Habitat Regulations Assessment for the
Southampton Local Plan – Issues and Options
Consultation Paper
Baseline Evidence Review Report – First Iteration,
July 2015
i
This page is intentionally blank
ii
Contents
1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Purpose and Structure of Document .................................................................. 1
1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment Process and Methodology ............................ 2
1.3 Southampton Local Plan .................................................................................... 2
1.4 HRA of earlier plans ........................................................................................... 3
2
European Sites ........................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Ecological Information about the European Sites ............................................... 5
2.3 Conservation Objectives ..................................................................................... 8
2.4 Key Environmental Conditions Supporting Site Integrity .................................... 8
2.5 Conservation Status ........................................................................................... 8
3
Atmospheric Pollution .......................................................................................... 18
3.1 Description of Impact......................................................................................... 18
3.2 Sites Potentially Affected................................................................................... 19
3.3 Extent of Impact at Present ............................................................................... 19
3.4 Potential impact of the Local Plan ..................................................................... 26
3.5 Data Gaps and Sources ................................................................................... 26
4
Flood Risk and Coastal Squeeze ......................................................................... 27
4.1 Description of Impact ........................................................................................ 27
4.2 Sites Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 28
4.3 Extent of Impact at Present and Potential Impact of CCAP .............................. 28
4.4 Surface water runoff ......................................................................................... 37
4.5 Data Gaps and Sources ................................................................................... 37
5
Effluent Discharge ................................................................................................ 39
5.1 Description of Impact ........................................................................................ 39
5.2 Sites Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 39
5.3 Extent of Impact at Present .............................................................................. 39
5.4 Potential impact of the Local Plan .................................................................... 39
5.5 Data Gaps and Sources ................................................................................... 41
6
Water Demand ....................................................................................................... 44
6.1 Description of Impact ........................................................................................ 44
6.2 Sites Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 44
6.3 Extent of Impact at Present .............................................................................. 44
6.4 Potential impact of the Local Plan .................................................................... 45
iii
6.5 Data Gaps and Sources ................................................................................... 47
7
Recreational Disturbance ..................................................................................... 49
7.1 Description of Impact ........................................................................................ 49
7.2 Sites Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 50
7.3 Extent of Impact at Present .............................................................................. 50
7.4 Potential Impact of Local Plan .......................................................................... 50
7.5 Data Gaps and Sources ................................................................................... 60
8
Site-specific Habitat Loss or Degradation .......................................................... 61
8.1 Description of Impact ........................................................................................ 61
8.2 Sites Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 62
8.3 Potential impact of Local Plan .......................................................................... 62
8.4 Data Gaps and Sources ................................................................................... 64
9
Location and Design of Buildings: Collision Risk, Light, Noise and Vibration65
9.1 Description of Impact ........................................................................................ 65
9.2 Sites Potentially Affected .................................................................................. 66
9.3 Extent of Impact at Present .............................................................................. 66
9.4 Potential impact of Local Plan .......................................................................... 67
9.5 Data Gaps and Sources ................................................................................... 71
10 Conclusion and next steps ................................................................................... 72
10.1
Overview of the Baseline Evidence Review ............................................... 72
10.2
HRA Screening Stage ................................................................................ 72
10.3
In combination effects ................................................................................ 72
Initial Habitats Regulations Screening ...................................................................... 74
References and Bibliography ..................................................................................... 76
iv
1
Introduction
1.1
Purpose and Structure of Document
1.1.1.
This report presents an initial review and updating of the evidence base
produced by UE Associates in support of the Habitats Regulations Assessment
(HRA) of the City Centre Action Plan (CCAP) Development Plan Document ().
This review takes into consideration the wider geographic scope of the citywide
Local Plan and data that has become available since the CCAP baseline was
completed. Text and maps from the following documents has been used where
no significant changes to the baseline conditions have been identified:

Southampton City Centre Action Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment
Baseline Evidence Report, UE Associates for Southampton City Council,
2011

Southampton City Centre Action Plan Habitats Regulations Assessment
Proposed Submission Stage, UE Associates for Southampton City
Council, 2013
1.1.2
This document is not a screening report but a review of background information
and evidence which will be used to inform the HRA. However, an initial
screening has been included in Appendix 1.
1.1.3.
The report is structured as follows:
1.1.4

Chapter One: introduces the document, outlines the HRA process, and
provides the background to the Local Plan, with reference to the
Southampton Core Strategy, the City Centre Action Plan (CCAP) and
their respective HRAs;

Chapter Two: identifies the European sites which are considered to be
potential receptors of the likely significant effects of the plan, together
with ecological information about these sites;

Chapters Three to Nine: provide a review of the evidence in relation to
each of seven identified impact types;

Chapter Ten: concludes the report.
At present, this initial iteration of the HRA baseline is very similar to the CCAP
baseline and includes much of the text from that document. Following input
from stakeholders this document will be revised to reflect the most up to date
data and understanding of the various impacts affecting European sites. To
assist with this process, responses to the following questions, plus any other
comments, would be helpful:

Are the correct European sites being considered?

Are there any additional impacts, beyond those detailed in this baseline,
which should be considered?
1

Is there any additional data available which should be considered?

Are there any more recent reports which should be considered?
1.2
Habitats Regulations Assessment Process and Methodology
1.2.1
The application of HRA to land use plans is a requirement of the Conservation
of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations), the UK’s
transposition of European Union Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive). HRA must
be applied to all Local Development Documents (LDD) in England and Wales
and aims to assess the potential effects of a land use plan against the
conservation objectives of any sites designated for their nature conservation
importance as part of a system known collectively as the Natura 2000 network
of European sites.
1.2.2
European sites provide ecological infrastructure for the protection of rare,
endangered or vulnerable natural habitats and species of exceptional
importance within the European Union. These sites consist of Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs, designated under the Habitats Directive), Special
Protection Areas (SPAs, designated under European Union Directive
2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive)) and
potential SPAs (pSPA). Meanwhile, Government policy (PPS9 (ODPM, 2005a)
and Circular 06/05 (ODPM, 2005b)) recommends that Ramsar sites (UNESCO,
1971) are treated as if they are fully designated European sites for the purposes
of considering development proposals that may affect them.
1.2.3
Under regulation 102 of the Habitats Regulations, the assessment must
determine whether or not a plan will adversely affect the integrity of the
European site(s) concerned, either alone or in combination with other plans and
projects. Where effects on ecological integrity are identified, plan makers must
first consider alternative ways of achieving the plan’s objectives that avoid
significant effects entirely. Where it is not possible to meet objectives through
other means, mitigation measures that allow the plan to proceed by removing or
reducing significant effects may be considered. If it is impossible to avoid or
mitigate the adverse effect, the plan-makers must demonstrate, under the
conditions of regulation 103 of the Habitats Regulations, that there are
Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) to continue with the
proposal. This is widely perceived as an undesirable position and should be
avoided if at all possible.
1.2.4
Further information on HRA methodology will be set out in full in the HRA
Screening Report, which this Baseline Review precedes.
1.3
Southampton Local Plan
Background
1.3.1
The new Local Plan will set out the planning framework for Southampton up to
2036. It will show how the city will grow and how the new homes, shops,
businesses and infrastructure needed will be delivered. An Issues and Options
paper detailing initial ideas about what will be included has been developed.
2
This paper, which is high level and takes a broad approach includes the
following proposals:

Attract more economic investment, including continued growth of the
Port, the broader marine economy, a new city centre business district
centred on the Royal Pier Waterfront and Station Quarter, and
investment in industrial areas, for example in the Itchen Riverside
Quarter;

Plan for further growth and enhancement of the city centre as a major
retail, leisure and cultural destination;

Support the education and training of the city’s residents;

Provide many new homes, and the right type of homes, to meet people’s
needs, with major growth in the city centre, along the Itchen Riverside
and on other major sites;

Continue to regenerate the council’s housing estates to provide more
homes and improve the environment and protect attractive residential
areas;

Support an efficient transport network which minimises congestion and
pollution and improves air quality by encouraging more walking, cycling
and use of public transport whilst retaining appropriate provision for cars;

Protect and enhance the city’s rich heritage, Old Town and its network of
green spaces, waterfront access and links, including the Central Parks,
Southampton Common and many other valued spaces around the city;

Manage and respond to climate change and air quality;

Protect and enhance biodiversity and ecology.
Development of the Local Plan
1.3.2
The Issues and Options Consultation paper is undergoing consultation from
Wednesday 22 July 2015 until Friday 16 October, 2015. Following
consideration of comments received, a draft plan will be developed by autumn
2016 with the final plan completed in 2018.
1.4
HRA of earlier plans
The CCAP and Core Strategies
1.4.1
The Southampton Core Strategy Partial Review which was initially adopted in
January 2010 and then underwent review in 2015 and the City Centre Action
Plan which was adopted in March 2015 were both subjected to Habitats
Regulations Assessment.
1.4.2
The Core Strategy contains strategic policies and development principles for the
city, and provides broad locations for development and regeneration across the
range of land uses, including housing, employment, retail, leisure, community
facilities, public services and transport provision. It proposed major new
development within the city (16,300 dwellings, approximately 130,000 sq m of
3
retailing, and a minimum of 322,000 sq m of offices). The CCAP provided
specific policies for the city centre area primarily dealing with retail and office
development and delivery of approximately 5,450 dwellings. It also addressed
the leisure economy and set out a strategy for a greener centre dealing with
green infrastructure, walking and cycling.
CCAP Habitats Regulations Baseline Review
1.4.3
The impacts considered in the CCAP Habitats Regulations Baseline Review
were carried forward from the Core Strategy Screening Report (Halcrow, 2008).
The CCAP HRA set out a number of measures to deal with site specific impacts
and proposed joint working initiatives and monitoring to address strategic
issues. The final conclusion of the CCAP HRA, based on the identified
mitigation, was that the CCAP would not result in significant effects on
European sites.
1.4.4
This baseline report is undertaken on the assumption that the impacts identified
previously, detailed in Table 1.1 below, are still relevant, however, as part of the
consultation on the Local Plan Issues and Options Paper, views are sought on
whether there are any additional impacts that should be considered.
Table 1.1: List of impacts arising from the Southampton Core Strategy with
potential to affect European sites (Source: Halcrow, 2009)
European site name
Solent and Southampton Water
SPA and Ramsar
Solent Maritime SAC
River Itchen SAC
The New Forest SAC, SPA and
Ramsar
Emer Bog
1.4.4
Nature of impact
Recreational disturbance
Coastal squeeze
Water quality impacts
Water resource availability
Disturbed flight lines/ ecological connectivity
Pollution (chemical, noise, light, air and dust)
Recreational disturbance
Coastal squeeze
Water quality impacts
Water resource availability
Pollution (chemical, noise, light, air and dust)
Water resource availability (flow levels)
Water quality impacts
Pollution (noise, light, air and dust)
Recreational disturbance
Air pollution
Recreational disturbance
Air pollution
Hydrology
In addition to the sites in Table 1.1, Portsmouth Harbour SPA and Ramsar and
Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar were also included
within the scope of the Core Strategy HRA. However, the assessment did not
find there to be a risk or likelihood of significant effects on these sites.
4
2
European Sites
2.1
Introduction
2.1.1
Drawing on the scope of the Core Strategy HRA and City Centre Action Plan
HRA, the sites that are considered in this report are:

Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA / Ramsar;

Emer Bog SAC;

New Forest SAC / SPA / Ramsar;

Portsmouth Harbour SPA / Ramsar;

River Itchen SAC;

Solent Maritime SAC; and

Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar
2.1.2
The European sites bulleted above are depicted in Figures 2.1 and 2.2.
2.2
Ecological Information about the European Sites
Site descriptions
2.2.1
An ecological description of each European site is given in the separate
appendices document (Appendix I).
Qualifying features
2.2.2
The qualifying features of each site (that is, the reasons for which the sites were
designated) are listed in Table 2.1 (see also Appendix II separate appendices
document).
5
Centre in relation to European Sites, wide area
Figure 2.1 City in relation to European sites
6
Figure 2.1: Location of City
Centre in relation to European
Sites, near area
7
2.3
Conservation Objectives
2.3.1
Natural England is in the process of setting out conservation objectives for all
SACs and SPAs, and progress towards these objectives can be taken as an
indicator of favourable conservation status at the site. Ramsar sites do not have
agreed conservation objectives, but in most instances overlap with SPA site
boundaries. However, it should be noted that Ramsar qualifying features can
include a range of habitats and non-bird species common to SAC designations,
as well as bird species and assemblages and their supporting habitats, which
are common to SPAs.
2.3.2
The conservation objectives of the above sites are currently a work in progress
and are provided in Appendix III.
2.4
Key Environmental Conditions Supporting Site Integrity
2.4.1
The distinctive characteristics of each European site are potentially vulnerable
to a variety of impacts. The key environmental conditions that support the
ecological integrity of each site are listed in Appendix IV.
2.5
Conservation Status
2.5.1
The conservation status of a habitat or species can be regarded to be
favourable when the following criteria are met (based on the Habitats Directive,
Article 1):

The area of habitat is stable or increasing within its natural range;

The structure and functions of the habitat necessary for its long-term
maintenance continue to exist;

The population of a species is maintaining itself as viable on a long-term
basis;

