Download Appropriate Assessment (Habitats Directive 92/43

Appropriate Assessment (Habitats
Directive 92/43/EEC) of Islington’s
Local Development Framework
Screening Assessment Update
October 2011
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive August 2009
1
Introduction
As explained in ‘Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate
Assessment’1 ‘The Natura 2000 network2 provides ecological infrastructure for the
protection of sites which are of exceptional importance in respect of rare, endangered
or vulnerable natural habitats and species within the European Community. These
sites which are also referred to as European sites3 consist of Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs)4, Special Protection Areas (SPAs)5 and Offshore Marine Site
(OMS)6 (there are no OMS designated at present).’
Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive7 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 of its implications for the site in
view of the site's conservation objectives... the competent national authorities shall
agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely
affect the integrity of the site concerned.’
The purpose of an Appropriate Assessment (AA)8 of a land use plan is to ensure the
European sites are protected as part of the local and regional planning process. The
requirement for AA of plans of projects is outlined in Article 6(3) and (4) of the
European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (“Habitats Directive”)9. Planning
authorities need to undertake AA on plans that will have an adverse impact on the
integrity of European sites prior to their adoption in order to fulfil the requirements of
the Directive in respect of the land use planning system.
The Appropriate Assessment Process
The AA process is made up of 3 tasks:
1. likely significant effects (AA task 1);
2. appropriate assessment and ascertaining the effect on site integrity (AA task
2);
3. mitigation and alternative solutions (AA task 3); and
*imperative reasons of overriding public interest.13
1
Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment – Under the Conservation
(Natural Habitats, &C) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 Guidance for Regional
Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents (DCLG, August 2006)
2
Provided for in Article 3 of the Habitats Directive
3
Ramsar sites classified under the Ramsar Convention 1971 are not included in the definition of
European sites in regulation 10 of the 1994 Habitats Regulations, 1994. For more information on the
definition of European Sites see regulation 10 of the 1994 Regulations
4
Very few cSACs still await decisions regarding their designation as SACs so that this title will shortly
cease to have relevance. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, the guide will refer to SACs where the
procedures apply to both designations
5
SPAs are classified under the European Commission (1979) Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive.)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/birds_directive
/index_en.htm
6
In the proposed Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2006.
7
Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC
8
Appropriate Assessment refers to the process under Article 6(3) and (4) as well as the second stage of
the process after screening to demonstrate that the site does not have an adverse effect on the integrity
of a European site.
9
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/habitats_dire
ctive/index_en.htm
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive August 2009
2
The scope of the AA work should be proportionate to the geographical scope of the
option and the nature and extent of any effects identified. The assessment should be
confined to the effects on the internationally important habitats and species for which
the site is classified. It is recommended that the AA is undertaken in conjunction with
the Sustainability Appraisal (SA), however the two are separate processes with their
own legal requirements.
The scope of this report
This report provides a screening assessment, covering AA task 1: likely significant
effects, described above. It does the following:
1. Identifies European sites within and outside of the plan area which would be
potentially affected, as well as describing the characteristics of these sites,
their conservation objectives and other relevant plans or projects.
2. Identifies whether the plan policies are likely to have a significant effect on
these European sites (‘screening’) in order to determine whether the
subsequent steps of AA are required. The significance of effects is
determined in relation to the specific features and environmental conditions of
the protected site and considers the probability of the impact; the duration,
frequency and reversibility of the impact. Where effects are considered to be
significant, an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site should
be undertaken.
The report will focus on the potential impacts of Islington’s Core Strategy. However,
as other Development Plan Documents (DPDs) will be based on this overarching
spatial strategy, it should also cover the potential impacts of other DPDs. It will also
consider any possible cumulative impacts as a result of other borough strategies
such as the Sustainable Transport Strategy or Sustainable Community Strategy.
Islington in relation to European Sites
There are no Natura 2000/Ramsar sites within the plan area (the London Borough of
Islington). However, policies relating to Islington may have an impact on sites within a
wider area. The main factor which is likely to cause the plan to have an impact on
any Ramsar site is the site’s proximity to the plan area. There are not considered to
be any other factors which would lead to a particular impact of the plan, which would
not be picked up using a proximity indicator. For the purposes of this screening
assessment, sites within approximately a 15 km radius of Islington are considered.
This includes the following sites:
•
•
•
•
Lee Valley Park Ramsar site and SPA
Epping Forest SAC
Richmond Park SAC
Wimbledon Common SAC
Description of the Lee Valley SPA and Ramsar sites
The Lee Valley SPA is located to the north-east of London, where the valley contains
a series of wetlands and reservoirs. The Lee Valley comprises a series of embanked
water supply reservoirs, sewage treatment lagoons and former gravel pits along
approximately 24 km of the valley. The area is a designated Ramsar site and also a
designated SPA.
