvements, assuming an 2% annual reduction in backgrounds. Therefore, the increases are equivalent to approximately one year of background retardation.

Recent case law Compton v Guildford December 2019 suggest while anticipated improvements in background concentrations are a relevant factor to consider, as has been done in this assessment, other factors relevant to the specific designates sites should also be considered. Section 3.2 below provides further discussion on the conservation objectives of both North Downs Woodlands and Peter’s Pit and the likelihood of the predicted changes in nitrogen deposition impacting upon these.

3.2 Ecological interpretation

3.2.1 Overview Conservation objectives are Natural England’s statutory advice to operators and competent authorities, and are used as the baseline against which possible damaging operations are evaluated. They outline the detailed habitat and environmental conditions necessary to maintain or restore favourable condition of site features and site integrity. Conservation objectives thus serve as the basis for evaluation under the Habitats Regulations. In determining significant effects, Natural England’s Conservation Objectives, along with the accompanying Supplementary Advice documents for Peter’s Pit, have been reviewed. The conservation objectives for both SACs are to: “Ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its Qualifying Features, by maintaining or restoring;

● The extent and distribution of the qualifying natural habitats ● The structure and function (including typical species) of the qualifying natural habitats, and, ● The supporting processes on which the qualifying natural habitats rely”

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E144 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 7 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

Peter’s Pit SAC also has additional conservation objectives due to the presence of qualifying species (great crested newts), following on from the above to maintain and restore: ● “The populations of qualifying species, and, ● The distribution of qualifying species within the site.” The supporting information for the Peter’s Pit SAC conservation objectives sets out targets with supporting/explanatory notes. Of importance is the target to:

● Maintain or restore as necessary the concentrations and deposition of air pollutants to at or below the site-relevant Critical Load or Level values given for this feature of the site on the Air Pollution Information System (APIS)

3.2.2 North Downs Woodlands SAC The conditional assessment for North Downs Woodlands (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) East identifies a minimal intervention woodland of yew, beech and oak with a typical understorey and ground flora that includes ancient woodland indicators. There is no description for the unit associated with North Downs Woodlands (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) West, but this section of the SAC is also Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland. Although both sections of the SAC within the potential affected area of reduced air quality are considered to be in favourable condition, air quality has been identified in the standard data form2 for the site as a threat or pressure on the SAC. The Site Improvement Plan3 for the SAC proposes a ‘Site Nitrogen Action Plan’ as the mechanism to control, reduce or ameliorate atmospheric nitrogen impacts; however, this does not appear to have been produced at the time of writing.

Approximately 1.2% of the North Downs Woodlands SAC is within the potentially affected area; habitats in these areas are predominantly mixed yew woodlands, as described above. Nitrogen has historically been a limited factor in forest growth4. Increases in nitrogen deposition have resulted in increases in growth rates, although this is inhibited at higher levels. There is evidence to suggest that higher levels of nitrogen increase the vulnerability of woodland to storms, with those damaged or uprooted having higher concentrations of nitrogen in tissues5. However, when the North Downs Woodlands SAC is considered, the favourable conservation status of the site would suggest that the SAC has not been subject to adverse storm damage. In addition, the management plan for this section of the SAC6 (although now out of date) aimed to conserve, enhance and restore, in line with the SAC conservation objectives, and would likely have maintained the tree-health within the site.

Caporn et al. 20167 stated that the response of woodland to nitrogen deposition is poorly understood; however, it has been suggested that deciduous woodland does not suffer from species richness reductions as a result of nitrogen deposition8. This factor is of relevance to the beech forest elements of the SAC and suggests that species present within the canopy and understorey of the affected area would not be reduced.

2 Natural England. 2014. Improvement Programme for England's Natura 2000 Sites (IPENS): Site Improvement Plan North Downs Woodlands. Site Code: UK0030225 3 Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2016. Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive (includes candidate SACs, Sites of Community Importance and designated SACs). Standard Data Form: North Downs Woodlands. UK0030225 4 Braun et al. 2010. Does Nitrogen deposition increase forest production? The role of phosphorus. Environmental Pollution 158:6 5 Meyer, F.D. ; Paulsen, J. ; Korner, C. 2008 Windthrow damage in Picea abies is associated with physical and chemical stem wood properties Trees-Structure and Function 22 463-473 6 Mid Kent Downs Countryside Partnership. 2012. Boxley Warren Local Nature Reserve Summary Plan (2012 to 2017) 7 Caporn et al. 2016. Assessing the effects of small increments of atmospheric nitrogen deposition (above the critical load) on semi- natural habitats of conservation importance. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 210 8 Kirby et al. 2005. Long term ecological change in British woodland (1971-2001). Peterborough: English Nature (Research Report 653).

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E145 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 8 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

Considering the above, it is not consideredanticipated that the predicted levels of nitrogen deposition (given they only marginally retard the background improvements by approximately one year) will have a perceptible impact upon the habitats within the affected areas of North Downs Woodland (Wouldham to Detling Escarpment) SAC., particularly as there are no sensitive species such as lichens included as a qualifying feature. When reviewed against the conservation objectives of the SAC, it is not considered that the extent, distribution, structure or function of habitats or the supporting processes of North Downs Woodlands SAC will be subject to a perceptible impact; regardless of the marginal retardation to improvements in nitrogen deposition attributed to the in combination effects.

Therefore, there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of North Downs Woodlands SAC will be maintainedthe designated sites.

3.2.3 Peter’s Pit SAC The conditional assessment for Peter’s Pit SAC identified that the unit within the affected area of reduced air quality is in favourable condition, with appropriate management. The unit consists of a mosaic of terrestrial habitats including woodland and water bodies, ranging from rainfed to ground-water dependant ponds. No threats or pressures have been identified at this SAC9. The predicted impacts are only expected to extend to approximately 18 metres from the edge of the road and only approximately 0.6% of the total area of the SAC is within the potentially affected area. A habitat survey undertaken in 2012 indicated the habitats in this affected area are broadleaved woodland and therefore the discussion presented above for North Downs Woodland regarding the effects of nitrogen deposition on woodland is also applicable here. The future year baseline of nitrogen deposition is within the range of the critical load values provided by APIS, and is therefore in accordance with the supporting information that accompanies Peter’s Pit SAC’s conservation objectives.

In addition, whilst the broadleaved woodland is part of the SSSI interest, it is not a qualifying feature of Peter’s Pit SAC, for which great crested newts are the sole qualifying feature. However, the habitat does form part of the mosaic which provides functioning support for terrestrial phase great crested newts. In considering the above, it is not predicted that levels of nitrogen deposition will have a perceptible impact upon the habitats within the affected area of Peter’s Pit SAC, especially taking into account the reduction from the current level that is anticipated. When reviewed against the conservation objectives of the SAC, it is not considered that the extent, distribution, structure or function of habitats or species or supporting processes of Peter’s Pit SAC will be subject to a perceptible impact; regardless of the marginal retardation to improvements in nitrogen deposition attributed to the in combination effects.

The conclusion can be reached as great crested newts rely on the structure and function of the habitat only, which will not be affected by nitrogen deposition. Therefore, there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of Peter’s Pit SAC will be maintained.

3.3 Conclusion Considering the conclusions presented in this stage 2 ‘Appropriate Assessment’, air quality impacts cause by the Local Plan will not adversely affect the integrity of North Downs Woodland SAC or Peter’s Pit SAC and there is no requirement for mitigation measures. Nevertheless, potential options for minimising traffic are presented and discussed in the following section.

9 Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2016. Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive (includes candidate SACs, Sites of Community Importance and designated SACs). Standard Data Form: Peter`s Pit. UK0030237

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E146 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 10 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

4 Options for minimising air quality impacts from new development

4.1 Overview The ‘Appropriate Assessment’ has shown that the proposed Local Plan development would not result in a significant deterioration of air quality or increase in nitrogen deposition at designated sites. Nevertheless, TMBC will still consider options for minimising the impacts of Local Plan development in order to reduce impacts on designated sites as far as practicable. This section explores some potential options available. It is important to note that these mitigation measures have not been incorporated into the modelling assessment presented in this report (ie modelled impacts are predicted on the basis that no mitigation is applied). The options presented in this chapter have been identified as potential means of reducing traffic impacts, which would be expected to improve air quality.

4.2 Generic good practice mitigation measures to reduce emissions This section outlines generic good practice mitigation measures that should be considered for all strategic development within the TMBC Local Plan, to reduce emissions of pollutants at the source.

Modal shift options, such as increasing use of cycling, walking, rail and bus services and reducing private car use, are to be considered as a priority. TMBC are encouraged to develop sustainable transport plans for the strategic development sites as early as practicable to support this model shift. These plans will need to take account of existing public transport options in the area and identify potential improvements such as additional cycling routes, more frequent and/or more direct bus services to connect with railways or commercial centres, low emission bus services and contributions to electric vehicle charging infrastructure. It is recommended that TMBC require major developers to maximise opportunities for incorporating electric vehicle charging points into new residential areas, and explore options for the introduction of commercial ‘car clubs’ with low emission car sharing and bike hiring schemes.

Other options to consider for residential development include10:

● A ’welcome pack’ available to all new residents containing information and incentives to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes ● Eco-driver training and provision of eco-driver aid to all residents ● Designation of parking spaces for low emission vehicles ● Improved cycle paths to link cycle network ● Adequate provision of secure cycle storage Commercial developments should also consider:

● Differential parking charges depending on vehicle emissions ● Public transport subsidy for employees

10 Adapted from Kent & Medway Air Quality Partnership (December 2015). Air Quality Planning Guidance (Mitigation Option A). http://kentair.org.uk/documents/K&MAQP_Air_Quality_Planning_Guidance_Mitigation_Option_A.pdf

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E147 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 11 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

● Use of ultra-low emission service vehicles ● Support local walking and cycling initiatives ● On-street EV recharging

391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E148 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan 12 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment)

mottmac.com 391898 | 3 | D | January 2019E | January 2019September 2020 https://mottmac.sharepoint.com/teams/pj-b6595/do/Develop/Deliverables/Rev F/TMBC-HabitatRegulations Assessment Air Quality Appropriate Assessment Stage2 RevD_tracks.docxTMBC HRA Stage 2 Air Quality Appropriate Assessment E149 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

C. Correspondence with Natural England

149

E150 Date: 25 November 2016 Our ref: 197615 Your ref: HRA Screening

Planning Policy Manager Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Customer Services Gibson Building, Gibson Drive Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Kings Hill, West Malling Electra Way Kent ME19 4LZ Crewe Cheshire BY EMAIL ONLY CW1 6GJ [email protected] T 0300 060 3900

Dear Sir/Madam

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Local Plan: Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) Screening Report

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 30 September 2016 which was received by Natural England on the same date. I have submitted Natural England’s comments on the Issues and Options document through the online questionnaire. In addition, Natural England would like to make some comments on the HRA Screening Report, set out below.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 (As Amended)

North Downs Woodland Special Area of Conservation (SAC) The North Downs Woodland SAC is sensitive to air pollution, and therefore, there is the potential for the Local Plan to have an impact as a result of increased traffic flows. Research shows that the greatest impact from air pollution due to roads occurs within 200m, so it is only necessary to consider sensitive habitats within this zone. Therefore, Natural England agrees with this approach being taken in the HRA Screening Report. However, it appears that only parts of the SAC within Tonbridge and Malling Borough have been considered. The A249 is adjacent to the eastern end of the SAC, but potential impacts from traffic on this road are not mentioned.

Natural England recommends referring to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 111), which contains screening criteria to identify significant air quality impacts. In this case, we recommend identifying where daily traffic flows are predicted to change by 1000 AADT (annual average daily traffic flow) or more, inside or outside the borough boundary, as a result of housing allocations. The outcome of this assessment should then be cross referenced with sensitive habitats within 200m of the road network, to identify whether there are likely to be any significant effects.

Peter’s Pit SAC Natural England agrees with the conclusion in the HRA Screening Report that Peter’s Pit SAC is unlikely to be significantly affected by the Local Plan as there are no housing allocations in close proximity.

Queendown Warren SAC Queendown Warren SAC is sensitive to air pollution, however, there are no major roads within 200m of the site (Queendown Warren SSSI is larger than the SAC and does extend to within 200m

1 http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/DMRB/vol11/section3/ha20707.pdf

E151 of the M2, but potential impacts on the SSSI do not need to be considered through the HRA). Therefore, Natural England’s view is that this SAC can be screened out of any further assessment.

Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site As identified in the HRA Screening Report, the birds for which the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar is designated are sensitive to disturbance. Research carried out for the North Kent Environmental Planning Group identified that the majority of recreational users come from within 6km of the SPA/Ramsar. Therefore, HRA of the Local Plans within this zone have concluded that any net new residential development proposed within 6km of the SPA/Ramsar is likely to have a significant effect in combination. This has led to the setting up of the North Kent Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Strategy (SAMM), which will implement mitigation measures.

Tonbridge and Malling Borough appears to fall outside the 6km zone of influence, therefore it is not necessary to be signed up to the SAMM Strategy. Particularly large developments beyond 6km could have an effect, and may require mitigation. However, such large developments in the north east of the Borough are unlikely (and are not currently proposed in the Issues and Options document) due to the presence of the Kent Downs AONB. Therefore, Natural England’s view is that the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar can be screened out of further assessment.

Conclusion Subject to the outcome of the air quality screening assessment for North Downs Woodland SAC set out above, Natural England agrees with the conclusion in the HRA Screening Report that the other identified European sites can be screened out from further assessment. However, the conclusions of the HRA Screening Report should be revisited as the Local Plan progresses, to ensure that a likely significant effect can still be ruled out as more details on allocations emerge.

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Alison Giacomelli on 0208 225 7693. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected].

Yours faithfully

Alison Giacomelli Sussex and Kent Area Team

E152 From: (NE) To: localplan Cc: Subject: Local Plan Response Date: 19 November 2018 16:00:37 Attachments: Tonbridge & Malling Reg. 19 - NE Response.pdf

Good afternoon,

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the Tonbridge & Malling Local Plan Reg. 19 consultation.

Please find attached our response.

Kind regards,

Sustainable Development Team (Sussex and Kent)

Natural England 3rd Floor, Guildbourne House, Chatsworth Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1LD T: 0208 2258409 M: 07786 022 161 www.gov.uk/natural-england

We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England’s traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations.

In an effort to reduce Natural England's carbon footprint, I will, wherever possible, avoid travelling to meetings and attend via audio, video or web conferencing.

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

E153 Date: 19 November 2018 Our ref:

Customer Services Ian Bailey Hornbeam House Planning Policy Manager Crewe Business Park Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Electra Way Crewe Cheshire [email protected] CW1 6GJ

T 0300 060 3900 BY EMAIL ONLY

Dear Mr Bailey

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Draft Local Plan Consultation (Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations)

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 01 October 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England has reviewed the Regulation 19 Pre-submission publication of the Local Plan and accompanying appendices together with the Habitats Regulations Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Our comments on these documents are provided below, which I hope you find useful.

Overarching comment regarding soundness

Natural England objects to Allocation LP29 (Borough Green Gardens). This allocation is not justified as it does not provide sufficient evidence to support its inclusion in the Local Plan with regard to impacts on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting, considered against reasonable alternatives. Furthermore it is not consistent with national policy with regard to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within a nationally protected landscape (Paragraphs 115 and 116, NPPF 2012). Natural England advises that insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the site is deliverable without resulting in an adverse impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The allocation should be assessed against the three tests (NPPF 2012 para 116), including clear and reasonable justification if exceptional circumstances and public benefit are to be demonstrated, in accordance with national policy and LP12 of the proposed Local Plan. If it cannot be proven that these criteria are met, the allocation should not be pursued.

Further detail on Natural England’s objection in Appendix A.

Overarching comment regarding the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

Natural England notes that the HRA has not been produced by your authority, but by a third party. As competent authority, it is your responsibility to produce the HRA. We provide the advice enclosed on the assumption that your authority intends to adopt this HRA to fulfil your duty as competent authority.

Page 1 of 11

E154 On the basis of information provided, it is the advice of Natural England that it is not possible to conclude that the proposal is unlikely to result in significant effects on the European sites in question. Further information on our position is provided in Appendix B.

Other comments

Further comments regarding policy wording is provided in the Appendices (Appendix C), including advice on other site allocations that may affect the AONB (Appendix D). We have recommended various wording amendments to improve policy with regard to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

I hope that these comments are useful. We would be happy to discuss our comments further should the need arise but in the meantime if you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. For queries relating to the specific advice in this letter please contact . For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation, please send your correspondences to [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Sussex and Kent Area Team

Page 2 of 11

E155 Appendix A – detailed advice relating to strategic allocation LP29 (Borough Green Gardens)

Further detail to accompany our objection to strategic allocation LP29 is provided below:

 Allocation LP29 would result in the development of 1,720 homes over the plan period, with an additional 1,280 homes safeguarded for the next plan period (3000 homes in total). The majority of the site lies directly adjacent to the Kent Downs AONB and the westerly portion of the site sits within the AONB itself. National policy affords the highest protection to conserving and enhancing protected landscape and Paragraph 116 requires assessment of three tests prior to considering major development in such areas. Enhanced wording in the revised NPPF (July 2018) demonstrates further need to protect and enhance AONBs (para 172) outlining that the scale of development within AONBs should be limited.