The natural range of a species is stable; and

There is sufficient habitat to maintain the species population on a longterm basis.
8
Table 2.1: Qualifying features of European sites around Southampton
Solent & Southampton Water
SPA
Solent & Southampton Water
Ramsar
Chichester & Langstone SPA
Chichester & Langstone
Ramsar
Breeding
Criterion 1
Breeding
Criterion 1
- Little Tern Sterna albifrons
- Several outstanding wetland
habitat types, including
unusual double tidal
flow, a major sheltered
channel, saline
lagoons, saltmarshes,
estuaries, intertidal
flats, shallow coastal
waters, grazing
marshes, reedbeds,
coastal woodland and
rocky boulder reefs
- Little Tern Sterna albifrons
- Two outstanding estuarine
basins, the site
includes intertidal
mudflats, saltmarsh,
sand and shingle spits
and sand dunes
- Shoveler Anas clypeata
- Winter assemblage of 76,480
waterfowl (5 year peak
mean 1998/99 2002/03)
Criterion 2
- Eurasian Teal Anas crecca
Criterion 6
- Dark-bellied Brent Goose
Branta bernicla
- Nationally rare species
assemblage
- Wigeon Anas penelope
Breeding
- Ringed Plover Charadrius
hiaticula
- Turnstone Arenaria interpres
Criterion 5
- Little Tern Sterna albifrons
albifrons
- Teal Anas crecca
- Winter assemblage of 51,343
waterfowl (5 year peak
mean 02/03)
- Sandwich Tern Sterna
sandvicensis
- Common Tern Sterna hirundo
- Mediterranean Gull Larus
melanocephalus
- Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii
Overwintering
- Black-tailed Godwit Limosa
islandica
Bird Assemblage
- Over winter the area regularly
supports 51,361
Criterion 6
- Common Tern Sterna hirundo
- Sandwich Tern Sterna
sandvicensis
Overwintering
- Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa
lapponica
- Pintail Anas acuta
- Dark-bellied Brent Goose
Branta bernicla bernicla
- Sanderling Calidris alba
- Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina
Criterion 5
Overwintering
- Dark-bellied Brent Goose
Branta bernicla bernicla
- Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina
9
individual waterfowl (5
year peak mean 1998)
Breeding
- Sandwich Tern Sterna
sandvicensis
- Common Tern Sterna hiruno
- Little Tern Sterna albifrons
- Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii
Overwintering
- Black-tailed Godwit Limosa
limosa islandica
- Ringed Plover Charadrius
hiaticula
- Grey Plover Pluvialis
squatarola
- Red-breasted Merganser
Mergus serrator
- Common Shelduck Tadorna
tadorna
- Eurasian Curlew Numenius
arquata
On passage
- Grey Plover Pluvialis
squatarola
- Shelduck Tadorna tadorna
- Redshank Tringa totanus
- Dark-bellied Brent Goose
Bird Assemblage
Branta bernicla bernicla
- Over winter the area regularly
- Teal Anas crecca
supports 93,230
individual waterfowl
On passage
(5yr peak mean 1998)
- Ringed Plover Charadrius
hiaticula
- Ringed Plover Charadrius
hiaticula
- Black-tailed Godwit Limosa
limosa islandica
- Common Redshank Tringa
totanus totanus
Portsmouth Harbour SPA
Portsmouth Harbour Ramsar
River Itchen SAC
Solent Maritime SAC
Overwintering
Criterion 3
Annex I Habitat
Annex I Habitat
- Dark-bellied Brent Goose
Branta bernicla bernicla
- Species assemblage of
importance to
maintaining
- Water courses of plain to
montane levels with the
Ranunculion fluitantis
- Estuaries
- Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina
- Spartina swards (Spartinion
maritimae)
10
- Black-tailed Godwit Limosa
limosa islandica
- Red-breasted Merganser
Mergus serrator
biogeographic
biodiversity
Criterion 6
and CallitrichoBatrachion vegetation
Annex II Species
Overwintering
- White-clawed (or Atlantic
stream) crayfish
- Dark-bellied Brent Goose
Austropotamobius
Branta bernicla bernicla
pallipes
- Southern damselfly
Coenagrion mercuriale
- Bullhead Cottus gobio
- Brook lamprey Lampetra
planeri
- Otter Lutra lutra
- Atlantic salmon Salmo salar.
- Atlantic salt meadows
(Glauco-Puccinellietalia
maritimae)
- Sandbanks - slightly covered
by sea water all the
time
- Mudflats and sandflats not
submerged at low tide
- Annual vegetation drift lines
- Perennial vegetation of stony
banks
- Salicornia and other annuals
colonising mud and
sand
- Shifting white dunes with
Ammophila arenaria
- Coastal lagoons
Annex II Species
- Desmoulin's whorl snail
Vertigo moulinsiana
11
The New Forest SPA
The New Forest Ramsar
The New Forest SAC
Emer Bog SAC
Breeding
Criterion 1
Annex I Habitat
Annex I Habitat
- Nightjar Caprimulgus
europaeus
Valley mires and wet heaths
are found throughout
the site and are of
outstanding scientific
interest. The mires and
heaths are within
catchments whose
uncultivated and
undeveloped state
buffer the mires against
adverse ecological
change. This is the
largest concentration of
intact valley mires of
their type in Britain
- Oligotrophic waters containing
very few minerals of
sandy plains
(Littorelletalia uniflorae)
- Transition mires and quaking
bogs.
Criterion 2
- Molinia meadows on
calcareous, peaty or
clayey-silt-laden soils
(Molinion caeruleae)
- Woodlark Lullula arborea
- Honey Buzzard Pernis
apivorus
- Dartford Warbler Sylvia
undata
Overwintering
- Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus
Diverse assemblage of wetland
plants and animals
including several
nationally rare species.
Seven species of
nationally rare plant are
found on the site, as
are at least 65 British
Red Data Book species
of invertebrate
- Oligotrophic to mesotrophic
standing waters with
vegetation of the
Littorelletea uniflorae
and/or of the IsoëtoNanojuncetea
- Northern Atlantic wet heaths
with Erica tetralix
- European dry heaths
- Depressions on peat
substrates of the
Rhynchosporion
- Atlantic acidophilous beech
forests with Ilex and
sometimes also Taxus
in the shrublayer
12
Criterion 3
The mire habitats are of high
ecological quality and
diversity and have
undisturbed transition
zones. The invertebrate
fauna of the site is
important due to the
concentration of rare
and scare wetland
species. The whole site
complex, with its
examples of seminatural habitats is
essential to the genetic
and ecological diversity
of southern England
(Quercion roboripetraeae or IliciFagenion)
- Asperulo-Fagetum beech
forests
- Old acidophilous oak woods
with Quercus robur on
sandy plains
- Bog woodland *
- Alluvial forests with Alnus
glutinosa and Fraxinus
excelsior (Alno-Padion,
Alnion incanae, Salicion
albae)
- Transition mires and quaking
bogs.
13
2.5.2
As an illustration of conservation status it can be helpful to examine the
condition status of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which often
coincide with European sites (Table 2.3). Although it should be noted that
SSSIs are designated for national (as opposed to international) nature
conservation interest, and so the condition of SSSIs cannot be fully relied upon
as an indication of the conservation status of a European site, many of the
ecological conditions that help to support site integrity are shared across the
designations. Just over half of corresponding SSSI areas (50.34%) are in a
favourable condition, while a further 43.38% are listed as unfavourable but
recovering. However, a proportion of the total designated area (6.28%) is
unfavourable without improvement, or declining or part destroyed. This
information is helpfully supplemented by a summary of bird population trend
data for the Solent provided in Stillman et al (2009), which states that:

The population trends of most species wintering in the Solent reflect the
trend in the respective national population. Several species, particularly
wildfowl, have increased greatly in the Solent since the 1980s. By
contrast, many waders (and shelduck) exhibit long-term declines. The
Brent goose population has remained stable despite a recent national
decline.

There is evidence of local shifts in the location of some winter
populations within the Solent, especially from Chichester and Langstone
Harbours SPA to Solent and Southampton Water SPA (pintail, shoveler
and black-tailed godwit). Furthermore, most species that have declined
strongly in the Solent have done so primarily in Chichester and
Langstone Harbours SPA (e.g. shelduck, ringed plover, dunlin, bar-tailed
godwit), and those species that have increased strongly in the Solent
(wigeon, teal, pintail, shoveler, black-tailed godwit) have done so
primarily in Solent and Southampton Water SPA.

Data on breeding birds is less systematic, but available for most years for
the principal sites in the Solent. Tern populations are stable or increasing
overall, and local increases are apparent in Langstone Harbour.
(Stillman et al, 2009, p44).
14
Table 2.2: Status of SSSIs coinciding with the European sites (Source: Natural England, July 2015)
Favourable
European site name
SSSI name:
(%)
Chichester and
Langstone
Harbours
Portsmouth
Harbour
Solent Maritime;
Solent &
Southampt
on Water
Unfavourable
recovering
Unfavourable
no change
Unfavourable
declining
(%)
(%)
(%)
Destroyed
(%) (part)
Chichester Harbour
22.98
77.67
0.24
1.1
0
Sinah Common
0
100
0
0
0
Langstone Harbour
8.96
91.04
0
0
0
Warblington Meadow
100
0
0
0
0
Portsmouth Harbour
11.72
87.75
0.02
0.15
0.35
Brading Marshes to St Helen’s
Ledges
41.5
46.69
0
11.8
0
Bouldnor and Hamstead Cliffs
85.02
14.98
0
0
0
Eling and Bury Marshes
11.46
88.54
0
0
0
Hurst Castle & Lymington River
Estuary
27.04
70.09
0
2.87
0
Hythe to Calshot Marshes
0
100
0
0
0
King's Quay Shore
95.11
4.68
0
0
0.21
Lee-on-the-Solent to Itchen
Estuary
82.49
15.98
1.53
0
0
15
The New Forest
Lincegrove and Hackett's
Marshes
0
100
0
0
0
Lower Test Valley
100
0
0
0
0
Lymington River Reedbeds
35.5
64.5
0
0
0
Medina Estuary
100
0
0
0
0
Newtown Harbour
89.34
10.31
0
0.35
0
North Solent
63.21
34.94
0.93
0.91
0
Ryde Sands and Wootton Creek
71.92
28.08
0
0
0
Sowley Pond
100
0
0
0
0
Thorness Bay
28.35
0
0
71.65
0
Titchfield Haven
0
96.48
0
3.52
0
Upper Hamble Estuary and
Woods
85.94
11.32
2.75
0
0
Whitecliff Bay and Bembridge
Ledges
99.07
0
0.93
0
0
Yar Estuary
83.15
16.85
0
0
0
Landford Heath
0
51.97
0
48.03
0
River Avon System
3.48
36.96
56.76
2.8
0
Landford Bog
0
100
0
0
0
16
Langley Wood and Homan's
Copse
0
0
98.88
1.12
0
Whiteparish Common
1.27
91.84
6.89
0
0
Loosehanger Copse and
Meadows
0
100
0
0
0
The New Forest
53.02
45.74
35
0.88
0.01
Norley Copse and Meadow
58.67
41.33
0
0
0
Roydon Woods
100
0
0
0
0
Lymington River
0
100
0
0
0
North Solent
63.21
34.94
0.93
0.91
0
River Itchen
River Itchen
6.89
59.21
27.99
5.51
0.39
Emer Bog
Baddesley Common and Emer
Bog
0
30.23
69.77
0
0
2011
50.34
43.38
4.26
2
0.02
2015
42.47
45.67
7.89
3.95
0.03
OVERVIEW
SUMMARY
17
3
Atmospheric Pollution
3.1
Description of Impact
3.1.1
Air pollution associated with development can cause damage to sensitive
habitats and species of European sites, primarily as a result of nitrogen
emissions and associated ammonia from traffic generated by residential and
commercial developments. The following brief descriptions draw on
information presented through the Air Pollution Information System (APIS,
2009).
3.1.2
Eutrophication by nitrogen deposition: consists of the input of nitrogen
from NOX (and also ammonia, NH3) emissions by deposition, and is caused
primarily by road traffic, as well as energy generation, industrial combustion
and agricultural practices. Nitrogen deposition can cause direct damage to
heather, mosses, liverworts and lichens, as well as other plant species,
because of their sensitivity to additional atmospheric nitrogen inputs, whilst
deposition can also lead to long term compositional changes in vegetation
and reduced diversity. For example a marked decline in heather and an
increased dominance of grasses have been observed throughout the
Netherlands and also in the East Anglian Brecklands (see for example
Bobbink et al (1993) and Pitcairn et al (1991)).
3.1.3
Atmospheric concentrations of NOX: while plants are able to detoxify and
assimilate low exposure to atmospheric NOx, high levels of uptake can lead
to detrimental impacts including:
 Inhibition of pigment biosynthesis, leading to reduced rates of photosynthesis;
 Water soaking as NO2 molecules attach to lipids in membranes, causing
plasmolysis (removal of water) and eventually necrosis;
 Inhibition of lipid biosynthesis, leading to reduced rates of regeneration and
growth;
 Injury to mitochondria and plastids, essential to internal processing of energy
and proteins;
 Decrease in stomatal conductance of air and water vapour; and
 Inhibition of CO2 fixation (at least under low light levels).
3.1.4
Over half of all emissions of nitrogen and nitrogen oxides in the UK are the
result of vehicle exhausts, with an estimated 92% of those associated with
residential development being contributed by road traffic (Dore et al, 2005).
Nitrogen emissions and associated ammonia from traffic generated by
residential and commercial developments will therefore be the focus of this
part of the assessment. The scope can be further refined by concentrating
on traffic growth on roads within 200m of European sites, as beyond 200m
effects of emissions from this source diminish to the equivalent of
background levels (Laxen & Wilson (2002), DfT (2005)).
18
3.2
Sites Potentially Affected
3.2.1
The generation of additional road traffic associated with development under
the CCAP may result in significant effects on the ecological integrity of River
Itchen SAC, Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA /
Ramsar, New Forest SAC / SPA / Ramsar and Emer Bog SAC.
3.2.2
It was felt that the development associated with the CCAP would be unlikely
to result in sufficient changes in traffic flow to adversely affect Chichester
and Langstone Harbour SPA/ Ramsar or Portsmouth Harbour SPA /
Ramsar. However, the CCAP boundary excluded the majority of the Port of
Southampton, a significant source of heavy goods vehicle journeys, unlike
the Local Plan boundary which encompasses the whole port. Vehicles
travelling to the port chiefly travel along the M25/M3 and A34/M3 corridors
however, some traffic may use the M27/A27 and consequently be in close
proximity to these sites. With the port expecting the volume of trade to
increase additional vehicle movements can be expected; data suggests that
HGV traffic along the M271 to Redbridge roundabout has increased by 61%
over the last 14 years with the greatest increase in the last three years. In
addition, consent has been granted for a distribution centre and residential
development close to Junction 1 of the M271 which will generate further
traffic. The potential for impacts on the Chichester and Langstone Harbour
SPA/Ramsar and Portsmouth Harbour SPA Ramsar will therefore be
considered.
3.2.3
The habitats most sensitive to air pollution present within these sites are, for
coastal locations: grazing marsh, saltmarsh, shingle, sand dunes and other
littoral and supralittoral rocks and sediments, while for inland areas they are:
lowland heathland, beech, oak and bog woodland, mires and bogs, and acid,
calcareous and neutral grasslands.
3.2.4
With the exception of Emer Bog SAC, each of the above sites is crossed by
or lies within 200m one or more major roads (A roads or motorways) that link
with Southampton’s strategic road network. The following sections therefore
focus on these sites, and Emer Bog is not considered further.
3.3
Extent of Impact at Present
3.3.1
Critical levels for oxides of nitrogen and ammonia concentrations and critical
loads for nitrogen and total acid deposition provide benchmarks for
assessing the potential for harm from air pollution. Critical loads relate to the
deposition of nitrogen from air to the ground ‘below which significant harmful
effects on specified sensitive elements of the environment do not occur
according to present knowledge’ and critical levels relate to the
concentration of nitrogen in the atmosphere ‘above which direct adverse
effects on receptors, such as human beings, plants, ecosystems or
materials, may occur according to present knowledge’1.
3.3.2
The tables overleaf (Tables 3.1-3.4) provide data on background critical
loads and levels for N and NOx at key locations where parts of the strategic
19
road network pass through or within 200 metres of the European sites under
consideration. The figures are derived from the APIS database for N
Deposition and NOx based on two 3-year average datasets from 2006-2008
and 2010 - 2012, mapped to a 5km grid resolution. One representative
habitat type per site has been selected in order to interrogate APIS.
20
Table 3.1 Updated - Background critical loads and levels for N and NOx: New Forest SAC / SPA / Ramsar
New Forest SAC / SPA / Ramsar
Lowland Heath (Dwarf Shrub Heath)
Location Point 1: M27/A31 passes through the Site (428900,113300 NGR)
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)

2011
2015
Critical Load /
level
Deposition /
concentration
Exceedance
Deposition /
concentration
Exceedance
10-20
14.1
4.1 to -5.9
14.7
4.7 to -5.3
30
13.5
-16.5
10.97
-19.03
Change in
Exceedance


Location Point 2: A35 passes through the Site (433400,110100 NGR)
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)

Critical Load /
level
2011
Deposition /
concentration Exceedance
2015
Deposition /
concentration Exceedance
10-20
15.4
5.4 to -4.6
16.24
6.24 to -3.76
30
16.9
-13.1
13.51
-16.49
Change in
Exceedance


Location Point 3: A36 passes through the Site (428600,119100 NGR)
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)
Critical Load /
level
2011
Deposition /
concentration Exceedance
2015
Deposition /
concentration Exceedance
Change in
Exceedance

10-20
15.8
5.8 to -4.2
16.24
6.24 to -3.76
30
13.1
-16.9
9.88
-20.12

21

Location Point 4: A326 passes along boundary of Site (439700,107600 NGR)
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)
2011
2015
Critical Load /
level
Deposition /
concentration
Exceedance
Deposition /
concentration
Exceedance
10-20
12.5
2.5 to -7.5
13.72
3.72 to -6.28
30
15.4
-14.6
14.59
-15.41
Change in
Exceedance