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive August 2009
3
The Lee Valley supports internationally important numbers of wintering gadwall and
shoveler and nationally important numbers of several other bird species. The site
also contains a range of wetland and valley bottom habitats, both man-made and
semi-natural, which support a diverse range of wetland fauna and flora. The site
supports the nationally scarce plant species whorled water-milfoil (Myriophyllum
verticillatum) and the rare or vulnerable invertebrate (Micronecta minutissima) (a
water-boatman).
Epping Forest
Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is a 1605 hectare site in Essex
which is predominantly made up of broad-leaved deciduous woodland with dry
grassland and steppes and some inland water bodies.
Epping Forest represents Atlantic acidophilous beech forests in the north-eastern
part of the habitat’s UK range. Although the epiphytes at this site have declined,
largely as a result of air pollution, it remains important for a range of rare species,
including the moss Zygodon forsteri. The long history of pollarding, and resultant
large number of veteran trees, ensures that the site is also rich in fungi and deadwood invertebrates.
Epping Forest is a large woodland area in which records of stag beetle Lucanus
cervus are widespread and frequent; the site straddles the Essex and east London
population centres. Epping Forest is a very important site for fauna associated with
decaying timber, and supports many Red Data Book and Nationally Scarce
invertebrate species.
Richmond Park
Richmond Park is also a designated SAC, made up of a mix of heath, scrub, maquis
and garrigue and phygrana, broad-leafed deciduous woodland, improved grassland
and dry grassland and steppes.
Richmond Park has a large number of ancient trees with decaying timber. It is at the
heart of the south London centre of distribution for stag beetle Lucanus cervus, and
is a site of national importance for the conservation of the fauna of invertebrates
associated with the decaying timber of ancient trees.
Wimbledon Common
Wimbledon Common is a designated SAC, made up primarily of a mix of dry
grassland/steppes and broad leafed deciduous woodland.
Wimbledon Common has a large number of old trees and much fallen decaying
timber. It is at the heart of the south London centre of distribution for stag beetle
Lucanus cervus, and a relatively large number of records were received from this site
during a recent nationwide survey for the species (Percy et al. 2000). The site
supports a number of other scarce invertebrate species associated with decaying
timber.
Effects of Islington’s Core Strategy policies
Possible impacts of Islington’s Core Strategy on the above European sites which
have been considered in this screening assessment are listed below, alongside an
assessment of their likely impact on the sites. These impacts are mainly likely to be
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive August 2009
4
due to the impacts of increased levels of development which, while ultimately led by
regional housing targets set by the GLA, will be influenced and supported by policies
within Islington’s Core Strategy. Other policies, including those aiming to mitigate the
impacts of growth, have also been considered in the below assessment.
Table 1: Screening assessment of Islington’s Core Strategy
Possible impact
on European
sites
Probability, likely duration, frequency and
reversibility of the impact
Disturbance to
corridors which
may form parts of
routes to and from
the European
sites, in particular
the New River and
Parkland Walk
Islington does not have any corridors which link
directly with the European sites; however it does
have some important green links which may make
a very minor contribution to wildlife routes to and
from the European sites, for example the New
River and Parkland Walk.
Significant
effect on
protected
habitats/
species?
N
The Core Strategy, while not setting target levels of
new development (which have been set at a
London level), does provide a framework for
increased levels of development. Areas around the
New River Park and Parkland Walk are not likely to
experience high levels of development as they are
mainly lower density residential areas, including
conservation areas, which are not identified as key
areas for growth and change in the Core Strategy.
However, some development may occur around
these corridors which could have a minor impact on
their use as wildlife routes to and from the
European sites, for example through increased
levels of lighting or overshadowing.
Policies within the Core Strategy and
accompanying documents as well as in Islington’s
Biodiversity Action Plan should protect the corridors
and will ensure these impacts are minimised. As a
result of these factors the probability of the
important habitats/species within the European
sites being impacted upon is very small.
Impacts of
linkages between
the sites by water,
including water
quality issues
N
Rivers or other water bodies (which are
predominantly underground within Islington)
primarily run (where they flow) from the borough
into the Thames and therefore would not impact on
the above European sites. The Regents Canal joins
the River Lee just before it flows into the Thames;
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive August 2009
5
however this is some way downstream of the Lee
Valley Ramsar/SAC sites and thus is not likely to
have an impact on them. Impacts on groundwater
in Islington itself are likely to be minimal and thus
would also be unlikely to have any knock on effect
on the European sites, in particular on the
particularly important species and habitats within
them.
Increased visitor
access
The increased population in Islington which is
supported by Core Strategy policies may lead to
increased visitor numbers at the European sites
which would put additional pressure on them and
may affect the range of important species and
habitats at the sites. However, increases in visitor
numbers would be unlikely to be significant given
the distance of the sites from Islington. Impacts of
visitor access could also be controlled or mitigated
against to some extent by management practices
at the sites.
