Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document Appendices (Consultation Draft) Bracknell Forest Borough Local Development Framework www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk September 2011 Appendix 1: Thames Basin Heaths SPA 1 Appendix 2: Consideration of Development Proposals Affecting Internationally Designated Sites 2 Appendix 3: Residential Development likely to have a Significant Effect on the SPA 3 Appendix 4: The Identification of Strategic SANGs 5 Appendix 5: Full Assessment of SANGs 14 Appendix 6: SANGs Enhancement Works 55 Appendix 7: SPA Avoidance and Mitigation Costs 61 www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/spa Appendix 1: Thames Basin Heaths SPA Map of the Thames Basin Heaths As endorsed by Thames Basin Heaths Joint Strategic Partnership Board Page 12 of 12 12 February 2009 www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/spa 1 Appendix 2: Consideration of Development Proposals Affecting Internationally Designated Sites Figure 1: Consideration of development proposals affecting Internationally Designated Nature Conservation Sites Is the proposal directly connected with or necessary to Ye s site management for nature conservation? No Is the proposal likely to have a significant effect on the No internationally important interest features of the site, alone or in combination with other plans and projects? Ye s Assess the implications of the effects of the proposal for the site's conservation objectives, consult English Nature and, if appropriate, the public Can it be ascertained that the proposal will not Ye s adversely affect the integrity of the site? Permission may be granted No, because there would be an adverse effect or it is uncertain Would compliance with conditions or other restrictions, such as a planning obligation, enable it to be Ye s Permission may be granted subject to ascertained that the proposal would not adversely affect the conditions or obligation the integrity of the site? No, because there would be an adverse effect or it is uncertain Are there alternative solutions that would have a lesser effect, or avoid an adverse effect, on the integrity of the site? Ye s No Might a priority habitat or species on the site be adversely affected by the proposal? No Ye s Are there imperative reasons of overriding public Are there imperative reasons of overriding public interest, which could be of a social or economic interest relating to human health, public safety or nature, sufficient to override the harm to the site? benefits of primary importance to the environment? No Ye s Ye s No If minded to grant permission, planning authority must notify the First Secretary of State and must wait 21 days Permission must not Permission may be granted subject to the Permission may only be granted for other be granted First Secretary of State securing that any imperative reasons of overriding public necessary compensatory measures are interest, following consultation between taken to ensure the overall coherence of the Government and theEuropean Natura 2000 is protected Commission and subject to the First Secretary of State securing that any necessary compensatory measures are taken to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected 7 Source: Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 2 www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/spa Appendix 3: Residential Development likely to have a Significant Effect on the SPA 1. A total of 343 dwellings were approved prior to SPA designation. 2. There are also a number of sites with permission which have already, or have capacity to, provide a bespoke avoidance and mitigation solution. This includes the following large sites (2,373 in total) with full permission, plus others: The Parks at RAF Staff College (605 net dwellings) - outline and reserved matters applications approved, permission falls to be reviewed under Regulation 63 and, should mitigation be required, the Council will work with the developers to provide a bespoke solution; Jennetts Park, also known as Peacock Farm (1,500 net dwellings) - outline approved and a bespoke solution is now approved; Celsius, London Road, Bracknell (268 net dwellings). 3. A total of 2,696 dwellings in the housing trajectory are sites with permission which have provided a bespoke solution, or sites which will be reassessed on their own merits at a later date as part of a Regulation 63 review, therefore should not be considered further in this strategy. 4. Since the beginning of the plan period, some development, not likely to have a significant effect on the SPA (mainly by virtue of its location more than 5km away from the SPA), has been permitted. These permissions total 69 dwellings. 