eden district council employment land allocations · prepare the employment land allocations dpd...

Eden District Council

Employment Land Allocations

Supporting information for Habitats Regulations Assessment

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited

June 2013

© AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited June 2013 Doc Reg No. S33648rr014i2

Copyright and Non-Disclosure Notice The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by AMEC

(©AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited 2013). save to the extent that

copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by AMEC under

licence. To the extent that we own the copyright in this report, it may not be copied

or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose

indicated in this report.

The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence

and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties without the prior written

agreement of AMEC. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable

breach of confidence or may otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third

party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be subject to

the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.

Third-Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report

was prepared by AMEC at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the

front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is

able to access it by any means. AMEC excludes to the fullest extent lawfully

permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from

reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if

any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other

matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

Document Revisions

No. Details Date

1 Draft for Client Review 21.05.13

2 Draft for consultation 14.06.13


Report for

Paul Fellows, Planning Policy Manager

Mansion House

Penrith

Cumbria CA11 7YG

Main Contributors

Mike Frost

Issued by

…………………………………………………………

Mike Frost

Approved by

…………………………………………………………

Deborah Starkings


Canon Court, Abbey Lawn, Abbey Foregate,

Shrewsbury SY2 5DE, United Kingdom

Tel +44 (0) 1743 342 000

Fax +44 (0) 1743 342 010

Doc Reg No. S33648rr014i2

h:\projects\33648 eden district sa & hra\docs\hra\rr014i2.doc

Eden District Council

Employment Land Allocations

Supporting information for Habitats Regulations Assessment


June 2013

In accordance with an environmentally responsible approach,

this document is printed on recycled paper produced from 100%

post-consumer waste, or on ECF (elemental chlorine free) paper

iv


v


Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 The Employment Plan 1

1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) 1

1.3 This Report 1

2. Approach 3

2.1 Overview 3

2.2 Guidance 4

2.3 Assessing the emerging plan 4

2.3.1 Baseline data collection 5

2.3.2 Assessment of Allocations 5

2.3.3 Assessment of Policies 6

2.3.4 Addressing Uncertainty 6

3. Baseline 8

3.1 Baseline summary 8

4. Assessment 20

4.1 Assessment of allocations 20

4.2 Allocations with potential for significant effects 27

4.2.1 Potential effects 28

4.2.2 Effects 32

4.3 Assessment of draft policies 32

4.4 In combination effects 34

4.4.1 Within-plan effects 34

4.4.2 Between-plan effects 34

4.5 Summary 35

Table 3.1 European sites within 15km of Eden District (* = priority feature) 9

Table 4.1 Summary of potential effects of allocations on European sites due to scale and location 22

Table 4.2 Summary of European sites within study area that will not be affected by the proposals 27

Table 4.3 Water Courses with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion Vegetation 30

Table 4.4 Alluvial Forests 30

Table 4.5 White-Clawed Crayfish 31

Table 4.6 Fish Species (Sea lamprey, Brook lamprey, River lamprey, Twaite shad, Atlantic salmon, Bullhead, Allis Shad) 31

vi


Table 4.7 Otter 32

Table 4.8 Assessment of draft policies 33

Table 4.9 Plans with potential ‘in combination’ effects 34

Figure 3.1 SACs in and near Eden After Page 19 Figure 3.2 SPAs in and near Eden After Page 19 Figure 3.3 Ramsar sites in and near Eden After Page 19 Figure A1 Penrith Employment Allocations and European sites Appendix A Figure A2 Appleby Employment Allocations and European sites Appendix A Figure A3 Alston Employment Allocations and European sites Appendix A Figure A4 Kirkby Stephen Employment Allocations and European sites Appendix A Figure A5 Tebay Employment Allocations and European sites Appendix A Figure A6 Brough Employment Allocations and European sites Appendix A Appendix A Large-scale allocation figures

1


1. Introduction

1.1 The Employment Plan

Eden District Council (EDC) is currently exploring options for the allocation of employment sites within the

district, which will form part of the Local Plan (LP) for Eden. EDC has published a consultation document

(Employment: Preferred Sites and Policies) which sets out the employment policies and proposals that are

proposed for the draft Local Plan for Eden District.

The components of the LP must undergo a number of statutory environmental assessments including Sustainability

Appraisal (SA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); these ensure that the plan provides for a high level

of protection of the environment and contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the

preparation and adoption of the plan. One such assessment is Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) which is

required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 20101 (the ‘Habitats Regulations’).

1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the ‘Habitats

Regulations’) requires that competent authorities assess the potential impacts of plans and programmes on the

Natura 2000 network of European protected sites2 to determine whether there will be any ‘likely significant effects’

(LSE) on any European site as a result of the Plan’s implementation (either on its own or ‘in combination’ with

other plans or projects); and, if so, whether these effects will result in any adverse effects on the site’s integrity.

The process by which the impacts of a Plan or Programme are assessed against the conservation objectives of a

European site is known as Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)3. Eden District Council has a statutory duty to

prepare the Employment Land Allocations DPD and therefore is the Competent Authority for a HRA.

1.3 This Report

Although the LP and its component plans must be subject to HRA, this is ultimately a test that the final document

must pass; as such, there is no statutory requirement for the phases of the plan development (Issues and Options

1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 transposes Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of

natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora into UK law.

2 Strictly, a European Site is any classified Special Protection Area (SPA) or any Special Area of Conservation (SAC) from the

point at which the European Commission and the UK Government agree the site as a ‘Site of Community Importance’ (SCI).

However, the provisions of the Habitats Regulations and Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (the ‘new wild birds

directive’) are also applied (respectively) to candidate SACs (cSACs) and potential SPAs (pSPAs); and as a matter of

Government policy for possible SACs (pSACs) and listed Ramsar Sites for the purpose of considering development proposals

affecting them (NPPF para. 18)). As such, pSPAs, pSACs and Ramsar Sites must also be considered by any HRA. Within this

report “European site” is used as a generic term for all of the above designated sites.

3 ‘Appropriate Assessment’ has been historically used as an umbrella term to describe the process of assessment as a whole.

The whole process is now more usually termed ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA), and ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is

used to indicate a specific stage within the HRA.

2


and any subsequent draft stages)) to undergo HRA themselves. However, as with SEA or SA it is accepted best

practice for the HRA to be run as an iterative process alongside the policy and plan development, with the

emerging proposals or policies continually assessed for their possible effects on European sites and modified as

necessary to help ensure that the subsequently developed policies and proposals do not result in significant effects

or adverse effects.

AMEC has been commissioned by EDC (the Competent Authority for the LP) to undertake the data collection and

interpretation required to support their HRA of the Employment: Preferred Sites and Policies, and to determine

whether any aspects of the emerging document (alone or in-combination) could have significant or adverse effects

on the integrity of any European sites.

This report summarises AMEC’s review and assessment of the preliminary Employment: Preferred Sites and

Policies document against the conservation objectives of European sites that may be affected by its

implementation, and provides recommendations for the future development of the document. It is not an

HRA of the final document and so any conclusions are preliminary and subject to further review and

consultation as the emerging document is refined.

3


2. Approach

2.1 Overview

The HRA determines whether there will be any ‘likely significant effects’ (LSE) on any European site as a result of

the Plan’s implementation (either on its own or ‘in combination’ with other plans or projects) and, if so, whether

these effects will result in any adverse effects on the site’s integrity. The current European Commission guidance4

details a four stage process for HRA, although not all stages will be necessarily required:

Box 1 Stages of Habitats Regulations Assessment

Stage 1 – Screening:

This stage identifies the likely impacts upon a European Site of a project or plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and determines whether these impacts are likely to be not significant (inconsequential), significant or whether this is uncertain.

HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT

(HRA)

Stage 2 – Appropriate Assessment:

Where there are likely significant effects, or the effects are uncertain, the plan should be subject to appropriate assessment. This stage considers the impacts of the Plan or project on the integrity of the relevant European Sites, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, with respect to the sites’ structure and function and their conservation objectives. Where there are adverse impacts, it also includes an assessment of the potential mitigation for those impacts.

Stage 3 – Assessment of alternative solutions:

Where adverse impacts are predicted, this stage examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or Plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of European Sites.

Stage 4 – Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain:

This stage assesses compensatory measures where it is deemed that the project or Plan should proceed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI). The guidance does not deal with the assessment of IROPI.

The approach summarised in Box 1 works well at the project-level where the scheme design is usually established

and possible effects on European sites can be assessed (usually quantitatively) using a linear stepwise process.

In contrast, this stepwise approach is less easily applied to the iterative process that is preferred for strategic plans

and policy documents. This is because the strategic-HRA process is not so much an assessment of an established

scheme to determine ‘an answer’ (although this is the ultimate end-point of HRA), but rather an assessment of a

still-evolving plan that allows potential effects to be identified (and so avoided) at an early stage. Also, from a

strict procedural perspective, since the HRA is essentially a test that must be passed the ‘screening’ and

‘appropriate assessment’ stages can only be formally applied to the finalised plan, and not to its various phases or

iterations (e.g. Issues and Options). It is therefore important to recognise that the strategic HRA is as much about

guiding the development of the plan (and demonstrating that this has been done) as it is about (ultimately) assessing

its effects.

4 Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (EC 2002).

4


Despite this, the principles of ‘screening’ or ‘appropriate assessment’ can still be used to identify those policies or

allocations that have the potential to significantly or adversely affect a European site if not appropriately framed,

and to test the emerging policies against the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. This is the approach that has

been used in completing this HRA supporting study, with the principles of ‘screening’ applied to the emerging

policy options and allocations in order to direct and shape the option and hence policy (etc.) development so that

significant or adverse effects are avoided. This process also identifies those areas where the evidence base is

lacking or where further study is required to confirm that there will be no significant or adverse effects.

2.2 Guidance

In addition to AMEC’s experience of plan-level HRAs, we have also taken into account the following guidance

during the assessment process:

• English Nature (August 2006) Draft Guidance – The Assessment of Regional Spatial Strategies and

Sub-regional strategies under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations, David Tyldesley Associates

for Natural England, Peterborough;

• Department for Communities and Local Government (August 2006) Planning for the Protection of

European Sites: Appropriate Assessment. Guidance for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local

Development Documents, DCLG, London;

• Scott Wilson, Levett-Therivel, Treweek Environmental Consultants and Land Use Consultants

(August 2006) Appropriate Assessment of Plans, Scott Wilson et al.

2.3 Assessing the emerging plan

The HRA must be completed for the final submission of the plan; there is no statutory requirement for the phases of

the plan development (Issues and Options and any subsequent draft consultation stages) to undergo HRA

themselves although it is best practice for the HRA to be run as an iterative process alongside the policy and plan

development. For the purposes of HRA, the Employment Plan has two main aspects that require assessment:

• the employment site allocations (can development in the proposed locations be accommodated without

significant or adverse effects on any European sites?);

• the policies for determining planning applications and any supporting text clarifying or amplifying the

proposed allocations or policies (can the policies be delivered without significant or adverse effects on

any European sites, or can the policies be used to ensure that allocations can be delivered without

significant or adverse effects?).

These aspects are determined through the plan development, with various options for site allocations or policies

developed, examined and refined during the plan development.

5


2.3.1 Baseline data collection

European sites

The plan will not influence development outside the boundaries of Eden District, and any effects are unlikely to

extend significantly beyond the boundaries, except possibly in combination with other plans. As a result, all

European sites that are within 15km or directly downstream of the district are included in the baseline data

collection, with sites beyond this considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the site interest features and how

the plan would function. This is considered to be a suitably precautionary approach that has important advantages

due to the number of options and hence the benefits of a consistent approach across all options5.

Data on the interest features, sensitivities, vulnerabilities, condition assessments, conservation objectives and

management plans for the European sites was obtained from Natural England and the JNCC.

In combination plans

The plans identified by the SA have also provided the basis for the assessment of ‘in combination’ effects.

2.3.2 Assessment of Allocations

One of the purposes of the plan is to identify and allocate specific sites to meet the identified employment needs.

Potential sites were identified through a ‘call for sites’ process. All of the submitted sites were then subjected to a

series of assessments (including the principles of HRA) to assess their suitability.

The HRA component of the assessment is undertaken by determining those European sites that could be affected

by an allocation, reviewing the European site interest features, their vulnerabilities and sensitivities, and identifying

any reasonable impact pathways by which the specific allocations could affect these. The sites submitted were

therefore assessed in detail to identify those sites that are likely to be:

• unacceptable from an HRA perspective (i.e. unavoidable significant or adverse effects on a European

site likely); or

• which may require additional assessment or investigation; or

• which may require specific mitigation to be identified and included in the plan to ensure no significant

or adverse effects are likely if the site is developed.

5 ‘Arbitrary’ buffers are not generally appropriate for HRA. However, as distance is a strong determinant of the scale and

likelihood of effects the considered use of a suitably precautionary search area as a starting point for the screening (based on a

thorough understanding of both the DPD and the European site interest features) has some important advantages. Using

buffers allows the systematic identification of European sites using GIS, so minimising the risk of sites or features being

overlooked, and also ensures that sites where there are no reasonable impact pathways can be quickly and transparently

excluded from any further screening or assessment. When assessing multiple allocations it also has the significant advantage

of providing a consistent point of reference for consultees following the assessment process, and the ‘screening’ can therefore

focus on the assessment of effects, rather than on explaining why certain sites may or may not have been considered in relation

to a particular allocation.

6


This assessment is used to help determine the Preferred Options. The Preferred Options are then subject to the

same assessment and review process, to ensure that they remain acceptable from an HRA perspective, and / or to

refine any mitigation or caveats that must be incorporated into the final plan. This process is repeated for the final

plan, although at this point it is necessary to reach a formal conclusion (i.e. no significant effects or no adverse

effects).

It should be noted that the absolute quantum of development across the county is not considered in detail since

these are determined by higher tier planning documents that have themselves been subject to HRA, in which the

issues associated with the quantum of development have been specifically considered (e.g. water resources).

However, the distribution of development is considered within the HRA of the plan to ensure that the development

is appropriately sited with respect to European sites and their interest features.

2.3.3 Assessment of Policies

There are certain ‘types’ of policy which cannot have a significant effect on any European site simply because they

do not provide a mechanism by which such an effect could occur. Accordingly, policies with the following

characteristics are generally unlikely to result in significant effects:

• Non-development policies: policies that will not lead to development themselves as they relate to

design or other qualitative criteria for development;

• Unknown location development issues/ options: that make provision for a specific type of

development but the location of the development is yet to be selected are unlikely to have significant

effect, unless the type/ quantum of development provided for in the policy cannot be accommodated

without potentially affecting a European Site. This is because making provision for a type/ quantum

of development at this strategic level will not itself have any effect on a European Site, and it should

not be assumed that developments will be sited such that they will have a LSE on European sites since

normal development controls (and the requirements for site- or project-level HRA) would prevent or

mitigate this;

• Protective policies: policies that specifically steer development away from European Sites and

associated sensitive areas e.g. excluding development from certain areas;

• Biodiversity policies: policies that specifically protect the natural environment;

• Enhancement policies: policies that specifically enhance the natural, built or historic environment

where proposed measures are not likely to result in adverse effects upon European Sites.

However, it is important to note that policies will often set the framework for the delivery of allocation sites, and

therefore it is critical that these policies provide adequate protection for European sites.

2.3.4 Addressing Uncertainty

Although the plan will be spatially-specific, there will inevitably be a number of uncertainties which cannot be

fully investigated at this stage. Indeed, for some allocations it may only be possible to fully assess any potential

effects at the pre-project planning stage when certain specific details are known; for example, construction work

7


near an SAC clearly has the potential for significant or adverse effects that cannot be easily ‘avoided’ at the

strategy level as the details of construction are unknown. However, it is likely, based on experience, that most

potential construction effects could almost certainly be avoided or mitigated at the project-level using standard

best-practice. In these cases where measures, such as mitigation, are established and known to be typically

successful, it is considered appropriate to assume that this will be the case at the pre-project planning and project

stages.

Usually with strategy-level HRAs uncertainty is addressed by either abandoning an option / allocation (the primary

approach) or by including caveats and avoidance measures/mitigation within the policy wording to help ensure that

adverse effects will not occur. However, current guidance indicates that in some instances it is appropriate and

acceptable for assessment to be undertaken ‘down-the-line’ at a lower tier in the planning hierarchy, if:

• the higher tier plan appraisal cannot reasonably predict the effects on a European site in a meaningful

way; whereas

• the lower tier plan, which will identify more precisely the nature, scale or location of development,

and thus its potential effects, retains enough flexibility within the terms of the higher tier plan over the

exact location, scale or nature of the proposal to enable an adverse effect on site integrity to be

avoided; and

• Habitats Regulations Appraisal of the Plan at the lower tier is required as a matter of law or

Government policy.

8


3. Baseline

3.1 Baseline summary

Table 3.1 provides a summary of the baseline information on the European sites within 15km of Eden District, and

the sensitivities and vulnerabilities of the interest features. The table provides a broad indication of the types of

impact that each site is likely to be susceptible to. The information has been primarily obtained from freely

available data from NE, including the citation forms, and will be reviewed and updated as the plan develops and the

likely impacts and outcomes of the options become evident. In addition, the assessment has considered the

potential for impacts on the Solway Firth suite of sites, which are the main downstream receptor.

Conservation objectives for the sites are published by Natural England; however, detailed objectives are in

preparation by NE and therefore the current objectives are broadly the same for all sites:

• Avoid the deterioration of the qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species, and the

significant disturbance of those qualifying species, ensuring the integrity of the site is maintained and

the site makes a full contribution to achieving Favourable Conservation Status of each of the

qualifying features.

• Subject to natural change, to maintain or restore:

- The extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species;

- The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of

qualifying species;

- The supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species

rely;

- The populations of qualifying species;

- The distribution of qualifying species within the site.

9


Table 3.1 European sites within 15km of Eden District (* = priority feature)

Site Interest Features Summary of site sensitivities/ vulnerabilities (from citation)

Asby Complex SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:

• Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia)

• Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)

• Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion)*

• Alkaline fens

• Limestone pavements*

Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature:

• Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.

• European dry heaths

• Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae*

Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site:

• Geyer`s whorl snail Vertigo geyeri

• Slender green feather-moss Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus

Limestone pavements have been extensively damaged in the past for supply of decorative rockery stone. The damage has been reduced in recent years by protective Limestone Pavement Orders. Unauthorised damage still continues as a minor and local problem. Asby Complex SAC suffers from overgrazing. The limestone pavement flora and the dry heathland are particularly affected, though the fen and spring habitats appear tolerant of the grazing levels. Management agreements are being sought but may be difficult to achieve on common land. There has been some agricultural pressure on the fen and tufa springs but damage from drainage and fertiliser application is being addressed through management agreements on some parts of the site. The site will be primarily vulnerable to direct encroachment or nearby development affecting site hydrology or use (visitor pressure).

Borrowdale Woodland Complex SAC

Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:

• Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles


• Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation

• Bog woodland*

In recent decades, there has been very little natural regeneration of native woodland tree species to ensure the long-term survival of the woodlands, due to grazing pressures from domestic livestock. However, very low levels of grazing are important to maintain the rich and diverse bryophyte flora. This issue should be addressed through the Environmentally Sensitive Area, Woodland Grant Scheme and agreement of Site Management Statements. The cSAC is also part of the UK Restoration of Atlantic Oakwoods LIFE project, under which further positive management is being carried out.

