Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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