Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Habitats Regulations Appraisal ofProposed Matters Arising Changes
(January 2016)
11 Introduction
22 Methodology
33 Detailed Findings
33.1 MAC22 New Policy - CCUC1: Coastal Corridor University Campus
33.2 MAC24 &MAC59 Policy H1 Amendment - New Housing Allocation at Parc
Ynysderw, Pontardawe
43.3 MAC25 & MAC58 Policies H1 and SC1 Amendments - New Housing
Allocation Tirbach Washery, Ystalyfera
43.4 MAC39 Policy EC1 Amendments - Reduce Harbourside Allocation and
Increase Baglan Bay Allocation
53.5 MAC60, 61, 62 & 63 Policy SC1 Amendments - Additional Land within
Settlement Limits
53.6 IMAC3 Policy SP7 Amendment - Housing Requirement
63.7 IMAC9 Policy SP9 Amendment - Gypsies and Travellers
74 Conclusions
1Appendix A: Initial Screening Assessment
6Appendix B: Detailed Assessment
Contents
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
Contents
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
1 Introduction1.0.1 The Local Development Plan Examination In Public (LDP EIP) hearing sessionswere held between 11th March and 11th June 2015. As a result of discussions at thehearing sessions, a number of changes to the LDP have been suggested by the Counciland identified by the Inspectors as being required in order to ensure that the Plan is sound.These 'Matters Arising Changes' (MACs) and Inspector Matters Arising Changes (IMACs)are set out in the 'Schedule of Matters Arising Changes and Inspector Changes' whichconstitutes Appendix A of the Inspectors' Report(1).
1.0.2 Any MACs / IMACs proposed have the potential to change the impacts that thePlan’s policies and proposals could have on any European Sites and the changes thereforeneed to be assessed in relation to the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) of the LDPin order to ensure that any effects are fully considered. The HRA Report was issuedalongside the Deposit LDP in August 2013, and should be referred to for full details of theapproach, methodology and findings of the appraisal in relation to the Deposit Plan.
1.0.3 This document sets out the way in which the HRA process has been undertakenin relation to the proposed MACs / IMACs, and the conclusions reached.
1 Report on the Examination into the Neath Port Talbot Local Development Plan (2nd December 2015).
1 . Introduction
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
1
2 Methodology2.0.1 The HRA screening process resulted in the identification of twelve Special Areasof Conservation (SACs) which could be affected by proposals in the LDP, with possibleimpacts from eight sources (depending on the features of each SAC). The eight possibleimpacts identified are: atmospheric pollution; hydrology / water levels; water quality;recreational / urban pressures; adjacent land uses; extent and quality of marshy grassland;invasive species; and coastal processes.
2.0.2 All policies and allocations in the Plan were then screened for their likely effectson each interest feature of each relevant European site. This involved categorising thepolicies under four main headings as follows:
Category A: No negative effect on any European Site;
Category B: No significant effect;
Category C: Likely significant effect alone; and
Category D: Likely significant effects in combination.
2.0.3 Categories A, C and D were further divided into sub categories (see Appendix A).The policies that specifically allocate sites for development were further screened forpossible effects of each allocation with reference to the eight identified impacts listedabove. Full details of the screening process and methodology are set out in the main HRAReport(2).
2.0.4 In relation to the MACs / IMACs, each change that relates to a policy or allocationin the Plan has been analysed to assess whether it changes the result of the screeningfor that Plan element. The majority of the changes relate to amendments to policy wordingor a reduction in the proposed scale of development which do not affect the likely impactson the SACs. However, a number of changes have the potential to have an effect, andthese are considered in more detail in Section 3 below. Details of the screening of theMACs / IMACs are provided in Appendix A.
2 Habitats Regulations Appraisal for the Neath Port Talbot LDP (August 2013) - Document Ref: SD08.
2 . Methodology
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
2
3 Detailed Findings3.0.1 Twelve of the MACs / IMACs relating to ten separate changes have been identifiedas having the potential to have an effect on one or more of the SACs since they increasethe extent or size of Plan allocations or relate to new policies or allocations. These areconsidered in greater detail below.
3.1 MAC22 New Policy - CCUC1: Coastal Corridor University Campus
3.1.1 New Policy CCUC1 allocates land adjacent to the County Borough boundary atFabian Way for a new campus for Swansea University. The policy reads as follows:
Policy CCUC1 - Coastal Corridor University Campus
Land is allocated on Fabian Way for the development of the Swansea UniversityScience and Innovation Campus, comprising Academic University Facilities, Researchand Development and Student Residential Accommodation.
3.1.2 The LDP already identified the development as a proposal listed in Policy SP5and shown on the Proposals Map, and detailed planning permission was granted in 2012,which was subject to a full detailed HRA. The MAC results in a new specific policyallocation, but does not alter the impacts of the LDP in relation to the HRA since thedevelopment was already included in the Plan and has already been fully assessed. Asignificant part of the development is now completed and in use.
3.2 MAC24 & MAC59 Policy H1 Amendment - New Housing Allocation at ParcYnysderw, Pontardawe
3.2.1 Policy H1 is amended by MAC24 and MAC59 to reduce the estimated number ofunits anticipated to be delivered by the housing allocation at Compair/GMF, Ystalyferaand to add a new allocation at Parc Ynysderw, Pontardawe.
3.2.2 In relation to the reduction in the number of units at the Compair/GMF site, thiswill reduce any potential effects from the site. Policy H1 was previously assessed ascategory B (no significant effect) and this change is therefore considered to have no impacton the assessment of the overall policy.
3.2.3 All the allocated housing sites have been individually assessed in respect of theirpotential impacts on the three SACs that could be affected by LDP proposals. The newallocation at Parc Ynysderw in central Pontardawe has therefore similarly been assessedin detail (See Appendix B). This assessment concludes that development of this site isunlikely to have any significant effect on any SAC. The new site therefore does not resultin any change to the assessment of Policy H1.
3 . Detailed Findings
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
3
3.3 MAC25 & MAC58 Policies H1 and SC1 Amendments - New Housing AllocationTirbach Washery, Ystalyfera
3.3.1 Policy H1 is amended by MAC25 and MAC58 to add a new housing allocation atTirbach Washery, Ystalyfera and consequentially to extend the settlement limits to whichPolicy SC1 relates accordingly. Policy H1 has been assessed as category B (no significanteffect). In order to reach this conclusion, all allocated housing sites were individuallyassessed in relation to their potential impacts on the three SACs that could be affectedby LDP proposals.
3.3.2 The new allocated site in Ystalyfera has therefore similarly been assessed in detail(See Appendix B). This assessment concludes that development of this site is unlikely tohave any significant effect on any SAC. The new site therefore does not result in anychange to the assessment of Policy H1. Policy SC1 is assessed as A2 (policy intendedto protect the natural environment) and the relatively minor change in the extent of thesettlement limit to incorporate the site does not alter this overall assessment.
3.4 MAC39 Policy EC1 Amendments - Reduce Harbourside Allocation and IncreaseBaglan Bay Allocation
3.4.1 Policy EC1 is amended by MAC39 to reduce the size of the B1 allocation atHarbourside to 7 hectares and increase the B Use Class allocation at Baglan Bay (EC1/1)from 11 hectares to 15 hectares. Policy EC1 has been assessed as category B (nosignificant effect). In order to reach this conclusion, all allocated employment sites wereindividually assessed in relation to their potential impacts on the three SACs that couldbe affected by LDP proposals (See HRA Background Papers).
3.4.2 The reduction in size of the B1 allocation at Harbourside will have the effect ofreducing any potential impacts from development, and will not therefore affect theassessment of the policy. In relation to the Baglan Bay employment site, this is an overallallocation of 75 hectares, of which only a small part is anticipated to be developed forconventional B class uses. The MAC amendment increases this area by 4 hectares to atotal of 15 hectares. The main issue identified in the HRA relating to this site is the potentialfor new general industrial uses (Class B2) that could be point sources of air pollution withthe potential to increase nitrogen and acid deposition at Crymlyn Bog SAC and Ramsarsite.
3.4.3 The MAC39 amendment slightly increases the amount of land that is consideredlikely to be developed within the Plan period for B class uses (including business uses aswell as potentially more polluting general industry), but does not alter the area that isallocated for development in the Plan. This is a marginal increase in anticipateddevelopment rather than any increase in developable area, and taking into account thematters set out in the main HRA document(3), it is considered that this increase does notchange the detailed assessment of this allocation or the overall assessment category forPolicy EC1. The assessment therefore remains unchanged.
3 Habitats Regulations Appraisal for the Neath Port Talbot LDP (August 2013) - Document Ref SD08.
3 . Detailed Findings
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
4
3.5 MAC60, 61, 62 & 63 Policy SC1 Amendments - Additional Land within SettlementLimits
3.5.1 The MACs amend the Proposals Map in four locations to include additional landwithin settlement limits. This slightly decreases the overall area of land where developmentwill generally be restricted as defined by Policy SC1, although it does not change theamount or location of land specifically allocated for development. The locations in questionare:
Land at Moorlands, Dyffryn Cellwen (MAC60);
Land at Travancore, Pentwyn, Cynonville (MAC61);
Land adjacent to Brookside, Pontrhydyfen (MAC62); and
Land at Rutherglen Yard, Felindre (Site B) (MAC63).
3.5.2 Policy SC1 is assessed as A2 (policy intended to protect the natural environment).All the locations are more than 6km from any of the three SACs identified as beingpotentially vulnerable to the effects of development, and the relatively minor changes inthe extent of the settlement limit in these locations does not alter the assessment of thepolicy.
3.6 IMAC3 Policy SP7 Amendment - Housing Requirement
3.6.1 IMAC3 constitutes further amendments to Policy SP7 (following on from thefocussed changes proposed by the Council prior to the EIP) to increase the overall housingrequirement to 7,800. In order to deliver this number of dwellings, provision will now bemade for the development of 8,760 units. The flexibility allowance has also been amendedto 12.31%.
3.6.2 In terms of the HRA, the significant figure to be assessed is the housing provisionfigure which sets out the number of new dwellings that will be provided for in the Plan.IMAC3 now amends this figure to 8,760 (increased from 8,350 proposed in the focussedchanges).
3.6.3 SP7 is a strategic policy and consequently does not in itself specify the locationsor size of any particular development. Consequently it was previously assessed as categoryA5 ('General policy statements or policies which only express general intentions or politicalaspirations'). The inclusion of an increased housing provision figure within the policy doesnot alter its strategic nature, and more specific information on the locations and sizes ofproposed developments are indicated by the detailed allocation policies, which are assessedseparately.
3 . Detailed Findings
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
5
3.6.4 The increase of 410 units in the housing provision figure in Policy SP7 is accountedfor by the inclusion of the site at TirbachWashery (MAC25 andMAC58) and an anticipatedincrease in the likely build rate at Coed Darcy. At Coed Darcy, the increased build rate isnow expected to result in an additional 250 units being delivered within the Plan period(i.e. by 2026).
3.6.5 This increases the number of units anticipated to be delivered within the Planperiod by 250, but does not affect the extent or area of the site allocated, which is sufficientto accommodate 4,000 units (as the development is anticipated to continue well beyondthe Plan period). It can therefore be concluded that this amendment to anticipated buildrates does not affect the HRA assessment of the policy. The Tirbach Washery site isaddressed in more detail in Section 3.3.
3.6.6 Taking the above points into consideration, the assessment for Policy SP7 istherefore unchanged.
3.7 IMAC9 Policy SP9 Amendment - Gypsies and Travellers
3.7.1 IMAC9 amends Policy SP9 to include provision for a specific figure of 20 Gypsyand Traveller pitches. Previously the policy did not indicate a specific number of pitchesto be provided.
3.7.2 SP9 is a strategic policy and consequently does not specify the locations or sizeof any particular development. Consequently it was previously assessed as category A5('General policy statements or policies which only express general intentions or politicalaspirations'). The inclusion of a specific figure within the policy does not alter its strategicnature, and implementation will be controlled by detailed policies GT1 and GT2, whichare assessed separately. The assessment for Policy SP9 is therefore unchanged.
3 . Detailed Findings
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
6
4 Conclusions4.0.1 The majority of the MACs relate to amendments to policy wording or a reductionin the proposed scale of development and can therefore be screened out as not affectingthe likely impacts on any of the Natura 2000 sites assessed in the HRA. Ten changeshave been assessed in more detail, but none have been found to change the assessmentsof individual policies or allocations and consequently the overall conclusions of the LDPHRA remain unchanged.
4 . Conclusions
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
7
4 . Conclusions
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
8
App
endixA:Initia
lScreening
Assessm
ent
Reaso
nAmen
dScreening
?HRA
Categ
ory
Reaso
nforC
hang
eProp
osed
MAC
Policy
MACRef
Theam
endm
entclarifiestheap
proa
chbu
tdoe
sno
talter
theoverallnatureof
thepo
licy.
No
A5
Todraw
outthe
contrib
utionof
othe
rPlanpo
liciestowards
Policy
SP2(Hea
lth)a
ndforc
larityinrespecto
fthe
determ
inan
tsof
poor
health.
Cross
references
betwee
npo
liciesad
dedto
draw
outthe
contrib
ution
ofothe
rPlanpo
liciestowards
PolicySP2(Hea
lth)a
ndad
ditiona
ltext
fora
dded
clarity
inrespecto
fthe
determ
inan
tsof
poor
health
SP2
MAC12
Althou
ghtheam
ount
ofde
velopm
ente
nvisag
edha
sbe
enredu
ced,
theoveralleffe
ctof
thepo
licyremains
unchan
ged.
See
also
MAC50
No
A4
Toreflectthechan
gesne
cessaryto
take
into
accoun
tflood
risk
concerns
andto
clarify
theap
proa
chto
betakento
developm
entsat
Harbo
urside
inrelationto
flood
risk.
Red
uceBClass
allocationat
Harbo
urside
andam
endsite
boun
darie
sSRA2
MAC18
Thead
ditiona
lpolicyconstitutes
anad
ditiona
lallocation
withinthePlan
forthe
newun
iversitycampu
s.Th
isissue
isconsidered
inde
tailinSection3.
-B
Tosecure
theroleof
theSwan
seaUniversity
Scien
ce&Inno
vation
Cam
pusinthePlanan
dto
provideclarity
inrespecto
fapp
ropriate
uses
atthesite.
Add
newpo
licyafterP
arag
raph
4.0.24
:
'PolicyCCUC1Coa
stalCorrid
orUniversity
Cam
pus’
New
Policy
MAC22
Thisissueisconsidered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
BTo
reflectthefinding
sof
theInspectors
inrespecto
fthe
need
toaccoun
tfor
theloss
ofho
usingnu
mbe
rsde
liverab
leat
Com
pair/
GMF,Ystalyferaas
aresultof
theflood
riskrelatedto
therecent
publicationof
theTA
N15
Develop
men
tAdviceMap
s.
Red
ucenu
mbe
rsde
liverab
leatallocationH1/29
Com
pair/GMFan
dad
dne
wallocationParcYnysderwPon
tardaw
e.H1
MAC24
Thisissueisconsidered
inde
tailinSection3
No
BTo
reflectthefinding
sof
theInspectors
inrespecto
fthe
desirability
ofincrea
sing
theho
usingflexibilityallowan
ceAdd
newho
usingallocationTirbachWashe
rySite,Y
stalyfera.
H1
MAC25
Theam
endm
entclarifiestheap
proa
chbu
tdoe
sno
talter
theoverallnatureof
thepo
licy.
No
A5
Toclarify
theap
proa
chto
betakento
flood
risk.
Amen
dmen
ttopo
licyto
makeexplicitreferenceto
thefactthat
high
lyvulnerab
lede
velopm
entw
illno
tbepe
rmitted
inflood
zone
C2.
SP1
MAC26
TheMACdo
esno
tcha
ngetheam
ountofho
usingtobe
builtoveralland
hencedo
esno
tcha
ngetheeffectsof
thepo
licyinrelationto
theHRA.
No
A5
Toaccoun
tfor
theinclusionof
avacancyrate
aspa
rtof
theoverall
housingrequ
iremen
tand
thesubseq
uent
recalculationof
the
affordab
leho
usingtarget.
Amen
dnu
mbe
rofaffo
rdab
leho
usingun
itstobe
delivered
over
thePlan
perio
das
aresultofchan
gesinthemetho
dused
tocalculateaffordab
leho
usingprovision
SP8
MAC28
TheMACdo
esno
tcha
ngetheam
ountofho
usingtobe
builtoveralland
hencedo
esno
tcha
ngetheeffectsof
thepo
licyinrelationto
theHRA.
No
A5
Toad
dresstheprovisionof
affordab
leho
usingas
ape
rcen
tage
ofthetotalnum
bero
funitsas
oppo
sedto
ape
rcen
tage
ofGross
Develop
men
tValue
,and
deletestherequ
iremen
tfor
viab
ility
assessmen
tfor
prop
osalsof
10+reside
ntialunitsinarea
swhe
rethereisa0%
Affo
rdab
leHou
sing
target.
Amen
dnu
mbe
rofaffo
rdab
leho
usingun
itstobe
delivered
over
thePlan
perio
d.AH1
MAC30
Theam
endm
enta
voidspo
licydu
plicationon
ly.No
A1
Toavoiddu
plicationof
criteria
inothe
rpolicies.
Amen
dpo
licyby
deletionof
criteria
4,5an
d6.
AH2
MAC35
Thisissueisconsidered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
BCha
nges
asaresultof
theredu
ctionintheem
ploymen
tallocationat
Harbo
urside
StrategicReg
enerationArea
totake
intoaccoun
tflood
ing
issues.
Red
ucesize
ofB1allocationat
Harbo
urside
to7h
aan
dIncrea
seB
Class
allocationat
Bag
lanBay
to15
haEC1
MAC39
Appendix A: Initial Screening Assessment
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
1
Reaso
nAmen
dScreening
?HRA
Categ
ory
Reaso
nforC
hang
eProp
osed
MAC
Policy
MACRef
Althou
ghthesite
tobe
adde
dto
thelisto
fprotected
existingem
ploymen
tareas
isrelativelyne
arto
Ken
figSAC,the
policydo
esno
tmakeprovisionfora
nyne
wde
velopm
ent.
No
A1
Tosecure
theroleof
theTata
Steelworks
site,M
arga
minthePlan.
Add
theTata
Steelworks
site
toexistingem
ploymen
tareas
tobe
protectedun
derP
olicyEC2
EC2
MAC41
Theam
endm
entd
oesno
talterthe
overalleffe
ctof
the
policy.
No
BTo
beconsistent
with
nationa
lpolicygu
idan
ce(TAN21
).Amen
dPolicyto
requ
ireawaste
assessmen
t.W1
MAC45
Theam
endm
entsclarify
theap
proa
chbu
tdono
talter
theoverallnatureof
thepo
licy.
No
A5
Thechan
gesam
endthepo
licyto
clarify
theap
proa
chthat
willbe
takento
design
ated
sites,includ
inglistedbu
ildings
andtheir
curtilage
s.
Amen
dpo
licyto
addreferenceto
enha
ncem
enta
ndlistedbu
ildings.
SP21
MAC49
Theam
endm
entd
oesno
tsignifican
tlyalterthe
overall
effectsof
thepo
licyinrelationto
theHRA.
No
A1
Forc
larityan
dto
iden
tifyaminimum
dwellings
perh
ectare
figure.
Amen
dpo
licyBE1to
includ
eaminimum
dwellings
perh
ectare
figure
BE1
MAC50
Theam
endm
entd
oesno
talterthe
overalleffe
ctof
the
policyinrelationto
theHRA.
No
A3
Tostreng
then
theprotectionof
parts
ofthecana
lnetwork.
Amen
dpo
licyBE3to
streng
then
theprotectionof
parts
ofthecana
lne
twork.
BE3
MAC51
Theam
endm
entd
oesno
talterthe
overalleffe
ctof
the
policyinrelationto
theHRA.
No
A1
Forc
larityan
dto
seta
thresholdforc
ommercialor
indu
stria
lde
velopm
ent.
Amen
dpo
licyto
seta
nad
ditiona
lthresho
ldWL1
MAC53
Thisissueisconsidered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
B/A2
Toam
endtheprop
osalsmap
inaccordan
cewith
MAC25
AddTirbachWashe
rysite,Y
stalyferaas
aho
usingallocationan
dinclud
ewithinsettlem
entlimits.
Propo
sals
Map
:H1
andSC1
MAC58
Thisissueto
considered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
BTo
amen
dtheprop
osalsmap
inaccordan
cewith
MAC24
Add
ParcYnysderwPon
tardaw
eas
aho
usingallocation.
Propo
sals
Map
:H1
MAC59
Thisissueto
considered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
A2
Inorde
rtoen
sure
forc
onsisten
cyinap
plying
thecriteria
seto
utin
theba
ckgrou
ndeviden
ce.
Includ
ead
ditiona
lland
atMoo
rland
s,Dyffry
nCellwen
,withinsettlem
ent
limits.
Propo
sals
Map
:SC1
MAC60
Thisissueto
considered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
A2
Inorde
rtoen
sure
forc
onsisten
cyinap
plying
thecriteria
seto
utin
theba
ckgrou
ndeviden
ce.
Includ
ead
ditiona
llan
dat
Travan
core,P
entwyn,C
ynon
ville
within
settlem
entlimits.
Propo
sals
Map
:SC1
MAC61
Thisissueto
considered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
A2
Inorde
rtoen
sure
forc
onsisten
cyinap
plying
thecriteria
seto
utin
theba
ckgrou
ndeviden
ce.
Includ
ead
ditiona
lland
adjtoBrookside
,Pon
trhydyfen
withinsettlem
ent
limits.
Propo
sals
Map
:SC1
MAC62
Thisissueto
considered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
A2
Inorde
rtoen
sure
forc
onsisten
cyinap
plying
thecriteria
seto
utin
theba
ckgrou
ndeviden
ce.
Includ
ead
ditiona
llan
dRuthe
rglenYa
rd,F
elindre(site
B)w
ithin
settlem
entlimits.
Propo
sals
Map
:SC1
MAC63
Appendix A: Initial Screening Assessment
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
2
Reaso
nAmen
dScreening
?HRA
Categ
ory
Reaso
nforC
hang
eProp
osed
MAC
Policy
MACRef
Theam
endm
entd
oesno
talterthe
overalleffe
ctof
the
policyinrelationto
theHRA.
No
A1
Toremoveinstan
cesthat
represen
tacontradictorypo
licypo
sition.
Rem
oveinstan
ceswhe
resettlem
entp
rotectionzone
soverlapexisting
mineralop
erations
(7locations)
Propo
sals
Map
:M2
MAC64
Theam
endm
entclarifiestheap
proa
chbu
tdoe
sno
talter
theoverallnatureof
thepo
licy.
No
A5
Inorde
rtoen
sure
policiesrelevant
toitem
2of
SP2arefully
listed.
Add
policyW1to
listo
fkey
policiesrelevant
toitem
2SP2
IMAC1
Theam
endm
entclarifiestheap
proa
chbu
tdoe
sno
talter
theoverallnatureof
thepo
licy.
No
A5
Inorde
rtoem
phasisetheho
listic
nature
ofgo
odhe
alth.
Add
cultu
ralfacilitiesto
criterio
n3.
SP2
IMAC2
Thechan
geincrea
sesthenu
mbe
rofd
wellings
tobe
builtwithinthePlanpe
riod.
Thisissueisconsidered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
A5
Toaccoun
tfor
theinclusionof
avacancyrate
aspa
rtof
theoverall
housingrequ
iremen
tand
theam
endm
entsto
PolicyH1(Hou
sing
Sites)
toallowfora
nincrea
seintheflexibilityallowan
ce.
Amen
dthePolicyto
read
:
'Inorde
rtode
liver
the7,50
07,800ne
wdw
ellings
requ
iredto
mee
tthe
Econo
mic-Led
Growth
Stra
tegy,p
rovision
willbe
mad
eforthe
developm
ento
f8,350
8,760ad
ditiona
ldwellings
betwee
n20
11-202
6includ
inga14
%12.31%
flexibilityallowan
ce'.
