Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Submission draft Local Plan, January 2018

Document control

HRA of New Forest NPA Local Plan_Reg 19.docm Last saved: 05/01/2018 16:49

Prepared by LUC

Planning & EIA

Design

Landscape Planning

Landscape Management

Ecology

GIS & Visualisation

1 Introduction

1.1 LUC has been commissioned by New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA’ or ‘the Authority’) to carry out a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of its Local Plan 2016-2036. This report presents the methodology and findings of that HRA.

Background to preparation of the Local Plan 2016-2036

1.2 The Government has made National Park Authorities the sole planning authorities for their areas, including responsibilities for plan-making, enforcement, development control and minerals and waste planning. The planning system is a vital tool in helping to deliver the two statutory purposes of National Parks¹ and the related socio-economic duty².

1.3 The first set of dedicated planning policies for the whole of the New Forest National Park was adopted in December 2010 in the form of a Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.

1.4 The national planning system has changed significantly in recent years and NFNPA is therefore updating its planning policies to ensure that they continue to provide a clear framework for planning decisions in the Park. Once adopted, the 'Local Plan 2016-2036' will set out the planning framework for the National Park, including the scale and location of new development and the need to conserve the local distinctiveness of the area.

1.5 Development of the Local Plan 2016-2036 started in summer 2015 and included a formal public consultation on the main issues to be addressed. NFNPA also launched a 'Call for Sites' process through which landowners and other parties were invited to put forward land which they would like to be considered for development. In October 2016 NFNPA published a Draft Local Plan for an eight-week period of public consultation. In Spring 2017 NFNPA received advice from Natural England on the issue of greenfield residential development close to the protected habitats of the National Park. This led to re-assessment of a number of the proposed Local Plan housing site allocations. Between June and July 2017, NFNPA invited feedback on potential alternative housing sites and this informed the preparation of the Regulation 19 Submission draft of the Local Plan.

1.6 The indicative timetable for the remaining stages of preparation of the Local Plan 2016-2036 is for Regulation 19 consultation on the Regulation 19 Submission draft in early 2018, submission to the Secretary of State in April 2018, Examination in Summer 2018, and Adoption in late 2018.

The requirement to undertake Habitats Regulations Assessment of development plans

1.7 The requirement to undertake HRA of development plans was confirmed by the amendments to the Habitats Regulations published for England and Wales in July 2007 and updated in 2010³ and again in 2012⁴. Therefore, when preparing its Local Plan NFNPA is required by law to carry out an HRA although consultants can undertake the HRA on its behalf. The requirement for authorities to comply with the Habitats Regulations when preparing a Local Plan is explained in the government’s online planning practice guidance.

1.8 The HRA refers to the assessment of the potential effects of a development plan on one or more European sites, including Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs):

• SACs are designated under the European Habitats Directive and targets particular habitat types (Annex 1) and species (Annex II). The listed habitat types and species are those considered to be most in need of conservation at a European level (excluding birds).
• SPAs are classified in accordance with Article 4(1) of the European Union Birds Directive⁵ for rare and vulnerable birds (as listed in Annex I of the Directive), and under Article 4(2) for regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I.

1.9 Potential SPAs (pSPAs)⁶, candidate SACs (cSACs)⁷, Sites of Community Importance (SCIs)⁸ and Ramsar sites should also be included in the assessment.

• Ramsar sites support internationally important wetland habitats and are listed under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention, 1971).

1.10 For ease of reference during HRA, these designations can be collectively referred to as European sites⁹, despite Ramsar designations being at the international level.

1.11 The overall purpose of the HRA is to conclude whether or not a proposal or policy, or whole development plan, would adversely affect the integrity of the European site in question either alone or in combination with other plans and projects. This is judged in terms of the implications of the plan for the ‘qualifying features’ for which the site was designated, i.e.:

• SACs – Annex I habitat types and Annex II species; as listed in the site’s citation on the JNCC website (all features of European importance, both primary and non-primary, need to be considered);
• SPAs – Annex 1 birds and regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I, as identified in sections 3.1, 3.2 and 4.2 of the SPA’s standard data form on the JNCC website;
• Ramsar sites – the reasons for listing the site under the Convention, as set out in section 14 of the relevant ‘Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands’ available on the JNCC website.

1.12 Significantly, HRA is based on the precautionary principle meaning that where uncertainty or doubt remains, an adverse impact should be assumed.

Stages of HRA

1.13 Table 1.1 summarises the stages typically involved in carrying out an HRA, based on various guidance documents¹⁰,¹¹,¹².

1.14 It is normally anticipated that an emphasis on Stages 1 and 2 of this process will, through a series of iterations, help to ensure that potential adverse effects are identified and eliminated through the inclusion of mitigation measures designed to avoid, reduce or abate effects. The need to consider alternatives could imply more onerous changes to a plan document. It is generally understood that so called ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ (IROPI) are likely to be justified only very occasionally and would involve engagement with both the Government and European Commission.

1.15 In assessing the effects of the Local Plan in accordance with Regulation 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2012, there are potentially two tests to be applied by the competent authorities: a ‘Significance Test’, followed if necessary by an Appropriate Assessment which will inform the ‘Integrity Test’. The relevant sequence of questions is as follows:

• Step 1: Under Reg. 102(1)(b), consider whether the plan is directly connected with or necessary to the management of the sites; if not proceed to Step 2.
• Step 2: Under Reg. 102(1)(a) consider whether the plan is likely to have a significant effect on the site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects (the ‘Significance Test’) [These two steps are undertaken as part of Stage 1: Screening shown in Table 1.1 above.]; if so proceed to Step 3.
• Step 3: Under Reg. 102(1), make an Appropriate Assessment of the implications for the site in view of its current conservation objectives (the ‘Integrity Test’). In so doing, it is mandatory under Reg. 102(2) to consult Natural England, and optional under Reg. 102(3) to take the opinion of the general public. [This step is undertaken during Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment shown in Table 1.1 above.]
• Step 4: In accordance with Reg. 102(4), but subject to Reg. 103, give effect to the land use plan only after having ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of the European site.

1.16 The HRA should be undertaken by the ‘competent authority’, in this case NFNPA, and LUC has been commissioned to do this on the Authority’s behalf. The HRA also requires close working with Natural England as the statutory nature conservation body¹³ in order to obtain the necessary information and agree the process, outcomes and any mitigation measures. The Environment Agency, while not a statutory consultee for HRA, is also in a strong position to provide advice and information throughout the process as it is required to undertake HRA for its existing licences and future licensing of activities. Consultation has also been undertaken with relevant, non-governmental conservation organisations, as described later in this report.

HRA work carried out previously

HRA of the adopted development plan

1.17 The adopted development plan for New Forest National Park was subject to HRA throughout its development. The final HRA documents for the adopted plan are:

• New Forest National Park Authority Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Habitat Regulations Assessment Report (prepared by Scott Wilson for the New Forest National Park Authority, January 2010).
• New Forest National Park Authority Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Habitat Regulations Assessment Report – Addendum (prepared by Scott Wilson for the New Forest National Park Authority, May 2010).

1.18 The adopted SPD on ‘Development Standards’ (September 2012) also provides relevant information in relation to avoiding significant effects on the integrity of European sites as a result of implementing the adopted Core Strategy. In addition, an HRA Screening Report was prepared by the New Forest NPA in July 2015 in relation to the National Park Management Plan 2015-2020.

1.19 This body of work relating to New Forest National Park was drawn on, as appropriate, in carrying out the HRA of the Local Plan 2016-2036.

HRA at earlier stages of the Local Plan 2016-2036

1.20 The HRA process for the Local Plan 2016-2036 began with the production in April 2016 by LUC of a non-statutory HRA Scoping Report, which was jointly prepared with New Forest District Council (NFDC) to inform the approach to HRA of both the New Forest National Park Authority (NFNPA) Local Plan and the NFDC Local Plan. The proposed approach to HRA set out in this joint scoping document was subject to consultation with Natural England, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (HIWWT), Dorset Wildlife Trust, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, and NFDC during April-May 2016. Table A4.1 of Appendix 5 sets out the comments received and LUC’s responses to these.

1.21 In August 2016 LUC then prepared an HRA Discussion Document that responded to consultation comments on the HRA Scoping Report and provided initial observations on the potential for development proposals in NFNPA’s Draft Local Plan to have adverse effects on European sites, as well as commenting on mitigation available from the emerging Local Plan and from NFNPA’s existing recreation mitigation strategy. This supported further informal consultation with Natural England.

Structure of this report

1.22 This chapter (Chapter 1) has introduced the requirement to undertake HRA of the Local Plan. The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 2: The Local Plan summarises the content of the Regulation19 Submission draft of the New Forest National Park Local Plan, which is the subject of this report;
• Chapter 3: HRA Screening methodology sets out the approach used and the specific tasks undertaken during the screening stage of the HRA;
• Chapter 4: HRA Screening findings describes the findings of the screening stage of the HRA;
• Chapter 5: Appropriate Assessment sets out the methodology and findings of the Appropriate Assessment stage of the HRA; and
• Chapter 6: Summary and conclusions summarises the findings of the HRA of the Regulation 19 Submission draft of the Local Plan and provides its overall conclusions.

1.23 Appendices to this report contain information on the European sites scoped into the HRA (Appendix 1); recreation pressure in the New Forest (Appendix 2); other relevant plans and projects that could have effects in combination with the New Forest National Park Local Plan (Appendix 3); the detailed results of the initial screening of individual Local Plan policies and site allocations (Appendix 4); stakeholder comments received at earlier stages of the HRA process and how these have been taken into account (Appendix 5); and additional information relating to the Appropriate Assessment of loss or damage to offsite supporting habitat (Appendix 6).

Notes

1. Under the Environment Act 1995, the statutory purposes of national parks in England and Wales are: 1. Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage; and 2. Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of national parks by the public
2. Seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the national parks
3. The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. HMSO Statutory Instrument 2007 No. 1843. From 1 April 2010, these were consolidated and replaced by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (SI No. 2010/490). Note that no substantive changes to existing policies or procedures have been made in the new version.
4. The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012. Statutory Instrument 2012 No. 1927.
5. Directive 2009/147/EC (Birds Directive) on the conservation of wild birds (the codified version of Council Directive 79/409/EEC as amended)
6. Potential SPAs are sites that have been approved by Government and are currently in the process of being classified as SPAs.
7. Candidate SACs are sites that have been submitted to the European Commission, but not yet formally adopted.
8. SCIs are sites that have been adopted by the European Commission but not yet formally designated as SACs by the Government.
9. The term ‘Natura 2000 sites’ can also be used interchangeably with ‘European sites’ in the context of HRA, although the latter term is used throughout this report.
10. Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. European Commission Environment DG, November 2001.
11. Planning for the Protection of Natura 2000 sites. Guidance for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), August 2006.
12. The Appropriate Assessment of Spatial Plans in England. A guide to why, when and how to do it. RSPB. August 2007.
13. Regulation 5 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. HMSO Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 490.