Table 3.2: Updated Background critical loads and levels for N and NOx: Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar and Solent
Maritime SAC
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)
Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC
(Saltmarsh and Grazing marsh) 2
Location Point 5: M27 passes through the Sites (449800,110110 NGR)
2011
2015
Critical Load /
Deposition /
Deposition /
Change in
level
concentration Exceedance
concentration Exceedance
Exceedance
16.2
-3.8 to -13.8
17.22
-2.78 to 12.78

20-30
30
27.4
-2.6
25
-5

22
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)
Location Point 6: A27 passes through the Sites (449270,109270 NGR)
2011
2015
Critical Load /
Deposition /
Deposition /
level
concentration Exceedance
concentration Exceedance
Change in Exceedance

20-30
14
-6 to -16
15.4
-4.6 to -14.6
30
32.5
2.5
27.55
-2.45


Location Point 7: A35/A36 passes through the Sites (NGR 436800,113400)
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)
Critical Load /
level
20-30
30
2011
Deposition /
concentration Exceedance
15.1
26.8
-4.9 to -14.9
-3.2
2015
Deposition /
concentration Exceedance
16.24
23.8
-3.76 to 13.76
-6.2
Change in Exceedance



Location Point 8: M271 passes through the Sites (NGR 437165,114562)
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)
Critical Load /
level
20-30
30
2011
Deposition /
concentration Exceedance
15.1
26.8
-4.9 to -14.9
-3.2
2015
Deposition /
concentration Exceedance
16.24
23.8
-3.76 to 13.76
-6.2
Change in
Exceedance


23
Table 3.3: Updated Background critical loads and levels for N and NOx: Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)
Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar
(Saltmarsh and Grazing marsh)
Location Point 9: A3024 passes through Site (NGR 443430,113150)
2011
2015
Critical Load /
Deposition /
Deposition /
level
concentration Exceedance
concentration Exceedance
20-30
30
10.5
3.2
-9.5 to -19.5
-26.8
15.68
34.94
-4.32 to 14.32
4.94
Change in
Exceedance


Table 3.4: Updated Background critical loads and levels for N and NOx: River Itchen SAC
Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)

Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
River Itchen SAC
(Lowland wood pastures) 3
Location Point 10: M27/A27 passes through the Site (445200,115800 NGR)
2011
2015
Critical Load /
Deposition /
Deposition /
level
concentration Exceedance
concentration Exceedance
Change in Exceedance

10-20
30
30.2
30.1
20.2 to 10.2
0.1
30.8
21.47
20.8 to 10.8
-8.53

Location Point 11: M3 (south) passes through the Site (447900,126500 NGR)
2011
2015
Critical Load /
Deposition /
Deposition /
level
concentration Exceedance
concentration Exceedance
Change in Exceedance
10-20
33.7
23.7 to 13.7
34.02
24.02 to
14.02

24
NOx (µg m-3)

Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)

Year
Pollutant
N Deposition
(kg
N/ha/year)
NOx (µg m-3)
30
25.7
-4.3
16.84

-13.16
Location Point 12: A34 passes through the Site (449400,131700 NGR)
2011
2015
Critical Load /
Deposition /
Deposition /
level
concentration Exceedance
concentration Exceedance
10-20
30
34.3
22.1
24.3 to 14.3
-7.9
24.86 to
14.86
-15.51
34.86
14.49
Change in Exceedance


Location Point 13: M3 (north) passes through the Site (445000,132600 NGR)
2011
2015
Critical Load /
Deposition /
Deposition /
level
concentration Exceedance
concentration Exceedance
Change in Exceedance
10-20
34.3 24.3 to 14.3
24.86 to
34.86 14.86
30
22.1 -7.9
14.49
-15.51


25
3.4
Potential impact of the Local Plan
3.4.1
The figures in the 2011 column illustrate the situation at the time the CCAP
baseline was compiled whilst the 2015 provides an update. Looking at the
two sets of figures it is clear that an increase in nitrogen deposition has
occurred in the majority of locations. Additional development within the
Local Plan, both residential and commercial, has the potential to further
increase traffic volumes.
3.4.2
The emphasis within the Local Plan will be to support and prioritise a modal
shift away from the private car to more sustainable modes and provide a link
to the strategic transport policies and objectives of the Local Transport Plan
(LTP). Work is starting on the fourth Local Transport Plan (LTP4) which will
include an updated data from the Sub-Regional Transport Model (SRTM)
and a City Centre Microsim model incorporating the development aspirations
from the Local Plan that underpin the LTP.
3.4.3
The impact of poor air quality on human health is currently a major concern
within Southampton; in May 2014 an update of the World Health
Organisation (WHO) report on Ambient Air Pollution in Cities named
Southampton as one of the worst cities in the UK to be breaching air
pollution safety guidelines. In response an A Low Emissions Strategy, which
will focus primarily on vehicle emissions is being developed. Although
intended to improve air quality for human health, measures within the
strategy will have beneficial effects for the European sites.
3.5
Data Gaps and Sources
Data Gaps
3.5.1
Further data is required on the contribution to pollutant levels associated with
traffic flow from the new development proposed by the Local Plan.
Data Sources
•
Air Pollution Information System (APIS) website www.apis.ac.uk
•
Road transport emissions impacts on Nature Conservation Sites (AEA
Technology, 2010, for the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire)
•
Southampton and Eastleigh LDF Core Strategies Transport Impact
Assessment: Stage 1 and Stage 2 (Mott MacDonald, April 2009 and
June 2009)
•
Review of Air Quality Mitigation Measures in Land Use and Spatial
Planning in the UK (UE Associates, draft 2009, for the Environment
Agency)
•
Citywide Local Plan: Issues and Options Consultation Paper,
Southampton City Council, July 2015
26
4
Flood Risk and Coastal Squeeze
4.1
Description of Impact
4.1.1
Southampton has approximately 35km of tidal frontage including the River
Test and River Itchen estuaries, which join to form Southampton Water
(Atkins 2007). Land uses along this shoreline encompass marine and
coastal industries, including the Port of Southampton, commercial,
residential and transport infrastructure plus significant natural and historic
assets. Although the risk of tidal flooding is relatively low at present,
approximately 13% of the city is identified as currently at high or medium
risk, sea level rise is expected to lead to a significant increase in flood risk.
Some of the areas at greatest risk are key development sites within the city
centre and along the River Itchen.
Figure 4.1: Tidal flood risk to the City Centre in years 2010, 2055, 2070 and 2115. Map
depicts areas in Flood Zone 3 in each of these years. (Source: Capita Symonds 2010)
4.1.2
The North Solent Shoreline Management Plan (SMP; NFDC, 2010)
recommends a long term policy of ‘hold the line’ (HTL) for urban and
industrial areas of the SMP shoreline, including the sections of frontage that
fall within the City Centre area. A policy of HTL means the existing level of
protection will be maintained and upgraded where it is economically viable to
do so, in order to protect life and property along the extensively developed
sections of the estuaries (NFDC, 2010). This policy however has potential
impacts on designated sites via a process of ‘coastal squeeze’, whereby
habitats are prevented from migrating landwards by fixed defences, as sea
level rises.
27
4.1.3
Beneath the North Solent SMP there are two further strategies that focus on
delivery of the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), covering more localised
stretches of shoreline in Southampton:

Coastal Defence Strategy (CDS) for the River Itchen, Weston Shore,
Netley & Hamble;

