Written Representation on Behalf of the Royal Horticultural Society Ecology and Habitats Regulations Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RHS/AB/1 M25 Junction 10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Development Consent Order (DCO) Application Written Representation on behalf of the Royal Horticultural Society Ecology And Habitats Regulations Assessment By Andrew Baker BSc (Hons) FCIEEM November 2019 M25 Junction 10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Development Consent Order (DCO) Application Written Representation of Andrew Baker FCIEEM RHS/AB/1 Contents 1. Qualifications and Experience ................................................................................... 1 2. Background and Scope ............................................................................................. 2 3. Assessment of Air Quality Impact .............................................................................. 3 4. Consideration of Integrity within the SIAA .................................................................. 9 5. Consideration of Alternative Solutions ..................................................................... 12 6. Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................... 13 M25 Junction 10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Development Consent Order (DCO) Application Written Representation of Andrew Baker FCIEEM RHS/AB/1 1. Qualifications and Experience 1 I am Andrew Baker and I am Director of the ecological consultancy Baker Consultants Limited, which I established in March 2009. I hold the degree of Bachelor of Science with Honours in Botany from the University of Nottingham (1986). I have been a member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) since 1994. 2 I have been a practising ecologist for over 30 years, having worked throughout the UK for organisations such as English Nature (now Natural England), local Wildlife Trusts, National Parks, large civil engineering consultancies and private ecological firms. Much of my work involves providing expert advice to clients on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRA) of the impacts of proposals on international sites (Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar sites) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 3 Further details of my experienced can be found in Appendix 1. Page 1 of 18 M25 Junction 10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Development Consent Order (DCO) Application Written Representation of Andrew Baker FCIEEM RHS/AB/1 2. Background and Scope 4 The Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) has asked me to review the Highways England’s DCO Scheme for the M25 Junction 10. Specifically, I have been asked to review the Habitats Regulations Assessment, which includes two documents, • (Stage 2 : Statement to inform appropriate assessment (“SIAA”) (June 2019) (APP-043)) and • Stage 3-5: Assessment of alternatives, consideration of imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI) and compensatory measures (Assessment of Alternatives) (APP-044)). T 5 These documents have been produced by HE to inform the examining authority’s HRA of the DCO scheme. My review has centered on the impacts of the DCO Scheme upon the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) and the efficacy of the appropriate assessment that has been presented by HE. I have addressed the following questions, 1. Have the ecological impacts of the changes in air quality associated with the DCO Scheme been accurately assessed? 2. Does the HRA comply with current caselaw and guidance? 3. Does the RHS Alternative Scheme constitute an ‘alternative solution’ which must be considered under the Habitat Regulations. 6 My evidence also draws upon the written representations presented to the hearing by Mike Hibbert (RHS/MH/1traffic) and Professor Duncan Laxen (RHS/DL/1 air quality). Page 2 of 18 M25 Junction 10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Development Consent Order (DCO) Application Written Representation of Andrew Baker FCIEEM RHS/AB/1 3. Assessment of Air Quality Impact 7 I have reviewed the SIAA (APP-043) and I am firmly of the view that the assessment presented within that document is fundamentally flawed in respect to the effects of the DCO Scheme from the resultant decline in air quality. The SIAA concludes that the resultant decline in air quality will not have an adverse effect upon the integrity of the TBHSPA (for example paragraph 7.2.52). For the reasons set out below, this conclusion is incorrect. HRA Process 8 The Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations 2017 provide strict protection for European sites and there is a series of legal tests that must be met before a plan or project can be granted permission. These tests are summarised in Figure 1 which is based upon ODPM circular 06/2005. The protection afforded to these sites is also reflected in the NPPF 2019. 9 The Habitats Directive sets out a series of steps and legal tests that must be met for any plan that may affect European sites. Where damage will arise these legal tests are applied to ensure that a) the project is entirely necessary and b) compensation is secured to balance the damage caused by the project. 10 As set out in Figure 1 where a plan or project has an adverse effect upon the integrity of a European site the Competent Authority may only grant permission if two further legal tests are met as set out in Steps 7 and 8. These are ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ and there being ‘no alternative solutions’. Should it be decided that these tests are met then Compensatory Measures must be secured (Step 9). Page 3 of 18 M25 Junction 10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Development Consent Order (DCO) Application Written Representation of Andrew Baker FCIEEM RHS/AB/1 Page 4 of 18 M25 Junction 10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Development Consent Order (DCO) Application Written Representation of Andrew Baker FCIEEM RHS/AB/1 11 As I will explore in more detail below, the SIAA has incorrectly concluded that the project will not result in damage to the integrity of the THBSPA due to additional emission of nitrogen. This is critical because having failed to properly assess the air quality impacts, the further tests that should have been applied for this pathway have not been examined, specifically HE has not considered alternatives which would be less damaging in terms of air quality effects nor has the HE considered compensation which must be provided to address this impact. Effects of poor air quality on natural habitats 12 The harmful effects of air pollution on natural habitats has been well documented in the scientific peer review literature which has been built up over the past 40 years. The literature is comprehensive and describes the highly complex interconnected web of harmful effects of air pollution upon the natural environment. The Air Pollution Information System1 APIS website provides an overview of the effects of air pollution on a range of habitat types at http://www.apis.ac.uk/ecosystem-services-and-air- pollution-impacts. Of particular concern for heathland is the negative effects of emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels which in turn increases the deposition of nitrogen on natural habitats. A detailed overview of the effect of nitrogen deposition can be found in at Chapter 20 of the European Nitrogen Assessment Chapter 20 Nitrogen as a threat to European terrestrial biodiversity6 Appendix 2. 13 While nitrogen is essential to plant growth, in most unpolluted natural habitats such as lowland heaths, the supply of nitrogen is limited. The nitrogen deposition from pollution acts as a fertilizer and consequently increases productivity of soils. This increase in the availability of reactive nitrogen has a significant and measurable negative effect upon the composition of plant communities. With increased nitrogen 1 APIS is join funded by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the UK pollution and statutory conservation agencies including Natural Resources Wales (NRW), the Environment Agency, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Page 5 of 18 M25 Junction 10 / A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Development Consent Order (DCO) Application Written Representation of Andrew Baker FCIEEM RHS/AB/1 the low growing mosaic of heathers that is normally characteristic of such habitats becomes dominated by coarse, tall grasses, and if the nitrogen levels accumulate, tall herbs such as nettles. Nightjar2 and Woodlark3, which are interest features of the TBHSPA rely on an open, low growing heather mosaic to provide optimal nesting feeding habitat. Increased nitrogen deposition causes that structure of the habitat to change, reducing bare ground and increasing vegetation height thereby reducing availability of breeding and feeding sites for these birds. Furthermore, there is evidence that loss of habitat heterogeneity caused by high nitrogen deposition levels can reduce the diversity of insects in nutrient poor habitats4 Appendix 2 p477-478. Invertebrates are a major food source for both nightjar and woodlark. 14 High pollution levels can also have direct negative impacts on plant health, high levels of NOx, for example, are toxic to plants. 15 It is for this reason that the conservation objectives for the TBHSPA include the following objective, ‘Restore as necessary the concentrations and deposition of air pollutants