 From the information provided there does not appear to be any landscape evidence to inform the site allocation process both in terms of the impact on setting and the direct impact of development within the AONB boundary. It is not appropriate to defer such assessment to the project stage and consideration should be given to the three tests outlined in paragraph 116 (2012 NPPF), including assessment of reasonable alternatives and the consideration of meeting need elsewhere.

 The Sustainability Appraisal accompanying the Local Plan confirms potential adverse effects and also highlights various uncertain aspects to allocating the site:

‘The policy proposes to allocate land within the Kent Downs AONB which could have significant negative impacts, however it does not permit residential or commercial development within the protected landscape thereby protecting the designated asset from some forms of development. Other uses are considered appropriate, but the policy includes for appropriate mitigation. Significant areas of land are also identified for development within the setting of the Kent Downs AONB and specific reference is included within this policy to manage any impacts on this. The scale of the development and the proximity to the AONB mean there remains some uncertainty as to the precise nature of any impact.’

(Page 376 and 377, Final Environmental Report, Sustainability Appraisal)

 Contrary to the Sustainability Appraisal Policy LP29 does not restrict development within the AONB boundary and provides criteria to assess applications, this criteria is significantly weaker than the major development tests set in national planning policy.

 Specific mitigation, informed by landscape assessment, has not been provided to justify allocating within the AONB and in its setting. Any uncertainty regarding impacts should be properly considered at the plan stage to ensure delivery of the site. It is not appropriate to defer the assessment of such affects to the project level.

Page 3 of 11

E156 Appendix B – Detailed advice relating to the Habitats Regulations Assessment.

Natural England advises that the assessment currently does not provide enough information and/or certainty to justify the assessment conclusion. We have reached this view for the following reasons:

The assessment concludes that your authority is able to rule out the likelihood of significant effects arising from air quality impacts. However, the assessment does not refer to the consideration of any other impacts on designated sites which may occur as a result of this local plan (either alone or in combination). For example, it has previously been identified that increased recreational access may impact on the designated sites through disturbance (Tonbridge & Malling Local Plan HRA Screening Report, May 2017). This impact does not appear to have been addressed.

The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) document published as part of the Regulation 19 consultation consists of the Stage 1 Air Quality Screening (MottMac July 2018). Therefore it is not an appropriate Local Plan HRA as it does not address the any other impacts to designated sites that could result as a consequence of development coming forward within the plan.

All likely effects of a plan or project need to be thought about individually and in combination with other relevant plans or projects. This is a legal requirement of the Habitats Regulations and it helps to ensure that European sites are not inadvertently damaged by the additive effects of multiple plans or projects.

It is not clear from the air quality screening report what level of housing has been considered within the assessment. Table 1 identifies the 5 main strategic locations of development but it is unclear as to whether this includes the totality of the development within the Local Plan. In order to comply with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, and to enable a fair and reasonable assessment, the plan should be considered in its entirety, with likely significant effects considered for the plan alone and in combination with other plans and projects.

A competent authority should clearly record which plans and/or projects are included in their assessment, together with clear justification for plans or projects which have not been considered. In combination assessment may potentially include the following:

 Incomplete or non-implemented parts of plans or projects that have already commenced;  Plans or projects given consent or given effect but not yet started.  Plans or projects currently subject to an application for consent or proposed to be given effect;  Projects that are the subject of an outstanding appeal;  Ongoing plans or projects that are the subject of regular review and renewal  Any draft plans being prepared by any public body  Any proposed plans or projects that are reasonably

Regarding the screening of impacts associated with traffic, we refer to the recent clarification provided in the Wealden Judgment 2017. The Court concluded that where the likely effect of an individual plan or project does not itself exceed the threshold of 1000 AADT (or 1%), its effect must still be considered alongside the similar effects of other ‘live’ plans and projects to check whether their added or combined effect on a site could be significant.

This is because projects and plans that increase road traffic flow have a high likelihood of acting together, or in-combination, with other plans or projects that would also increase traffic on the same roads. Vehicles generated by different plans or projects can end up on the exact same road(s) (forming a line source of emissions) within or close to the same site. In these cases, it is difficult to justify use of a threshold alone for determining likelihood for significant effect by applying it solely to the project being assessed. The threshold should be applied in-combination.

We note that TemPro has been used in the assessment and welcome this approach. However Page 4 of 11

E157 when considering the impact of the Local Plan, the assessment has been undertaken on a “without development” (development within Tonbridge and Malling and in other districts) comparison with “with development” (no development within Tonbridge and Malling but with development in other districts). This identifies the contribution from the Local Plan alone and does not consider the in combination impacts. This is not in accordance with the Wealden Judgement

Notwithstanding the above, Natural England concur that the 3 AADT increase identified for Ashdown Forest SAC can be discounted as insignificant as this level of AADT and the resultant Nitrogen deposition would be impossible to measure. Additionally, Natural England’s response to other LPAs in relation to air quality impacts on Ashdown Forest has identified that there will be no adverse effect on integrity.

The assessment identifies that Nitrogen deposition from the Local Plan will have a likely significant effect on the North Downs Woodlands SAC as it will be over the 1% level of insignificance. The report makes some attempt to suggest this is not significant based on favourable conservation status of the SSSI units however Common Standards Monitoring (CSM) is not designed to assess air quality impacts therefore this is not a relevant conclusion. The implications of the increase in Nitrogen deposition require consideration under an appropriate assessment that considers the Conservation Objectives to determine whether the impacts would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated site.

On the basis of the above advice, we recommend that the HRA is revised to include consideration of the plan in its entirety, ensuring robust assessment all of the impacts on designated sites, including in-combination impacts, and with clear justifications to support the conclusions.

Page 5 of 11

E158 Appendix C – General advice on policy, including recommended amendments on policy wording

Strategic objectives

Natural England raises concerns with the following strategic objectives, however considered amendments to wording would overcomes these issues:

 Objective 5

As highlighted in Natural England’s response to the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation Paragraph 114 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to ‘plan positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of biodiversity’. To ensure this objective fully aligns with the requirements of the NPPF, the wording should be amended to refer to enhancement of the environment as well as its protection. It is important that the plan recognises the value of all components of ecological networks, not just the most important ones. Furthermore, it is unclear how ‘important’ would be defined in terms of policy. As such we suggest we suggest the following amendments (shown in bold and strikethrough):

‘Protect and enhance important natural and heritage assets, taking into account the mitigation hierarchy with regard to the natural environment.’

 Objective 8

‘Where possible’ should be removed from this objective. This wording weakens the objective and does not support the strengthening of Green Infrastructure (GI) and ecological networks. Paragraph 117 of the NPPF requires planning policies to protect, create and restore ecological networks, and removal of this wording would allow the objective to better align with this requirement.

‘Support opportunities to protect and where possible strengthen the existing Green Infrastructure and Ecological Network across the borough as illustrated on the map in Appendix C and defined in the Glossary.’

 Objective 9

We support the general aim that development should mitigate its impact on the environment. However it is important that development should firstly aim to avoid such impacts (NPPF para 118). As this objective provides the general framework for more detailed policies, you may wish to clarify this aim by referring to the mitigation of ‘unavoidable impacts’, in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy1.

‘Ensure development mitigates its any unavoidable impact on the environment and is resilient to the effects of climate change.’

Policy Wording

 LP6: Rural Exception sites

This policy aims to restrict residential development in rural areas to ‘small sites’. Currently, the policy does not provide clear criteria on what would be considered as ‘small sites’. Without further clarification, it will be difficult to apply this policy, and it is difficult to understand and assess the likely impacts of implementing the policy. Natural England recommends further detail be added to the

1 The NPPF sets out in Paragraph 118 how the mitigation hierarchy should be applied: ‘If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.’

Page 6 of 11

E159 supporting text of the policy to outline what is meant by ‘small sites’.

LP10: Infrastructure Requirements

This policy wording is very vague. At least, clarification should be provided as to how development may be viewed as ‘acceptable in planning terms’. We advise this policy includes a clear framework for decision making, with criteria to guide applicants towards ‘acceptable’ proposals.

This policy presents an opportunity to guide and influence the development of infrastructure which can have positive outcomes for the environment. Transport infrastructure (particularly new transport routes such as roads and cycle routes) can provide for wildlife and presents valuable Green Infrastructure (GI) opportunities. For example, highway verges and embankments (e.g. alongside railway lines) can be important habitats in their own right, but also provide valuable connecting habitat, contributing to the overall coherence of the ecological network. We would expect this policy to acknowledge such benefits and seek opportunities for the creation and enhancement of biodiversity assets including GI provision, in addition to appropriate mitigation of environmental impacts. Please note that the above comments on GI also apply to policy LP23: Sustainable Transport.

LP14: Achieving High Quality Sustainable Design

In order to achieve high quality sustainable design, development must protect and enhance environmental features in addition to features of historical, architectural and landscape value. To strengthen policy wording, ‘where practicable’ should be removed, and wording amended to maximise opportunities to ensure net gain can be achieved.

Additionally, we advise this policy recognises the importance of GI in the design of sustainable development, including provision of new green infrastructure, links to the existing green infrastructure network and provision of access and recreation opportunities.

LP25 & LP26: Housing Allocations & Policy Requirements

Comments on individual allocations where development is more likely to impact on the natural environment are contained within Appendix 1. This includes advice on potential impacts, what to include in the policies, and what to consider should the allocation be taken forward. Please note that where we have not objected to, or otherwise commented on, a policy or proposal, it should not be assumed that it would not have an adverse effect on landscape or biodiversity, because we have focused on the most important environmental issues in the plan.

In general, policy wording for allocations located within or in the setting of either the Kent Downs or High Weald AONB needs to have a clear commitment to protecting and enhancing the character of the AONB, in line with the relevant AONB Management Plan, supporting documents and position statements, and be in accordance with the relevant AONB/Landscape policy.

LP27, LP28, LP30, LP31: Strategic Allocations

Where relevant, wording on AONB considerations and LVIA requirements is welcome. You may wish to consider adding/incorporating similar text into landscape/AONB policy wording.

To strengthen policy aims and to secure opportunities for biodiversity enhancements and net gain, ‘where possible’ should be removed from policy wording.

LP41: Publicly Accessible Open Space

Having reviewed the information contained within Appendix R we do not consider the standards for the provision of green space (on or off-site) are sufficient to achieve the policy requirements for habitat creation, strengthening of GI and securing contributions to the ecological network. We recommend the use of Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt) as a useful tool to help Page 7 of 11

E160 ensure adequate provision of accessible natural greenspace.

As suggested in the supporting text, adequate greenspace provision can assist in achieving net gain through development, and will also contribute to achieving GI aims. Open/green space policies should therefore be linked to relevant biodiversity and GI policies.

Page 8 of 11

E161 APPENDIX D – Comments on Site Allocations

High Weald AONB and Kent Downs AONB

The following comments apply to all allocations within or in the setting of an AONB. The sites we have identified as in or within the setting of an AONB are presented in Table 1. Our comments apply equally to sites in or within the setting of either the High Weald AONB or the Kent Downs AONB.

 All allocations within an AONB have the potential to negatively impact upon the designated landscape. As such, Natural England recommend that allocations outside of the AONB be considered wherever possible.

 Allocations within the AONB must protect and enhance the character of the AONB, in accordance with your Local Plan Policies, the relevant AONB Management Plan and supporting guidance, National Character Areas and Local Character Areas.

 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council is responsible for determining if allocations constitute major development, in line with paragraphs 172 of the NPPF. Natural England advises that AONBs should not be considered as suitable locations for major development. Please note that absence of direct reference to major development does not mean that we have no concerns. At this stage we cannot be sure whether the expected yield of each allocation would or would not be considered major development. This is a matter for the Council to consider. Through the local plan, the Council must ensure that all allocations for major development within the AONB are robustly assessed against the three tests, including if there are alternatives to meet housing requirements.

 Development proposals should be informed by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in line with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA 3rd edition).

 Development within the setting of an AONB has the potential to impact on that AONB. Development should respect the value of the setting of the AONB, and ensure the setting can be protected. Proposals should refer to the relevant AONB Management Plan and supporting guidance, National Character Areas and Local Character Areas.

Table 1. Allocations within or in the setting of an AONB Designation ID Site Provision Impacted Borough Green Gardens Phase 1A + 1B Subject to further information, Natural h England currently object to this allocation. 1720 Please see our detailed comments on Policy Kent Downs AONB LP29.

ai Land at Howlands Allotments, Wrotham 39

a Bushey Wood Phase 1, Eccles 900 Kent Downs AONB Housing j Bell Lane, Burham 58 Allocations (setting) aj North of Fairfield Road, Borough Green 16

ac South West Tonbridge 480 High Weald AONB ad South of Vauxhall Gardens, Tonbridge 61

Page 9 of 11

E162 Works, south of Cricketts Farm, Ightham B1 / B2 / Tower Garage, Wrotham Hill, Wrotham Kent Downs AONB

B8 Lower Bell, Aylesford

Ham Hill, Snodland

Bourne Enterprise Centre, Borough Green B1 / B2 / Platt Industrial Estate B8 Kent Downs AONB Long Pond Works, Borough Green (setting) Laker Road, Bridgewood Safeguarded Employment Land Employment Safeguarded North of Station Approach, Borough Green B1 North of Fairfield Road, Borough Green

Borough Green Gardens (within the strategic B1, B2, k Kent Downs AONB site covered by Policy 29) B8 d Rochester Road, Borstal B2 / B8 Kent Downs AONB

Allocations (setting)

Employment Employment j Rochester Airfield B1 / B2

Biodiversity

A number of allocations in the Local Plan may impact sites which are notified for their biodiversity or geological importance at national and international levels. These issues are addressed for each allocation in Table 2.

Table 2. Allocations which may impact Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Designation What should be considered for ID Site Impacted this allocation? Bushey Wood Phase 1, Eccles a (900 homes) Proposals should consider the hydrological impact of the j Bell Lane, Burham (58 homes) development, with appropriate mitigation measures to avoid impacts Holborough b Holborough, Snodland to water quality and quantity which to Burham support the interest features of the Marshes c Land east of the bypass, Snodland SSSI. Sustainable drainage systems SSSI (SuDS) should be appropriately d New Hythe Area, Larkfield designed and managed to mitigate any hydrological impacts associated e Rockfort Road, Snodland with the development. Proposals should consider the hydrological impact of the development, with appropriate h Lower Bell, Aylesford Wouldham mitigation measures to avoid impacts to Detling to water quality and quantity which Escarpment support the interest features of the SSSI SSSI. Sustainable drainage systems Page 10 of 11

E163 (SuDS) should be appropriately designed and managed to mitigate any hydrological impacts associated with the development. Impacts to local air quality arising from development at this location which may adversely affect the interest features of the SSSI need to be considered, together with appropriate mitigation measures. Impact from construction and operational phases should be considered. Development in this location needs a 20/20 Estate, Aylesford Allington to respect and protect the geological Quarry SSSI interest features of the SSSI.

Page 11 of 11

E164 Date: 25 March 2019 Our ref: DAS/14023/270769 Your ref: Tonbridge & Malling Local Plan HRA

Ian Bailey Planning Policy Customer Services Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way [email protected] Crewe Cheshire BY EMAIL ONLY CW1 6GJ

0300 060 3900

Dear Mr Bailey

Discretionary Advice Service (Charged Advice) DAS 4347 Document Review: Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 17 January 2019, and subsequent acceptance of our quotation which was received on 11 March 2019.

This advice is being provided as part of Natural England’s Discretionary Advice Service, in accordance with the Quotation dated 18 February 2019. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council has asked Natural England to provide:

 Additional written comments on revised information submitted to support the proposed Local Plan.

The following advice is based upon the information within:

 Revised HRA (addressing other pathways).  HRA Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening) report.  HRA Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment) report.

We have reviewed the above documents and provide the following comments and advice:

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA, Mott MacDonald, January 2019)

Natural England acknowledges and agrees that there are no likely significant effects associated with direct habitat loss or fragmentation of European sites associated with this plan. This can be attributed to the distance of allocated sites from the designated sites and the likely absence of qualifying features within the allocation sites themselves.

Apart from what appears to be one erroneous entry in Table 5.1, we also agree with the findings of the assessment of alone and in-combination effects summarised in Tables 5.1 and 6.1, respectively. A potential significant effect on Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar from recreational disturbance (with which we agree) is identified in the commentary within Section 5, however this is not reflected in the table.

We agree with the conclusion of the appropriate assessment with regards to impacts from recreational pressure on North Downs Woodlands SAC, Peter’s Pit SAC and Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar Site. We are satisfied that it can be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC), North Downs Woodland SAC Medway

E165 Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar Site, with regard to impacts from recreational disturbance.