5. The Core Strategy housing provision can therefore be broken down into two parts: one which is not likely to have a significant effect on the SPA (large sites with bespoke solutions and permissions granted which are not likely to have a significant effect [2,696 + 69= 2,765]) and one part which is likely to have a significant effect. Table 1 Breakdown of Proposed Housing Number A Total housing provision in Core Strategy DPD Policy 10,787 dwellings CS15 plus a surplus of 7 dwellings(1) B Housing provision not likely to have a significant 2,765 dwellings effect C Housing provision likely to have a significant effect 8,022 dwellings (all expected to provide SPA avoidance and mitigation measures) in line with the SPD (2006-2026) (A-B) D Developments Providing Bespoke SANGs(2) = 3,925 dwellings dwellings on three large sites(3) allocated for comprehensive development in Core Strategy DPD www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/spa 3 Number E Total no. of dwellings contributing to strategic 4,097 dwellings SANGs (2006-2026) (C-D)(4) 1. As shown in the Site Allocations DPD Preferred Option (November 2010). 2. Due to their size, the urban extensions identified in the Site Allocations DPD will also be expected to deliver bespoke SANGs. On adoption of the DPD, the number of dwellings on these sites will be removed from the calculation of total dwellings contributing to strategic SANGs. 3. Land north of Whitegrove and Quelm Park (2,200 dwellings), land at Amen Corner (725 dwellings) and Bracknell Town Centre (estimated 1000 net dwellings). 4. This includes 601 dwellings providing mitigation in accordance with the original Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy. 6. This shows the total number of dwellings (2006-2026) in the Core Strategy DPD provision likely to have a significant effect is 8,022. All these dwellings will be expected to contribute to the SAMM Project and provide SANGs unless a Habitats Regulations Assessment concludes no significant effect on the integrity of the SPA as agreed by BFC, in consultation with Natural England . 7. Some developments, because of their size, will be expected to provide bespoke SANGs. These are dwellings on two large sites allocated for comprehensive development in Core Strategy DPD (totalling 3,295). These are therefore removed from the calculation of the contributions to strategic SANGs.(1) As stated previously, these developments will be expected to contribute to the SAMM Project. 8. A total number of 4,097 dwellings will be expected to contribute to strategic SANGs between 2006 – 2026. 1 Due to their size, the urban extensions identified in the Site Allocations DPD will also be expected to deliver bespoke SANGs. On adoption of the DPD, the number of dwellings on these sites will be removed from the calculation of total dwellings contributing to strategic SANGs. 4 www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/spa Appendix 4: The Identification of Strategic SANGs This is taken from Section 20 of the Technical Background Document to the Core Strategy DPD (2007) and updated, where relevant. 1. Focus groups of local residents, carried out for the BFC Parks and Open Spaces Strategy (2002), supported the concept of strengthening facilities at particular parks to serve the purpose of district parks, and reduce the number of visitors to the Look Out (adjacent to the Special Protection Area). 2. In addition to the above work, an independent study evaluated several areas of open space within the borough using a criteria-based approach. There were some generic issues identified by the study as potential reasons that visitor expectations were not being met: Weaknesses in respect of welcoming, in particular in respect of the entrances. Poor on-site information. Poor nature of ponds and riverside areas. Poor levels of furniture provision. Failure to provide surfaced paths to accommodate circulation and through-route needs. 3. This implies that enhancing these specific areas, amongst others, would increase the attractiveness of the site to existing and new visitors and could encourage use of these sites over the SPA. 4. The first stage in the assessment of potential alternative open space provision was the identification of sites. This was carried out in the following way. 5. A review of existing open space of a strategic size was carried out in order to identify areas where enhancement may be possible to increase visitor capacity. The starting point for this was the PPG17 audit, which identified all areas of publicly accessible open space by typology (for example, woodland, amenity park etc.). Sites over 5 hectares with typologies Parks & Gardens (A), Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace (D), Urban Woodlands (E) and Green Corridors (F) were considered suitable for potential enhancement, obviously excluding the SPA itself. In addition, smaller sites of these typologies were also considered if they were close to and had good links to other smaller sites, to form a larger total area. Sites of Amenity Greenspace (B) over 10 hectares were also considered. 6. Natural England proposes access agreements or compulsory purchase could be explored if an area of privately owned greenspace was considered of strategic importance to the network of open space. However, as part of this review no privately-owned land was put forward to the Council as having potential as mitigating open space.