10



Clints Quarry SAC Annex II species that are a primary reason for selection of this site:

• Great crested newt Triturus cristatus

The great crested newt population at Clints Quarry has developed since quarrying ceased in the 1980s. The site has been relatively undisturbed since. Water levels in the ponds are largely dependent on rainfall which has been low in recent years.

Cumbrian Marsh Fritillary Site SAC


• Marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia

The grassland habitat of marsh fritillary requires appropriate grazing to maintain its suitability, and the presence of its food plant Succisa pratensis. The habitat within the site is in need of management and this is being addressed by pursuing management agreements with the landowners. The butterfly has suffered at this site in recent years from bad weather during its flight period. The site will be primarily vulnerable to direct encroachment, although damage to nearby habitats supporting the food plant could also have a negative effect.

Esthwaite Water Ramsar Qualifies under Ramsar Criteria 1 and 2.

• Criterion 1 – Esthwaite Water is a particularly good example of a mesotrophic lake, with a well developed hydrosere at the northern end.

• Criterion 2 – The lake supports a rich assemblage of pondweed species and is the only known locality in England and Wales for slender naiad Najas flexilis. The diverse aquatic invertebrate fauna includes a number of species with restricted distributions in Britain.

Eutrophication - This site condition is unfavourable because of eutrophication, occurring as a result of pollution from aquaculture and domestic sewage. Recent surveys have shown significant deterioration of the aquatic macrophyte flora as well as adverse changes in the water chemistry. The single most important source of nutrients to the lake is the fish farm. The issue is complicated by the shallowness of the lake and presence of P-rich surface sediments, a consequence of the long history of P inputs. The adverse impacts of increasing P concentrations are exacerbated by a heavily-stocked rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri population.

Helbeck and Swindale Woods SAC


• Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines*

These two woodlands are in an area important for upland sheep grazing. In part of one wood, natural regeneration and the development of the ground flora is being inhibited by sheep grazing where the woodland is unenclosed from the adjacent pastures. This issue has been addressed in other parts of the site through agri-environment schemes and management agreements, and similar agreements will be sought for this area. The site will be primarily vulnerable to direct encroachment or impacts on management.

11



Lake District High Fells SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:

• Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea

• Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix


• Alpine and Boreal heaths

• Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands

• Siliceous alpine and boreal grasslands

• Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels

• Blanket bogs*

• Siliceous scree of the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Galeopsietalia ladani)




• Species-rich Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in continental Europe) ( Priority feature)

• Alkaline fens

• Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation

Annex II species present as a qualifying feature:

• Slender green feather-moss Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus�

The European habitats on this site, other than acidic scree, are threatened by grazing and more locally grazing combined with visitor pressure. A very high proportion of the site occurs on unfenced common land where control of grazing is difficult to achieve and pressure of sheep threatens to destroy or prevent favourable condition from being achieved. These pressures have been significantly reduced over much of the site by entry into the Lake District ESA scheme, but this largely only slows or possibly arrests decline. Siliceous scree is possibly the least-threatened habitat and is widespread, albeit in a modified state. The site will be primarily vulnerable to direct encroachment or changes in management.

12



Moor House – Upper Teesdale SAC






• Blanket bogs*

• Alpine and Boreal heaths


• Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae

• Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels

• Alpine pioneer formations of the Caricion bicoloris-atrofuscae*



• Mountain hay meadows



• Alkaline fens

• Calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii)





• Round-mouthed whorl snail Vertigo genesii

• Marsh saxifrage Saxifraga hirculus

Ecologically unsustainable grazing, driven by agricultural support mechanisms, has had a deleterious effect on virtually all the Annex I habitats listed, to the extent that for some habitats it is difficult to make the necessary assessments of conservation structure and function required here. This serious problem has so far been very difficult to solve, requiring fundamental policy change as well as targeted local action. Some successes have been achieved however through Wildlife Enhancement Schemes geared at moorland and pasture, and through the ESA and Countryside Stewardship schemes, while issues impacting on meadows have been largely addressed through meadow schemes. Refining scheme prescriptions in the light of monitoring feedback is an important part of delivering favourable condition. Inappropriate burning and drainage of bogs also need tackling; much progress has been made on the latter through partnerships. Acid deposition and the microclimatic shifts stemming from reservoir construction may also have implications for the vegetation, as may increased access.

13



Morecambe Bay Pavements SAC




• Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles*


• Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines*



• Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae*




• Narrow-mouthed whorl snail Vertigo angustior

The SAC is subject to a number of problems related to the decline of traditional management practices. The under-grazing of grasslands and decline of traditional cattle grazing is leading to the loss of sward diversity and scrub encroachment problems. Localised overgrazing (sheep-dominated) has impoverished the pavement flora on one of the component sites. A decline of traditional coppice management has reduced the interest of some of the woodland sites. The planting of non-native conifer crops on some of the sites has led to localised declines in condition. However, large parts of the site are nature reserves and are sensitively managed. A major restoration project funded by LIFE Nature is in progress to remove non-native conifer plantations and further other aspects of site restoration. The problems are being addressed primarily through a series of management agreements. These include Natural England Wildlife Enhancement Schemes, Environmentally Sensitive Area Agreements, and Woodlands Grant Schemes.

Naddle Forest SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:





The European habitats on the site have been threatened by grazing, by both sheep and deer. Much of the woodland area has been fenced to reduce sheep and deer grazing and allow regeneration to occur, although deer still range through parts of the site. Sheep grazing pressures have been reduced on the heath areas through entry into the ESA scheme, and further reductions are planned through this mechanism.

North Pennine Dales Meadows SAC


• Mountain hay meadows



These grasslands are dependent upon traditional agricultural management, with hay-cutting and no or minimal use of agrochemicals. Such management is no longer economic. Management agreements and ESA payments are being used to promote the continuation of traditional management. The refining of the prescriptions underpinning these schemes in the light of the findings of monitoring programmes is an important, continuing, part of delivering favourable condition.

14



North Pennine Moors SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:




• Blanket bogs*








• Alkaline fens



• Annex II species present as a qualifying feature:

• Marsh saxifrage Saxifraga hirculus

All interest features have been affected by excessive livestock grazing levels across parts of the site. These have been, and are still, encouraged by headage payments, but agreements with graziers and moorland owners, including those in Wildlife Enhancement and Countryside Stewardship schemes, are starting to overcome the problems of overgrazing. In places, the difficulty of reaching agreements on commons, which cover much of the site, means that successes are limited at present, and continues to prevent restoration. Drainage of wet areas can also be a problem; drains have been cut across many areas of blanket bog, disrupting the hydrology and causing erosion, but in most parts these are being blocked and the habitat restored under agreements. Burning is a traditional management tool on these moorlands, which contributes to maintaining high populations of SPA breeding birds. However, over-intensive and inappropriate burning is damaging to heath and blanket bog and further agreements are needed with the landowners to achieve sympathetic burning regimes. Restoration, to some degree, of a mosaic of more natural habitats across parts of the site is desirable. Acid and nitrogen deposition continue to have damaging effects on the site.

15



North Pennine Moors SPA • Curlew Numenius arquata (breeding)

• Dunlin (ssp. schinzii) Calidris alpina schinzii (breeding)

• Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria (breeding)

• Hen harrier Circus cyaneus (breeding)

• Merlin Falco columbarius (breeding)

• Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus (breeding)

The North Pennine Moors covers nearly 150,000 hectares and is largely heather moorland, either as blanket bog or drier heathland, with smaller associated areas of wetland, grassland, bracken, scrub, woodland and cliff. The habitats and qualifying breeding bird populations are mostly dependant upon stock grazing and burning at sympathetic levels. The continuation of these practices relies on their profitability, including any subsidy or incentive payments. Over-grazing, over-burning and other forms of intensive agricultural or sporting management (e.g. drainage) may be damaging. These issues are being partly addressed through management agreements and related incentives. Further legislation relating to Common land and reform of the Common Agricultural Policy would achieve sustainable solutions.

River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC




• Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation


• River Lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis

• Brook lamprey Lampetra planeri

• Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus

• Atlantic salmon Salmo salar

• Marsh fritillary butterfly Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia

• Floating water-plantain Luronium natans

• Otter Lutra lutra

Water levels and flooding are an issue with the River Derwent. Concern has been expressed about both the level of flooding of adjacent agricultural land and also recent flooding of urban areas. This has resulted in public pressure both for new flood defences and different water-level control regimes. Issues relating to water control levels are being addressed through a collaborative project between Natural England, Environment Agency and the water company, Yorkshire Water. Natural England is also fully consulted over any new proposals relating to new or improved flood defences. Water quality is also a potential issue on the river.

16



River Eden SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:



• Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae)*

• White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes



• River lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis


• Bullhead Cottus gobio


The maintenance of breeding and nursery areas for the species on this site depends on the habitat quality of streams and their margins. Many of the streams within the site suffer from overgrazing of riverbanks and nutrient run-off. This is being addressed by a number of measures, including a conservation strategy with actions to address river quality issues, and a partnership approach to funding habitat improvements. Thewater-crowfoot communities as well as the species are sensitive to water quality, particularly eutrophication. Again, actions have been identified for getting improvements in water quality and they will be carried forward in the periodic reviews of water company expenditure and reviews of consents under the Habitats Regulations. Practices associated with sheep-dipping pose a potential threat at this site, and are currently under investigation. Much of the alluvial forest cover is fragmented and/or in poor condition. It is hoped to address this through management agreements or Woodland Grant Schemes with individual owners.