Notwithstanding the above advice, we provide some additional comments on the HRA report as follows:

As it can be concluded that habitat loss and fragmentation of qualifying habitats is unlikely, it is not necessary, or indeed appropriate in relation to HRA requirements, to attribute this to the outcome of policies within the local plan. As such we advise the comments regarding Policy LP19 (page 25) are removed. If it were the case that policy wording was relied upon to avoid or otherwise mitigate adverse effects on the integrity of a European site, this would need to be considered through an appropriate assessment.

It is identified in section 4.2 that the Bushey Wood strategic site consists of predominantly arable fields, and is thus unlikely to provide supporting habitat for bird species included as qualifying features for Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site. We do not consider that there is sufficient information within the report to justify this finding. It may be beneficial to include data sources and additional justification to support this.

Section 4.2 also mentions the impact of increased cat numbers on qualifying features (bird species) within and adjacent to the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site. Given the distance of allocated sites from the SPA and Ramsar site, we advise that impacts from cats are not a relevant consideration.

The report relies heavily on assessment of impacts associated with strategic sites. In this case, this results in consideration of less than 75% of the total number of homes. Whilst we acknowledge that some smaller scale developments may not result in significant effects due to location or scale, it is important to be clear that the plan has been considered in its entirety. It should be justified where non- strategic development has been screened out from the assessment.

The overall conclusion of the HRA report (Section 8) conflates wording from both the screening and appropriate assessment stages of the HRA process. Assessment of ‘likely significant effect’ is undertaken at the screening stage whereas ‘adverse effect on integrity’ is assessed at the appropriate assessment stage. We therefore advise that to aid clarity, the wording of the conclusion is amended to read “no adverse effect, alone or in combination, on the integrity of the designated sites” in place of “no likely significant effect alone or in combination, on the integrity of the identified European sites”.

Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening) (Mott MacDonald January 2019)

The Stage 1 Air Quality Screening report is comprehensive and well evidenced. We have no comments to make on trip generation model as this is outside of our area of expertise, however the air quality modelling has been undertaken thoroughly and has demonstrated the impacts of the Local Plan alone and in combination. We are satisfied with the parameters that have been used and fully support the approach to addressing uncertainty described in section 4.4.

Whilst we consider this report is generally through and well presented, we do have some minor comments for accuracy as follows:

Section 2.3 Spatial Scope (page 12) references the Mid Sussex appeals however these appeal decisions are not relevant to other Local Plans. The Secretary of State decisions were based on the Mid Sussex DC Local Plan resulting in a reduction in trips across the Ashdown Forest and the appeal proposals being considered in that context and in combination with the Mid Sussex DC Local Plan.

Table 10 identifies the designated site citations however the Ramsar features for the Medway and Estuary Marshes have been omitted. The Ramsar is designated for nationally scarce plats and red book wetland and non-wetland invertebrates as well as the bird interest. Further details on the Ramsar can be found at the following link https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/RISrep/GB645RIS.pdf.

Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment) (Mott MacDonald January 2019)

E166

In summary we are satisfied that it can be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC), North Downs Woodland SAC and Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SPA) and Ramsar site, with regard to air quality impacts.

Notwithstanding the above, there are some amendments to wording that we would recommend to ensure that the terminology is in accordance with the relevant tests of the Habitats Regulations. We also provide additional comments where the reasoning for the appropriate assessment could be made clearer:

Section 3.1.1 discusses NOx concentrations and identifies that future concentrations will be lower than at present. This line of reasoning is appropriate but it would also be helpful to note that the critical level (Cle) will not be exceeded in the future year scenario. Section 3.1.1 concludes “the impacts are concluded to be insignificant” however in order to align with Habitats regulations terminology, we recommend amending the wording to state that “there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated sites”.

The last paragraph of Section 3.1.2 discusses the critical load as a percentage of the background. The relevant benchmark is the minimum critical load and not the background. We recommend that this text is removed.

Section 3.2.2 North Downs Woodland SAC discusses potential threats from storm damage however this is likely to be of little relevance. Additionally, reference is made to the favourable conservation status (FCS) of the site. Common standards monitoring (CSM) is not designed to determine air quality impacts. Whilst FCS provides useful context, it should not be used as a determining factor when considering air quality impacts. More relevant reasoning for this section would be that the impacts from the Local Plan will only slightly retard the improving background trend as a result of improved emissions from vehicles, therefore the future baseline will be considerably lower than the current baseline in the vicinity of roads. We recommend that the concluding sentence for this section is amended to include “there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated sites”.

Section 3.2.3 Peter’s Pit SAC goes into detail about non-designated habitat on the site. Whilst this habitat contributes to the SSSI interest, it does not form part of the qualifying features of the SAC. If it is considered that the non-designated habitat provides supporting habitat for the great crested newts, this would refer to the structure and function of the habitat only. We recommend that the concluding sentence for this section is amended to include “there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated site”.

It would be useful for the conclusions to clearly state that the AA has determined that it can be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC), North Downs Woodland SAC and Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SPA) and Ramsar site (SAC), from air quality impacts.

Finally, although mitigation measures are not required under the specific requirements of the Habitats Regulations, we fully support all options for minimising air quality impacts from new development.

I hope the comments provided in this letter are useful. If you have any queries please contact [email protected] or [email protected].

This letter concludes Natural England’s Advice within the Quotation and Agreement dated 11 March 2019.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Kitching Sustainable Development Sussex and Kent Team

E167 Date: 19 December 2019 Our ref: 300322 Your ref: Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan Post Submission Consultation

Ian Bailey Planning Policy Manager Customer Services Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way [email protected] Crewe Cheshire BY EMAIL ONLY CW1 6GJ

0300 060 3900

Dear Mr Bailey

Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) Local Plan: Post Submission Consultation

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 11 November 2018 which was received by Natural England on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England has reviewed the additional consultation material published since the submission of the plan. We have not provided comments on all of the additional material, however this letter provides comment/advice in relation to the following:

 ED3/ED3A-E Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal  ED6 Habitats Regulation Assessment Rev C  ED13 Sustainability Appraisal Addendum report  ED8B Para 116 Topic Paper  ED25 Regulation 19 stage: main issues and The Council’s responses

The following sections of this letter provide comments and advice on the abovementioned sections, with detailed advice contained within appendices. I hope the information provided in this response is helpful.

Summary of Natural England’s Advice and Position

The information provided in this letter is supplementary to Natural England’s statutory response to the Regulation 19 consultation. Natural England’s Regulation 19 consultation response included an objection to Allocation LP29 (Borough Green Gardens) on the basis that insufficient information was provided demonstrate that the site is deliverable without resulting in an adverse impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Whilst Natural England do not object to the principle of development in this location, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate how direct and indirect impacts on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) and its setting will be addressed, should this allocation be taken forward. Pending submission of further information to address these concerns, Natural England maintain the objection to this allocation. However, Natural England acknowledges the steps taken thus far to move towards addressing the abovementioned concerns, and we hope the following comments on the additional material submitted as part of this consultation is helpful. We welcome the opportunity to continue working with your authority to work towards achieving a sound local plan.

E168

1. ED3/ED3A-E: Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal and ED8B: Para 116 Topic Paper

Following the Regulation 19 Consultation, Natural England was consulted directly by TMBC on both the Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal and the Para 116 Topic Paper. Natural England’s response to TMBC dated 18 June 2019 (ref 278551) is provided in full at Appendix A, with a summary of the advice provided below. Please note that the advice was initially provided through Natural England’s charged advice service, however the response and additional material has been reviewed, and the letter at Appendix A, including the summary below, should be accepted as Natural England’s formal advice.

Summary

The following advice refers to the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) of the 5 strategic sites, and the justification for major development in the Kent downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) required by Para 116 of the NPPF. Following Natural England’s objection to the Borough Green Gardens allocation as part of the Regulation 19 representation, our advice regarding this site can be summarised as follows:

 As currently proposed, Natural England is likely to maintain its objection to the inclusion of the allocation of Borough Green Gardens within the local plan due to direct and indirect impacts on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) and its setting. o In order to reduce impacts to the AONB and its setting, the overall scale of the allocation should be reduced in order to allow housing density to be moderated to a level where indirect impacts could be mitigated. Direct impacts within the AONB should be avoided, subject to assessment against the three tests. o Locating development within the AONB will result in a direct impact to the AONB. This is of particular relevance to the relief road but also applies to any other development proposed within the AONB. The first consideration should be avoidance of direct impacts by locating development outside of the AONB, whilst also being mindful of potential impacts to the setting. o All major development proposed within the AONB should be subject to assessment against the three tests set out in paragraph 116 of the NPPF (2012). To demonstrate that development of this allocation can ultimately be deliverable, this assessment should be undertaken as part of the local plan preparation, not at application stage. o The LVA needs to undertake a more detailed assessment of the allocation site as a whole, as it currently does not recognise the varying capacity of the site to accommodate development or how visible the site is to receptors from key locations within the AONB. o There are some areas of particular concern with regards to impacts to the setting of the AONB. Phase 1B of the site is very visible from elevated viewpoints within the AONB and development in this area would be very difficult to mitigate. As such, this area is considered to have low capacity, and development in this area should be avoided. o The capacity for development within different areas of the proposed allocation site should be reconsidered as part of a revised LVA, and the results used to inform a modification to the local plan allocation. o Natural England would welcome the opportunity to continue working with your authority to identify how this allocation can be taken forward in light of the nationally important landscape designation.

E169 The advice provided in the response to the Landscape and Visual Appraisal forms part of an ongoing dialogue between Natural England and TMBC. Natural England will continue to work with TMBC to advise on the submission of additional information which may address our concerns.

Following our advice letter, TMBC have indicated that an enhanced Landscape Capacity and Sensitivity Study can be provided, and Natural England welcomes this approach. The findings of an enhanced study should provide additional information on the significance of landscape and visual effects, particularly with regards to the extent and nature of development which can be accommodated within the site, recognising that the capacity to accommodate development varies across the site.

Natural England advises that the enhanced study should be used to inform a modified allocation. We acknowledge that a number of infrastructure elements are identified in the currently proposed policy wording, however securing additional details at the allocation stage will provide guidance to help minimise landscape and visual impacts. Subsequent detailed mitigation can then be provided at later design stages.

Currently, without further detail on the location, densities and extent of development within the site, and the impact this may have on the AONB, it is not possible to provide detailed advice on likely impacts to the AONB (including setting), mitigation schemes or the effectiveness of any measures proposed. This informs our current position that pending submission of further information to address these concerns (as outlined in the above summary and in Appendix A), Natural England maintain the objection to this allocation.

2. ED6 Habitats Regulation Assessment Rev C

Natural England was consulted directly by TMBC in relation to this document and we provided an advice letter to TMBC dated 25 March 2019 (Appendix B). Please note that the advice was initially provided through Natural England’s charged advice service, however the response and additional material has been reviewed, and the letter should be accepted as Natural England’s formal advice. In summary, our position and advice remains the same as detailed in our letter; Natural England acknowledges and agrees that there are no likely significant effects associated with direct habitat loss or fragmentation of European sites associated with this plan.

We understand that Natural England’s response to the Habitats Regulation Assessment Rev C has been uploaded to the examination documents library online (reference ED8a), however the letter is also appended to this response (Appendix B) for ease of reference.

3. ED13: Sustainability Appraisal Addendum report.

Natural England has reviewed the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Addendum and can confirm that our response to the SA as detailed in our Regulation 19 response is still valid. For clarity, the comments in our Regulation 19 response pertain to the SA conclusions for the Borough Green Gardens allocation site, and are repeated here for ease of reference:

The Sustainability Appraisal accompanying the Local Plan confirms potential adverse effects and also highlights various uncertain aspects to allocating the Borough Green Gardens site:

‘The policy proposes to allocate land within the Kent Downs AONB which could have significant negative impacts, however it does not permit residential or commercial development within the protected landscape thereby protecting the designated asset from some forms of development. Other uses are considered appropriate, but the policy includes for appropriate mitigation. Significant areas of land are also identified for development within the setting of the Kent Downs AONB and specific reference is included within this policy to manage any impacts on this. The scale of the development and the proximity to the AONB mean there remains some uncertainty as to the precise nature of any impact.’

(Page 376 and 377, Final Environmental Report, Sustainability Appraisal)

E170

4. ED25: Regulation 19 stage: main issues and The Council’s responses

Borough Green Gardens (LP29)

With reference to the Landscape and Visual Appraisal for Borough Green Gardens, pages 39 & 47 of the document state that ‘potential impacts on the Kent Downs AONB and its setting could be mitigated’. With reference to the advice in section 1 and Appendix A of this letter, Natural England does not concur with this finding. We consider that this allocation has the potential to significantly impact the setting of the Kent Downs AONB and without further details of the nature, scale and location of development at this site, we do not consider it possible to conclude with certainty at this stage that impacts can be mitigated. Further advice on this matter is provided in section 1 and Appendix A of this response.

Rochester Airfield (LP36j)

We acknowledge that this site is a cross boundary site with involvement from Both TMBC and Medway Council. Whilst Natural England provided comments on the redevelopment of Rochester Airfield in our response to the emerging Medway Local Plan, we inadvertently omitted to provide similar advice when responding to the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Local Plan. For clarity and the avoidance of doubt, Natural England’s advice on the Rochester Airfield Site is provided below.

Natural England notes the Council’s aspirations for an employment land use at Rochester Airport and recommend that full consideration of impacts to the Kent Downs AONB should form part of any masterplanning for the site. Implications for the Kent Downs AONB should be fully considered as part of any development at Rochester Airfield, together with demonstration of how impacts including air quality, noise, traffic and amenity will be mitigated.

I hope the advice provided in this letter is useful, and we look forward to continuing our engagement with your authority to work towards achieving a sound local plan. For any points of clarification please contact me at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Amy Kitching

Lead Adviser Sustainable Development, Sussex and Kent

E171 Appendix A – Natural England’s Response to Landscape and Visual Appraisal (18 June 2019)

Date: 18 June 2019 Our ref: DAS/4455/278551 Your ref: Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan

Ian Bailey Planning Policy Manager Customer Services Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way [email protected] Crewe Cheshire BY EMAIL ONLY CW1 6GJ

0300 060 3900

Dear Mr Bailey

Discretionary Advice Service (Charged Advice) Contract Reference: 14023

Thank you for your request to engage with Natural England under our Discretionary Advice Service, which was received on 17 January 2019.

This advice is being provided as part of Natural England’s Discretionary Advice Service. On behalf of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council, Ian Bailey has asked Natural England to provide written comments on revised information submitted to support the proposed Local Plan. Additional/revised information to be reviewed comprises:

1. Landscape and Visual Appraisal of the 5 strategic sites. 2. Justification for major development in the AONB required by Para 116 of the NPPF (2012) for the proposed relief road.

This advice is provided in accordance with the Quotation and Agreement dated 3 April 2019, and is based on a review of the abovementioned documents, together with a visit to the allocation site at Borough Green Gardens.

Summary of DAS Advice

The following letter provides detailed advice on the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) of the 5 strategic sites, and the justification for major development in the AONB required by Para 116 of the NPPF. Following Natural England’s objection to the Borough Green Gardens allocation as part of the Regulation 19 representation, my advice regarding this site can be summarised as follows:

 As currently proposed, Natural England is likely to maintain its objection to the inclusion of the allocation of Borough Green Gardens within the local plan due to direct and indirect impacts on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) and its setting. o In order to reduce impacts to the AONB and its setting, the overall scale of the allocation should be reduced in order to allow housing density to be moderated to a level where indirect impacts could be mitigated. Direct impacts within the AONB should be avoided, subject to assessment against the three tests. o Locating development within the AONB will result in a direct impact to the AONB. This

E172 is of particular relevance to the relief road but also applies to any other development proposed within the AONB. The first consideration should be avoidance of direct impacts by locating development outside of the AONB, whilst also being mindful of potential impacts to the setting. o All major development proposed within the AONB should be subject to assessment against the three tests set out in paragraph 116 of the NPPF (2012). To demonstrate that development of this allocation can ultimately be deliverable, this assessment should be undertaken as part of the local plan preparation, not at application stage. o The LVA needs to undertake a more detailed assessment of the allocation site as a whole, as it currently does not recognise the varying capacity of the site to accommodate development or how visible the site is to receptors from key locations within the AONB. o There are some areas of particular concern with regards to impacts to the setting of the AONB. Phase 1B of the site is very visible from elevated viewpoints within the AONB and development in this area would be very difficult to mitigate. As such, this area is considered to have low capacity, and development in this area should be avoided. o The capacity for development within different areas of the proposed allocation site should be reconsidered as part of a revised LVA, and the results used to inform a modification to the local plan allocation. o Natural England would welcome the opportunity to continue working with your authority to identify how this allocation can be taken forward in light of the nationally important landscape designation.

Further information on the above points together with other advice on the LVA and Topic Paper is contained below.

Introduction

As part of the Regulation 19 consultation, Natural England provided their statutory comments on three of the five strategic sites put forward for the Local Plan. Subject to further information, Natural England objected to the allocation at Borough Green Gardens. It was advised that there was insufficient landscape evidence to inform the site allocation in terms of the impact on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting. More general advice was provided for the allocations at Southwest Tonbridge and Bushey Wood in relation to impacts to the setting of the High Weald AONB and the setting of the Kent Downs AONB, respectively.