2 The Local Plan

2.1 As part of its statutory planning role, NFNPA is required to prepare, monitor and review a Local Plan for the National Park. Once adopted, the Local Plan will form part of the statutory development plan (alongside any Neighbourhood Plans and the separate Minerals and Waste Local Plan) for the New Forest and is the principal guide for planning decisions within the National Park. The Local Plan focuses on the area within the National Park boundary. New Forest District Council, Wiltshire Council and Test Valley Borough Council are responsible for preparing the development plans for their respective planning areas outside the National Park.

2.2 The policies in the Local Plan include both strategic policies (prefixed with ‘SP’) and more detailed development management policies (prefixed with ‘DP’). The structure and policies of the Local Plan are summarised in Table 2.1. Outlines of relevant elements of the provisions of the individual policies are provided in the screening matrix in Appendix 4.

3 HRA Screening methodology

3.1 HRA Screening of the Local Plan has been undertaken in line with current available guidance and good practice in order to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. The tasks that have been undertaken during the screening stage of the HRA are described below.

Identification of European sites which may be affected

European sites included in the previous HRA work for the New Forest National Park

3.2 In the HRA work undertaken previously for NFNPA’s adopted Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD, the following eight European sites were included:

• The New Forest SAC;
• New Forest SPA;
• The New Forest Ramsar site;
• Solent Maritime SAC;
• Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC;
• Solent and Southampton Water SPA;
• Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site;
• Mottisfont Bats SAC.

3.3 Mottisfont Bats SAC was originally scoped out of the HRA but was later included in the assessment following a consultation response from Natural England which advised that the SAC should be included in the scope of the HRA, due to the distance over which the qualifying bat species are known to commute for foraging.

3.4 Six European sites that had originally been included within the scope of the HRA for the Core Strategy were screened out at the Submission stage. This was the case for River Avon SAC, Avon Valley SPA, Avon Valley Ramsar site, Dorset Heaths SAC, Dorset Heathlands SPA and the Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site. In the case of the Avon Valley sites, these sites were scoped out of the HRA because development locations within the National Park did not derive water supplies from the Avon Valley catchment and the Environment Agency consenting regime was thought likely to avoid significant effects. The Dorset Heaths sites were scoped out because the spatial distribution of development in the National Park in relation to the Dorset Heaths meant that recreational effects on sites were not considered likely. Natural England did not object to the scoping out of these sites in its consultation responses.

European sites to be included in the HRA for the new Local Plan

3.5 Since Natural England did not object to the list of European sites considered in the HRA of the adopted Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD, the joint HRA Scoping Report for the NFDNPA and NFDC Local Plans initially proposed that the same eight sites be included in the HRA work for NFNPA’s new Local Plan for the same reasons. This was subject to the caveat that if at any point information gathered during the HRA indicated that other European sites could be affected by either Local Plan, they would be considered in the assessment(s) as appropriate.

3.6 Further consideration of potential mechanisms for effects of the Local Plan, as documented in an internal HRA Discussion Document, and further consultation with Natural England and other stakeholder bodies indicated that the Avon Valley and Dorset Heathlands European designations should be scoped in to the HRA of the NFNPA Local Plan on a precautionary basis. This was because of the potential for loss of supporting habitat for qualifying bird populations (Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site, Dorset Heathlands SPA), potential air quality effects due to traffic growth on roads outside of the National Park boundary (Dorset Heaths SAC and Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site), potential recreation pressure (Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site, Dorset Heaths SAC and SPA), and potential water quality effects from treated wastewater discharges (River Avon SAC, Avon Valley SPA, Avon Valley Ramsar site). Consultation on the HRA Scoping Report also identified a need to consider the potential for the Local Plan to have adverse effects on the River Itchen SAC in relation to water supply/changes in water quantity. Finally, Solent and Dorset Coast potential SPA (pSPA) was subject to formal consultation until January 2017 on its possible designation to protect marine feeding areas used by designated birds and has also been scoped into the HRA.

3.7 The European sites that have been considered in the HRA of the Local Plan are therefore as follows:

• River Avon SAC;
• Avon Valley SPA;
• Avon Valley Ramsar site;
• Dorset Heaths SAC;
• Dorset Heathlands SPA;
• Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site;
• Mottisfont Bats SAC;
• The New Forest SAC;
• New Forest SPA;
• The New Forest Ramsar site;
• River Itchen SAC;
• Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA;
• Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC;
• Solent Maritime SAC;
• Solent and Southampton Water SPA;
• Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site.

3.8 The locations of the European sites above are shown in Figure 3.1. The designated features and conservation objectives of the European sites, together with current pressures on and potential threats to these are described in Appendix 1. This information was drawn from the Standard Data Forms for SACs and SPAs and the Information Sheets for Ramsar Wetlands published on the JNCC website¹⁴, Natural England’s Site Improvement Plans¹⁵, conservation objectives (only available for SACs and SPAs) published on the Natural England website¹⁶, and consultation information for potential marine SPAs published by DEFRA¹⁷.

Approach to HRA Screening

3.9 As required under Regulation 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010¹⁸ an assessment has been made of the ‘likely significant effects’ of the Local Plan. A risk-based approach involving the application of the precautionary principle was adopted in the screening assessment, such that a conclusion of ‘no significant effect’ was only reached where it was considered very unlikely, based on current knowledge and the information available, that a policy or site allocation would have a significant effect on the integrity of a European site.

Initial screening assessment

3.10 An initial screening assessment was undertaken to identify which components of the Local Plan have the potential to have likely significant effects on European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects and the results are recorded in the table in Appendix 4. This initial screening was undertaken prior to consideration of the mitigation which may be provided by other policies in the Local Plan or by other regulatory mechanisms. Where a policy does not have the potential to result in a likely significant effect, the relevant cell was shaded green and the policy screened out from any further assessment.

3.11 To reduce repetition and aid consistency, reasons for screening out policies were categorised according to the following scheme and reference made to these ‘reason codes’ in the ‘Justification’ column of the initial screening table:

• A. General statement of policy or general aspiration;
• B. Policy listing general criteria for testing the acceptability or sustainability of proposals;
• C. Proposal referred to but not proposed by the Local Plan;
• D. Environmental protection or site safeguarding policy;
• E. Policy or proposal which steers change in such a way as to protect European sites from adverse effects;
• F. Policy that cannot lead to development or other change;
• G. Policy or proposal that could not have any conceivable effect on a site;
• H. Policy or proposal the (actual or theoretical) effects of which cannot undermine the conservation objectives of European sites (either alone or in combination with other aspects of this or other plans or projects).

3.12 Where a component of the Local Plan could potentially have a likely significant effect, the relevant cell was shaded orange and the types of effect and potentially affected European sites were highlighted. Each type of potential likely significant effect was then subject to further screening in Chapter 4, taking into account mitigation, in order to conclude whether likely significant effects could be ruled out.

Interpretation of ‘likely significant effect’

As required under Regulation 102 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 an assessment of the ‘likely significant effects’ of the Local Plan has been undertaken.

Relevant case law helps to interpret when effects should be considered as a likely significant effect, when carrying out HRA of a land use plan.

In the Waddenzee case, the European Court of Justice ruled on the interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (translated into Reg. 102 in the Habitats Regulations), including that:

• An effect should be considered ‘likely’, “if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that it will have a significant effect on the site” (para 44).
• An effect should be considered ‘significant’, “if it undermines the conservation objectives” (para 48).
• Where a plan or project has an effect on a site “but is not likely to undermine its conservation objectives, it cannot be considered likely to have a significant effect on the site concerned” (para 47).

A recent opinion delivered to the Court of Justice of the European Union commented that:

“The requirement that an effect in question be ‘significant’ exists in order to lay down a de minimis threshold. Plans or projects that have no appreciable effect on the site are thereby excluded. If all plans or projects capable of having any effect whatsoever on the site were to be caught by Article 6(3), activities on or near the site would risk being impossible by reason of legislative overkill.”

This opinion (the ‘Sweetman’ case) therefore allows for the authorisation of plans and projects whose possible effects, alone or in combination, can be considered ‘trivial’ or de minimis; referring to such cases as those “that have no appreciable effect on the site‟. In practice such effects could be screened out as having no likely significant effect; they would be ‘insignificant’.

Identification of other plans and projects which may have ‘in combination’ effects

3.13 Regulation 102 of the Habitats Regulations 2010 requires an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ where “a land use plan is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site”. Therefore, as well as considering the likely effects of the Local Plan alone on European sites, it was necessary to consider whether there may be significant effects from the Local Plan in combination with other plans or projects.

3.14 The potential for ‘in combination’ effects need only be considered for those Local Plan components identified as unlikely to have a significant effect alone, but which could act in combination with other plans and projects to produce a likely significant effect. This approach accords with recent guidance on HRA¹⁹.

3.15 The first stage in identifying potential in combination effects involves identifying which other plans and projects in addition to the Local Plan may affect the European sites that are the focus of the HRA.

3.16 Case law and guidance suggest that a plan or project at any of the following stages may be relevant to the in combination assessment:

• applications lodged but not yet determined;
• projects subject to periodic review e.g. annual licences, during the time that their renewal is under consideration;
• refusals subject to appeal procedures not yet determined;
• projects with consent but not yet started;
• projects started but not yet completed;
• known projects that do not need consent;
• proposals in adopted plans;
• proposals in finalised draft plans formally published or submitted for final consultation or adoption.

3.17 The review of other plans focussed on Local Plans for authorities adjacent to New Forest National Park as well as Minerals Local Plans, Waste Local Plans and Local Transport Plans; the findings of any associated HRA work for those plans was also reviewed, if available.

3.18 Based on a review of the National Infrastructure Planning website²⁰ and discussion with NFNPA, no other projects of significant scale that could result in in combination effects with the Local Plan were identified.

3.19 Appendix 3 presents the review of other plans and projects, outlining the components of each plan or project that could have an impact on nearby European sites and considering the findings of the accompanying HRA work, where available. The following authorities’ plans and HRA work were included:

• Bournemouth Borough Council;
• Christchurch Borough Council;
• Dorset County Council;
• East Dorset District Council;
• Hampshire County Council;
• Isle of Wight Council;
• New Forest District Council;
• Poole Borough Council;
• Southampton City Council;
• Test Valley Borough Council;
• Wiltshire Council.

3.20 While this HRA report has presented the initial screening results for each policy and site allocation individually, which is consistent with current guidance, the screening assessments also considered the potential for the effects of each Local Plan component to become significant in combination with other Local Plan components or with other plans and projects.

Mitigation

3.21 Some of the potential effects identified during the initial HRA Screening may be mitigated by other policies in the Local Plan, or by other plans or regulatory mechanisms. Such mitigation was referenced where relevant and taken into consideration in reaching the HRA conclusions. It is not appropriate for the HRA to rely solely on generic policy protection for European sites such as that provided by the first part of Local Plan Policy SP5: Nature Conservation Sites of International Importance since this does not provide sufficient certainty that the mitigation could be effectively delivered when implementing the screened in policies. This policy was therefore not relied upon in the HRA. Instead, the HRA took account of existing policies or regulatory mechanisms that directly address the identified potential effect.