The Southampton Coastal Erosion and Flood Risk Management
Strategy (CEFRMS) (covering the coastline from Redbridge to
Woodmill).
4.2
Sites Potentially Affected
4.2.1
The Local Plan area encompasses the entire city and consequently,
designated habitats running along the coastline and Rivers Itchen and Test
could be affected directly by new sea defences intended to protect existing
and new development and indirectly through coastal squeeze. Indirect
impacts including disturbance from noise, vibration, human presence,
lighting and mobilisation of silt, arising from construction activities associated
with installation of new sea defences, could also affect Atlantic salmon, a
feature of interest of the River Itchen SAC.
4.2.2
Maintenance and improvement of flood defences may therefore have
impacts on the River Itchen SAC, the Solent Maritime SAC Solent,
Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar site.
4.3
Extent of Impact at Present and Potential Impact of CCAP
4.3.1
The Solent Maritime SAC, Solent and Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar
sites and Solent Maritime SAC are already subject to the impacts of coastal
squeeze (JNCC; English Nature 2001). Maintenance and upgrading of
defences may therefore result in continued loss of inter-tidal habitats through
coastal squeeze. The level of impact upon salmon is currently unknown.
North Solent SMP
4.3.2
The SMP policy units covering Southampton are as follows:
 5c10 Netley Castle to Weston Point
 5c11 Weston Point to Woodmill Lane
 5c12 Woodmill Lane to Redbridge
 5c13 Lower Test Valley
These policy units can be seen in see Figure 4.2 below.
28
Figure 4.2: Map of SMP Policy Units: Source NFDC 2010
4.3.3
The policies for Units 5c10 to 5c13 are shown in Table 4 below:
Policy Units
Epoch
1 0-20 yrs
Epoch 2
20-50 yrs
Epoch 3
50-100 yrs
5C10
Netley Castle
Weston Point
HTL
HTL
HTL
5C11
Weston Point
Woodmill Lane
HTL
HTL
NAI*
* requirement for more detailed study for management for management of site that
recognises coastal change and investigates property level defence options
5C12
Woodmill Lane
Redbridge
HTL
HTL
HTL
5C13
Lower Test Valley
Lower Test Valley
NAI
NAI
NAI
Key - HTL = Hold the Line; MR = Managed Realignment NAI = No Active Intervention;
NPFA = No Public Funding Available; RTE = Regulated Tidal Exchange
4.3.4
In order to assess the coastal squeeze risks associated with the ‘Hold the
Line’ policy the SMP AA referred to the current defences for each policy unit,
and assessed the likely habitat change that would result from its
implementation. This was based on the Defence Assessment carried out to
inform the SMP (NFDC 2010, Appendix C2), which set out details of the
defences for each section of frontage across the SMP area. The coastal
frontage of the City was at the time composed of seven units (TEST5b,
TEST6, ITCH1 – ITCH4 and NET1): see Table 4.1 overleaf.
29
Table 4.1: Extract from SMP Defence Assessment, summarising type, residual life and condition of defences for management units
corresponding to the City’s coastal frontage (Source: NFDC 2010, Appendix C2, p.32)
Management Unit
Start of Unit
End of Unit
Start Coordinates
TEST5
TEST6
Redbridge
Southampton
Port
Residual
Life
Defence Type
End Coordinates
Brief
description of
the type of
defence
present
Unknown
Years
Condition
Natural
Features
Based on
NFCDD
Grades
Based on
Future
COAST
(foreshore
type,
condition)
436641
112540
436673
113326
Sea wall/
Revetment/
Saltmarsh
436738
113462
437093
113587
Natural
Embankment
Unknown
436673
441529
113326
111180
441529
441767
111180
110961
Quay Sea
Wall
Revetment
Unknown
10
0
3
0
Unknown
Inter-tidal
mudflats,
eroding
saltmarsh
Dredged
Channel
Source
Aerial
Photography
SCC
SCC
SCC
ITCH1
Southampton
Port
Ocean
Village
441767
110961
443012
110575
Quay Sea
Wall
5
3
SCC
ITCH2
Ocean
Village
Woodmill
Lane Bridge
443012
110575
443186
111155
Quay Sea
Wall
10
3
SCC
443186
111155
443182
111244
Revetment
10
2
443182
111237
443169
111376
Revetment
10
1
443169
111376
443011
111525
Sea wall
10
4
443011
111525
443468
112860
Sea wall
10
2
SCC
443466
112859
443180
112882
Revetment
5
2
SCC
Inter-tidal
mudflats,
navigable
channel
SCC
SCC
SCC
30
443180
112882
442909
113150
Embankment
10
1
SCC
442909
113150
443088
113525
Embankment
10
3
SCC
443088
113525
443176
113631
Sea wall
10
4
SCC
443176
113631
443412
113661
Piling
10
3
SCC
443412
113661
443596
113784
Piling
10
3
SCC
443596
113784
443704
114080
Sea wall
10
3
SCC
443704
114080
443596
114344
Revetment
10
2
SCC
443596
114344
443571
114618
Embankment
10
4
SCC
443571
114618
443891
115276
Sea wall
10
2
SCC
ITCH3
Woodmill
Lane Bridge
Cobden
Bridge
443891
115276
443731
115002
Revetment
10
2
SCC
ITCH4
Cobden
Bridge
Weston Point
443731
115002
443869
114050
Revetment
10
1
SCC
443869
114050
443303
113406
Sea Wall
10
4
SCC
443303
113406
443308
113084
Sea Wall
10
2
SCC
443309
113084
443397
113175
Sea Wall
5
3
SCC
443397
113175
443592
113129
Sea Wall
5
4
SCC
443593
113129
443838
113189
Revetment
5
4
SCC
443838
113189
444052
112374
Sea Wall
5
4
SCC
444051
112374
443536
111368
Revetment
5
4
SCC
443539
111367
443410
110736
Sea wall
10
4
SCC
443410
110736
443400
110497
Gabions
10
4
SCC
443400
110497
443419
110313
Sea wall
10
4
SCC
443420
110313
443488
110182
Embankment
5
4
NET1
Weston Point
Netley Castle
443488
110182
445071
108854
Beach
N/A
0
SCC
Inter-tidal
mudflats
SCC
31
4.3.5
The defences for the City are represented visually in the Level 2 Strategic Flood
Risk Assessment for Southampton in a ‘defence overview’ map, reproduced in
Figure 4.3 below.
Figure 4.3: Overview of flood defences in Southampton. (Source: Capita Symonds,
2010)
4.3.6
The Appropriate Assessment of the North Solent SMP (NFDC, 2010, Appendix
J) assesses the likely significant impacts of the SMP policies. The findings
indicate that ‘hold the line’ policies will have potential impacts on mudflat and
saltmarsh habitats through coastal squeeze processes and potential sitespecific effects on coastal vegetated shingle and unvegetated shingle. HTL
policies were not found to have likely significant effects on habitats located
behind defences.
4.3.7
The Appropriate Assessment quantifies the extent of habitat losses anticipated
as a result of implementing all SMP policies; Table 4.2 summarises the findings
of the assessment in relation to estimated habitat loss within Solent and
Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar over the next 100 years, which policies
5c10, 5c11 and 5c12 may contribute to.
32
Table 4.2: Habitat losses and gains in the Solent and Southampton Water SPA /
Ramsar as a result of SMP policies (Source: NFDC, 2010, Appendix J, p.64)
4.3.8
The loss of saltmarsh habitat will be compensated through the Regional Habitat
Creation Programme, which aims to provide strategic delivery of compensatory
habitats as identified through the HRA of the SMP, as well as compensatory
habitats required to offset coastal squeeze losses caused by the continued
maintenance of existing third party defences (NFDC, 2010).
4.3.9
The following subsections look at the additional available evidence on the
implications of flood defence policies that may be of assistance when assessing
the likely effects of the Local Plan in relation to coastal squeeze.
River Itchen, Weston Shore, Netley & Hamble Coastal Defence Strategy
4.3.10 A Coastal Defence Strategy (CDS) for the River Itchen, Weston Shore, Netley &
Hamble was published in November 2011. This document provides a more
detailed basis for decision making and action related to the management of
these frontages, which form part of the area dealt with by the North Solent SMP
within the jurisdictions of Southampton City Council, Eastleigh Borough Council
and Fareham Borough Council.
4.3.11 The published document includes three management units, ITCH3, ITCH4 and
NET1 whose defence policies will be of relevance to coastal squeeze impacts in
combination with those associated with defences for the Local Plan. These are
shown in Figure 4.4.
33
Figure 4.4: Overview map of the CDS study area showing its composite Policy Units
(Source: Mouchel 2011b)
4.3.12 The recommended policy options for unit ITCH4 are to maintain the currently
defended portions in the short and medium term (0-50 years), and then to apply
a policy of no active intervention thereafter (Mouchel, 2012: p.10-4). The HRA
for the CDS (Mouchel, 2011) found that the preferred policies (all units) would
result in significant loss of designated habitat within Solent and Southampton
Water SPA / Ramsar and although it also predicted that there would be
negligible impacts on designated species. The extent of the losses are detailed
in Table 4.3 below. These losses were also considered in-combination with the
North Solent Shoreline Management Plan and concluded that although the
losses were relatively small in the context of the whole site they were
significant. An assessment of alternative options has been undertaken and
compensatory recommendations made. These will be delivered through the
Environment Agency’s Regional Habitat Creation Programme (Mouchel 2011a).
34
Table 4.3 Preferred Policy Calculation of Intertidal Designated Area Loss/Gain (Solent
& Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar) from selected Policy Units
Preferred Policies Relevant to the Solent & Southampton
Water SPA and Ramsar
2106
2056
2026
2006
YEAR
Designate
d Areas
(Official
Desig.
Area +
Designated Area
additional w ith no Intertidal
gain
Range
w ithin
im m ediate
boundarie
s)
Potential
Potential
Gain of
Gain of
Designate
Designate
Intertidal
Net
d Area
d Area
Habitat
Loss/Gain
w ithin
w ithin
outside
of
im m ediate
Intertidal
immediate Designated
Designate
Range
Designated
Area
d Area
Area
Boundarie
Boundaries
s
SITE
POLICY
ITCH3
-
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.81
0.00
ITCH4
-
56.65
0.99
43.93
11.73
11.51
0.00
NET1
-
90
0.38
64.08
25.54
0.00
0.00
ITCH3
AI
0
0
0
0
2.84
0
ITCH4
AI
53.17
1.09
43.84
8.24
10.54
-3.48
NET1
AI
79.78
0.76
63.7
15.32
0
-10.22
ITCH3
AI
0
0
0
0
2.94
0
ITCH4
AI
52.53
1.12
43.8
7.61
10.42
-4.12
NET1
AI
78.47
0.8
63.66
14.01
0
-11.53
ITCH3
NAI
0
0
0
0
3.38
0
ITCH4
NAI
47.87
31.39
13.54
2.95
6.05
-8.78
NET1
AI
65.45
9.51
54.95
0.99
0
-24.55
The Southampton Coastal Strategy: Redbridge to Woodmill Lane
4.3.13 The Southampton Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Strategy,
which covers a 22km stretch of the coast from Redbridge to Woodmill Lane,
was completed in 2013. This provides detailed assessment of future flood risk
management options for the implementation of North Solent SMP policy unit
5c12, Redbridge to Woodmill Lane.
4.3.14 A Habitats Regulations Assessment was undertaken as part of the development
of the strategy. Coastal squeeze was considered to be the principle impact
arising from the strategy’s policies with the potential to affect designated
intertidal habitats as well as bird species and salmon supported by these
habitats. It was concluded that the preferred options will have no adverse effect
on intertidal habitats and associated species, over and above those already
identified and accounted for within the SMP, except for a potential local adverse
effect on intertidal area at Redbridge beyond 2060. Project level HRAs will need
to be completed where necessary to ensure no likely significant effects for
individual schemes (URS 2013).
35
Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Southampton
4.3.15 A Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA2), designed to demonstrate
how development can remain ‘safe’ from tidal flooding for the lifetime of
development, was undertaken in 2010 (Capita Symonds, 2010). This document
is currently undergoing revision and an updated version is due to be published
within the next twelve months. The current SFRA2 included within its scope a
detailed assessment of eight key development sites, shown in Figure 4.5, within
the city centre area, to inform the emerging City Centre Action Plan (CCAP) and
Site Allocations DPD and facilitate the application of the Sequential and
Exception Tests at the site level. For each site examined, it discusses flood risk
management according to three broad management options (summarised from
Capita Symonds, 2010, Volume 3, p.1-3):
 Strategic Precautionary Approach - refers to a city-wide solution that
would positively benefit the development sites as well as Southampton as a
whole. A broad assessment of this option and benefits to the development
sites is considered, however the SFRA does not seek to replace the need to
undertake the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for
Southampton (Redbridge to Woodmill Lane) which is expected to detail how
protection can be provided to the City Centre.
 Site-specific Flood Risk Management - refers to development of individual
flood risk management measures at each of the development sites, as might
be expected if development is brought forward in isolation. This could include
measures such as land raising, raised floor levels, and restrictions on ground
floor uses.
Figure 4.5: Development Sites examined in SFRA2 (Source: Capita Symonds, 2010: Volume 3)
36
 Managed Adaptive Approach - a more flexible approach, adapting as flood
risk changes over the lifetime of development and may include a combination
of strategic and site specific options. This approach looks at the potential
implementation of a strategic flood risk management solution which would
protect the development sites (but will not be constructed until some time into
the future), and therefore, interim (site specific) measures are necessary
(phasing of development, partial land raising, defence measures to protect
against climate change etc.).
4.4
Surface water runoff
4.4.1
A related issue is that impacts on water quality can be caused by polluted
surface water runoff. There is a potential pathway for this impact to occur either
through contaminated runoff from roads and buildings or the mobilisation of
historic contamination during construction works. Development brought forward
under the Local Plan could result in pathways for surface water contamination
to affect the integrity of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar, the
Solent Maritime SAC and River Itchen SAC.
4.4.2
Details of the potential impacts are set out in relation to Solent and
Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC by English Nature
(2001), whose detailed operations advice for these sites describes how such
contaminants can impact on qualifying species. In the case of the Solent and
Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar, contaminants can build up in the food
chain, resulting in toxic effects on birds and their prey. In relation to the Solent
Maritime SAC, toxic contamination impacts can have both lethal effects
resulting in the loss of key predators, and ‘sub-lethal’ effects on the healthy
functioning of organisms. In relation to the River Itchen SAC, there would be
potential for contamination to affect Atlantic salmon as they migrate from their
spawning ground in the SAC to Southampton Water (English Nature, 2001).
4.4.3
The SFRA2 notes that the highly urbanised nature of Southampton and its
underlying geology mean large volumes of surface water runoff can be
generated (Capita Symonds 2010: Volume 1). It also refers to the risk that
‘construction works involving earth movement and excavations and the use of
plant adjacent to the river has the potential to generate contamination pathways
if contamination is present in these areas’ (Capita Symonds 2010, Volume 3,
p.A8). Such construction works could be associated with waterfront
development, and / or flood defence works carried out to ensure protection of
such development. Although the SMP notes that its HTL policies will provide
protection from contaminants that may otherwise be released into coastal
waters as a result of tidal flooding and erosion (NFDC, 2010), the risk that the
flood defence works themselves could mobilise contaminants is an important
issue for consideration at the site level.
4.5
Data Gaps and Sources
Data Gaps
4.5.1
In relation to the risks associated with pollution from surface runoff, the SFRA2
highlights a lack of data on contaminated land from readily accessible sources,
37
but observes that current uses of the land next to the River Itchen suggests
there may be potential for contamination (Capita Symonds data on historic
contamination is therefore required. In addition, the findings of the forthcoming
Surface Water Management Plan will be an important data source when it
becomes available.
4.5.3
While the SFRA2’s assessment of actual tidal flood risk in Southampton has
used the Tidal Itchen Flood Hazard Study scenarios, this does not cover the
western parts of Southampton. Its risk assessment for these parts of the city is
therefore based on the PUSH SFRA, but the Environment Agency has
commissioned further hydraulic modelling to quantify the assessment of flood
hazard on the River Test, which will provide a consistent detailed assessment of
tidal flood hazard and should be used to update the SFRA once available
(Capita Symonds, 2010).
4.5.4
Through the development of the SMP, informed by its HRA, the Environment
Agency and Natural England have agreed that compensatory habitat will be
provided via the Regional Habitat Creation Programme (RHCP). However,
since 60% of defences along the SMP coastline in private ownership, ‘there is
an element of risk to designated SPA and Ramsar sites situated behind third
party defences. There is also an element of risk to designated SPA and Ramsar
sites where the final SMP policy is HTL with further detailed studies required to
consider whether MR [Managed Realignment] may occur’ (NFDC, 2010,
Appendix J, p.59). Although these ‘at risk’ sites have been taken into
consideration in the RHCP, it is not currently be known to what degree private
landowners will deviate from SMP policies.
Data Sources
•
North Solent Shoreline Management Plan and accompanying Appropriate
Assessment (New Forest District Council, December 2010)
•
River Itchen, Weston Shore, Netley & Hamble Coastal Defence Strategy
(Mouchel, 2011), and accompanying Appropriate Assessment (Mouchel,
2011)
•
The Southampton Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Strategy
and accompanying Habitats Regulations Assessment (URS 2013)
•
Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Southampton (Capita
Symonds, 2010)
•
Solent Dynamic Coast Project (Channel Coast Observatory, 2008)
•
South Hampshire Integrated Water Management Strategy (Atkins, 2009, for
the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire)
38
5
Effluent Discharge
5.1
Description of Impact
5.1.1
Water pollution associated with development can impact on the qualifying
features of designated sites, through waste water discharges. Nutrient
enrichment and in particular nitrogen (N) pollution can arise from waste water
treatment required in support of planned residential development. The
Environment Agency has identified the effects of nutrient enrichment in the form
of dense macro algal mats which reduce dissolved oxygen content and impacts
on food availability by depleting the numbers of invertebrates present in the
intertidal areas.
5.1.2
The Core Strategy HRA identified potential impacts from wastewater discharges
associated with planned growth in the city in relation to Solent and
Southampton Water SPA and Ramsar, Solent Maritime SAC and River Itchen
SAC. The HRA recommended (inter alia) that ‘When considering development
proposals and future site allocations the Council should take into account
existing sewage treatment capacity.’ (Halcrow 2009, p15).
5.1.3
It is therefore important to investigate whether growth associated with the Local
Plan could result in sewage discharges or polluted surface water runoff (see
Chapter 4) that could potentially threaten the above sites.
5.2
Sites Potentially Affected
5.2.1
The city is served by Southern Water’s Millbrook, Portswood and Woolston
wastewater treatment works (WWTW), which discharge treated effluent into the
Rivers Test and Itchen respectively (Atkins 2009; www.water-technology.net).
There is therefore a potential pathway to the Solent and Southampton Water
SPA and Ramsar, and the Solent Maritime SAC.
5.3
Extent of Impact at Present
5.3.1
Impacts from wastewater effluent / discharge are identified as a vulnerability for
Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC
(Source: JNCC Data Forms for these sites). The Environment Agency Review
of Consents (RoC) process under the Habitats Regulations for both Solent and
Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC identified that
large discharges from WWTWs can contribute to high levels of nutrients in the
system, with likely significant effects to site integrity.
5.4
Potential impact of the Local Plan
5.4.1
The Local Plan will provide for the delivery of additional dwellings in the city. A
figure of 16,300 is included in the adopted Core Strategy Partial Review, with up
to 5,450 of those in the City Centre, however, this is likely to increase. New
development connections to waste water treatment infrastructure is the central
driver of increasing wastewater effluent; in a strategic context, foul water from
employment and retail land uses are generally considered to be minor by
comparison to that from residential uses. Without suitable limits to the volume
and pollutant load of consented discharges, adverse effects on European sites’
39
ecological integrity are likely, particularly in the context of housing allocations
across the city and the wider South Hampshire sub-region.
5.4.2
The Environment Agency’s Review of Consents (RoC) under the Habitats
Directive, completed in late 2007, determined sustainable levels of waste water
discharge that can be met without adverse effects on the ecological integrity of
European sites, including the two sites that could potentially be affected by
discharges from the Local Plan.
5.4.3
As a result of the RoC process, the Wastewater Treatment Works (WWTW) at
Millbrook underwent a major upgrade to meet a fixed emission standard of 10
mg/l nitrogen which will ensure that there are no adverse effects on the
ecological integrity of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar and
Solent Maritime SAC. A similar upgrade is commencing at the Woolston
WWTW.
Future capacity of WWTWs across South Hampshire sub-region
5.4.4
A capacity assessment based on predicted population growth across the South
Hampshire sub-region has been carried out for PUSH (Atkins, 2009). This
evaluated a baseline and two forecast scenarios to establish whether predicted
growth across the sub-region can be accommodated at the WWTWs serving
the area:

The baseline situation is taken as the treatment works’ certified Dry
Weather Flow (DWF) in the period 2006/07. For each works the consented
DWF, measured DWF and calculated levels of foul flow from current
population estimates were assessed.

Scenario 1 forecast growth at WWTWs using a standard methodology
used in wastewater planning. The growth in DWF at each works is
modelled taking the baseline situation and adding on flows associated with
growth in resident, tourist, trade and cess flows.

Scenario 2 links the forecast changes in water supply with the forecast
return to sewer, since the former is the primary driver for the latter. This
scenario therefore takes account of demand forecasts developed by
Portsmouth Water and Southern Water in their WRMPs, which results in
lower predicted discharge volumes due to the measures being introduced
by the water companies to constrain growth in water consumption as
population grows, and may therefore yield more realistic forecasts.
5.4.5 The findings for WWTWs across the sub-region are summarised by Atkins (2009,
p.86) as:

For Scenario 1: seven of the 13 works are forecast to exceed their current
DWF consents by 2020, which includes Millbrook.

For Scenario 2: None of the works is forecast to exceed its current DWF
consent.
40
Future capacity at the Millbrook WWTW
5.4.6
This section draws on Atkins (2009, pp.97-98), which evaluates the Millbrook
WWTW individually with regard to flow and quality consents, including revised
consents following the Environment Agency’s RoC. The assessment for
Millbrook WWTW found that under Scenario 1, the works would be exceeding
its current DWF consent by 3%in 2025/26, as illustrated in Figure 5.1 overleaf.
Where growth is forecast to exceed a consented DWF, the Environment Agency
generally applies a ‘no deterioration’ policy. On this basis, it would be
anticipated that quality consent conditions would be reduced on a pro-rata basis
to ensure that total load concentrations are maintained.
5.4.7
Table 5.1 shows the predicted quality consent conditions on the basis of the
2025/26 flow consent. ‘On the basis of no deterioration it is predicted that an N
consent concentration of 9.67mg/l would be applied. This is within the 9-10mg/l
N concentration which… the works could reasonably be expected to achieve.
As such this level is not considered to be a constraint to the planned growth
allocated to Millbrook. Following the works to upgrade the treatment works
greater confidence can be applied to this conclusion. The reductions in
biological oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) concentrations are
not considered significant.’ (Atkins, 2009, p.98).
5.4.8
Under scenario 2, the works is not expected to exceed its DWF consent; but
given that there will be an increase in biological load to the works associated
with the population growth the works will be working harder to stay within its
consented N concentration.
Future Capacity at the Portswood and Woolston WWTWs
5.4.9
The study found that under both scenarios the Portswood WWTWs would not
exceed its DWF consent. The Woolston WWTWs were not assessed in their
own right due to a proposal to transfer effluent to the Peel Common works in
Fareham. However, this proposal has now been dropped and as mentioned
above the Woolston works are now undergoing an upgrade. It is assumed that
this upgrade will enable the works to remain within its DWF consent but this will
need to be checked.
5.5
Data Gaps and Sources
Data Gaps
5.5.1
It is possible that consents will be further tightened in response to the Water
Framework Directive, which is introducing ‘Environmental Quality Standards’ in
order to meet the objective for identified water bodies to meet at least good
ecological status by 2015. Where a water body coincides with a Natura 2000
sites, these EQS will apply in addition to the requirement to maintain or restore
the site to favourable conservation status, and will not necessarily match those
required to protect site integrity under the Habitats Regulations (Environment
Agency, 2009). It is therefore possible that discharge consents will be further
tightened in the future to reflect EQS, which would necessitate a re-evaluation
of the capacity of the sewerage system to deal with proposed growth.
41
Where:
- 95%ile: 95% of those samples analysed have to be below the limit value
- Upper tier: no samples should exceed this value
- Annual average: the annual average should not exceed the value indicated
- Max: no sample should exceed this concentration
Figure 5.1: Forecast flow growth and quality consents at Millbrook Southampton
(Source: Atkins, 2009)
42
Table 5.1: Predicted quality consents on the basis of scenario 1 2025/26 flows
(Source: Atkins, 2009)
Consent
Folio
No.
A00016
Quality Parameter and Limit Type
BOD (mg/l)
SS (mg/l)
95%ile
Upper tier
95%ile
24
39
Upper tier
Total N (mg/l)
Annual mean
9.67
Data Sources
•
Environment Agency
•
Southern Water
•
South Hampshire Integrated Water Management Strategy (Atkins, 2009, for
the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire)
•
Southampton Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 (Capita Symonds,
2010)
•
South East River Basin Management Plan (Environment Agency, 2009)
43
6
Water Demand
6.1
Description of Impact
6.1.1
New homes require the development of new infrastructure, including the
provision of fresh water supply. Water supply in Southampton is provided by
Southern Water’s Hampshire South Water Resource Zone (WRZ), which draws
surface water from abstractions at Testwood on the River Test and Otterbourne
on the Itchen, and groundwater from the Chalk aquifer at a ratio of
approximately 60% surface water to 40% groundwater (Southern Water, 2009).
However, abstractions from these systems alter the surface water regime, in
turn impacting on important ecological receptors. There is a further freshwater
requirement in maintaining ecological integrity of the intertidal zones of coastal
sites. Increased abstraction to serve additional housing therefore has potential
to result in adverse effects on the ecological integrity of European sites,
including the marine habitats of the Solent system and freshwater habitats of its
rivers.
6.2
Sites Potentially Affected
6.2.1
The residential element of proposed growth under the Local Plan is likely to be
the main driver of increased water consumption. Additional pressure for water
abstraction could result in adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the River
Itchen SAC both via direct abstractions from the river and indirectly through
groundwater abstractions. The Environment Agency’s Review of Consents
(RoC) for this site found need to modify the Otterbourne surface and
groundwater licences ‘to meet the Environment Agency target flow regime for
the river Itchen by imposing a hands off flow condition (i.e. a condition which
stipulates that the abstraction must cease when the river flow drops to a certain
point) and by applying monthly totals for June to September (inclusive) (i.e. a
maximum volume of water that can be abstracted)’ (Environment Agency,
undated).
6.2.2
There are also theoretical pathways for abstractions on the River Test to impact
on Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC.
The Environment Agency has notified Southern Water that the Lower Test
abstraction needs to be assessed under the Restoring Sustainable Abstraction
(RSA) programme. This work will be completed by December 2015, at which
point the Environment Agency will decide whether changes to the Lower Test
abstraction licence are required (Southern Water, 2015). These sites will be
considered further once the findings of the review are known.
6.3
Extent of Impact at Present
6.3.1
The south east region has been declared an area of serious water stress, and
the relevant Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) lists all
surface water and groundwater management units as over-licensed, while some
management units are over-abstracted (Southern Water, 2009).
6.3.2
The Environment Agency’s Review of Consents (RoC) under the Habitats
Directive, completed in late 2007, determined sustainable levels of water
44
abstraction that can be met without adverse effects on the ecological integrity of
European sites, including the marine habitats of the Solent system and
freshwater habitats of its rivers. The RoC process found that it was necessary to
modify nine abstraction licenses in order to maintain minimum flows required to
support populations of designated species in the river, thereby ensuring the
integrity of the River Itchen SAC.
6.3.3
As a result of the RoC findings, Southern Water has accepted changes to its
abstraction licences (known as sustainability reductions) on the River Itchen, in
order to maintain the integrity of the SAC. These are due to commence in 2015
and be introduced progressively over the following five years in accordance with
a Memorandum of Understanding between the two water companies, the
Environment Agency and the regulator, Ofwat.
6.4
Potential impact of the Local Plan
6.4.1
Planning for the delivery of over 16,000 new dwellings in the city will require
significant volumes of water supply, the impact of which is magnified when
placed in the context of housing allocations across the South Hampshire subregion. When combined with sustainability reductions to licensed abstraction
limits to protect European sites’ integrity, a combination of supply-side and
demand-side measures will be required to address the resulting deficit. Demand
management is primarily achieved through metering of supply and water
efficiency measures, including leakage reduction, while new supplies can be
developed by optimising abstraction and treatment infrastructure to make the
most of available abstractions or constructing new storage reservoirs.
6.4.2
Southern Water's Water Resources Management Plan 2010 – 2035 (Southern
Water, 2009) shows that the Hampshire South WRZ begins the planning period
with a surplus of 3.76Ml/d, rising to 18.82Ml/d in 2014-15 for the peak
deployable output condition (this increasing surplus is due to a steady reduction
in demand driven by the introduction of household metering). However, this
changes markedly as a result of full sustainability reductions on the River Itchen
by 2019-20; see Figure 6.1. The effect of the reductions leads to a
supply/demand deficit of 52.26Ml/d.
Figure 6.1: Hampshire South Peak Deployable Output Baseline Supply Demand
Balance (Source: Southern Water, 2009)
45
6.4.3
The company’s agreed strategy to resolve this deficit embraces both demand
management and resource development options, and can be summarised as
follows:
During 2010 - 2015

A policy of universal metering throughout the area by 2015, which will give
benefits in terms of demand savings and associated reductions in supply
pipe leakage;

The optimisation of inter-zonal transfers, from the Hampshire South WRZ
to the Isle of Wight WRZ via the cross-Solent main;

A series of groundwater source improvements, which could deliver over
9Ml/d for the average condition;

The development of Testwood water supply works up to the current
licence limit; and

The development of the enabling Testwood to Otterbourne transfer. (The
Testwood schemes need to be implemented during 2010-15 so that
implementation of the sustainability reductions on the River Itchen can
begin from 2015.)
During 2015 - 2035
6.4.4

Transfer of the Candover/Alre river augmentation scheme to Southern
Water from the Environment Agency, to enable the full yield benefits of the
scheme to be realised, and satisfy any residual supply demand balance
deficit arising from the sustainability reductions;

The refurbishment of two small groundwater sources on the Isle of Wight;

Refurbishment of three groundwater sources (e.g., R167) in the
Hampshire South WRZ;

Water efficiency kits being issued on the Isle of Wight; and

A total further reduction in leakage of 8.9Ml/d.
As a result of this strategy, the company states the following conclusions (see
also Figure 6.2):
‘The proposed Sustainability Reductions have a significant impact on the
baseline supply demand balance, and therefore the Water Resources Strategy
for the area. Following submission of the draft WRMP the company has met with
Ofwat, EA, Natural England and Portsmouth Water to explore alternative options
for allowing the Sustainability Reductions to be implemented without
compromising security of supply. The company prepared a draft Memorandum of
Understanding that set out the roles and responsibilities of each party and the
schemes that would need to be implemented before the Lower Itchen abstraction
licences would be voluntarily changed. Investigations would also need to be
undertaken during AMP5 to confirm or otherwise the assumptions for the
proposed operation of the Candover and Alre groundwater augmentation
46
schemes which have been used for the supply demand balance of Hampshire
South WRZ. The Memorandum of Understanding has been agreed and signed
off by the relevant parties…
‘The company would not be able to confirm its commitment to implementation of the full
Sustainability Reductions at the end of AMP6 unless the following options are
implemented in the Hampshire South and Isle of Wight WRZs, so that the security of
supplies is maintained throughout the planning period:

Universal metering;

Leakage reduction;

Asset improvement schemes for groundwater sources;

Increase of Testwood WSW to licence limit;

Development of the enabling Testwood to Otterbourne transfer and
associated distribution infrastructure; and