Natural England did not provide comments relating to the two remaining strategic sites: South Aylesford and Broadwater Farm. Natural England has no objection to the principle of developing these two sites on landscape grounds and as such does not feel it necessary to provide detailed landscape comments for these allocations.

The advice in the first section of this letter focuses on the three sites for which Natural England provided comments at the Regulation 19 stage (Borough Green, Southwest Tonbridge and Bushey Wood). The second section of the letter provides comments in relation to the Paragraph 116 Topic Paper in relation to the Borough Green Gardens Allocation.

Landscape and Visual Appraisal of the 5 Strategic Sites

Following a review of the Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA), I have firstly provided some overarching comments. This advice relates to the approach taken by the LVA and is applicable to all sites. I have then provided specific comments for the strategic allocations at Borough Green, Southwest Tonbridge and Bushey Wood.

E173 1. Overarching Comments

Magnitude of Effects

The LVA repeatedly indicates that increased distance from a site reduces the magnitude of effect, however I do not agree that this is an appropriate progression. Magnitude of effect is not informed simply by distance but by a range of factors. In some landscapes (such as a wooded part of the High Weald for example) distance may diminish the scale of impact. However, I do not agree, in this instance given the panoramic, long distance views from the scarp slope in the Kent Downs AONB, that the impact of development that the impact of development diminishes with distance, especially when considering sites in the context of surrounding landscape and views. I strongly suggest that the assessment methodology is reconsidered to take full account of all factors which can influence the magnitude of an effect. Further details on magnitude of effects in relation to specific allocation sites are contained within subsequent sections.

Threshold of Concern

The matrix approach to determining significance (LVA Appendix E) is welcomed, however it is not clear how the ‘threshold of concern’ is determined. In the absence of explanation/quantification, I would consider that this term is misleading and detracts from the overall measures of significance concluded within the LVA.

1.1. Borough Green Gardens

As part of the representation on the local plan, Natural England objected to this allocation. Natural England advised that the allocation was not justified as there was insufficient evidence to support its inclusion with regard to impacts on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting. Furthermore it was not considered to be consistent with national policy with regard to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within a nationally protected landscape (Paragraphs 115 and 116, NPPF 2012).

Development of this site would result in impacts to the Kent Downs AONB and its setting. Direct impacts to the AONB appear to be largely associated with the proposed relief road, a section of which passes through the AONB at the western end of the site. The remainder of the allocation site lies outside of the AONB boundary but is considered to lie within the setting of the AONB; the landscape character of the site and surrounding area clearly compliments that of the AONB, and contributes to the special qualities of the AONB, which include long distance views to and from the AONB. Evidence provided within the LVA and information gathered during my site visit indicate that development of this allocation would have significant impacts on the setting of the AONB.

Relief Road

The indicative route of the relief road would result in direct loss and permanent change to the landscape character of this area of the AONB. Whilst there may be potential for mitigation proposals which may help reduce these impacts, the requirement in the NPPF for great weight to be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty means full consideration should firstly be given to alternative options, particularly the option to avoid the impact and locate the relief road outside of the AONB. The NPPF is also clear that major development should only take place in AONBs in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated it is in the public interest.

The relief road is discussed in further detail in Section 2 in relation to the justification required by paragraph 116 of the NPPF. Construction of the relief road within the AONB is likely to constitute major development, and the proposal would therefore require assessment against the three tests set out in paragraph 116 of the NPPF (20121).

1 In this case, the local plan was submitted prior to 24 January 2019. Under the transitional arrangements, this plan will be considered against policies in the 2012 version of the NPPF as opposed to the updated 2018 NPPF.

E174

Scale of the allocation

Aside from the direct impacts of the relief road on the AONB, there remains significant concern regarding the impacts of the remainder of this allocation on the setting of the AONB. I do not consider that the impacts to the setting of the AONB have been fully recognised in the LVA. In my opinion, the scale of housing provision coming forward as part of this allocation in the setting of the AONB would result in significant impacts to landscape character and visual amenity, which would in turn impact on the statutory purpose of the AONB. Of particular concern are impacts associated with developing the central area of the site Phase 1B, which is particularly visible from elevated viewpoints within the AONB. I advise that it is necessary to reconsider the capacity of this landscape to accommodate development, and that the scale of this allocation is reduced to reflect this capacity, which I suggest varies across the allocation site. Further advice on this matter in relation to the LVA is provided below.

Landscape and Visual Appraisal - Borough Green Gardens

The LVA for the Borough Green allocation refers to five ‘key views’ (Viewpoints 7 – 11). Following a visit to the various viewpoints, I broadly agree with the findings in relation to viewpoints 7, 8 and 9 however I have some concerns regarding the findings for viewpoints 10 and 11. This relates to the reduction of magnitude of effect due to distance from the allocation site. As a result, the LVA appears to take a relatively simplistic view of allocation site as a whole, without recognising the varying capacity of the site to accommodate development or how visible the site is to receptors from key locations within the AONB.

From visiting the site, I consider that close ranging viewpoints (VP 7 – VP9) offer limited and intermittent views into the site, owing to low land levels in relation to the site and existing woodland cover2. However, distant views from elevated viewpoints offer much clearer views down into the site and may be helpful in identifying areas where built development is not appropriate.

VP113 offers clear views towards the central area of the site (identified as Phase 1B). From VP10, the central area of the site (Phase 1B) is less visible, however the western extent of the site around the existing quarry and proposed route for the relief road (Phase 1A) is visible. From these viewpoints it is possible to understand how the capacity to accommodate development varies across the allocation. Given the above, I provide the following recommendations:

 Phase 1A: There may be capacity for some small scale, low density development, subject to detailed design and mitigation proposals (see below).

 Phase 1B: Due to the visibility of this area of the site from elevated viewpoints within the AONB, impacts of developing this area would be very difficult to mitigate. As such, this area is considered to have low capacity, and development in this area should be avoided.

 I recommend that the capacity for development within different areas of this proposed allocation site is reconsidered as part of a revised LVA. I suggest that the results of the capacity study are then used to inform a modification to the local plan allocation.

With regard to the consideration of capacity and the use of more distant viewpoints, I reiterate my advice about the magnitude of effect. As with other strategic allocations, the LVA indicates that increased distance from the site reduces the magnitude of effect, however I do not agree that this is an appropriate progression. In this case, distant viewpoints identified in the LVA (viewpoints 10 and 11) are located on key recreational routes along the south facing scarp slope of the AONB, offering short, medium and long distance panoramic views to the south. From these elevated viewpoints there are areas of the allocation site which are clearly visible, although contrastingly, the existing

2 It should be noted that VP7 appears to be incorrectly located on Figure 19. I suggest the marker may need to be moved some 200m north east of the existing location for VP7. 3 With regards to the location of VP11, a greater appreciation of the impacts can be gained from a more elevated position along the PRoW as it crosses the field (a short distance north of VP11)

E175 settlements of Borough Green and Wrotham are surprisingly well-hidden. I consider that the areas of the allocation site visible from elevated viewpoints within the AONB certainly form part of the overall panorama and contribute to the special qualities of the AONB, one of which is dramatic views and landform, including breath-taking, long distance panoramas offered across open countryside . I do not agree that the impact of developing these areas diminishes with distance, especially considering them in the context of the surrounding landscape and views, and the important relationship this area has with the AONB (being within the setting). I would argue that in this case the magnitude of effect is increased by virtue of the site’s contribution to the largely uninterrupted panoramic views seen from the scarp slope of the AONB.

As the site itself contributes to a special characteristic of the AONB (the view), I do not agree with the argument in section 5.76 that special characteristics do not apply due to the site’s location outside of the AONB boundary. The Kent Downs AONB Management plan contains some useful information on setting which may be helpful:

‘The setting of the Kent Downs AONB is broadly speaking the land outside the designated area which is visible from the AONB and from which the AONB can be seen, but may be wider when affected by intrusive features beyond that. It is not formally defined or indicated on a map. The setting of the AONB landscape should be distinguished from the setting of listed buildings and other heritage assets (on which there is legislation and also policy in the NPPF and elsewhere).

Proposals which would affect the setting of the AONB are not subject to the same level of constraint as those which would affect the AONB itself. The weight to be afforded to setting issues will depend on the significance of the impact. Matters such as the size of proposals, their distance, incompatibility with their surroundings, movement, reflectivity and colour are likely to affect impact. Where the qualities of the AONB which were instrumental in reasons for its designation are affected, then the impacts should be given considerable weight in decisions. This particularly applies to views to and from the scarp of the North Downs.’

Another factor to consider when assessing the landscape and visual impacts of a proposal relates to sequential views. The allocation site (most notably the central section/Phase 1B) can be viewed along significant lengths of the North Downs Way National Trail, Pilgrims Way long distance path and the network or public rights of way along the scarp slope, in particular between VP10 and VP11. It would appear that the impacts of this do not appear to have been assessed as part of the LVA. From my site visit, I do not agree with the LVA that ‘the scarp slope actually offers only highly intermittent glimpses of the strategic site due to the density of the woodland cover’ (5.58).

Mitigation

Subject to my concerns above regarding the capacity of the site to accommodate development, I generally agree with the mitigation measures recommended in the LVA. However, it is unclear what benefits the proposed structural planting indicated on Figure 19 would bring over and above that offered by existing vegetation. More beneficial mitigation options include locating woodland shaws in strategic positions either side of the relief road, and significant tree planting and landscaping interspersed with low density built development. Linear features which may draw the eye to adjacent or nearby features should be avoided. Timescales for mitigation measures to be fully effective (i.e. for planting schemes) should be incorporated into the assessment and may also inform site design. In any case, mitigation measures should be in keeping with the existing landscape character and should accord with the Kent Downs AONB Management Plan.

Summary

The above offers a summary of my own findings from a site visit, together with my interpretation of the LVA. Due to my concerns regarding the assessment methodology, I consider that the evidence currently submitted does not justify the allocation of this site with regard to impacts on the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting. As proposed, the landscape and visual impacts associated with this allocation are significant, especially with regards to impacts to the setting of the AONB. As such, I do not consider that, in its current form, this allocation is consistent with

E176 national policy with regard to conserving landscape and scenic beauty within a nationally protected landscape (Paragraphs 115 and 116, NPPF 2012).

I advise that the LVA is revised to reflect the impacts this allocation may have on the AONB and its setting, with reference to the capacity to accommodate development, reconsideration of magnitude of effect and impacts on sequential views. Impacts should be assessed with reference to the special characteristics of the AONB. I advise that the findings of the revised LVA are used to inform an allocation more able to accommodate development and which can be justified with regards to national policy. Subject to the findings of a revised LVA I would be happy to review my comments and/or provide recommendations for policy wording.

1.2. Southwest Tonbridge

Natural England did not object to the inclusion of this allocation within the local plan. It is considered that measures to mitigate landscape and visual impacts to the setting of the High Weald AONB could be incorporated within the site’s design.

The LVA acknowledges that the allocation site is visible from elevated viewpoints within the High Weald AONB, and subject to the Inspector’s decision on this allocation, it is important that the landscape and visual impacts associated with development at this site are assessed as part of a detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) at the application stage, together with proposed mitigation measures.

With regards to mitigation, I advise that development of this strategic allocation site in the setting of the AONB should:

 Respect and enhance local landscape character;  Include appropriate green infrastructure to integrate the development within the surrounding landscape  Incorporate appropriate enhancement measures such as landscape and biodiversity enhancement and access improvements, in line with the High Weald AONB Management Plan. It is noted from the LVA that that the allocation site can be seen from the public right of way (PrOW) along Bidborough Ridge within the AONB, although from this point the allocation site may be viewed in the context of nearby development. Further to the fairly high level assessment provided within the LVA, I recommend that any planning application for this site considers the impacts on sequential views experienced by visual receptors. This should include impacts to visual receptors travelling along the ridge and the PRoW running north-south from Lower Haysden to the AONB (north and south of VP17) . With regards to proposed policy wording for this allocation, you may wish to consider the above points however I do consider that Policy LP31 (in particular point 6) is sufficient to address the potential impacts on the setting of the AONB which may be associated with the development of this allocation site.

1.3. Bushey Wood

Natural England did not object to the inclusion of this allocation within the local plan. However, due to the scale of the allocation and the existing local landscape character, I do have concerns regarding the impacts this allocation may have on the setting of the Kent Downs AONB. Should this allocation be found sound, I agree that it is essential that development in this location is supported by a detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The LVIA should be used to inform the site design, which will need to be sensitive to the local landscape character and reflective of the site’s location within the setting of the AONB. Carefully considered mitigation measures will be a key element of any development proposal. Additional advice for this allocation and comments in relation to the LVA is provided below.

E177

It is evident from the information within the LVA that this site is clearly visible from elevated viewpoints within the AONB, and I consider that the magnitude of visual effects for viewpoints within VP1 and VP2 have been undervalued. Short and medium distance views from VP1 and VP2 (i.e. between the development site/Eccles and viewpoints within the AONB) are of a largely undeveloped area, with the allocation site being prominent in the middle distance. More developed areas can be seen in longer distance views. Development of the allocation site will increase the level of built development in the overall view, and is likely to visually amalgamate urban development seen in long distance views with existing development at Eccles. I agree that the proposed link road will be particularly prominent as it crosses the open landscape. I therefore consider that development of this allocation site would result in the area being seen in a more urban context, and for that reason, would impact views out from the AONB. I do not agree with section 5.14 of the LVA which states that ‘the quantum of new development that would be visible, in this case, set against that that is already visible, would be small’.

Section 5.16 of the LVA states that there are areas within the AONB (along the top of the scarp slopes and at elevated viewpoints) where it may be possible to see both the Bushey Wood and the Borough Green Gardens allocation sites. However, the potential for cumulative impacts has been dismissed due the distances of the viewpoints from the allocation sites. With reference to my overarching comments in section 1 of this letter, and noting the special qualities of the Kent Downs AONB, including views to and from the scarp slope, I do not consider it appropriate to rule out cumulative impacts purely due to distance. I therefore advise that the potential for cumulative effects is re- examined.

With regards to landscape impacts, I consider the effect on landscape character is undervalued, and this may in part be due to the fact that the assessment of landscape effects appears to conflate both landscape and visual impacts. As such, it is unclear why the significance of effects is lower for the host landscape character area (LCA) than for more distant character areas. Landscape effects are generally considered as specific to the landscape in question.

In this case, the change from undeveloped and open, low-lying arable land to urban development would present a permanent and irreversible change to the landscape character of the site, and I consider this to be significant. In addition, whilst I appreciate that the existing landscape character comprises a mosaic of urban development and open arable fields, I do not agree that the existing quantum of development within the area means that the landscape can easily accommodate further development.

Mitigation

The open, rural landscape of the valley floor within the site and surrounding area presents challenges for mitigation. I appreciate that this is a high level assessment and mitigation measures would be developed further at subsequent planning stages, should the allocation be taken forward. However, at this stage I’m not sure of the function of the mitigation features indicated on Figure 12. Specifically, it is not clear how the features would relate to the development, and if the differing functions of these features would be in conflict (for example, amenity and wildlife functions may not both be successful within the same feature).

Considering the landscape and visual impacts associated with development of this allocation, I advise that, subject to the Inspector’s decision, any development within the allocation site should be low density, interspersed with significant tree planting and landscaping. High density development would be incongruous with the existing landscape character and would be very difficult to mitigate. As suggested in the LVA, I agree that linear features which may draw the eye to adjacent or nearby features should be avoided. Careful consideration of the locations of open space, recreational areas and allotments may help maintain some open spaces within the development. Finally, the timescale for mitigation measures to be fully effective (i.e. for planting schemes) should be incorporated into the assessment and may also inform site design. In any case, mitigation measures should be in keeping with the existing landscape character and should accord with the Kent Downs AONB management plan.

E178 Summary

To ensure that this allocation can be properly justified with regards to national policy (specifically regarding impacts to the setting of the Kent Downs AONB), I advise that the LVA is revised to reflect the distinction between landscape and visual impacts, with reference to the special qualities of the Kent Downs AONB. I also advise that an assessment of cumulative impacts is undertaken. Subject to the findings of a revised LVA I would be happy to review my comments and/or provide recommendations for policy wording.

2. Justification for major development in the AONB required by Para 116 of the NPPF (2012)

Natural England considers that development of this allocated site (in this case construction of the relief road) is likely to constitute major development within the Kent Downs AONB, which, in accordance with paragraph 116 of the NPPF (2012), should not be permitted other than in exceptional circumstances and where the proposal would be in the public interest. As part of the Regulation 19 response, Natural England advised that the Borough Green Gardens allocation should be considered against the three tests required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, evidence for which has been provided in the Paragraph 116 Topic Paper.