Methodological points established via consultation on NFDC Local Plan Part 1

3.22 Subsequent to consultation on the joint HRA Scoping Report for New Forest Local Plans, an HRA Discussion Document, similar to that prepared for NFNPA, was prepared in relation to the NFDC Local Plan Part 1 and was subject to consultation with the same group of stakeholders that were invited to comment on the HRA Scoping Report at a meeting on 9 August 2016 and via subsequent correspondence. Since this second round of consultation related to NFDC’s Local Plan rather than NFNPA’s, the consultee’s comments and LUC’s responses are not reproduced in full in this HRA report. However, we have outlined below the key points of agreement that are also relevant to the methodology and evidence for the HRA of NFNPA Local Plan.

3.23 Indirect effects on supporting habitat – the HRA should be limited to considering direct loss of or damage to supporting habitat beyond European site boundaries; other effects on supporting habitat such as recreation pressure are judged to be non-significant.

3.24 Potential loss of supporting habitat to Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site qualifying bird populations – based on information provided by Natural England, the HRA Screening should assume that supporting habitat for Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site qualifying bird populations only exists in the Harbridge area to the west of the European site and north of Ringwood.

3.25 Water quality of Solent – on the advice of Natural England, the HRA Screening should reference any emerging findings that are available from the South Hampshire Integrated Water Management Strategy (IWMS).

3.26 Increased traffic using Roger Penny Way (B3078) across New Forest – on the advice of Natural England, ‘Traffic collision risk’ should be added to the types of potential effect that were identified in the joint HRA Scoping Report.

3.27 Private sewerage systems – based on research commissioned by Natural England²¹ and discussion with Natural England, the HRA Screening should assume that, prior to mitigation, likely significant effects on water quality cannot be ruled out where development is not likely to be connected to a public sewer and is within 30 m of a European site. The HRA Screening can rely on mitigation provided by the fact that any new discharge to the ground from a septic tank or small sewage treatment plant within 50 m of a European site requires a permit from the Environment Agency.²² This should allow likely significant effects to be ruled out post-mitigation..

References (web)

• JNCC: www.jncc.defra.gov.uk
• Natural England Site Improvement Plans: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/5458594975711232
• Natural England conservation objectives: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/category/6490068894089216
• DEFRA consultation (Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA): https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/solent-and-dorset-coast-potential-special-protection-area-comment-on-proposals
• National Infrastructure Planning: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/
• DTA HRA handbook: http://www.dtapublications.co.uk/handbook/browse
• Environment Agency binding rules (small sewage discharge): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-binding-rules-small-sewage-discharge-to-the-ground

4 HRA Screening findings

4.1 As described in Chapter 3, a screening assessment was carried out to identify which components of the Local Plan have the potential to result in likely significant effects on European sites. The results of that initial screening are presented below followed by further assessment in relation to each type of potential likely significant effect identified in the initial screening.

Results of initial screening

4.2 The initial screening of each Local Plan component, prior to consideration of mitigation provided by other Local Plan policies or other policies or regulatory mechanisms, is detailed in Appendix 4.

4.3 It was found that likely significant effects, either from the policy alone or in-combination with other Local Plan policies or with other plans and projects, could be ruled out for most Local Plan components. This was because the policies fell into one or more of the following screening categories:

• A. General statement of policy / general aspiration;
• B. Policy listing general criteria for testing the acceptability /sustainability of proposals;
• D. Environmental protection / site safeguarding policy;
• E. Policy or proposal which steers change in such a way as to protect European sites from adverse effects;
• F. Policy that cannot lead to development or other change.

4.4 Some Local Plan components, however, required further assessment including consideration of available mitigation, before a screening conclusion could be reached. The Local Plan policies for which the initial screening identified a potential for likely significant effects and the types of potential effect identified are summarised in Table 4.1. The following section then considers each of these types of potential likely significant effect from the screened in components of the Local Plan in more detail, identifies the European sites potentially affected, and concludes whether further evidence gathering and/or an Appropriate Assessment is required.

4.5 The locations of the development allocations made by Policies SP22-S26 and Policy SP33 are illustrated in Figure 4.1 to Figure 4.5.

Assumptions and information used in further screening

4.6 There are many uncertainties associated with assessing the potential for particular types of development to significantly affect European sites therefore, to guide the assessment process and assist consistency and transparency, a number of assumptions were made. These primarily seek to establish ‘zones of influence’ within which certain types of effect are capable of being significant or relevant significance thresholds or limits. Where possible, reference was made to relevant standards or research but in many cases it was necessary to base the assumptions on professional judgement, discussion with stakeholders²³ and current practice in HRA. The basis for the assumptions is documented in the assumptions section of each type of effect considered below. For the spatially specific components of the Local Plan, screening for many of the potential types of likely significant effects was carried out using GIS data to determine the proximity of development locations to the scoped-in European sites; these distances were then compared to the assumed zones of influence.

Direct loss or physical damage to European sites

4.7 This HRA topic considers the potential effects of the development proposed by the Local Plan in terms of direct loss of or physical damage to designated habitats or direct mortality of designated species.

HRA Screening assumptions

4.8 It was assumed that it would not be possible to rule out likely significant effects prior to mitigation if a Local Plan policy or site allocation would result in development which overlaps with any European site.

4.9 Habitat loss/damage and mortality of designated species on site only needed to be considered in relation to the European sites that intersect with the Local Plan area, i.e.:

• River Avon SAC;
• Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC; Solent Maritime SAC; Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site;
• The New Forest SAC and Ramsar site; New Forest SPA.

4.10 Any amount of development proposed by the Local Plan within the boundary of a European site was assumed to give rise to a likely significant effect therefore consideration of in combination effects at the HRA Screening stage was not required.

Potential for likely significant effects from Local Plan prior to mitigation

4.11 The allocated development sites in the Local Plan do not overlap any European sites.

4.12 Policy SP4: Spatial Strategy and Policy SP20: Specialist Housing for Older People directs most development to within the defined settlement boundaries of Ashurst, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst, and Sway where it would also avoid European sites. While the Spatial Strategy also allows for development outside of allocated sites and the four Defined Villages (for example under Policy SP28: Rural Exception Sites), this is more appropriately assessed via project level HRA as specific proposals come forward, as described in the initial screening of spatially non-specific development policies in Appendix 1.

Mitigation provided by the Local Plan

4.13 No mitigation measures are included in the Local Plan that are specific to the policies screened in by the initial HRA Screening or to the types of potential effect identified.

Conclusions and recommendations

4.14 Likely significant effects due to direct loss or physical damage due to construction within the boundaries of European sites can be ruled out.

Loss or damage to offsite supporting habitat

4.15 This section of the HRA Screening examines the potential for direct loss of or physical damage by development to habitats that are located beyond designated site boundaries but which are relied upon by designated species populations of scoped-in European sites.

HRA Screening assumptions

4.16 It was assumed that it would not be possible to rule out likely significant effects prior to mitigation if a Local Plan policy or site allocation would result in development that:

• is used by the qualifying bird populations of Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site; Dorset Heathlands SPA; New Forest SPA; Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA; or Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site; or
• that overlaps offsite habitat areas of importance to the qualifying bat population of Mottisfont Bats SAC. Based on the SAC’s ‘Protocol for Planning Officers’²⁴, HRA Screening assumed that likely significant effects prior to mitigation cannot be ruled out for any development within 7.5 km of the SAC which would result in loss of or damage to open water, deciduous woodland, riparian, or unimproved grassland habitats or in construction of a significant linear feature such as a new road.

4.17 Any amount of development proposed by the Local Plan within an area of potential supporting habitat was assumed to give rise to a likely significant effect, therefore consideration of in combination effects at the HRA Screening stage was not required.

Potential for likely significant effects from Local Plan prior to mitigation

Supporting habitat for qualifying birds

4.18 The Local Plan allocates a number of development sites in areas where qualifying bird species may make use of offsite habitat for foraging, roosting and loafing. The European sites’ bird populations that could potentially be affected are those that are qualifying features of Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site, Dorset Heathlands SPA, New Forest SPA, or Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site. In line with comments provided by Natural England and HIWWT during the consultation process, a detailed desk-based study was necessary to determine whether adverse effects on the integrity of these sites could be ruled out.

Supporting habitat for qualifying bats

4.19 The Local Plan does not allocate any development sites within 7.5 km of the Mottisfont Bats SAC.

Mitigation available

4.20 No mitigation measures are included in the Local Plan that are specific to the policies screened in by the initial HRA Screening or to the types of potential effect identified.

Conclusions and recommendations

Supporting habitat for qualifying birds

4.21 Likely significant effects cannot be ruled out from the Local Plan site allocations on offsite habitat used by the qualifying bird species of the Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site, Dorset Heathlands SPA, New Forest SPA, or Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site. An Appropriate Assessment was therefore carried out, as described in Chapter 5.

Supporting habitat for qualifying bats

4.22 Based on the absence of proposed development within the 7.5 km zone of influence defined by the Mottisfont Bats SAC ‘Protocol for Planning Officers’²⁵, likely significant effects can be ruled out.

Urban edge effects

4.23 A variety of different types of effect are associated with increased human populations close to sensitive European sites (e.g. noise pollution, light pollution, increased numbers of predators such as foxes and crows, increased incidence of fires, etc.). This HRA topic considers the potential effects of the Local Plan relating of these ‘urban edge effects’.

HRA Screening assumptions

4.24 Based on the HRA work carried out for adopted Local Plan documents plus discussion with Natural England, the most important types of urban edge effect in the context of development in the New Forest National Park are thought to be:

• Cat predation - hunting by domestic cats;
• Increased fly-tipping - particularly risk of introduction of invasive alien species from garden waste.

4.25 It was therefore assumed that the potential for urban edge effects to be significant only exists for residential development (including gypsy and traveller sites and rural exception sites but excluding visitor accommodation/ tourism use as it is unlikely that these will be associated with cats on the premises or domestic garden waste). The HRA Screening assumed that likely significant effects cannot be ruled out, prior to mitigation, if residential development will occur within 400 m of European sites with qualifying features sensitive to these types of effect. Based on their designated features and the pressures and threats facing them (see Appendix 1), these were judged to be:

• Dorset Heaths SAC and SPA (but effects on these can be ruled out as the Local Plan area is more than 400 m from the European site boundaries); and
• New Forest SAC and SPA.

4.26 A distance of 400 m was chosen because:

• New Forest SPA is located within New Forest National Park and Policy CP1 of the adopted Core Strategy for New Forest NPA, which was agreed with Natural England, states that: “...any housing that is proposed to be located within 400 metres of the boundary of the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) will be required to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid of mitigate any potential adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the SPA.”
• Natural England’s view, documented in The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2015-2020²⁶, is that residential development within 400 m of the Dorset Heathlands European designations is likely to have a significant adverse effect, either alone or in combination with other developments due to a variety of ‘urban effects’, including cat predation of ground nesting birds.
• Natural England confirmed at a New Forest HRA stakeholder meeting on 9/8/16 that it is happy with the use of a 400 m distance when screening for potential ‘urban edge effects from construction or occupation of buildings’ on heathland sites.

