Download Derrick Coffee - East Sussex County Council

Derrick Coffee
County Officer
Campaign for Better Transport – East Sussex
9 Mayfield Place, Eastbourne
BN22 8XJ
19th November 2008
Dear Mr Earl
Planning Application No RR/2474/CC(EIA)
Comments on the Environmental Statement (ES) , and the Addendum to the Environmental
Statement (AES).
We would like to comment on the above.
We strongly feel that any appraisal of the 180 documents by the public – many of them technical would be very difficult. For us there is a compelling case for a non-technical summary update.
For us, the Combe Haven Valley is a very special place in landscape terms, terms of biodiversity and
in terms of heritage and archaeology. Its transition from high weald character to that of alluvial plan,
its linked tributary valleys, its very unusual lack of contiguous roads and its wealth of biodiversity
make it a hugely important asset in any case. That it sits so close to populations of 140,000 people
makes it massively important as a place for leisure activities, education and the local economy. It
holds records too of earlier people and their activities going back 8,000 years and almost certainly
possesses traces of settlements which are of national importance.
Demonstrably, the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road will inflict damage on the valley and its assets.
Whatever mitigation proposed in the huge pile of documents, these will at best lead to a ‘less worse’
environment than if they were not carried out. And there is no guarantee at all that mitigation will
achieve the desired and hoped for results. If it fails, it is highly unlikely that the BHLR will be
dismantled. For a society to set out to make things ‘less worse’ xxxxignore its obligation to leave a
better environment for its children to inherit.
The body of knowledge that has been marshalled over the years in respect of the special
environment of Combe Haven, and the additional data collected during the last four years is
impressive. It shows that the valley is even more of an asset than previously imagined and
consequently strengthens the case against the BHLR
The biggest tragedy of all is that alternative ways of achieving regeneration and solving transport
and accessibility needs have never been fully and properly examined. We have already presented the
promoters of BHLR, East Sussex County Council, with cogent arguments to support this claim
together with independent reports and analysis to confirm that the BHLR is at worst highly damaging
and at best irrelevant to the needs of the Hastings and Bexhill area. It is a scheme founded in a
distortion of the original ‘5 point plan’, most of which was supported by us and other nongovernment organisations.
Put simply, we find it unacceptable that through aggressive promotion of a wrong and unnecessary
scheme, a once tranquil valley should be permanently disfigured and damaged. We continue to
strongly object to the scheme.
Our approach:
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
Looking through the documents comprising the AES, we attempted to elicit the main points through
summarising notes of meetings, and then asking questions that seemed to flow from the summary.
Finally, the Supplementary Nature Conservation Report was looked at to see to what degree it had
answered the questions raised, and also to see what further questions were then prompted.
A. Notes of meetings, etc.
Notes of meetings between ESCC, NE and EA; summaries of these and questions arising.
Where appropriate, each question is followed by the relevant paragraph number from the
Supplementary Nature Conservation Report. (SNCR)
The SNCR does not always appear to address concerns raised in the meetings notes, or wider
concerns.
ESCC/EA meeting notes (by ESCC).
Position of EA on ESCC plans July 22nd 08 Minutes
5.6 Clear Span structures
The incorporation of clear span structures for the Scheme has
been developed through consultation with Grant Moffatt of the EA.
A 2m buffer zone on either side of the watercourse has been
agreed. EA currently suggest that this 2m corridor is not wide
enough to ensure the ecological functionality of the valley. GH
confirmed that a wider corridor would result in a larger structure,
and this has implications for visual impact and landtake. A balance
is therefore required.
GH confirmed that ESCC as Scheme Promoters will not be
amending the current design for clear span structures. Given this,
the EA agree that the 2m corridor should be developed to the best
advantage, such as through suitable planting and potential green
engineering. Therefore, the AES will develop a set of principles on
how to plant and manage a softbank option, with an aim of
maintaining the biodiversity value along the riparian edge. These
principles will consider erosion and siltation.
The Design and Access Statement currently shows an
engineering solution in regards to bank and bed options.
GH asked if the EA would maintain their objections to the Scheme
Key points:

EA agree with ESCC that there will be a 2m zone either side of the watercourse to ensure
ecological functionality.

EA suggest that this corridor is not wide enough.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2

Giles Hewson of Mott McDonald (for ESCC) confirmed that a wider (than 2m) corridor would
result in a wider structure with visual and land-take implications. ‘A balance is therefore
required’.

ESCC will not be amending bridge design.

The ‘Addendum to the Environmental Statement’ (AES) will develop set of principles on
planting/managing a ‘soft-bank’ option to maintain biodiversity along bank.

Design/Access statement currently shows an engineering solution. (ie not soft bank
technique)
Questions arising:
1. How can ESCC ignore the recommendation of the Environment Agency that to attempt to mitigate
the habitat severance effects of the road, a strip of more than 2m each side of the watercourse
beneath bridges would be necessary?
2. Can ESCC ‘trade off’ negative impacts on landscape and implied increased costs against
ecological impacts? It seems more concerned over landscape effects than ecological ones. (3.2.7)
3. Do ‘Landscape’ and ‘Biodiversity’ descriptors (Appraisal Summary Table) now need re-drafting
following re-appraisal?
4. In addition, do we now need a revised appraisal in a non-technical form? (There are 180
documents to understand and appraise, most technical. A lay person hasn’t much hope of gaining a
coherent picture of the scheme proposals and their impacts. The documents are there because a
democratic and open process demands that they should be, but if they are ‘impenetrable’ then that
becomes irrelevant.)
5. Currently ‘engineering solutions’ alone are there for evaluation, but not the recommended ‘soft
bank’ techniques which are still not fully developed and subject to local circumstances. Does this
limit, or make impossible any proper and full appraisal of solutions against objectives? (3.2.6/7/8)
5.5 Habitat Severance
SC summarises the concerns that the very nature of a road
scheme will mean that habitat severance will occur. However, the
AES states that mobile species are unlikely to be affected. Less
mobile species may be affected, but the addition of mitigation such
as Dormouse underpasses will ensure this impact is mitigated to a
certain extent. The revised Environmental Design contained within
the ADAS includes mitigation for habitat severance.
Key points:

Sally Chadwick (EA) reminds that ‘roads sever habitats’. (See conclusions of English Nature
Report 626 ‘Going, going, gone…below under 5.2)
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2

AES confident that mobile species unlikely to be affected. Less mobile ones may be.

Mitigation e.g. dormouse underpasses will ensure impact ‘mitigated to a certain extent’.

