SCOTT WILSON Habitat Regulations Assessment of the St. Helens Submission Stage Core Strategy Final report April 2009 Scott Wilson Ltd. We work with clients to develop, implement and evaluate projects, programmes and change initiatives to improve performance and reduce risk. Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the St. Helens Submission Stage Core Strategy Final Report Prepared by: Dr. James Riley Scott D. Johnson Senior Ecological Consultant Environmental Specialist Updated by: Dr. Graeme Down Ecological Consultant Checked and Dr. James Riley Reviewed by: Senior Ecological Consultant Approved by: Dr. Jo Hughes Associate Director (Ecology) Scott Wilson Scott House Alencon Link Basingstoke RG21 7PP Tel: +44 (0)1256 310200 Fax: +44 (0)1256 310201 Email: [email protected] HRA of the St. Helens Submission Stage Core Strategy Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1TU UT INTRODUCTIONTU UT .................................................................................................3 1.1TU UT BACKGROUNDTU UT.............................................................................................................. 3 1.2TU UT AATU AND THE ST. HELENS COUNCIL LDFUT .................................................................. 4 1.3TU UT THISTU REPORTUT ................................................................................................................ 5 METHODOLOGYTU UT ......................................................................................................6 1.4TU UT KEYTU PRINCIPLESUT .......................................................................................................... 6 1.5TU UT LIKELYTU SIGNIFICANT EFFECTSUT .................................................................................. 8 1.6TU UT APPROPRIATETU ASSESSMENT (TASKS 2 AND 3)UT ................................................... 14 1.7TU UT CONSULTATIONTU ON THE PREFERRED OPTIONS AA REPORTUT ............................ 14 2TU UT SCREENINGTU OF SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY POLICIESUT ......................15 3TU UT EUROPEANTU SITES AND PATHWAYS COVERED BY THIS HRAUT ..................38 3.2TU UT LIVERPOOLTU BAY PSPA / PRAMSAR SITEUT ............................................................... 39 3.3TU UT MANCHESTERTU MOSSES SACUT ................................................................................... 42 3.4TU UT MARTINTU MERE SPA / RAMSAR SITEUT ........................................................................ 43 3.5TU UT MERSEYTU ESTUARY SPA / RAMSAR SITEUT ................................................................ 45 3.6TU UT MERSEYTU NARROWS & NORTH WIRRAL FORESHORE PSPA / PRAMSAR SITEUT 48 3.7TU UT RIBBLETU AND ALT ESTUARIES SPA / RAMSAR SITEUT .............................................. 51 3.8TU UT RIXTONTU CLAY PITS SACUT ............................................................................................ 53 3.9TU UT SEFTONTU COAST SACUT ................................................................................................. 55 3.10TU UT RIVERTU DEE AND BALA LAKE SACUT ........................................................................... 57 3.11TU UT THETU DEE ESTUARY SAC, SPA & RAMSAR SITEUT .................................................... 58 3.12TU UT RECREATIONALTU DISTURBANCE AS A PATHWAYUT ................................................. 61 3.13TU UT WATERTU FLOWS AND QUALITY AS A PATHWAYUT .................................................... 64 3.14TU UT WATERTU ABSTRACTION AS A PATHWAYUT ................................................................ 66 3.15TU UT AIRTU QUALITY AS A PATHWAYUT .................................................................................. 67 3.16TU UT PATHWAYSTU LINKING MINERALS DEVELOPMENT WITH EUROPEAN SITESUT ...... 71 4TU UT APPROPRIATETU ASSESSMENT OF SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGYUT .........73 4.2TU UT LIVERPOOLTU BAY PSPA / PRAMSAR SITEUT ............................................................... 73 4.3TU UT MANCHESTERTU MOSSES SACUT ................................................................................... 77 4.4TU UT MERSEYTU ESTUARY SPA / RAMSAR SITEUT ................................................................ 82 4.5TU UT MERSEYTU NARROWS & NORTH WIRRAL FORESHORE PSPA / PRAMSAR SITEUT 87 4.6TU UT RIBBLETU AND ALT ESTUARIES SPA / RAMSAR SITEUT .............................................. 88 4.7TU UT RIVERTU DEE & LAKE BALA SAC / DEE ESTUARY SAC SPA & RAMSAR SITEUT ..... 90 4.8TU UT CONCLUSIONTU UT .............................................................................................................. 