4.27 It should be noted that while the Dorset Heathlands SPA has a number of similar designated features to New Forest SPA, the New Forest SPA is considered to be more resilient and hence less likely to suffer adverse effects on its integrity as a result of the potential harmful effects of housing within 400 m of its boundary. This is because New Forest SPA provides a larger (more than three times the area) and less fragmented area of habitat than the Dorset Heathlands SPA and therefore has a much lower edge to area ratio, so that urban edge effects are likely to be much less pronounced. As a National Park the New Forest National Park also has a more developed system of habitat and visitor management than Dorset Heathlands SPA. These important differences mean that a different approach to urban edge effects is justifiable in the New Forest compared to the virtual ban on housing development within 400 m of Dorset Heathlands SPA imposed by the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework.

Potential for likely significant effects from Local Plan prior to mitigation

4.28 In total, the Draft Local Plan (Policy 18) provides for 800 new dwellings to be delivered in the National Park between 2016 and 2036, comprising 300 dwellings on allocated sites, 100 dwellings from the implementation of extant planning permissions, and 400 dwellings from windfall development (unidentified or unallocated sites).

4.29 Three of the Local Plan residential or mixed-use allocations are located within the 400 m zone of influence for urban edge effects on New Forest SAC and SPA, and therefore have the potential for likely significant effects on that European site. These are:

• Land at the former Lyndhurst Park Hotel, Lyndhurst (Policy SP23) – wholly within 400 m zone;
• Land south of Church Lane, Sway (Policy SP24) – strip of land along north eastern edge of site within 400 m zone; and
• Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople (Policy SP33) – existing gypsy site at Forest View, Landford is adjacent to the New Forest SAC.

4.30 Proposals with extant planning permissions will have been subject to project level HRA if required and to the adopted Core Strategy Policy CP1 which requires that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the SAC and SPA so it is assumed that this development will not give rise to likely significant effects.

4.31 In addition to Local Plan allocations, some of the 400 dwellings estimated to come forwards within the plan period as windfall development are likely to be within the 400 m zone of influence for urban edge effects on New Forest SAC and SPA. This is particularly likely since Policy SP4: Spatial Strategy prioritises development in the four Defined Villages (Ashurst, Brockenhurst, Lyndhurst, and Sway), all of which are partially within the 400 m zone of influence. The housing provision to be met by windfalls equates to an average of 20 new dwellings per annum and individual windfall development proposals are therefore likely to be substantially smaller. In contrast, Local Plan allocations are used to bring forward larger scale developments with site allocations ranging in size from 30 dwellings to 120 dwellings.

4.32 Due to the expected small scale and wide distribution of individual windfall developments it was judged that these are not likely to give rise to significant urban edge effects on New Forest SAC or SPA, either individually or in combination with other windfall developments within 400 m of the New Forest SAC and SPA. This approach is also broadly consistent with the approach to ‘Urbanisation’ effects that was found to be acceptable in the HRA of the adopted NFNPA Core Strategy. In the event that a larger number of windfall dwellings were to come forward on a single site or closely related cluster of sites within 400 m of the New Forest SAC and SPA, reliance can be placed on the Habitats Regulations’ requirement for individual projects to also be subject to HRA.

Mitigation available

4.33 As noted at paragraph 3.21 above, it is not considered appropriate for the HRA to rely solely on the generic protection for European sites offered by Policy SP5: Nature Conservation Sites of International Importance. It is nonetheless relevant to note that the policy states that avoidance or mitigation may not be possible in some cases due to the scale, type, or proximity of the proposed development in relation to European sites and that each case will therefore be assessed on its merits. Supporting text notes that if a larger number of windfall dwellings were to come forward on a single site or closely related cluster of sites within 400 m of the New Forest SAC and SPA, then the Authority will require the applicant to supply sufficient evidence for an Appropriate Assessment of the urban edge effects.

4.34 Policy SP5 highlights the opportunity for proposals to avoid or fully mitigate any likely significant effects on European sites by putting in place sufficient and effective measures and to secure mitigation via contributions to the Authority’s Habitat Mitigation Scheme and/or the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership’s Scheme. NFNPA’s revised Habitat Mitigation Scheme²⁷ is, however, focussed on alleviating the potential in combination effects of recreation pressure on New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar site (which could arise from residential development or visitor accommodation anywhere in the Plan area) rather than urban edge effects (which could arise from residential development within 400 m of the New Forest SAC and SPA). The key elements of the revised scheme are: access management within the New Forest European designations; alternative recreation sites and routes outside the designated sites; education, awareness and promotion; monitoring and research; and in-perpetuity funding.

4.35 In LUC’s view, it is not possible to rule out the potential for urban edge effects such as cat predation or fly-tipping from residential allocations within 400 m of New Forest SAC or SPA by reliance on contributions to NFNPA’s Habitat Mitigation Scheme since it is not clear that any of the scheme elements would address these types of effect.

4.36 HRA of the Local Plan did not initially identify any policies that specifically addressed the potential urban edge effects from development of land at the former Lyndhurst Park Hotel, Lyndhurst (Policy SP23) or the additional gypsy and traveller pitch at Forest View, Landford (Policy SP33). This resulted in the Draft HRA making recommendations for additional safeguards within these policies and these have now been implemented as follows:

• Policy SP23 Land at the former Lyndhurst Park Hotel, Lyndhurst – the policy requires that development proposals incorporate measures to mitigate potential significant urban edge impacts on the adjacent protected habitats; supporting text notes that urban edge impacts to be considered include cat predation and the introduction of invasive species from fly-tipping of garden waste and that mitigation measures could include the use of legal covenants and arrangements for grounds maintenance.
• Policy SP33: Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople - due to the proximity of the New Forest SAC, measures must be put in place to adequately mitigate the potential for the introduction of invasive species from fly tipping of garden waste.

4.37 Policy SP24 avoids the potential for likely significant urban edge effects by a stipulation that residential development on the site will be limited to the part of the site that is located more than 400 m from New Forest SPA; instead, informal recreation use is supported along the north eastern edge of the site that is within 400 m of the SPA.

Conclusions and recommendations

4.38 As described above, it was possible to rule out likely significant urban edge effects on New Forest SAC or SPA, from windfall development due to the expected small scale and wide distribution of individual windfall developments.

4.39 Specific risks were initially identified from the residential allocations within 400 m of New Forest SAC or SPA made by Policy SP23: Land at the former Lyndhurst Park Hotel, Lyndhurst and on New Forest SAC from the allocation of an additional gypsy and traveller pitch at Forest View, Landford (Policy SP33). This resulted in additional safeguards being added to these allocation policies, as described above.

4.40 Likely significant urban edge effects from the Local Plan can therefore be ruled out, either alone or in combination.

Changes in air quality

4.41 This HRA topic considers the potential effects of the Local Plan in terms of air pollution from new or more congested roads as a result of new development, resulting in toxic contamination or nutrient enrichment of habitats.

HRA Screening assumptions

4.42 Increased traffic flows as a result of the amount and broad location of development proposed by the Local Plan alone or in-combination with other drivers of traffic growth could adversely affect local air quality. This is a potentially significant issue for the HRA where roads are located close to European sites that are sensitive to air pollution (principally nitrogen deposition).

4.43 The assessment methodology in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Department for Transport, 2007) states that there is a potential for likely significant effects where road corridors are within 200 m of a European site having interest features that are sensitive to changes in air quality.

Potential for likely significant effects from Local Plan prior to mitigation

4.44 Based on an examination of their interest features and their locations, scoped-in European sites that may be sensitive to changes in air quality that are within 200 m of major roads (motorways or ‘A’ roads) are:

• Dorset Heaths SAC and Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site;
• The New Forest SAC and Ramsar site; New Forest SPA;
• Solent Maritime SAC;
• Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site.

4.45 Natural England’s Site Improvement Plans²⁸ list air pollution in the form of atmospheric nitrogen deposition as a current pressure or future threat to all of these European sites.

4.46 A review of the Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website indicates that rates of Nitrogen deposition exceed critical loads²⁹ for some sensitive features of Dorset Heaths SAC, The New Forest SPA, New Forest SPA,; and Solent Maritime SAC.

4.47 An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) has been designated in Lyndhurst High Street due to the presence of excessive transport related pollutants. Whilst AQMAs are designated to protect human health this nevertheless indicates the presence of existing high levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution in a location where 50 additional dwellings are allocated (Policy SP23) and which is adjacent to the New Forest European sites.

4.48 The Transport and Access section of the Local Plan states that there are high levels of commuter traffic crossing the Park, particularly from the surrounding areas. A significant proportion of the local workforce is either self-employed and work from home (about 11%) or commute to work outside the area, particularly to Southampton. Overall there is a significant net outflow of people from the National Park travelling to work in urban areas such as Southampton (providing employment for 15% of the National Park’s working population) and Bournemouth (providing employment for 8% of the National Park’s working population). The Local Plan also notes that road traffic volumes across the National Park are high, especially during the summer months, and that trends indicate a general increase each year on a number of routes.

4.49 The National Park receives an estimated 13.5 million visitor days each year, with the vast majority of both staying and day visitors using the car to reach their destination³⁰. Thus, while the amount of traffic growth associated with the small scale of development proposed by the Local Plan alone is unlikely to be significant, when this is combined with commuter and visitor traffic growth from neighbouring areas, roads within and close to the New Forest could experience a significant increase in road traffic and associated air pollution.

Mitigation available

4.50 The Local Plan resists major development within the National Park (Policy SP3) and seeks to direct most supported housing and employment development to its larger settlements, which have most services, facilities and local employment opportunities (Policy SP4), helping to reduce the need to travel. The Local Plan resists expansion of development of strategic transport infrastructure in the National Park (Policy SP54) which would include the strategic road network. It also supports appropriate improvements to more sustainable forms of transport (Policy SP55) which should help to limit road traffic growth.

Conclusions and recommendations

4.51 The development proposed by the Local Plan is small in scale and focussed on relatively sustainable locations adjacent to existing, larger settlements in New Forest National Park. This together with the support for more sustainable forms of transport and resistance to strategic transport development means it is reasonable to conclude that traffic growth and associated increases in air pollution from the Local Plan alone are unlikely to be significant. However, as acknowledged in the Local Plan, traffic flows within and across the National Park relating to visitors and commuters are large and growing.

4.52 It was therefore recommended that a more detailed examination of potential in-combination air quality effects on the Dorset Heaths, New Forest and Solent European sites listed at paragraph 4.44 above be carried out. In response, NFNPA and NFDC jointly commissioned third party consultants to carry out an air quality assessment³¹ and linked ecological assessment³² which are reported on separately and together constitute the HRA of air quality effects for both the New Forest National Park and New Forest District Local Plans; at the time of writing, these documents had not yet been finalised although draft results and conclusions are presented within them. The results and conclusions of the HRA in relation to changes in air quality are set out in those separate reports but for ease of reference their emerging draft conclusions are also summarised below.