Environmental Design in ADAS (consultancy) includes mitigation for habitat severance.
Questions arising:
1. If the effects on species vary according to their typical mobility, are we not being selective and
therefore ignoring the ecosystem and wider valley systems as a whole? (3.2.6)
2. What degree of certainty can we have over the success of mitigation measures? Is it anticipated
that the success will be variable? (General)
3. Does the impact on dormice being ‘mitigated to a certain extent’ suggest that there will be a ‘trade
off’? To us the meaning of this includes the conclusion that ‘to a certain extent, impacts will not be
successfully mitigated’ And does this mean perhaps that the populations identified to the south of
the line of route could be ‘written off’ or subjected to a slow decline?
5.1 Mitigation and compensation for ecological impacts
GH confirmed that the mitigation design had been developed in
consultation with the English Nature, the Countryside Agency, NE
and EA. Grant Moffatt was the key contact for this purpose, and
the 2:1 habitat replacement was developed with his knowledge
and input.
Natural England (NE) have been consulted regarding biodiversity
mitigation. MM and ESCC had a successful meeting with NE on
22.07.08, the minutes of which will be added as an appendix to
the AES.
GH requested an overview from EA as to why it is thought that the
mitigation proposed is not adequate.
SC commented that there is doubt to the feasibility of the wetland
habitats such as the borrow pit in Powdermill Valley. Is this
wetland habitat at this location sustainable?
SC also raised the point that the 2:1 habitat replacement must be
appropriate in relation to habitat loss.
NM made
Key Points:
Giles Hewson reminds that mitigation design was developed in consultation with EN, CA, NE and EA.
Grant Moffat (EA) key contact and gave his knowledge for development of the 2:1 habitat
replacement principle.
MM and ESCC had a successful meeting with NE re: biodiversity mitigation.
GH asked EA for an overview of their positon that mitigation proposed ‘not adequate’.
SC expressed doubt on the feasibility of wetland habitats in Powdermill Valley. ?Sustainable. Added
reminder that 2:1 habitat replacement must be appropriate in relation to what’s lost.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
Questions arising:
1. Can we assess the degree of risk present against eventual success of 2:1 (or any ratio) of habitat
replacement?
2. Powdermill stream has ‘Sussex ripple stream’ characteristics before it reaches the Combe Haven
valley proper. The diversion of the stream will make 2:1 habitat replacement very difficult as the
section to be diverted runs parallel to the proposed ‘lake’. Will the charactersistcs of the ‘lake’
constitute a completely new habitat? If so, how will that habitat fit with existing ecosystems?
3. The bittern, a very shy bird – and a UK Biodiversity Action Plan species - has been identified as a
visitor to the Filsham reedbeds – a reserve managed by the Sussex Wildlife Trust. It is an aspiration
of the SWT that this species breeds here at the southern end of the Combe Haven valley. Will the
presence of 33,000 vehicles a day in a currently tranquil valley directly or indirectly reduce the
chances of this rare bird breeding here?
4. Has the Sussex Wildlife Trust been adequately engaged in the evaluation of impacts and the form
of their mitigation
5. There are 11 locations at which further bat surveys are required during 2009 (Table 1.) How can
any mitigation/compensation be planned ahead of the data gathering and analysis? (Table 1)
5.2 Unknown Impacts:
5.2.1 Noise –
GH queried whether the noise chapter of the ES (Chapter 11) has
been reviewed. This chapter assesses noise impacts for human
health. It is accepted that there will be a moderate adverse impact
as a result of the Scheme in relation to noise, as stated in the ES.
However, the impacts will be significantly ameliorated as a result
of noise mitigation such as bunding and noise fencing. However, it
is noted that there will be some residual impacts after mitigation in
relation to potential impacts upon over wintering birds.
Key Points

GH queried whether Ch 11 (‘Noise’) of the ES had been reviewed.

Ch 11 covers ‘human health’.

There will be a ‘moderate adverse’ noise impact .

View expressed that that bunding/fencing will significantly ameliorate noise, but some
residual impact ‘in relation to potential impacts upon over wintering birds.’
Questions arising:
1. The third bullet suggests that the tranquility of the valley would be impaired by traffic using
BHLR. We would distinguish between continuous background noise, and intermittent and higher
level noise events caused by those driving/riding high performance cars or motorcycles. Is this
distinction made in the appraisal of the characteristics, levels and effects/impacts of noise
anticipated?
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
2. Tranquillity and beauty are pre-conditions commonly held to be helpful in reducing stress and
anxiety therefore supporting individuals’ mental health. For those tens of thousands of residents
within walking distance of Combe Haven, as well as visitors, this facility will be damaged or lost.
Have these considerations been properly factored in to appraisals of potential noise?
3. Effects on birds appear to have been underestimated. The report referred to below* finds that bird
densities are susceptible to disturbance by noise and visual impact over 1km away from any road in
open land, and by over 0.5km in woodland. (fig 3.6) Has this been properly factored in to appraisal?
*English Nature report 626 (Going, going, gone? The cumulative impact of land development on
biodiversity in England – English Nature Reports, 2005) reminds us that:
6. The main development-related issues in England arise from the following:
• urban development and construction;
• roads and transport;
• water supply;
• waste management;
• energy consumption;
• mining and quarrying.
-and that:
7.
The main types of cumulative impact, both direct and indirect, caused by these drivers are:
 habitat loss- The direct loss of habitats under development.
 habitat fragmentation- The breaking down of habitat units into a smaller number of units. pollution- either
chemical or biotic.
 disturbance - through noise, light, recreation, pet predation, vibration etc.
The first three impacts described at ‘7’ can be predicted; the fourth is a distinct possibility.
All the mitigation proposed has an uncertain future in respect of effectiveness. All the mitigation will
at best make things ‘less worse’.
Questions arising:
1. The impacts of the BHLR sit uncomfortably with the conclusions of the Parliamentary
Environmental Audit Committee report (10th November 2008).
‘Many species and habitats continue to face severe declines and total extinctions across England.
The report warns ‘Government will miss a key international target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010’.
The committee also finds that ‘There is a compelling economic case for the protection and
enhancement of biodiversity. But to achieve this government will have to go beyond traditional
nature conservation policies to reverse the decline and enable growth in biodiversity into the future’.
In the light of this – call to protect and enhance biodiversity, is the scheme simply too costly in
every sense? And in the light of the report referred to above, should it now be abandoned?
*NB: Greg Barker, MP for Bexhill and Rother, is member of the committee and a co-author of the
report.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
ESCC/NE meeting notes
Position of NE on ESCC Plans 22 7 08
5.1.3 Air Quality –
The standard NE response to Air Quality affects on all designated sites would be for the
Precautionary Principle to be applied. Therefore, the AES will look at the lower
thresholds for critical loads of NO2. The AQ report contained as Appendix G of the Draft
AES backs up the original findings of the ES to state that there is a potentially
significant impact. The updated assessment does not alter this conclusion. The query is
how the additional exceedence over and above that which is occurring without the
Scheme will impact the designated sites. This will be done by applying the lower
threshold, and assessing the impact of this change on the communities present at the
locations where the AQ assessment identifies an exceedence.
GH states that MM will include a section within the Draft AES to outline the mitigation
strategy for managing and reducing the impact of NO2 deposition (principally thorough
land management).
Note: the word “marginal” within the Draft AES and with respect to areas where NOx
concentrations show potentially significant changes is misleading. This word should
read “peripheral” or “on the margins of”. It is not intended to indicate significance. This
will be confirmed within the AES.
Key Points:

Significant impact of NO2 deposition, needs mitigation strategy
Question arising:
1. Have the cumulative effects of N02 in combination with sulphur compounds and ozone and other
compounds/metals been fully examined? (4.3)
2. Have the effects upon air quality of the predicted rise in traffic levels over the wider area been
taken into account?
5.2 Combe Haven SSSI:
5.2.1 Noise –
LH confirmed over wintering bird surveys have been completed, but further information is to be added to the
AES from additional baseline data. No further surveys are programmed with respect to wintering birds.
Noise impacts should address both the construction and operation stages of the Scheme, as has been done
in the AES as amended. This information needs to be supplemented with additional data from Local Records
and the existing baseline. The additional and existing data will be re-summarised in terms of what bird
species are present, what the impacts are likely to be and what mitigation is proposed. Whilst NE reserve
their position until they review the final submission, NE expressed agreement to this approach.
MA to confirm which Biodiversity officer should be contacted with respect to Combe Haven SSSI.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
Key Points:

Existing and additional data collated and re-summarised to cover species present, impacts
and mitigation proposed. NE agree.
5.2.2 Visual impact NM raised the point that further information on visual and noise impacts and the proposed mitigation is
contained in the original ES, the Design and Access Statement (DAS) and Addendum Design and Access
Statement (ADAS).
GH also confirms that many of the issues being discussed today are detailed elsewhere in the ES.
Satisfactory cross reference to these locations will be made in the AES, such as to Noise contour mapping
contained in the ES.
MA requested site of the CEMP prior to submission of the AES with respect to mitigation and working
practices for noise impacts on birds within Combe Haven SSSI. GH confirmed that the CEMP will be
developed by contractor as and when the successful contractor is appointed. An outline CEMP is also
included in the ES for review. LH confirmed that best practice in relation to construction noise control will be
included within the AES. Whilst NE reserve their position until they review the final submission, NE
expressed agreement to this approach.
Key Points:

Noise mitigation at construction phase flagged up in respect of birds.

Noise ‘contour map’ a key reference doc
Questions arising:
1. Does the noise contour map accommodate intermittent noise events such as noise from high
performance motorcycles and cars/’bad’ driver behaviour? (see 5.2.1)
5.2.3 Run-off –
Chapter 9 of the ES addresses salt run-off from de-icing salts. It
states that due to high dilution capacities and low concentrations,
the impact from salt run-off is not thought to be significant.
However, there is likely to be a residual impact which cannot be
avoided due to safety requirements for applications of salt on
roads. Standard winter applications are adopted by the Local
Highways Authority, and additional detail on the local application
will be added to the AES. HC to contact relevant ESCC Area
Manager for this information.
LB suggested that a quantified amount of salt entering water
environments at peak times should be included in the AES.
However, LB is not aware of any methodology to do this at the
moment. It was agreed that recommendations for how to assess
and mitigate this should be sought from the Environment Agency
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
ASAP
HC
(EA).
MM/ EA
Key Points:

Salt runoff an unresolved and difficult to quantify problem. Levels assumed at ‘peak times’.

EA advice to be sought.
Questions arising:
1. It seems that salt run-off can’t be avoided. There appears to be no methodology to quantify or
mitigate against negative impacts. Given the length of BHLR that runs parallel to the SSSI
boundary as well as the problem along its entire length, how can we be sure that the impacts
can be negated?
2 What degree of risk is there that they cannot be negated?
3 Can pollution incidents, including salt runoff into watercourses, can have effects of differing
severity according to the state of the tides? When the flap at the mouth of Combe Haven is
closed, the water backs up and the flow is reversed. This may have an impact upon the
length of time during which pollutants may remain in the watercourse and the length of
watercourse affected. Has this effect/scenario been appraised? (3.2.4)
5.2.4 Mitigation proposals –
GH states that all mitigation has been predicated on discussions with NE and EA where a 2:1 strategy was
agreed. Please refer to meeting summary notes contained in Appendix I.3 to the AES.
LB requested a brief verbal summary of the mitigation proposed for the Scheme.
NM summarised the Environmental Design contained in the DAS and the ADAS which details habitat loss,
habitat severance and replacement habitats. The Schedule of Wildlife Areas contained in the ADAS details
the extent of habitat loss and habitat replacement, and clearly demonstrates that the Scheme will meet (and
exceed in certain incidences) its 2:1 requirements.
LB stated that NE were now requesting recommended replacement habitat for Ancient Woodland at a ratio
of 10:1. LB notes that there will be no direct loss of ancient woodland sites.
NM confirmed that all 2:1 mitigation was included within the proposed CPO for the Scheme to ensure
deliverability.
LB requested confirmation that aquatic habitat creation is deliverable and sustainable. LB suggested a basic
water budget is produced for the site.
NM confirmed that groundwater levels within Powdermill Valley are suitable for the development of wetland
habitats at these sites.
GH states that Faber Maunsell have developed the water quality and drainage assessment, and additional
information can be added to the AES to support the creation of the replacement wetland habitats. LH to
provide additional information in the AES with regards to wetland creation habitats. Whilst NE reserve their
position until they review the final submission, NE expressed agreement to this approach.
Key Points:
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2

A 2:1 compensation strategy agreed between ESCC/EA and NE

Compliance with, or even exceedence of, 2:1 strategy demonstrated in the DAS and ADAS
(?consultants)

NE want 10:1 compensation for Ancient Woodland sites

NE want confirmation that aquatic habitat is deliverable/sustainable. (LB)

NE suggest a ‘water budget’ produced for site

ESCC - ‘groundwater levels in Powdermill valley suitable for wetland habitats’

Detailed info will be added to the ES on ‘creation of wetland habitats’.
Questions arising:
1. Delivery of ‘wetland habitat’/suitability of Powdermill Valley: will this compensate for existing lost
habitat or will it attempt to introduce distinctly new habitat that may not be comparable or of high
quality?
2. Is it possible to compensate at all for ‘Ancient Woodland’ sites? (4).
5.3 Statements made by the applicant in sections 12.4.9, 12.4.10 and 12.4.12 in the ES expressing
uncertainty over the feasibility of the proposed mitigation –
GH confirmed that the ES highlighted an initial concern regarding mitigation proposals. These concerns have
subsequently been resolved in the revised Environmental Design proposals.
Additional information which is provided in the DAS and ADAS for funding of long-term management
(through ring-fenced and additional monies) will be adequately summarised and cross referenced in the AES
so that there is no uncertainty over the long-term feasibility of the proposed mitigation.
Key Points:

ESCC (MM) confirm doubts around all mitigation proposals now resolved in the revised
Environmental Design proposals.

