claire holman

1

Habitats Directive:Air Quality and Ecological Impact

Assessment

Joint IAQM/CIEEM Discussion Meeting16th July 2015

ARUP. London

2

Introduction

Dr Claire HolmanBrook Cottage Consultants Ltd

Vice-Chair IAQM

3Brook Cottage Consultants

4

Wealden District Council: A Radical Authority

Brook Cottage Consultants

Ashdown Forest:- SSSI- SPA- SAC

• Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix

• European dry heaths

One of the largest continuous blocks of lowland heath in SE England

A “ban” on development not in local plan within 7km of the SAC

5

WDC Core Strategy


Conclusion :“No adverse effects on the ecological integrity of any European site as a result of the Wealden District Core Strategy in relation atmospheric pollution at Ashdown Forest SAC”

Core Strategy results in up to 950 vehicles per day

Less than DMRB scoping criteria (1000 vehicles per day)

No more detailed analysis undertaken

6

Core Strategy Inspector’s Report


“… I am satisfied that the DMRB methodology is the correct approach to a scoping assessment of air quality and that, as concluded in the HRA, the scale and distribution of development proposed in the CS is acceptable in this regard. “

Mike Moore, Inspector, Examination of Wealden Core Strategy

Core Strategy Adopted in February 2013High Court Challenge of CS failed February 2014

Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v SSCLG

7

Original Policy WSC12


…it is the Council's intention to reduce the recreational impact of visitors resulting from new housing development within 7 kilometres of Ashdown Forest by creating an exclusion zone of 400 metres for net increases in dwellings in the Delivery and Site Allocations Development Plan Document. and requiring provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space and contributions to on-site visitor management measures… Mitigation measures within 7 kilometres of Ashdown Forest for windfall development, including provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space and on-site visitor management measures will be contained within the Delivery and Sites Allocation Development Plan Document and will be associated with the implementation of the integrated green network strategy. In the meantime the Council will work with appropriate partners to identify Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space and on-site management measures at Ashdown Forest so that otherwise acceptable development is not prevented from coming forward by the absence of acceptable mitigation.

The Council will also undertake further investigation of the impacts of nitrogen deposition on the Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation so that its effects on development in the longer term can be more fully understood and mitigated if appropriate.

8

Policy WCS12

• Several planning appeals refused• Local plan examination• Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP

challenged the Core Strategy– All references to 7 kilometres of Ashdown Forest

deleted from policy– New applications - Council will decide on need to an

Appropriate Assessment and whether there is likely to be a significant effect on the SAC


9

Steel Cross: Reason for Refusal

• The development proposal, both alone and in combination with other plans and proposals, would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and SSSI, including impact through pressures for increased recreational use of the Ashdown Forest and the intensification of nitrogen deposition in the protected area by additional traffic generated. There are no suitable proposals to mitigate this adverse effect...

• Development would result in 43 additional vehicles per day on relevant road link.


10

Is 43 vehicles per day ‘de minimis’?

“Proposals having no, or de minimis, effects can be progressed without further consideration under the Habitats Regulations although reasons for reaching this decision must be justified and recorded”

Habitats Regulations Guidance Note No. 3 English Nature November 1999

43 vehicles is 0.26% of current traffic on A26, and well within day to day variation


11Brook Cottage Consultants

12

Appropriate Assessment

“Appropriate Assessment would be required to allow any development beyond that in the Core Strategy… …Such an assessment would require more monitoring and modelling together with a detailed examination of the sensitivity of the SAC to nitrogen inputs… Without such an Appropriate Assessment the Council is not, in my view, in a position to change its stance in relation to the Core Strategy allocations.

Source: Evidence of Prof D Laxen on behalf of Wealden District Council to Steel Cross Inquiry


13

WDC Research Programme

• Vegetation / soil surveys started 2014• Repeated annually until at least 2017 and potentially up to

2027.

• On completion of the 2016/17 monitoring, the data analysed to identify any potential relationship between traffic levels and atmospheric pollution on vegetation structure and composition

should they be apparent.Source: Evidence of Prof D Laxen to Steel Cross Inquiry


14

WDC Research Programme

• Vegetation / soil surveys started 2014• Repeated annually until at least 2017 and potentially up

to 2027. • On completion of the 2016/17 monitoring, the data

analysed to identify any potential relationship between traffic levels and atmospheric pollution on vegetation


Source: Evidence of Prof D Laxen to Steel Cross Inquiry

15

Some Questions

DMRB• Scoping criteria for

individual schemes or in-combination?

• Is the criteria appropriate?

Habitats Regulations• Designed to stop

development?

Appropriate Assessment• Does it required extensive

and long term monitoring?

HRGNs• Do HRGNs need updating?• What is a ‘de-minimis

impact?


16

Discussion Meeting Aims

• Discuss how can the assessments can be improved?

• Is new non statutory guidance required to assist our members?


17

Agenda• Introduction Dr Claire Holman FIAQM (Brook Cottage

Consultants) • Quantification of the Air Quality Impact Dr Ben Marner

MIAQM (Air Quality Consultants) • Ecological Assessment Dr James Riley MCIEEM (AECOM) • Natural England’s View Dr Alastair Burn (Natural England) • The Environment Agency’s View: Assessing the impacts

of aerial emissions on European Protected Sites Kate Bayley MCIEEM (Environment Agency)

• Discussion