Optimisation of inter-zonal transfers (cross-Solent main).’ (Southern
Water, 2009, p10-35)
Figure 6.2: Hampshire South Peak Deployable Output Preferred Regional Strategy,
assuming Sustainability Reductions, Supply Demand Balance (Source: Southern Water,
2009)
6.5
Data Gaps and Sources
Data Gaps
6.5.1
In light of the review of the abstraction licence limits on the River Test the
measures detailed above may need to be revisited and potential impacts on the
on Solent and Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar and Solent Maritime SAC
assessed.
Data Sources
•
Environment Agency
47
•
Southern Water’s Water Resource Management Plan (Southern Water,
2009)
•
Southern Water Final Water Resources Management Plan – Technical
Report (Southern Water, 2015)
•
South Hampshire Integrated Water Management Strategy (Atkins, 2009, for
the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire)
•
Southampton Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2 (Capita Symonds,
2010)
•
South East River Basin Management Plan (Environment Agency, 2009)
48
7
Recreational Disturbance
7.1
Description of Impact
7.1.1
Population growth associated with residential development brings with it the
prospect of additional visitor pressure on European sites. There is particular
concern over the capacity of existing open spaces adjacent to or within
European sites to accommodate additional visitor pressure resulting from
planned strategic residential development targets across South Hampshire, and
development and promotion of tourism (particularly along the coast), without
adverse effects on European site integrity, particularly those designated for an
internationally important bird assemblage.
7.1.2
Impacts associated with disturbance from recreation differ at coastal and inland
areas, and between seasons, species, and individuals. Birds’ responses to
disturbance can be observed as behavioural or physiological, with possible
effects on feeding, breeding and taking flight. Disturbance can be caused by a
wide variety of activities and, generally, both distance from the source of
disturbance and the scale of the event will influence the nature of the response.
Factors such as habitat, food requirements, breeding behaviour, cold weather,
variations in food availability and flock size, will influence birds’ abilities to
respond to disturbance and hence the scale of the impact (Stillman et al, 2009).
7.1.3
On the other hand, birds can modify their behaviour to compensate for
disturbance, for example by feeding for longer time periods. Some birds can
become habituated to particular disturbance events or types of disturbance, and
this habituation can develop over short time periods (Stillman et al, 2009). The
New Forest SPA will therefore be experiencing different challenges as a result
of recreational pressure than Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar, and
those further afield at Portsmouth, Langstone and Chichester Harbours.
7.1.4
At the New Forest, it is the ground and near-ground nesting birds that are
particular receptors of negative effects, such as Dartford warbler, nightjar and
woodlark. Studies by Langston et al (2007), Liley and Clarke (2003), and
Murison (2002) investigated the effect of disturbance on the nightjar on heaths
in Dorset, finding that breeding success of nightjar is significantly lower close to
paths, and that proximity to housing has a negative relationship with the size of
the population (Langston et al, 2007). The most common cause of breeding
failure for this ground nesting species was due to daytime predation of eggs
when disturbance caused an incubating bird to leave the nest. Similarly, the
study by Murison et al (2007) revealed that for Dartford warbler on Dorset
heathland, disturbance also reduced breeding activity, particularly so in heatherdominated territories. Birds in heavily disturbed areas (e.g., close to access
points and car parks) delayed the start of their breeding by up to six weeks,
preventing multiple broods and so reducing annual productivity. Most of this
disturbance was found to come from dogwalkers as a result of dogs being
encouraged to run through the vegetation after sticks.
7.1.5
At the coastal areas, it can be helpful to divide impacts into the effects of
disturbance on overwintering birds, or on breeding birds (Stillman et al, 2009).
49
Impacts to wintering birds are thought to be centred on interruption to foraging,
and less so roosting, and individuals alter their threshold in response to shifts in
the basic trade-off between increased perceived predation risk (tolerating
disturbance) and the increased starvation risk of not feeding (avoiding
disturbance) (Stillman et al, 2009). During the breeding season, impacts on
shorebirds are akin to those on ground-nesting inland birds, in that predation of
eggs, as well as trampling and increased thermal stress, when birds flush the
nest in response to a disturbance event has a negative impact on breeding
success (Stillman et al, 2009).
7.2
Sites Potentially Affected
7.2.1
In the sphere of potential influence of the Southampton CCAP area, the sites
that may be affected by recreational pressure from new development are the
New Forest SPA, and the coastal sites of the Solent: Solent and Southampton
Water SPA / Ramsar, Portsmouth Harbour SPA / Ramsar and Chichester and
Langstone Harbours SPA / Ramsar.
7.3
Extent of Impact at Present
7.3.1
Two studies have examined the sources and mechanisms of these impacts:
Sharp et al (2008) analysed patterns of visiting activity at the New Forest, while
the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project modelled the impacts of
development and visitor pressure along the Solent coastline.
7.4
Potential Impact of Local Plan
New Forest
7.4.1
Analysis of changing patterns of visitor behaviour in the New Forest informs this
section (Sharp et al, 2008). The report shows that most day visitors to the
Forest, and a large proportion of total visitors, come from within 20km of the
National Park boundary, while between 78% and 95% of visits are made by car.
The report states that the estimated number of current annual visits to the New
Forest (over 13 million per year) is predicted to increase by 1.05 million visits
annually by 2026 based on sub-regional development objectives at the time the
work was carried out.
7.4.2
Sharp et al (2008) estimate that around three quarters (764,000) of this annual
total increase will originate from within the first 10km from the Forest, which
includes Southampton. Separating distances into individual 1km bands,
between 50,000 and 95,000 additional visitors will originate from within each of
the bands 2 to 7km from the Forest in any direction, including Southampton and
any other location within that distance from the SPA boundary. See for example
Figure 7.1 which depicts the estimated population density within each distance
band by 2026. New residential development promoted by the Local Plan will
therefore fall within the sphere of highest potential influence on the New Forest,
albeit on the outer edge of that zone.
7.4.3
The Southampton Core Strategy recognises the likely recreational pressure
associated with additional growth in the City (16,300 new dwellings in total), and
Policy CS22 Promoting Biodiversity and Protecting Habitats is a high level
50
policy that seeks to address this. The policy provides for protection of
designated local, national and international sites, together with other measures
to protect and enhance biodiversity, including promoting wildlife corridors and
measures to ensure development protects and enhances features of biological
interest. In relation to European sites, the supporting text states:
‘The Council commits to working with partners in the sub region to develop and
implement a strategic approach to protecting European Sites. This approach will
consider a suite of mitigation measures, including adequate provision of
alternative recreational space and support via developer contributions for
access management measures within and around the European sites.
Development proposals will be expected to contribute towards the conservation,
enhancement and restoration of biodiversity as required by PPS9’ (SCC 2010,
p.74).
Figure 7.1: Estimate of 2026 population density in areas surrounding the New
Forest (Source, Sharp et al, 2008)
7.4.4
Policy CS21 Protecting and Enhancing Open Space sets out the Council’s
commitment to retain, enhance and supplement the City’s existing multifunctional open spaces, and refers to the Council’s joint-working with the
landowner and Test Valley Borough Council to develop a new forest park at
Lords Wood on the northern city boundary in order to relieve pressure on the
New Forest. The Inspector endorsed the proposal in his report on the Core
Strategy following Examination in Public. This is intended to provide residents
with a nearby Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), to absorb
additional recreational pressure resulting from residential development in the
City. Test Valley Borough Council published a feasibility study for the project in
March 2011, and plans are currently progressing to implement the proposal
over the plan period for the borough. Within Southampton City Centre it will be
51
equally important to promote the use of existing and nearby alternatives to the
New Forest, such as the central parks and the Southampton Common.
7.4.5
Despite these city centre initiatives and the planned provision of alternative
sites such as Lords Wood, a residual number of visits to the New Forest are
always likely to remain because of the very high quality experience it offers and
difficulty in recreating this elsewhere. Furthermore Sharp et al (2008)
demonstrate that it is not just Southampton and Test Valley developments that
will lead to impacts at the New Forest, and it is probable that a strategic
approach to managing access will be required.
7.4.6
The National Park’s Recreation Management Strategy (2010) seeks to reconcile
visitor activity with nature conservation within the Forest and manage
recreational access accordingly. It explores a range of recreation management
tools, including: a survey and research programme to inform future decisions;
provision of new areas of green infrastructure; selective locations for enhanced
visitor facilities; and limitations on car parking provision. The Recreation
Management Strategy also underwent HRA which concluded that, given the
overall purpose of the strategy is to manage recreation and visitor pressures to
avoid impacts on the European nature conservation interest, the document
would not lead to adverse effects. Together, delivering SANGs and the
Recreation Management Strategy constitute a series of projects to which
development outside of the New Forest can contribute financially, providing a
mechanism for ensuring the impacts of residential development can be
mitigated.
Coastal areas
7.4.7
The Solent disturbance and mitigation project was initiated in response to
concerns over the impact of disturbance on coastal birds and their habitats. The
research is now complete, and some of the key findings from the project are
presented in this section. The focus of the project is on the likely effect of
increased visitor pressure and recreational use arising from planned strategic
development in the Solent area, in relation to disturbance impacts on
overwintering birds within the SPAs and Ramsars.
7.4.8
The Solent provides locations for a wide range of recreational activities and the
project shows that there are high levels of housing around the Solent shoreline,
with particularly high densities in the urban areas of Southampton and
Portsmouth. An estimated 1.44 million people live within a ten minute drive of a
car park at the Solent coast (Stillman et al, 2009). Tourists make up a significant
proportion of visitors at some sites, although sites vary in their attractiveness to
tourists, suitability for particular kinds of access, and accessibility to the local
population.
7.4.9
To the east of Southampton Water there are much higher densities of housing
and at many sites local people are likely to account for a higher proportion of
visitors. Sites such as Hayling Island have holiday accommodation and attract
staying tourists. Future development is likely to result in a large increase in the
residential population, particularly in the vicinity of Southampton, Portsmouth
52
and Fareham. But monitoring of recreational access had been limited prior to
2009, making it difficult to determine how patterns of access have changed over
time and how they may change in the future. As the document states, ‘in order
to determine how new housing might change visitor levels in the future it will be
necessary to separate local visitors from tourists, categorise visitors according
to the activities undertaken at sites and take into account the variation between
sites in terms of attractiveness and suitability for different activities’ (Stillman et
al, 2009, p36).
Results from visitor surveys and bird observations
7.4.10 Phase 2 of the project ran from 2009 to 2012, and gathered data on bird
numbers (including at two sites near Southampton City Centre; site 18 Eling
and 24 Weston Shore) and their responses to various forms of recreational
disturbance, while visitor surveys established visiting patterns at specific sites
(including at the same two sites near Southampton). Household surveys
explored which locations are most popular and why. Phase 2 culminated in a
modelling exercise to predict the disturbance response effects on birds at
hotspots of recreational visiting activity. Phase 3 combines the findings of earlier
phases in order to determine how development planning can influence these
responses, and explore ways in which impacts might be mitigated.
7.4.11 Local data from phase 2 reports provide some contextual information. The
visitor surveys at Eling and Weston Shore (Fearnley et al, 2010) found that the
majority of people visited the sites to go for a walk or walk the dog, and that the
average distance people travelled in order to do this were 1km and 1.7km
respectively. It should be noted, however, that Eling is approximately 4.4km
from the nearest extent of the City Centre boundary, and Weston Shore is
approximately 1.9km away. For both locations, there are significant
geographical barriers to travel from the City Centre, Southampton Water for
Eling and the River Itchen for Weston Shore, although closer sections of
protected intertidal can be found at, and north and south of, Chessel Bay.
Indeed, the report shows that none of the 20 survey locations recorded any
visitors from within
Southampton.
7.4.12 The phase 2 bird disturbance fieldwork (Liley et al, 2011) indicates that birds
utilising areas around Eling and Weston Shore appear to be relatively well
habituated to human activity. At Eling, of the 137 observations recorded, 80%
were categorised as birds exhibiting ‘no response’; 20% resulted in a change of
behaviour. At Weston Shore, of 212 observations 83% led to ‘no response’ and
17% resulted in a change of behaviour (there was also 1 observation that was
uncategorised). The results across all categories of bird response for the two
sites are summarised in Table 7.1.
53
Table 7.1: Number of observations (events within 200m of birds at each site) and
the responses, by site (Source: Liley et al, 2010)
Eling
137
Weston
Shore
212
% Disturbed
Major
flight
Short flight
Short
walk/swim
Alert
Total
observations
Uncategor
-ised
Response of birds
No
response
Site
110
-
14
6
1
6
20
177
1
8
10
2
14
17
7.4.13 Inter-species variation in the response rate to disturbance events, as illustrated
in Figure 7.2. Generally speaking, the most popular types of recreational activity
(dog walking (with dog on lead), walking, cycling and jogging) showed very high
levels of ‘no response’ in birds. It is the less frequent and more unusual
activities such as rowing a boat, horse riding, surfing and kite playing which
generated a greater degree of response. This is illustrated in Figure 7.3.
Solentwide, while dog walkers with dogs off the lead account for only 2% of the
total number of observations, this led to 27% of the occurrences of a ‘major’
response (birds taking flight and flying for 50m or more). If dogs on the
foreshore are also included then a total of 47% of major flights are caused by
dogs off their leads.
Figure 7.2: Response to disturbance events by species. All species for which
there were data from at least 50 events are included (Source: Liley et al, 2010)
54
7.4.14 The household survey (Fearnley et al, draft 2010) included estimates of visitor
numbers and modes of transport to sections of Solent coastline most relevant to
the CCAP. These include section 19 (Freemantle to Ocean Village, including
the (inaccessible) Port), and section 20 (Ocean Village Marina to Itchen Bridge).
Section 19 is thought to be receiving around 2.2 million visits annually, of which
just over 1 million visit on foot (from within 10km) and just under 1 million arrive
by car (from within 30km). The remaining 188,604 travel by other modes e.g.
public transport. Section 20 is estimated to receive 763,172 visitors annually,
423,964 by foot and 274,272 by car. Section 19 is not adjacent to areas
designated as SPA.
7.4.15 The household survey concluded that an estimated 52 million visits are made to
the Solent coastline each year by households living within a 30km radius of the
coastline between Hurst Castle and Chichester Harbour, including the north
shore of the Isle of Wight. By incorporating planning data from Local Authorities
in the area, they go on to estimate that this number will rise by 8 million visits
annually to 60 million annual visits once all planned new residential
development is occupied, an increase of 15%.
Figure 7.3: Responses of birds (grouped across all sites and all species)
according to activity (Source: Liley et al, 2010)
Predicting the impact of human disturbance on overwintering birds
7.4.16 The final phase two report (Stillman et al, 2012) combines the data and
modelling exercises from the earlier research activities to predict impacts on
bird survival over the winter within different parts of the Solent. Bird survey
fieldwork gave an indication of how birds respond to disturbance (e.g. taking
55
flight, stopping feeding or avoiding disturbed areas) and the distance over which
these responses were elicited from different types of human activity. Models of
Southampton Water and Chichester Harbour were prepared, within which the
relationship between a number of factors was examined: intertidal invertebrate
food supply, the exposure and re-covering of this food during the tidal cycle,
disturbance from human activities, and the energy requirements and behaviour
of birds as they avoid human activity and search for food.
7.4.17 The model incorporated the costs that birds incur when avoiding human
activities (e.g. increased bird density in non-disturbed areas, reduced time for
feeding and increased energy demands when flying way) as well as their
abilities to compensate for these costs (e.g. by feeding for longer or avoiding
more disturbed areas). The scope of the model included Dunlin, Ringed Plover,
Redshank, Grey Plover, Black-tailed Godwit, Oystercatcher and Curlew, while a
separate exercise addressed Dark-bellied Brent Goose; other overwintering
species on the SPA/Ramsar citations were not examined, including Teal,
Pintail, Shoveler, Wigeon, Turnstone, Sanderling, Red-breasted Merganser and
Shelduck.
7.4.18 As the report says, in the absence of disturbance all wader species modelled in
the Southampton Water model were predicted to have 100% survival through
the winter. Disturbance resulting from current levels of housing was predicted to
reduce the survival of Dunlin, Ringer Plover, Oystercatcher and Curlew to
approximately 88%, 89%, 95% and 94% respectively. Anticipated future levels
of housing were predicted to further reduce survival rates in Dunlin and Ringed
Plover to 85% and 84% respectively. These results are explained as follows:
“Dunlin, Ringed Plover, Oystercatcher and Curlew were predicted to be the
species most vulnerable to disturbance due to their combination of disturbance
distances, night-time feeding efficiency and vulnerability to food competition at
high competitor densities. Redshank, Grey Plover and Black-tailed Godwit
typically had the shortest disturbance distances and were able to feeding
relatively efficiently at night. This meant that they were less affected by visitors
than species with longer disturbance distances, and were better able to
compensate at night for lost feeding time and increased energy expenditure
during the day. In addition, Black-tailed Godwit were able to feed terrestrially to
supplement intertidal feeding.”
“The remaining species had longer disturbance distances and so were more
affected by disturbance from visitors. Ringed Plover had the lowest night-time
efficiency and so was the species least able to compensate for disturbance by
feeding at night. Although Oystercatcher and Curlew could feed terrestrially,
these species had the longest disturbance distances. Furthermore,
Oystercatcher consume larger prey items than the other wading bird species,
which take longer to consume, which means there is more fighting over prey
(interference competition) in this species than in others.” (Stillman et al, 2012,
p.32)
7.4.19 Results from the Chichester Harbour model were inconclusive due to difficulties
with the food availability data. Test runs of the model showed that a greater
56
proportion of birds were predicted to die by the end of winter in an undisturbed
scenario than is typically observed. Adjustments to parameters could not
satisfactorily resolve the situation and further predictions were not made.
7.4.20 Additional scenarios were run inside the Southampton Water model to explore
hypothetical situations regarding the available area of intertidal habitats (e.g. to
account for sea level rise), variations in the energy requirements of the birds
(such as might be the case during cold winters or particularly high energy
expenditure while avoiding disturbance). The survival rates of Dunlin, Ringer
Plover, Oystercatcher and Curlew were predicted to decrease when intertidal
habitat area was reduced or energy requirements were increased. Conversely,
if intertidal activities were moved to the shore, so reducing the area of intertidal
that was subject to disturbance, wader survival rates increased.
7.4.21 The results for Southampton Water were assessed for suitability in scaling up to
predictions of survival rates elsewhere in the Solent. The study determined that
wader survival was predicted to decrease in Southampton Water when daily
visitor rates to coastal sections were greater than 30 per hectare of intertidal
habitat. Future visitor densities at other sections of Solent coastline were
calculated and compared to this critical density of 30 daily visits per hectare of
intertidal habitat.
7.4.22 There are several other sections of the Solent coastline where this threshold is
predicted to be breached under the future housing scenario, and therefore
where bird survival may be being reduced as a result of disturbance, including
several where visitor densities are predicted to be several hundred daily visitors
per hectare of intertidal habitat (visits/day/ha). Sections close to Southampton
predicted to breach 30 visits/day/ha in future are:

19 Freemantle to Ocean Village: 391.9 visits/day/ha – this section is not
immediately adjacent to European-protected areas;

22 Northam Bridge to St. Denys: 38.1 visits/day/ha;

23 St. Denys - Cobden Bridge to Swaythling: 298.3 visits/day/ha; and

24 Weston to Netley: 63.9 visits/day/ha.
7.4.23 In conclusion, the model provides some evidence for the hypothesis that
survival rates among some species of waders are being negatively influenced
by disturbance, particularly when visitor densities are greater than 30 visitors
per hectare of intertidal per day, and that visitor numbers are expected to
increase (and survival rates to further decrease) as a result of future housing
development. However, it may be that residents in some parts of Southampton,
the city centre for example, would have comparatively lower impacts than
residents in other areas. For example, within the City Centre, around 40% of
City Centre residents are students and there is a high proportion of flatted
accommodation (80% in Bargate Ward). Consequently levels of dog ownership,
which is an important factor in the scale of disturbance impacts, are likely to be
relatively low.
57
7.4.24 It is also relevant to note that Southampton has lower levels of car ownership
than the south east region or England according to Census data (ONS, 2011):
29.5% have no access to a car or van, compared to 18.6% (south east) or
25.8% (England). This may therefore suggest that many Southampton residents
would use nearby areas of open space as their main recreational resource.
Together with the findings of the SDMP so far, this may suggest a low
contribution to recreational pressure on sites (since the nearest survey site in
the Solent had zero visitors from Southampton).
Dark-bellied Brent Goose
7.4.25 There were insufficient data to build predictive models of the impact of
disturbance on the survival of Brent Goose because the available biomass of
intertidal and terrestrial food sources was not known. However, some
conclusions were drawn from similar studies elsewhere, and explored for their
applicability in the Solent. Firstly, the response distance of Brent Goose to
sources of disturbance is comparable with waders; the median distance within
which there was no response to a potential disturbance event was 97m. In
general, disturbance has not been shown to negatively affect Brent Goose
survival so long as there is sufficient time and food availability to compensate
for disturbance. Intertidal eelgrass beds, and terrestrial pasture, arable,
grassland and saltmarsh habitats are all important food sources.
7.4.26 Terrestrial sites favoured by Brent Goose tend to be large, flat, open and lowlying, and close to the coast. The number of buildings surrounding a site is a
less significant factor for Brent Goose than for waders. Conversely, important
Brent Goose sites tend to be closer to one another whereas important wader
sites tend to be more isolated from each other (King, 2010). The best sites are
likely to be those where a high proportion of the site is greater than the
response distance away from sources of disturbance such as visitor access
routes. Loss of terrestrial habitat typically has the highest predicted effect on
Brent Goose survival. Such habitat may become even more important for the
birds in future when sea level rise is predicted to lead to the loss of areas of
saltmarsh (Stillman et al, 2012).
Mitigating the impacts of strategically planned development
7.4.27 The Phase 3 report (Liley & Tyldesley, 2013) considered the available options for
avoiding and mitigating impacts to the overwintering bird assemblage of the
Solent European sites, in the context of current planning policy and regulation. It
outlined a strategy of projects including ‘quick wins’ and longer term behavioural
change initiatives for reducing the overall adverse effect such that planned new
developments can be accommodated. It concluded that the strategy, once
implemented, would be sufficient to address the impacts of a multitude of
smaller scale residential proposals, but that larger scale schemes and those
very close to the designated coast will still require individual project-level HRA
and site-specific mitigation. The main aspects of the strategy include:

A delivery officer to coordinate implementation of the strategy;
58

A team of wardens or ranges to provide on-site presence and talk to
visitors;

A coastal dog project to provide information and promote suitable sites for
dog walking;

A review of parking and access points to provide a baseline from which
future changes (additional/reduced parking in certain locations) can be
planned and monitored;