4.53 The draft air quality assessment³³ concludes that it is not possible to discount the potential for significant effects in relation to increased NOx concentrations, nutrient nitrogen deposition, or increased ammonia concentrations without further analysis of the sensitivity of designated habitats to these impacts at identified locations.

4.54 The draft ecological assessment concludes as follows for the various European sites considered.

The New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar site

4.55 Implementation of the NFNPA Local Plan and NFDC Local Plan in isolation is not likely to have a significant effect on the New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. In combination effects will result in exceedances for ammonia and acid deposition, although exceedance of critical loads / levels is also predicted in the absence of the Local Plans. Advice published by APIS³⁴ indicates that site-specific information on the effects of ammonia and acid deposition on vegetation is limited. The ecological assessment therefore recommends that NFNPA and NFDC undertake periodic vegetation monitoring to determine the current condition of sensitive vegetation and to identify any changes that occur during the life of the two Local Plans (measured at appropriate intervals). The monitoring would need to be complemented by a mitigation strategy that sets out actions that will be implemented if required. Habitat management measures that can be used to mitigate the impact of airborne pollutants are also summarised in the ecological assessment.

Dorset Heaths SAC and Dorset Heathlands SPA and Ramsar site

4.56 Implementation of the NFNPA Local Plan and NFDC Local Plan is not likely to have a significant effect on the Dorset Heaths SAC or the Dorset Heathlands SPA and Ramsar site. Although the resultant increase in traffic will result in localised exceedances of the screening criteria and critical levels or loads, this is likely to be mitigated in part by existing vegetation alongside roads. Where impacts do occur it is expected that they will be limited in their extent and area.

Solent Maritime SAC

4.57 Implementation of the NFNPA Local Plan and NFDC Local Plan is not likely to have a significant effect on the Solent Maritime SAC. The modelling scenarios employed mean that this conclusion is also reached when considering the effects of the Local Plan in combination with other plans and projects.

Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site

4.58 Implementation of the NFNPA Local Plan and NFDC Local Plan is not likely to have a significant effect on the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site. The modelling scenarios employed mean that this conclusion is also reached when considering the effects of the Local Plan in combination with other plans and projects.

Traffic collision risk

4.59 Correspondence with Natural England³⁵ identified a type of potential adverse effect not previously included in the joint HRA Scoping document for NFDC and NFNPA: the responsible officer for the New Forest expressed concerns that development could result in an increase in traffic using Roger Penny Way (B3078 across the northern part of the New Forest) and roads near Hordle, making them unsafe for grazing animals and necessitating fencing along the roadsides. If fencing is needed to protect animals, changes to the grazing pattern in the New Forest could, without mitigation, lead to loss of open habitats for which New Forest SAC and Ramsar site is designated, with knock-on effects on New Forest SPA designated bird species and New Forest Ramsar site fauna reliant on those habitats. There is potential for similar problems to arise close to all road commuting routes across the New Forest where conservation grazing is important for habitat management.

HRA Screening assumptions

4.60 In the absence of any other benchmark, HRA Screening assumed that likely significant effects due to traffic collision risk cannot be ruled out where transport modelling indicates that road traffic growth from the Local Plan, alone or in-combination with other plans and projects, will exceed 8,000 AADT (the figure provided by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, volume 11, to indicate a scale of traffic flows on a new road that would begin to result in moderate severance of a community). This threshold was agreed with Natural England.

Potential for likely significant effects from Local Plan prior to mitigation

4.61 Hordle is some distance from the European sites of the New Forest and there is therefore limited potential for likely significant effects. In relation to Roger Penny Way, none of the development sites allocated by the Local Plan is close to this route. Small increases in traffic on Roger Penny Way may, however, result from windfall development and other routes crossing the New Forest European designations are also likely to see some traffic increases from the development proposed by the Local Plan.

4.62 As described under the ‘Changes in air quality’ topic above, while the amount of traffic growth associated with the small scale of development proposed by the Local Plan alone is unlikely to be significant, when this is combined with commuter and visitor traffic growth from neighbouring areas, roads within and close to the New Forest could experience a significant increase in road traffic.

Mitigation available

4.63 Local Plan policies will help to limit traffic growth, as described under ‘Changes in air quality’ above. It is assumed that traffic modelling represents the expected future traffic flows after the effects of these policies.

Conclusions and recommendations

4.64 The development proposed by the Local Plan is small in scale and focussed on relatively sustainable locations adjacent to existing, larger settlements in New Forest National Park. This together with the support for more sustainable forms of transport and resistance to strategic transport development means it is reasonable to conclude that traffic growth from the Local Plan alone is unlikely to be significant. However, as acknowledged in the Local Plan, traffic flows within and across the National Park relating to visitors and commuters are large and growing and there is therefore a potential for effects to be significant in combination.

4.65 At the time that the 8,000 AADT screening threshold for in combination traffic growth was agreed with Natural England it was anticipated that the air quality study would report traffic growth in a suitable format to allow identification of roads running within or alongside the New Forest European sites where traffic growth is forecast to exceed this figure. NFDC, which commissioned this work joint work to inform HRA of both the New Forest District and National Park Local Plans, reports that the approach taken to traffic modelling means that these in combination traffic growth figures cannot readily be reported. The HRA has therefore assumed on a precautionary basis that in combination traffic growth may exceed 8,000 AADT and has proceeded to an Appropriate Assessment of the potential for traffic collision risk to adversely affect the integrity of the New Forest European designations.

Recreation pressure

4.66 This HRA topic considers the potential effects of the Local Plan in terms of:

• Designated species mortality or disturbance: direct mortality of ground nesting birds’ eggs or young by visitor trampling or dogs off leads; disturbance of ground nesting birds by recreational visitors and their dogs; mortality due to increased incidence of fires; mortality due to tipping/littering.
• Designated habitats loss or damage: path erosion or soil compaction by walkers, cyclists, horse riders etc.; eutrophication of soils by dog faeces; increased incidence of fires; tipping/littering.

HRA Screening assumptions

4.67 European sites scoped into the HRA which are judged to be vulnerable to recreation pressure, based on their designated features and the pressures and threats facing them (see Appendix 1) are:

• Avon Valley SPA;
• Avon Valley Ramsar site;
• Dorset Heaths SAC;
• Dorset Heathlands SPA;
• New Forest SAC;
• New Forest SPA;
• Solent Maritime SAC;
• Solent and Southampton Water SPA;
• Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site.

4.68 The HRA therefore considered the potential for increased recreation pressure on these sites as follows.

Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site

4.69 Dog walkers disturbing the designated population of Bewick’s Swan in areas outside public rights of way are identified by the Site Improvement Plan as a concern. It is understood that Natural England has not previously been concerned about recreational pressure on this site arising from development in the New Forest, due in part to very limited public access. The Gadwall population for which the SPA is also designated is focussed on Blashford Lakes Gravel Pits which is managed as a nature reserve so access is controlled. It also seems likely that the extensive outdoor recreation opportunities within the New Forest National Park and Solent Coast European sites exert a stronger pull on many residents of New Forest District and New Forest National Park than the Avon Valley.

4.70 The HRA therefore assumed that recreational users of the Avon Valley are overwhelmingly local and that a potential for a contribution to in combination recreational pressure on the Bewick’s Swan population only exists for any residential development or visitor accommodation within 1.0 km of Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site.

Dorset Heaths SAC and SPA

4.71 Based on research into the behaviour of visitors to the Dorset Heaths³⁶,³⁷ and Natural England’s views documented in The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2015-2020³⁸, the HRA assumed that prior to consideration of mitigation, all residential development or visitor accommodation within 5 km of Dorset Heaths SAC or Dorset Heathlands SPA is likely to have a likely significant effect in combination.

New Forest SAC and SPA

4.72 Prior HRA work for the NFDC Local Plan Part 2³⁹ which is also relevant to the HRA of the NFNPA Local Plan provides a detailed review of evidence on recreation pressure on New Forest SAC and SPA; key elements of this are reproduced in Appendix 2. The HRA of the NFDC Local Plan Part 2 concludes that whilst the best available evidence is inconclusive, the risk of residential development in New Forest District leading to increased visitor pressure on the New Forest European sites cannot be ruled out for development anywhere within New Forest District. Given that the National Park is surrounded by New Forest District, it is consistent to assume that such effects cannot be ruled out for development anywhere within New Forest National Park. This evidence remains valid and the HRA of the Local Plan therefore assumed that prior to mitigation, likely significant in combination effects on New Forest SAC and SPA cannot be ruled out for any residential development or visitor accommodation within New Forest National Park.

Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site

4.73 The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project (SDMP) has established that 75% of visitors to the Solent European sites come from within 5.6 km (as the crow flies) of Solent and Southampton Water SPA and recommends that avoidance and mitigation measures be sought for residential development within this zone of impact⁴⁰. The HRA therefore assumed that prior to mitigation, likely significant in combination effects on Solent Maritime SAC and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site cannot be ruled out for residential development or visitor accommodation within this zone.

Potential for likely significant effects from Local Plan prior to mitigation

Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site

4.74 In line with the methodology described above, it is assumed that prior to mitigation, a potential for a contribution to in combination recreation pressure on the Bewick’s Swan population exists for any residential or visitor accommodation development within 1.0 km of Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site. Only a few small areas of the National Park to the north of Ringwood and to the west of Bisterne fall within this distance of the Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site. No development allocations are made to these areas and they are not identified by the spatial strategy as a focus for growth. Therefore it is judged that the Local Plan will not result in likely significant effects from recreation pressure on Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site, either alone or in-combination.

Dorset Heaths SAC and SPA

4.75 In line with the methodology described above it is assumed that, prior to mitigation, likely significant effects in combination cannot be ruled out for any residential or visitor accommodation development within 5.0 km of Dorset Heaths SAC or SPA. Only a narrow band along the western edge of the National Park falls within this distance of the Dorset Heaths SAC or SPA. No development allocations are made to this area and it is not identified by the spatial strategy as a focus for growth therefore it is assumed that the Draft Local Plan will not result in significant recreation pressure on Dorset Heaths SAC or SPA either alone or in combination.

New Forest SAC and SPA

4.76 In line with the methodology described above it is assumed that, prior to mitigation, likely significant effects in combination cannot be ruled out for any residential or visitor accommodation development within New Forest National Park. All of the 800 dwellings as well as the visitor accommodation provided for by the Local Plan are therefore assumed to contribute to recreation pressure on New Forest SAC and SPA.

Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site

4.77 In line with the methodology described above it is assumed that, prior to mitigation, likely significant effects in combination cannot be ruled out for any residential or visitor accommodation development within 5.6 km of Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA, and Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site. The Draft Local Plan allocates the following development sites for residential or visitor accommodation within this zone of influence:

• Policy SP22 - Land at Whartons Lane, Ashurst (60 dwellings);
• Policy SP24 - Land south of Church Lane, Sway (40 dwellings);
• Policy SP25 - Land adjacent to the former Fawley Power Station (120 dwellings);
• Policy SP26 - Land at Calshot Village (30 dwellings).

4.78 Ashurst, Sway and most of Brockenhurst are within 5.6 km of the Solent designations – all forms of development including housing are directed to these Defined Villages (as well as to Lyndhurst, which is outside the 5.6 km zone) by Policy SP4: Spatial Strategy, making it likely that a significant proportion of the 400 windfall dwellings will be developed at these settlements. In addition visitor accommodation is supported at the Defined Villages by Policy SP46: Tourism Development. This development is also likely to add to recreation pressure on the Solent and Southampton Water European sites.

Mitigation available

4.79 As noted at paragraph 3.21 above, no reliance is placed by the HRA on the generic protection for European sites offered by Policy SP5: Nature Conservation Sites of International Importance. However, Policy SP5 also refers to more specific mitigation, noting the opportunity for developers to avoid or fully mitigate any likely significant effects on European sites by putting in place sufficient and effective measures, as well as the opportunity to secure mitigation via contributions to the Authority’s Habitat Mitigation Scheme and/or the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership’s Scheme.

4.80 NFNPA’s revised Habitat Mitigation Scheme is described in the Authority’s Habitat Mitigation Guidance Note⁴¹. The scheme is focussed on alleviating the potential in combination effects of recreation pressure on New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. The key elements of the revised scheme are access management within the New Forest European designations; alternative recreation sites and routes outside the designated sites; education, awareness and promotion; monitoring and research; and in-perpetuity funding. This revised scheme has been developed in discussion with the Authority’s Habitat Mitigation Steering Group, which includes representatives from Natural England, HIWWT and the RSPB.

4.81 The Authority’s Solent Recreation Mitigation Project Explanatory Note⁴² explains that the Solent Scheme is based on evidence that residential development within 5.6 km of the Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA, or Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site will require mitigation. The Strategy⁴³ proposes:

• a team of 5-7 coastal rangers to advise people on how to avoid bird disturbance, liaise with landowners, host school visits, etc.;
• communications, marketing and education initiatives and an officer to implement them;
• initiatives to encourage responsible dog walking and an officer to implement them;
• preparation of codes of conduct for a variety of coastal activities;
• site-specific projects to better manage visitors and provide secure habitats for the birds;
• providing new/enhanced greenspaces as an alternative to visiting the coast;
• a partnership manager to coordinate and manage all the above.

4.82 The supporting text to Policy SP5 also notes that mitigation may not be possible in all cases and that applicants are not precluded from assessing the potential impact of their proposal on the designated sites and devising their own appropriate mitigation measures rather than contributing to the Authority’s Habitat Mitigation Scheme and/or the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership’s Scheme.

4.83 Policy SP9: Green Infrastructure supports creation and enhancement of green infrastructure, particularly where it increases habitat connectivity or relieves recreational pressure on internationally important nature conservation sites. It also rules out provision of a new Suitable Alternative Natural Green space (SANG) within the National Park to mitigate development outside the National Park, other than in exceptional circumstances. It also commits NFNPA to working with adjoining authorities and other partners to develop green infrastructure.

Conclusions and recommendations

4.84 Prior to consideration of mitigation, likely significant in combination recreation pressure effects from the Local Plan cannot be ruled out on New Forest SAC; New Forest SPA; Solent Maritime SAC; Solent and Southampton Water SPA; and Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site.

4.85 LUC believes that it is not a realistic prospect to create new accessible natural greenspace of a scale and character that would effectively deflect all potential additional visits from the residents of new housing development away from the New Forest or Solent coast European designations, as new greenspace could not recreate the vast open character and visitor experience of the New Forest or an alternative coastal experience which draws people from such a large area. We therefore support use of the more diverse packages of measures set out in NFNPA’s revised Habitat Mitigation Scheme and in the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership’s scheme and believe that these are capable of providing effective mitigation of the recreation pressure that might otherwise occur as a result of the development proposed in the Local Plan in combination with that provided in New Forest District and other neighbouring authorities.

4.86 In light of the above, it is concluded that reliance can be placed on the NFNPA and Solent schemes to adequately mitigate potential recreation pressure from development within the New Forest National Park and that likely significant effects due to recreation pressure can be ruled out either alone or in combination.

Changes in water quantity

4.87 This HRA topic considers the potential likely significant effects of the Local Plan in terms of water abstraction to supply new development resulting in harmful changes to water levels or flows at European sites.

HRA Screening assumptions

4.88 The HRA assumed that it would not be possible to rule out likely significant effects unless the proposed level of development would not affect the water levels and flows at European sites that are vulnerable to changes in water levels and flows. These sites may be located outside of the Plan area and the 10 km buffer used in the HRA Scoping Report to establish the study area. In this regard, it was noted that Southern Water supplies the eastern half of the New Forest which falls within their ‘Hampshire South’ Water Resources Zone, much of the water supply for which comes from the River Itchen SAC and this European site was therefore added to the list of European sites scoped into the HRA, as noted in Chapter 3. Based on the New Forest Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS)⁴⁴, other European site that could potentially be affected by abstractions within the New Forest include New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites; Solent Maritime SAC; and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site. It was assumed that the very large, marine extent of Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA means that it is not sensitive to changes in changes in water flows these rivers.

Potential for likely significant effects from Local Plan prior to mitigation

Regulation of water abstraction by the Environment Agency

4.89 In 2013 the Environment Agency⁴⁵ looked at the current and future water usage against climate change scenarios to provide an indicative assessment of water stress situation for each water company. Southern Water is identified as being in both current and future water stress. The South Hampshire area of Southern Water takes approximately two-thirds of its water from the River Test (drains to Solent and Southampton Water European sites) and the River Itchen (designated as a SAC and drains to Solent and Southampton Water European sites). Southern Water’s Water Resource Management Plan 2015-2040 sets out a number of initiatives to reduce water usage and improve efficiency in supply.

4.90 The Environment Agency is responsible for regulating the use of water resources in England and uses the Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) process and abstraction licensing to do this. Where abstractions cause or potentially cause actual flows to fall short of Environmental Flow Indicators (EFIs) and result in environmental damage, the Environment Agency may change or even revoke existing abstractions to achieve a sustainable abstraction regime. The CAMS covering the New Forest⁴⁶ reports there is one water body in which recent actual flows have fallen below the EFI and two waterbodies where fully licensed flows might fall below the EFI. The abstraction licences within these water bodies that cause these environmental issues have been identified by the CAMS and are being investigated as part of the Environment Agency’s Restoring Sustainable Abstraction (RSA) programme to better understand the impacts caused by these licences, individually or cumulatively, and to develop mitigation options with licence holders.

4.91 Under the Habitats Regulations, the Environment Agency also assesses the effects of existing abstraction licences and applications for new abstractions to make sure they are not impacting on European sites. The New Forest CAMS reports that a review of consents in the New Forest was undertaken in 2005 and concluded that no licences were having an adverse effect on the riverine and wetland (groundwater dependent) New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites. It also states that Site Action Plans for Solent Maritime SAC and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site were published in 2007, setting out the changes needed to abstraction licences.

Water resources management by the water companies

4.92 Water companies have a statutory duty to service planned development in their area; the eastern part of the New Forest lies within Southern Water’s supply area whilst the western part lies within Sembcorp Bournemouth Water’s (SBW) supply area. Water Resources Management Plans (WRMP)⁴⁷ set out how the water company intends to secure its water supply over a 25 year plan period to ensure that a balance between supply availability and forecast water demand is maintained and these WRMPs are subject to HRA. Investments to deliver the plans are based on five year planning cycles known as Asset Management Periods (AMP) so the water company programme for water infrastructure upgrades may constrain the rate at which residential growth can be supported.

4.93 HRA Screening of the Southern Water WRMP 2015-2040 concluded that likely significant effects could not be ruled out due to potential effects of the Candover groundwater scheme for river augmentation on the River Itchen SAC, and of the Ford Waste Water Treatment Works (WwTW) effluent transfer scheme on the Arun Valley SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. In light of legally enforceable abstraction licence conditions, a monitoring programme, and other considerations, Appropriate Assessment of the Candover scheme was able to rule out adverse effects on the integrity of the River Itchen SAC. Appropriate Assessment of the Ford WwTW effluent transfer scheme allayed water quality concerns with the water treatment process as well as potential adverse effects on flows.⁴⁸

4.94 SBW’s WRMP 2014-2039 states that as there is currently a surplus of supply versus demand within the SBW supply area, the SBW WRMP does not contain any proposals for the development of new water resource options. It further states that the potential effects of existing water abstraction operations on European sites have been assessed through the National Environment Programme (NEP) developed by the Environment Agency. The NEP assessment concluded that no sustainability reductions were necessary, i.e. reductions in permitted abstraction from surface or groundwater sources where abstraction has been found to be adversely affecting European sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), or sites identified under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WRMP states that it was screened for potentially significant environmental effects under the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Regulations and that it was agreed, in consultation with Natural England, the Environment Agency, and English Heritage, that the WRMP was not likely to have a significant effect on the environment. In light of the results of this SEA Screening and the fact that no new abstractions were proposed and no effects were identified from existing abstractions, adverse effects on European sites from the SBW WRMP will not arise.⁴⁹

4.95 It is noted that the WRMPs above were completed prior to the increase in housing provision now being contemplated by NFNPA and that housing provision targets in other local authority areas within the supply network of Southern Water and Bournemouth Water may also have changed since those WRMPs were prepared. Comfort can, however, be taken from the following:

• Both WRMPs are based on Office for National Statistics (ONS) population projections rather than local authority housing provision targets, the SBW WRMP stating that these have performed well in predicting population growth at local area level.
• Both WRMPs were subject to sensitivity testing, including of population and household projections. For example, sensitivity testing of the SBW WRMP showed that water demand remained below water available for use in a dry year under all tested scenarios, including a 10% increase in the annual growth rate of households and population.
• An update to the SBW WRMP⁵⁰ did not identify the need to change any of its forecasts.

Mitigation available

4.96 Policy DP8: Safeguarding and Improving Water Resources requires that development avoids harm to the quality and yield of water resources and requires all residential development within the part of the National Park supplied by Southern Water to be designed to achieve the Government’s Optional Technical Standard for water efficiency (110 litres per person per day).

4.97 Water companies are subject to the Environment Agency’s licensing regime which regulates the amount of water that can be abstracted in order to protect the environment via the CAMS process and associated review of existing abstraction licences and granting of new ones. The ongoing operation of these controls, as described above, helps to ensure that water abstractions do not have a detrimental impact on European sites.

Conclusions and recommendations

4.98 In light of the information above, likely significant effects from changes in water quantity due to the development proposed by the Local Plan alone or in combination can be ruled out.