93 APPENDIXTU 1 – REFERENCESUT ...............................................................................95 APPENDIXTU 2 – ‘TIERING’ IN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENTUT ..............................99 APPENDIXTU 3 – MAP OF ST. HELENS AND THE EUROPEAN SITES CONSIDEREDUT ..............................................................................100 APPENDIXTU 4 – QUALIFYING SPECIES WITHIN ST. HELENS AS A POTENTIAL PATHWAYUT ...................................................................................102 APPENDIXTU 5 – THE CATCHMENTS OF THE SANKEY BROOK AND MERSEY ESTUARIESUT .................................................................................107 APPENDIXTU 6 – SCREENING SUMMARY TABLEUT ................................................110 Scott Wilson Ltd. 1 April 2009 HRA of the St. Helens Submission Stage Core Strategy Final Report APPENDIXTU 7 – EC ADVICE ON AA MITIGATION MEASURESUT ..........................120 APPENDIXTU 8 - NATURAL ENGLAND CONSULTATION RESPONSE REGARDING THE HRA OF THE PREFERRED OPTIONS CORE STRATEGYUT 121 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLETU 1. KEY PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGYUT ........ 6 TABLETU 2. HOUSING TO BE DELIVERED WITHIN MERSEYSIDE UNDER THE NORTH WEST RSSUT ...................................................................................................... 10 TABLETU 3:UT OTHERTU KEY PLANS AND PROJECTSUT ......................................................... 11 TABLETU 4:UT POLICIESTU WITHIN THE SUBMISSION STAGE CORE STRATEGYUT ............. 16 TABLETU 5:UT ATMOSPHERICTU NITROGEN DEPOSITION FOR 1999/2000 COMPARED WITH CRITICAL LOAD AT HOLCROFT MOSS*UT ........................................... 69 TABLETU 6:UT ATMOSPHERICTU SULPHUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR 1999/2000 COMPARED WITH CRITICAL LOAD AT HOLCROFT MOSS*UT ..................... 69 FIGURETU 1:UT FOUR-STAGETU APPROACH TO APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENTUT................... 8 FIGURETU 2:UT WATERTU QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS THE MERSEY CATCHMENT FROM 1985 TO 2001UT ...................................................................................... 46 Scott Wilson Ltd. 2 April 2009 HRA of the St. Helens Submission Stage Core Strategy Final Report 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.1.1 Scott Wilson was appointed by St. Helens Council in 2007 to assist the Council in undertaking a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the potential effects of the Core Strategy on European sites (i.e. Natura 2000 sites) as required by the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended 2007). Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9), entitled Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (ODPM, 2005) advises that potential SPAs (pSPAs), candidate SACs (cSACs) and Ramsar sites should be treated in the same way as approved SPAs and SACs. It should therefore be noted that for the purposes of this assessment, the term “European sites” has been employed, which includes cSACs, pSPAs and Ramsar sites (including potential Ramsar – pRamsar – sites). 1.1.2 The Habitats Directive applies the precautionary principle to protected areas; plans and projects can only be permitted having ascertained that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site(s) in question. This is in stark contrast to the SEA Directive which does not prescribe how plan or programme proponents should respond to the findings of an environmental assessment; it simply says that the assessment findings (as documented in the ‘environmental report’) should be ‘taken into account’ during preparation of the plan or programme. In the case of the Habitats Directive, plans and projects may still be permitted if there are no alternatives to them and there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) as to why they should go ahead. In such cases, compensation will be necessary to ensure the overall integrity of the site network. 1.1.3 The need for Habitat Regulations Assessment is set out within Article 6 of the EC Habitats Directive 1992, and interpreted into British law by Regulation 48 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 (as amended in 2007) (Box 1). The ultimate aim of HRA 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(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. Scott Wilson Ltd. 3 April 2009 HRA of the St. Helens Submission Stage Core Strategy Final Report Box 1. The legislative basis for Habitat Regulations Assessment Habitats Directive 1992 Article 6 (3) states that: “Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment