Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD LOCAL PLAN (FORMERLY SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK)
CITY POLICIES AND SITES
SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT
Appendix 11
Appropriate Assessment
Development Services
Sheffield City Council
Howden House
1 Union Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 2SHFebruary 2013
Greaves Valerie
From:Brian Davies [
Sent:19 July 2006 10:52
To:
Subject:RE: Green Infrastructure
Valerie
That is correct. No nationally important sites within the Sheffield CC planning authority area, so no need to worry about the Habitats Directive in relation to the LDF.
Brian
Brian Davies Conservation Officer
English Nature Bullring House Wakefield WF1 3BJ
Tel: 01924 334513
Fax: 01924 334535
>» Greaves Valerie <> 19/07/2006
10:31:39 >»
Brian
Thanks for this.
On a separate issue, could you confirm that we do not need to carry out
an
Appropriate Assessment under the Habitatats Directive as the only SAC
within-
Sheffield District is in the area for which the PeakNational Park is
planning authority?
Valerie
Valerie G Greaves.»
Forward and Area Planning DevelopmentServicesSheffieldCity Council Tel. 0114 2734634
Transformation and Sustainability
SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
CORE STRATEGY
APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT SCREENING REPORT
Development Services
Sheffield City Council
Howden House
1 Union Street
SHEFFIELD
S1 2SHNovember 2007
1
1.INTRODUCTION
Summary
1.1The Habitats Directive requires that plans or projects not connected with the management of Natura 2000 sites, but likely to have a significant impact on them, either alone or in combination with other plans, should be the subject of Appropriate Assessment. The need for Appropriate Assessment to apply to Local Development Frameworks was confirmed in a letter from the ODPM to Chief Planning Officers in February 2006. To satisfy the requirements of Article 6 (3) of the Directive the assessment should be undertaken before the adoption of a Local Development Document by a Local Planning Authority.
1.2The purpose of Appropriate Assessment is to assess the impacts of plans against the conservation objectives of such Natura 2000 (or ‘European’) Sites.
1.3English Nature advised the Council that an Appropriate Assessment would not be needed for policies in Sheffield (see Appendix 1) but it has since become clear that more specific evidence for this would need to be presented. This document has, therefore, been produced to determine whether policies and proposals in Sheffield’s Local Development Framework (Sheffield Development Framework (SDF)) Core Strategy will have a significant adverse impact on protected Natura 2000 sites.
1.4The principal aim of this document is to ‘screen’ the potential of the SDF Core Strategy for its likely impact on the Natura 2000 sites within 15 kilometres of the city boundary. This will provide evidence to determine whether an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is needed to examine further the effects of the plan on protected sites.
1.5In conclusion, and in agreement with Natural England, it is found that the Core Strategy is not likely to directly affect the content and qualitative state of Natura 2000 sites. As a result of the very limited and legitimate consequences of proposals (such as recreation within existing access areas) it is confirmed that it is not necessary to undertake an Appropriate Assessment.
Background to Appropriate Assessment
1.6Legal protection for habitats and species of European importance is set out in EU Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna (the ‘Habitats Directive’). Maintenance and restoration of these sites is implemented through protected areas known as Natura 2000 sites. There are two distinct types of Natura 2000 sites; Special Area of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs).
1.7SPAs refer to sites where the important features are populations of bird species, whilst SACs refer to sites where particular habitats are considered important. Each site will have a feature or features that are the reason for selection of the site, in addition to other features that are not a primary reason for selection of the site as a European designation.
1.8Appropriate Assessment is the process of evaluating the likely impacts of a plan on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites. The assessment is used to determine whether the plan would have any negative impacts on such sites. Where potential negative impacts are identified alternative options for the plan would need to be considered, and if necessary mitigation measures set out. The purpose is to ensure that the integrity of these sites is maintained.
Background to the Plan
1.9The Sheffield Development Framework (SDF) Core Strategy provides the overall spatial strategy for strategic development in Sheffield to 2026. The area of coverage is the Local Planning Authority, which comprises those parts of the Local Authority area that are outside the PeakDistrictNational Park.
1.10The Core Strategy has three parts:
Part 1: Context, Vision and Objectives, which outlines the challenges Sheffield faces and the overall vision and strategy for the SDF.
Part 2: City-wide Spatial Policies, which set out the context for different types of development (such as business, housing and transport) in the city as a whole.
Part 3: Area Policies, for determining what will happen in specific areas within the city.
1.11The Core Strategy provides the context for later documents within the SDF, such as the City Policies document which will provide guidance for making development control decisions, and the City Sites document which will allocate sites to ensure sufficient land supply for certain uses such as business and housing.
1
2.PROCESS OF APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT
2.1Government guidance[1] summarises Appropriate Assessment as being a three-stage process.
(a)Screening for likely significant effects
(b)Appropriate assessment and ascertaining the effect on site integrity
(c)Mitigation and alternative solutions
2.2This document encompasses part (a) of the process of Appropriate Assessment.
2.3Screening is the process of identifying whether a plan is likely to have a significant effect on a European site and therefore whether subsequent steps of the Appropriate Assessment are required. This stage identifies not only whether the plan itself, but also in combination with other plans or projects, will have any negative impacts. Essentially, it is the first stage of analysis to determine whether a plan can be clearly said not to require an Appropriate Assessment, with the assumption that if this is not the case then an Appropriate Assessment will be required.
2.4Screening can be broken into 4 stages:
(1)Determining whether the plan is directly connected with, or necessary to the management of a Natura 2000 site. If so, no further assessment is necessary.
(2)Describing the plan, and other plans and projects that ‘in combination’ could have a potential significant impact on a Natura 2000 site.
(3)Identifying the potential impacts on a Natura 2000 site.
(4)Assessing the significance or severity of effects on a Natura 2000 site.
2.5Advice received from English Nature in July 2006 confirmed that there would be no requirement for Appropriate Assessment in respect of the Sheffield Development Framework. This has been further confirmed by Natural England (see Appendix 2). However, the aim of this section is to outline the important characteristics of Natura 2000 sites near Sheffield, and what their vulnerabilities are. The likely impacts of the policies in the SDF Core Strategy can then be appraised against these and a conclusion drawn about whether there is likely to be any impact as a result of the plan. This will fully support the original conclusions made by English Nature.
Natura 2000 Sites in Relation to Sheffield – the Baseline
2.6The advice from English Nature, stating that there would be no requirement for Appropriate Assessment in relation to the SDF, was based on the reasoning that there are no Natura 2000 sites within the area covered by the plan. This report also takes account of Sites outside the local planning authority area where it is also necessary to screen for any possible impacts.
2.7No threshold distance has been prescribed for screening purposes and different types of development will have impacts over different distances. Sites potentially at most risk from distant activity are wetlands at Thorne and Hatfield Moors, and the Humber Estuary. However these sites are at too great a distance from Sheffield to be at risk of impact from activities promoted by the SDF.
2.8For most purposes a range of 15 kilometres has been adopted for Sites that are closer, which accords with similar exercises for other plans. For example, screening exercises on the North East Regional Spatial Strategy, and Plymouth, Wokingham, Cardiff and Surrey Heath Core Strategies have used this as a reasonable distance.
2.9There are three qualifying Natura 2000 sites within 15 kilometres of the Sheffield Local Planning Authority boundary. Two of these largely cover the same area with different types of designation. The South Pennine Moors (SPA and SAC) fall partially within the City Council boundary, but outside the boundary of the Local Planning Area as they are within the PeakDistrictNational Park. The Peak District Dales SAC consists of a group of dales covering a wide area in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. One of these is Coombs Dale in the northern part of the area, to the west of Calver, and which falls around 8km from the Sheffield Local Planning Authority boundary. A map in Appendix 3 illustrates the locational relationship of these sites to Sheffield.
2.10The Peak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1) SPA covers over 45,000 hectares of land with 24% falling within South Yorkshire (not all in Sheffield). The South Pennine Moors SAC covers a larger area at nearly 65,000 hectares. Generally the part of these sites close to Sheffield overlap, with the greater extent of the SAC falling to the north in Lancashire and West Yorkshire.
2.11The focus of screening for Appropriate Assessment is on the sites’ qualifying features and associated conservation objectives. This information has been derived from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and is outlined below in Table 1, along with notes on key areas of vulnerability for each site.
1
Table 1 Features of Natura 2000 sites in the Vicinity of Sheffield[2]
Site /Designation
/ Qualification / Importance / VulnerabilityPeak District Moors (South Pennine Moors Phase 1) (UK9007021) / SPA / Asio flammeus
(Short-eared owl) / 2.2% of GB breeding population /
- Visitor pressure through open access
- Habitat damage from erosion or fire, and disturbance of breeding birds
- Condition of habitats sub-optimal due to historic air pollution, grazing pressure and fire
Falco columbarius
(Merlin) / 2.3% of GB breeding population
Pluvialis apricaria (Golden Plover) / 1.9% of GB breeding population
South Pennine Moors (UK0030280) / SAC / Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix
(Cross-leaved heath) / The area is considered to support a significant presence /
- Recreational activities and related access management issues
- Accidental fires
- Land management – agriculture, grazing, grouse-shooting and burning
- Depleted habitats as a result of atmospheric pollution since the 1800’s
- Restricted regeneration of woodland
- Process and transport industries
- Fly-tipping
European dry heaths / Considered to be one of the best areas in the UK
Blanket bogs / Considered to be one of the best areas in the UK
Transition mires and quaking bogs / The area is considered to support a significant presence
Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles / Considered to be one of the best areas in the UK
Peak District Dales (UK0019859) / SAC / European dry heaths / The area is considered to support a significant presence /
- Inappropriate grazing management
- Proposed developments have the potential to interfere with drainage patterns
- Impact of dust from quarrying
- Existing permissions for limestone or mineral extraction threaten woodland on part of the site
- Dominance of non-native woodland species in some woodland areas
- Fishery management impacts on freshwater features
- Shooting management impacts on woodland ecology
Calamanarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae / The area is considered to support a significant presence
Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) / Considered to be one of the best areas in the UK
Alkaline fens / The area is considered to support a significant presence
Calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii) / Considered to be rare as its total extent in the UK is estimated to be <1000 hectares
The area is considered to support a significant presence
Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation / Considered to be rare as its total extent in the UK is estimated to be <1000 hectares
The area is considered to support a significant presence
Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines / Considered to be one of the best areas in the UK
Austropotamobius pallipes / Considered to be one of the best areas in the UK
Lampetra planeri / The area is considered to support a significant presence
Cottus gobio
/ The area is considered to support a significant presence1
3.ASSESSMENT OF SCOPE FOR IMPACTS
3.1Analysis of these features of the three sites and additional informal advice taken from ecologists at Sheffield City Council and the PeakDistrictNational Park suggests that the key areas in which a development plan could impact on the sites are:
- Developments that could have a disturbance impact on sites, such as:
-Residential developments close to SPAs / SACs with increased human activity
-Visual impact of large-scale developments such as wind farms
- Developments that would generate more trips to or through the areas with adverse impacts (e.g. commercial traffic through sites or leisure trips to them)
- Proposals that could have air pollution consequences – heathland and blanket bogs are susceptible to air pollution. This might overlap with the impacts of trips and transport
- Impacts on water quality.
3.2Other impacts are considered below (see Table 2) but these are the main ones requiring checking for the purposes of screening.
3.3There are two aspects to these potential impacts
- Those that could be attributed to the Core Strategy alone
- Cumulative impacts of the Core Strategy in combination with other plans and strategies.
3.4The assumption is made that combined impacts should only be examined in relation to adjacent authorities, and other authorities adjoining the identified sites, rather than in any possible local authority. This is in scale with the 15 km band used for this screening. In relation to the Peak District Dales, this means examining the Core Strategy in combination with plans developed by the PeakDistrictNational Park. The South Pennine Moors is a larger area, and has overlap with a number of other local authorities, as far north as Lancashire. Although the integrity of the site as a whole is obviously dependent on actions from all areas, it is reasonable to assume that any effects as a result of the SDF would be in relation to the southerly part of the site and would therefore impact in combination with plans in a similar area. For the purpose of this screening report, this is considered to be the plans developed by the PeakDistrictNational Park, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Kirklees Council.
3.5The only adjoining Local Planning Authorities which are likely to impact on the identified Natura 2000 sites are Barnsley and the Peak District National Park (Kirklees does not directly adjoin Sheffield). Barnsley’s LDF is at an earlier stage in preparation than the SDF and screening for Appropriate Assessment has not yet been carried out. A key objective of the Peak District National Park Authority is to maintain the integrity of conservation sites within it’s boundary, and plans developed by that authority will not have a significant negative impact on such sites. Management of recreational pressures within the three sites identified is largely the responsibility of the PDNPA rather than Sheffield or Barnsley local authorities.
3.6Some relevant assessment has already been carried out in relation to RSSs covering Sheffield and adjacent areas. These include the Yorkshire and Humber Plan and the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy. Appropriate Assessments for these two plans have been evaluated to gain a broad understanding of regional policies which could potentially impact on Natura 2000 sites, and which in the case of the Yorkshire and Humberside Plan would be implemented through the SDF.
3.7The relationship of the SDF Core Strategy to the Yorkshire and Humber Plan is such that it interprets at district level the guidance contained in the RSS, gives the strategic lead to later SDF documents and should be complementary to similar plans being prepared in neighbouring districts and those adjoining the same sites being considered. The Sheffield Core Strategy is in general conformity to the Regional Spatial Strategy and, in particular, the levels of housing development proposed for Sheffield are derived from it. In general terms, the Core Strategy does not propose levels of development that have not already been assessed for their impact on these Sites.
3.8The impact of specific project implementation on Natura 2000 sites could potentially be different to that of the strategic level Core Strategy. The City Policies and City Sites elements of the SDF will also be screened for potential impact on these sites, and a decision made on carrying out Appropriate Assessment as necessary.
3.9Appropriate Assessment was carried out for the Regional Spatial Strategy[3]. This did not identify any adverse impacts on Natura 2000 sites at the regional scale. This does not mean that there would not be impacts of local proposals on such sites, but does give an indication of the likely scale of spatial planning on them. In response to the RSS Appropriate Assessment the Government have proposed the key modification in relation to the Core Strategy, which is alteration the text of policy SY1 in the RSS. This now reads that ‘plans, strategies, investment decisions and programmes for the South Yorkshire sub area should …protect the integrity of internationally important biodiversity sites’.
3.10In assessing possible impacts the precautionary principle has been adopted and the purpose of this screening is to show that there is no potential impact that needs further assessment. This is applied first to the four impacts identified in paragraph 3.1 above and then to all the vulnerable characteristics identified in Table 1 above.
3.11The first potential impact is from the direct effects of development. None of the housing areas proposed in the Core Strategy adjoin any of the Sites and any immediate impacts of development would be absorbed within areas that continue to be designated as Green Belt. The strategic vision is of a city renewing itself rather than spreading out.