Changes in water quality

4.99 This HRA topic considers the potential likely significant effects of the Local Plan in terms of development leading to:

• increased volumes of treated wastewater discharges, resulting in nutrient enrichment of water and potential lowering of dissolved oxygen as well as increased water velocities and levels downstream of outfalls of WwTW or off-sewage-network private septic tanks and small ‘packaged’ sewage treatment systems;
• overloading of combined sewer networks during storm events, resulting in overflows and contamination of water bodies;
• contaminated surface runoff from urban surfaces and roads.

HRA Screening assumptions

4.100 Effects relating to changes in water quality only need to be considered in relation to the European sites that are potentially vulnerable to a reduction in water quality. Based on their designated features and the pressures and threats facing them (see Appendix 1), these were judged to be:

• River Avon SAC;
• Avon Valley SPA;
• Avon Valley Ramsar site;
• Dorset Heaths SAC;
• Dorset Heathlands Ramsar site;
• The New Forest SAC;
• The New Forest Ramsar site;
• Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA;
• Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC;
• Solent Maritime SAC;
• Solent and Southampton Water SPA;
• Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site.

4.101 Key information sources for the following assessments included representations received by NFNPA from the water companies and Environment Agency during consultation on earlier stages of the Local Plan, a guidance note⁵¹ on managing wastewater discharges to the Solent, and a Nutrient Management Plan⁵² for the River Avon SAC.

Treated wastewater discharges from wastewater treatment works (WwTWs)

4.102 The HRA Screening assumed that it was not possible to rule out likely significant effects unless there is sufficient evidence to conclude whether the development proposed is likely to affect water quality at hydrologically connected European sites due to increased volumes of treated wastewater discharged from WwTWs serving the Plan area.

Sewer overflows

4.103 The HRA Screening assumed that it is not possible to rule out likely significant effect unless there is sufficient evidence to conclude that that any sewer network capacity issues can feasibly be addressed.

Discharges from private septic tanks or small sewage treatment plants

4.104 Research commissioned by Natural England⁵³ has shown that phosphorus originating from septic tank discharges can move laterally through the soil profile for a distance of 20-30 m in a variety of soil types. It therefore concluded that the Building Regulations’ legislative value of 10 m for the separation of a septic tank soakaway from a watercourse is probably insufficient to protect that waterbody from phosphorus pollution from this source, even where the local hydrology does not provide a shortcut for the delivery of septic tank discharges to water.

4.105 The HRA Screening therefore assumed that, prior to mitigation, likely significant effects on water quality cannot be ruled out where development is not likely to be connected to a public sewer and is within 30 m of a European site or a watercourse draining to a European site.

Contaminated surface runoff

4.106 The HRA Screening assumed that it is not possible to rule out likely significant effects unless there is sufficient evidence to conclude whether the development proposed is likely to result in an increase in contaminated surface water runoff in proximity to vulnerable European sites. In the absence of guidance and for consistency with the treatment of septic tank soakaways (above), a zone of influence of 30 m from a European site or a watercourse draining to a European site was used.

Potential for likely significant effects from Local Plan prior to mitigation

Evidence from NFNPA consultation with Southern Water and the Environment Agency

4.107 The Environment Agency and Southern Water made representations during the October 2016 consultation on the Draft Local Plan and June 2017 consultation on alternative housing sites as follows.

4.108 The Environment Agency⁵⁴ referred NFNPA to Southern Water as the sewerage undertaker to ensure that foul water arising from the proposed developments could be accommodated; Southern Water⁵⁵ did not raise any issues in relation to the capacity of its WwTWs to accommodate the development proposed in the National Park.

4.109 The Environment Agency also suggested that NFNPA determines whether there are any opportunities in the Sway and Lyndhurst drainage catchments to reduce diffuse pollution, thereby increasing the headroom of WwTWs in these catchments to discharge to water bodies which, under the Water Framework Directive, are currently failing to meet Good status in relation to nutrient levels. Policy SP4: Spatial Strategy directs development to both Sway and Lyndhurst as Defined Villages and allocations are made to these settlements (Policy SP23: Land at the former Lyndhurst Park Hotel, Lyndhurst; Policy SP24: Land south of Church Lane, Sway). Such development would be likely to add to the volume of discharges from the WwTWs serving these settlements and hence to nutrient levels in the receiving waters.

4.110 Sway is assumed to be served by the WwTW on Flexford Lane, for which the receiving water appears to be a stream called Avon Water that drains to the Solent at Keyhaven. Lyndhurst is assumed to be served by the WwTW at Dunces Arch Inclosure off the A35 Southampton Road. The receiving water appears to be a headwater stream of the Beaulieu River that drains to the Solent to the west of Lepe. Both waters drain to parts of the Solent forming part of Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site, and Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA. The designated features of these European designations are sensitive to water quality effects. While not mentioned in the consultation responses, it appears that development in the other two Defined Villages identified by Policy SP4: Spatial Strategy, Ashurst and Brockenhurst, would also be likely to be served by WwTWs that are hydrologically connected to these same Solent European sites.

4.111 Southern Water’s representations on the Draft Local Plan⁵⁶ in relation to development sites still being allocated in the Regulation 19 Submission draft of the Local Plan identified limited capacity in those parts of the sewerage network in closest proximity to the development allocations at Wharton’s Lane, Ashurst and South of Church Lane, Sway. The representation notes that Southern Water has limited powers to prevent new connections to the sewerage network, even when capacity is insufficient, and therefore recommends inclusion in the Local Plan allocation policies a requirement for development proposals to ‘provide a connection to the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network, as advised by the service provider’. The representation also requests generic support in the policy on Infrastructure Provision and Developer Contributions for new and improved utility infrastructure to meet identified community needs. No WwTW capacity issues were raised in Southern Water’s representations on alternative housing sites⁵⁷.

Evidence on water quality issues in Southampton Water and the Solent European sites

4.112 Natural England and the Environment Agency have produced a guidance note⁵⁸ on the challenges in the Solent area in managing nutrients and sewage discharges to the marine environment whilst meeting the need for growth. This states that:

• elevated nitrogen levels are contributing to the growth of opportunistic green seaweed mats in many parts of the Solent area and that these mats smother estuarine habitats and restrict the growth, distribution and variety of food available for wetland birds;
• although much of this nitrogen is from agriculture, a smaller but still substantial proportion is from wastewater discharges;
• there is currently little certainty that future development of the scale proposed in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) area can ensure no adverse effect on the integrity of the Solent’s European designations without mitigation;
• while various actions to reduce nutrient inputs to the Solent have already been taken, further reductions are required from both agricultural and development growth sources and Natural England and the Environment Agency are keen to work with the PUSH authorities and water companies to develop a strategic solution.

4.113 While no water cycle study is available for New Forest National Park, the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) has commissioned an Integrated Water Management Strategy (IWMS)⁵⁹ to investigate whether the combined housing growth planned in the PUSH area (covers a large area immediately to the east of New Forest National Park and also drains to the Solent and Southampton Water) can be accommodated whilst protecting the water environment. The overall conclusion of the IWMS in relation to potential effects of growth on European sites and SSSIs is that:

“there are not many water quality issues for nitrate from WwTW and that in total nitrate loading from WwTWs only account for 3-18% of the loading to designated areas. As such, impacts from individual works may not be significant. However, Natural England have stated that the conditions of some of the areas are unfavourable due to current nitrate loading from continuous and intermittent discharges from WwTWs and sewer networks and that any future housing growth could exacerbate water quality issues and ecological impacts. This discrepancy in understanding of the baseline indicates that further study maybe required on nitrate impacts on designated areas on the South coast.”

4.114 Specific conclusions of the IWMS for the European sites relevant to this HRA are as follows:

• Solent Maritime SAC: “Information provided by the EA and Natural England indicates that there is evidence of eutrophication within parts of the SAC.”
• Solent and Southampton Water SPA: “Information provided by the EA indicates that there is a eutrophication problem in the area and that measures are required now to reduce nitrate input.”

4.115 There is currently a divergence between the views of Natural England and the conclusions of the IWMS on the significance of housing growth in the PUSH area for nutrient enrichment of the Solent. Nevertheless, the IWMS concludes with a phased action plan of recommended improvements in the PUSH area to support planned housing growth to 2036. These comprise upgrades to WwTWs and sewer networks as well as catchment solutions in the form of targeted agri-environment schemes to reduce nitrate levels and protect water quality in the WFD catchments within the PUSH area, including Southampton Water and the Solent.

4.116 Representations on the Draft Local Plan and Alternative Housing Allocations do not explicitly address the issue of nutrient enrichment of the Solent and Southampton Water European sites from WwTW discharges despite this having been identified as an issue by a Natural England and the Environment Agency guidance note⁶⁰.

4.117 While the relatively small scale of development proposed by the NFNPA Local Plan is judged unlikely, on its own, to result in significant adverse water quality effects on the Solent European, the information above indicates a potential for likely significant effects in combination with development in the PUSH area whose WwTWs are also hydrologically connected to the Solent and Southampton Water.

Evidence of potential water quality effects on the River Avon/Avon Valley European sites

4.118 As noted in Appendix 1, River Avon SAC and Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site are known to be sensitive to and already suffering from elevated phosphorus levels. This is confirmed by information on the Hampshire Avon catchment within the South West river basin management plan⁶¹ which cites poor water quality, particularly diffuse sources of phosphorus, nitrate and sediment from rural areas. A Nutrient Management Plan⁶² (NMP) has been published to facilitate reduction and management of phosphorus levels in the River Avon SAC. This is to comply with Habitats Directive obligations since phosphorus is identified as posing the most significant threat to the site’s qualifying features. The effects of nitrogen and other pollutants are addressed in a separate plan for the Avon catchment but this is not considered further since it relates to diffuse sources (primarily agriculture) rather than WwTW discharges that are linked to housing growth.

4.119 Parallel HRA work by LUC on the New Forest District Local Plan Part 1 has identified the potential for likely significant water quality effects, in combination, on the European designations of the River Avon, giving rise to the need for additional assessment, which is ongoing. This work for New Forest District has identified that one or more of the STWs draining to the River Avon appear to have a catchment which also serves the National Park, for example Burley is served by Ringwood STW. However, Policy SP4: Spatial Strategy of NFNPA’s Local Plan does not focus growth in the western parts of the National Park that drain to the River Avon and none of the site allocations are in this area. Based on the spatial distribution of planned growth and the relatively small scale of growth proposed by the Local Plan as a whole, likely significant water quality effects in relation to WwTW discharges to the River Avon European designations are ruled out from the NFNPA Local Plan alone or in combination.

Discharges from private septic tanks or small sewage treatment plants or contaminated surface water runoff

4.120 In line with the screening methodology described above, the Local Plan site allocations were reviewed to determine whether any of them was within 30 m of a European site or a watercourse draining to a European site, as set out in Table 4.2.