SP7
IMAC3
TheMACdo
esno
tcha
ngetheam
ountofho
usingtobe
builtoveralland
hencedo
esno
tcha
ngetheeffectsof
thepo
licyinrelationto
theHRA.
No
A5
Toclarify
theap
proa
chtobe
takeninarrivingatthelevelofaffordab
leho
usingcontrib
utionto
beprovided
.Am
endpo
licytoad
dad
ditiona
ltextind
icatingflexibilityintheap
plication
oftheaffordab
leho
usingtargets.
AH1
IMAC7
Thisissueisconsidered
inde
tailinSection3.
No
A5
Inorde
rtoen
sure
that
thepo
licyisclea
rand
consistent
with
othe
rstrategicpo
licies.
Amen
dpo
licyto
statethat
provisionwillbe
mad
efor2
0Gypsy
and
Travellerp
itche
s.SP9
IMAC9
Theam
endm
entclarifiestheap
proa
chbu
tdoe
sno
talter
theoverallnatureof
thepo
licy.
No
A1
Inorde
rtoclarify
theap
plicab
ilityofthecriteria
withinan
dou
tsidethe
Refined
Stra
tegicSea
rchAreas.
Amen
dpo
licyto
clarify
criteria
applicab
ility.
RE1
IMAC10
Theam
endm
entclarifiestheap
proa
chbu
tdoe
sno
talter
theoverallnatureof
thepo
licy.
No
A3
Inorde
rtomoreaccuratelyreflectthena
ture
oftheconstra
intin
relationto
thecana
lnetwork.
Amen
dpo
licyto
clarify
criteria
applicab
ility.
BE3
IMAC12
Theam
endm
entclarifiestheap
proa
chbu
tdoe
sno
talter
theoverallnatureof
thepo
licy.
No
A2
Inorde
rtoen
sure
that
thede
sign
ationaccuratelyreflectsthe
unde
velope
darea
andtheavailableeviden
ce.
Amen
dthebo
unda
ryof
theun
develope
dcoastd
esigna
tion.
Propo
sals
Map
:EN1
IMAC13
See
MAC41
No
A1
Toam
endtheprop
osalsmap
inaccordan
cewith
MAC41
Add
additiona
lemploymen
tsafeg
uarded
area
forthe
Tata
Steelsite
Propo
sals
Map
:EC2
IMAC14
Appendix A: Initial Screening Assessment
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
3
Notes
Categ
oryDefinition
s
Categ
oryA:N
oNeg
ativeEffect
A1:
Options/policiesthat
willno
tthe
mselves
lead
tode
velopm
ente
.g.b
ecau
sethey
relate
tode
sign
orothe
rqua
litativecriteria
for
developm
ent,or
they
areno
taland
useplan
ning
policy;
A2:
Options/policiesintend
edto
protectthe
naturalenviro
nmen
t,includ
ingbiod
iversity;
A3:
Options/policiesintend
edtoconserve
oren
hancethena
tural,bu
iltor
historicen
vironm
ent,whe
reen
hancem
entm
easureswill
notb
elikelyto
have
anyne
gativeeffecton
aEurop
eansite;
A4:
Options/policiesthat
positivelystee
rdevelop
men
taway
from
Europ
eansitesan
dassociated
sensitive
area
s;
A5:
Gen
eralpo
licystatem
entsor
policieswhich
onlyexpressge
neralinten
tions
orpo
liticalaspirations
andthereareno
'clear
and
direct'links
toEurop
eansites
Categ
oryB:N
oSign
ificant
Effect
Categ
oryC:L
ikelySign
ificant
Effect
Alone
C1:
Theop
tion,
policyor
prop
osal
coulddirectlyaffect
aEurop
eansite
becauseitprovides
for,or
stee
rs,a
quan
tityor
type
ofde
velopm
ento
ntoaEurop
eansite,o
radjacen
ttoit;
C2:
Theop
tion,
policyor
prop
osal
couldindirectlyaffect
aEurop
eansite
becauseitprovides
for,or
stee
rs,a
quan
tityor
type
ofde
velopm
enttha
tmay
bevery
closeto
it,or
ecolog
ically,
hydrolog
icallyor
physicallyconn
ectedto
itor
may
increa
sedisturba
nceas
aresultof
increa
sedrecrea
tiona
loro
ther
pressures.