The topic paper focuses on justification of the relief road, without consideration of other development included within this allocation which could also be located within the AONB. At 1.3, the topic paper states that any development coming forward within the AONB, in addition to the relief road, would need to be justified against national policy and local plan policy (indicated as LP12 and LP29(6)). I understand this approach as the nature and scale of the broader allocation site is not yet clear. However, the conclusion of the report (5.3) appears to defer responsibility of demonstrating the three tests to the applicant(s) at the planning application stage. Whilst I agree that further assessment would be required at subsequent planning stages when more detailed proposals are available, it is still a requirement for the local authority to demonstrate that this allocation is appropriate for inclusion in the local plan, as the allocation would not be deliverable or developable (in line with para 47 of the 2012 NPPF) if the tests could not be met.

Regarding the three tests set out in paragraph 116, the assessment of need and consideration of alternative development locations is not generally Natural England’s area of expertise, other than, for instance, where our advice is sought regarding the environmental aspects of alternative locations. As such it is not appropriate for me to provide detailed comments on these aspects of the justification. However, I note that the assessment of alternatives appears to rely largely on assessments undertaken as part of previous plans and proposals, which presumably are informed by historic evidence. From the information within the topic paper, it is difficult to understand how the assessment of alternatives has been undertaken with regards to up to date evidence and current policy. I therefore suggest that the assessment is updated.

Section 3.3. of the topic paper states that there is ‘scope to route the western end of the new relief road further to the east so that the impact on the AONB can be further reduced.’ I would advise that the first consideration should be on avoiding direct impacts to the AONB (whilst also being mindful of potential impacts to the setting of the AONB), but welcome that the topic paper recognises that alternative options are being considered. Natural England would of course be happy to advise further on this matter.

As the landscape and visual impacts of the relief road, including the scope for mitigation, are largely dealt with in the LVA, I refer to my advice in section 1.1 of this letter. I have explained that the indicative route of the relief road would result in direct and permanent change to the landscape character of this area of the AONB.

Regarding recreational opportunities, I suggest that an assessment is undertaken to establish how the presence of the relief road might impact access opportunities into the AONB.

E179

I have advised that an assessment is made of the capacity of the landscape within this allocation site to accommodate development. The findings of this assessment should provide additional information to inform the significance of landscape and visual effects, particularly with regards to the extent and nature of development which can be accommodated within the AONB, and the scope for mitigation. This information will then ultimately be evaluated alongside other elements of the three tests by the decision maker when determining if this allocation is justified.

Additional Information

Ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees

In line with paragraph 175 of the NPPF, any impacts on ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees should be considered. Natural England maintains the Ancient Woodland Inventory which can help identify ancient woodland. Natural England and the Forestry Commission have produced standing advice for planning authorities in relation to ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees, and this should be taken into account. Natural England will only provide bespoke advice on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees where they form part of a SSSI or in exceptional circumstances.

I hope the advice provided in this letter is useful. For any points of clarification please contact me at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Amy Kitching

Lead Adviser Sustainable Development, Sussex and Kent

Cc [email protected]

This letter concludes Natural England’s Advice within the Quotation and Agreement dated 3 April 2019.

The advice provided in this letter has been through Natural England’s Quality Assurance process.

The advice provided within the Discretionary Advice Service is the professional advice of the Natural England adviser named below. It is the best advice that can be given based on the information provided so far. Its quality and detail is dependent upon the quality and depth of the information which has been provided. It does not constitute a statutory response or decision, which will be made by Natural England acting corporately in its role as statutory consultee to the competent authority after an application has been submitted. The advice given is therefore not binding in any way and is provided without prejudice to the consideration of any statutory consultation response or decision which may be made by Natural England in due course. The final judgement on any proposals by Natural England is reserved until an application is made and will be made on the information then available, including any modifications to the proposal made after receipt of discretionary advice. All pre-application advice is subject to review and revision in the light of changes in relevant considerations, including changes in relation to the facts, scientific knowledge/evidence, policy, guidance or law. Natural England will not accept any liability for the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of, nor will any express or implied warranty be given for, the advice. This exclusion does not extend to any fraudulent misrepresentation made by or on behalf of Natural England.

E180 Appendix B – Natural England’s Response to Habitats Regulations Assessment Rev C (25 March 2019)

Date: 25 March 2019 Our ref: DAS/14023/270769 Your ref: Tonbridge & Malling Local Plan HRA

Ian Bailey Planning Policy Customer Services Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way [email protected] Crewe Cheshire BY EMAIL ONLY CW1 6GJ

0300 060 3900

Dear Mr Bailey

Discretionary Advice Service (Charged Advice) DAS 4347 Document Review: Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 17 January 2019, and subsequent acceptance of our quotation which was received on 11 March 2019.

This advice is being provided as part of Natural England’s Discretionary Advice Service, in accordance with the Quotation dated 18 February 2019. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council has asked Natural England to provide:

 Additional written comments on revised information submitted to support the proposed Local Plan.

The following advice is based upon the information within:

 Revised HRA (addressing other pathways).  HRA Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening) report.  HRA Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment) report.

We have reviewed the above documents and provide the following comments and advice:

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA, Mott Maccdonald, January 2019)

Natural England acknowledges and agrees that there are no likely significant effects associated with direct habitat loss or fragmentation of European sites associated with this plan. This can be attributed to the distance of allocated sites from the designated sites and the likely absence of qualifying features within the allocation sites themselves.

Apart from what appears to be one erroneous entry in Table 5.1, we also agree with the findings of the assessment of alone and in-combination effects summarised in Tables 5.1 and 6.1, respectively. A potential significant effect on Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar from recreational disturbance (with which we agree) is identified in the commentary within Section 5, however this is not reflected in the table.

E181 We agree with the conclusion of the appropriate assessment with regards to impacts from recreational pressure on North Downs Woodlands SAC, Peter’s Pit SAC and Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar Site. We are satisfied that it can be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC), North Downs Woodland SAC Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar Site, with regard to impacts from recreational disturbance.

Notwithstanding the above advice, we provide some additional comments on the HRA report as follows:

As it can be concluded that habitat loss and fragmentation of qualifying habitats is unlikely, it is not necessary, or indeed appropriate in relation to HRA requirements, to attribute this to the outcome of policies within the local plan. As such we advise the comments regarding Policy LP19 (page 25) are removed. If it were the case that policy wording was relied upon to avoid or otherwise mitigate adverse effects on the integrity of a European site, this would need to be considered through an appropriate assessment.

It is identified in section 4.2 that the Bushey Wood strategic site consists of predominantly arable fields, and is thus unlikely to provide supporting habitat for bird species included as qualifying features for Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site. We do not consider that there is sufficient information within the report to justify this finding. It may be beneficial to include data sources and additional justification to support this.

Section 4.2 also mentions the impact of increased cat numbers on qualifying features (bird species) within and adjacent to the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site. Given the distance of allocated sites from the SPA and Ramsar site, we advise that impacts from cats are not a relevant consideration.

The report relies heavily on assessment of impacts associated with strategic sites. In this case, this results in consideration of less than 75% of the total number of homes. Whilst we acknowledge that some smaller scale developments may not result in significant effects due to location or scale, it is important to be clear that the plan has been considered in its entirety. It should be justified where non- strategic development has been screened out from the assessment.

The overall conclusion of the HRA report (Section 8) conflates wording from both the screening and appropriate assessment stages of the HRA process. Assessment of ‘likely significant effect’ is undertaken at the screening stage whereas ‘adverse effect on integrity’ is assessed at the appropriate assessment stage. We therefore advise that to aid clarity, the wording of the conclusion is amended to read “no adverse effect, alone or in combination, on the integrity of the designated sites” in place of “no likely significant effect alone or in combination, on the integrity of the identified European sites”.

Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening) (Mott MacDonald January 2019)

The Stage 1 Air Quality Screening report is comprehensive and well evidenced. We have no comments to make on trip generation model as this is outside of our area of expertise, however the air quality modelling has been undertaken thoroughly and has demonstrated the impacts of the Local Plan alone and in combination. We are satisfied with the parameters that have been used and fully support the approach to addressing uncertainty described in section 4.4.

Whilst we consider this report is generally through and well presented, we do have some minor comments for accuracy as follows:

Section 2.3 Spatial Scope (page 12) references the Mid Sussex appeals however these appeal decisions are not relevant to other Local Plans. The Secretary of State decisions were based on the Mid Sussex DC Local Plan resulting in a reduction in trips across the Ashdown Forest and the appeal proposals being considered in that context and in combination with the Mid Sussex DC Local Plan.

Table 10 identifies the designated site citations however the Ramsar features for the Medway and Estuary Marshes have been omitted. The Ramsar is designated for nationally scarce plats and red

E182 book wetland and non-wetland invertebrates as well as the bird interest. Further details on the Ramsar can be found at the following link https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/RISrep/GB645RIS.pdf.

Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment) (Mott MacDonald January 2019)

In summary we are satisfied that it can be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC), North Downs Woodland SAC and Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SPA) and Ramsar site, with regard to air quality impacts.

Notwithstanding the above, there are some amendments to wording that we would recommend to ensure that the terminology is in accordance with the relevant tests of the Habitats Regulations. We also provide additional comments where the reasoning for the appropriate assessment could be made clearer:

Section 3.1.1 discusses NOx concentrations and identifies that future concentrations will be lower than at present. This line of reasoning is appropriate but it would also be helpful to note that the critical level (Cle) will not be exceeded in the future year scenario. Section 3.1.1 concludes “the impacts are concluded to be insignificant” however in order to align with Habitats regulations terminology, we recommend amending the wording to state that “there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated sites”.

The last paragraph of Section 3.1.2 discusses the critical load as a percentage of the background. The relevant benchmark is the minimum critical load and not the background. We recommend that this text is removed.

Section 3.2.2 North Downs Woodland SAC discusses potential threats from storm damage however this is likely to be of little relevance. Additionally, reference is made to the favourable conservation status (FCS) of the site. Common standards monitoring (CSM) is not designed to determine air quality impacts. Whilst FCS provides useful context, it should not be used as a determining factor when considering air quality impacts. More relevant reasoning for this section would be that the impacts from the Local Plan will only slightly retard the improving background trend as a result of improved emissions from vehicles, therefore the future baseline will be considerably lower than the current baseline in the vicinity of roads. We recommend that the concluding sentence for this section is amended to include “there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated sites”.

Section 3.2.3 Peter’s Pit SAC goes into detail about non-designated habitat on the site. Whilst this habitat contributes to the SSSI interest, it does not form part of the qualifying features of the SAC. If it is considered that the non-designated habitat provides supporting habitat for the great crested newts, this would refer to the structure and function of the habitat only. We recommend that the concluding sentence for this section is amended to include “there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated site”.

It would be useful for the conclusions to clearly state that the AA has determined that it can be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC), North Downs Woodland SAC and Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SPA) and Ramsar site (SAC), from air quality impacts.

Finally, although mitigation measures are not required under the specific requirements of the Habitats Regulations, we fully support all options for minimising air quality impacts from new development.

I hope the comments provided in this letter are useful. If you have any queries please contact [email protected] or [email protected].

This letter concludes Natural England’s Advice within the Quotation and Agreement dated 11 March 2019.

Yours sincerely,

E183

Amy Kitching Sustainable Development Sussex and Kent Team

Cc [email protected]

The advice provided in this letter has been through Natural England’s Quality Assurance process

The advice provided within the Discretionary Advice Service is the professional advice of the Natural England adviser named below. It is the best advice that can be given based on the information provided so far. Its quality and detail is dependent upon the quality and depth of the information which has been provided. It does not constitute a statutory response or decision, which will be made by Natural England acting corporately in its role as statutory consultee to the competent authority after an application has been submitted. The advice given is therefore not binding in any way and is provided without prejudice to the consideration of any statutory consultation response or decision which may be made by Natural England in due course. The final judgement on any proposals by Natural England is reserved until an application is made and will be made on the information then available, including any modifications to the proposal made after receipt of discretionary advice. All pre-application advice is subject to review and revision in the light of changes in relevant considerations, including changes in relation to the facts, scientific knowledge/evidence, policy, guidance or law. Natural England will not accept any liability for the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of, nor will any express or implied warranty be given for, the advice. This exclusion does not extend to any fraudulent misrepresentation made by or on behalf of Natural England.

E184

Cc [email protected]

The advice provided in this letter has been through Natural England’s Quality Assurance process.

The advice provided within the Discretionary Advice Service is the professional advice of the Natural England adviser named below. It is the best advice that can be given based on the information provided so far. Its quality and detail is dependent upon the quality and depth of the information which has been provided. It does not constitute a statutory response or decision, which will be made by Natural England acting corporately in its role as statutory consultee to the competent authority after an application has been submitted. The advice given is therefore not binding in any way and is provided without prejudice to the consideration of any statutory consultation response or decision which may be made by Natural England in due course. The final judgement on any proposals by Natural England is reserved until an application is made and will be made on the information then available, including any modifications to the proposal made after receipt of discretionary advice. All pre-application advice is subject to review and revision in the light of changes in relevant considerations, including changes in relation to the facts, scientific knowledge/evidence, policy, guidance or law. Natural England will not accept any liability for the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of, nor will any express or implied warranty be given for, the advice. This exclusion does not extend to any fraudulent misrepresentation made by or on behalf of Natural England.

E185 Date: 03 July 2020 Our ref: DAS4923/ 290984 Your ref: Updated HRA AA and Position Statement

Jenny Knowles Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Customer Services Gibson Building Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Gibson Drive Electra Way Kings Hill Crewe West Malling Cheshire ME19 4LZ CW1 6GJ

[email protected] 0300 060 3900

BY EMAIL ONLY

Dear Jenny Knowles

Discretionary Advice Service (Charged Advice) Contract Reference: DAS4923

Thank you for contacting Natural England on 24 April requesting advice in relation to the following documents prepared to support your draft local plan:

 Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening) Rev. G, March 2020  Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment), Rev. E March 2020  Habitats Regulations Assessment (Overarching. Rev. D) March 2020  Draft Position Statement (Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Natural England November 2019)

This advice is provided in accordance with the Quotation and Agreement dated 21 August 2019, reference DAS4923, which covers an undefined scope of works in relation to preparation of the TMBC local plan.

The advice in this letter follows Natural England’s statutory advice at the Regulation 19 consultation stage (ref 260317, November 2018) and subsequent DAS advice (ref 270769, March 2019). Taking previous advice into account I have reviewed the abovementioned documents and provide comments on each document in turn:

Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 1 (Air Quality Screening) Rev. G, March 2020

Previous advice to remove references to Mid Sussex District Council appeals (being that they are not relevant to the context of this local plan) has been addressed. Table 10 has also been amended to include designated features of the Medway Estuary and Marshes Ramsar Site.

I have no further comments in relation to this document.

Habitat Regulations Assessment: Stage 2 (Air Quality Appropriate Assessment), Rev. E March 2020

Previous DAS advice agrees that it can be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC), North Downs Woodland SAC and Medway Estuary and Marshes Special Area of Conservation (SPA) and Ramsar site, with regard to air quality impacts.

E186 Whilst the overall conclusions of the report have been agreed, one matter remains which may benefit from some further clarification. This relates to discussion of the critical load (CL) as a percentage of the background (section 3.1.2).

Previous DAS advice recommended removal of this discussion point, given that the relevant benchmark is the minimum CL and not the background. However, there has been new case law since the last DAS advice letter which may provide some context and justification for increases above 1% of the CL, and which can support this discussion point. The Compton v Guildford BC decision (4 December 2019) suggests that whilst anticipated improvements in background concentrations are a relevant factor to consider, it would be prudent to ensure that this is not the only factor to consider. Additional justification specific to the designated site(s) in question should be included within the Appropriate Assessment. Being satisfied that there is sufficient certainty regarding anticipated improvements in Nitrogen deposition as a result in vehicular improvements, I advise that additional justification is provided in relation to the conservation objectives for the designated sites in question (North Downs Woodlands and Peter’s Pit). This should provide a more robust and comprehensive interpretation to support the overall conclusions.

Other points raised in the previous DAS advice have been addressed. Clarification that the critical level (CLe) for NOx will not be exceeded in the future year scenario is helpful, together with amended wording to include terminology appropriate to the Habitats Regulations and removal of reference to storm damage.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (Overarching. Rev. D) March 2020

Overall, the conclusion of the HRA has been agreed in that it can be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of Peter’s Pit Special Area of Conservation (SAC), North Downs Woodland SAC Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar Site, with regard to impacts from recreational disturbance and air quality. Whilst the overall conclusions have been agreed, the following comments are provided:

The revised HRA report provides clarification the assessment considers not only strategic sites but the plan in its entirety. Additionally, development sites considered in relation to impact pathways for the various designated sites have been identified, which provides helpful context.

With regards to the Bushey Wood Strategic site (within section 4.2), additional wording in relation to impacts on supporting habitat for bird species associated with Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar site has been provided. Whilst arable fields may in some cases provide some supporting habitat, I agree distance from the designated site would be the key factor in this case. I advise that urbanised areas and major roads do not present a dispersal barrier to all birds per se; their presence could potentially influence bird movements through or around an area (for instance wading birds are likely to follow a river corridor). Ultimately this would add to the distance between the SPA and the strategic site, supporting the argument that distance would be the main justification.

Draft Position Statement

Given that to the above advice recommends some minor alterations to the justification of some elements of the HRA reports, a signature for the draft position statement is not provided at this time. Subject to minor revisions to the HRA documents in accordance with the above advice, I anticipate that a draft position statement could be agreed.

