Derrick Coffee
CountyOfficer
Campaign for Better Transport – East Sussex
9 Mayfield Place, Eastbourne
BN22 8XJ
19th November 2008
Dear Mr Earl
Planning Application No RR/2474/CC(EIA)
Comments on the Environmental Statement (ES) , and the Addendum to the Environmental Statement (AES).
We would like to comment on the above.
We strongly feel that any appraisal of the 180 documents by the public – many of them technical - would be very difficult. For us there is a compelling case for a non-technical summary update.
For us, the CombeHavenValley is a very special place in landscape terms, terms of biodiversity and in terms of heritage and archaeology. Its transition from high weald character to that of alluvial plan, its linked tributary valleys, its very unusual lack of contiguous roads and its wealth of biodiversity make it a hugely important asset in any case. That it sits so close to populations of 140,000 people makes it massively important as a place for leisure activities, education and the local economy. It holds records too of earlier people and their activities going back 8,000 years and almost certainly possesses traces of settlements which are of national importance.
Demonstrably, the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road will inflict damage on the valley and its assets. Whatever mitigation proposed in the huge pile of documents, these will at best lead to a ‘less worse’ environment than if they were not carried out. And there is no guarantee at all that mitigation will achieve the desired and hoped for results. If it fails, it is highly unlikely that the BHLR will be dismantled. For a society to set out to make things ‘less worse’ xxxxignore its obligation to leave a better environment for its children to inherit.
The body of knowledge that has been marshalled over the years in respect of the special environment of Combe Haven, and the additional data collected during the last four years is impressive. It shows that the valley is even more of an asset than previously imagined and consequently strengthens the case against the BHLR
The biggest tragedy of all is that alternative ways of achieving regeneration and solving transport and accessibility needs have never been fully and properly examined. We have already presented the promoters of BHLR, EastSussexCounty Council, with cogent arguments to support this claim together with independent reports and analysis to confirm that the BHLR is at worst highly damaging and at best irrelevant to the needs of the Hastings and Bexhill area. It is a scheme founded in a distortion of the original ‘5 point plan’, most of which was supported by us and other non-government organisations.
Put simply, we find it unacceptable that through aggressive promotion of a wrong and unnecessary scheme, a once tranquil valley should be permanently disfigured and damaged. We continue to strongly object to the scheme.
Our approach:
Looking through the documents comprising the AES, we attempted to elicit the main points through summarising notes of meetings, and then asking questions that seemed to flow from the summary.
Finally, the Supplementary Nature Conservation Report was looked at to see to what degree it had answered the questions raised, and also to see what further questions were then prompted.
A. Notes of meetings, etc.
Notes of meetings between ESCC, NE and EA; summaries of these and questions arising.
Where appropriate, each question is followed by the relevant paragraph number from the Supplementary Nature Conservation Report. (SNCR)
The SNCR does not always appear to address concerns raised in the meetings notes, or wider concerns.
ESCC/EA meeting notes (by ESCC).
Position of EA on ESCC plans July 22nd 08 Minutes
5.6 Clear Span structures
The incorporation of clear span structures for the Scheme has
been developed through consultation with Grant Moffatt of the EA.
A 2m buffer zone on either side of the watercourse has been
agreed. EA currently suggest that this 2m corridor is not wide
enough to ensure the ecological functionality of the valley. GH
confirmed that a wider corridor would result in a larger structure,
and this has implications for visual impact and landtake. A balance
is therefore required.
GH confirmed that ESCC as Scheme Promoters will not be
amending the current design for clear span structures. Given this,
the EA agree that the 2m corridor should be developed to the best
advantage, such as through suitable planting and potential green
engineering. Therefore, the AES will develop a set of principles on
how to plant and manage a softbank option, with an aim of
maintaining the biodiversity value along the riparian edge. These
principles will consider erosion and siltation.
The Design and Access Statement currently shows an
engineering solution in regards to bank and bed options.
GH asked if the EA would maintain their objections to the Scheme
Key points:
- EA agree with ESCC that there will be a 2m zone either side of the watercourse to ensure ecological functionality.
- EA suggest that this corridor is not wide enough.
- Giles Hewson of Mott McDonald (for ESCC) confirmed that a wider (than 2m) corridor would result in a wider structure with visual and land-take implications. ‘A balance is therefore required’.
- ESCC will not be amending bridge design.
- The ‘Addendum to the Environmental Statement’ (AES) will develop set of principles on planting/managing a ‘soft-bank’ option to maintain biodiversity along bank.
- Design/Access statement currently shows an engineering solution. (ie not soft bank technique)
Questions arising:
1. How can ESCC ignore the recommendation of the Environment Agency that to attempt to mitigate the habitat severance effects of the road, a strip of more than 2m each side of the watercourse beneath bridges would be necessary?
2. Can ESCC ‘trade off’ negative impacts on landscape and implied increased costs against ecological impacts? It seems more concerned over landscape effects than ecological ones. (3.2.7)
3. Do ‘Landscape’ and ‘Biodiversity’ descriptors (Appraisal Summary Table) now need re-drafting following re-appraisal?
4. In addition, do we now need a revised appraisal in a non-technical form? (There are 180 documents to understand and appraise, most technical. A lay person hasn’t much hope of gaining a coherent picture of the scheme proposals and their impacts. The documents are there because a democratic and open process demands that they should be, but if they are ‘impenetrable’ then that becomes irrelevant.)
5. Currently ‘engineering solutions’ alone are there for evaluation, but not the recommended ‘soft bank’ techniques which are still not fully developed and subject to local circumstances. Does this limit, or make impossible any proper and full appraisal of solutions against objectives? (3.2.6/7/8)
5.5 Habitat Severance
SC summarises the concerns that the very nature of a road
scheme will mean that habitat severance will occur. However, the
AES states that mobile species are unlikely to be affected. Less
mobile species may be affected, but the addition of mitigation such
as Dormouse underpasses will ensure this impact is mitigated to a
certain extent. The revised Environmental Design contained within
the ADAS includes mitigation for habitat severance.
Key points:
- Sally Chadwick (EA) reminds that ‘roads sever habitats’. (See conclusions of English Nature Report 626 ‘Going, going, gone…below under 5.2)
- AES confident that mobile species unlikely to be affected. Less mobile ones may be.
- Mitigation e.g. dormouse underpasses will ensure impact ‘mitigated to a certain extent’.
- Environmental Design in ADAS (consultancy) includes mitigation for habitat severance.
Questions arising:
1. If the effects on species vary according to their typical mobility, are we not being selective and therefore ignoring the ecosystem and wider valley systems as a whole? (3.2.6)
2. What degree of certainty can we have over the success of mitigation measures? Is it anticipated that the success will be variable? (General)
3. Does the impact on dormice being ‘mitigated to a certain extent’ suggest that there will be a ‘trade off’? To us the meaning of this includes the conclusion that ‘to a certain extent, impacts will not be successfully mitigated’ And does this mean perhaps that the populations identified to the south of the line of route could be ‘written off’ or subjected to a slow decline?
5.1 Mitigation and compensation for ecological impacts
GH confirmed that the mitigation design had been developed in
consultation with the English Nature, the Countryside Agency, NE
and EA. Grant Moffatt was the key contact for this purpose, and
the 2:1 habitat replacement was developed with his knowledge
and input.
Natural England (NE) have been consulted regarding biodiversity
mitigation. MM and ESCC had a successful meeting with NE on
22.07.08, the minutes of which will be added as an appendix to
the AES.
GH requested an overview from EA as to why it is thought that the
mitigation proposed is not adequate.
SC commented that there is doubt to the feasibility of the wetland
habitats such as the borrow pit in PowdermillValley. Is this
wetland habitat at this location sustainable?
SC also raised the point that the 2:1 habitat replacement must be
appropriate in relation to habitat loss.
NM made
Key Points:
Giles Hewson reminds that mitigation design was developed in consultation with EN, CA, NE and EA. Grant Moffat (EA) key contact and gave his knowledge for development of the 2:1 habitat replacement principle.
MM and ESCC had a successful meeting with NE re: biodiversity mitigation.
GH asked EA for an overview of their positon that mitigation proposed ‘not adequate’.
SC expressed doubt on the feasibility of wetland habitats in PowdermillValley. ?Sustainable. Added reminder that 2:1 habitat replacement must be appropriate in relation to what’s lost.
Questions arising:
1. Can we assess the degree of risk present against eventual success of 2:1 (or any ratio) of habitat replacement?
2. Powdermill stream has ‘Sussex ripple stream’ characteristics before it reaches the Combe Haven valley proper. The diversion of the stream will make 2:1 habitat replacement very difficult as the section to be diverted runs parallel to the proposed ‘lake’. Will the charactersistcs of the ‘lake’ constitute a completely new habitat? If so, how will that habitat fit with existing ecosystems?
3. The bittern, a very shy bird – and a UK Biodiversity Action Plan species - has been identified as a visitor to the Filsham reedbeds – a reserve managed by the Sussex Wildlife Trust. It is an aspiration of the SWT that this species breeds here at the southern end of the Combe Haven valley. Will the presence of 33,000 vehicles a day in a currently tranquil valley directly or indirectly reduce the chances of this rare bird breeding here?
4. Has the Sussex Wildlife Trust been adequately engaged in the evaluation of impacts and the form of their mitigation
5. There are 11 locations at which further bat surveys are required during 2009 (Table 1.) How can any mitigation/compensation be planned ahead of the data gathering and analysis? (Table 1)
5.2 Unknown Impacts:
5.2.1 Noise –
GH queried whether the noise chapter of the ES (Chapter 11) has
been reviewed. This chapter assesses noise impacts for human
health. It is accepted that there will be a moderate adverse impact
as a result of the Scheme in relation to noise, as stated in the ES.
However, the impacts will be significantly ameliorated as a result
of noise mitigation such as bunding and noise fencing. However, it
is noted that there will be some residual impacts after mitigation in
relation to potential impacts upon over wintering birds.
Key Points
- GH queried whether Ch 11 (‘Noise’) of the ES had been reviewed.
- Ch 11 covers ‘human health’.
- There will be a ‘moderate adverse’ noise impact .
- View expressed that that bunding/fencing will significantly ameliorate noise, but some residual impact ‘in relation to potential impacts upon over wintering birds.’
Questions arising:
1. The third bullet suggests that the tranquility of the valley would be impaired by traffic using BHLR. We would distinguish between continuous background noise, and intermittent and higher level noise events caused by those driving/riding high performance cars or motorcycles. Is this distinction made in the appraisal of the characteristics, levels and effects/impacts of noise anticipated?
2. Tranquillity and beauty are pre-conditions commonly held to be helpful in reducing stress and anxiety therefore supporting individuals’ mental health. For those tens of thousands of residents within walking distance of Combe Haven, as well as visitors, this facility will be damaged or lost. Have these considerations been properly factored in to appraisals of potential noise?
3. Effects on birds appear to have been underestimated. The report referred to below* finds that bird densities are susceptible to disturbance by noise and visual impact over 1km away from any road in open land, and by over 0.5km in woodland. (fig 3.6) Has this been properly factored in to appraisal?
*English Nature report 626 (Going, going, gone? The cumulative impact of land development on biodiversity in England – English Nature Reports, 2005) reminds us that:
6. The main development-related issues in England arise from the following:
• urban development and construction;
• roads and transport;
• water supply;
• waste management;
• energy consumption;
• mining and quarrying.
-and that:
7. The main types of cumulative impact, both direct and indirect, caused by these drivers are:
- habitat loss- The direct loss of habitats under development.
- habitat fragmentation- The breaking down of habitat units into a smaller number of units. pollution- either chemical or biotic.
- disturbance - through noise, light, recreation, pet predation, vibration etc.
The first three impacts described at ‘7’ can be predicted; the fourth is a distinct possibility.
All the mitigation proposed has an uncertain future in respect of effectiveness. All the mitigation will at best make things ‘less worse’.
Questions arising:
- The impacts of the BHLR sit uncomfortably with the conclusions of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee report (10th November 2008).
‘Many species and habitats continue to face severe declines and total extinctions across England. The report warns ‘Government will miss a key international target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010’. The committee also finds that ‘There is a compelling economic case for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. But to achieve this government will have to go beyond traditional nature conservation policies to reverse the decline and enable growth in biodiversity into the future’.
In the light of this – call to protect and enhance biodiversity, is the scheme simply too costly in every sense? And in the light of the report referred to above, should it now be abandoned?
*NB: Greg Barker, MP for Bexhill and Rother, is member of the committee and a co-author of the report.
ESCC/NE meeting notes
Position of NE on ESCC Plans 22 7 08
5.1.3 Air Quality –The standard NE response to Air Quality affects on all designated sites would be for the Precautionary Principle to be applied. Therefore, the AES will look at the lower thresholds for critical loads of NO2. The AQ report contained as Appendix G of the Draft AES backs up the original findings of the ES to state that there is a potentially significant impact. The updated assessment does not alter this conclusion. The query is how the additional exceedence over and above that which is occurring without the Scheme will impact the designated sites. This will be done by applying the lower threshold, and assessing the impact of this change on the communities present at the locations where the AQ assessment identifies an exceedence.
GH states that MM will include a section within the Draft AES to outline the mitigation strategy for managing and reducing the impact of NO2 deposition (principally thorough land management).
Note: the word “marginal” within the Draft AES and with respect to areas where NOx concentrations show potentially significant changes is misleading. This word should read “peripheral” or “on the margins of”. It is not intended to indicate significance. This will be confirmed within the AES.
Key Points:
- Significant impact of NO2 deposition, needs mitigation strategy
Question arising:
1. Have the cumulative effects of N02 in combination with sulphur compounds and ozone and other compounds/metals been fully examined? (4.3)
2. Have the effects upon air quality of the predicted rise in traffic levels over the wider area been taken into account?
5.2 Combe Haven SSSI:
5.2.1 Noise –
LH confirmed over wintering bird surveys have been completed, but further information is to be added to the AES from additional baseline data. No further surveys are programmed with respect to wintering birds.
Noise impacts should address both the construction and operation stages of the Scheme, as has been done in the AES as amended. This information needs to be supplemented with additional data from Local Records and the existing baseline. The additional and existing data will be re-summarised in terms of what bird species are present, what the impacts are likely to be and what mitigation is proposed. WhilstNE reserve their position until they review the final submission,NE expressed agreement to this approach.
MA to confirm which Biodiversity officer should be contacted with respect to Combe Haven SSSI.
Key Points:
- Existing and additional data collated and re-summarised to cover species present, impacts and mitigation proposed. NE agree.
5.2.2 Visual impact -
NM raised the point that further information on visual and noise impacts and the proposed mitigation is contained in the original ES, the Design and Access Statement (DAS) and Addendum Design and Access Statement (ADAS).
GH also confirms that many of the issues being discussed today are detailed elsewhere in the ES. Satisfactory cross reference to these locations will be made in the AES, such as to Noise contour mapping contained in the ES.
MA requested site of the CEMP prior to submission of the AES with respect to mitigation and working practices for noise impacts on birds within Combe Haven SSSI. GH confirmed that the CEMP will be developed by contractor as and when the successful contractor is appointed. An outline CEMP is also included in the ES for review. LH confirmed that best practice in relation to construction noise control will be included within the AES. WhilstNE reserve their position until they review the final submission,NE expressed agreement to this approach.