River Kent SAC Annex I habitats present as a qualifying feature:



• White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes

• Annex II species present as a qualifying feature:

• Freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera


The maintenance of breeding and nursery areas for the species on this site depends on the habitat quality of streams and their margins. Some areas of the site suffer from poor habitat quality. The intention is to address this through implementation of habitat improvement schemes. The impact of point-discharges on water quality will be reviewed and action proposed where necessary. A particular problem on this site and affecting white-clawed crayfish is incidents of pyrethroid sheep-dip pollution of watercourses. These are currently under investigation. The dwindling population of freshwater pearl mussels needs to be investigated in relation to the factors affecting its recruitment and structure. A management plan will be developed for the part of the catchment supporting this species.

17



Solway Firth SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:

• Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand

• Estuaries

• Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time

• Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide

• Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae)


• Reefs

• Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes")*

• Perennial vegetation of stony banks




This large site is subject to a number of activities. These include flood defence and coastal erosion work, fishing and shellfisheries (including a cockle fishery which is currently closed to allow stocks to recover), saltmarsh/ merse grazing, oil and gas exploration (outwith the site), and industrial development. A management strategy to consider and co-ordinate these activities is being produced by the Solway Firth Partnership. This will set out the means by which it is proposed to secure the sustainable use of the estuary.

Tarn Moss SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:

• Transition mires and quaking bogs

Water quantity and quality is subject to influence by activities in the catchment. There is a conifer plantation to the south of the site. Felling of the trees could potentially change the quantity and quality of the water inputs. It is expected that Natural England would be consulted in advance of felling. To the north of the site is an area of siltation and slight enrichment. The source of this water is not known and will be the subject of further investigations.

18



Tyne and Nent SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:


These grasslands occur in two distinct heavy metal-rich habitats: spoil heaps associated with past lead-mining, and river gravels that have been partially derived from the erosion of metal-rich spoil heaps upstream. They are dependent on the maintenance of a high metal content in the substrate. Loss of metallophytes through successional processes is beginning to occur on one site, and management to address this will be promoted through agreements. Motorcycle scrambling on part of another site could also represent a threat to the adjacent calaminarian grassland. This will be monitored and appropriate action taken if necessary. On river gravel sites concerns exist that depletion of the upstream supply of metal-rich waste following the decline of mining will result in a loss of metallophytes. Although this has not been shown to be a problem on these sites at present, research will be carried out to investigate and where necessary address this issue.

Tyne and Allen River Gravels SAC



These special habitats have been created by deposition of minerals out of the rivers Tyne and Allen onto gravel banks. Mining activities upstream have virtually stopped, thus reducing the amount of metals carried by the rivers. In places the rivers have changed course, isolating the shingle banks. Succession to grassland and scrub is taking place on some of the component SSSIs. It is not currently known whether interventionist management would restore the interest in areas where succession has taken place, as there may no longer be sufficient available metals even if the bare shingle is re-exposed.

Ullswater Oakwoods SAC Annex I habitats that are a primary reason for selection of this site:


In recent decades, there has been little natural regeneration of native woodland species to ensure the long-term survival of the woodlands. This is due to grazing pressures from domestic livestock and more recently, red deer in Low Wood. However, low levels of grazing are important to maintain the bryophyte flora. This issue should be addressed through WES and SMSs.

19



Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Ramsar

Criterion 2 - Supports over 10% of the British population of natterjack toad Bufo calamita (Habitats Directive Annex IV species (S1202))

Criterion 5 - 35720 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003)

Criterion 6 - Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus, Herring gull Larus argentatus, Barnacle goose Branta leucopsis, Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica, Curlew Numenius arquata, Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Calidris alpina alpina, Knot Calidris canutus, Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus, Pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus, Pintail Anas acuta, Redshank Tringa tetanus, Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula, Scaup Aythya marila, Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus

As for Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA, except for natterjack toad which will be primarily vulnerable to direct damage / disturbance of habitats.

Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA

Barnacle goose Branta leucopsis (Wintering; added in SPA review); Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica (Wintering); Curlew Numenius arquata (Wintering); Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Calidris alpina alpina (Wintering); Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria (Wintering); Goldeneye Bucephala clangula (Wintering; removed in SPA review); Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola (Wintering; removed in SPA review); Knot Calidris canutus (Wintering); Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus (Wintering); Pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus (Wintering); Pintail Anas acuta (Wintering); Redshank Tringa totanus (Wintering); Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula (Passage; added in SPA review); Sanderling Calidris alba (Wintering; removed in SPA review); Scaup Aythya marila (Wintering; removed in SPA review); Shelduck Tadorna tadorna (Wintering; removed in SPA review); Shoveler Anas clypeata (Wintering; removed in SPA review); Teal Anas crecca (Wintering; removed in SPA review); Turnstone Arenaria interpres (Wintering; removed in SPA review); Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus (Wintering); Waterfowl assemblage (Wintering)

A management strategy for the site has been produced by the Solway Firth Partnership. The strategy addresses threats to the SPA interest on the site and sets out the means by which it is proposed to secure the sustainable use of the Firth.

There has been relatively little land claim compared with most other estuaries in the UK but some established and new flood defence and coastal erosion works may exacerbate erosion elsewhere within the site. The cockle fishery has been closed for a number of years due to overexploitation and the other commercial, traditional and shell fisheries are regulated by Government to ensure that they are carried out in a sustainable way and that their impact on bird feeding areas are not significant. Roosts and feeding areas are vulnerable to disturbance and the management strategy addresses the planning of recreational and development activities to avoid disturbance to roosts and feeding areas.

314000

314000

316000

316000

318000

318000

320000

320000

322000

322000

324000

324000

326000

326000

328000

328000

330000

330000

332000

332000

334000

334000

336000

336000

338000

338000

340000

340000

342000

342000

344000

344000

346000

346000

348000

348000

350000

350000

352000

352000

354000

354000

356000

356000

358000

358000

360000

360000

362000

362000

364000

364000

366000

366000

368000

368000

370000

370000

372000

372000

374000

374000

376000

376000

378000

378000

380000

380000

382000

382000

384000

384000

386000

386000

388000

388000

390000

390000

392000

392000

394000

394000

396000

396000

398000

398000

400000

400000

402000

402000

404000

404000

48

60

00

48

70

00

48

80

00

48

90

00

49

00

00

49

10

00

49

20

00

49

30

00

49

40

00

49

50

00

49

60

00

49

70

00

49

80

00

49

90

00

50

00

00

50

10

00

50

20

00

50

30

00

50

40

00

50

50

00

50

60

00

50

70

00

50

80

00

50

90

00

51

00

00

51

10

00

51

20

00

51

30

00

51

40

00

51

50

00

51

60

00

51

70

00

51

80

00

51

90

00

52

00

00

52

10

00

52

20

00

52

30

00

52

40

00

52

50

00

52

60

00

52

70

00

52

80

00

52

90

00

53

00

00

53

10

00

53

20

00

53

30

00

53

40

00

53

50

00

53

60

00

53

70

00

53

80

00

53

90

00

54

00

00

54

10

00

54

20

00

54

30

00

54

40

00

54

50

00

54

60

00

54

70

00

54

80

00

54

90

00

55

00

00

55

10

00

55

20

00

55

30

00

55

40

00

55

50

00

55

60

00

55

70

00

55

80

00

55

90

00

56

00

00

56

10

00

56

20

00

56

30

00

56

40

00

56

50

00

Key:

Based upon the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright. 100001776

Scale: 1:300000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33648 Eden District SA & HRA\Drawings\ArcGIS\HRA Figures\33648-Shr15 - Fig 3.1 SACs.mxd

N

June 201333648-Shr15 frosm

Eden District EmploymentAllocations HRA

Figure 3.1SACs in and near Eden District

01002003004005006007008009001,0001,1001,2001,3001,4001,5001,6001,7001,8001,9002,0002,1002,2002,3002,4002,5002,6002,7002,8002,9003,0003,1003,2003,3003,4003,5003,6003,7003,8003,9004,0004,1004,2004,3004,4004,5004,6004,7004,8004,9005,0005,1005,2005,3005,4005,5005,6005,7005,8005,9006,0006,1006,2006,3006,4006,5006,6006,7006,8006,9007,0007,1007,2007,3007,4007,5007,6007,7007,8007,9008,0008,1008,2008,3008,4008,5008,6008,7008,8008,9009,0009,1009,2009,3009,4009,5009,6009,7009,8009,90010,00010,10010,20010,30010,40010,50010,60010,70010,80010,90011,00011,10011,20011,30011,40011,50011,60011,70011,80011,90050Metres

SAC

Proposed Employment Sites

15km from Eden boundary

Eden District

314000

314000

316000

316000

318000

318000

320000

320000

322000

322000

324000

324000

326000

326000

328000

328000

330000

330000

332000

332000

334000

334000

336000

336000

338000

338000

340000

340000

342000

342000

344000

344000

346000

346000

348000

348000

350000

350000

352000

352000

354000

354000

356000

356000

358000

358000

360000

360000

362000

362000

364000

364000

366000

366000

368000

368000

370000

370000

372000

372000

374000

374000

376000

376000

378000

378000

380000

380000

382000

382000

384000

384000

386000

386000

388000

388000

390000

390000

392000

392000

394000

394000

396000

396000

398000

398000

400000

400000

402000

402000

404000

404000

48

60

00

48

70

00

48

80

00

48

90

00

49

00

00

49

10

00

49

20

00

49

30

00

49

40

00

49

50

00

49

60

00

49

70

00

49

80

00

49

90

00

50

00

00

50

10

00

50

20

00

50

30

00

50

40

00

50

50

00

50

60

00

50

70

00

50

80

00

50

90

00

51

00

00

51

10

00

51

20

00

51

30

00

51

40

00

51

50

00

51

60

00

51

70

00

51

80

00

51

90

00

52

00

00

52

10

00

52

20

00

52

30

00

52

40

00

52

50

00

52

60

00

52

70

00

52

80

00

52

90

00

53

00

00

53

10

00

53

20

00

53

30

00

53

40

00

53

50

00

53

60

00

53

70

00

53

80

00

53

90

00

54

00

00

54

10

00

54

20

00

54

30

00

54

40

00

54

50

00

54

60

00

54

70

00

54

80

00

54

90

00

55

00

00

55

10

00

55

20

00

55

30

00

55

40

00

55

50

00

55

60

00

55

70

00

55

80

00

55

90

00

56

00

00

56

10

00

56

20

00

56

30

00

56

40

00

56

50

00

Key:


Scale: 1:300000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33648 Eden District SA & HRA\Drawings\ArcGIS\HRA Figures\33648-Shr16 - Fig 3.2 SPAs.mxd

N



Figure 3.2SPAs in and near Eden District

01002003004005006007008009001,0001,1001,2001,3001,4001,5001,6001,7001,8001,9002,0002,1002,2002,3002,4002,5002,6002,7002,8002,9003,0003,1003,2003,3003,4003,5003,6003,7003,8003,9004,0004,1004,2004,3004,4004,5004,6004,7004,8004,9005,0005,1005,2005,3005,4005,5005,6005,7005,8005,9006,0006,1006,2006,3006,4006,5006,6006,7006,8006,9007,0007,1007,2007,3007,4007,5007,6007,7007,8007,9008,0008,1008,2008,3008,4008,5008,6008,7008,8008,9009,0009,1009,2009,3009,4009,5009,6009,7009,8009,90010,00010,10010,20010,30010,40010,50010,60010,70010,80010,90011,00011,10011,20011,30011,40011,50011,60050Metres

Eden District



SPA

314000

314000

316000

316000

318000

318000

320000

320000

322000

322000

324000

324000

326000

326000

328000

328000

330000

330000

332000

332000

334000

334000

336000

336000

338000

338000

340000

340000

342000

342000

344000

344000

346000

346000

348000

348000

350000

350000

352000

352000

354000

354000

356000

356000

358000

358000

360000

360000

362000

362000

364000

364000

366000

366000

368000

368000

370000

370000

372000

372000

374000

374000

376000

376000

378000

378000

380000

380000

382000

382000

384000

384000

386000

386000

388000

388000

390000

390000

392000

392000

394000

394000

396000

396000

398000

398000

400000

400000

402000

402000

404000

404000

48

60

00

48

70

00

48

80

00

48

90

00

49

00

00

49

10

00

49

20

00

49

30

00

49

40

00

49

50

00

49

60

00

49

70

00

49

80

00

49

90

00

50

00

00

50

10

00

50

20

00

50

30

00

50

40

00

50

50

00

50

60

00

50

70

00

50

80

00

50

90

00

51

00

00

51

10

00

51

20

00

51

30

00

51

40

00

51

50

00

51

60

00

51

70

00

51

80

00

51

90

00

52

00

00

52

10

00

52

20

00

52

30

00

52

40

00

52

50

00

52

60

00

52

70

00

52

80

00

52

90

00

53

00

00

53

10

00

53

20

00

53

30

00

53

40

00

53

50

00

53

60

00

53

70

00

53

80

00

53

90

00

54

00

00

54

10

00

54

20

00

54

30

00

54

40

00

54

50

00

54

60

00

54

70

00

54

80

00

54

90

00

55

00

00

55

10

00

55

20

00

55

30

00

55

40

00

55

50

00

55

60

00

55

70

00

55

80

00

55

90

00

56

00

00

56

10

00

56

20

00

56

30

00

56

40

00

56

50

00

Key:


Scale: 1:300000 @ A3

H:\Projects\33648 Eden District SA & HRA\Drawings\ArcGIS\HRA Figures\33648-Shr17 - Fig 3.3 Ramsar.mxd

N



Figure 3.3Ramsar sites in and near Eden District

01002003004005006007008009001,0001,1001,2001,3001,4001,5001,6001,7001,8001,9002,0002,1002,2002,3002,4002,5002,6002,7002,8002,9003,0003,1003,2003,3003,4003,5003,6003,7003,8003,9004,0004,1004,2004,3004,4004,5004,6004,7004,8004,9005,0005,1005,2005,3005,4005,5005,6005,7005,8005,9006,0006,1006,2006,3006,4006,5006,6006,7006,8006,9007,0007,1007,2007,3007,4007,5007,6007,7007,8007,9008,0008,1008,2008,3008,4008,5008,6008,7008,8008,9009,0009,1009,2009,3009,4009,5009,6009,7009,8009,90010,00010,10010,20010,30010,40010,50010,60010,70010,80010,90011,00011,10011,20011,30011,40011,50011,60050Metres

Eden District



Ramsar

20


4. Assessment

4.1 Assessment of allocations

The potential allocation sites identified through the initial ‘call for sites’ process were reviewed and assessed for

their potential to affect European sites. This assessment aimed to identify any sites that are clearly unsuitable from

an HRA perspective, or which would require the inclusion of specific measures within the plan to ensure that

significant effects are avoided or mitigated. The assessment was desk-based, using available OS mapping data and

information on the following key aspects:

• the proximity of potential allocation sites to any European sites;

• the presence of direct linkages or impact pathways to a European site (e.g. connecting watercourses);

• any known indirect linkages or impact pathways (e.g. roosting areas);

• the broad type of development envisaged for the potential allocation site;

• the size of the potential allocation site (as a surrogate for scale of potential environmental impact).

Those sites with potential issues were identified to allow their potential effects on European sites to be factored in

to the selection process and the policy design. The results of the assessment are summarised in Table 4.1; the

assessment criteria and colour coding used are summarised in Box 1. Table 4.2 summarises the ‘screening’

assessment with respect to European sites (note the assessment informing this Table is an integral part of the

assessment of the allocations – it is not possible to exclude a site without understanding both the likely effects of

the allocations and the vulnerabilities of the European site interest features).

21


Box 1 – Summary of assessment criteria for allocations and policies, and colour codes

The allocation or policy will not, as far as can be reasonably determined, have any significant effects on any European site due to:

• the European site or interest features not being sensitive to the likely outcomes of the proposal; and/or

• the site or interest features not being exposed to the likely outcomes of the proposal due to the absence of reasonable impact pathways or the likely scale / location of the development.

This will include allocations where there is no reason to assume that works could not be accommodated without significant effects assuming that standard construction best-practice or mitigation that is common and established and known to be successful in similar situations, is applied. Options in this category are recommended for consideration as preferred options, subject to future review as part of the iterative HRA process.

Allocations / policy options where a potential effect is conceivable and cannot be discounted, and the likely effects are therefore uncertain. This is typically due to limitations on the information available, either in terms of the proposal, or the data available on the interest features of the sites. These options, if pursued as preferred options, may require some additional investigation to determine the likelihood of significant effects, and there may be a risk that the effects cannot be quantified sufficiently at the strategic level to show no LSE (for example, substantial additional modelling or site-specific investigation may be required). Adverse effects are not necessarily likely (should appropriate assessment be undertaken) but generic mitigation measures may not be sufficient to ensure no LSE.

Proposals in this category may be recommended for consideration as preferred options, subject to future review as part of the iterative HRA process, but may require some additional information to support their inclusion. Bespoke policies may be required to ensure that effects as a result of allocations in this category can be avoided.

Significant effects (i.e. not negligible or inconsequential) on a European site are very likely or certain due to the scale/nature/location of the proposals, or the vulnerability and distribution of the interest features within /near the European site. Although a full appropriate assessment is not undertaken at this stage, adverse effects may be more likely (or even certain) if the scheme is taken forward as a preferred option and it is likely that extensive and uncertain mitigation will be required following scheme-level investigations.

Allocations in this category are not recommended for consideration as preferred options (although additional information may allow a re-assessment) as there appears, at the strategic level, to be a substantial risk of significant and potentially adverse effects, and the option would probably have to rely substantially on detailed ‘down-the-line’ assessment, which is unlikely to be appropriate for inclusion in the plan.

22


Table 4.1 Summary of potential effects of allocations on European sites due to scale and location

Site Possible use and site character Summary of potential effects on European sites due to location

Site 2A – Gillwilly Industrial Estate, Penrith B1(a), B2, B8

Purpose built industrial/business estate, partly developed but site infrastructure in place to allow further phases to come forward.

The closest European site is the Riven Eden SAC, approximately 2.6km away on the far side of Penrith. Direct effects as a result of this site being used are unlikely, and it is assumed that surface water drainage systems (etc.) have already been designed and installed to ensure that site run-off etc is appropriately controlled to prevent any adverse effects on the SAC. Future phases unlikely to result in significant effects on European site.

All other European sites are at least 5km from the allocation site and not connected by a direct impact pathway, although ‘diffuse effects’ (e.g. air pollution associated with travel to the site) may occur which should be avoided with appropriate policy measures.

Site 2B – Eden Business Park Phase 2, Penrith

B1(a), B2, B8

Greenfield site adjacent to existing employment allocation and M6.

The closest European site is the Riven Eden SAC, approximately 2.6km away on the far side of Penrith. Direct effects as a result of this site being used are unlikely, although surafce water drainage systems will have to be designed to ensure that site run-off etc is appropriately controlled to prevent any adverse effects on the SAC (although note that surface drainage from this location flows north and does not reach the Eden until Carlisle).


Site 42 - Penrith Kemplay Bank B1

Brownfield site on edge of Penrith

This allocation site would be close to the Riven Eden SAC, depending on the final size of the allocation. There are potential risks associated with site run-off (in particular) which may have long-term effects on the interest features unless approprately controlled. This is a potentially signifcant issue due to the proximity and potential impacts of this site in combination with the other Penrith sites, and may need precise wording of any supporting policies to ensure no significant effects.