4.121 Prior to consideration of mitigation, this indicates a potential for allocations made by Policies SP23, SP25, and SP33 to have water quality effects in the form of discharges from private septic tanks or small sewage treatment plants or contaminated surface water runoff. Such effects could also arise in relation to the unallocated residential development provided for by Policy SP19: New residential development in the National Park (400 windfall dwellings; rural exception sites; housing for New Forest Commoners; housing for estate workers; tied agricultural dwellings) and by Policy SP20: Specialist Housing for Older People.

Mitigation available

4.122 Policy DP8: Safeguarding and Improving Water Resources states that development will not be permitted if it would risk harm to the quality of water resources, including abstraction sites, groundwater, rivers, streams and still waters. Following recommendations made by the Draft HRA Report, additional safeguards were added to this policy requiring development to either implement appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) or demonstrate that surface water run-off from the development will not adversely affect any European nature conservation sites. In addition, a commitment was added in the supporting text to Policy DP8 to support the Environment Agency, Southern Water and Natural England in the development of any strategic solution to reducing nutrient inputs to the Solent from wastewater discharges.

4.123 In line with the recommendations made by Southern Water during consultation on the draft Local Plan, Policy SP22: Land at Whartons Lane, Ashurst and Policy SP24: Land south of Church Lane, Sway both require that development proposals provide a connection to the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network.

4.124 Policy SP38: Infrastructure Provision and Developer Contributions requires development proposals to make provision for the infrastructure necessary to ensure that the development is acceptable in planning terms. NFNPA has also incorporated the support for utility infrastructure requested by Southern Water in its comments on the Draft Local Plan.

4.125 The volume and quality of treated wastewater discharges from WwTWs to receiving water courses is subject to regulation by the Environment Agency via the grant and review of environmental permits. This Environmental permitting regime operated by the Environment Agency should ensure that any development requiring variation in the discharge consent for a WRC does not result in deterioration in downstream water quality as a result of that variation.

4.126 Any new discharge to the ground from a septic tank or small sewage treatment plant within 50 m of a European site requires a permit from the Environment Agency.⁶³ Granting of such a permit would take into account the requirements of the Habitats Regulations.

Conclusions and recommendations

Treated wastewater discharges from wastewater treatment works (WwTWs)

4.127 While the study area for the PUSH IWMS⁶⁴ does not extend to New Forest National Park (and NFNPA has not carried out its own water cycle study), it provides relevant information on in combination water quality issues in the Solent and Southampton Water. This study, together with the Natural England and the Environment Agency guidance note⁶⁵, indicates that there is a eutrophication problem in the European sites of the Solent and Southampton Water to which WwTW discharges contribute. There is a potential for the housing growth proposed by the Local Plan to have significant effects in combination with that proposed by New Forest District Council and the other PUSH authorities on Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons SAC, Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Dorset Coast pSPA, Solent and Southampton Water SPA, and Solent and Southampton Water Ramsar site.

4.128 In recognition of the potential for the NFNPA Local Plan to contribute to these effects, the Local Plan includes a commitment to support the Environment Agency, Southern Water and Natural England in the development of any strategic solution to reducing nutrient inputs to the Solent from wastewater discharges. In light of the fact that the majority of the nitrogen inputs to the Southampton Water and Solent European sites are from agriculture rather than WwTW discharges and that the scale of growth proposed in New Forest National Park over the 20 year Local Plan period is very small (40 dwellings per annum) relative to the total growth planned in the PUSH area (approximately 20,000 dwellings per annum⁶⁶), it is judged that this commitment provides sufficient certainty that the contribution of NFNPA’s Local Plan to nutrient enrichment of the Southampton Water and Solent European sites will be negligible and that likely significant effects from treated wastewater discharges associated with the growth proposed by the Local Plan can be ruled out.

Sewer overflows

4.129 As described above, NFNPA’s consultation with Southern Water identified capacity issues in the closest part of the sewerage network to development allocations at Wharton’s Lane, Ashurst and South of Church Lane, Sway. In response to this, NFNPA has amended the corresponding Local Plan allocation policies (SP22, SP24) to require that development proposals provide a connection to the nearest point of adequate capacity in the sewerage network and has also added generic support for the provision of utility infrastructure to Policy SP38. The potential risk of sewer overflows from connection of other development provided for by the Local Plan to the sewerage network, including 400 windfall dwellings, is judged to be adequately mitigated by the requirement in Policy SP38 for development proposals to make provision for the infrastructure necessary to ensure that the development is acceptable in planning terms. It is therefore concluded that likely significant effects on water quality from sewer overflows either alone or in-combination can be ruled out.

Discharges from private septic tanks or small sewage treatment plants

4.130 As described above, generic protection for water quality is provided by Policy DP8 and a generic requirement for developers to provide necessary infrastructure is provided by Policy DP38. It is judged that the these policies adequately mitigate the risk to water quality from unallocated development provided for by the Local Plan as a result of potential discharges from private septic tanks or small sewage treatment plants.

4.131 It is judged that the specific risk identified from the allocations within 30 m of European sites (Policies SP23, SP25 and SP33) requires more specific mitigation but that this is provided by the fact that any new discharge to the ground from a septic tank or small sewage treatment plant within 50 m of a European site requires a permit from the Environment Agency.⁶⁷

4.132 Likely significant water quality effects in relation to discharges from private septic tanks or small sewage treatment plants can therefore be ruled out, either alone or in combination.

Contaminated surface water runoff

4.133 As described above, generic protection for water quality is provided by Policy DP8 and a generic requirement for developers to provide necessary infrastructure is provided by Policy DP38. It was judged that the these policies adequately mitigate the risk to water quality from unallocated development provided for by the Local Plan as a result of contaminated surface water runoff.

4.134 However, it was judged that the specific risks identified from the allocations within 30 m of European sites (Policies SP23, SP25 and SP33) required more specific mitigation. This resulted in additional safeguards being added to Policy DP8, as described above.

4.135 Likely significant water quality effects in relation to contaminated surface water runoff can therefore be ruled out, either alone or in combination.

5 Appropriate Assessment

5.1 As described in the HRA Screening in Chapter 4, a need for Appropriate Assessment was identified in relation to the following two types of likely significant effect:

• loss or damage to offsite supporting habitat;
• traffic collision risk.

5.2 This chapter considers each of these types of likely significant effects in turn and concludes whether adverse effects on the integrity of European sites can be ruled out.

Loss or damage to offsite supporting habitat for qualifying bird populations

Background

5.3 The Local Plan allocates a number of development sites in areas where certain qualifying SPA and Ramsar bird species may make use of offsite habitat for foraging, roosting and loafing. The screening stage was unable to rule out the potential for likely significant effects on the Avon Valley SPA and Ramsar site, Dorset Heathlands SPA, New Forest SPA, and Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site, as a result of the loss of offsite habitat. As a result, Appropriate Assessment was undertaken, as detailed below, to determine whether the loss of offsite habitat would result in adverse effects on the integrity of any of these European sites.

Approach

5.4 In response to comments provided by Natural England and HIWWT during the consultation process, the Appropriate Assessment commenced with a detailed desk-based study to identify potential impacts from proposed site allocations on offsite habitat used by the qualifying bird species of the European sites. For each of the proposed development allocations, sites were reviewed using aerial imagery to determine their potential suitability for supporting SPA species. This included identifying broad habitat types present, current land usage, shape and size of site, degree of openness, and information regarding the context of the site within the wider landscape, including in terms of habitat connectivity and proximity to habitats of known importance for SPA birds. This review also considered the presence of potential adverse factors such as proximity of sources of disturbance and/or habitat features likely to reduce the potential for SPA bird species, such as the effect of prominent edge features in reducing the openness typically preferred by foraging waders and wildfowl.

5.5 Hampshire Biodiversity Information Centre (HBIC) Desk Study Reports were then reviewed, if required, to identify whether records of relevant bird species have been recorded within the site, or in close proximity. Where necessary, the habitat types affected were cross-checked against the habitat preferences identified for specific bird species. Where habitats of potential importance for specific bird species are likely to be affected, a more detailed assessment was undertaken which used the following additional information sources to identify whether such habitats are likely to be important for the bird species:

• Brent goose/wader strategy data for the Solent (available from Solent Forum);
• various Natural England/New Forest Authority Bird Survey reports (e.g. for nightjar);
• HBIC bird records and GIS files.

Assessment of importance of allocated sites for SPA/Ramsar birds

5.6 To determine the potential importance of each site allocation to provide supporting offsite habitat it was necessary to establish which habitat types have the potential to be of importance for each of the bird species for which the SPA and Ramsar sites are designated. Known habitat preferences for each species, as set out in Table 5.1, were taken from Birds of the Western Palearctic (British Trust for Ornithology), and further refined in light of local preferences via consultation with Natural England officers and HIWWT.

5.7 Bird habitat preferences were then cross referenced against the habitat types present within each allocation (taking into account any of the factors listed above) to determine the suitability of offsite parcels for SPA and Ramsar bird species.

5.8 The detailed assessment of habitat suitability for each site allocation is shown in Table A5.1 in Appendix 6 and is summarised below and in Table 5.1:

• Policy SP22 Land at Whartons Lane, Ashurst – The site comprises horse grazed pasture and given its relatively small size, distance from European sites, proximity of the urban edge of Ashurst and the presence of negative edge factors, including woodland and tree lines at the site periphery which significantly reduce the openness typically preferred by feeding wader and wildfowl species, the grassland is considered unsuitable for SPA/Ramsar species. Tree lines along the site boundary and woodland adjacent to the site provide suitable habitat for foraging nightjar, but any project level development at the site would be expected to minimise the effect of potential impacts on these receptors, for example as a result of lighting, through standard planning processes, and therefore development at the site allocation would not be expected to affect the suitability of these habitat features for foraging nightjar.
• Policy SP23 Land at the Former Lyndhurst Park Hotel, Lyndhurst – The site is primarily comprised of a former hotel building in the north of the site, together with mature gardens and woodland habitats in the southern part. Despite the presence of woodland, the site is surrounded by the urban area of Lyndhurst and given its small size, and presence of negative factors such as levels of disturbance and lighting, together with its relative isolation within the landscape, it is considered to be of negligible value for foraging SPA species, including those species which are reliant upon woodland habitats.
• Policy SP24 Land South of Church Lane, Sway - The site comprises horse grazed pasture and given the proximity of the urban edge of Sway and the presence of negative edge factors, including woodland and tree lines at the site periphery which significantly reduce the openness of the site, the grassland is considered unsuitable for SPA/Ramsar species. Mature tree lines along the south and west site boundary provide suitable habitat for foraging nightjar, but any project level development at the site would be expected to minimise the effect of potential impacts on these receptors, for example as a result of lighting, through standard planning processes, and therefore allocation of the site for development would not be expected to affect the suitability of these habitat features for foraging nightjar.
• Policy SP25 Land Adjacent to the Former Fawley Power Station Site – A review of aerial imagery indicates that the site comprises tall grasslands and dense scrub. A separate study which was undertaken to inform the impact of development within the site on the Tom Tiddlers Ground SINC⁶⁸ confirms that the site is predominantly