I hope the advice provided in this letter is useful. For clarification of any points in this letter, please contact me at [email protected].

Yours sincerely

Amy Kitching

E187 Lead Adviser Sustainable Development, Sussex and Kent

Cc [email protected]

 The advice provided in this letter has been through Natural England’s Quality Assurance process.

The advice provided within the Discretionary Advice Service is the professional advice of the Natural England adviser named below. It is the best advice that can be given based on the information provided so far. Its quality and detail is dependent upon the quality and depth of the information which has been provided. It does not constitute a statutory response or decision, which will be made by Natural England acting corporately in its role as statutory consultee to the competent authority after an application has been submitted. The advice given is therefore not binding in any way and is provided without prejudice to the consideration of any statutory consultation response or decision which may be made by Natural England in due course. The final judgement on any proposals by Natural England is reserved until an application is made and will be made on the information then available, including any modifications to the proposal made after receipt of discretionary advice. All pre-application advice is subject to review and revision in the light of changes in relevant considerations, including changes in relation to the facts, scientific knowledge/evidence, policy, guidance or law. Natural England will not accept any liability for the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of, nor will any express or implied warranty be given for, the advice. This exclusion does not extend to any fraudulent misrepresentation made by or on behalf of Natural England.

E188 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

D. Screening of Local Plan Policies

Policy Name Policy Description HRA Screening Outcome LP1: Presumption in At the heart of the strategy for Tonbridge & Malling is a desire to deliver Screened out favour of sustainable development; growth that is not for its own sake, but growth that This policy describes the general sustainable brings benefits for all sectors of the community - for existing residents, aspiration for sustainable development businesses and organisations as much as for new ones. development without significant Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Development Plan (and, adverse impacts. where relevant, with policies in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Borough Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether: i. Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or ii. Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted. LP2: Strategic Objective 1: Support the delivery of new homes balanced with economic growth Screened out objectives to provide a stock of housing and job creation that meets the needs of the

community, including the need for affordable housing. This policy outlines general Objective 2: Ensure new development is of a high quality design. aspirations for sustainable Objective 3: Enhance the vitality and viability of Tonbridge Town as the principal development. urban centre in the borough.

Objective 4: Support and strengthen the hierarchy of settlements to ensure The policy seeks to protect important development that takes place contributes to the sustainability of local natural sites and support communities and services. opportunities to protect and

152

E189 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

strengthen the existing Green Objective 5: Protect important natural and heritage assets. Infrastructure and Ecological Objective 6: Ensure adequate infrastructure is in place to support the needs of Network, where possible, across the developments and communities. borough. Objective 7: Improve accessibility and connectivity including support for improvements to public transport, cyclists and pedestrians through new The policy also provides development. requirements that development Objective 8: Support opportunities to protect and where possible strengthen the mitigates its impact on the existing Green Infrastructure and Ecological Network across the borough as environment and is resilient to the illustrated on the map in Appendix C [of the TMBC Local Plan] and defined in the effects of climate change. Glossary [of the TMBC Local Plan]. Objective 9: Ensure development mitigates its impact on the environment and is resilient to the effects of climate change. Objective 10: Support opportunities for future-proofing developments so that they can adapt to the changing needs of occupants during their lifetime and be able to take advantage of advancements in technologies such as electric vehicles. 1. Provision is made in this Local Plan for at least 6,834 dwellings to address in LP3: Housing Screened in full the Objectively Assessed Need for housing during the plan period up to provision 2031. This policy outlines plans for new 2. Major new housing development will be delivered at the following strategic residential areas within strategic sites sites, as defined on the proposals map, during the plan period up to 2031: as well as other locations across the a) Bushey Wood, Eccles – 900 dwellings borough. b) East of Hermitage Lane, south Aylesford – 1,000 dwellings c) North of Borough Green – 1,720 dwellings Impact pathways: d) Broadwater Farm, north of Kings Hill – 900 dwellings e) South-west Tonbridge – 480 dwellings. Recreational Pressure from a net 3. In addition to the strategic sites, new housing development will be delivered increase in dwellings located within on sites across the borough, as defined on the proposals map, and in 6km of the SACs accordance with the policies in this Local Plan. Air Quality from an increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs LP4: Economic Provision is made in this Local Plan for at least 38 ha of additional employment Screened in provision land to address the needs of the borough during the plan period up to 2031. This policy outlines plans for new employment land. Many of these sites

153

E190 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

are in the near vicinity of the designated sites covered by this report and therefore this policy is screened in due to the potential increase in traffic volumes in these locations. Impact pathways: Air Quality from an increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs LP5: Settlement Urban Areas Screened in hierarchy 1. Development will be concentrated within the confines of the following urban

areas, as defined on the proposals map: a. Tonbridge (including Hilden Park); This policy outlines plans for b. The Medway Gap (including Aylesford, Ditton, Larkfield, Leybourne development within urban and rural areas); areas across the borough. c. Kings Hill; d. Snodland; and e. Walderslade (that part within the borough). Impact pathways: Rural Service Centres 2. Outside of the Urban Areas, the focus of development will be within the Recreational Pressure from a net confines of the Rural Service Centres, as defined on the proposals map. The increase in dwellings located within Rural Service Centres are: 6km of the SACs a. Borough Green; Air Quality from an increase in traffic b. East Peckham; on roads within 200m of the SACs c. Hadlow; d. Hildenborough; e. West Malling. The policy seeks to avoid adverse Other Rural Settlements impacts of rural development on 3. Within the confines of Other Rural Settlements, development will be environmental quality through noise, restricted to development that is proportionate to the scale and appropriate to lighting or traffic generation but an in- the character of the settlement. The Other Rural Settlements, as defined on combination effect may still have the proposals map, are: a. Addington adverse effects on designated sites. b. Addington Clearway c. Aylesford Village d. Birling

154

E191 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

e. Blue Bell Hill f. Burham g. Crouch h. Dunks Green i. East Malling Village j. Eccles k. Fairseat l. Golden Green m. Hale Street n. Ightham o. Leybourne Chase p. Mereworth q. Offham r. Peters Village s. Platt t. Plaxtol u. Ryarsh v. Snoll Hatch w. Trottiscliffe x. Wateringbury y. West Peckham z. Wouldham aa. Wrotham Heath bb. Wrotham Note: Development proposals within the settlements identified above that fall within any of the designated areas set out in Policy LP11 will be assessed against that policy, and in the case of rural exception sites, Policies LP11 and LP6 in the Local Plan. Development in Rural Areas 4. Development outside of the confines of the Urban Areas, Rural Service Centres and Other Rural Settlements but within the Green Belt will need to meet the requirements of Policy LP11, and in the case of rural exception sites, Policies LP11 and LP6 in the Local Plan. 5. Outside of the confines of the Urban Areas, Rural Service Centres and Other Rural Settlements development will be restricted to: a. limited infilling development where it does not erode the identity of settlements or harm the setting or character of a settlement; or,

155

E192 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

b. the one-for-one replacement, or appropriate extension, of an existing building provided it would be proportionate to the size of the existing building; or, c. the conversion or change of use of an existing building; or d. development that is necessary for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, including essential housing for farm or forestry workers; or e. development required for the limited expansion of, or improvement to, an existing authorised employment use; or f. development that secures the viability of a farm as an agricultural business; or g. tourism and leisure development where it is evident that it will support the local economy and where there would be no unacceptable adverse impacts arising from lighting, traffic generation, activity at unsocial hours or noise; or h. equestrian related activities provided the following criteria are met: i. where new or replacement buildings are proposed, it must be demonstrated that the re-use of existing buildings on-site for any equestrian-related use is not practicable; and ii. proposals for the construction of new stable buildings and ancillary facilities are of a proportionate scale and an acceptable design to the locality; and iii. there is no adverse impact on amenity and environmental quality of residential or other sensitive uses due to smell, insect infestation, excessive noise, lighting or traffic generation; and iv. there is no hazard to road safety; and v. suitable provision is made for the protection and, where practicable, the enhancement of the existing public rights of way network which may be affected by vi. the proposals, with full regard to the safety of users; or i. community facility development where no suitable alternative accommodation is available within the confines of the urban areas, rural service centres or other rural settlements and where the proposal is essential to serve the settlement to which it relates, or j. predominantly open recreation uses together with associated essential built infrastructure, having regard to Policy LP12 on the AONB. 1. Residential development on small sites outside of the confines of settlements LP6: Rural Screened in in rural areas will be permitted provided that it is used solely for affordable exception sites housing in perpetuity, as defined by LP39, addressing an identified local

156

E193 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

need and it is proportionate and respectful of the local character in terms of This policy outlines plans for design, scale, massing, density and materials. 2. The residential development proposal may include a small proportion of development within rural areas market housing where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the across the borough. Council that the market housing is essential to enable the delivery of the Impact pathways: affordable housing units. Recreational Pressure from a net increase in dwellings located within 6km of the SACs Air Quality from a potential increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs 1. In the primary and secondary retail areas within the Tonbridge town centre LP7: Tonbridge Screened out core, as defined on the proposals map, development that results in the town intensification of retail, leisure and community uses will be supported The policy seeks to avoid significant provided that it is proportionate in scale and an acceptable design to its adverse impacts of development in locality and does not result in unacceptable impacts on the highway network, Tonbridge town on the highway air quality, and the amenity of the area. Change of use or conversion of network, air quality, and the amenity upper floor units to residential and/or offices will be supported provided that it of the area. would create a suitable living and/or working environment. 2. In the broader Tonbridge central area outside of the town centre core, as Significant adverse recreational defined on the proposals map, development will be supported where it can impacts on European sites within the be demonstrated that it will maintain and where possible enhance the vitality scope of this HRA are unlikely due to and viability of the central area as a whole and provided it does not result in their distance from Tonbridge town. unacceptable impacts on the highway network, air quality, and the amenity of the area. Although hydrologically connected to the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA, there are no potential significant effects due to the distance of the town upstream from the site. 1. Retail development will be supported if it maintains or enhances the vitality LP8: Retail Screened in and viability of existing town, district or local centres, as defined on the development proposals map, and is proportionate in scale to the role of the centre in the This policy outlines plans for retail retail hierarchy. Retail development will be supported if located in development within urban and rural accordance with the following sequential test: areas across the borough. i. Town, district or local centres – within the confines as defined on the proposals map; Impact pathways:

157

E194 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

ii. Edge-of-centre sites, but only where it can be demonstrated that retail Air Quality from a potential increase development cannot be accommodated within a town, district or local centre; in traffic on roads within 200m of the iii. Out-of-centre sites, but only where it can be demonstrated that retail SACs development cannot be accommodated within or on the edge of a town, district or local centre. 2. Within Tonbridge Town Centre, development proposals will need to meet the requirements of Policy LP7. 3. Within the district and local retail centres a change of use at the ground floor that maintains and where possible enhances the vitality and functioning of the centre will be supported provided that it does not result in unacceptable impacts on the highway network, air quality, and the amenity of the area. 4. Within the district and local centres the change of use or conversion of units above the ground floor to residential and/or offices will be supported provided that it would create a suitable living and/or working environment. LP9: Safeguarding Development that would result in the loss in whole or part of sites and premises Screened out of community currently or last used for the provision of community services, or recreation,

services and leisure or cultural facilities, will only be permitted if: transport a. an alternative community service/facility of equivalent or better quality This policy refers to the provision of and scale to meet identified need is either available, or will be community services and is not likely satisfactorily provided at an equally accessible location; or to have a significant effect alone. b. an enhancement to the nature and quality of an existing community service/facility will result from the development of part of that existing community service/facility; or c. the applicant has proved, to the satisfaction of the Council, that for the foreseeable future there is likely to be an absence of need or adequate support for the existing community service/facility. This will require the submission of evidence, which may include a viability assessment in an accessible format, which demonstrates that retaining the existing community service/facility is no longer viable. LP10: Infrastructure Development will be required to provide for the necessary infrastructure to meet Screened in requirements the needs of the development to make the development acceptable in planning This policy refers to the increase in terms. infrastructure for new development. Impact pathways: Air Quality from the potential creation of new road networks and an

158

E195 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

increase in traffic within 200m of the SACs 1. For the following listed designations, as illustrated or defined on the LP11: Designated Screened out proposals map, the Council will apply the relevant policy in the National areas Planning Policy Framework or whatever represents the relevant national planning policy at the time the planning application is determined. • Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) This policy seeks to steer change in • Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) such a way as to protect European • Green Belt sites from adverse effects through • Historic Parks & Gardens application of the National Planning • Scheduled Ancient Monuments Policy Framework. • Conservation Areas • Areas at risk of flooding 2. For listed buildings and ancient woodland the Council will apply the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework or whatever represents the relevant national planning policy at the time the planning application is determined. 3. If a development proposal is in conflict with the relevant national policy then it will be in conflict with this Policy. 1. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) are nationally designated LP12: Areas of Screened out landscapes and as such have the highest status of landscape protection. Outstanding Natural The Kent Downs and High Weald AONBs, as illustrated on the proposals Beauty map, should be conserved or where possible enhanced in accordance with their landscape significance. This policy seeks to protect the 2. Major development within the AONBs will only be permitted in exceptional integrity of ANOBs and is therefore circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that it is in the public not relevant to European protected interest. sites. However, the policy may also 3. Other development within the AONBs and their settings will be permitted benefit these areas. provided that: a. the location, form, scale, materials and design would conserve or enhance the character of the landscape; and b. the development would conserve or enhance the special qualities, distinctive character and tranquillity of the AONB; and c. the development has regard to the relevant AONB Management Plan and any associated guidance. 1. Development must protect and where possible enhance the following, as LP13: Local natural Screened out illustrated or defined on the proposals map: environment • Local Sites (Local Wildlife Sites (LWS), and Regionally Important This policy seeks to protect the designations Geological Sites (RIGS)); integrity of local environmental • Local Nature Reserves (LNR)); designations and is therefore not • Publicly accessible open spaces;

159

E196 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

• Allotments. relevant to European protected sites. 2. Development must protect and where possible enhance Priority Habitats. However, the policy may also benefit 3. Development of existing publicly accessible open spaces and allotments, as these areas. defined on the proposals map and any other publicly accessible open spaces that are provided during the lifetime of the Local Plan, will only be permitted if a replacement site is provided which is equivalent or better in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility. The replacement site should, where practicable, be located where it can provide opportunities to strengthen the wider Green Infrastructure and Ecological Network as illustrated in Appendix C [of the TMBC Local Plan]. 1. Development must: LP14: Achieving Screened out a. protect the local distinctiveness of the area including the setting and high quality pattern of the settlement and its historical and architectural interest and The policy provides design sustainable design the landscape character; and requirements for new development in b. protect the amenity of the local area, including any important prevailing respect of security and safety, and features or characteristics; and requires measures to be sympathetic c. be well designed and of a high quality in terms of detailing and use of to surrounding buildings, and must be materials and through its scale, density, layout, siting, character and appearance be designed to respect the site and its surroundings. of a high-quality design. It will not 2. Development should, where practicable and proportionate, be designed to: itself lead to development. a. maximise opportunities to reduce energy demands through the orientation of habitable rooms to harness natural light and through landscaping to prevent overheating; The policy may indirectly benefit b. deter crime and reduce the fear of crime; biodiversity by maximising opportunities to reduce energy demands and harnessing natural light. LP15: Residential Extensions to residential properties will be required to have regard to the Screened out extensions technical guide on local impacts as set out in Appendix I and will be permitted The policy provides design unless they result in an adverse impact on the character of the building or the requirements for residential extension street scene in terms of form, scale, design and materials or an adverse impact design to be in-keeping with the local on residential amenity. area. It will not itself lead to development. LP16: Shopfront Proposals for new shopfronts or alterations to existing ones should respect the Screened out design character, proportions, period and design of the individual building, of the local

context and of the wider area, with particular regard to detailing of fascias, windows and doors, use of material and form of any illumination.