23



Site MP B – Masterplan Option B, Redhills – land to the south of A66 (west)

B1(a), B2, B8

10 ha. greenfield site adjacent to existing employment allocation

This allocation site would border the Riven Eden SAC. It is currently a greenfield site and therefore there are potential risks associated with site run-off (in particular) which may have long-term effects on the interest features unless approprately controlled. This is a potentially signifcant issue due to the proximity , size of site, and switch from greenfield to built. Other direct effects are possible during construction and (depending on use) operation and the potential impacts of this site (particularly in combination with the other Penrith sites) would need to be examined in more detail.


Site MP C – Masterplan Option C, Skirsgill – land to the south of A66 (east)

B1(a) as part of a mixed use allocation to include C3.

3.5 ha. greenfield site adjacent to existing employment allocation

This allocation site would border the Riven Eden SAC. It is currently a greenfield site and therefore there are potential risks associated with site run-off (in particular) which may have long-term effects on the interest features unless approprately controlled. This is a potentially signifcant issue due to the proximity, size of site, and switch from greenfield to built. Other direct effects are possible during construction and (depending on use) operation and the potential impacts of this site (particularly in combination with the other Penrith sites) would need to be examined in more detail.


Site 24 – Skelgillside Workshops, Alston B1(a) and B2

Boundary amended to include undeveloped land to rear of site. Site located east of Alston village

This is a small site east of Alston village that is adjecent to an existing site. The closest European site is the Tyne and Nent Gravels SAC, the closest units of which are approximately 1.5km away and associated with the rivers South Tyne and Nent. The closest units of the site are ‘upstream’ of the allocation site. The site is designated for its Calaminarian grasslands (grasslands on heavy-metal rich soils), although these interest features are unlikely to be affected by the proposed use of the site, assuming normal design and mitigation measures.

The next nearest sites are the Moor House-Upper Teesdale SPA and the North Pennine Moors SPA (>3km from the allocation site), although the interest features of these sites are unlikely to be affected by any development at the allocation site. All other European sites are at least 5km from the allocation site and not connected by a direct impact pathway.

‘Diffuse effects’ and other indirect effects on distant sites (e.g. air pollution associated with travel to the site) should be avoided with appropriate policy measures.

Site 29 – Bonds Factory, Alton B2

Boundary amended to include undeveloped land to south of site.

As for site 24.

24



Site 26 –High Mill Alston B1 (part of mixed use development to include C3)

Vacant employment unit. May be suitable for conversion to other uses during plan period.

As for site 24.

Site 19 – Cross Croft Industrial Estate, Appleby

B1(a), B1(b) and B8

Site no longer in use – Currently being demolished. Surrounding uses mainly consists of light industrial with small element of residential. Boundary amended to only include greenfield land to east.

The closest European site is the Riven Eden SAC, approximately 700m away on the far side of Appleby. Direct effects as a result of the proposed uses for the site are unlikely, although surafce water drainage systems will have to be designed to ensure that site run-off etc is appropriately controlled to prevent any adverse effects on the SAC.



Site 21 – The Old Creamery, Appleby C3, B1(a) and B1(b)

Site no longer in use – currently being demolished. Surrounding uses mainly consists of light industrial with small element of residential. May be suitable for conversion to other uses during plan period.

The closest European site is the Riven Eden SAC, approximately 500m away on the far side of Appleby. Direct effects as a result of this site being used or converted are unlikely, although surafce water drainage systems will have to be designed to ensure that site run-off etc is appropriately controlled to prevent any adverse effects on the SAC.



Site 23 – Shire Hall, Appleby B1(a)

Vacant employment unit previously used by optician and dental practice. May be suitable for conversion to other uses during plan period.

Site within Appleby town centre, within 100m of the Riven Eden SAC; however, conversion of site to other uses unlikely to result in any signifcant effects on European sites.


25



Site 33 – Kirkby Stephen Business Park B2/B8

The Kirkby Stephen Business Park was allocated for employment use in the last Local Plan with the final stage of construction currently underway. A natural extension to the park could be delivered through development of the fields directly to the west of the site and consideration should be given to allocating this land for development.

The closest European site is the Riven Eden SAC, approximately 350m away on the far side of Kirkby Stephen. Direct effects as a result of the proposed uses for the site are unlikely, although surafce water drainage systems will have to be designed to ensure that site run-off etc is appropriately controlled to prevent any adverse effects on the SAC.

The next nearest site is the North Pennine Moors SPA (~4km from the allocation site), although the interest features of these sites are unlikely to be affected by any development at the allocation site. All other European sites are at least 5km from the allocation site and not connected by a direct impact pathway.


Site 40 – Brough Main Street B2, B8 and B1(a)

Current bus depot with staff and coach parking surrounding (current base for Grand Prix Coaches). Surrounding uses mainly consists of light industrial with small element of residential. (Possible) future floor space on vacant land (by sector/use class), Existing employment site likely to come forward for redevelopment within the plan period.

The closest European sites to this allocation are the Moor House-Upper Teesdale SPA and the North Pennine Moors SPA (~1km from site boundary) and the Helbeck and Swindale Woods SAC (~750m from site boundary). These sites are all effectively ‘upstream’ of the allocation site and therefore unlikely to be affected by any hydrological (etc.) effects associated with site drainage. The interest features are also unlikely to be exposed to the other likely effects of any of the proposed changes in site use. All other European sites are at least 5km from the allocation site and not connected by a direct impact pathway.


Brough Main Street South B2

Greenfield site on edge of settlement

The closest European sites to this allocation are the Moor House-Upper Teesdale SPA and the North Pennine Moors SPA (~1km from site boundary) and the Helbeck and Swindale Woods SAC (~750m from site boundary). These sites are all effectively ‘upstream’ of the allocation site and therefore unlikely to be affected by any hydrological (etc.) effects associated with site drainage. The interest features are also unlikely to be exposed to the other likely effects of any of the proposed changes in site use. All other European sites are at least 5km from the allocation site and not connected by a direct impact pathway.


26



Site 38 (b) – Old Tebay Depot B2

(Possible) future floor space on vacant land (by sector/use class). Site partly developed but there is capacity for further developed

The closest European sites to this allocation are the North Pennines Dales Meadows SAC (~2.5km), the Lake District High Fells SAC (~2.8km), and Asby Complex SAC (~2.5km). These sites are all effectively ‘upstream’ of the allocation site and therefore unlikely to be affected by any hydrological (etc.) effects associated with site drainage. The interest features of the nearest sites are unlikely to be exposed to the other likely effects of site use. All other European sites are at least 5km from the allocation site and not connected by a direct impact pathway.


27


Table 4.2 Summary of European sites within study area that will not be affected by the proposals

Site LSE? Rationale

Asby Complex SAC No effects Upland site over 3km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Borrowdale Woodland Complex SAC No effects Over 20km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Clints Quarry SAC No effects Over 30km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Cumbrian Marsh Fritillary Site SAC No effects Over 6km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Esthwaite Water Ramsar No effects Over 20km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Helbeck and Swindale Woods SAC Unlikely Considered with respect to Brough allocations (within 1km)

Lake District High Fells SAC No effects Upland site over 3km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Moor House – Upper Teesdale SAC Unlikely Considered with respect to Brough allocations (within 1km)

Morecambe Bay Pavements SAC No effects Over 15km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Naddle Forest SAC No effects Over 12km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

North Pennine Dales Meadows SAC No effects Over 2km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

North Pennine Moors SAC No effects Upland site over 4km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

North Pennine Moors SPA Unlikely Considered with respect to Brough allocations (within 1km)

River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake SAC No effects Over 13km from nearest allocation; separate catchment; no pathways

River Eden SAC Yes Vulnerable to allocations in Penrith

River Kent SAC No effects Over 7km from nearest allocation; separate catchment; no pathways

Solway Firth SAC No effects Over 30km from nearest allocation; any effects via rivers attenuated.

Tarn Moss SAC No effects Upland site over 9km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Tyne and Nent SAC No effects Over 25km from nearest allocation; separate catchment; no pathways

Tyne and Allen River Gravels SAC No effects Over 25km from nearest allocation; separate catchment; no pathways

Ullswater Oakwoods SAC No effects Over 10km from nearest allocation; no impact pathways

Upper Solway Flats and Marshes Ramsar No effects Over 30km from nearest allocation; any effects via rivers attenuated.

Upper Solway Flats and Marshes SPA No effects Over 30km from nearest allocation; any effects via rivers attenuated.

4.2 Allocations with potential for significant effects

The majority of the allocations are several kilometres from the nearest European sites, with no reasonable impact

pathways, and the scale of the potential developments at these locations is very unlikely to result in any significant

effects assuming all normal best-practice in design and implementation is employed: there is nothing associated

with the scale or location of the sites, or the type of development proposed, that would suggest that the

development of employment sites in these locations cannot be accommodated without significant effects.

The exceptions to this are some of the Penrith sites, specifically:

28


• Site 42 - Penrith Kemplay Bank

• Site MP B – Masterplan Option B, Redhills – land to the south of A66 (west)

• Site MP C – Masterplan Option C, Skirsgill – land to the south of A66 (east)

These allocation sites are all near to the River Eden SAC, which may be affected by their development although

buffer zones have been proposed to help mitigate or avoid potential impacts. In theory, these impacts could also

affect species shared with the Solway Firth SAC (Sea lamprey, River lamprey) but it is considered that there will

be no direct impacts on the estuary itself (due to attenuation) and any impacts on the mobile species will be as for

the River Eden SAC (and hence can be avoided through the same measures).