C3:
Propo
salsfora
mag
nitude
ofde
velopm
enttha
t,no
matterw
here
itwas
located,
thede
velopm
entw
ould
belikelyto
have
asign
ificant
effecton
aEurop
eansite;
Appendix A: Initial Screening Assessment
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
4
C4:
Anop
tion,
orpo
licythat
makes
provisionfora
type
ofde
velopm
ent,ge
nerally,(an
dmay
indicate
abroa
dscalean
d/oro
neor
morebroa
dlocations
e.g.
apa
rticularp
arto
fthe
plan
area
),so
alikelihoo
dof
asign
ificant
effectcann
otbe
ruledou
t,bu
tthe
more
precisescalean
d/ord
etailedlocationofthede
velopm
entistobe
selected
followingconsiderationofop
tions
inalater,morespecific,
lower
tierp
lan,
subjecttoHab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisal;
C5:
Options,policiesor
prop
osalsford
evelop
men
tsor
infra
structureprojectsthatcouldblockop
tions
oralternatives
forthe
provision
ofothe
rde
velopm
ento
rprojects
inthefuture,w
hich
willbe
requ
iredin
thepu
blic
interest,tha
tmay
lead
toad
verseeffectson
Europ
eansites,which
wou
ldothe
rwisebe
avoide
d;
C6:
Options,policiesor
prop
osalswhich
depe
ndon
howthepo
liciesetc.areimplem
entedindu
ecourse,for
exam
ple,throug
hthe
developm
entm
anag
emen
tprocess.T
here
isatheo
reticalpo
ssibilitythatifimplem
entedinon
eor
morepa
rticularw
ays,theprop
osal
couldpo
ssiblyha
veasign
ificant
effecton
aEurop
eansite,a
ndisno
tmerelyage
neralstatemen
tofp
olicy;
C7:
Anyothe
roptions,policiesor
prop
osalsthatwou
ldbe
vulnerab
letofailure
unde
rthe
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
atprojectassessm
ent
stag
e;
C8:
Any
othe
rprop
osal
that
may
have
anad
verseeffect
onaEurop
eansite,w
hich
might
tryto
pass
thetestsof
theHab
itats
Reg
ulations
atprojecta
ssessm
ents
tage
byargu
ingthat
theplan
provides
theimpe
rativereason
sof
overrid
ingpu
blicinterest
tojustify
itsconsen
tdespite
ane
gativeassessmen
t.
Categ
oryD:L
ikelysign
ificant
effectsin
combina
tion
D1:
Theop
tion,po
licyor
prop
osalalon
ewou
ldno
tbelikelytoha
vesign
ificanteffectsbu
tifitseffectsarecombine
dwith
theeffects
ofothe
rpoliciesor
prop
osalsprovided
foro
rcoo
rdinated
bytheplan
(internally)the
cumulativeeffectswou
ldbe
likelytobe
sign
ificant;
D2:
Options,policiesor
prop
osalsthat
alon
ewou
ldno
tbelikelyto
have
sign
ificanteffectsbu
tifthe
ireffectsarecombine
dwith
the
effectsof
othe
rplan
sor
projects,a
ndpo
ssiblytheeffectsof
othe
rprojects
provided
forin
theplan
aswell,thecombine
deffects
wou
ldbe
likelyto
besign
ificant;
D3:
Options
orprop
osalsthat
are,
orcouldbe
,parto
faprog
rammeor
sequ
ence
ofde
velopm
entd
elivered
over
ape
riod,
whe
retheimplem
entationof
theea
rlystag
eswou
ldno
thaveasign
ificant
effect
onEurop
eansites,
butw
hich
wou
lddictatethena
ture,
scale,
duration,
location,
timingof
thewho
leproject,thelaters
tage
sof
which
couldha
vean
adverseeffecton
such
sites.
Appendix A: Initial Screening Assessment
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
5
App
endixB:D
etailedAssessm
ent
CrymlynBog
SACan
dRam
sars
ite(Site
1)
Hou
sing
Sites
Can
Cum
ulative
Effectsbe
Ruled
Out?
Invasive
Species
Recreationa
l/Urban
Pressu
res
Water
Qua
lity
Hyd
rology
/Water
Levels
Atm
osph
ericPo
llutio
nSite
Ref
Explan
ation
Can
LSE
beruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSE
beruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSE
beruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSE
beruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSE
beruled
out?
Pontarda
we
Yes
Thesite
istoodistan
tfrom
theSA
Cforthe
likelyspread
Yes
TheSACisno
tasign
ificant
recrea
tiona
lattractionan
dthere
Yes
Thesite
liesou
tside
thewater
catchm
ent
area
oftheSAC
Yes
Thesite
liesou
tside
thewater
catchm
ent
area
oftheSAC
Yes
Thesite
issome8km
from
the
SACan
dthede
velopm
entis
likelyto
have
onlyaminimal
Yes
Parc
Ynysderw
New
ofan
yplan
tedno
n-na
tive
species.
aread
equa
terecrea
tiona
lfacilities
nearer
totheallocationsite
redu
cing
thelikelihoo
dof
visits.
impa
cton
diffu
seairp
ollution
(from
traffic).
Swan
seaVa
lley
Yes
Thesite
istoodistan
tfrom
theSA
Cforthe
likelyspread
Yes
TheSACisno
tasign
ificant
recrea
tiona
lattractionan
dthere
Yes
Thesite
liesou
tside
thewater
catchm
ent
area
oftheSAC
Yes
Thesite
liesou
tside
thewater
catchm
ent
area
oftheSAC
Yes
Thesiteisap
proximately14
.5km
from
theSACan
dthe
developm
entislikelyto
have
Yes
Tirbach
Washe
ryNew
ofan
yplan
tedno
n-na
tive
species.
aread
equa
terecrea
tiona
lfacilities
nearer
totheallocationsite
redu
cing
thelikelihoo
dof
visits.
onlyaminimalimpa
cton
diffu
seairp
ollution(from
traffic).