A review of watersports zones and access;

-specific
projects such as path re-routing, path creation, dedicated areas for dogs
or watersports, enhanced facilities for watersports, changes to car parking
and so on;

Watersports permits and enforcement; and

SANGs, green infrastructure projects and alternative roost sites.
7.4.28 Subsequently, a partnership of Local Planning Authorities and wildlife
organisations, the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership, has developed an
Interim Mitigation Strategy, based on the principles below:

managing the coast for the benefit of both wildlife and the public;

all development which creates net additional dwellings within 5.6
kilometres of the Solent SPAs is likely to have a significant effect on the
SPAs and requires mitigation;

provision of that mitigation through the preparation of a long term strategy
on a sub-regional basis;

mitigation funding from developer contributions secured by partner local
authorities;

a phased approach to strategy implementation;

ongoing monitoring and regular reviews of the strategy.
7.4.29 Delivery of this strategy is being achieved through financial contributions from
housing developments. The current sum of £174 per dwelling 1 April 2015
includes an element to fund immediate mitigation measures and an inperpetuity element which will be invested to achieve a long term revenue
stream.
7.4.30 The first element of the interim Mitigation Strategy to be funded is the
recruitment of a partnership project officer who is responsible for implementing
other aspects of the strategy, for example setting up monitoring scheme, and
delivering the definitive mitigation strategy which is due to be finalised by the
end of 2017.
59
7.5
Data Gaps and Sources
Data Gaps
7.5.1
Further data is required on the recreational pressure on the New Forest in order
to understand more fully the implications of the Local Plan for recreational
impacts upon the New Forest sites.
Data Sources
•
Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project (Stillman et al 2009, Fearnley et
al 2010 and Liley et al 2011).
•
Changing Patterns of Visitor Numbers within the New Forest National Park
(Sharp et al, 2008)
•
South Hampshire Green Infrastructure Strategy (UE Associates, 2010)
•
New Forest National Park Recreation Management Strategy 2010 – 2030
(New Forest National Park Authority, 2010)
•
Southampton Green Space Strategy (SCC, 2008)
•
Interim Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy: An interim framework to
mitigate the impact on the Solent Special Protection Areas of increased
visitor pressure arising from housebuilding.
60
8
Site-specific Habitat Loss or Degradation
8.1
Description of Impact
8.1.1
Development may result in the actual or functional loss of areas outside
European site boundaries which are nonetheless important to the integrity of the
sites if the population stability of species for which the site was designated is
shown to have a critical reliance on the use of such supporting areas. Such
sites for example offer foraging areas for Brent geese, or roosting sites for
wading birds, at high water when the intertidal areas within European sites are
submerged.
8.1.2
Development can have a range of impacts on birds using offsite roosting and
foraging sites. These impacts relate to increased perceived predation risk as a
result of over-illumination, noise and disturbance from human activity,
decreasing sight lines and overshadowing, as well as the risk of actual loss of
off-site foraging or roosting habitat due to building footprints.
8.1.3
The updated 2010 Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy (Solent Wader and
Brent Goose Project Steering Group, ‘SWBGPSG’, 2010) identifies the most
important sites in this respect, which should be safeguarded from development
wherever possible: ‘The underlying principle is to, wherever possible, conserve
extant sites and to create new sites, enhancing the quality and extent of the
feeding and roosting resource’ (SWBGPSG, 2010, p.7). Figure 8.1 provides a
description of the main characteristics of foraging areas for Brent geese and
roosting sites for wading birds, as described in the Strategy.
In relation to Brent Geese, ‘the suitability of sites… depends on distance from the
coast, the size of the grazing area, the type of grassland management, visibility
and disturbance. Brent geese prefer large open sites where they have clear sight
lines and short, lush grass for grazing. They use a great deal of energy travelling
between feeding areas, so tend to preferentially select sites adjacent to the coast’.
In relation to wading birds, ‘Natural roosting sites include saltmarsh areas, shingle
banks and coastal grasslands. Waders are also known to roost on man-made
structures such as boats, wharfs, jetties and piers. Roosting sites tend to be close
the coast, perhaps no more than 100 metres from mean high water. They are
usually situated away from sources of disturbance, such as housing and industry,
and have good visibility. Like Brent geese, particular preferences for certain sites
are not yet fully understood.
Figure 8.1: Characteristics of off-site Brent Goose and Wader Sites (Source:
SWBGPSG, 2010, pp.4-5)
8.1.4
The survey considered a study area comprising sites across the urban matrix
and countryside surrounding the Solent. The methodology for the updated
Strategy considered all Brent Goose and Wader sites known to be used in the
past or considered potentially suitable, due to their location or habitat, based on
the knowledge of local bird experts and ecologists. For Brent Geese, the
Strategy identifies sites according to maximum count and frequency of use. For
wading birds, sites are identified according to the maximum count of waders on
a given day, the significance of the site for a particular species, and the number
61
of different species recorded on the site. The current sites are classified into
those that are important, uncertain or with no recorded use. Further analysis of
currently important sites identifies those that are vulnerable to loss as a result of
development, sea level rise or coastal realignment. The Strategy further
identifies sites that have potential to be important in the future, taking account of
the site characterisation analysis carried out for the study.
8.2
Sites Potentially Affected
8.2.1
There is theoretically a pathway for the Local Plan to bring about loss or
degradation of off-site foraging or roosting habitat relied upon by Brent Geese
and wading birds of the Solent and Southampton Water, Portsmouth
Harbour and Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and Ramsar sites.
8.3
Potential impact of Local Plan
8.3.1
A number of current and future used roost sites were identified within
Southampton. These were primarily located on the River Itchen and comprised
of inter-tidal mudflats, jetties and pontoons. Roosts were also identified along
Weston Shore and the derelict Royal Pier.
8.3.2
The majority of these roost were categorised as ‘uncertain’ which means they
fell below the benchmarks used for scoring confidence levels (based on
regularity of survey and seasonal coverage by surveyors), and indicates that
they warrant further investigation to inform its assessment. The HRA process
will take account of the majority of the ‘uncertain’ wader sites when assessing
the Local Plan proposals, in consultation with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight
Wildlife Trust who led the preparation of the revised Strategy, to include
determining whether any further survey findings are now available. The
‘uncertain’ wader roost site at Royal Pier will be assessed separately through a
project level HRA for the proposed development which is expected to be
submitted for planning consent before the Local Plan has been completed.
62
Figure 8.2: Current sites for Waders and Brent Geese – map capturing
Southampton City Centre area (Source: SWBGPSG, 2010)
Figure 8.3: Potential future sites for Waders and Brent Geese – map capturing
Southampton City Centre area (Source: SWBGPSG, 2010)
63
8.4
Data Gaps and Sources
Data Gaps
8.4.1
Further enquiries will need to be made in relation to the current ‘uncertain’
wader roost sites along the River Itchen and at Weston Shore.
Data Sources
•
Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy 2010 and accompanying
Mapping Files (Solent Wader and Brent Goose Project Steering Group)
•
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust
64
9
Location and Design of Buildings: Collision Risk, Light, Noise
and Vibration
9.1
Description of Impact
9.1.1
The impacts addressed in this chapter operate over relatively short distances.
Building location, height and illumination
9.1.2
Tall buildings and other structures can result in disorientation and collision risk
to birds in areas close to designated or supporting habitats, which can be
exacerbated by lighting and glazed windows. At night, birds can be disoriented
or ‘entrapped’ by lights, where a bird within a lighted zone can ‘become
"trapped" and will not leave the lighted area. Large numbers of nocturnally
migrating birds are therefore affected when meteorological conditions bring
them close to lights, for instance, during inclement weather or late at night when
they tend to fly lower. Within the sphere of lights, birds may collide with each
other or a structure, become exhausted, or be taken by predators. Birds that are
waylaid by buildings in urban areas at night often die in collisions with windows
as they try to escape during the day.’ (Longcore and Rich, 2004, pp.193-4).
9.1.3
There are also potential impact mechanisms for waterfront development to
cause overshadowing or over-illumination of habitats used for feeding (such as
mudflats), resulting in reduced food availability through alteration of ecosystem
interactions. With the Itchen waterfront being a focus for a significant quantum
and range of development this will need further investigation. In the absence of
specific data on the potential impacts of light pollution the precautionary
principle will apply.
Noise and vibration
9.1.4
Noise and vibration arising from construction of buildings, as well as noisegenerating land uses, can also have impacts on birds where sited in proximity to
designated and off-site habitat. The potential impacts of such disturbance
include increased energy costs associated with avoiding perceived predation
risk, which reduces the proportion of time spent foraging / roosting. The
statement to inform the HRA of the Centenary Quay development at Woolston
refers to benchmarks for levels of disturbance to birds that may arise during site
preparation and construction: ‘Very loud (defined as greater than 70 dB) and
percussive noises have the potential to disturb birds, increasing time spent alert
and in flight, reducing the available time to feed. Peak levels of sound are most
likely to occur from the impact of pneumatic drilling and concrete breaking
during site preparation and piling during construction. These activities can have
an impact on bird species at a distance of up to 300 m. This figure has been
used as a worst-case scenario and is based on published research and studies
by the Environment Agency for the Humber Estuary Tidal Defences scheme…
The Environmental Statement for the Humber Defences states that: ‘Sudden
noise in the region of 80 dB appears to elicit a flight response in waders to 250
m from the source, with levels below this to approximately 70 dB causing flight
or anxiety behaviour in some species.’’ (Biodiversity by Design, 2008, p.79,
65
quoting from the Environmental Statement for the Humber Estuary Tidal
Defences: Urgent works, Paull to Kilnsea and Whitton to Pyewipe).
9.1.5
Impacts may extend to aquatic species in relation to waterfront development,
particularly from percussive piling works. Information submitted in relation to the
Centenary Quay development reported that levels of 90 dB or more (the
measure used to assess sound levels in fish) were thought likely to ‘initiate
avoidance behaviour which could lead to increased use of energy reserves
and/or delays to migratory movements’ and that piling associated with several
elements of the construction works would emit approximately 128 dB, which
would ‘result in an average noise level of 100 dB at 10 metres, 88 dB at 20
metres, 82 dB at 80 metres and so on’ (Biodiversity By Design, 2008, p.110).
9.1.6
Collision risk and noise / vibration impacts may arise in relation to the Local
Plan, and are therefore considered further in the following sections.
9.2
Sites Potentially Affected
9.2.1
Collision risk and noise impacts from construction and operation of development
brought forward by the Local Plan could potentially affect qualifying bird species
of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/ Ramsar, both within and outside
designated areas, on the water, on the intertidal areas and along the shoreline.
9.2.2
Construction along the waterfront has the potential to cause noise and vibration
impacts on fish assemblages that support the Solent and Southampton Water
SPA / Ramsar. Due to the nature of ground conditions present along the
waterfront piling, a key source of noise and vibration, is likely to be a
requirement for the majority of developments.
9.2.3
As stated in relation to the Solent European Marine Site, ‘Many of the intertidal
areas of the estuaries within the European marine site are… important nursery
grounds for fish including bass Dicentrarchus labrax, flatfish species and mullet
Mugil spp’ (English Nature 2001, p.14). In addition, the statement to inform the
HRA of the Centenary Quay development refers to the role of the fish
assemblage opposite the foreshore in supporting the integrity of the Solent and
Southampton Water SPA / Ramsar (Biodiversity by Design, 2008).
9.2.4
The potential impacts of construction noise and vibration may also affect
migrating Atlantic salmon Salmo salar, which are a qualifying species of the
adjoining River Itchen SAC, and could be affected by vibrations as they migrate
from their spawning ground in the SAC to Southampton Water or vice versa
(English Nature, 2001).
9.3
Extent of Impact at Present
9.3.1
There have been limited studies on the incidence of building strikes in the UK
and Southampton (GeoData Institute, 2009) and it is not known to what extent
qualifying species of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/ Ramsar are
currently being affected by collisions with buildings and other structures,
whether as a result of their location, height or associated light pollution.
However, in response to the risk of bird collisions with tall buildings raised by
the HRA of the Core Strategy (Halcrow, 2008 and 2009), SCC commissioned a
66
study to research wetland bird flight paths around the city (GeoData Institute,
2009), whose results are considered further in Section 9.4 below.
9.3.2
Noise and vibration impacts are not recorded on Natura 2000 Data Forms as
existing concerns in relation to the sites that could be affected by Local Plan
development (River Itchen SAC or the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/
Ramsar). However, at the site level, there is potential for impacts during both
construction and operation. This needs to be considered in combination with
other existing uses and construction projects on both sides of the River Itchen.
The issue will therefore be considered in the HRA of the Local Plan in the
context of the detailed site proposals, and may necessitate policy wording to
ensure that project-level HRA considers noise impacts and the potential need
for site-level avoidance measures to be applied during construction and
operation, as required.
9.4
Potential impact of Local Plan
9.4.1
This section considers the Local Plan’s potential contribution to collision risk
and to noise and vibration impacts.
Collision risk
9.4.2
The Southampton Wetland Bird Flight Paths Study (GeoData Institute, 2009)
carried out surveys and analysis to help fill the data gap on the risk of collisions
with tall buildings in relation to bird species of importance for the area’s
European designated sites. After a pilot study to determine the number and
positioning of observers and to establish the most efficient data recording
methodology, the researchers conducted a series of surveys between
December 2008 and March 2009 in three main survey areas around the city:
River Test, River Itchen and the city centre, to track the movements of species
comprising the waterfowl assemblage, listed below:

Gadwall Anas strepera (Not observed)

Teal

Ringed Plover

Black-tailed Godwit

Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

Dark-bellied Brent Goose

Wigeon

Redshank

Pintail (Not observed)

Shoveler (Not observed)
67

Red-breasted Merganser

Grey Plover

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus

Dunlin

Curlew

Shelduck
(Source: GeoData Institute, 2009)
9.4.3
The survey captured information on a number of ‘bird movement attributes’,
including density of waterfowl movements along observed flight paths, direction
of movements and flying heights.
Gull Survey
9.4.4
A separate ‘Gull Survey’ was also carried out (using a different methodology in
view of the large numbers observed), which captured flight path data in relation
to the Mediterranean Gull, which is an Annex I qualifying species of the Solent
and Southampton Water SPA and a Chichester and Langstone Harbours
Ramsar species, as well as Black-headed Gull, a Chichester and Langstone
Harbours Ramsar species. It also surveyed several other gull species of
national importance.
9.4.5
A summary of the key findings pertinent to the CCAP HRA is provided below,
drawn from the study report (GeoData Institute, 2009), starting with results for
waterfowl followed by brief discussion of relevant findings on specific species,
from both the Main Survey and the Gull Survey.
Main focus and direction of waterfowl movements
9.4.6
Movements of waterfowl were found to be primarily focused on the estuarine
river corridors, with movements overwhelmingly directed up and down the
rivers, generally representing reciprocal movements associated with diurnal
variations in the tides.
9.4.7
Flight paths over the city centre were limited, although there were some flight
lines close to the area.
Flying heights and proximity of waterfowl to existing buildings
9.4.8
The majority (91%) of waterfowl were observed to be flying close to or below
the height of surrounding buildings, described as ‘within the building height
zone’. This included 2180 (16%) that were found to be flying within the building
height zone on a flight line that intersected with building outlines, as defined by
Ordnance Survey MasterMap.
9.4.9
The birds’ distance from buildings was also measured, and it was found that
99.9% were flying within 500 metres, 65% within 200 metres, 55% within 100
metres and 32% within 50 metres of a building footprint.
68
Visual representation of waterfowl flight path results of key relevance to
the Local Plan
9.4.10 The study report illustrates its findings in a series of maps for each measured
attribute, and with specific results reported for individual species that were
observed in sufficient numbers to enable an analysis. The reader is referred to
the report to view the full illustrated results. However, the map reproduced in
Figure 9.1 below provides a 3D plot showing the relative density of waterfowl
movements in relation to buildings within the city centre.
Figure 9.1: Waterfowl assemblage - birds in building height zone (Source:
GeoData Institute, 2009)
Results for specific species
9.4.11 Where sufficient observational data was gathered for individual species,
Chapter Four of the GeoData Institute report (2009) provides species-specific
analyses of its findings. Of particular relevance are the findings relating to
species found to fly in close proximity to, or over, the city centre, which raises
the potential for collisions to occur. The results for those species seen flying in
closest proximity to the city centre are briefly summarised below:

Dark-bellied Brent Geese were observed flying in close proximity to the
City Centre, especially along the lower Itchen, and skirting the docks at
Redbridge (mapped results in Section 4.4 of the report). The majority were
flying within the building height zone. However, their flight paths were
generally confined to movements up and down the river corridor.
69

Little Egret Egretta garzetta were observed flying close to the city centre
along the Itchen and the dock estate at Redbridge. There was also a flight
line that crossed over the city between Shamrock Quay and Northam. As
numbers were very low, it is not thought likely that waterfront development
would present a hazard.