4.2.1 Potential effects

The River Eden SAC has the following interest features:

• Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of

the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea

• Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion

vegetation

• Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion

albae)

• White-clawed (or Atlantic stream) crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes







All of these features are likely to be present in the river near to the Penrith allocation sites, or downstream, with the

exception of the Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters feature which is associated with Ullswater and

which is unlikely to be affected by the proposals.

The remaining interest features will be vulnerable to a range of potential impacts. Development at the three Penrith

sites could result in significant effects on these interest features during both construction and operation, primarily

through the following mechanisms:

29


• Increased sedimentation associated with construction or operational run-off;

• Acute/point source pollution events (e.g. spillages of fuel, chemicals etc.);

• Increases in site run-off increasing diffuse pollution;

• Changes in local river flows due to alterations to site hydrology;

• Spread of invasive species (notably Japanese knotweed, depending on site conditions);

• Displacement of mobile species (e.g. due to noise and vibration disturbance).

The broad sensitivity of the SAC interest features to the above impacts is summarised in Table 4.2 – Table 4.6.

The fish species are considered together as their sensitivities to the likely impacts of development at the allocation

sites are broadly similar. Note that this considers the sensitivities of the interest features only, and does not take

account of exposure (and therefore vulnerability) which will vary with environmental measures or location of

features within the SAC.

30


Table 4.3 Water Courses with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion Vegetation

Aspect Sensitivity Rationale

Sediment increase

High In general, the physical habitat typified by Callitricho-Batrachion communities is one of clean substrate and swift to moderate flow. Sedimentation is a particular problem in lowland (low energy) rivers which may experience fewer spate flows that flush sediment away. Increased sediment loading can lead to increased turbidity (so reducing light levels) and sediments will retain nutrients and may have high levels of phosphorus or nitrogen.

Acute Pollution High/Low The impact of acute pollution depends very much on the type of pollutant; however, plants tend to be more resilient to acute pollution events than fish/invertebrates, and long-term impacts on plant communities would not generally be anticipated.

Diffuse pollution

High The most significant source of diffuse pollution in the Eden catchment is agriculture, with run-off from farms significantly increasing the nutrient status of the river. Eutrophication in aquatic macrophytes usually results in a shift in community composition, an overall reduction in the number of species, with a loss of Ranunculus spp. and an increase in pollution-tolerant species including filamentous algae. This is particularly significant in oligotrophic communities (such as those found in the upper reaches of the Wye SAC). However, the relationship is complex due to the significance of other variables (e.g. flow) influencing the response to nutrient enrichment.

Flow change Medium The effects of flow variation changes between rivers and plant communities. Alterations to the drainage pattern of catchments can increase the flashiness of rivers, which can affect plant communities, although many Ranunculus-type vegetation communities occur in rivers with naturally variable flow regimes.

Physical barriers

Low The installation of physical barriers is not considered particularly significant for this feature.

Table 4.4 Alluvial Forests


Sediment increase

High Since this is primarily terrestrial features, increased sediment inputs would mainly have smothering or eutrophying effect, although potential sources of increased sediment input are likely to be limited.

Acute Pollution High The effects will vary with pollutant, although acute pollution events can have long-term effects on this feature due to the slow rate of water through-put and consequently long residence time of any pollutants within the system.

Diffuse pollution

High Eutrophication is a significant problem for this feature, particularly from agricultural run off; this reduces the complexity and diversity of the botanical community.

Flow change High Sensitive primarily to flow reduction

Physical barriers

n/a -

31


Table 4.5 White-Clawed Crayfish


Sediment increase

Medium Gills may be clogged by sediment which may lead to long-term negative impacts on individuals and populations. Increased siltation may reduce the suitability of some areas for crayfish and the generally avoid areas with substrates that are covered in mud or silt.

Acute Pollution

Varies Are be particularly vulnerable to some pollutants (e.g. biocides such as sheep dip, or organic material with a high biochemical oxygen demand such as cattle slurry or silage) but populations are also known to exist where intermittent pollution occurs, such as below the storm overflows of sewage treatment works.

Diffuse pollution

Medium Crayfish may be vulnerable to long-term diffuse pollution by biocides or organic material with a high biochemical oxygen reducing the suitability of reaches; however, diffuse pollution will also affect vegetation and habitats for crayfish.

Flow change Low Populations occur in both still and running water, and flow variability does not appear to be a significant factor influencing crayfish distribution. Very low water levels caused by natural droughts or over-abstraction can affect crayfish populations by increasing their vulnerability to predation.

Physical barriers

Varies Some physical barriers (e.g. minor tracks across watercourses) can be crossed by crayfish, although other barriers will exist (e.g. unsuitable reaches).

Table 4.6 Fish Species (Sea lamprey, Brook lamprey, River lamprey, Twaite shad, Atlantic salmon, Bullhead, Allis Shad)


Sediment increase

High Sedimentation of spawning gravels and other habitats is a particular problem for the fish species, and elevated levels of fines (>0.83 mm) will often fill interstices within gravel beds such that flow of water through them is greatly reduced, so reducing spawning success by increasing the likelihood of anoxic conditions. Sedimentation will also smother habitats used for other life stages, and may physically choke fish or disrupt feeding behaviour.

Acute Pollution High Most fish are vulnerable to acute pollution events, either directly or through impacts on their food sources (e.g. synthetic pyrethroid (SP) sheep dips are highly toxic to stream invertebrates).

Diffuse pollution

High Eutrophication can increase algae growth, smothering spawning gravels and the nursery silts. It can increase biological oxygen demand and reduce river suitability. Increased water acidity (e.g. from peat drainage, forestry, or other activities) can also affect fish populations by (among other things) increasing the bioavailability of toxic metals. Other pollutants can be sub-lethal to fish but affect their food sources (e.g. sheep dip).

Flow change High High spate flows can prevent fish (particularly shad) reaching spawning areas, although generally this is not a significant problem and spate flows are useful for flushing sediment from gravels. Low flows may result in elevated water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen during summer periods, potentially causing fish kills, or (in severe cases) isolating reaches.

Physical barriers

High All fish species are sensitive to barriers preventing upstream migration to spawning sites including both physical (e.g. weirs) or chemical (e.g. water quality) barriers.

Indirect Disturbance

Varies Some fish species (notably Atlantic salmon) are known to be vulnerable to indirect disturbance, particularly noise and vibration. They are more sensitive during the key migration periods, and therefore effects are generally avoided by timing construction work appropriately.

32


Table 4.7 Otter


Sediment increase

Varies Principally affected through impacts on fish and other prey species.

Acute Pollution Varies Principally affected through impacts on fish and other prey species.

Diffuse pollution

Varies Principally affected through impacts on fish and other prey species; can be sensitive to bio-accumulation of toxins due to their status as a primary predator, and PCBs and other toxins were considered contributory factors to their long-term decline.

Flow change Varies Principally affected through impacts on fish and other prey species.

Physical barriers

Low Large roads can create significant barriers for otters, although most physical barriers on water courses do not present significant obstacles.

4.2.2 Effects

It is likely that many of these potential effects could be avoided with suitable mitigation (i.e. suitably designed

SuDS; suitable stand-off areas from the river margins); however, it will be necessary to specify this within design

criteria for these sites, and additional protective policies may be required.

4.3 Assessment of draft policies

Three preferred policies are set out within the consultation document, which are intended to replace any Local Plan

“saved” policies or ultimately supersede any parts of the adopted Core Strategy. The final version of the document

will contain the policies and accompanying explanations only. The assessment of these draft policies is as follows:

33


Table 4.8 Assessment of draft policies

Policy Policy Text or Summary Assessment

Policy ES1: Employment Allocations

This policy sets out the sites to be allocated for future employment development in Penrith and the three market towns of Alston, Appleby and Kirkby Stephen (see Table 4.1 above).

It is the intention that these sites will be safeguarded for the permissible employment uses classes identified in accordance with Policy ES2. Development would be delivered in accordance with Policy ES3.

See Section 4.1 / 4.2 and Table 4.1; in summary, all of the sites are acceptable, with the exception of the Penrith allocations discussed in Section 4.2. The policy will need to identify that additional consultation and agreement will be required with NE prior to any development, and it will be appropriate to state that permission for the Penrith sites will not be granted unless agreement with NE is obtained. It may be possible to include these sites with sufficient safeguards that NE are comfortable with, but these can only be determined through further consultation. If included, the Penrith sites will need to have a strong “no development, unless…” policy associated with them.

Policy ES2: Protection of Employment Sites

Draft policy text:

Planning permission for non-employment uses on existing employment allocations or site currently or last in employment use will be permitted where it can be shown that:

• The loss of the site would not have an unacceptable impact on the quality and quantity of employment land and premises in the area; or

• The development would result in the removal of a non-conforming use from a residential area; or

• There is a demonstrable lack of market demand; or

• Employment development would not be viable on the site.

This policy is likely to be acceptable assuming that there are other protective policies that would govern release of the sites for alternative use (i.e. if a site is released for non-employment uses then sufficient safeguards must exist in other relevant policy documents to ensure that the non-employment development would not have any significant or adverse effects on any European sites. It may be appropriate to include an additional final bullet point, as follows, if this is not the case:

• Employment development would not be viable on the site; and

• the proposed development can be accommodated without any adverse effects on any designated nature conservation sites.

Note, it may be appropriate toexpand this final point to include cultural heritage, etc.

Policy ES3: Employment Development at Existing Settlements

Draft policy text:

Employment development within and adjacent to existing settlements, including proposals outside of the employment allocations listed in Policy ES1, will be permitted where all of the following criteria can be met:

• Development is of a scale, type and design sympathetic to the location within which it is proposed;

• Development would not have an unacceptable impact on highways or other forms of infrastructure;

• Development would not give rise to any unacceptable impacts in relation to local amenity, landscape, ecology or other environmental and cultural heritage considerations; and

• The development is capable of achieving appropriate standards of access, servicing, parking and amenity space.