160

E197 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

The policy provides design requirements for shopfront design to be in-keeping with the local area. It will not itself lead to development. 1. In determining planning applications, the Council will apply the policy on LP17: Flood risk Screened out flood risk in the National Planning Policy Framework or whatever represents national planning policy on flood risk at the time the planning application is The policy sets out design determined. requirements for development with 2. If a development proposal is in conflict with the relevant national policy then it regard to flood risk. As such it is will be in conflict with this Policy. designed to safeguard people and the built environment and will not itself lead to development. LP18: Sustainable Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) for the management of run-off must be Screened out drainage systems provided for as part of major development. The policy sets out design (suds) requirements for drainage systems (SuDS) development to incorporate sustainable drainage systems. As such it is designed to mimic natural drainage systems to reduce surface water flooding, improve water quality and enhance the amenity and biodiversity value of the environment. 1. Major development within the Principal Green Corridors identified on the LP19: Habitat Screened out Green Infrastructure and Ecological Network diagram (see Appendix C) [of protection and the TMBC Local Plan] should, where practicable and proportionate, provide This policy seeks to offset impacts of creation opportunities for habitat creation, taking account of the habitat and species of major development and development the Biodiversity Opportunity Areas. within the Principal Green Corridors 2. Major development should, where practicable and proportionate, make through habitat creation. space for nature by including, as an integral part of the external building fabric, opportunities for habitat creation for wildlife. The following strategic sites are located within Principal Green Corridors: Borough Green Gardens North of Kings Hill

161

E198 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Bushey Wood The other strategic sites identified within this HRA are considered major development and so should also provide opportunities for habitat creation. This policy has been screened out as it will not itself lead to development. 1. Development, either individually or cumulatively with other proposals or LP20: Air quality Screened out existing uses in the vicinity, that could directly or indirectly result in material additional air pollutants and a significant worsening of levels of air quality This policy sets out design within the area surrounding the development site will not be permitted unless requirements for development not to evidenced, specifically identified and detailed measures to offset or mitigate contribute to a significant worsening those impacts are introduced as part of the proposal. of air quality and may therefore 2. Development that would introduce new receptors into an area of poor air indirectly benefit biodiversity by quality will not be permitted unless the proposals incorporate acceptable measures to ensure those receptors would not be subject to unacceptable reducing the potential for disturbance risk as a result of poor air quality. of nearby habitats. 1. Development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated, to the LP21: Noise quality Screened out satisfaction of the Council having regard to the relevant British Standards and other relevant national guidance and good practice at the time the planning application is determined, that it is located, designed and controlled to minimise the impact of noise on neighbouring properties and the prevailing This policy sets out design acoustic environment. requirements to minimise the impact 2. Noise sensitive development, such as residential, will only be permitted in of development on noise and may close proximity to noise generating activity if it can be demonstrated, to the therefore indirectly benefit biodiversity satisfaction of the Council having regard to the relevant British Standards by reducing the potential for and other relevant national guidance and good practice at the time the disturbance of nearby habitats. planning application is determined, that it is designed to reduce the impact of noise from the local environment to an acceptable level. 1. Development proposals located on or near sites which have previously been LP22: Screened out used for activities which pose a risk of land contamination must be informed Contamination by a contaminated land desktop study identifying all previous site uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses including a survey of the condition of any existing building(s), a conceptual model of the site indicating This policy outlines requirements for sources, pathways and receptors and any potentially unacceptable risks to building on contaminated land.

162

E199 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

human health and the local environment arising from contamination at the site. 2. Where contamination is identified, development proposals must incorporate a detailed strategy for site investigation works, along with details of any site clearance, ground investigations or site survey work that may be required to allow for intrusive investigations to be undertaken to inform a risk assessment of the degree and nature of any contamination on site and the impact on human health, controlled waters and the wider environment. 3. Development will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Council, having regard to the other relevant policies in the Local Plan, that any contamination can be effectively addressed in a manner that ensures the site would be suitable for its end use through remediation measures. LP23: Sustainable The Council will work in partnership with Kent County Council, Highways Screened out transport England, transport providers and other key stakeholders to ensure that

developments: 1. are designed so that opportunities for sustainable transport modes are The policy in general has positive maximised, where practicable, reflecting the amount of movement HRA implications (through the generated, the nature and location of the site and its relationship with existing centres and public transport nodes and recognising that solutions provision of walking, cycling and and measures will vary from urban to rural locations. This may include the public provision, where supported by evidence, of parking adjacent to sustainable transport infrastructure potentially transport modes such as railway stations to support their functioning; and leading to an increase in air quality 2. make the necessary contributions to the improvement of existing, and provision of new, transport schemes that lead to improvements in from a reduction in vehicle emissions) accessibility and give priority to the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, users of and ensuring that developments meet public transport, car sharers and users of low and ultra-low emission the Local Plan Air Quality Policy. vehicles; and 3. include measures, where practicable and proportionate, for non-car use such as on-site cycle parking; and New provision for footpaths, 4. are consistent with, and contribute to the implementation of the Kent Local bridleways and cycleways will only be Transport Plan; and considered provided there is no 5. include the submission of Transport Assessments and Travel Plans where significant effect on designated sites significant amounts of movement would be generated; and so recreational pressures can be 6. contribute to transport infrastructure improvements, where proportionate, screened out. having regard to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan; and 7. provide, where practicable and proportionate, new and improved footpaths, bridleways and cycleways, provided there would be no significant effect on areas of importance for nature conservation; and

163

E200 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

8. make provision for car parking, having regard to the type of development and its location, in accordance with the Parking Standards Policy LP42; and 1. 9. meet the requirements of the Local Plan Air Quality Policy LP20. LP24: Minerals and Development will be required to comply with the relevant policies in the adopted Screened out waste Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan and with the relevant policies of any This policy outlines requirements for additional minerals and waste development plan documents that are adopted at compliance with the Kent Minerals the time the planning application is determined. and Waste Local Plan. LP25: Housing The following sites, as defined on the proposals map, are allocated for residential Screened in allocations - development during the plan period up to 2031:

overview a. Bushey Wood Phase 1, Eccles 900 b. Rear of Robin Hood Lane, Blue Bell Hill 26 This policy outlines plans for c. 109 Hall Road, Aylesford 5 residential developments across the d. Oil Depot, Station Road, Aylesford 14 borough. In total 6834 houses have e. Nu-Venture Coaches, Mill Hall, Aylesford 8 been proposed, several of which are f. Land off Oakapple Lane, Barming 118 within 6km of European designated g. South Aylesford (east of Hermitage Lane) 1,000 sites. h. Borough Green Gardens Phase 1A + 1B 1,720 i. Southways, Staleys Road, Borough Green 7 j. Bell Lane, Burham 58 k. Land off Cobdown Close, Ditton 9 Impact pathways: l. Station Road, Ditton 6 Recreational Pressure from a net m. North of London Road, Ditton 13 increase in dwellings located within n. East Malling Research Station (Small Parcel) 23 o. East Malling Research Station (Ditton edge) 216 6km of the SACs p. East Malling Research Station (Parkside) 205 Air Quality from a potential increase q. Barfield House, Teston Rd, Offham 15 in traffic on roads within 200m of the r. Park House, 110-112 Mill Street, East Malling 5 SACs s. Court Lane Nurseries, Hadlow 66 t. South of Church Lane, East Peckham 35 u. Carpenters Lane, Hadlow 25 v. Church Lane, East Peckham 23 w. North of The Paddock, Hadlow 156 x. Land at Stocks Green Road, Hildenborough 105 y. Kings Hill - remainder 65 z. Broadwater Farm, North of Kings Hill 825 aa. Tonbridge Farm 54 bb. North of Dryhill Park Road, Tonbridge 44 cc. South West Tonbridge 480

164

E201 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

dd. South of Vauxhall Gardens, Tonbridge 61 ee. Coblands Nursery, Trench Road, Tonbridge 319 ff. Drayton Road Industrial Estate, Tonbridge 51 gg. East of Offham Road, West Malling 12 hh. Rear of London Road and Town Hill, West Malling 110 ii. Land at Howlands Allotments, Wrotham 39 jj. North of Fairfield Road, Borough Green 16 TOTAL 6,834 LP26: Housing Residential development on the sites allocated in policy LP25 will be expected to Screened out allocations – policy meet the requirements of the other policies in the Local Plan. This policy refers to compliance of requirements LP25 with other policies and will not itself lead to development. 1. Bushey Wood, Eccles, as defined on the proposals map, is allocated and LP27: Strategic Site Screened in identified as an area of opportunity for development of approximately 1,514 – Bushey Wood, dwellings. 900 dwellings are expected to be completed by 2031, with the The strategic site of Bushey Wood is Eccles remainder built in the post-plan period. approximately 1.7km from Peter’s Pit 2. The prospective applicant should prepare a masterplan, to the satisfaction of SAC and 2.2km from North Downs the Council, reflecting the phasing outlined in Appendix E [of the TMBC Local Woodlands SAC. For large Plan] and addressing the full requirements of the other policies in the Local developments, such as Bushey Plan and delivering the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the development as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Wood, the buffer has been extended 3. The masterplan, including a Transport Assessment, needs to make provision to include the Medway Estuary and for key pieces of infrastructure necessary to support the development Marshes SPA and Ramsar. including: Development proposals include • primary school – 2 form entry residential dwellings and associated • secondary education – proportionate contribution to provision of a new school in the north-east part of the borough infrastructure. • road links to Bull Lane (north and south) and Court Road and other This policy may benefit biodiversity mitigation and improvement measures on the local network arising from through net biodiversity gains, the Transport Assessment however negative impacts to the • healthcare provision to meet the needs of the development European sites are still possible due • allotments & playing fields – replacement provision 4. The masterplan needs to be prepared and completed in advance of the to increased recreational pressures formal submission of the planning application. It shall be accompanied by a and a possible increase in traffic on Planning Performance Agreement. the local road network causing 5. Development will be required to respect the setting of the Kent Downs Area reduced air quality. of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in terms of design, scale, massing and materials having regard to the landscape character and the relevant

165

E202 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

policies in the Kent Downs AONB management plan. A Landscape and The policy has been screened out for Visual Impact Assessment will be required to accompany a planning application for development that addresses the impact on the Kent Downs hydrological pressures due to the AONB and includes appropriate mitigation measures. distance of the site downstream. 6. Development should, where possible, maximise opportunities for net biodiversity gains on site and be sensitive to local wildlife habitats. Impact Pathways: Recreational Pressure from a net increase in dwellings located within nearby SACs Air Quality from a potential increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs 1. South Aylesford, as defined on the proposals map, is allocated for LP28: Strategic Site Screened in development of approximately 1,000 dwellings. – South Aylesford 2. The prospective applicant should prepare a masterplan, to the satisfaction of The strategic site of South Aylesford the Council, reflecting the phasing outlined in Appendix E [of the TMBC Local is approximately 3.3km from North Plan] and addressing the full requirements of the other policies in the Local Downs Woodlands SAC and 5.0km Plan and delivering the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the from Peter’s Pit SAC. development as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. 3. The masterplan needs to make provision for key pieces of infrastructure Development proposals include necessary to support the development including: residential dwellings and associated • primary school – 2 form entry infrastructure, as well as road • secondary education – proportionate contribution to provision of a new improvement works. school in the north-east part of the borough • link road - between Hermitage Lane and the 20/20 roundabout on the This policy may benefit biodiversity A20 through net biodiversity gains, • highways – a proportionate contribution to improvements to the A20/Hall however negative impacts to the Road/Mills Road junction and local improvements to the Hermitage European sites are still possible due Lane/A 20 junction to mitigate impacts of the development to increased recreational pressures • highways – a proportionate contribution to improvements at the and a possible increase in traffic on southern end of Hermitage Lane at and leading to the junction between the local road network, impacting air Fountain Lane and the A26 Tonbridge Road to mitigate impacts of the development quality. • healthcare provision to meet the needs of the development 4. The link road between Hermitage Lane and the 20/20 roundabout on the A20, as illustrated on the proposals map, will be required to be completed Impact Pathways:

166

E203 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

and open before or by no later than the completion of 15% of the total Recreational Pressure from a net number of dwellings within the masterplan area. 5. The masterplan needs to be prepared and completed in advance of the increase in dwellings located within formal submission of the planning application. It shall be accompanied by a 6km of the SACs Planning Performance Agreement. Air Quality from a potential increase 6. Development should, where possible, maximise opportunities for net in traffic on roads within 200m of the biodiversity gains on site. SACs 7. The development will be required to provide a wide range of opportunities for safe sustainable travel to Barming railway station and Maidstone Hospital. 1. Borough Green Gardens, as defined on the proposals map, is allocated and LP29: Strategic Site Screened in safeguarded for development of approximately 3,000 dwellings. 1,720 – Borough Green dwellings are expected to be completed by 2031, with the remainder built in gardens the post-plan period. The site will also provide for 2 ha of new employment land. The strategic site of Borough Green 2. The prospective applicant should prepare a masterplan, to the satisfaction of Gardens is outside the 6km buffer the Council, reflecting the phasing outlined in Appendix E [of the TMBC Local zone, however for large Plan] and addressing the full requirements of the other policies in the Local developments, such as Borough Plan and delivering the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the Green Gardens, the buffer has been development as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. extended to include North Downs 3. The masterplan needs to make provision for key pieces of infrastructure Woodlands SAC, Peter’s Pit SAC and necessary to support the development including: the Medway Estuary and Marshes • a relief road as an integral part of the development – linking the A25 in SPA and Ramsar. the west to the A20 in the east at Nepicar providing relief along the A25 through Borough Green Development proposals include • 2 primary schools – 1 x 2 form entry; 1 x 3 form entry residential dwellings and associated • secondary education – proportionate contribution to provision of a new infrastructure, as well as road school in the north-east part of the borough improvement works. • healthcare provision to meet the needs of the development 4. The relief road linking the A25 in the west to the A20 in the east, as This policy may benefit biodiversity illustrated on the proposals map, will be required to be completed and open through net biodiversity gains, before, or by no later than, the occupation of 450 new dwellings, being 15% Negative impacts to the European of the total number of dwellings allocated within the masterplan area. site due to reduced air quality are 5. The masterplan will be prepared and completed in advance of the formal unlikely due to the distance of the site submission of the planning application. It shall be accompanied by a from the SACs. Planning Performance Agreement and Planning Obligation Agreements covering the phasing and delivery of the infrastructure requirements Large developments have been identified I this policy. screened in for air quality due to the 6. Within the Masterplan area residential and/or commercial development within potential increased traffic on the local the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) will only be road network within the borough. permitted where it can be demonstrated that it makes a critical contribution to

167

E204 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

the deliverability of the overall development and where its design, scale, The policy has been screened out for massing and materials are respectful of the local character, qualities and distinctiveness of the Kent Downs AONB. The relief road and development at hydrological pressures due to the the northern and western edges of the masterplan area will be required to be distance of the site downstream. sensitively designed taking account of the relationship with the Kent Downs AONB and its setting. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment will be required to accompany a planning application for development that Impact Pathways: addresses the impacts on the Kent Downs AONB and includes appropriate mitigation measures. Recreational Pressure from a net 7. Development outside of the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty increase in dwellings located within (AONB) will be required to respect the setting of the AONB in terms of 6km of the SACs design, scale, massing and materials having regard to the landscape Air Quality from a potential increase character and the relevant policies in the Kent Downs AONB management in traffic on roads within 200m of the plan and complying with the requirements of Policy LP12. 8. Development should, where possible, maximise opportunities for net SACs biodiversity gains on site. 9. The development will be required to provide a wide range of opportunities for safe sustainable travel to Borough Green railway station and the centre of the settlement. 1. Broadwater Farm, north of Kings Hill, as defined on the proposals map, is LP30: Strategic Site Screened in allocated for development of approximately 900 dwellings. – Broadwater Farm, 2. The prospective applicant should prepare a masterplan, to the satisfaction of The strategic site of Broadwater Farm north of Kings Hill the Council, reflecting the phasing outlined in Appendix E [of the TMBC Local is approximately 5.8km from North Plan] and addressing the full requirements of the other policies in the Local Downs Woodlands SAC, however for Plan and delivering the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the large developments, such as development as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Broadwater Farm, the buffer has 3. The masterplan, to be informed by a detailed Transport Assessment, needs to make provision for key pieces of infrastructure necessary to support the been extended to include Peter’s Pit development including: SAC and the Medway Estuary and • primary school – 2 form entry Marshes SPA and Ramsar. • secondary school - land for, and a proportionate contribution to, a 6 form Development proposals include entry school residential dwellings and associated • link road to the A228 opposite the station approach and any other appropriate access arrangements identified infrastructure, as well as road • healthcare provision to meet the needs of the development improvement works. 4. The masterplan needs to be prepared and completed in advance of the This policy may benefit biodiversity formal submission of the planning application. It shall be accompanied by a through net biodiversity gains, Planning Performance Agreement. however negative impacts to the 5. The main site access road and junction with the A228 will be required to be completed in advance of the occupation of any of the dwellings. European sites are still possible due