Appendix B: Detailed Assessment
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
6
Ken
figSA
C(Site
2)
Hou
sing
Sites
Can
Cum
ulative
Effectsbe
Ruled
Out?
Coa
stalProc
esses
Invasive
Species
Recreationa
l/Urban
Pressu
res
Water
Qua
lity
Hyd
rology
/Water
Levels
Atm
osph
ericPo
llutio
nSite
Ref
Explan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSE
be ruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruled
out?
Explan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruled
out?
Pontarda
we
Yes
Develop
men
tof
thesite
shou
ld
Yes
Thesite
istoo
distan
tfrom
the
Yes
TheSACisno
tamajor
recrea
tiona
lattractionan
d
Yes
Thesite
lies
outsidethe
Yes
Thesite
lies
outsidethewater
Yes
Allho
usingsiteswithinthe
Pon
tardaw
espatialareaare
Yes
Parc
Ynysderw
New
notaffe
ctcoastal
processes
SACfora
nyplan
ted
non-na
tivespecies
tospread
.
therearead
equa
terecrea
tiona
lfacilitiesne
arer
totheallocationsite
water
catchm
ent
area
oftheSAC
catchm
enta
rea
oftheSAC
over
10km
from
theSACan
dreside
ntialdevelop
men
tsare
likelyto
have
aminimalimpa
ctredu
cing
thelikelihoo
dof
visits.
ondiffu
seairp
ollution(from
traffic)
only.
Swan
seaVa
lley
Yes
Develop
men
tof
thesite
shou
ld
Yes
Thesite
istoo
distan
tfrom
the
Yes
TheSACisno
tamajor
recrea
tiona
lattractionan
d
Yes
Thesite
lies
outsidethe
Yes
Thesite
lies
outsidethewater
Yes
Allho
usingsiteswithinthe
Swan
seaVa
lleyspatialareaare
Yes
Tirbach
Washe
ryNew
notaffe
ctcoastal
processes
SACfora
nyplan
ted
non-na
tivespecies
tospread
.
therearead
equa
terecrea
tiona
lfacilitiesne
arer
totheallocationsite
water
catchm
ent
area
oftheSAC
catchm
enta
rea
oftheSAC
over
10km
from
theSACan
dreside
ntialdevelop
men
tsare
likelyto
have
aminimalimpa
ctredu
cing
thelikelihoo
dof
visits.
ondiffu
seairp
ollution(from
traffic)
only
Appendix B: Detailed Assessment
Hab
itatsReg
ulations
App
raisalof
Propo
sedMatters
ArisingCha
nges
(Jan
uary
2016
)
7
CefnCrib
wrS
AC(Site
4)
Hou
sing
Sites
Can
Cum
ulative
Effectsbe
Ruled
Out?
Extent
andqu
ality
ofmarsh
ygrasslan
dAdjacen
tLan
dUse
Hyd
rology
/Water
Levels
Atm
osph
ericPo
llutio
nSite
Ref
Explan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruledou
t?Ex
plan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruledou
t?Ex
plan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruledou
t?Ex
plan
ation
Can
LSEbe
ruledou
t?
Pontarda
we
Yes
NositesinthePon
tardaw
earea
are
near
enou
ghto
affectthemarsh
Yes
Nositesinthe
Pon
tardaw
earea
are
adjacent
totheSAC.
Yes
Allho
usingsitesinthe
Pon
tardaw
earea
lieou
tsidethe
water
catchm
enta
reaof
the
SAC
Yes
Allho
usingsitesinthePon
tardaw
earea
are
morethan
10km
from
theSAC.H
ousing
developm
entsarelikelyto
have
onlya
minimalimpa
cton
diffu
seairp
ollution(from
traffic)
only.
Yes
Parc
Ynysderw
New
fritillary
habitata
ssociatedwith
this
site.
Swan
seaVa
lley
Yes
NositesintheSwan
seaVa
lleyarea
arene
aren
ough
toaffectthemarsh
Yes
NositesintheSwan
sea
Valleyarea
aread
jacent
totheSAC.
Yes
Allhou
sing
sitesintheSw
ansea
Valleylie
outsidethewater
catchm
enta
reaof
theSAC
Yes
Allho
usingsitesintheSwan
seaVa
lleyare
morethan
10km
from
theSAC.H
ousing
developm
entsarelikelyto
have
onlya
Yes
Tirbach
Washe
ryNew
fritillary
habitata
ssociatedwith
this
site.
minimalimpa
cton
diffu
seairp
ollution(from
traffic)
only.
Appendix B: Detailed Assessment
Habitats
Regulations
AppraisalofP
roposedMatters
Arising
Changes
(January2016)
8
( January 2016)ENVT1858