Long term feasibility of mitigation assured.
Questions arising:
1. How can ESCC themselves confirm that all doubts around mitigation have been resolved? We
believe It is highly unlikely that no doubts at all remain when mitigation outcomes are ‘hoped for’ and
impossible to predict.
2. The second bullet suggests nothing more than that the ‘possible success’ of mitigation is assured.
Does this mean anything at all?
5.4 Protected Species:
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
5.4.1 Dormouse NE are satisfied with the Dormouse mitigation and the additional plans that have been provided through the
AD&S. MA states her interest to see the results from such mitigation and requests follow up reports within
the 7 year aftercare and monitoring period.
GH states that this could be written into the contract documents for the Scheme and that NE would be kept
informed on an annual basis.
Key Points:

NE satisfied on mitigation proposals – interested to see follow up appraisals within 7 year
monitoring period. Could be written in to contracts with annual review of effectiveness.
Questions arising:
1. Will the BHLR be dismantled if the mitigation proposals have been unsuccessful?
ESCC/NE Meeting Notes 8 10 08
LB indicates that since the last meeting of 22nd July 2008, NE is much happier with the Scheme design and
mitigation proposed.
MA indicates that NE do not feel that there has been much development. since their letter of 17 th September
(above) which raises their continuing concerns regarding the Scheme,
TC queries if NE still maintain an objection to the Scheme?
MA: Yes. The “show stoppers” are mitigation for the indirect impacts upon Marline Woods SSSI, the
assessment and mitigation for Bats (particularly maternity roosts), and mitigation for Dormice.
Key Points:

No further concerns since Jul 08 meeting

Objections still maintained
4.0
Marline Valley
Woods SSSI
LB: It is the lichens along the Ghyll that are of interest in Marline Valley Woods SSSI.
Post Meeting Note: As confirmed by a telephone conversation between MA and LH dated
14.10.08, any reference made within this meeting to lichens should have been in
reference to bryophytes (mosses and liverworts). Marline Valley Woods SSSI is noted for
bryophytes. Lichens are not included in the notification
LB states that there are no Lichens in the eastern sections of the SSSI, and that this is as
a result of the high background Air Quality (AQ) issues arising from Queensway.
Increased traffic as a result of the Scheme on Queensway would worsen the situation.
There is no mitigation for bryophytes.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
LB states that NE is only able to discuss mitigation for this increase because of the high
background levels, which creates an “exceptional circumstance”. If background levels
were lower, and the change as a result of the Scheme was the same, then LB suggests
that NE would have to maintain an objection to the Scheme as a matter of principle.
Concern exists regarding surrounding development (approved and planned), to include
the Hastings District Council proposals for 1000 houses to the north of Marline Valley
Woods. This development, along with the BHLR, would isolate the SSSI to the north and
the south. NE therefore maintain that they would wish that the Scheme mitigates for the
indirect AQ impacts on the SSSI, with compensation habitat to the north west and
connected to the SSSI, so as to create a habitat suitable for the bryophytes for which the
SSSI is designated.
PE asks for clarification of the “physical” impact as a result of the Scheme on Marline
Valley Woods. These were confirmed as:
o
o
o
overshadowing at the tip (less that 0.1% of the SSSI);
isolation (to the south); and,
air quality impacts.
There is some debate over the “significance” of the exceedence of the critical loads. LB
confirms that she is not an Air Quality specialist. However, the significance of the
exceedence of the critical loads that is attributed to the Scheme continues to be a
contentious issue.
NE maintain that they will uphold their objection unless suitable mitigation to the north of
the SSSI is included within the Scheme design.
AT asks what scale of compensation land would be required?
LB: Compensation must be a functional area that copes with the pressures made on the
Woodland. (NB: It is suggested by LB later in the meeting that this land would be in the
order of less than 100ha, but probably around 50ha. AT suggests that it may be more like
10 or 20ha).
CV: CV confirmed that any compensation land to the north of the Woods would be
outside of the current CPO area.
The 2 for 1 compensation land basis has been developed through consultation with NE
and other SEBs since 2005. Specific mitigation in relation to Marline Valley Woods SSSI
has not been mentioned prior to this round of objections (letter dated 17 th September
2008, from NE). Objections to the impact on Marline Valley Woods SSSI were first
mentioned in NE’s letter of 2007, following their review of the ES.
To Compulsory Purchase land for such compensation, ESCC as the promoters would
need to demonstrate to the planners that the specific land chosen represents the only
solution to the impacts.
GPH stated that the compensation land (size and location), should not be predicated on
the unconfirmed housing scheme to the north of the SSSI. The location and size of any
compensation land, and the overall mitigation suggested for Marline Woods, should only
be in relation to the Slight Adverse impacts (as assessed by the ES and AES), of AQ,
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
fragmentation and shading on the SSSI as a result of the Scheme.
AT states that sites to the south of the SSSI and north of the Scheme boundary would not
be suitable as compensation land due to the existing AQ issue at this location, regardless
of the source of that AQ issue.
TC queries what NE would expect for the future management of the SSSI should there
be no BHLR and no housing development? LB answers that linking the SSSI to the north
or to the south, and managing that habitat to improve the quality would be the objective.
The SSSI is currently in a favourable condition. Sussex Wildlife Trust currently manage
the site, with grazing practices to remove biomass and nitrogen content. They have
enough funding to secure the future management of this site.
TC asks CV if there will be any more to offer on finding a solution to NE’s objection by
securing compensation land prior to the Planning Committee (Scheduled 5th November).
CV states that he will now take this information to the Board (Scheduled 15 Th October).
Some discussion follows on the implications of finding a potential compensation site,
outside of the current CPO boundary. TC’s initial thoughts are that it would require an
additional Addendum to the ES. An extended Phase 1 habitat survey would be required,
as well as other desk based assessments of certain environmental topics covered within
the Scheme EIA.
GPH queries NE’s position in relation to Dry Deposition for AQ. This has been raised as a
concern within their letter dated 17th September 2008. LB states that NE is consulting
with their AQ specialist, and are not in a position to comment as yet. Their specialist will
respond by Tuesday (14th October) at the latest.
Key Points:
Queensway traffic has a negative effect on air quality which prevents growth of lichens. There is no
mitigation for bryophytes (mosses and liverworts). More traffic on Queensway would worsen the
situation.
Even with lower background levels would not change NE’s stance of objection.
NE concerned over planned and approved housing (1000) north of Marline Valley woods. This
compounds their isolation already caused by BHLR.
NE insist that mitigation north of the SSSI would be essential in order withdraw objection.
Compensation area in order of 50 – 100ha. ESCC ecologist states 10 – 20ha.
ESCC state compensation area outside CPO area.
ESCC believe that acquiring land through CPO would entail a further addendum to the ES
To CPO necessary land, ESCC must demonstrate this is the only solution.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
GH of Mott McDonald (for ESCC) stated that compensation should not be predicated upon the impact
of any future housing, only on the ‘slight adverse negative impact’ designation of the scheme in the
ES.
ESCC ask NE how the SSSI would be managed without BHLR! NE rate the SSSI as currently in good
condition!
Exceedence of ‘critical loads’ of ?NO2 a concern of NE
Query from ESCC on NE’s views on ‘dry deposition’ of ?NO2
Impacts described in terms of : overshadowing ancient woodland; isolation of same; and Air Quality
worsening.
Questions arising:
1. Air quality impacts – what traffic levels are assumed in order to estimate impact and loadings of
N02 and other pollutants? Note: ‘even lower background levels would not change NE’s stance of
objection’ – NE.
2. If the compensation land is outside of the current area for CPO, what extra costs will be incurred?
3. The ‘slight adverse’ negative impact described by Mott McDonald is described as ‘slight to
moderate’ in the Appraisal Summary Table. To some extent, this is academic as the effectiveness of
mitigation is unknown and cumulative impacts may be more negative than this. Should this
descriptor be amended?
4. What are the chances of new bryophyte habitats being successfully created? What experience is
there from other schemes?
5.0
Protected Species
MA is concerned that the finer detail for the mitigation of the impacts upon a long eared bat maternity roost and
the loss of Adam’s Farm barn has not been provided to date. ESCC Members have suggested that the barn
could potentially be re-located to a suitable site. All agree that this is a favourable possibility, as long as the
location is carefully chosen for bat foraging routes. This proposal could be conditioned as part of the Scheme.
MA requires for a definite location of replacement roosts.
The issue of access being denied at Glover’s Farm is of concern, but is likely to constitute an “exceptional
circumstance” due to the historical safety risk regarding access.
GH states that MM will provide further detail on the bat mitigation with potential replacement roost locations
identified on a Figure, with current bat survey data overlayed to support the proposed locations. Mitigation for the
potential impacts at Glover’s Farm will be addressed, with potential options should a replacement roost be
required. This is a risk, because mitigation will depend on the species and numbers. The replacement roost
location(s) would be conditioned as part of the Scheme.