168

E205 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

6. The access road will be required to be of a standard and width to safely and to increased recreational pressures properly serve the whole development. and a possible increase in traffic on 7. The access road and the northern edge of the development will be required the local road network, impacting air to be sensitively designed taking account of the local landscape and local quality. heritage assets. 8. Vehicular access to and from the development via the network of local rural Impact Pathways: lanes will not be permitted, with the exception of emergency vehicles. Recreational Pressure from a net 9. The development will be required to provide links with Kings Hill to enable residents to have safe access to the services and facilities the existing increase in dwellings located within settlement has to offer. nearby SACs 10. The development will be required to provide a wide range of opportunities for Air Quality from a potential increase safe sustainable travel to West Malling railway station. in traffic on roads within 200m of the 11. Development should, where possible, maximise opportunities for net SACs biodiversity gains on site. 1. South-west Tonbridge, as defined on the proposals map, is allocated for LP31: Strategic Site Screened in development of approximately 480 dwellings. – south-west 2. The prospective applicant should prepare a masterplan, to the satisfaction of The south-west Tonbridge strategic Tonbridge the Council, reflecting the phasing outlined in Appendix E [of the TMBC Local site is outside the 6km European Plan] and addressing the full requirements of the other policies in the Local designated site buffer and can Plan and delivering the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the therefore be screened out for having development as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. any significant negative impacts on 3. The masterplan needs to make provision for key pieces of infrastructure necessary to support the development including: these sites. • primary school – 2 form entry, either within south-west Tonbridge or The policy has been screened out for Tonbridge Town hydrological pressures due to the • secondary education – proportionate contribution to expansion of distance of the site downstream. existing provision in the wider Tonbridge area • mitigation at the junction of Brook Street and Quarry Hill Large developments have been • healthcare provision to meet the needs of the development screened in for air quality due to the 4. The masterplan needs to be prepared and completed in advance of the potential increased traffic on the local formal submission of the planning application. It shall be accompanied by a road network within the borough. Planning Performance Agreement. 5. The development will be required to provide a wide range of opportunities for Impact Pathways: safe sustainable travel to Tonbridge Town Centre including the railway station and existing established cycle routes. Air Quality from a potential increase 6. Development will be required to respect the setting of the High Weald Area in traffic on roads within 200m of the of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in terms of design, scale, massing SACs and materials having regard to the landscape character and the relevant policies in the High Weald AONB management plan. Development at the western edge of the masterplan area will be required to be sensitively

169

E206 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

designed taking account of the relationship with the High Weald AONB and its setting. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment will be required to accompany a planning application for development that addresses the impact on the High Weald AONB and includes appropriate mitigation measures. 7. Development should, where possible, maximise opportunities for net biodiversity gains on site. 1. The following area, as defined on the proposals map, is safeguarded land to LP32: Safeguarded Screened in help address future longer-term development needs of the borough beyond land 2031: The safeguarded land at Borough a. Land north-east of Borough Green (Phase 1C of Borough Green Green Gardens is outside the 6km Gardens Strategic Housing Allocation). buffer zone for recreational impacts 2. This area can only be released for development as part of the masterplan for on the SACs. However in the strategic allocation in accordance with Policy LP29. combination with the proposed phase 1 and 1b of Borough Green Gardens, however for large developments, such as Borough Green Gardens, the buffer has been extended to include North Downs Woodlands SAC, Peter’s Pit SAC and the Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar. This policy may benefit biodiversity through net biodiversity gains, however negative impacts to the European site are still possible due to increased recreational pressures and a possible increase in traffic on the local road network, impacting air quality. Impact Pathways: Recreational Pressure from a net increase in dwellings nearby SACs

170

E207 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

Air Quality from a potential increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs 1. The following areas, as defined on the proposals map, are identified as areas LP33: Areas of Screened in of opportunity to help address the future longer-term development needs of opportunity the borough beyond 2031: The Bushey Wood Area of a. Bushey Wood, Eccles Opportunity is approximately 1.2km b. East Malling Research Station, south Aylesford & Ditton from Peter’s Pit SAC and 2.1km from 2. Land at East Malling Research Station can only be released for development North Downs Woodlands SAC. in the post plan period once significant improvements to the A20/Mills Road/Hall Road junction have been implemented to the satisfaction of Kent South Aylesford Area of Opportunity County Council and the link between Hermitage Lane and the A20 at the is 3.9km from North Downs 20/20 roundabout as required by Policy LP28 is complete and open and Woodlands SAC and 5.2km from improvements to Junction 5 of the M20 motorway have been implemented. Peter’s Pit SAC. Impact Pathways: Recreational Pressure from a net increase in dwellings located within 6km of the SACs Air Quality from a potential increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs 1. The following existing areas, as defined on the proposals map, are LP34: Employment Screened in safeguarded for employment purposes for business (B1), general industrial sites and land (B2) and warehousing/distribution (B8) use: a. Holborough, Snodland, with a quality of development reflecting the gateway status of the site Development at these sites will only b. Land east of the bypass, Snodland be approved if there are no significant c. Ham Hill, Snodland impacts on the highway network, air d. New Hythe area, Larkfield quality and the amenity of the area. e. Forstal Road, Aylesford (part) However, an in-combination effect f. Quarry Wood (west of Mills Road) including Priory Park with other development may increase g. 20/20 Estate, Aylesford (part) traffic flows and therefore have h. Branbridges, East Peckham adverse effects on the designated i. Bourne Enterprise Centre, Borough Green sites. j. Tonbridge Industrial Estate, (outside the area within the Central Tonbridge Area Action Plan).

171

E208 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

k. Laker Road, Bridgewood Impact Pathways: l. Little Preston, Aylesford m. Lower Bell, Aylesford Air Quality from a potential increase n. Hall Road, Aylesford in traffic on roads within 200m of the o. Platt Industrial Estate SACs p. Long Pond Works, Borough Green q. Works, south of Cricketts Farm, Ightham The following sites are located within the Green Belt and are also subject to the requirements of Policy LP11: r. The Alders Mereworth s. East of Tonbridge Road, Little Mill, East Peckham t. Nepicar Area West, London Road u. Winsor Works, London Road, Addington v. Tower Garage, Wrotham Hill, Wrotham Areas suitable for Business Use (B1) only: w. North of Station Approach, Borough Green x. North of Fairfield Road, Borough Green y. Hermitage Lane, Aylesford, to be accessed only from Hermitage Lane z. Rockfort Road, Snodland aa. Kings Hill - high quality, campus style Business Park suitable for offices, research and development and light industrial use (B1) including also hotel, conference, education and training and commercial leisure uses as part of the wider Kings Hill mixed-use development. bb. East Malling Research Station (main site) – suitable for offices, research and development and light industrial manufacturing (B1) including conference, education and training and any other uses that can be demonstrated to be related to, or support the operation of, the Research Station. cc. Bradbourne, East Malling – suitable for offices, research and development (B1), conference, education and training. 2. Development that results in the intensification of employment uses on the sites listed in this policy will be permitted provided that it is of an acceptable design to the locality and does not result in unacceptable impacts on the highway network, air quality and the amenity of the area and where it complies with the other policies in the Local Plan. 3. Development of the sites listed in this policy for non-employment uses will only be permitted where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for the identified purpose and it is of an acceptable design to the locality and does not result in unacceptable impacts on the highway network, air

172

E209 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

quality and the amenity of the area and where it complies with the other policies in the Local Plan. 1. Development of the former Aylesford Newsprint site, as illustrated on the LP35: Employment Screened in proposals map [of the TMBC Local Plan], for light industrial, general industrial land: former and/or storage and distribution uses will be permitted provided that a Aylesford Newsprint, New Hythe is Aylesford newsprint vehicular access between Bellingham Way and Station Road forms part of located approximately 2.7km from site the scheme and the development is of an acceptable design to the locality Peters Pit SAC and 4.0km from North and does not result in unacceptable impacts on the highway network, air Downs Woodland SAC. quality and the amenity of the area and where it complies with the other policies in the Local Plan. Development at these sites will only 2. The vehicular access between Bellingham Way and Station Road will be be approved if there are no significant required to be completed and open in advance of the majority of the impacts on the highway network, air development of the site taking place. quality and the amenity of the area. 3. The prospective applicant should prepare a masterplan, to the satisfaction of However, an in-combination effect the Council, delivering the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the with other development may increase development. 4. The masterplan needs to be prepared and completed in advance of the traffic flows and therefore have formal submission of the planning application. It shall be accompanied by a adverse effects on the designated Planning Performance Agreement. sites. Impact Pathways: Air Quality from a potential increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs 1. The following sites, as defined on the proposals map, are allocated for LP36: Employment Screened in employment development: land allocations a. Land South of Hermitage Court, Hermitage Lane (1.4 ha) (B1 uses) Sites within 6km buffer of Peter’s Pit b. North of M20 Junction 5, Coldharbour Lane (7.3 ha) (B1 and B8 uses) SAC: c. North of RBLI Warehouse, Aylesford (1.5 ha) (B1 and B8 uses) d. Rochester Road, Borstal (1.3 ha) (B2 and B8 uses) Sites a, b, c, d, e, f, j e. East Malling Research Station (East) (5.5 ha) (B1 uses) Sites within 6km buffer of North f. East Malling Research Station (West) (2.3 ha) (B1 uses) g. Branbridges Wharf, East Peckham (1.0 ha) (B1 and B2 uses) Downs Woodland SAC: h. Little Postern, Postern Lane, Tonbridge (10.8 ha) (B2 and B8 uses) Sites a, b, c, d, e, f, j, k i. Munday Works, Tonbridge (1.7 ha) (B1 and B2 uses) j. Rochester Airfield (3.7 ha) (B1 and B2 uses) Development at these sites will only k. Borough Green Gardens (within the strategic site covered by Policy 29) be approved if there are no significant (2 ha) (B1, B2 or B8 uses) impacts on the highway network, air quality and the amenity of the area.

173

E210 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

2. Development of the sites listed in this policy for employment uses will only be However, an in-combination effect permitted where it is of an acceptable design to the locality and does not with other development may increase result in unacceptable impacts on the highway network, air quality and the traffic flows and therefore have amenity of the area and where it complies with the other policies in the Local adverse effects on the designated Plan. sites. Impact Pathways: Air Quality from a potential increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs LP37: Other Development for employment uses on sites that do not feature in Policies LP34, Screened in. employment land LP35 and LP36 will be permitted provided that it does not result in unacceptable Development at these sites will only opportunities impacts on the highway network, air quality and the amenity of the area and be approved if there are no significant where it complies with the other policies in the Local Plan. impacts on the highway network, air quality and the amenity of the area. However, an in-combination effect with other development may increase traffic flows and therefore have adverse effects on the designated sites depending on the locations of these sites. Impact Pathways: Air Quality from a potential increase in traffic on roads within 200m of the SACs 1. The following sites, as identified on the proposals map, are safeguarded for LP38: Travellers Screened out the provision of accommodation for Travellers as defined in national policy. and travelling i. Windmill Lane, Teston Road, West Malling showpeople ii. Coldharbour Lane, Aylesford iii. Orchard Place, Teston Road, Offham, West Malling This policy describes sites iv. Land at Orchard Farm, Well Street, East Malling safeguarded for travellers and v. Old Orchard, Rochester Road, Aylesford travelling show people and does not vi. Springfield Place, Hadlow itself lead to development. Any other sites receiving permanent planning permission during the plan period will also be safeguarded. Proposals for upgrading, enhancement or

174

E211 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

intensification of these sites will be permitted where they accord with the relevant

policies in the Local Plan. 2. The following sites, as identified on the proposals map, are safeguarded for the provision of accommodation for Travelling Showpeople:

i. Redgates, Snodland ii. Greengates, Snodland 3. Proposals for the development of Traveller or Travelling Showpeople sites providing for accommodation and associated facilities and infrastructure that are not safeguarded by this policy will only be permitted where they accord with the relevant policies in the Local Plan and where all of the following criteria are met: a. Residential or rural amenity is not prejudiced as a result of visual intrusion, excessive noise, lighting, traffic generation or activity at unsocial hours; and b. The site respects the scale of, and does not dominate, the nearest settled community; and c. The site can adequately be accessed by vehicles towing caravans and there is safe pedestrian and cycle access to the site; and d. The site is reasonably accessible to shops, schools and other community facilities on foot, by cycle or public transport; and e. The site has or will have a supply of essential services such as mains gas and electricity, water, sewerage and drainage and waste disposal; and f. The site is not located in an area at high risk of flooding; and g. The layout of the site, its associated facilities and landscaping will be designed to a high standard including pitches, hardstandings, amenity blocks, amenity and play spaces and boundary treatments. 1. Affordable housing provision will be sought as part of residential LP39: Affordable Screened out development of 11 dwellings or more or which have a combined gross housing floorspace of greater than 1,000 square metres (gross internal area). 2. The following levels of affordable housing provision will be required: i. 40% of the total number of dwellings on development sites located in This policy describes affordable the areas outside of the north-east part of the borough as defined on housing provision within new the map in Appendix F [of the TMBC Local Plan]. developments but does not itself lead ii. 30% of the total number of dwellings on development sites of 500 to development. units or more located in the north-east part of the borough as defined on the map in Appendix F [of the TMBC Local Plan]. iii. 25% of the total number of dwellings on development sites of fewer than 500 units in the north-east part of the borough as defined on the map in Appendix F [of the TMBC Local Plan].

175

E212 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

3. The following tenure split will be sought: i. 70% rent capped at the Local Housing Allowance ii. 30% intermediate products, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework 4. The type of affordable housing product sought will be assessed on a case- by-case basis taking account of the local housing need. 5. Affordable housing will be provided on site unless circumstances demonstrate that this is not possible, in which case the affordable housing will be provided on an alternative site within the vicinity of the development site. A commuted sum commensurate to the affordable housing requirement to be agreed by the Council will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that neither on site provision or provision on an alternative site within the vicinity of the development site is possible. 6. Where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the existing gross floorspace will be deducted from the overall affordable housing contribution calculation. 7. Where a site is sub-divided, the amount of affordable housing sought will reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme. 8. Where an application does not meet the affordable housing requirements it will need to be supported by an open book viability assessment. 9. Affordable housing will be sought from new residential developments providing for all types of residential accommodation including specialist older persons, extra care and sheltered housing, other than residential care accommodation. LP40: Mix of Major residential development of 10 or more units should provide a mix of Screened out housing dwelling types having regard to the evidence in the Strategic Housing Market This policy describes provision for a Assessment. mix of dwelling types within new developments but does not itself lead to development. 1. Major residential development of 10 or more dwellings will be required to LP41: Publicly Screened out provide publicly accessible open space in accordance with the standards and accessible open implementation process set out in Appendix R [of the TMBC Local Plan]. space 2. Publicly accessible open space provision should, where practicable and proportionate, include opportunities for habitat creation to help strengthen the This policy describes provision for wider Green Infrastructure and Ecological Network as illustrated on the publicly accessible open space within diagram in Appendix C [of the TMBC Local Plan]. new developments but does not itself lead to development.

176

E213 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

3. Publicly accessible open space provision that includes artificial turfed playing

pitches will be supported providing it does not conflict with the other criteria in this policy and other policies in the Local Plan. Where high quality durable This policy may benefit biodiversity in artificial turfed pitches are provided as part of the publicly accessible open providing opportunities for habitat space provision the Council may be willing to compromise on the quantity creation. standard provided it can be demonstrated that the playing pitches will be used more intensively than the grassed alternative. 4. Publicly accessible open space provision is required to be supported by a clear long-term management plan. 1. As a starting point for decision-taking on acceptable parking provision in LP42: Parking Screened out developments, the standards set out in Appendix G [of the TMBC Local Plan] standards (residential development) and Appendix H [of the TMBC Local Plan] (non- residential development) shall be used as guidance. 2. In addition to the parking standards the Council will take account of local This policy describes provision for circumstances including the layout of the development, the mix of dwellings, parking within new developments but the character of the local area and the proximity of public transport nodes does not itself lead to development. when determining what would represent an acceptable proportionate provision of parking. 3. New dwellings will be required to make provision of a charging point for This policy may benefit European electric vehicles as an integral part of the design of each individual property. sites in providing charging points for The charging point will need to be secure and conveniently located to the electric vehicles and cycle parking parking area. facilities which create less air 4. Non-residential development should, where practicable and proportionate, make provision for the parking and charging of electric vehicles and for cycle pollution. parking facilities which should be sited in a convenient, safe, secure and sheltered location. LP43: Internal Major residential development will be required to meet the Government’s Screened out space standard nationally described space standard. This policy describes requirements to meet government standards and does not itself lead to development. LP44: Water New dwellings will be required to meet the Building Regulations optional Screened out efficiency standard requirement for tighter water efficiency of 110 litres/person/day. This policy describes requirements to meet standards on water efficiency and does not itself lead to development.

177

E214 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

LP45: Accessibility Major residential development will be required to build 25% of the dwellings to Screened out and adaptability the requirements of Part M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) of the This policy describes provisions for standard Building Regulations. accessible housing and does not itself lead to development. 1. Residential development of 20 dwellings or more, with the exception of the LP46: Self-build and Screened out strategic housing allocations as set out in policies LP27 to LP31, will be custom house required to make provision for at least 5% of the serviced plots to be made building available for self-build or custom house building. 2. Residential development on the strategic housing allocations as set in This policy describes provisions for policies LP27 to LP31 will be required to make provision for at least 2% of self-build housing and does not itself the serviced plots to be made available for self-build or custom house lead to development. building. 3. The self-build or custom house building projects will be required to be of a high quality design meeting the requirements of Policy LP14 in the Local Plan. 4. The serviced plots will need to be made available and marketed for self-build and custom house building projects for a period of at least 12 months, after which time the serviced plots can be developed for market housing.

178

E215 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

E. Figures

179

E216 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

E.1 Tonbridge Ecological Designations in Relation to Local Development Plans

180

E217 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

181

E218 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

E.2 Ecological Designations in Relation to the Development Site Information

182

E219 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

E.3 Location of Country Parks in Relation to Development Sites and Ecological Designations

183

E220 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

184

E221 Mott MacDonald | Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Habitats Regulations Assessment

mottmac.com 1

E222