Mediterranean Gull were observed along flight lines close to the Itchen
Bridge, along the eastern bank of the River Itchen and also at Hythe
Marina and Redbridge (mapped results are presented in section 4.7 of the
report). However, these movements were confined to the river channel
and not considered close enough to be subject to the risk of collision with
development associated with the Local Plan.

Black-headed Gulls were numerous and 14% of the total (4962 birds)
were observed flying over the city centre. There were also significant
movements on flight lines along the Test and Itchen rivers, which related
to evening movements of birds to roost (mapped results are presented in
section 4.8 of the report). Regarding collision risks to gulls, the report
notes, ‘it is difficult to determine whether these birds are actually at risk of
colliding with buildings because they have increasingly adapted to the
urban landscape, which closely resembles the cliffs of their natural
habitats and urban locations are increasingly their chosen breeding
grounds’ (GeoData Institute report, 2009, p.66).
Construction noise and vibration
9.4.12 There is potential for Local Plan proposals to give rise to construction noise and
vibration in relation to development on the Itchen and Test waterfronts, as well
as noise during operation once sites are in use. Noise levels would vary
depending on the proposed use. This may have adverse impacts on qualifying
bird species of the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/ Ramsar site through
disturbance leading to increased energy expenditure. Construction noise and
vibration may also affect fish species of the Solent and Southampton Water
SPA/ Ramsar and the River Itchen SAC.
9.4.13 The nature of the proposed uses also has implications for flood defence
requirements. Proposals for the implementation of the SMP policy relating to the
western bank of the River Itchen, from just south of the Itchen Bridge to Mount
Pleasant Industrial Estate, are currently undergoing public consultation. Due to
the cost and the complexity of land uses along the river frontage, two potential
routes have been identified. The first route runs along the waterfront whilst the
second is set back. Following the completion of the consultation exercise a
preferred route will be selected. An HRA assessment of the two options has
identified noise and vibration as the key impacts likely to arise, affecting both
overwintering birds and migrating Atlantic salmon, and highlighted the need for
further technical studies (AECOM, 2015).
70
9.5
Data Gaps and Sources
Data Gaps
9.5.1
The Flight Paths Study (GeoData Institute, 2009) provides valuable information
on which species may be vulnerable to collision risks, and the accompanying
GIS database provides a tool for targeted analysis of risks associated with
specific proposed sites, which will be used for the purposes of the HRA of the
draft plan. It would appear that the species of the most potential concern is the
Dark-bellied Brent Goose. However there is a data gap on actual collision
mortality, as highlighted in the ‘limitations’ section of the report, which
suggested further investigations could be carried out to obtain further
information. If such further information is not currently available, the HRA will
have to proceed in its absence, and precautionary avoidance and/or mitigation
measures may be found necessary.
9.5.2
In relation to construction and operation noise, further data is required on the
proposed uses.
9.5.3
Further data will also need to be gathered in relation to existing noise levels and
proposed future construction projects and waterfront uses in order to consider
in-combination effects.
Data Sources
•
Southampton Wetland Bird Flight Paths Study and accompanying GIS
database (GeoData Institute, 2009)
•
Local stakeholders and academic journals
71
10
Conclusion and next steps
10.1
Overview of the Baseline Evidence Review
10.1.1 This baseline review has identified a range of issues that need to be considered
under the HRA screening process for the Local Plan. The evidence suggests
that there are possible pathways for the Local Plan to contribute to the following
impact types:

Atmospheric Pollution

Flood Risk and Coastal Squeeze

Effluent Discharge

Water Demand

Recreational Disturbance

Site-specific Habitat Loss or Degradation

Collision risk, light, noise and vibration
10.1.2 A number of data gaps have been identified. Where further evidence can be
obtained, this will assist the screening. Elsewhere, if data gaps remain,
precautionary mitigation may be necessary.
10.2
HRA Screening Stage
10.2.1 The HRA Screening stage will examine and screen the Local Plan’s policies
and candidate sites will be categorised according to those which are deemed to
be: (1) unlikely to have any negative effects; (2) unlikely to have any significant
effects; (3) likely to have an effect alone (and may also have in-combination
effects); and (4) unlikely to have any effect alone, but which may have an incombination effect.
10.2.2 The findings will be presented in a Screening Report, comprising a screening
assessment matrix, together with an interpretative commentary in terms of
identified effects, and recommendations on avoiding significant effects if
possible at this stage. If significant effects are identified or suspected, and
require further consideration because it was not possible to remove the effect
during screening in a straightforward manner, these will be screened in to
Appropriate Assessment.
10.3
In combination effects
10.3.1 Other plans and projects being implemented or prepared in and around the City
may have the potential to cause negative effects on the integrity of European
sites. It is therefore vital to consider what effects the Local Plan could have in
combination with other plans and projects, including plans of adjacent areas.
10.3.2 The following provides an initial indication of the plans and projects that will be
taken into account for the purposes of ‘in-combination’ assessment if required:
72

Local Plans and emerging Local Development Framework Documents for
Southampton and neighbouring Local Planning Authorities

Hampshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework

Local Transport Plans for Hampshire and Southampton

Crest Nicholson Centenary Quay development, Woolston

The Royal Pier proposed development
73
Initial Habitats Regulations Screening
Chichester and
Langstone
Harbours SPA /
Ramsar
Stronger economic growth
More economic

investment

Growth of retail, leisure
and cultural economy

New housing
Attractive place to live
Improve transport

network

Manage and respond to
climate change

Manage and respond to
air quality

Education
Design




Emer Bog SAC
Portsmouth
Harbour SPA /
Ramsar
River Itchen
SAC
Solent
Maritime
SAC
Solent and
Southampton
Water SPA /
Ramsar
1,
4 1,
1, 5
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
1,
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
1,
1, 3, 4, 5,
4 1,
5 1, 5
1, 5
1, 5
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
1, 3, 4, 5
1,
1,
1, 3, 4, 6, 7
1, 3, 4, 5, 7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Heritage
Standards
Environmental Health
Flood risk
Protection for parks, open spaces
and conservation areas
Protect and enhance
network of green

spaces

New Forest
SAC / SPA /
Ramsar
6, 7
2, 6, 7
2, 6, 7
Safeguard biodiversity
Risk Categories
Adverse effects
possible
74
Adverse effects
uncertain
Adverse effects unlikely
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Impacts
Atmospheric Pollution
Flood Risk and
Coastal Squeeze
Effluent Discharge
Water Demand
Recreational
Disturbance
Site-specific Habitat
Loss or Degradation
Collision risk, light,
noise and vibration
75
References and Bibliography
AEA Technology (2010): Road transport emissions impacts on Nature Conservation
Sites. Report to the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire.
AECOM (2015a, for Southampton City Council) River Itchen Flood Alleviation
Scheme Preliminary Study: Option Report – Consultation Draft
AECOM (2015b, for Southampton City Council) River Itchen Flood Alleviation
Scheme: Report to Inform a Habitat Regulations Assessment - No Likely Significant
Effects Report
Air Pollution Information System (APIS), accessed online at (27/04/11):
http://www.apis.ac.uk
Atkins (2009): South Hampshire Integrated Water Management Strategy. (For the
Partnership for Urban South Hampshire)
Biodiversity by Design (2008, for Crest Nicholson and SEEDA): Centenary Quay
Woolston: Statement to Inform an Appropriate Assessment: Main Text And
Assessment
Capita Symonds (August 2010): Southampton Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Level 2
Channel Coast Observatory (CCO, 2008): Solent Dynamic Coast Project
David Tyldesley and Associates (2009): The Habitats Regulations Assessment of
Local Development Documents - Revised Draft Guidance for Natural England
David Lock Associates (2011): Internal Draft Southampton City Centre Master Plan
Stage 2 Report. Prepared for Southampton City Council by David Lock Associates
De Molenaar J, Jonkers D, and Sanders M (2000): Road illumination and nature, III:
Local influence of road lights on a black-tailed godwit (Limosa l. limosa) population
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006): Planning for the
Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment. Consultation Draft
Department for Communities and Local Government (2008): Planning Policy
Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning
Department for Communities and Local Government (2009): Planning Policy
Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk Practice Guide
Department for Communities and Local Government (2010): Planning Policy
Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra, 2008): Future Water
– The Government’s water strategy for England.
Department for Transport (DfT, 2005): Interim Advice Note 61/04: Guidance for
Undertaking Environmental Assessment of Air Quality for Sensitive Ecosystems in
Internationally Designated Nature Conservation Sites and SSSIs (Supplement to
DMRB 11.3.1).
76
Dore CJ et al (2003): UK Emissions of Air Pollutants 1970 – 2003. UK National
Atmospheric Emissions Inventory
English Nature (2001): Solent European Marine Site: English Nature’s advice given
under Regulation 33(2) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994
Environment Agency (2008): Test & Itchen Catchment Abstraction Management
Strategy (Update)
Environment Agency (2009): South East River Basin District: River Basin
Management Plan
Environment Agency (Undated): River Itchen Special Area of Conservation
Regulation 50 Review of Consents: Stage 4 Non-Technical Summary
European Commission (2000): Communication from the Commission on the use of
the Precautionary Principle
European Commission (2001): Assessment of plans and projects significantly
affecting Natura 2000 Sites: Methodological Guidance on the Provisions of Article
6(3) and 6(4) of the Habitats Directive
European Union (1979): Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the
Birds Directive)
European Union (1992): Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive)
Fearnley H, Clarke RT & Liley D (2010): The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation
Project, Phase 2: On-site visitor survey results from the Solent region. Solent Forum /
Footprint Ecology
Forum Heritage Services and Context 4D (2009): City Centre Characterisation
Appraisal to inform the City Centre Action Plan for the City of Southampton
GeoData Institute (2009): Southampton Wetland Bird Flight Path Study – Final
Report
GeoData Institute (2008): Southampton Wetland Bird Flight Path Study – Pilot Study
Government Office for the South East (GOSE, 2008): Secretary of State’s Proposed
Changes to the Draft South East Plan
GOSE (2009): The South East Plan: Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of
England
Halcrow (2008): Southampton Core Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment
Screening Report
Halcrow (2009): Southampton Core Strategy Habitats Regulations Assessment Final
Summary Report
Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM, 2006): Guidelines for
Ecological Impact Assessment in the United Kingdom
77
Laxen D and Wilson P (2002): A New Approach to Deriving NO2 from NOX for Air
Quality Assessment of Roads. Report prepared on behalf of Defra and the devolved
administrations.
Liley D & Clarke RT (2003): The impact of urban development and human
disturbance on the numbers of nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus on heathlands in
Dorset, England. Biological Conservation 114: 219 – 230.
Liley D, Stillman R & Fearnley H (2010): The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation
Project, Phase 2: Results of Bird Disturbance Fieldwork 2009/10. Footprint Ecology /
Solent Forum
Longcore T and Rich C (2004): Ecological Light Pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and
the Environment 2(4): 191 – 198
Mott MacDonald (April 2009, for Southampton City Council and Eastleigh Borough
Council): Southampton and Eastleigh LDF Core Strategies Transport Impact
Assessment Stage 1
Mott MacDonald (June 2009, for Southampton City Council and Eastleigh Borough
Council): Southampton and Eastleigh LDF Core Strategies Transport Impact
Assessment Stage 2
Mouchel (2011, for Southampton City Council) Habitats Regulations Assessment:
Appropriate Assessment of River Itchen, Weston Shore, Netley and Hamble Coastal
Defence Strategy
Mouchel (2011, for Southampton City Council, Eastleigh Borough Council and
Fareham Borough Council): Weston Shore, Netley & Hamble Coastal Defence
Strategy Study:
New Forest District Council (NFDC; 2010): North Solent Shoreline Management
Plan.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2005a): Planning Policy Statement 9:
Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
ODPM (2005b): Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation –
Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System
Office for National Statistics (ONS, 2011): Census Data 2011. Accessed online
(28/07/2015) at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Vehicles#tabdata-tables
Planning Inspectorate (2009) Southampton City Council Core Strategy Inspector’s
Report
Potts, A (November 2010): Next steps: the implications for Habitats Regulations
Assessment. Natural England Presentation to Solent Disturbance and Mitigation
Project Workshop. Accessed online (15/04/11) at:
http://www.solentforum.org/forum/sub_groups/Nature_Conservation_Group/Disturba
nce%20and%20Mitigation%20Project/
78
Scott Wilson and Levett-Therivel (2009): Regional Spatial Strategy for the South
East: Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment / Appropriate
Assessment of the Secretary of State’s Final Revisions
Sharp J, Lowen J & Liley D (2008): Changing Patterns of Visitor Numbers within the
New Forest National Park, with particular reference to the New Forest SPA.
Solent Forum (November 2010): Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project:
Mitigation Ideas from Workshop. Accessed online (15/04/11) at:
http://www.solentforum.org/forum/sub_groups/Nature_Conservation_Group/Disturba
nce%20and%20Mitigation%20Project/
Solent Wader and Brent Goose Project Steering Group (SWBGPSG; 2010): Solent
Waders and Brent Goose Strategy
Southampton City Council (April 2007): City Centre Action Plan Issues & Options
Paper
Southampton City Council (October 2008): Green Space Strategy
Southampton City Council (2010): Local Development Framework Core Strategy
Development Plan Document, Adopted Version 20 January 2010
Southampton City Council (undated): Climate Change and Air Quality Strategy
Southern Water (2009): Water Resource Management Plan: 2010 – 2035
Stillman RA, Cox J, Liley D, Ravenscroft N, Sharp J & Wells M (2009): Solent
Disturbance and Mitigation Project: Phase I Report. (Report to the Solent Forum)
UE Associates (draft, 2009): Review of Air Quality Mitigation Measures in Land Use
and Spatial Planning in the UK, for the Environment Agency and Partnership for
Urban South Hampshire
UE Associates (2010): Green Infrastructure Strategy for the Partnership for Urban
South Hampshire
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (1971):
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat.
(Ramsar (Iran), 2 February 1971, UN Treaty Series No. 14583)
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Group on
Effects of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution. Accessed
online (25/04/11) at: http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/WorkingGroups/wge
URS (2013, for Southampton City Council): Southampton City Council —
Southampton Coastal Flood and Erosion Risk Management Strategy
URS (2013, for Southampton City Council): Southampton Coastal Flood and Erosion
Risk Management Strategy, Appendix 1G – Habitats Regulations Assessment,
November 2012
79