N
Light or air
pollution
Light pollution increases as a result of increased
development in Islington would be unlikely to have
any impact on the European sites, particularly
given the high levels of light pollution which exist
across London currently. Possible impacts on the
sites due to deteriorating air quality in Islington
would be possible as a result of increased traffic,
particularly as air quality is already an issue
affecting Epping Forest SAC; however, as
described below, policies within the Core Strategy
would support sustainable transport approaches
and would not encourage increases in traffic. Other
policies within Islington’s Sustainable Transport
Strategy would also mitigate any impacts from
transport. Therefore it is unlikely the protected
habitats and species at the sites would be
impacted.
N
Spread of pest
species
Policies within the Core Strategy would be unlikely
to have any impact on the spread of pest species.
N
Increased traffic
The European sites may be impacted as a result of
poorer air quality in Islington as a result of
increased traffic. However the Core Strategy
includes policies which strongly promote
sustainable transport, including by requiring all
development to be car free. It is unlikely that any
minor increases in traffic as a result of development
would be significant enough to impact on the
European sites, and in particular on the important
species or habitats at these sites.
N
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive August 2009
6
Flooding
Increased water
use from new
development
contributing to
water stress within
the region which
may have a
negative impact on
water availability
within the sites, for
example water
levels of the River
Lee
The Core Strategy, while not setting target levels of N
new development, does provide a framework for
increased levels of development. This may
increase the chance of surface water flooding in
Islington. However most of Islington is already
covered in hard surface therefore this impact is
unlikely to be hugely significant. Any impact will
also be mitigated by policies promoting Sustainable
Drainage Systems within the Core Strategy. It is
also unlikely that any flooding incident would
impact on any of the protected habitats and species
at the European sites.
N
The combination of climate change and increased
new development (following the Core Strategy
policies) is likely to increase water stress in the
south east of England. However, the impact of new
homes in Islington is likely to be minimal within the
wider context, particularly given water efficiency
policies within the Core Strategy which will require
all new homes and other development to be very
water efficient. Water companies are also planning
now to try and minimise the impact any increase in
water demand will have on sites of nature
importance as well as the wider environment.
N
Increased CO2
emissions from
new development
may contribute to
climate change
which may have a
negative impact on
the sites
It is likely that climate change will have a negative
impact on the sites, for example as drought
becomes more likely and certain pests and
diseases increase. However, the impact of CO2
emissions from Islington as a result of the Core
Strategy are likely to have a minimal impact on
these sites, particularly as the sustainable design
policy offers strong mitigation for such impacts.
Improvement of
quantity and
quality of
accessible open
space in the
borough
N
It is possible that policies within Islington’s Core
Strategy which promote improvement to the
quantity and quality of accessible open space in the
borough may alleviate visitor pressure on the
European sites by providing local recreation
facilities. This could reduce potential negative
impacts on the sites as a result of increased local
population and thus increased visitors to the
European sites from Islington.
In summary, based on the above assessment it is considered that Islington’s Core
Strategy policies will not have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of
European sites. While there may be some minor cumulative effects as a result of
growth across the London region, the contribution of Islington’s policies to these
impacts would be marginal, particularly given the strong mitigating policies included
within the Core Strategy. It is likely that any minor negative impacts which may
cumulatively impact on the sites will be offset by policies protecting and enhancing
biodiversity in the borough. The borough’s Biodiversity Action Plan is also actively
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive August 2009
7
used to promote the protection and enhancement of biodiversity in the borough and
thus would also support this objective.
Sustainability Appraisal
A Sustainability Appraisal has been carried out on the Core Strategy as part of an
ongoing process to ensure it maximises its contribution to sustainable development.
As part of this process the range of possible negative environmental impacts the
Core Strategy may have, many of which are mentioned above, have been assessed
and mitigation measures incorporated within the document. Sustainability Appraisals
have also been carried out in the development of subsequent DPDs – Development
Management Policies, Site Allocations and the Finsbury Local Plan (AAP for Bunhill
and Clerkenwell).
Conclusion
Because Islington’s Core Strategy policies have been assessed as not having a
significant adverse impact on the integrity of European sites via this screening report,
it is not necessary to draw up an appropriate plan as described in the paragraph
above on article 6.48. However, in order to effectively manage the impacts attributed
to the Core Strategy policies described above, the Sustainability Appraisal of the
Core Strategy will continue to evaluate the impacts of any further changes to the
document and consider how further mitigation measures can be put in place, both in
the Core Strategy itself and associated Local Development Framework documents.
This screening assessment has been reviewed in light of the production of
subsequent LDF documents – the Site Allocations, Development Management
Policies and Finsbury Local Plan (Area Action Plan for Bunhill and Clerkenwell)
which will help to deliver the vision set out in the Core Strategy. Confirmation has
been received by Natural England that the overall conclusion, that stage two and
three of the Habitats Regulation Assessment, requiring a full Appropriate
Assessment, in this instance and in respect of these documents, are not required.
Appropriate Assessment Habitats Directive August 2009
8