'Where proposals do not meet one or more of the above criteria, the acceptability of proposals will be considered against the employment, economic and other benefits of the development. Where proposals do not meet the above criteria, the Council will expect applicants to seek to minimise negative impacts as far as reasonable and, where appropriate, to provide suitable mitigation measures

This policy is likely to be acceptable although it should be strengthened to ensure that development will not be pursued if signficant adverse effects are likely which cannot be mitigated, particularly as a result of the Penrith allocations. Currently, ‘unacceptable impact’ in respect of ecology or other environmental considerations is relatively ambiguous and should be strengthened.

34


4.4 In combination effects

4.4.1 Within-plan effects

AMEC has reviewed the proposed allocations and policies, and it is considered unlikely that any of the proposed

allocations will have significant effects on any European sites ‘in combination’ with each other (based on their

location and likely use) with the possible exception of the Penrith sites (Penrith Kemplay Bank; Masterplan Option

B, Redhills; Masterplan Option C, Skirsgill) which could theoretically combine to affect the River Eden through

changes to run-off and so on. Control of potential significant effects at each individual site should also control the

risk of in combination effects.

4.4.2 Between-plan effects

The list of plans and programmes used for the SA has been used as the basis for the assessment of potential ‘in

combination’ effects with other plans. The vast majority of the plans and programmes are, due to their nature as

high level policy documents, unlikely to have any significant ‘in combination’ effects with the Employment Plan.

However, there are some local and regional plans that could potentially combine to affect European sites.

It should be noted that for most European sites the Employment Plan will have no effects at all, which means that

in combination effects cannot occur. It should also be noted that all of these plans have themselves been subject to

HRA, and so the assessment is trying to identify potential non-significant effects within the Employment Plan or

other plans that may be made significant ‘in combination’.

The following plans are those where significant effects are possible ‘in combination’.

Table 4.9 Plans with potential ‘in combination’ effects

Plan Summary Summary of Assessment

Draft Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013 to 2028

This plan identifies potential waste and minerals sites within Cumbria. There are two sites identified within the Eden district; a mineral extraction site in Long Marton, and a household recycling facility (Flusco) near Newbiggin. Both of these are currently in operation.

The HRA of the draft plan suggests that the two Eden sites are unlikely to affect any European sites:

Flusco – this site is approximately 2.6km from the River Eden, but drainage from the site does not meet this receptor for over 30km; on this basis, it is considered that effects are unlikely alone. The Flusco site is not near any of the Employment allocations, such that a non-signifcant impact from either might become significant.

The proposed Long Marton gypsum mine is located approximately 500m from the River Eden. The draft HRA concluded that adverse effects would not be expected, assuming normal EA permitting is applied. With regard to ‘in combination’ effects with the Employment allocations, these are unlikey provided that the employment plan policies suitably control the employment land near to the River Eden.

These assessments will require review as the two plans are progressed to adoption.

35


Plan Summary Summary of Assessment

Eden Preferred Housing Policies And Sites DPD (Draft)

This plan identifies potential housing sites within Eden. The draft HRA of this plan suggests that the Housing DPD is likely to have signficant effects on the River Eden on its own, and potentially in combination with the Employment allocations. However, this assessment preceeded the Employment plan and therefore made some assumptions that perhaps overestimate the likely effect of the Employment plan. It is likely that the Employment plan will be able to avoid signficant effects on the River Eden through appropriate policy wording, since there is nothing fundamental about the scale of type of development that suggests that it cannot be accommodated. However, the housing plan is subject to further assessment and the in combination assessment will require review once this is completed.

4.5 Summary

The potential employment sites have been reviewed, and their potential impacts on European sites in the area

assessed. It is considered that the vast majority of the proposed sites will have no likely significant effects on any

European sites (alone) due to either their location, or the scale and type of development, assuming that all normal

project-level measures are employed.

The exceptions to this are some of the Penrith sites, specifically:

• Site 42 - Penrith Kemplay Bank

• Site MP B – Masterplan Option B, Redhills – land to the south of A66 (west)

• Site MP C – Masterplan Option C, Skirsgill – land to the south of A66 (east)

These allocation sites are all near to the River Eden SAC, which may be affected by their development either

during construction (although these effects can almost certainly be avoided or mitigated using normal best-practice)

or, more importantly, through their long-term use, particularly with regard to alterations in run-off; the discharge of

surface water; and potential development impacts on the riparian corridor.

Existing riverside sites within Penrith have been developed with appropriate measures (including buffer zones and

stand-offs) and buffer zones have been proposed for these sites to maintain a stand-off from the river and to provide

sufficient room for appropriate SuDS or treatment (however, this should be clearly identified on the plans or within

the text of the final document). It is therefore considered that there is nothing fundamental about the scale that

would inevitably result in significant or adverse effects if the sites were utilised, but it is important that appropriate

caveats are included within the supporting policies to help ensure that potential impacts are mitigated or avoided.

With regard to in combination effects, it is considered that significant effects are only likely to be possible with the

Draft Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013 to 2028 and the Eden Preferred Housing Policies And Sites

DPD (Draft). In combination effects with the former are unlikely due to the locations of the sites and the likely

36


scale of the works. However, the draft HRA of the Eden Preferred Housing Policies and Sites DPD (Draft) plan

suggests that the Housing DPD is likely to have signficant effects on the River Eden on its own, and potentially in

combination with the Employment Allocations. However, this assessment preceeded the Employment plan and

therefore made some assumptions that perhaps overestimate the likely effect of the Employment plan. It is possible

that the Employment plan will be able to avoid signficant effects on the River Eden through appropriate policy

wording, since there is nothing fundamental about the scale of type of development proposed that suggests that it

cannot be accommodated. In addition, the Employment Plan is unlikely to make ‘non-significant’ effects in the

Housing plan signficant. However, the housing plan is subject to further assessment and the in combination

assessment will require review once this is completed; these processes need to be aligned, but currently it would

appear that in combination effects with this plan are unlikely, assuming that the Housing DPD can avoid significant

effects on its own.

The assessment of the Employment Allocations is necessarily at the draft stage, and therefore the conclusions of

this HRA supporting document are preliminary also, based on the available information and without the benefit of

detailed consultation with NE (this is the next stage of the process). All assessments and assumptions will be

reviewed as the plan develops.

37


Appendix A Large-scale figures showing allocations and European sites

Eden Business Park Phase 2

Skirsgill

Land adjacent Redhills Business Park


Land Adjacent Stoneybeck

Land adjacent Skirsgill Depot

Land adjacent Rheged Discovery Centre


Land adjacent Penrith Fire Station

River Eden

River Eden

346000

346000

347000

347000

348000

348000

349000

349000

350000

350000

351000

351000

352000

352000

353000

353000

354000

354000

355000

355000

52

70

00

52

70

00

52

80

00

52

80

00

52

90

00

52

90

00

53

00

00

53

00

00

53

10

00

53

10

00

53

20

00

53

20

00

53

30

00

53

30

00

53

40

00

53

40

00

53

50

00

53

50

00


Scale: 1:50000 @ A4

Key:

01002003004005006007008009001,0001,1001,2001,3001,4001,5001,6001,700Metres

H:\Projects\33648 Eden District SA & HRA\Drawings

N

Eden District Employment AllocationsHabitats Regulations Assessment

Figure A1Penrith Employment Allocations

May 201333648-Shr09.mxd frosm


Ramsar

SAC

SPA

Former Dairy Site

Cross Croft Industrial Estate

Shire Hall

River Eden

River Eden

River Eden

367000

367000

368000

368000

369000

369000

370000

370000

371000

371000

51

90

00

51

90

00

52

00

00

52

00

00

52

10

00

52

10

00

52

20

00

52

20

00


Scale: 1:25000 @ A4

Key:

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Metres


N


Figure A2Appleby Employment Allocations



Ramsar

SAC

SPA

Skelgillside Workshops

Land adjacent to Bonds Foundry

High Mill

Tyne & Nent

Tyne & Nent

370000

370000

371000

371000

372000

372000

373000

373000

374000

374000

54

50

00

54

50

00

54

60

00

54

60

00

54

70

00

54

70

00

54

80

00

54

80

00


Scale: 1:25000 @ A4

Key:

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Metres


N


Figure A3Alston Employment Allocations



Ramsar

SAC

SPA

Land adjacent Business Park (St Luke's Road)

River Eden

River Eden

375000

375000

376000

376000

377000

377000

378000

378000

379000

379000

50

70

00

50

70

00

50

80

00

50

80

00

50

90

00

50

90

00

51

00

00

51

00

00

51

10

00

51

10

00


Scale: 1:25000 @ A4

Key:

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Metres


N


Figure A5Kirkby StephenEmployment Allocations



Ramsar

SAC

SPA

Tebay Old Railway Sidings

Lake District High Fells

North Pennine Dales Meadows

North Pennine Dales Meadows

359000

359000

360000

360000

361000

361000

362000

362000

363000

363000

50

20

00

50

20

00

50

30

00

50

30

00

50

40

00

50

40

00

50

50

00

50

50

00

50

60

00

50

60

00


Scale: 1:25000 @ A4

Key:

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Metres


N


Figure A6Tebay Employment Allocations



Ramsar

SAC

SPA

Trading Estate and Grand Prix Club

Land adjacent Trading Estate

North Pennine Moors

Moor House-Upper TeesdaleHelbeck & Swindale Woods

Helbeck & Swindale Woods

River Eden

377000

377000

378000

378000

379000

379000

380000

380000

381000

381000

51

30

00

51

30

00

51

40

00

51

40

00

51

50

00

51

50

00

51

60

00

51

60

00


Scale: 1:25000 @ A4

Key:

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Metres


N


Figure A7Brough Employment Allocations



Ramsar

SAC

SPA