Latest 2008 survey results were presented to MA. MA and AT confirmed that the current survey information is
adequate.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
MA is concerned about the adequacy of the mitigation to support populations that will potentially be isolated as a
result of the Scheme and existing constraints of the watercourses. NE/AT state that the mitigation suggested is
quite “cutting edge”, and they have some reservations about the suitability of this method.
It is agreed that MM will present the latest dormouse survey results, together with all previous results, on a
Figure that includes the mitigation proposed. Some further discussion of the suitability of this mitigation will
follow. Additional consultation with Dr. Paul Chanin (who developed the mitigation strategy as included in the
AES) will be required. AT states that the mitigation needs to be adequate for the Small populations present in
isolated locations.
AT queries connectivity in relation to GCN. However, following a brief discussion, it is concluded that the GCN
mitigation proposed will be adequate. GCN are therefore no longer a concern.
The meeting closes due to time constraints. These topics are not discussed.
Key Points:
EN have concern over Adams Farm barn and its current function as a maternity roost for long eared
bats. Relocation discussed. Exact location of replacement roosts required by EN.
Report on prospects and mitigation for dormice awaited.
Questions arising:
1. Are there road kill projections for protected species?
2.To what degree will dormice ignore underpasses and use other routes?
3. Is there any correlation between speed of traffic and incidence of road kill? And does this vary
between species?
4. Litter has implications for impacts on biodiversity and also visual impact. What mitigation is
proposed against the effects of a new ‘corridor’ of litter? Are the potential effects quantified
5. Do mitigation measures take account of otters and bitterns, two BAP species for which there are
aspirations in Combe Haven valley and its closely interrelated tributary valleys?
6. What will be the effects of BHLR on these two BAP species?
7. Are there any bat species absent in the valley that would reasonably be expected to be there,
and/or were historically present but whose presence would be deterred by the BHLR?
ESCC/NE Meeting notes: 21.10.08
2.0
Dormice
MA/LB confirm that the mapping they have now received, and the supporting explanation
and detail contained in the letter dated 16.10.08, is enough to satisfy NE with regards to
the adequacy of the dormouse mitigation, as long as the Dormouse specialist Dr. Paul
Chanin is willing to provide a written statement to endorse the methodology adopted. MA/
LB clearly state that they see this as a risk that NE would be willing to take with Paul
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
Chanin’s recommendation. NE would expect for there to be a post construction
monitoring strategy in place which would provide useful information on how the mitigation
functions.
AT reiterates that it is important to gain Paul Chanin’s support in writing.
NE state that if they receive a written endorsement of the adequacy of the dormouse
mitigation for the Scheme from Dr. Paul Chanin, they will be in a position to remove their
objection to the Scheme on these grounds.
LH/JB confirm that MM have spoken with Paul Chanin, and have a verbal confirmation of
his support for the dormouse mitigation, which he was consulted on. JB will speak with
Paul Chanin tomorrow (Wednesday 23rd October), and ask for him to provide written
support for the mitigation.
Key points:
Clear that success of mitigation not guaranteed
Understood that post this meeting, Dr Paul Chanin gave his written support for the mitigation.
Questions arising:
1. What are the reservations attached to the approval of the mitigation measures proposed?
There clearly are reservations. Why can’t mitigation be designed to maintain a viable
population to the south of BHLR? Mitigation is not designed for this. (See Dr Paul Chanin’s
letter to Natural England, 29.10.08)
2. Given the apparent willingness of dormice to cross roads (according to Dr Chanin - and
surely this needs corroborating) what are the risks to populations through ‘road kill’? And would
there be a tendency for the creatures on the south side to gradually relocate to the better habitat
on the north side? With respect to Dr Chanin, his supporting letter is rather brief; should his
study be ‘peer reviewed’?
4.0
Marline Valley
Woods SSSI
Air Quality:
MO distributes a short technical note for an Assessment of Air Quality
Impacts for Marline Valley Woods SSSI, and supporting Figures.
Figure 1: Illustrates predicted Atmospheric Nitrogen (NO x) contour plots
for Marline Valley Woods in 2010. The red area on this figure is the area
of the SSSI that the Scheme impacts upon (potentially significant
change).
LB states that NE require an assessment of critical loads, not
concentrations.
MO explains that MM have completed an assessment of critical loads for
Nitrogen Deposition, as well as concentrations for NOx.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
Critical loads have previously been presented within the Addendum to
the ES in tabulated form and at varying distances from the road. Figure
2a presented today, graphically represents areas experiencing nitrogen
deposition within Marline Valley Woods at greater than 1% of the critical
load. Three contours are included, to represent the band of critical loads
that are appropriate for Marline Valley Woods, based on the Temperate
and Boreal Forest APIS vegetation classification that is applicable for
Marline Valley Woods.
MO queries why NE require the application of a 1% change to the critical
load significance threshold?
LB: It is what is considered significant, based on a case assessment and
NE National Air Quality specialist recommendation.
CV: Where does the 1% threshold originate from?
LB: Advice from Zoe Masters, the NE National Air Quality specialist. LB
confirms that the 1% threshold does not originate from the H1 (PPC
permits) document. She states that there is no national guidance for
significance thresholds for SSSIs (the H1 document is only in relation to
Habitats Regulations and Natura 2000 sites). However, national
guidance is evolving alongside the Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG)
methodology and in conjunction with NE’s recommendations.
CV states that the 1% threshold therefore acts as the zone of influence
from the Scheme on the SSSI for Air Quality.
LB confirms that the 1% threshold applies for Marline Valley Woods.
However, she reiterates that it is the extenuating circumstances for this
location and this case only, such as the high background adverse Air
Quality, which allows NE to discuss compensation for the Air Quality
impacts on Marline Woods rather than upholding an objection to the
Scheme on these grounds.
ASAP
MO presents Figure 2b, which represents the application of a 5%
significance threshold for Marline Valley Woods. LB comments that the
impact at 5% is very small, with “hardly any” of the SSSI impacted.
LB will forward the contour plots to Zoe Masters for her comments.
NE
Ecology:
LH gives details of the recently undertaken Bryophyte survey (Simon
Davey) and the Phase 1 Habitat assessment carried out by MM. LH
identifies the location of Ancient Hedgerows, Woodland boundaries,
semi-natural grassland etc that have been surveyed along the western
boundary of the SSSI. LH explains that the assessment included a rapid
Phase 1 and desk based archaeological assessment.
A suitable site for compensation land is identified between Alder Wood
and Marline Woods SSSI. Other locations would not be suitable due to
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
ancient hedgerows and potential heritage features.
It is confirmed by RP that this location is the site where the Hastings LDF
housing allocation is proposed. NE have objected to this development.
LB states that she thinks there would be quick vegetation succession,
but that it would take a long period for bryophyte communities to
develop. However, NE require this long term strategy.
AT identifies that there is potential for a ghyll along the drainage ditch.
LH recognises that there is a lichen interest for Marline Valley Woods,
but LB confirms that it is the bryophytes only that are notified, and
therefore under discussion in relation to the compensation land.
The compensation habitat would be developed with natural regeneration
and some planting.
CV: Is there a possibility of agreeing, in principle, an area for
compensation with a line drawn on a map now?
All agree, and confirm the location as between Alder Wood, Marline
Valley Woods and Brickyard Shaw. LB clarifies that the reasons that NE
require compensation land for Marline Woods SSSI are threefold:



Shading impacts from the bridge over the London to Hastings
railway line;
Isolation to the south of Marline Woods SSSI; and,
Air Quality impacts.
MA queries how this location could work in the context of the Hastings
LDF housing proposal? AT suggest that Hastings have a Woodland
Protection policy, and this may require them to have a woodland buffer
zone for any development. It could therefore be possible to combine
compensation sites for both Schemes.
LB makes the point that it is the BHLR Scheme that is under discussion
today, and that the Hastings LDF should be left aside. It is the Hastings
LDF that would have to include the combined effects of the BHLR
Scheme as this development has not been progressed through planning
yet. However, the choice of location could mean that the Hastings LDF
object to the compensation site for the BHLR Scheme. LB also points out
that there may be “hope value” placed on the land.
AT questions whether Alder Wood and Brickyard Shaw could be
included in the compensation package? It is agreed that combining this
woodland within the compensation land, with planting between the
woodland edge of both Alder Wood and Marline Woods, would result in a
natural copse development, and would be satisfactory to the
requirements of the compensation land. This combination would give the
maximum benefit for successful compensation land at this location.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
LB states that NE would be happy in principle with this location. LB notes
that they would like to take a pragmatic approach to the area and size of
the compensation land, so as to gain a functional woodland. LB states
that NE would be less concerned by the size of the compensation land
than the functionality of the site.
RP queries the bryophyte opportunities of the proposed location. LB
suggests that the stream (drain) would give potential for bryophyte
communities to develop, but that the SSSI is notified for a number of
other important features as well as bryophytes.
AT suggests that using the already agreed (for the rest of the Scheme)
compensation package of 2 for 1 compensation land should be applied
here. All agree. Therefore, it is confirmed that the area to be
compensated for would be roughly twice the 3.3 Ha that fall into the “red
zone” on the Air Quality Figure 2a. This is the area where a 1% change
significance threshold is applied to the critical load of 20 kg N ha -1 yr-1
which is given as the limit where it is confirmed that there would be a
known degradation impact upon vegetation communities within the SSSI
as a result of nitrogen deposition.
TC raises the point of this request for compensation land as being a
Regulation 19 issue. He states that Hastings (and other parties) should
have the opportunity to comment on the proposals under Regulation 19
of the EIA Regulations. 21 days would be required for consultation.
AT also comments that to satisfy any CPO application there would have
to be a case that there are no other suitable sites for compensation land.
LH states that this is the case because there is no other site that has a
large expanse of woodland and appropriate ghyll structure in the area.
MM
Therefore, all other locations are ruled out. TC states that alternative
sites that have been ruled out need to be documented. LH confirms that
this will be done through a habitat feasibility report to be submitted to the
LPA. This report will outline the framework for a compensation package
at this location, to include the details of the planting and management of
the proposed site.
(Post meeting note: a habitat feasibility report will be submitted in the
form of a Supplementary Nature Conservation report).
It is confirmed that MM will produce a CAD map to identify the proposed
compensation site, to be submitted to the LPA and to NE. CV asks if
receiving such a plan will enable NE to remove their objection to the
Scheme on the grounds of the compensation for indirect impacts upon
Marline Valley Woods SSSI? LB says yes in theory, but that they will
have to see the plan and will have to discuss the compensation
proposed with Zoe Masters.
Key points:
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
29.10.08
Thresholds suggested and tolerances discussed for NOx air quality impacts over different zones in
Marline Woods SSSI.
Questions arising:
1. Are the NOx levels all presented as ‘with BHLR’ scenarios? Is there a ‘without BHLR’
scenario? Is there a ‘without BHLR and with ‘current best practice demand management’
scenario for air quality ? (4.)
2. Has there ever been a ‘best practice demand management’ scenario per se?
3. The NOx implications are investigated to a degree. Have there been any investigations of the
effects of SOx, ozone, polycyclic aromatic compounds, metals, ammonia and particulates?
Or are these definitely not a problem? (4).
4. What band of different traffic levels are used as a basis for predicting air quality? Have data
from ‘post opening studies’ been consulted – these consistently show under-estimates in
terms of traffic levels on roads such as the A27 Polegate bypass. (‘Beyond Transport
Infrastructure’ Countryside Agency/CPRE, 2006)
Ecology:
LH gives details of the recently undertaken Bryophyte survey (Simon Davey) and the Phase 1 Habitat
assessment carried out by MM. LH identifies the location of Ancient Hedgerows, Woodland boundaries,
semi-natural grassland etc that have been surveyed along the western boundary of the SSSI. LH explains
that the assessment included a rapid Phase 1 and desk based archaeological assessment.
A suitable site for compensation land is identified between Alder Wood and Marline Woods SSSI. Other
locations would not be suitable due to ancient hedgerows and potential heritage features.
It is confirmed by RP that this location is the site where the Hastings LDF housing allocation is proposed. NE
have objected to this development.
LB states that she thinks there would be quick vegetation succession, but that it would take a long period for
bryophyte communities to develop. However, NE require this long term strategy.
AT identifies that there is potential for a ghyll along the drainage ditch.
LH recognises that there is a lichen interest for Marline Valley Woods, but LB confirms that it is the
bryophytes only that are notified, and therefore under discussion in relation to the compensation land.
The compensation habitat would be developed with natural regeneration and some planting.
CV: Is there a possibility of agreeing, in principle, an area for compensation with a line drawn on a map now?
All agree, and confirm the location as between Alder Wood, Marline Valley Woods and Brickyard Shaw. LB
clarifies that the reasons that NE require compensation land for Marline Woods SSSI are threefold:



Shading impacts from the bridge over the London to Hastings railway line;
Isolation to the south of Marline Woods SSSI; and,
Air Quality impacts.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
MA queries how this location could work in the context of the Hastings LDF housing proposal? AT suggest
that Hastings have a Woodland Protection policy, and this may require them to have a woodland buffer zone
for any development. It could therefore be possible to combine compensation sites for both Schemes.
LB makes the point that it is the BHLR Scheme that is under discussion today, and that the Hastings LDF
should be left aside. It is the Hastings LDF that would have to include the combined effects of the BHLR
Scheme as this development has not been progressed through planning yet. However, the choice of location
could mean that the Hastings LDF object to the compensation site for the BHLR Scheme. LB also points out
that there may be “hope value” placed on the land.
AT questions whether Alder Wood and Brickyard Shaw could be included in the compensation package? It is
agreed that combining this woodland within the compensation land, with planting between the woodland
edge of both Alder Wood and Marline Woods, would result in a natural copse development, and would be
satisfactory to the requirements of the compensation land. This combination would give the maximum benefit
for successful compensation land at this location.
LB states that NE would be happy in principle with this location. LB notes that they would like to take a
pragmatic approach to the area and size of the compensation land, so as to gain a functional woodland. LB
states that NE would be less concerned by the size of the compensation land than the functionality of the
site.
RP queries the bryophyte opportunities of the proposed location. LB suggests that the stream (drain) would
give potential for bryophyte communities to develop, but that the SSSI is notified for a number of other
important features as well as bryophytes.
AT suggests that using the already agreed (for the rest of the Scheme) compensation package of 2 for 1
compensation land should be applied here. All agree. Therefore, it is confirmed that the area to be
compensated for would be roughly twice the 3.3 Ha that fall into the “red zone” on the Air Quality Figure 2a.
This is the area where a 1% change significance threshold is applied to the critical load of 20 kg N ha -1 yr-1
which is given as the limit where it is confirmed that there would be a known degradation impact upon
vegetation communities within the SSSI as a result of nitrogen deposition.
TC raises the point of this request for compensation land as being a Regulation 19 issue. He states that
Hastings (and other parties) should have the opportunity to comment on the proposals under Regulation 19
of the EIA Regulations. 21 days would be required for consultation.
AT also comments that to satisfy any CPO application there would have to be a case that there are no other
suitable sites for compensation land. LH states that this is the case because there is no other site that has a
large expanse of woodland and appropriate ghyll structure in the area. Therefore, all other locations are
ruled out. TC states that alternative sites that have been ruled out need to be documented. LH confirms that
this will be done through a habitat feasibility report to be submitted to the LPA. This report will outline the
framework for a compensation package at this location, to include the details of the planting and
management of the proposed site.
(Post meeting note: a habitat feasibility report will be submitted in the form of a Supplementary Nature
Conservation report).
It is confirmed that MM will produce a CAD map to identify the proposed compensation site, to be submitted
to the LPA and to NE. CV asks if receiving such a plan will enable NE to remove their objection to the
Scheme on the grounds of the compensation for indirect impacts upon Marline Valley Woods SSSI? LB says
yes in theory, but that they will have to see the plan and will have to discuss the compensation proposed with
Zoe Masters.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
Key points:
A rapid ‘Phase 1 habitat assessment’ and desk based archeological assessment have been carried
out.
The Hastings LDF has identified land to accommodate a future housing development, land also
subsequently identified as ‘compensation’ land for lost and damaged Ancient Woodland.
Conflict between the housing provision and the quality of any compensation land are to be deferred
rather than resolved now.
Potential sites for ‘ghyll’ habitat and notified bryophytes have been identified
Compensation land will be the subject of compulsory purchase order (CPO) and is a Regulation 19
issue requiring 21 days for consultation.
NE will theoretically remove their objection subject to seeing the plan, and discussion with Zoe
Masters of ???
NE have, post meeting, removed their objection.
Questions arising:
1. How robust are ‘rapid assessments’ on habitats and archaeology? Is this less than the best
that we could do through a ‘full’ assessment?
2. Why was a ‘rapid’ assessment required when four years have elapsed since the Secretary of
State directed ESCC to work closely with the Statutory Environmental Bodies to (attempt to)
resolve environmental issues?
3. Does the archaeology assessment address the question of a precise sum of money to be set
aside for risk attached to potential discovery and preservation of assets? (This was
requested by English Heritage – the request is documented in the ES.)
4. What are the barriers to resolving the conflicts between housing and compensation land now
rather than leaving it to the future?
5. Conversely, what are the drivers for not resolving the issues now?
6. Bryophyte communities take a long time to develop. How long? And what happens if they
don’t?
7. Has the 21 days consultation period in respect of the CPO begun yet?
8. Why is there a ‘2:1’ compensation proposed and not ’20:1’ as suggested by NE?
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
B. Letters from Environment Agency and Natural England appended with comments and questions:
Mr P.Earl
East Sussex County Council
Development Control
County Hall St. Annes Crescent
Lewes
East Sussex
BN7 1UE
Our ref:
Your ref:
SX/2007/101661/05-L01
RR/2474/CC
Date:
05 September 2008
Thank you for your consultation regarding the above which was received on 11 August 2008. Please quote
our reference number on any correspondence.
With regards to the additional information submitted as an addendum to the Environmental Statement,
specifically those elements discussed and agreed at the meeting between us, the Council and the
consultants on the 22 July 2008, we have the following comments below.
To summarise we still maintain our objection to this proposal as the information submitted does not resolve
our concerns with regarding the environmental statement. If the points outlined below are addressed we
may be able to withdraw our objection.
Mitigation and Compensation for Ecological Impacts
It was agreed at the meeting that mitigation measures should be commenced as early as possible within the
construction phase of the development. We are pleased to see this reflected in section 12.5.25 of the
Addendum to the Environmental Statement.
Salts
The applicants have mapped the discharge points in relation to known areas of ecological sensitivity. Those
that have been included are landscape designations, SSSI and SNCIs. These areas however, do not reflect
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
the very local sensitivities of the streams in question as was anticipated during the meeting (as per section
2.3.3 of the Supplementary Information – Hydrology).
This is recognised in section 12.5.57 of the Addendum to the Environmental Statement, which states that
‘discharge to watercourses would not be concentrated at one site, and would be directed to the lower risk
areas where sensitive ecological receptors such as fish spawning or nursery sites, including silt lamprey
habitat and crayfish refuge habitat would be avoided.’ This does not appear to have been assessed and we
wish to see the discharge points mapped in relation to these receptors as was discussed at the meeting to
demonstrate that they are being directed to the lower risk areas.
Habitat Severance, Clear Span Structures and Species Isolation
Within the Supplementary Information – Hydrology, notes of the meeting between the EA and MM, with
regards to section 5.6 – clear span structures, it was discussed that the Design and Access statement shows
an engineering solution (rather than a soft bank solution as required) in regard to bank and bed crossings for
many of the watercourse crossings. This has not changed, see for example Drawing no 208/31/51 (sectional
elevation), 208/31/52, 208/31/53, 208/31/54, 208/31/55, 208/31/56.
It is also referred to in the notes from this meeting that the Addendum to the Environmental Statement will
include a set of principles on how to plant and manage a Softbank option. This appears to have been
considered in section 12.5.20 of the Addendum to the ES, but is not reflected in the drawings submitted
therefore giving an unclear picture of the proposals. Note that we are not seeking detailed designs at this
stage, however we do believe that the drawings should reflect the principles of the design which they do not
at present.
In conclusion the points that need addressing to resolve our concerns are:
 Map the discharge points in relation to known ecological receptors to include sensitive local
receptors such as; fish spawning or nursery sites, including silt lamprey habitat and crayfish refuge
habitat; and
 Include drawings for the bank and bed crossings of the watercourses showing soft bank solutions
rather than engineering solutions.
I trust that the above comments are satisfactory but if you require any further information please contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Mr David Reynolds
Senior Sustainable Development Planner
Key points:
Applicants appear to lack a full understanding of the local and specific sensitivities of species to salt
incursions into habitats. Consequently, mitigation proposed is imprecise. More appraisal work is
required.
Precise nature of ‘soft bank’ creation under clear span bridges is not described by the applicant.
Questions arising:
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
1. The points raised in connection with the species above, and in connection with the changes to the
morphology of rivers have already been raised in responses from Hastings Alliance members in July
2007 (Sussex Wildlife Trust, representation to ESCC on BHLR planning application 5 th July, 2007).
Why have the applicants not attended to them?
2. The provision of a 2m strip beneath bridges to (theoretically) facilitate movement of (some)
species between severed parts of what is currently a single functioning habitat was earlier seen
as inadequate by the Environment Agency. Why is it now seen as adequate?
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2
The above letter predates the notes of the meeting above between ESCC and NE.
The comprehensive nature of outstanding concerns expressed in the letter(s) is surprising in the
light of the lifetime of the planning process so far. It is four years since the Sec of State asked ESCC
to work closely with the SEBs in order to resolve environmental issues. We feel our questions based
on the notes of meetings deserve answers (and there are many more deserving of answers outside
of the areas that are the remit of the SEBs).
It appears that ‘the environment’ has been an obstruction to be overcome at all costs in order to get
the BHLR built. And those costs are considerable: from £24m in 2002 (SoCoMMS) to £100m in 2008
(ESCC). This is not acceptable since alternative non-road strategies have never been properly
examined.
C. Outstanding questions arising from the SNCR:
1. On top of the £2m already set aside, what additional funds have been made available for ‘risk’
(contingency plans) should there be major archaeological finds of national importance? (£2m
in the business case and another sum of money in the risk register’.) How much is ‘another
sum of money’? (Minutes of meeting at County Hall, 17th April 2008, Section 3)
2. What is the experience of success with replacement bat roosts?
3. It is correct to consider the setting of a Grade 2* listed building when considering a
replacement roost for bats, but would the setting of Adams Farm in any case be degraded by
the BHLR? (2.2.5)
4. What degree and nature of remaining risk have Natural England identified in the face of Dr
Chanin’s endorsement of mitigation against impacts on dormice? (3.2.9)
5. Is the valley viable to support water vole populations? If so, what enhancements planned to
encourage colonisation? (3.1.1)
6. If spawning grounds are to be avoided where possible (re: discharge of salts through runoff)
the inference is that sometimes it won’t be possible and that therefore damage is acceptable.
Is it acceptable?
7. What is the practice in, say, the Netherlands where clear spans are built and sever migration
routes?
8. Is it acceptable to tolerate ‘known degradation’ of a SSSI as an anticipated outcome of a
scheme?
9. Further ‘trade offs’ are likely between the SSSI interests in the vicinity of Marline Woods and
the proposed new housing in the area. By not dealing with proposals now, are we not in
danger of doubling the risk to that SSSI and potential effectiveness of any
compensation/buffer zones?
Yours Sincerely
Derrick Coffee, County Officer, Campaign for Better Transport, East Sussex.
Local Group Campaign for Better Transport
Address line 1
Addresss line 2